NeoGAF & ResetERA - The Hilarious N̶e̶v̶e̶r̶e̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ Splintering "Gaming" Forum Circus

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
JKR said "trans women are men." In their mind that's equivalent to "trans people should be rounded up and gassed to death."
You guys shouldn't downplay the incident, it was a whole lot worse than someone saying trans people should be rounded up and gassed to death.

Actually what happened is that JKR said "I love you guys but I don't 100% agree with you" which was equivalent to a popular, successful, and attractive woman not giving them their way.

Hopefully now you grasp the critical severity of the situation.
I guess in case anyone honestly isn't familiar, she didn't even necessarily say trans women are men, she just said they aren't literally women.

First she supported a lady who got fired from her job for making "transphobic" comments, and then she tweeted this:
1673497745038.png
That was it, and why she has to be destroyed.
 
Actually what happened is that JKR said "I love you guys but I don't 100% agree with you" which was equivalent to a popular, successful, and attractive woman not giving them their way.

Hopefully now you grasp the critical severity of the situation.
What she said boils down to 'biological sex is real'. And that is treated by trannys and their handmaidens as if she started posting 41% memes while trying to poison all their troonshine.

It has become very obvious that very few people actually know what she said, though. Troons read what they wanted into it, screeched it for years, and the lie took root because it was repeated often enough. Everyone I've asked who believed she was transphobic if they actually read her statement immediately starts looking shifty, because they haven't - they've just 'heard' that she's bad, and believed it, no smoke without fire, surely all these people couldn't be lying - propaganda psychology 101.

Biological sex is real - and what a lot of normies don't realise is, a lot of troons don't believe that. Posting that on ResetEra would definitely get you banned for transphobia, even if it were any of the gay posters using it as an argument why gay rights are a thing, because if biological sex is mutable then gay people have no reason to exist. They're in an insane purity spiral and will never pull up from it, and one of the reasons I enjoy laughing at them so much is how they cannot stand a glimmer of rationality whenever it appears.

ResetEra is part of a death cult, with the added bonus of every participant having proved themselves repeatedly to be such terrible people that it's hilarious to watch their eternal misery and hatred they have destroy themselves and the others on the forum. They are a stereotypical group of angry, dumb teens, which is funny for a group that polls regularly show are, on average, pushing 40.

Tl;dr: Narcs and BPD cases can't handle criticism. 99% of ResetEra are narcs and BPD cases. The only concern anyone should have is if they take anything with them as they implode.
 
Biological sex is real - and what a lot of normies don't realise is, a lot of troons don't believe that.
I think it's important to note that it's not that troons don't believe that, because that implies that they are merely stupid. Instead, they are insidious.
No, they want YOU to not believe that, because that implies that you can be coerced/threatened to COMPLY with whatever they throw at you next time, letting their "trans" status dictate every conversation & everything that you do.

Do you think narcissist believe they are 100% honest all the time? No, they know they are lying, but they do not care as long as their lies can manipulate the situation for them.
 
You guys shouldn't downplay the incident, it was a whole lot worse than someone saying trans people should be rounded up and gassed to death.

Actually what happened is that JKR said "I love you guys but I don't 100% agree with you" which was equivalent to a popular, successful, and attractive woman not giving them their way.

Hopefully now you grasp the critical severity of the situation.
I guess in case anyone honestly isn't familiar, she didn't even necessarily say trans women are men, she just said they aren't literally women.

First she supported a lady who got fired from her job for making "transphobic" comments, and then she tweeted this:
View attachment 4245723
That was it, and why she has to be destroyed.
Yeah, it's great because anyone can just read what she wrote: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/...ns-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

You never, ever, hear them actually quoting any of the things said in it because on some level they know that it's so unobjectionable that anyone who reads it won't see it as this hateful screed:
1673503039666.png1673502999134.png1673502938466.png1673502954188.png

Especially not the parts where she says "I just want trans women to be safe" and "trans rights are human rights" because they'd have to twist these into making accusations that she's lying with her words to cover her secret thoughts she's never said that they're privy to which is exactly what she says they're going to do:
1673502887789.png1673502911479.png

I think that's actually one of the things they can't forgive, that she outsmarted them so easily despite being a stupid cishet woman.
 
I have a memory of a site that tracked Resetera bans, but cant find it using search engines. Does anyone know what Im talking about?
 
Yeah, it's great because anyone can just read what she wrote: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/...ns-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

You never, ever, hear them actually quoting any of the things said in it because on some level they know that it's so unobjectionable that anyone who reads it won't see it as this hateful screed:
View attachment 4246091View attachment 4246086View attachment 4246079View attachment 4246083

Especially not the parts where she says "I just want trans women to be safe" and "trans rights are human rights" because they'd have to twist these into making accusations that she's lying with her words to cover her secret thoughts she's never said that they're privy to which is exactly what she says they're going to do:
View attachment 4246075View attachment 4246076

I think that's actually one of the things they can't forgive, that she outsmarted them so easily despite being a stupid cishet woman.
It's actually not just these, being able to bring down or cancel JK Rowling will also mean that you are never too big to be cancelled, there is this underlying message.

