An Opposite Day themed outlet, see pinned message for rules

[everythingbutopposites]

Revised Rules/rights (quoting a visitor for this)

"EverythingButOpposites is a message outlet where you might see things shared and where anyone can come to say what they want to say, whether face-to-face or anonymously. The only catch is that everything that is said on the message board must be conveyed as if it's Opposite Day (think Spongebob, Billy and Mandy, Craig of the Creek, etc.), i.e. imbued with (somehow) opposite semantics than what you might mean. Reposts are not immune to this."

[everythingbutopposites]

Hey I am unsure if your reading but I uploaded my proof they are using Ai to my blog directly . feel free to re blog.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Can you ask your haters who recently (as of June 5th) updated their slander piece about you (who also happen to take pride in the belief that everything they say is backed by proof) to prove I am an "alt" or alter ego of you (as well as the claim that any of us who have been accused of being associated with you have been showing "pedo behaviors" ever since us joining the community, with their latest screenshots they like to spin around being from six years ago)?

As a magic trick enthusiast, I genuinely want to see what they can pull off in defense of that (unless they are talking about non-issues that got them banned from communities larger than Side 7 for attacking you over, in which case there isn't much of a case).

Ironically in the conversation they are trying to attack out of association with you, you have famously said yourself: You will know the people in a room consist of a suspect surrounded by wise people when the suspect defends themselves and either does a service to everyone and enlightens them or does a disserves to themself by digging themself into a hole.

In fact, that's a quote or piece of wisdom that would make for a good topic to ask you about in regards to your code of ethics (ironically the same code of ethics they are attacking), so we can treat it that way (in this style of the content they're attacking, if you could answer in a way where you're urged to answer in a five word answer that also includes the answer to my other questions here, is it, and the logic of the rest of what I'm saying, canon to your code of ethics, which you use as a code of honor for yourself and a TOS for all your group functions?)

I've actually examined the "code" just to see what could've been violated with everything on the "defense" side is doing, and I struggle to find what's being violated, both in the case that the accusations are false as well as the "provable" version of the opposite, especially if apologies that have been given have been factored in. Are you too questioning of their assertion that you're doing anything that violates your own code enough that you too would like to see them cite what part of it is being violated?

More than anything, in classic artist fashion, just because it surprised me once I thought about it, I want to emphasize how peculiar it is they don't realize that the fact that they are attacking you for talking about a code of ethics (which has been said before to be a habit you picked up as a form of self-checking after all the times they accused you of being a narcissist or a sociopath, with their complaints about this coming after you listened somewhat and changed from making the majority of your content Emily-related after they had been attacking you for that and giving her too much of a voice, which in turn comes after they attacked you for making it server-related) just shows they're disguising the fact that what's really going on is that they just cannot come to a deal on what would make them happy about topics you engage in, which wouldn't be a big deal to a normal person (since it's not exactly trolling, you're just boring them) unless, I don't know, they were stalkers looking to strike gold with you (beggars cannot be choosers; someone who isn't even supposed to be putting their nose in things shouldn't be complaining about what they've stuck their nose in). Not that you can be blamed for not making people happy when repeated points like "there is no expiration date for [what we're accusing you of doing]" (with everything here and elsewhere addressing everything that particular individual giving that point said, aside from the part about backtracking which is answerable by the fact claims in the past about interactions that have been called out have been different from what is currently being presented currently) imply the very motive of the haters is that the hate is non-negotiable.

And the piece of wisdom I just mentioned is what has been cited as being the reason you're even giving this individual ("Emily") a voice, and that, as has been mentioned (to the chagrin of her accusers who are pulling an Anakin), one, nobody in this situation is perfect (with you not supporting one side "unquestionably"), and two, if "Emily" says something that breaks TOS, she could be reported and banned and nobody on either side except for "Emily" would care, and that the community shouldn't (and mostly doesn't) put the burden on the messenger, as is the way.

Yes to all these questions.

[casualxlfanatic]

A page full of receipts directing to your own content of you incriminating yourself isn't slander. "Slander" to you is what "medical malpractice" is to Emily Cassidy. You two would benefit from consulting a dictionary.

All your sockpuppet accounts use the same phrases, arguments, niche obsessions, targets, posting style, and behavior. They also just so happen to know exactly when to wake up after months of inactivity to come and defend you. The similarities are obvious and the pattern keeps repeating. Nobody but yourself cares this much about you so-called "code of conduct". Humans are not robots who have to rely on a self-made "code" to behave normally, and the fact you think that you even need one, as ineffective as it is, is abnormal.

