Liz Fong-Jones / Elliot William Fong / @lizthegrey - 'Consent accident' enjoyer, ex-Google employee, nepotistic sex pest, Robert Z'Dar look-alike who wants authority over the Internet

[ScooterL]

No, what we have are the tweets below. Now, he certainly could be lying about the details, but it's not an admission of sexual activity against the will of the victim.

View attachment 5128727
View attachment 5128726
a

To be clear, I think Fong-Jones is a despicable person, and I will make fun of his ridiculous consent accidents all day, but I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to say he is definitely a rapist.

One of the strengths of the Kiwi Farms is in being able to back up claims with archived evidence. In contrast to what our opponents say, we don't just make shit up to attack people. Is Fong-Jones a brick-faced freak who's trying to ruin the Internet to take down a site he doesn't like? Clearly yes. Is he a rapist? Impossible to say for sure at this point, maybe that could change in the future if the accuser or other possible victims come forward and talk about their side of the story.

Yes, it is just such an admission. Did you not notice repeated use of the term "sexual assault"? If you go with the evidence, he's saying sex occurred and the victim says there was no consent. That's sexual activity against the will of the victim.

I know he's saying he thought he had consent and the bitch is lying. Rapists always say that.

If he had simply said nothing, no one ever would have known.

It's entirely possible he made the whole thing up. Like every other tranny, he's a liar and loves attention.

 

[Fëanor Curufinwë]

Isn't he into risk aware consensual kink? I think he likes violent sex where boundaries are ignored with agreement from both parties. You can easily imagine that sort of thing going wrong when someone withdraws consent. I fully believe the incident was worse than he described it

 

[1962s Godzilla]

If I had somebody accusing me of rape because I had dog hair on my clothes I would want to give them the biggest, loudest platform imaginable, because the best possible way to clear myself of the accusation is to just let them tell the story.

Yes that's a viable option, but wouldn't that have the con of creating a following of degenerates that believe and support their claims?

 

[Eden Seeker]

Isn't he into risk aware consensual kink?

Looks like it from the thread, yeah. Rape play gone wrong? Maybe. Weird if it's after 8 years of relationship, though - guess dude decided to push some new and exciting boundaries. From the context of the tweets and the downplaying that's going on, I wouldn't be surprised if he deliberately shoved someone face-first into dog hair during play.
"B-b-but I thought you'd get only a little triggered! It's just hair!"

 

[Dyn]

I don't know what exasperates me most, the crime or the stupidity of the alibi. Because either way, he just confessed to rape.

No, if he's telling the truth then he had sex with an insane person who is accusing him of rape for ridiculously stupid non-rape reasons, and he's just trying to show a token amount of sensitivity and understanding to their delusions and perceived trauma. If he's telling the truth he quite literally did nothing wrong.

But if he's telling the truth why the fuck was the accusation so thoroughly deplatformed off the internet?

 

[Eden Seeker]

But if he's telling the truth why the fuck was the accusation so thoroughly deplatformed off the internet?

To be fair, it's not like it matters to Twitter mob that accusations are insane. They'll make them more insane by hearsay, usually. Like, if this dog hair stuff was a true story, and I was still on Twitter, I guarantee you I'd be seeing people on my dash claiming he made three dogs rape a disabled woman or something. Maybe he's being very real about that. But I doubt it, because once you realize this, why would you not log off Twitter forever?

 

[AnOminous]

If I had somebody accusing me of rape because I had dog hair on my clothes I would want to give them the biggest, loudest platform imaginable, because the best possible way to clear myself of the accusation is to just let them tell the story.

I'd give them a literal platform and a giant megaphone. And sell tickets.

 

[Dyn]

To be fair, it's not like it matters to Twitter mob that accusations are insane. They'll make them more insane by hearsay, usually. Like, if this dog hair stuff was a true story, and I was still on Twitter, I guarantee you I'd be seeing people on my dash claiming he made three dogs rape a disabled woman or something.

Which is why it would be great for him if he could post a screenshot of some insane tranny crying about dog hair rape instead of memoryholing the entire thing and letting people speculate.

 

[Blue Miaplacidus]

No, if he's telling the truth then he had sex with an insane person who is accusing him of rape for ridiculously stupid non-rape reasons, and he's just trying to show a token amount of sensitivity and understanding to their delusions and perceived trauma. If he's telling the truth he quite literally did nothing wrong.

