[begin transmission]
Alice2,
------- The Treacherous 2B -------
You might want to work on your accuracy then. I’ll address every point you made here.
I’ve ignored evidence? Likely a misunderstanding if it appears that way to you. But no, actually I’ve been convinced of a fair amount of the evidence Kermit provided. Even admitted to it myself.
Now, whether or not I am entirely convinced is a different matter. Some of the evidence you have provided are screenshots of snippets of a conversation without the broader context.
But you wouldn’t necessarily think of someone as treacherous simply because they’re not convinced, or that they value optics over substance. Come now, that’s a sophomoric claim.
I’ve refused to give an apology to Reaver’s family. Alright then, for what should I apologize for?
For not believing he was a real person? I had no good reason to believe he was, prior to the video. You’ll have to excuse me for being skeptical.
For not believing they were in mortal danger? There is no evidence that he is or ever was. Furthermore, I will not apologize to someone who fails to put themselves out of harm’s way.
Towards this last point you showed evidence of people threatening you. If anything, that suggests that perhaps the greatest threat to his family’s well-being is his continued association with you.
I’ve told Reaver this. I really do hope he thought about it. Not saying he should quit being your friend; that isn’t the suggestion by any measure.
But it might be a good idea to quit preoccupying himself with your careless antics on 4chan. Just a thought.
I’ve long-since apologized for saying you deserved to get doxed. So, did you genuinely ever forgive me or was that done in bad faith?
True, I did mention Purim’s suicide to make a point, and I don’t regret it. It was in response to your and Reaver’s faulty and pernicious conceptualization of leadership.
I won’t apologize for that, ever. If we can’t have an amicable relationship because of that, well…I don’t know what to tell you.
Just know that it wasn’t malicious in intent. I elaborated in my blog post enough, so that’s that.
Ah, I see you caught on to our eighth rule. Namely, no discussion of Alice2-related drama in the server. Ironically enough, that one was for your protection.
You seem to think that we scheme and plot against you in the server, after all. I wanted to make it clear that we don’t condone that type of activity, and that it wouldn’t be tolerated.
But, as it turns out, nobody really cares about you in my server. So the rule has been revoked.
You can be damn sure, however, should anyone try to incite a doxing or something along those lines, within my server, they’ll be banned immediately.
Though, where did you get that notion that I was actively suppressing discussion? You’re trying very hard to paint me as a tyrant here, aren’t you?
I don’t think a tyrant would explicitly state at the end of her initial statement: “If anybody would like to talk about this, I invite you to message me here on Discord.”. Reference post ID: 20180116.
I will grant you this though: you’re absolutely right when it comes to Reaver’s email on my blog: it is still showing up on Google; I’ve submitted a request to Google to correct the issue.
Should be fixed now. When searching for his email, my blog still shows up, but his email is no longer published publicly, neither on google search results or my blog. Anything else?
When I called you a martyr, I was citing your critics. No, it’s clear to me that you’d sooner sacrifice one of your own towards your pursuits before self.
------- Daggy -------
Well, no, as it turns out daggy is NOT okay with the conclusion of your little business transaction: https://imgur.com/a/25RPX0L
Daggy doesn’t believe you scammed him, but manipulated him (not too much of a difference in my opinion). The word scam got me thinking. There’s a fraudulent component to all of this.
In one of your first responses (reference post ID: 20180117) you speak as if you were offering a service, talking about pricing out your time. I ask you, what service, exactly, did you render unto him?
Talk? Therapy? Okay, did you ever make that clear to him? Moreover, are you a credentialed therapist qualified to charge clients for your time? Is daggy aware of your credentials?
Have you legally filed so that you could begin your own private practice? The therapist thing is cute and all on /b/, but as soon as you begin charging people with no proof of credentials…that’s fraud.
However, Daggy mentioned
opportunistic manipulation. I think that phrase is very fitting.
Targeting someone that is in the throes of a psychotic break, dangling the place they’ve come to rely on for support in front of them, where all their friends are located and profiting off of that? Shameful.
Then, when he has the sense to try and cancel the transaction, you honeypot him by talking to him at great length, offering him reassurance. As soon as the money is secured, you leave him high and dry.
I figured there was a reason why your moral judgments against my character meant very little to me.
You could try and justify your actions all you want. The fact of the matter is that daggy, the other half of this transaction, felt cheated and manipulated. It isn’t hard to see why, given the circumstances.