Which is why they try these often with big celebrities like Chapelle etc. A lot of smaller figures can't afford this.

Unfortunately, reality still need to work on realistic economy, which means supply and demand. Harry Potter will bring in cash as the rational fans far outnumber troons, and Chapelle will also bring the cash and views, they aren't cancelled.
 
I have a memory of a site that tracked Resetera bans, but cant find it using search engines. Does anyone know what Im talking about?
It was here: https://resetera.kiwifarms.net/

But it got broken during all the Keffals shit and Null having to move domains and everything. @CrunkLord420 said it'd be fixed but I assume it just fell through the cracks. IIRC, the bot is still tracking even when the site is not up.
 
JKR said "trans women are men." In their mind that's equivalent to "trans people should be rounded up and gassed to death."
JKR didn't even go that far, mostly about how there should be women only spaces without trans women, such as domestic abuse shelters and prisons. But she got push back and rage for nothing, mean not hard to see that trans women are outright acting like violent men towards her and of couse that would push her further into begin "anti-trans" .
 
View attachment 4248227

I forgot that PlanetSmasher claims to have gone to "comedy school" he also claims that he used to run a successful video game news site that employed dozens of people
Why is it all their background story's sound like fake as fuck fan fiction.net set ups. Yea man i was totally in a band and had a line of successful clothing. When you know the realty that they are boring, unlikable people who smell like dead cat piss.
 
Because the government can't just deprive people of their citizenship? That entire thread went for pages with people thinking this is something the US can just do before a couple people pointed out that it can't and this woman wasn't really "stripped of her citizenship" by the government on a whim. Though most people ignored that and continued on until the jannies locked it.
You can be stripped of your citizenship if you do something that evinces an unambiguous desire to do so.

Renounce or Lose Your U.S. Citizenship​

You will no longer be an American citizen if you voluntarily give up (renounce) your U.S. citizenship.

You might lose your U.S. citizenship in specific cases, including if you:



I'll note that the first two generally require you to know that this is a potential consequence of doing so and to intend to do so. The constitutional limits of when citizenship can be renounced by implication is outlined by the Supreme Court case Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) and its progeny.

Generally, waging war against the United States constitutes an unambiguous renunciation of citizenship, in a way that running for office as a local dogcatcher in a foreign country doesn't.
I think that's actually one of the things they can't forgive, that she outsmarted them so easily despite being a stupid cishet woman.
Their sexually violent threats against her are the rage of incels who a woman said no to.
 
Probably one of those "Second City" scams
He gave enough details in another instance that it's pretty clear that's what this "comedy school" was. IIRC, he's out in LA and that shit is everywhere.

You can be stripped of your citizenship if you do something that evinces an unambiguous desire to do so.




I'll note that the first two generally require you to know that this is a potential consequence of doing so and to intend to do so. The constitutional limits of when citizenship can be renounced by implication is outlined by the Supreme Court case Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) and its progeny.

Generally, waging war against the United States constitutes an unambiguous renunciation of citizenship, in a way that running for office as a local dogcatcher in a foreign country doesn't.
In this case, the government barely alleged she did, their main argument was that she was never a citizen in the first place because she was born to a diplomat in the country for diplomatic service. The whole "ran off to join ISIS and married like three ISIS dudes" thing was their backup argument. (Also her sister and her sister's husband subsequently tried to join ISIS in 2021.)
 
In this case, the government barely alleged she did, their main argument was that she was never a citizen in the first place because she was born to a diplomat in the country for diplomatic service. The whole "ran off to join ISIS and married like three ISIS dudes" thing was their backup argument. (Also her sister and her sister's husband subsequently tried to join ISIS in 2021.)
That's actually not a baseless argument. The children born of diplomats in the United States actually are generally not citizens, because they are not covered under the birthright citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

They are among the very few people born in the U.S. who do not get citizenship at birth under the jus soli principle that generally applies (birthright citizenship by birth on the soil of the U.S.), as diplomats are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and are in fact actually essentially immune from U.S. law.

The other major exception is occupying soldiers of a foreign army, although this has so far as I know not applied to a single human being still alive, and possibly not one ever. While I believe the 14th Amendment merely codified what had already been common law, it is possible the general principle might have applied had any Canadian invader during the War of 1812 given birth on our soil.

That said, the backup argument is itself strong. There is no way of more clearly renouncing your citizenship than waging war against your own country.
 
Last edited:
Back