- Registrado
- 20 de Sep, 2014
I haven't read this thread at all until now, and let me just say that these people are fucking amazing. They are literally shoveling fuel into the fire and asking why it keeps burning.
🪦 Deceased Chloe Sagal / John Paul Neumann - Self-Immolated to Protest The US Mental Health System. Currently Being Exploited by her "Allies".
- Iniciador del tema Smutley
- Fecha de inicio
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Estado
- Registrado
- 24 de Jul, 2013
Something that causes me a small amount of concern is the dueling narratives.
On the Chloe/Rani said, you have people laughing at a bunch of MRA gamergate trans-haters for their wild conspiracy theories and stalking.
On the Kiwi side, you have a huge mixture of races, occupations and sexual orientations who are laughing at people making fools of themselves online in an attempt to steal money and get fame from strangers on the internet.
So which one is true? Obviously I'm leaning towards the kiwi side because I'm biased (I am a member after all). I also lean more towards this side for one simple reason: facts. You'll notice something very common in dealing with the Chloe Sagal's of the world - there is never a counterpoint. We have, in this thread, huge amounts of evidence that points to a decade of faking suicide threats, scamming people out of money, lying about illnesses, lying about military service, and lying about nearly everything. This isn't conjecture, this isn't a theory, it isn't slander from outside forces trying to harm someone.
It's factual. It's truth. It's reality.
They present a rebuttal as "Oh... my... god... this is the most delicious thing." This is called "laughing it off" where you don't respond to an opponents arguments in the hopes that others will write them off as well.
Twitter is an awful platform for the sharing of ideas for a thousand reasons. Condensing an entire argument into 140 characters only encourages snark and cherry picking. It practically demands that you ignore reason and truth in favor of arguments you can easily brush aside.
There's a reason that Chloe Sagal and Rani Bakr have never capped a post here that has John Paul Neumann, "The Brockler", Shawn Wolfram, Horrendous Games, That Really Hot Chick, Gurnee Il, The IngieGoGo scandal, the fake illnesses, the fake marine status, the fake car accident, the funneling of money into another persons account so that those she owes money to can not recover it. That is because it is all true. They do not want this light put upon them because you can not laugh off fact. You can not laugh off truth. That is why they vaguely mention "dead names" or "stalking" or "harassment" or "IndieGoGo stealing my money" or "chronic pain" or "I want to die". Because that is all there is, vagueness - anything more than that would draw truth into the open.
Anyone who wants their posts capped, make sure to never mention anything in the proceeding paragraph. It won't get picked up because of it.
Rani, I look forward to the blogpost you write in rebuttal to @Jaimas. Especially considering Chloe Sagal was never a "target of gamergate". They looked into her history resulting in the firing Pinsof, and for her part in implicating Destructoid in an unlawful firing of an employee and blacklisting of a journalist - both of which are illegal.
On the Chloe/Rani said, you have people laughing at a bunch of MRA gamergate trans-haters for their wild conspiracy theories and stalking.
On the Kiwi side, you have a huge mixture of races, occupations and sexual orientations who are laughing at people making fools of themselves online in an attempt to steal money and get fame from strangers on the internet.
This entire thread
So which one is true? Obviously I'm leaning towards the kiwi side because I'm biased (I am a member after all). I also lean more towards this side for one simple reason: facts. You'll notice something very common in dealing with the Chloe Sagal's of the world - there is never a counterpoint. We have, in this thread, huge amounts of evidence that points to a decade of faking suicide threats, scamming people out of money, lying about illnesses, lying about military service, and lying about nearly everything. This isn't conjecture, this isn't a theory, it isn't slander from outside forces trying to harm someone.
It's factual. It's truth. It's reality.
They present a rebuttal as "Oh... my... god... this is the most delicious thing." This is called "laughing it off" where you don't respond to an opponents arguments in the hopes that others will write them off as well.