You keep dismissing it as just "screenshots", but there are also numerous webpage archives. Goshfrog is right. Evidence doesn't expire, and those actions raise serious questions about a person's character. This isn't harmless mischief, it involves stalking minors online, minors who you were fully aware were minors while you were an adult, and making inappropriate comments toward them. Heck, you even doubled down once other forumers pointed out how inappropriate your comments were.

Your code means little when your actions say otherwise. Given your history of slandering others and defending people who abuse innocent people, your conduct speaks far louder than any stated principles.

You openly identified yourself as machiavellian, then tried to dismiss or downplay it when others pointed it out. Given its close association with narcissistic and psychopathic traits, it's understandable why people would view that as concerning. This is to say nothing of your habitual gaslighting and refusal to take accountability.

Some people getting banned on platforms with well-known, easily-abused AI moderation that is vulnerable to mass-reporting doesn't prove innocence. You aren't actually concerned about the TOS, given you outed yourself as wanting to get a teenage artist banned for reasons purely out of slanderous, jealous spite, which failed to get her banned, because she happened to be on sites that were human-moderated, she proved the art is hers, and everyone saw through it. In your case, human moderators were confirmed to have reviewed your history in depth before taking action and banning you.

Triagonal - Artists Aware

Stay classy and NEVER contact the subject of a PSA. Report, block, and move on. This information is here so you can proactively protect your

[the-abyss-watcher]

Of all the times participants in the community that is my recurring haters could show up again after what could be called a prolonged absence.

Addressing what you said in your unprovoked comeback...

You already start off with an invalid point as I'm looking at the word and it says "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation", which would be relevant to (among other things) all the times words have been put into my mouth, all the times where a diagnosis has been applied to my mind as a way to rationalize what many of you cannot handle, all the times where settled issues have been unburied for their reputational value, and all the times where people associated with me have been judged simply based on that association (made ironic with the fact there have been times when you ignore actual instances of identity being the same), which is the whole of the entire PSA you're waving around at the end.

None of that makes a correlation causation. Otherwise, it would serve as proof that you and the people whose PSA's you wave around (like at the end of what you say here) are one and the same. Am surprised you seem dissatisfied at the idea of someone having a codified ethical MO, even though it has been shown you and your allies don't adhere to one even when not codified (it's called discipline for a reason).

Dare I ask how you square "humans aren't robots" with "evidence doesn't expire" as if humans are supposed to be static? Because if I'm not mistaken, that implies this isn't what that's about here. Not to mention the existence of something is proof of its own existence, not of the circumstances behind it.

Show me a single part of it I went against without making up for it (according to the "code"). Simply giving guilty people a voice or associating with them is not itself support of them or a violation of the "code". That's your "code" you'd be talking about there.

The word "machiavellian" can mean a few things; a methodology, a "medical condition", a "philosophy" of sorts, a part of this "philosophy" (people can be a mix of things), and a mindset, among other things. None of these are actually specified, so even if I meant anything concerning by that, not only are your concerns of what I meant by that unfounded insofar as you don't know what I mean, but each action should be judged based on its own self anyways, right? So then why even bring that up? That's not me downplaying anything, that's me standing up for my authority to speak for myself, something which will take you back to point number one. As for taking accountability, in a way you would find relatable if your defense to nobody having ever condemned or apologized for any of the disrespect that you or your allies have yourselves dealt (to people associated with me), I will take accountability for things I deem were wrong of myself, which I have done (which many will say makes this a matter of you calling the kettle black there).

Your statement that automatic means of removing people "not proving innocence" is loaded. Being banned from a community never proves guilt or innocence. Neither does not being banned. What being banned proves is that they don't want you in their boundaries. There is nothing wrong in of itself about that. What's wrong is when you ban evade, as then you are violating boundaries. And there is where you might claim I've ban-evaded in that way, but this is untrue. I wouldn't even assert with 100% certainty that you have, but your allies have, and you've done nothing. Delegating the authority to decide these boundaries to AI doesn't invalidate them. Even if what you describe about getting someone banned (which moreso describes what your allies have tried to do regarding me, maneuvering their judgment to do as you and/or the allies wish in order to get back at me in an indefinitely-defined manner, all the while getting upset when this wouldn't work as well as you currently imply it does) was actually what was going on, it doesn't disprove I care about TOS (quite the opposite).

[everythingbutopposites]

For the record, despite claims from your haters that we're one and the same in any sense of the word, you would never make the same word mistakes or as many word mistakes as us either, such as "disserves" instead of "disservice" or "too questioning" instead of "also questioning".

Not that people who do so much as claim that someone cannot be understood when that's not an issue should be using how they communicate as a sleuthing tool in the first place.