Do you know why I slightly hesitated in bringing this up? Because I know that the next time daggy contacts either you or Kermit, either one of you will harshly chastise him for speaking with me.
Kermit, in his characteristic assholish fashion will demoralize him by screaming profanities at him. That isn’t how you treat a friend, let alone a friend that is a recovering alcoholic.
Meanwhile, you’ll no doubt make no short effort to remind him of his past mistakes, seeking virtue through victimhood while debasing a good, though imperfect man trying to be better.
Daggy has such a good heart, Alice2, bordering on naivety. He gave you money for server costs (despite your well-to-do status?). That money was a gift, and one I’d argue you don’t deserve.
Knowing you, and knowing Kermit, the two of you would make it immeasurably difficult for him to get his money back if he were to ask for it directly himself. So I’m asking on his behalf.
He quotes upwards of $2k being transferred to you. Not all of it was taken from him via underhanded measures; an amount of that was a gift. Like I said, a good heart.
Do the right thing and give him back his hard-earned money, all the money that was taken from him under the premise of bullshit reparations and services. At the very least a sum of $300.
Now, I do offer a qualification to this hypothesis. Maybe you aren’t as terrible and manipulative as you make others think. Maybe my entire interpretation of this is just wrong, and you only appear vile.
See, this is being open-minded, Alice2. When you try not to paint the opposition as Satan herself. When you entertain the possibility that perhaps you’re wrong, despite the evidence.
You mentioned in your response (reference post ID: 20180117) “Money is one of the only things he values during these sorts of outburst, so I used it as a tactic to make him back down.”.
Well, he’s backed down. So why haven’t you returned the money if it, indeed, was just a tactic? Maybe you forgot? We’ll invoke Hanlon’s razor and say that you forgot, then.
------- Questions -------
But let’s continue the original discussion, for completeness’s sake.
Since you’re failing to address my questions, I’ll answer them for you, from my estimation of this ordeal thus far. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
1.) In your estimation, what amount of responsibility do you bear in this doxing incident?
As far as daggy is concerned, you’ve unfairly charged him for illegitimate services on the basis that he wasn’t made aware of your credentials or even the services he was the beneficiary of.
The charges were unfair because they were made during a period of mental instability; he was sufficiently vulnerable that he would’ve agreed to anything to alleviate his anxiety. You capitalized on that.
This isn’t my interpretation of the matter either; daggy himself often states how he feels manipulated by you, and that he is unsatisfied with the transaction for at least $300.
It doesn’t take too far of a stretch of the imagination to see how someone that feels cheated and manipulated would lash out against the person that did them wrong, especially under an alcoholic fit.
Again, this doesn’t put all responsibility on your shoulders, but some of it. You did him wrong, it was sufficient enough that, when the circumstances aligned, he sought out to hurt you.
Now, if you hadn’t cheated him out of his money, would he still have carried out his part of the doxing? Who’s to say, really…Again, I’m of the belief that it’s a nuanced, multi-factored issue.
You and Kermit are much better at your record keeping than daggy. So all we can rely on for evidence is your logs. That leaves us at the mercy of your cherry picking to confirm only your assertions.
If anyone states to the contrary, merely hints that
perhaps you haven’t treated him as properly as you should have, using his testimony as evidence, we get hit with asinine ‘Feels aren’t reals.’.
It’s why these discussions with you rarely go anywhere. You’re simply too closed-minded and set in your belief that you’re absolutely right, and that everyone else is wrong.
Yes, I’m sure some of it is petty crap that isn’t important. But that doesn’t invalidate ALL of their grievances. As a friend and so-called therapist, you should be open to what they’re trying to say.
You’re fairly articulate, Alice2; that’s a hell of a gift. But it doesn’t make you right. Some people might be trying to tell you something, but they’re not able to express themselves as clearly.
That’s why it’s your task to try and help them formulate their thoughts as clearly as possible, in a non-self-serving fashion. Even if they are grievances against you; you don’t merely hand-wave it all away.
As far as I can tell, you’ve failed at this task, time and time again. Yet you tout yourself as a therapist without this essential skill in your toolkit. It makes you unfit for duty, in my estimation.
That’s fine, Alice2. You can continue to be so self-unaware and tone deaf if you’d like. There’s no shortage of willfully blind and fearful people in this world. But choosing to do so carries consequences.
The reality of this outcome is evidence enough of that. Your friend was the target of a dox meant for you. I have about six people in my Discord that have felt victimized by you at one time or another.
