eGirl Pokimane Is CANCELLED After INSANE Diddy Tweet Backfires In Most Hilarious Way Possible

Streamer Pokimane Faces Massive Backlash After “Believe Victims” Tweet Backfires

The internet is currently in an uproar after one of the world’s largest female streamers, Pokimane, posted a seemingly innocuous tweet stating “believe victims” in the wake of the Diddy verdict. What followed was an immediate and widespread public backlash, turning a moment of perceived virtue signaling into a comedic and critical spectacle across social media.

The incident unfolded rapidly yesterday, igniting a flurry of responses that are being described as one of the most “hilarious virtue signal backfires in a very, very long time”. Pokimane, who boasts an undeniable cultural impact and a massive following, including 10 million followers and an estimated net worth between $20 million and $50 million, drew significant ire with her post.

The controversy stems from the context surrounding the Diddy verdict. While it’s acknowledged that Cassie Ventura was indeed a victim of Diddy’s violence in a hotel incident, it’s also argued that she was a willing participant in other “freakoffs” based on text messages where she allegedly initiated further encounters and even procured illicit supplies and individuals. Critics online quickly pointed to what they perceive as a “vapid do nothing women” perspective, claiming such blanket statements as “believe victims” ignore crucial details.

Public Drags Streamer With Satirical and Critical Replies

The replies to Pokimane’s tweet were swift and, according to observers, “glorious,” with people “absolutely dragging this woman”. Many comments were satirical, mimicking the “believe victims” sentiment to accuse Pokimane of absurd or false wrongdoings, such as “Pokimane gave me AIDS and kicked my salamander” or “I was essay by Pokemon in 1997,” with one particularly notable reply gaining 150,000 likes. It’s crucial to note that the overwhelming majority of these comments were not defending Diddy, but rather lampooning the “stupid statement that we should believe all women out of hand”. The sentiment expressed is that such an uncritical approach fails to acknowledge that “most of these people are liars,” and questions whether some alleged victims might be attempting to “retroactively take away their consent and try to get money”.

Past Hypocrisies Resurface: The Amber Heard Trial

Adding fuel to the fire, one prominent reply with 7,000 likes specifically called out Pokimane for her past behavior during the Amber Heard trial. The comment reminded viewers that she “made fun of Amber Heard during the trial” and “sided with Johnny Depp,” leading to accusations of hypocrisy when she now champions believing all victims.

Pokimane subsequently issued an apology, stating she regretted how she covered the trial and took down the associated videos, acknowledging that “any jokes are at the expense of how victims can be perceived”. However, critics were quick to question whether she had returned the “tens of thousands of dollars maybe even more” that she allegedly earned from covering the trial, highlighting what is perceived as “the hypocrisy of these women in the #believewomen movement”.

Wealth Disparity Comments and Multi-Millionaire Status Under Scrutiny

This isn’t the first time Pokimane has faced backlash for perceived hypocrisy. Roughly two months ago, she sparked controversy for her “hate the rich wealth disparity comments” during a stream. Despite being a “multi multi-millionaire” herself, she initially railed against wealthy individuals. When pressed, she clarified that her criticism was aimed at the “ultra giga rich” or “the billionaires” like Jeff Bezos, drawing comparisons to Bernie Sanders’ shift in rhetoric after becoming a millionaire.

Observers find it “hilarious that she has a problem with quote unquote rich people” while being “super rich” herself, with an estimated net worth of $20 million to $50 million and 15,000 paying subscribers contributing significant income. The incident further cements the public’s frustration with large-scale influencers, whom critics often describe as “fake plants with no real value to add other than extracting young thirsty men from their money”.