Enjoy.

[Zak S]

Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

You said "whether his crime  was..." ergo you claimed he committed a LITERAL Crime, and so you are now a proven liar. In exactly the same way that you claim he is a proven liar for saying that trans people are Narcissists. We learned from you that this can only possibly mean the literal technical definition and it is worth cancelling someone over.

So, are you going to apologize to Brandon Morse now for falsely accusing him of a crime?

Here you go:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/enjoy/msg1252267/#msg1252267

You apologized to us, not to Morse, who was the person you falsely claimed did a "crime". Do you want me to get in touch with Brandon and have arrange for where you can apologize to him for this terrible thing you did that by your own judgment is worthy of cancellation?

I didn't falsely claim he committed a crime. I used a figure of speech, like when:

Adolf Loos said "ornament is crime" .
"Small aim is a crime; have great aim." - A. P. J. Abdul Kalam
"Failure is not a crime. The crime is not trying." - Ron Dellums
"Popularity is a crime from the moment it is sought; it is only a virtue where men have it whether they will or no." -George Savile
"To restrict the artist is a crime. It is to murder germinating life." -Egon Schiele

etc

I was using definition 2 from Oxford Languages:

"an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong."

I was apologizing that I used a way of speaking that was over the person I was talking to's head and then clarified to a more literal statement.

If you would like to dispute that and argue that I actually meant a different thing than I claimed I meant then that's an accusation and so you'll have to offer proof.

Wow, that's really fascinating how the rules change just for you... because in your case you can say "Crime" without it literally meaning a criminal act, but if Brandon Morse says "narcissist" he MUST mean a literal psychological diagnosis of the mental condition of the same name, and not as a general sense of which it is used in common English of someone who is vain or extremely self-centered.

Funny that.

Not parallel at all.

If Brandon responded with a clarification (like I did) and that clarification itself were true (like mine) and included a definition of the relationship between trans activism and narcissism that was accurate then he'd be off the hook.

But he can't.

[RPGPundit]

The problem is you don't seem to get (is it Autism, or just Yale?) that YOU are not the one who will get to define what is truth or not, or what is harmful or not.

The one who can back up their argument gets to decide.

NO, Zak. No they don't. Again, I think you would have learned that about Real Life by now. It would be great if we could actually have debates and use evidence as a basis, but we KNOW that's not true. Look at Twitter pre-Elon, where people were posting things that were absolute unquestionable FACTS and being banned for it, because the people in power did not care about truth or facts or evidence to back up arguments.

THAT IS WHY FREE SPEECH, Zak. Because even if the idea of "punishing the people who are wrong" is something that turns you on, or even if you are altruistically motivated by thinking "we want to get rid of people who will harm others with their words", inevitably the people who end up with the POWER to decide will not decide the way you think they ought to, and when you complain, they'll just say YOU are the one who's words are harming others, and end you.

[Zak S]

The problem is you don't seem to get (is it Autism, or just Yale?) that YOU are not the one who will get to define what is truth or not, or what is harmful or not.

The one who can back up their argument gets to decide.

NO, Zak. No they don't. Again, I think you would have learned that about Real Life by now. It would be great if we could actually have debates and use evidence as a basis, but we KNOW that's not true. Look at Twitter pre-Elon, where people were posting things that were absolute unquestionable FACTS and being banned for it, because the people in power did not care about truth or facts or evidence to back up arguments.

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

[Brad]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

[RPGPundit]

The problem is you don't seem to get (is it Autism, or just Yale?) that YOU are not the one who will get to define what is truth or not, or what is harmful or not.

The one who can back up their argument gets to decide.

NO, Zak. No they don't. Again, I think you would have learned that about Real Life by now. It would be great if we could actually have debates and use evidence as a basis, but we KNOW that's not true. Look at Twitter pre-Elon, where people were posting things that were absolute unquestionable FACTS and being banned for it, because the people in power did not care about truth or facts or evidence to back up arguments.

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

Slander is a separate issue to Free Speech. But Brandon Morse or Alex Macris didn't slander you.  Hell, they didn't even insult you, as far as I know.

