trill said clavicular streams like he's untouchable. they're not wrong and that's the problem.

trill published something on october 14th with the headline "clavicular streams like he's untouchable, and so far he's been right." that's the whole column. you can go home.

except you can't, because the part that should bother people isn't the headline. it's the "so far."

chat, look at the timeline here. amended lawsuit. civil claims dropped. mainstream media cycle. a south park episode. a court date that has been "approximately eight days out" for what feels like geological time. a pivot to concealer. a 30-second eye contact drill. through all of it, the stream goes on. the follower count goes up. win.gg is already projecting his numbers into 2027.

the pattern isn't new. the pattern is the whole point. every new arc produces new clips, new discourse, new debate threads on x about "dating and drama," new headlines in places that would have spelled his name wrong six months ago. the controversy isn't threatening the brand. the controversy is the brand. has been for a while.

and before anyone says "well the criminal case is still moving" -- yes. it is. that matters. but the streaming ecosystem has made it pretty clear it does not intend to wait for courts to weigh in before deciding what to do with someone's platform. it will just keep running the clips and hosting the debates and calling it discourse.

the trill piece frames the untouchability as a kind of observation, almost neutral. i'd push back on the neutrality. "so far" implies a reckoning is coming. maybe. or maybe the lore just keeps accumulating and the numbers keep climbing and in five years someone writes a california aggie retrospective about the retrospective.

the eye contact drill is still happening. the camp still ran. people paid $7,500 for it.

anyway. "so far" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for two words.