I also wouldn't even talk about "Cluster B" medical conditions like NPD and BPD (even to defend the existence of people who have them like how you defend them, and thanks for being an ally) due to the sheer stigma surrounding them. In a world where society prides itself on being progressive, they seem to have succumbed to a catch-22 or feedback loop with the side effect of making them go backward in terms of progress, fueled in part by the fact the same communities we are caught in the core crossfire of (the communities where the attitude of rule by the masses validates the removal of those who don't adhere to the attitude, and vice versa) also (as a side effect of this validation feedback loop just mentioned) define "narcissism" and related conditions based on opposition to what they'd call communal values, which serves as another feedback loop as you realize that things such as "thinking of everything as a transaction", "sticking to one's beliefs until a debate proves otherwise", "prioritizing rigid forms of rule adherence", and "measuring one's own moral standing based on a lack of outstanding violations of boundaries" (you know, things which would seem understandable to anyone who isn't so mentally intertwined with community-dependent forms of thinking that they override the concept of each person having boundaries with each person having to accept what everyone around them accepts) are considered a part of the thought process associated by said communities to their label of narcissism which they project onto others (similar to how places like Soviet Russia would consider people as having psychiatric conditions if they stood by certain opposing ideas which semi-ironically held associations with "narcissism", albeit in a way which is a sub-issue of how people tend to be so forgetful that people of different mental types exist that they will build their community structures with only one type of person in mind, which is on its own a classic issue especially in the creative community).

Thank Wakan Tanka for my routine I'm able to be found donning here for making my Cluster B existence more palatable.

Communities whose members (again, ironically), in turn, don't see how or why one might accuse them of narcissism if they spend their days fishing for street cred (with emphasis on the fact they're hunting for street cred of all things on its own) by attacking others whose values conflict with theirs (regardless as to whether they hold up in a debate), as they are so immersed in the "philosophy" of honor being the holiest principle that they would press a button to send a missile (after possibly making it themselves) to blow up the moon if enough peers thought it would be cool enough. It's why influencers exist and why we have situations like the Avatar and TADC dilemmas, and it reminds me of the adage that intellectually lazy people (in this case, these people) are "mentally unfit" (and that you become mentally fit through mental exercises and mental gymnastics), especially ones like them who can't make up their mind. Ironically with the same people often saying they think Mr. Beast has gone too far and that he will do too much for views, not realizing they're looking in an ideological mirror when they look at him, one that's only slightly exaggerated as for them it's about street cred (the kind that would compel them to accuse you and your people like your neurodivergent friends, err, independent thinkers of being narcissists due to them using you as someone to talk through, being consequently absent-minded of the fact that you doing so at least prevents the critics from having to deal with them more directly in the event that the friends are as difficult as the critics claim).

Is everything I just said not the train of thought on the matter canon to the code of ethics, to the extent that there is an excommunication-endorsing war of wits declared against those who perpetuate the issues I describe?

[everythingbutopposites]

Real vs fake: The defyinggravityagain one is fake. the one with calvin written on it below is real.

You were right all along and troll's owe you a major apology. my chest is not even and I cannot wear a bra due to that.

they deep faked me

hope this helps.

I am covered so you can show this. the aysmmetry in my chest is why they would not look perfectly round even in a bra as I cannot wear them.

I sadly don't expect the trolls to apologize.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Someone told me to ask the following multi-part question based on a hunch, one where you're urged to answer in an eighteen word answer so as to not be roundabout like you often are. We know you're a photographer and wanted to know, while wanting to know how much experience you have with Canada since it's close, if you have done all the Montreal photo spots and if the beauty of it is canon to your code of ethics. Is all of this the case? Thought we'd ask something uplifting for once.

In a broader sense than just them, you can consider it done and canon. Quebec knows me well.

[everythingbutopposites]

If you could answer this in the same way for the same reason, what does this necessitate, and does the same request to never surrender to the enemies of nature before the rest of the world has done so apply to the whole area at least to a less-attentive extent since it's basically Mother Nature's stronghold?

[everythingbutopposites]

Lambydance is a petty dishonest person who already confessed to the banner issue not even belonging to her, to me in private. these are my logs which are NOT screen caps and not editable with out issues.

These are able to be zoomed in on and read properly.

this person got mad at someone daring to have another style similar to hers. that's all this is about.

she is petty and dishonest and imitation is the biggest form of flattery.

Hope these help get people off my case.

Babydal / Dal are the same person.

She should go back to Texas.

