rpanons | Preserve your precious virginity

Rundown:

rpanons is an anonymous community for role-play related topics. This place serves as a forum for game discussions, canon discussions, RP solicitations (ATP, game ads, open memes), and advice. The occasional off topic comment is inevitable, but please keep heated social and political topics to their respective communities. Posting them here will only get them frozen. Subsequent threads made to bypass a freeze will then be deleted.

Rules:

Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.

CONCERNS | RESOURCES

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Nice misuse of the concept of gaslighting.

What I'm asserting is that words =/= actions, and that goes for Ken as well as for anyone. What we have are Ken's words narrating past events. Go read that screencap of his confession again and notice how many times he says things like "I can't be sure" or "I think/I don't know." It is a narrative full of doubt.

In order to get to the simplified version of events that says "Ken is a child rapist" you have to actively erase all of the doubt from the story he tells in that confession and take only the words you choose to extract as equal to past actions.

From a rational perspective that isn't caught up in this mass panic, it's just plain not defensible to claim that you can extract the truth of past events from that post. You have a story told by someone who doubts the events in their own memory and doubts their own perspective on them, and yet you are treating this as a factual account where absolutely nothing is uncertain. And that is just very plainly not the case.

No matter how hard you try to avoid it, the foundation of all of this is the very uncertain story as Ken himself is telling it years later. You're filling in "certainty" from your suppositions and your expectations of what the story "must be." Sorry to have to tell you that not every event is the one that you expect it to be.

Sorry anon, but if I come onto my journal and publicly say 'I'm a child rapist' I should damn well expect whatever's coming to me, whether it's the truth or only has elements of it. Hell, if I want to lie about that, or decorate my memory with more abuse to make it a better story, it doesn't make me a better person that it might not be true, it makes me a douchebag for using fake rape to sjw. Either way you look at it, playing with someone like that would make most people uncomfortable, and it's indefensible.

Show me somewhere in that LJ post where Ken says "I'm a child rapist," anon. I mean where he says those words.

He says a lot of things, but "I'm a child rapist" is the popular DWRP gloss, not a direct quote. I'm saying that it's a bad, oversimplified gloss, and that people are hanging a fuck of a lot on that shoddy oversimplification.

... He describes raping a child AS a child. Well beyond the age of knowing better.. Multiple times. It's not a shoddy oversimplification to say any of that. Did you not actually read the post?

The point is not whether or not he did or did not actually molest someone. Yes, his story is littered with doubt, and we have no idea if it was just him dramatizing typical experimentation between kids or not to manipulate and purposefully freak people out.

The point is he identifies as a child rapist and that is all that matters. He believes he molested his siblings and forced them into engaging in intercourse against their will. He believed he caused them harm. And because of that he should not be RPing rape out with people without letting them know that when he came out publicly on his own accord in order to garner sympathy to his triggers.

It's not about certainty on our side, it's about his own decision to come forward, his own decision to personally identify as a rapist, and because of that, he loses all rights to complain about being treated unfairly.

That's that.

Saying things like "I can't be sure" is just a glib narrative device to manipulate nitwits like you. It's an attempt at damage control and playing it off like he's the one who was harmed when he was the one perpetrating it. How many times in court do people who have brutally beaten someone to death say they "don't recall" or "just blacked out" or something to that effect, and still get convicted? It's an incredibly flimsy excuse, and one that no one who wasn't gullible beyond belief would ever buy.

Preserve your precious virginity

Re: THE LOVE HOTEL

da

Re: da

dda

Re: THE LOVE HOTEL

Re: THE LOVE HOTEL