Craziest thing about that last fact is that you used to be friends with all of them. They admired you, even, at one point. None of them are psychopaths, none of them are trolls that plague your threads.
I don’t know how many more disillusioned people it would take to convince you that
maybe, just maybe, you’re doing something wrong.
“If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you’re the asshole.”. You didn’t like Nietzsche, so maybe this philosophy is more to your liking.
2.) Given how you often deal with vulnerable populations, what do you consider to be responsible, appropriate behavior?
It goes without saying that daggy is certainly someone that could be considered part of a vulnerable population. He has a history of mental illness, substance abuse, and alcoholism.
As you and I have both witnessed, he’s liable to bouts of severe anxiety, depression, mania, and alcoholic binges. Needless to say, there are instances where he is not in the right frame of mind.
I’m no expert on the matter, by any measure, so I cannot tell you exactly what could be considered responsible, appropriate behavior when it comes to dealing with vulnerable populations.
I don’t have to be; I try to treat everyone with respect, and it’s served me well, all things considered. That being said, I can tell you what isn’t responsible, appropriate behavior.
I have the screencap of a conversation you had with daggy: https://imgur.com/a/zk9wtqz
“You are a fucked up ugly person from skin to bone…”
are you out of your goddamn mind?
I’m sure you weren’t intending for malice here, likely choosing those words for rhetorical impact. But Alice2, this is something you do not say to a recovering alcoholic.
Believe me, I’m all for the “tough love” approach, but there are certain instances where exercising tact is absolutely necessary. This is one of those instances.
And that’s not mere opinion either, but a fact, according to the NIH: https://consensus.nih.gov/2004/2004YouthViolencePreventionSOS023html.htm
Here’s a paper, echoing a similar sentiment: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3792617/
“There can be shame without blame.” That’s a succinct little aphorism you could stand to take to heart.
Daggy knows what he did concerning the doxing incident, was wrong. He knows that his going on alcoholic benders is wrong. He knows exactly what the right thing is to do, what he needs to do.
Though, want to know what he doesn’t need? He doesn’t need you, constantly reminding him of his failures and moral shortcomings. His task is difficult enough without your demoralization.
You are, in a very literal sense, a relentless harpy that does not allow a man harried with self-doubt and guilt come to terms with his offenses.
You DO NOT constantly remind tell a person with indications of schizoaffective disorder, liable to delusions, that they put a family at risk. Especially given that the proposition must be taken on faith.
Do you know what you do?
Get your apology and shut the hell up. Just because your close friend was hurt in all this doesn’t give you license to harass the perpetrator with impunity.
I know you’re a fan of punchy rhetoric and you cherish your victimhood status, but realize you’re doing more harm than good in this scenario.
Nyan also recently wrote me about this really weak catfish accusation you and Kermit are trying to pin on her. She outlines it briefly, here: https://imgur.com/a/j8sn5eV
I ask you, Alice2, of what authority are you to be outing someone’s trans status to the public? I know you’re not too fond of jurisdictions and borders, but that wasn’t your call to make.
Particularly when someone told you a very personal fact about themselves in private. You never asked Nyan if it was okay to disclose that information to others.
Nor did you even try to mitigate the perception that she was somehow being manipulative, when in fact, she was (understandably so) embarrassed of her trans status.
You know the about the stigma and misconceptions revolving around the transgender issue, Alice2. At least, I hope you do as someone that claims to be a therapist.
If not, I offer one study as a refresher: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698807/
I don’t believe that you are blind to the facts, however you are certainly tone-deaf; it’s justified though, right? Your friend was heartbroken because they flirted with a transgirl.
The responsibility lies with you, as someone who claims to look out for the best interest of vulnerable populations, to turn to Kermit and say “Gee, maybe it wasn’t done out of malice?”
Besides, Nyan didn’t enter a romantic relationship with Kermit, never sent him false, identifying documents such as photos, never profited off of him, only lightly flirted with him.
Sure, you could object and say under the false pretense of Nyan being a biological female. But is it really too far of a stretch of the imagination that a marginalized person would lie to gain acceptance?
No, lying isn’t right. Even Nyan fully admits to that fault of hers and has taken steps to correct it. But on analysis of the motives, it’s clear that it wasn’t manipulation, much less catfishing.
Unless, of course, Kermit can prove contrary. As far as I know, he hasn’t.