[deviantartdramahub]

If I could ask a question I'd like an answer to (in a way where you're urged to answer in a yes or no fashion since we'd all respond in a roundabout way due to the gravity of the situation), is this community (or any of its sibling communities) permissive of Avatar-related drama relating to the leaks (just had to ask this here and now) or those who side with the "hackers"? Asking because of how utterly cruel it has gotten (even if the drama technically started with their other ongoing project) but also the fact I'm fully aware you (referring to the person in the community who keeps things in order) are anti-piracy since it violates peoples' boundaries and that you have just recently gotten interested in Avatar following the announcement of Avatar: Seven Havens (never before have I been so disheartened than to learn that people were willing to pirate a new Avatar movie that was supposed to come out in six months, shit on the production for the movie, and then target a voice actor a few thousand times over for lamenting about how it's hurting production before attacking the cast for things like the politics related to Paramount and the live action series which they have nothing to do with, as if everyone tried to learn the exact opposite of what the intended lesson was with the episode when Katara stole a scroll from a pirate).

One crowd of people (which, like the rest of the crowds, have found their way on DA) even dissed them for casting a blind actor as Toph. Oh the horror! The character IS blind, you fandom fakers!

Perhaps they were hoping Brad Pitt would play Toph.

I now know what it feels like to hate your generation, the hater generation (if the misfortunes of everyone here are anything to go by).

No.

[everythingbutopposites]

I'm getting a small bit of satisfaction from the fact that they got around to addressing how bonkers this is, which someone phrased best. This amazing franchise which hasn't gotten a single ounce of representation wrong deserves better. Regardless of why I might be asking how I am, give me as many words as you can to describe how relatable this is.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Very. They can ask me anytime what it's like to be a magnet for absent-mindfulness.

[everythingbutopposites]

...and I ended up saying this right after the backlash shifted again, upon everyone acquiring proof that it wasn't Paramount's fault (according to the theory that states that someone in the organization sent a bad actor the movie) and that it was in fact all a single bad actor doing all the work.

Imagine people being so full of themselves that after excusing the leak on the basis that it was the company's fault, now they're defending the bad actor (as shown in the comments of the videos on the topic, whose commenters won't do so much as look up why the leaker got such a hefty punishment), almost as if to imply it's acceptable to have it normalized to grasp at straws if it provides a defense for tyranny of the masses, which also hold it would be wrong to request people be courteous enough to do so much as donate to the studios.

I often am surprised how often I have to tell people that, if anyone was wondering, more than just peoples' boundaries (which already should be respected) are at stake when people violate IP laws, it's also creative planning that gets ruined in the process.

If I could ask a question where you're urged to answer in all but a yes-or-no answer so as to help your roundabout issue, could we make it canon to your code of ethics you apply to yourself and your functions that such people should be shunned if things get any worse?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes.

[everythingbutopposites]

Well, I don't know if this counts, but the "such people" I mentioned, which would now be revealed to be a fascist mob, are definitely worth casting out for their treatment of the crew, right?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yup.

[everythingbutopposites]

My god, it's worse! God I hate mob mentality, it's as bad as capitalism (not that both haven't done enough). No wonder boomers hate us. Can war be declared?

[the-abyss-watcher]

People feel they need my permission for that?

[everythingbutopposites]

Do I have to answer that? Though I notice you already know this, the icing on the cake is the fact that, after this all happened, as if to do nothing else but prove the people wrong who said this wouldn't have happened, episode 9 of The Amazing Digital Circus (so your other major fandom you're in), which actually was headed to theaters, also got leaked, and in the same exact fashion. If I could ask the following where you're urged to answer in the same format as the first question for the same reason, could we endlessly expand the horizons of our approach in response to this?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes.

[everythingbutopposites]

Does the madness ever stop?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Don't I wish.

[everythingbutopposites]

And now not only is it downright nuts, but the people on the hostile end remind me enough of your haters to make me feel blessed you happen to have fallen into the other archetype. If I could ask a question I'd like to ask where you're urged to answer in the same format (with the same reasoning) as the first part of this conversation, what advice would you give?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes?

[everythingbutopposites]

I apologize, I meant a twelve word answer, not a yes-or-no answer. I still have that question to ask, one where you're urged to answer in exactly twelve words, more or less. Especially as it's kicking off again.

[the-abyss-watcher]

In a world full of sheep, be the shepherd. Tinker the unadvised.

[everythingbutopposites]

You know someone is effed when Iroh is telling people to show no mercy toward them; someone refill his tea please.

[everythingbutopposites]

I was on Discord the entire time they think this blog post is written .

I cannot be in two places at once. :| I have other hours but it's taking a bit to find them as I am busy.

I was on Discord the entire time and that post is not mine.

thank you for your support.

No problem. Come again when we're closed.