Twitter is an awful platform for the sharing of ideas for a thousand reasons. Condensing an entire argument into 140 characters only encourages snark and cherry picking. It practically demands that you ignore reason and truth in favor of arguments you can easily brush aside.
There's a reason that Chloe Sagal and Rani Bakr have never capped a post here that has John Paul Neumann, "The Brockler", Shawn Wolfram, Horrendous Games, That Really Hot Chick, Gurnee Il, The IngieGoGo scandal, the fake illnesses, the fake marine status, the fake car accident, the funneling of money into another persons account so that those she owes money to can not recover it. That is because it is all true. They do not want this light put upon them because you can not laugh off fact. You can not laugh off truth. That is why they vaguely mention "dead names" or "stalking" or "harassment" or "IndieGoGo stealing my money" or "chronic pain" or "I want to die". Because that is all there is, vagueness - anything more than that would draw truth into the open.
Anyone who wants their posts capped, make sure to never mention anything in the proceeding paragraph. It won't get picked up because of it.
Rani, I look forward to the blogpost you write in rebuttal to @Jaimas. Especially considering Chloe Sagal was never a "target of gamergate". They looked into her history resulting in the firing Pinsof, and for her part in implicating Destructoid in an unlawful firing of an employee and blacklisting of a journalist - both of which are illegal.
- Registrado
- 14 de Nov, 2012
http://destroyedforcomfort.com/2015...cs-in-anti-sjw-conspiracy-theories-gamergate/
Rani has decided that a userbase that is something like 40% completely neutral on GamerGate is actually an entirely GamerGate devoted hatesite for social justice.
Rani has decided that a userbase that is something like 40% completely neutral on GamerGate is actually an entirely GamerGate devoted hatesite for social justice.
José Mourinho
The Special One
Miembro del personal
Retired Staff
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 3 de Feb, 2013
Sorry if this is posted before (searched here but cannot find it), but apparently the term "hugbox" is made by child-porn sharing neckbeards. 
http://destroyedforcomfort.com/2015...eview-thread-of-gdc2015-is-hilarious-and-sad/
http://destroyedforcomfort.com/2015...eview-thread-of-gdc2015-is-hilarious-and-sad/
But I really think the true coup de grace of the whole thing is the OP lamenting seeing “literal hugboxing” amongst indie developers, which really deserves broken down because damn.
First of all, for those that aren’t aware of slang terminology of child-porn sharing neckbeards that get off mocking handicapped children, “hugbox” is a reference to this tool counselors use to calm children that have trouble with social interaction and physical stimulation. It simulates human contact, basically, which apparently is hilarious to these people. So, you know, it’s use is a great calling card to let you know who is an asshole.
Second, keep in mind that hug machine devices *simulate* human affection. This person is so socially alienated from human social convention that he interprets physical affection amongst peers as requiring a layer of artifice. That, even face to face, they are somehow *simulating* care for each other.
You know, fuck the whole fallout shelter analogy, I have to assume the author of that OP must be from some empathy-challenged alien race. Stumbling around, baffled and infuriated by the informal and friendly interactions amongst people that actually give a shit about each other instead of huddling in some hateful internet forum clique seething at them from the outside. Fuck your lawn, grandpa.
First of all, for those that aren’t aware of slang terminology of child-porn sharing neckbeards that get off mocking handicapped children, “hugbox” is a reference to this tool counselors use to calm children that have trouble with social interaction and physical stimulation. It simulates human contact, basically, which apparently is hilarious to these people. So, you know, it’s use is a great calling card to let you know who is an asshole.
Second, keep in mind that hug machine devices *simulate* human affection. This person is so socially alienated from human social convention that he interprets physical affection amongst peers as requiring a layer of artifice. That, even face to face, they are somehow *simulating* care for each other.