This next one hardly needs any explanation: https://imgur.com/a/NSumpBF
Any good therapist knows that a certain amount of confidence and trust must be present in any effective therapeutic relationship.
I’d even argue that basic, human decency is predicated on those very two qualities. If there is a breach in them, the relationship dissolves or putrefies and becomes toxic.
Again, I ask you: is this responsible, appropriate behavior, Alice2? Poking fun at someone’s medical conditions? Please do explain and clarify this one for me.
Let’s move on to Louise. I’ll say this: I don’t envy her position, effectively being stuck between us.
I had to ask her in advance if I could use this information, because knowing you, as soon as you become privy to this you’re going to turn around and berate her for speaking with me.
“Thanks for helping 2B make me look bad.”. Don’t do crappy things like this and maybe you wouldn’t look nearly as terrible as you appear. And I wouldn’t have to be bringing them to your attention.
Anyway, here’s a log depicting a conversation between you and Louise, concerning the doxing incident and kicking Yui and dags: https://imgur.com/a/xlHbipx
From the log we can see that you clearly misled Louise into thinking that this doxing incident was a coordinated attack between Anya, Yui, and dags. That’s patently untrue.
It was only Yui and Anya that researched for info. It was dumped on daggy who nonsensically leaked information during a drunken episode. Already you were misrepresenting the facts to Louise.
Then, you continue to make emotional appeals, talking about how much you suffer, browbeating her with your self-righteousness, never once considering there might be something to her hesitation.
It was very clear that she was in an ethical dilemma (buying into your representation of the situation), but that didn’t matter to you, did it? You wanted your way, all else be damned.
Only, your way was terribly mistaken and presumptuous: https://imgur.com/a/d8csdwL
In reality, you literally had no basis to approach either Louise or myself about your drama, and ask of us to take action. Like I said, we’re not obliged to clean up after your and Reaver’s mess.
I want you to take that to heart, Alice2. That people don’t have to bend to your misconstrued sense of morality and justice. Too much time in your own chat has spoiled you, it appears.
Turns out that my ‘bullshit jurisdiction argument’ is, in fact, valid. Imagine that: there are boundaries and limitations to your influence. I’m still in awe that I had to go this far to reach you.
By the way, I distinctly remember you telling Nyan that you reached out to Discord admins concerning this issue and that they told you I had to ban Anya, Yui, and daggy.
May I see a record of this exchange? You made the claim on 06/20/2018. Failure to provide your evidence leads me to believe that was a bold-faced lie to prop up your argument.
This isn’t responsible nor appropriate behavior. Your actions were the reason why I had to de-mod Louise; you gaslit and guilt-tripped her into pushing your agenda at our server.
And it isn’t because she is not intelligent or has a weak constitution, but because for some ungodly reason she cherishes her relationship with you to a disproportionate, unreasonable amount.
You had no right to approach Louise to ‘fix’ this for you. As your friend, she was gracious enough to hear you out, and you took advantage of that. But now, you have me to contend with.
I’ll hear you out, much like Louise. Have been for a little over half a year now; however, unlike her, I’m sure you’ve noticed I’m quite immovable when it comes to appeals to victimhood and gaslighting.
Moreover, I’m willing to remind you to know your place, if need be.
In writing this email to you, carefully reading through that log between you and Louise, I noticed something very interesting. I overlooked it before: https://imgur.com/a/M5Vo394
So you do admit to some fault in this doxing incident. You actually do acknowledge some responsibility for your actions online, as having real, appreciable, possibly negative effects on those around you.
I wonder how that woman you mention would react to something like this: https://pastebin.com/4p8BZ52z
Here we can see you actively goading Jack on; someone, who by your very own admission, has it out for you and poses such a strong existential threat to you and your friends.
You know what I’m going to ask: what part of that behavior is responsible or appropriate?
You spend an awful lot of time convincing others how much of a victim you are. You spend an awful lot of time convincing others how terrible and threatening Jack is.
Yet you tempt him in your chat room, but turn around and use it as a point to twist Louise’s arm. These two behaviors are contradictory so, which is it? Is Jack a real threat or not?
I received a lot of flak for saying you deserved this happening to you, that it isn’t PC. Should something similar happen again in the future, I won’t rescind my position. At this point there are no excuses.
------- Yui -------
I spoke with Yui about this, and I’m unable to continue the conversation. I’ll stand down on this point.
Not my battle to fight, I suppose. I still have my reservations on the matter, but that’s something for Yui to handle on her own. Whether she chooses to engage with you or not, that’s her decision.