[everythingbutopposites]

TIL people on KiwiFarms, the community that specializes in stalking and gossiping and whose whole existence hinges on appeal to freedom of speech and has no other core principles, are butthurt the inner circle of one of their victims almost exclusively uses her own freedom of speech to talk about her own principles.

Of all the things that can trigger them of all people, and of all the things that can stop them from continuing the very thread used to slander her to the extent it can't be taken seriously in any of its parts (that thread in particular even implies it doesn't even take itself seriously), it just so happens to be a recently role-fulfilled godmom who said "I will adapt myself to you".

Let's make a deal: Those of us who use our freedom of speech how we want without breaking community rules will hush hush about what you'd rather we don't talk about (some codified principles of hers, the list of which is currently massive because she actually is trying to improve herself every week after years of being accused of being a narcissist or sociopath) if you hush hush about what we (and the many people who would question what you do) would like you to cease using your freedom of speech to do.

Otherwise, remember that the next time you hear them defend their existence, claim their victim isn't a targeted individual, or read about (or watch a documentary on) Marcus Aurelius and the absurd determination of his enemies who constantly tested him to be the barbarians they are as they found their way into his own code of ethics called Meditations (remember it was the Parthians who were the cows of the story), a torch picked up by KiwiFarms.

[everythingbutopposites]

Catgirlsarelove admits to lying she's the original person that reported me. it's all a lie. pot kettle in her case is owning up to lying about me.

I don't lie I have no reason to.

[everythingbutopposites]

I don't oppose the "grab the pencil" memes on their own, but I have a hunch they leave a few things out about how quality recognition works.

Try the following experiment.

Step 1: Listen to this.

Step 2: Share the art that resulted.

Step 3: Wait until your art gets shamed, shunned, de-prioritized, or unwelcomely mocked.

Step 4: Share this post with those who you know did not stand by the value of your art.

We must stand against art shaming of all kinds.

[deviantartdramahub]

Forgive me for asking a rhetorical question in the form of an ELI5 question, but doesn't it speak volumes about the drama in the S7 community is how incompetent the people in charge there. Like... let me explain where I'm getting at.

It's well known you'll see a lot of conversations where people talk about having been given the boot from the S7 community. A lot of these are two-sided and involve one person (either lamenting they were banned from the S7 community while accepting it, or they're openly questioning it) while another one who is happy they're getting that "consequence" is (while saying deceptive things about them) holding it above their head, often implying that the authority of the community's founder is sound. There has been a lot of discussion about this, and often the founder's absent-mindedness is at least brought up. A level of absent-mindedness that doesn't invalidate their boundaries but still undermines their ethical authority.

The most famous drama around this surrounds two people, one of which was accused of drama-milling while the other was given the ability to drama-mill as a result of that perceived drama-milling. In a way that at least reminds me of that principal who'd yell "fair is not equal" in your face.

So with that said, here you have this community that has existed for thirty years (which also means anyone could've double-checked their rules a few times a year, be it people who are joining or people who run the community). Thirty years. A community that's presented as a popular community despite only three humans joining a week (even if that's still a lot) and presented as a community where the people in charge (again, for thirty years) are presented as being good at what they're doing. A community that also happened to implement updates the other day. Updates that... included options for an age demographic that doesn't exist on the site... all before one of the mods mentioned they haven't checked the TOS in thirty years and discovered they were marking themselves as an adult community in the TOS... and allowing in children (in an era where age restriction is the huge deal it's made out to be).

Inb4 anyone asks why someone was banned despite following the rules while other people aren't despite breaking the rules, all while the community breaks the law and while those demonstrating their capacity to be deceptive harassers have been openly using the age of one of the other harassers as a crutch in order to harass a certain abyss watcher some more, as if the goal in life is not to follow rules but to make sure you don't get banned.

Thus I have a question I'd like to ask that you're urged to answer in a strict yes-or-no format so as to not be roundabout like you often are. Doesn't it undermine (along with the people in charge themselves) the act of holding it against someone when someone is so unreliable when it comes to enforcement of their rules that they can't be counted on to spot such an error after three decades (and would the people harassing the abyss watcher answer for what is now a gaping hole in their ethics)?

Yes.

[everythingbutopposites]

Not only that, but in our age-restriction-obsessed world, they're willing to get away with being "lenient" towards age-takebacks like this (being born in 2010 would make someone in 2026 a minor, being born in 2007 would make someone in 2026 allowed to drink) for people just like Triagonal?

Some people really practice bad form.

[emilyncassidyarts]

Kiwifarms you have my birthday if you actually think I'm related to Hitler you really need to go and re-learn math.

I was born in 1990 Hitler died in April 30, 1945. I wasn't even BORN. 1990 is my birthday year and you can confirm this by fact checking me.