You know, fuck the whole fallout shelter analogy, I have to assume the author of that OP must be from some empathy-challenged alien race. Stumbling around, baffled and infuriated by the informal and friendly interactions amongst people that actually give a shit about each other instead of huddling in some hateful internet forum clique seething at them from the outside. Fuck your lawn, grandpa.
- Registrado
- 24 de Ene, 2015
An anus so brutally ravaged that you'd think that Attila the Hun had something to do with it.
Poor Choices
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 3 de Oct, 2014
Rani's really pushing that omg ur aliums if you don't understanding our spreging angle.
Friendly interactions among people who actually care? They're both bitter as all hell even before the great Tranny War forming their own little ragejerk at people who don't help them for free or tell them they should seek help OFF the internet. The latter being people who actually care about them instead of enabling them.
E
EI 903
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Commissioner Null lights the signal. Not for the hero this website needs, but for the one it deserves. The one who strikes from the darkness of his poorly-lit room with his webcam of justice.
- Registrado
- 28 de Nov, 2014
"It was one of *those* forums… You know the type. The kind where creepy bros brag about stalking someone through an entire party, obsessing over their every move, and act surprised that they are reserved and uncomfortable around them… over an imagined political affiliation."
Is it actually stalking if we're just discussing things that were publicly posted on the internet for the entire world to see? Plus, the vast majority of members here prefer to keep a "look, don't touch" mentality; we don't harass, provoke, or "troll" anyone, we just discuss them.
- Registrado
- 24 de Ago, 2014
The SJW suffix -scum means "normal, functioning people".
- Registrado
- 23 de Feb, 2015
Yes it is. You as a supposed adult has to use a hugbox for social interaction. You have to have a safe place to run to where normal societal rules don't apply to you. Where you have to be treated speshul. Because you can't deal with anything that might upset your delicate feewings. You can stay in your hugbox and not be offended or have to deal with truth or reality.
Idling
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 11 de Ago, 2014
It must be hard to be an SJW. You have to come up with insults that are neither ableist, sexist, transphobic, fat-shaming, kink-shaming... I guess photoshopping the image of an egg over some profile photos is the best anyone could do with considering those limitations.
- Registrado
- 11 de Abr, 2015
I know it was an old comment, and I think it was one of her followers, but I still can't get over the "25% female members , oh you are so equal lol no" bit.
Quick Null! Start forcing women to join up.
Fifty fifty, fifty fifty.
Gooble gobble, gooble gobble.
Quick Null! Start forcing women to join up.
Fifty fifty, fifty fifty.
Gooble gobble, gooble gobble.
Delicious Stickmeat
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 17 de Mar, 2015
It's easy to consider things in black vs. white, good vs. evil, us vs. them. Rabid homophobes, crazy fundamentalists, SJWs, you name it, they all use the same technique. Surround yourself with "Us", make "Them" the enemy, and do everything in your power to dehumanize.
Homophobic people, it's gay people who're the "Them"
Fundamentalists, anyone outside their religious sect.
SJWs, anyone who disagrees with them.
The other unifying factor of it all is the fallacy of the unspoken majority. Anyone who plays "Us vs. Them" games assumes that the vast majority out there agree with whatever "Us" statement is being made, and "them" is just a small, wrongheaded minority.
- Registrado
- 11 de Abr, 2015
I'd also like to point out hug box is hilarious and appropriate. It's supposed to be a tool you use to learn, not something you sit inside your whole life. Actual autistic children are implementing better life skills than these two.
- Registrado
- 28 de Abr, 2015
Just like actual trauma therapist will tell you that you need to confront your triggers so that you can learn to cope with life, not hide from them like certain people do.
- Registrado
- 15 de Abr, 2015
Nah, you are not thinking like a true SJW would. Just ban enough guys until you get men to 50% (or lower)! Much easier and faster to do and it has the benefit of going against men.
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
You stupid fucking cunt. It's not a "slang" term. That' s the name its inventor, Temple Grandin, gave it.
- Estado