Jonathan Yaniv / Jessica Yaniv / @trustednerd / trustednerd.com / JY Knows It / JY British Columbia - Canada's Best Argument Against Transgender Self-Identification

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Might not have anything to do with the Yaniv post. My IP range is banned due to living in college housing and having a high density of edgelords and shitposters.

It's the kind of thing 4Chan does periodically after Moot went cuck and appointed cuck mods.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • TMI
Reactions: Gunslinger, BOLDYSPICY!, Gainas and 26 others
The fact that anyone in Silicon Valley is working to protect Jonathan Yaniv here is telling of several things:

1. Silicon Valley is filled with degenerate sick fucks who will defend actual pedophiles if it can allow them to virtue signal (such as if the pedophiles self-identify as transgender people).

2. Jonathan Yaniv clearly has a lot of friends in high places, and/or a lot of "ins" infiltrating the administrations of various popular websites.

3. This personal Defense Force of Jonathan Yaniv, for whatever reason, has a vested interest in sustaining a good reputation for him, so much so that they are willing to actively suppress all information coming out about Johnnyboy that even vaguely presents him in a negative light.

4. Johnny's personal Defense Force is evidence of a greater pattern in tech collusion, where otherwise nonentities, talentless hacks, or even outright unrepentant criminals can become disproportionately influential with the right networking. E.g. Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.

5. This isn't going to go well for Johnny or his band of buttbuddies in the end. The Streisand Effect exists for a reason, and people are going to get more than a bit curious about something about a pedophile ballwaxer being suddenly removed overnight.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Pips Star, Gunslinger, EXpress0 and 37 others
Ruin said:
Might not have anything to do with the Yaniv post. My IP range is banned due to living in college housing and having a high density of edgelords and shitposters.

It's the kind of thing 4Chan does periodically after Moot went cuck and appointed cuck mods.
Click to expand...

gookmoot also does it to block any locations that he can't get datamining information from to sell to criminals, like cell phone networks. Phoneposters are subhuman anyway, but I doubt he has a non-greed reason for it.
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: Gunslinger, Brain Problems, ConSluttant and 19 others
  • Informative
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Agree
Reactions: Brain Problems, ThePentiumWay, Executive Koala and 4 others
Iwasamwillbe said:
The fact that anyone in Silicon Valley is working to protect Jonathan Yaniv here is telling of several things:

...

2. Jonathan Yaniv clearly has a lot of friends in high places, and/or a lot of "ins" infiltrating the administrations of various popular websites.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if they include Oger and Kreut. Look what Kreut wrote in r/gendercynical today, describing "JY":

An individual who filed a human rights complaint in Canada for discrimination. Their name is protected by a Canadian court ordered publication ban. They dropped their charges when a right wing legal group got involved and petitioned the court to remove the publication ban. After the case was dropped, GenderCritical published the person's name in violation of the publication ban.

When presented that way, many liberals will just hear, "ah, discrimination...protected by a court...vigilantism" and slam down. Especially if that argument is made by a provincial official of a major Canadian political party, which Oger is.

Even though the Economist (10/25) first noted the screenshots. Plus the fact that there are over a dozen complaints, not one. And the fact that Yaniv dropped that complaint to keep the screenshots from being introduced. The Economist said that, not r/gc. And the publications who have named him since are not controlled by r/gc either.

5. This isn't going to go well for Johnny or his band of buttbuddies in the end. The Streisand Effect exists for a reason, and people are going to get more than a bit curious about something about a pedophile ballwaxer being suddenly removed overnight.
Click to expand...

Hopefully. Put aside the trans thing for one moment: This is about someone who appears to have engaged in highly alarming conversations around children since 2012 until this year on multiple SM platforms. Someone who has a fixation with 10-12 year olds.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Pips Star, Gunslinger, EXpress0 and 22 others
2nd_time_user said:
An individual who filed a human rights complaint in Canada for discrimination. Their name is protected by a Canadian court ordered publication ban. They dropped their charges when a right wing legal group got involved and petitioned the court to remove the publication ban. After the case was dropped, GenderCritical published the person's name in violation of the publication ban.
Click to expand...

Fuck Canada and fuck its publication bans. That shit didn't work for Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka and it won't work for this pedophile either.
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Pips Star, Gunslinger, Brain Problems and 26 others
AnOminous said:
Fuck Canada and fuck its publication bans. That shit didn't work for Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka and it won't work for this pedophile either.
Click to expand...

The only time placing a ban on publishing names of people in legal disputes that makes sense is protecting juvenile offenders privacy.

Jon Yaniv is a grown ass man and he should face the consequences of what his frivolous litigation and pedophilic rapey disposition have brought to him.
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
  • Winner
Reactions: Pips Star, Gunslinger, Brain Problems and 30 others
toocoolfool said:
I feel bad for Canada. This is why I was wondering if you could go around their fucked up laws by not mentioning the lawsuits, just focus on what is objectively true - you're letting a business know to be on the look out for a creepy pervert that has thing for women's restrooms. Those businesses could draw their own conclusions, you're just telling them the facts.
Click to expand...