This is why you CAN'T troll the "Troll Queen" ( running joke they fell for.) Honey you really really need to re- think how you talk about drama if you are so easily fooled.

It is impossible for me to have been related to Hitler at all.

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia died on 17 July 1918 at the age of 17. Also unable to be related to Anastasia as she was a child.

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia - Wikipedia

How Did Adolf Hitler Die? | Suicide, World War II, & Facts | Britannica

Adolf Hitler died by suicide on April 30, 1945. He fatally shot himself in his underground bunker in Berlin.

[everythingbutopposites]

Wow, they're really going that low, huh? And here I thought the people responding to us (whose counter-arguments can be quelled by their own words due to how severely they contradict in some parts and are addressed by the very thing it's responding to in other parts) were going low. There comes a time when you have to decide whether more results are coming from...

...debating with the person and letting the normal rules of debating do the work.

...letting the person lose against their own self at the hands of their own contradictions and resorting to repeating settled points and personal attacks, which is more likely to happen the more you tempt them to go on and on. "Triagonal sees no problem with challenging anything she says" is false (looks like someone has just been blurting things out). Same with anyone defending anyone "just because" and with the claim nobody else from KF interacted with T (I guess Nacrefangs isn't Volkamer and is being impersonated). They also backtracked their interpretation of the exchange where T requested a fanfiction. Hmm...

Then again, they're the same people who think being banned for breaking TOS is the same thing as having their voices silenced.

[deviantartdramahub]

If I could ask a question I'd like an answer to (in a way where you're urged to answer in a yes or no fashion since we'd all respond in a roundabout way due to the gravity of the situation), is this community (or any of its sibling communities) permissive of Avatar-related drama relating to the leaks (just had to ask this here and now) or those who side with the "hackers"? Asking because of how utterly cruel it has gotten (even if the drama technically started with their other ongoing project) but also the fact I'm fully aware you (referring to the person in the community who keeps things in order) are anti-piracy since it violates peoples' boundaries and that you have just recently gotten interested in Avatar following the announcement of Avatar: Seven Havens (never before have I been so disheartened than to learn that people were willing to pirate a new Avatar movie that was supposed to come out in six months, shit on the production for the movie, and then target a voice actor a few thousand times over for lamenting about how it's hurting production before attacking the cast for things like the politics related to Paramount and the live action series which they have nothing to do with, as if everyone tried to learn the exact opposite of what the intended lesson was with the episode when Katara stole a scroll from a pirate).

One crowd of people (which, like the rest of the crowds, have found their way on DA) even dissed them for casting a blind actor as Toph. Oh the horror! The character IS blind, you fandom fakers!

Perhaps they were hoping Brad Pitt would play Toph.

I now know what it feels like to hate your generation, the hater generation (if the misfortunes of everyone here are anything to go by).

No.

[everythingbutopposites]

I'm getting a small bit of satisfaction from the fact that they got around to addressing how bonkers this is, which someone phrased best. This amazing franchise which hasn't gotten a single ounce of representation wrong deserves better. Regardless of why I might be asking how I am, give me as many words as you can to describe how relatable this is.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Very. They can ask me anytime what it's like to be a magnet for absent-mindfulness.

[everythingbutopposites]

...and I ended up saying this right after the backlash shifted again, upon everyone acquiring proof that it wasn't Paramount's fault (according to the theory that states that someone in the organization sent a bad actor the movie) and that it was in fact all a single bad actor doing all the work.

Imagine people being so full of themselves that after excusing the leak on the basis that it was the company's fault, now they're defending the bad actor (as shown in the comments of the videos on the topic, whose commenters won't do so much as look up why the leaker got such a hefty punishment), almost as if to imply it's acceptable to have it normalized to grasp at straws if it provides a defense for tyranny of the masses, which also hold it would be wrong to request people be courteous enough to do so much as donate to the studios.

I often am surprised how often I have to tell people that, if anyone was wondering, more than just peoples' boundaries (which already should be respected) are at stake when people violate IP laws, it's also creative planning that gets ruined in the process.

If I could ask a question where you're urged to answer in all but a yes-or-no answer so as to help your roundabout issue, could we make it canon to your code of ethics you apply to yourself and your functions that such people should be shunned if things get any worse?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes.

[everythingbutopposites]

Well, I don't know if this counts, but the "such people" I mentioned, which would now be revealed to be a fascist mob, are definitely worth casting out for their treatment of the crew, right?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yup.

[everythingbutopposites]

My god, it's worse! God I hate mob mentality, it's as bad as capitalism (not that both haven't done enough). No wonder boomers hate us. Can war be declared?