On a side note: please check your definitions. Microaggressions are indirect, unconscious, discriminatory insults specifically geared towards a person’s membership of a marginalized group.
If you re-read my message, I specifically said that it was mistreatment and ridicule (no mention of marginalized group, or subtlety) that might have a cumulative effect, which makes sense.
Were I to call you an idiot everyday, and encourage others to join me in insulting your intelligence, I’m sure you wouldn’t like me very much. That’s straight aggression; nothing micro about it.
Even at the specific instance I was getting at, about her trans status, I was referring to your overt, purposeful mistreatment. So no, microaggressions have nothing to do with this discussion.
------- Anya -------
Who knows what Anya’s motivation was with her role in the doxing? Only she knows that. Maybe someday she’ll decide to tell you, if you ask her nicely enough.
As for the ‘evidence’ you provided (those Chen caps are sorely lacking in context; she could be apologizing for anything, really), it’s not very compelling.
First off, they’re seven years old. People’s attitudes are subject to change given such a long timespan. But I see that you’ve resorted to scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Second, in the log you posted it appears as if Anya is plotting something, but not necessarily against you. I’d venture to guess she was planning on starting threads of her own. (03/15/2011).
Third, if you truly felt that Anya was an enemy, why is it that she was a moderator in your chat for the longest time? Sorry, I’m not buying this piss-poor argument of yours.
I know the game, Alice2. It’s imperative that you prove that people betray without rhyme or reason. That you make those three out to be psychopaths, ignoring the past few years of friendship.
It serves your victimhood status, alleviating you of all responsibility in the matter. Here lies this poor girl, the target of a doxing at the hands of vicious brutes that had it out for her.
Only the reasons behind it were either invalid or non-existent at all. Often times I see you asserting that you’re not a saint; you certainly think yourself as one.
Maybe the people in your chat fully subscribe to the ‘victim is always right’ mentality, but they’re not doing you any favors. They’re only enabling your self-righteous behavior. I won’t do that for you.
And of course I recognize that people, including my own friends, can be petty and do shitty things. It isn’t my stance that I think otherwise.
You might be absolutely right. It might just be the case that her attack on you was predicated on a false notion but that is entirely different from no reason at all.
I haven’t investigated the matter with Anya any further for the longest time, and I pledged that I wouldn’t, simply because there needs to be some hard end to all of this.
I know that’s dissatisfactory for you; it’s less than ideal for me. I still have my reservations on Anya’s motivations, from both sides. I believe some of it was petty, but certainly not all.
We’ll leave it at that then. You don’t have to answer my question as it relates to Anya’s involvement in the doxing incident.
------- Reaver -------
Addressed most of your concerns in the introductory section. Please review it now for responses to your points.
As you can see, citing the email I sent to Discord administration concerning my responsibilities as server owner, I was correct in my assertions and you, Reaver, Kermit, and Fred were flat-out wrong.
It’s tough to accept, but contrary to what you’d like to believe, that is indeed “just how it works.”. Hope you can come to terms with it.
Or you can continue to make claims against my character in bad faith, it makes little difference to me.
------- Closing -------
Truthfully, I don’t care if you do put me in league with Bern or Eva. Do as you please.
I know what I am, and what I am not. If you have your critique, let’s hear it. But please be honest about it. Those ’30 instances of self-contradiction’ were anything but the sort.
It was a list of Kermit’s rebuttals to my points. Honestly, what do you get out of exaggeration and dishonesty like that, Alice2?
It’s a weak attempt to attack my character, but anybody that has a basic reading comprehension can easily see for themselves that your claim was false.
How is it a direct threat on Reaver’s life? All of the information daggy ‘leaked’ appears as nonsense to anyone not in the know. Merely saying ‘▒▒▒▒▒▒’ without any context isn’t a threat.
If you interpret ‘Imagine selling Pokemon cards for a living’ as a threat, then I’d imagine you’re much less of a hit at parties than even I.
Facetiousness aside, none of what daggy said constitutes as personally identifiable information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information)
He didn’t release any addresses, social security numbers, birth places or dates, mother’s maiden names, or biometric records.
He did release names, but that information is public access via Facebook and social media anyway, and it isn’t as if those names are exclusive to those individuals.
So no, I don’t interpret it as a threat. Not even close.
I’m not even going to bother to address your closing truism.
-2B
[end transmission]