AnOminous said:
Well, as he pointed out, Canada's libel laws are fucked. You don't even have to prove that the statements were false. They can be completely true and you can still lose. Especially if they actually know who you are.
Click to expand...

Cato said:
In addition to what @AnOminous says, innuendo can be defamatory even if only true facts are stated. One really needs to walk on eggshells in Canada. As obvious as it is to everyone here what Yaniv is, a Canadian court might not see it that way.

Like I said, in the hypothetical with the phone calls they aren't going to be traced to discover the identity of the caller or anything, but I do think this is stuff any Canadian who might want to speak out should be aware of so they can appropriately protect themselves from this lunatic.
Click to expand...

Cato said:
The elements of defamation are:

-The statements were defamatory (they would lower the plaintiff in the estimation of a right-thinking member of society).
-The statements were made in reference to the plaintiff.
-There was publication (communication of the statements to at least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant's spouse).

In the scenario you bring up, all of the elements of defamation would be met even though the statements were completely true. The onus would then be on the defendant to actually prove (on a balance of probability) the defence that the statements were true. In the example you provide, this should be quite easy, but nonetheless, if the defendant failed to respond they could be found liable.

The further complication I was mentioning is that any kind of implications or commentary about how businesses should ban the guy because he poses a risk of sexually harassing/assaulting people might not be covered by a justification/truth defence even if they are an inference supported by chatlogs, etc.
Click to expand...
Rate me really optimistic but i can't wait for the pendulum to swing back and for a while for sanity to rule again, it started to happen in oter country so hopefully Canada will follow that trend too
 
  • Optimistic
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Brain Problems, uncleShitHeel, xX_rAcE_wAr_420_Xx and 17 others
Feline Darkmage said:
The only time placing a ban on publishing names of people in legal disputes that makes sense is protecting juvenile offenders privacy.

Jon Yaniv is a grown ass man and he should face the consequences of what his frivolous litigation and pedophilic rapey disposition have brought to him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was curious about this so I looked up the policy:

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/policies/public_access_and_media.pdf
https://archive.is/d9o98

Relevant sections:

4.2 Bans on Publication While the media is, in general terms, constitutionally entitled to publish information about hearings, there are exceptions to this right. The Tribunal may (and sometimes, must) impose publication bans to protect the fairness and integrity of the hearing, or the privacy or safety of a participant
Click to expand...

Limiting publication of personal information (6) An application for an order limiting public disclosure of personal information must state why privacy interests outweigh the public interest in access to the tribunal’s proceedings.
Click to expand...

This is horseshit. Not only is the complainant in a Human Rights Tribunal complaint already able to sic bureaucrats on the subject of complaint at no cost and with no obligations beyond submitting the complaint, while the onus is completely on the subject of complaint to defend themselves, but apparently they can request their personal information be protected because their privacy interests supposedly outweigh public interest in the cases they themselves are choosing to initiate in what are supposed to generally be public hearings.

This just further reinforces that there is no risk, obligation, cost, effort, etc required of the complaint whatsoever while the subject of complaint is put in a world of stress and hurt even if they are cleared in the end.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Pips Star, Gunslinger, EXpress0 and 22 others
Zaryiu said:
Rate me really optimistic but i can't wait for the pendulum to swing back and for a while for sanity to rule again, it started to happen in oter country so hopefully Canada will follow that trend too
Click to expand...

Even if it swings to the right, the insane parts of the right will want to keep the terrible defamation laws in use here. They don't like criticism and will use it to protect their own power just like SJW do.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: hamburgerlardraid, MADHOE, EXpress0 and 31 others
illhavetwo said:
What is it about these troons that keeps them for understanding basic legal concepts, like the fact a Canadian pretend court doesn't actually have jurisdiction outside Canada and no one gives a shit about their publication bans? I can practically hear his stumpy sausage fingers tapping the keyboard and writing yet another report to reddit admins. Good luck, Binbag.
Click to expand...
It's the same thing with cows from the UK on Twitter @ing their local police departments when something offends them. They live in a hugbox country and feel that their laws can apply worldwide while forgetting that on the Internet you're living by the rules based on where the site is located.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gunslinger, Brain Problems, ConSluttant and 9 others
Feline Darkmage said:
Even if it swings to the right, the insane parts of the right will want to keep the terrible defamation laws in use here. They don't like criticism and will use it to protect their own power just like SJW do.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about that in a political meaning, more in a sanity or morality (in both case unattached to political or smilar things)
 
  • Feels
  • Dumb
Reactions: QWXXP Surprise!, FrickleMyPickle, Ms. Cegination and 2 others
Zaryiu said:
I wasn't talking about that in a political meaning, more in a sanity or morality (in both case unattached to political or smilar things)
Click to expand...

Well hopefully you're correct and we can have everyone chill out and every person who understands why that law is bad will band together in order to repeal it through the democratic process.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Brain Problems, uncleShitHeel, Antique Rice and 8 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back