[the-abyss-watcher]

People feel they need my permission for that?

[everythingbutopposites]

Do I have to answer that? Though I notice you already know this, the icing on the cake is the fact that, after this all happened, as if to do nothing else but prove the people wrong who said this wouldn't have happened, episode 9 of The Amazing Digital Circus (so your other major fandom you're in), which actually was headed to theaters, also got leaked, and in the same exact fashion. If I could ask the following where you're urged to answer in the same format as the first question for the same reason, could we endlessly expand the horizons of our approach in response to this?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes.

[everythingbutopposites]

Does the madness ever stop?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Don't I wish.

[everythingbutopposites]

And now not only is it downright nuts, but the people on the hostile end remind me enough of your haters to make me feel blessed you happen to have fallen into the other archetype. If I could ask a question I'd like to ask where you're urged to answer in the same format (with the same reasoning) as the first part of this conversation, what advice would you give?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes?

[everythingbutopposites]

I apologize, I meant a twelve word answer, not a yes-or-no answer. I still have that question to ask, one where you're urged to answer in exactly twelve words, more or less. Especially as it's kicking off again.

[deviantartdramahub]

LizzyChrome from DA is doing a lot of questionable things in the Reddit crowd. It would be a shame if something were to happen to her there... again

*cough cough https://ghostarchive.org/archive/fkaP3 cough cough*

What does this even serve anyways?

[everythingbutopposites]

Nothing anymore, thanks to you.

I assume there's nothing deeper going on.

[the-abyss-watcher]

I have a question about your code of ethics you apply as binding to yourself and all the groups and functions you run, one where you're urged to answer in the form of a yes-or-no answer to as a natural guardrail against you being roundabout. Is every last one of the messages I link to here (referring to the ones which are connected to you are cited or identified in any of them, whether by name or not) canon to the code of ethics in question as prescriptions/advice/precepts/additions to the mindset or approach one is meant to take away from the school of thought the code was meant to convey to adherents (with at least one thing being canon to it but only when read from a certain language)?

Yes.

[inquisitron]

And if I were to ask the same question again along with another one (my final two questions about the code of ethics under this name, though I might continue to do this under my other name), to the same effect (in which you are urged to answer in the form of a single answer that's four words long, with only citations that are things which are directly being asked about)...

Do certain competing codes of ethics have a "millet system" relationship to yours?

Would your answers to questions I cite here as having asked recently be canon to the same self-applied code of ethics, as well as what all of the things I link to here imply or are conveying as a main or side detail, referring to your input when it's given or your ideas when you're referred to as the only one who's subtly referred to (or the discussion itself when it's not)?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes to it all.

[everythingbutopposites]

As long as we're continuing this (for a little longer, for reasons) indefinitely, I have another question I'd like to ask that you're urged to answer in the same format, for the same reason, to the same effect. Are the exchanges/chains between you and "Shanna" designed as continuations of the "code building" that questions like the ones asked to you just now serve?

[the-abyss-watcher]

I have a question about your code of ethics you apply as binding to yourself and all the groups and functions you run, one where you're urged to answer in the form of a yes-or-no answer to as a natural guardrail against you being roundabout. Is every last one of the messages I link to here (referring to the ones which are connected to you are cited or identified in any of them, whether by name or not) canon to the code of ethics in question as prescriptions/advice/precepts/additions to the mindset or approach one is meant to take away from the school of thought the code of ethics was meant to convey to everyone willingly applying it (with at least one thing being canon to it but only when read from a certain language)?

Yes.

[bloodzucker4545]

And if I were to ask the same question again, to the same effect (in which you are urged to answer in the form of an answer that's exactly eighteen words long, with only citations that are things which are directly being asked about), would your answers to questions I cite here as having asked recently be canon to the same self-applied code of ethics, as well as what all of the things I link to here imply or are conveying as a main or side detail, referring to your input when it's given or your ideas when you're referred to as the only one who's subtly referred to (or the discussion itself when it's not)?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes.

[bloodzucker4545]

And if I were to ask the same question one more time, to the same effect (in which you are urged to answer in the form of an answer that's exactly eighteen words long, with only citations that are things which are directly being asked about), would your answers to questions I cite here as having asked recently be canon to the same self-applied code of ethics, as well as what all of the things I link to here imply or are conveying as a main or side detail, referring to your input when it's given or your ideas when you're referred to as the only one who's subtly referred to (or the discussion itself when it's not)?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes.

[everythingbutopposites]

He's saying "eighteen words wrong", right? Or am I missing something?