But if he's telling the truth why the fuck was the accusation so thoroughly deplatformed off the internet?

Why I don't believe it to be truth is because he's supposedly known this person for years. Having such an insane fear of dogs is not something that would go unnoticed. We're talking about dog hair on clothing being rape type fear. It'd be like trying to fuck some psycho woman you've known for years who has PTSD from being raped by niggers and you show up in blackface. The way they pass around mental illnesses like trading cards and broadcast every personal and private detail of their life, I just see no way that Elliot would not have known about the dog fear. This person would also know that Elliot is literally a furry and also has several dogs. Elliot is also a massive degenerate who is into extremely weird and dangerous sexual kinks. So I could easily see it being one of his choke me with a plastic bag while you cut me with razors and piss on me encounters getting out of control.

 

[Thorgrim Grudgebearer]

That's a bit of a begging the question though, isn't it. What I'm asking is did anyone save the accusations from the other party. Story as it is could totally be explained by "hysterical person starts drama about dog hair" and it seems the simplest explanation to me.
Obv I'm biased, yadda yadda.

The fact that Dong Gone went through lengths to prevent people from contacting his victim, prevent people from even identifying his victim and most likely got the victim's original accusations wiped from the internet is clue enough that his dog hair is nothing short of complete bullshit.

 

[Betonhaus]

yeah there really is little hard evidence, but putting so much effort to wiping the incident off the internet instead of debunking it and ignoring this site until the event was forgotten is telling. There's something seriously wrong going on that we don't know about yet. I'm still holding the opinion that there is likely things much worse that has gone on. For all we know Liz may currently be a serial rapist to this day, just she learned to be more proactive in choosing her victims and intimidating them into silence. Silence that wouldn't last if accusations against her became public.

I concede that unless someone who's keeping a closer eye on Liz finds those suspicions hold merit, there's no real point into treating them as fact however.

 

[Lone Outsider]

Which is why it would be great for him if he could post a screenshot of some insane tranny crying about dog hair rape instead of memoryholing the entire thing and letting people speculate.

True, having receipt would prove Dong-Gone's innocence but this panicked failing doesn't do him any favors.

Assuming he is innocent.

 

[Next Task]

One of the strengths of the Kiwi Farms is in being able to back up claims with archived evidence. In contrast to what our opponents say, we don't just make shit up to attack people. Is Fong-Jones a brick-faced freak who's trying to ruin the Internet to take down a site he doesn't like? Clearly yes. Is he a rapist? Impossible to say for sure at this point, maybe that could change in the future if the accuser or other possible victims come forward and talk about their side of the story.

My stance, very much in support of backed-up claims with archived evidence, is that Liz Fong-Jones admitted to a consent accident. As has been pointed out, he didn't coin the phrase - some other BDSM guy did. I seem to remember there even being a proven connection in those kink circles between that man and Liz, shown in the thread, but I could be misremembering there.

In Liz's own account, sexual contact happened and then consent was withdrawn, after the fact, due to dog hair (and not just from a pet, because Liz doesn't just have pets, it had to be a service dog because always remember he is a victim). He equated it with what he calls a consent accident, but to hold him to the standards of the culture he marinates in, that is equivalent to sexual assault - rape. Whether it's because you believe Liz is bullshitting around with the the reality of the dog hair situation, or merely holding him to the standards he and his ilk hold others to, what he has admitted to is committing what he euphemistically refers to a 'consent accident'.

Now, the person he's being accused of consent accidenting is likely a bugfuck insane troon - they had been Liz Fong-Jones's friend for 8 years, and no one who willingly not only associates with Liz Fong-Jones but is willing to 'play' with him can be considered particularly compos mentis. The potential for it to not be true is possible - troons love accusing each other of rape after all. But, even if we are to make the mistake in believing his version of events word for word, in a very Liz Fong-Jones style the entire 'explanation' is full of weasel words and phrasing. So whether you #believeallwomen or are just holding Liz to his own standards, he is an admitted rapist, in that even in his retelling, his partner did not consent to sexual contact. Withdrawn after the fact, and probably not in any country where a penis is legally required to meet the definition of the word 'rape', but it counts. And I don't think that rule applies to Australia or North America, his main two locations.