I let you post about it here first of all because I believe in Free Speech. Second, because I like that they got caught out as bad people, which they are, I mean absolute scum of the earth, to the point that you and I who agree on very little both recognize what scum they are.  But also, being forced to retract a slanderous statement doesn't mean they now lost their voice otherwise.

Anyways, if you want some fresh examples of people lying about you, here you go: https://twitter.com/The_Far_Horizon/status/1651645610066411520?s=20

[GeekyBugle]

Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

But you did you fucking lying POS.

so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.

Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

Ah, I see

Well then I apologize -- I meant that as a figure of speech not as a legal diagnosis.

Thank you for pointing out the miscommunication there! That was helpful!

What I meant was:

His reason for doing bad things was either stupidity or dishonesty.

Again: happy for the opportunity to clear that up for you.

Where "doing bad things" is him expresing his opinion that you (as the perfect godlike embodiment of morality and objectivity) have claimed is "misinformation" (whatever that means) and have claimed (since it's you making the claim it must be objectively true because we have established you think yourself perfect in all regards) it's causing "harm" (I figure this means hurt fee-fees but whatever) without providing a shred of evidence of this being true (but we must assume it is because it's you making the claim and we have established you think yourself perfect and the final arbiter of what's true and moral).

As Pundit has explained to you, one would think that you, having been or the receiving end of other cunts (you being one) efforts to cancel and destroy you would have learned your lesson.

But you're too smart for something so trivial as to learn from experience am I right you sanctimonious cunt?

Go crawl under a rock and fuck yourself.

[Zak S]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Free speech doesn't cover defamation. Glad we agree.

So, for example, you just now making a false medical diagnosis in public would be an example of something not covered by free speech.

The real problem is, you all want to type the phrase "Free speech" a lot AND at least some of you want to celebrate the fact that some people you don't like got nailed for breaking laws that demonstrate the limits of free speech...

but....

admitting that this defamation law you're celebrating is literally one of the boundaries on free speech would make it hard to yell "free speech" a lot.

So you keep having to argue a contradiction.

[Zak S]

Where "doing bad things" is him expresing his opinion that you

A claim is not an opinion.

He didn't say "I don't like cheeseburgers"

He didn't say "I am guessing that trans activists are narcissists"

He claimed a thing. He said "X is y". That's no mere opinion.

[RPGPundit]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

[GeekyBugle]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Nah, he's not autistic, he just has an extreme case of Dunning-Krueger combined with a god complex.

The cunt thinks himself too smart for the world, too perfect, the final arbiter of what's good and true. Like all his fellow leftard travelers.

[Zak S]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

I went to Yale at the same time the stupidest people I've ever met did, I have no illusions that you have to be smart to go there.

[Zak S]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Nah, he's not autistic, he just has an extreme case of Dunning-Krueger combined with a god complex.

The cunt thinks himself too smart for the world, too perfect, the final arbiter of what's good and true. Like all his fellow leftard travelers.

No I just think that in a dispute between someone who can back up their position and someone who can swear a lot, the backing-up person gets to be considered right until better evidence comes along.

[GeekyBugle]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

Right, he's not your garden variety Dunning-Krueger god complex cunt, he's an educated one too.

[RPGPundit]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Free speech doesn't cover defamation. Glad we agree.

So, for example, you just now making a false medical diagnosis in public would be an example of something not covered by free speech.

The real problem is, you all want to type the phrase "Free speech" a lot AND at least some of you want to celebrate the fact that some people you don't like got nailed for breaking laws that demonstrate the limits of free speech...

but....

admitting that this defamation law you're celebrating is literally one of the boundaries on free speech would make it hard to yell "free speech" a lot.

So you keep having to argue a contradiction.

Defamation doesn't just mean someone making fun of you, Zak. Also, you have to be careful about defamation, because you need to prove harm, and that your public reputation was made worse.

[GeekyBugle]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

I went to Yale at the same time the stupidest people I've ever met did, I have no illusions that you have to be smart to go there.

You would know, what with you being on par with flat-earthers and Young Earth Creationists or ACTUAL anti-vaxxers.