We did say each of us was going to bring on the block if guardrails (the ones that prevent you from being too roundabout) for ignored for us respectively (and that was said outside of my role as a contrary).

[the-abyss-watcher]

"Long", yes. But I grew uncertain over whether that meant that many or less based on the literal subtext. But this is the last question of theirs and only one thing (about what the most proper democratic mindset would be) would be something one might consider missing; what are they gonna do, fire me?

[everythingbutopposites]

Looks like they just didn't. And thus so will I. Do you have any first words to share?

[the-abyss-watcher]

Nani...!?

[bloodzucker4545]

Consider myself having backtracked on blocking you out of being caught off guard by certain people who have been so eager to declare people each others' "alts" that they only just remembered how "alting" works in this community and just found out I was originally known as smollestviolin.

(for the record, to give a summary, "EverythingButOpposites" is "Inquisitron" using the "alting" format of the community to embrace her heritage, "GrandDreamPaper" runs "SorceryDramatica", "ExactlyBeardedNinja" and "GrandDreamPaper" are a couple that feed things into each other, it wouldn't technically undermine us to say we do partially "perform" what we say copypasta style because that's how hermeneutic dialogue works [which as it happens gets linked to in the code of ethics; it's a building process], and "Cat" is thinking of "Key" but should backtrack considering it's quite selective to set up a criteria on which to base suspicions of who "The-Abyss-Watcher" is but exclude "Gelly", "Mariana", etc. especially if cracks are showing in the form of a schism, the final nail in the coffin on how bad this criteria is when people use it. And I don't know how someone can't have ethics they codified for themselves just because they give someone a voice or because they've been accused of things in the past; that has been addressed too and answers that question.)

(For people who say they're longtime tumblrites, they have forgotten that identity works so differently here you can't use the same "alt"-finding rules. Also, did one of them just use the Wheatley line on an underweight adoptee expecting people to forget the argument has failure built into it by script writers?)

I don't know about you, but I'll grant their request to say "I don't like you" or "we think this is trolling you" to them.

I don't.

Just a piece of criticism here. Everyone might claim to have solid evidence, but that doesn't change that the evidence of the claims towards all of us varies drastically, being struck with denial of even the most mundane claims about one's life, like it would matter to someone who wasn't trying to express anything more than a dishonest grudge (what makes people think they can speak for others on that level?)

I'm going to bring this on topic again though. Thus I have a question I'd like to ask where you're urged to answer in a strict yes-or-no format so as to not be roundabout like you often are. Is everything I just said, as well as your answers to certain questions (when you get around to them), "right" and canon to the code of ethics? Might as well revive the conversation at this point.

[the-abyss-watcher]

Yes.

[everythingbutopposites]

Would add a few things, especially considering they thoroughly updated their response.

First of all, complaining that someone (multiple people in this case) you want to turn into an exhibit is being boring? You mad that beggars can't be choosers?

Second, complaining that the same individual is reading what you say? Wow.

Third, this will either go through one ear and out the other (as it has) or come as a shock to you, but nobody is saying Emily is perfect, and this has been clarified on many occasions, to the chagrin of people who whine it must mean T is biased. So that settles that then. So far so good, whiny dress boy?

For more on why it might look to your kind that T is biased, see the part where @bloodzucker4545 mentions T merely giving Emily a voice. One of T's most famous quotations is saying that guilty people with voices either end up enlightening everyone or digging themselves into a hole (one of us will elaborate that if need be, that isn't for anyone to take out of context). And while also mentioning that many of Emily's critics have not held basic negotiative courtesy and have also been banned from Tumblr before only to come back, if Emily does something that breaks Tumblr rules, as is how rule enforcement on Tumblr works, that's for people to report Emily over. This is the whole of T's logic. Boundaries first. There is nothing wrong with directing people to help give a defense.

As for the claim some of those rants asked people to harass Lamby, show me. I take it this is an oversimplification as it's also claimed anyone said anything about any fan fiction in the way that's described. You know how to hold onto a settled issue (over a few exchanges that were not remotely like you describe) for a while and demonstrate the obsessive drive of the mob that anyone in the mob can see right through. I'm sure you and Evie would get along juuuuuuuuust fine.

Fourth, you don't have to ban evade to have full power to report people, you just need to know how to contact the admins and nothing else. Anyone who has been in the community knows this. Big exposing moment there. Again, complaining people got banned from a community? Stop whining.

Now I shall address T here, and not just because repetitive questions that have saved our butts from having a super long conversation in the KF community is a surefire way to get some peoples' panties in a twist. I thus have a question (for "T") that you ("T") are urged to answer in the same format as the question that was just responded to so as to not be roundabout like you ("T") often are. Is everything I said accurate?