 

[Kees H]

I just go into this with the same kind of thinking trannies and other deranged SJW's have: believe all victims. If the faggot who was in bed with Elliot thinks he/she/it was raped, I believe them, just like the trannies want me to do.

It's the only advice of them I follow, and only when it applies to them.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

No, if he's telling the truth then he had sex with an insane person who is accusing him of rape for ridiculously stupid non-rape reasons, and he's just trying to show a token amount of sensitivity and understanding to their delusions and perceived trauma. If he's telling the truth he quite literally did nothing wrong.

But if he's telling the truth why the fuck was the accusation so thoroughly deplatformed off the internet?

Your hypothetical conclusion that having supposedly negotiated* sex with an "insane" person who is so utterly mentally fragile that a dog hair would trigger a desperate mental situation is "doing nothing wrong" " is curious**.

*it's not a valid negotiation if one person is so bad off they really can't consent to anything. Moreover, this person was not a stranger to LFJ.

**(I get that your ultimate point is that LFJ's version is not likely precisely true and honest.)

to hold him to the standards of the culture he marinates in, that is equivalent to sexual assault - rape

Precisely. If you want to elevate hypersensitivity to an overriding trump card, then, well - live by the sword, die by the sword.

Further, if LFJ had ever disclosed a phobia to a "playmate" and that playmate disregarded said phobia (to say nothing of then going public with dismissal of that violation and the person who felt it, you can bet that LFJ would never let that go). Now, I suspect LFJ has a very strong control need, so that reversed situation would not likely ever happen, but that just further highlights that LFJ is completely comfortable applying different standards to others vs to self.

The phrase "hoist with one's own petard" cones to mind. As ever, Shakespeare speaks in universal truths.

 

[S.C.U.D.]

If you Truly and Honestly didn't rape anyone, you wouldn't use euphemisms like "consent accident."

 

[Dyn]

Your hypothetical conclusion that having supposedly negotiated* sex with an "insane" person who is so utterly mentally fragile that a dog hair would trigger a desperate mental situation is "doing nothing wrong" " is curious**.

Crazy hoes need love too.

 

[AnOminous]

If you Truly and Honestly didn't rape anyone, you wouldn't use euphemisms like "consent accident."

If I were falsely accused of rape I would be vehemently denying I committed rape and threatening or bringing a libel suit (depending on who was the liar). I wouldn't be ADMITTING to a "consent accident."

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Crazy hoes need love too.

Well, if you stick your dick in scissor with tie up and play power games with crazy, don't be surprised when they're still crazy when you're done.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

For anyone that's doubting the rape claim, LFJ has everything necessary to sue Josh for defamation

Except damages. (As much as I'd like him to submit to a court and Null's attorneys exactly all he's done to try and destroy the internet.)

Remember his original claim of "defamation" was that the Kiwi Farms allowed a poster to say he donated to Trans Life Line. Which he did and publicly touted it. Which was the source of the claim on the Kiwi Farms. Just like all the others except Null's very carefully crafted statements he's gotten "off the record" and I personally wouldn't consider actionable defamation since Elliot has all but said he's doing these things himself including on video.

Elliot's lamented the cost of suing Null even though he wouldn't have to do so across STATE LINES like Keffals, etc. I guarantee he never told any of those attorneys he consulted that all the defamation is stuff he's publicly posted on accounts tied to his industry positions. (Many of which are still publicly viewable or close to.)

While Null's being smart in couching his language as the last few pages show every single use of "rapist" here, even if Null joined in, is due to speculation based on Elliot's own statements and own behavior. He'd need to weed out the "I just hate this guy, let's accuse him of rape" posters because there's an endless amount of other content that just hates him, we could point to every single post about his Thwomp-like skull or the shame he's brought to the Chinese people. The fact that this thread is even having the debate about just the extent to whether or not we should call him a rapist makes things uphill for him. Speculation about people's unclear statements simply isn't defamation you're going to get anywhere on.

Elliot's challenge in the rape thing specifically is that if he wants to sue someone, he needs to sue himself. And that's infinitely expensive. Plus we already know he doesn't hold himself responsible for anything he does.