Here we spot wild Bardfinn Bluesky activities.

Be valid and ping ! bardfinn for something worthwhile or create a new thread.

Live feed of the best moderator on the internet, straight into your veins.

Here's todays official post from the BARDCHIVE:

08/25/18 10:45:36 with a score of -4: https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9a6x2w/rapidonset_gender_dysphoria_in_adolescents_and/e4tbggp/?context=8

not a social construct. Gender roles may be socially constructed but not gender itself.

That is the part that is scientifically unevidenced. Anthropologists are scientists and will readily support that gender is a social construct.

The assertion that it isn't, /u/ashok36, whose credentials in this subject are frequent posts in /r/JordanPeterson and /r/KotakuInAction -- is due to non-scientific transphobic propaganda.

Live feed of the best moderator on the internet, straight into your veins.

Here's todays official post from the BARDCHIVE:

11/03/23 08:05:08 with a score of -20: https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/17mtjsf/x_runs_timeline_takeover_ad_promoting_antitrans/k7n8o3p/?context=8

It's hate speech harnessed to the stories of a few people.

Transition has an incredibly small regret rate - lower than the regret rate for appendectomy, knee replacement, hip replacement, breast augmentation for cisgender women, penile augmentation for cisgender men, liposuction -

But only transition medical care is attacked this way, because their target is to demonise and scapegoat transgender people.

It's not about science or evidence or the truth. It is simply about hatred.

Here we spot wild Bardfinn Bluesky activities.

Be valid and ping ! bardfinn for something worthwhile or create a new thread.

Here we spot wild Bardfinn Bluesky activities.

Be valid and ping ! bardfinn for something worthwhile or create a new thread.

Live feed of the best moderator on the internet, straight into your veins.

Here's todays official post from the BARDCHIVE:

02/11/17 17:53:24 with a score of -7: https://old.reddit.com/r/interestingasfrick/comments/5thot0/the_progression_of_a_gender_change/ddmpdp9/?context=8

I've discovered, over decades of "debate", that people often place their thesis into the first few words of their communication in written forums.

Your first few words:

"Stop being so triggered…"

— from which I can infer that you make the demand that I stop — not going to happen — that I stop being — also not happening — that I stop being in a particular attitude — again: answer is "No" — and an assertion that I am "Triggered".

It is the last assertion that I want to take you to task over.

Do I seem emotional to you? Am I writing in such a way that I am asserting my own emotions, and asserting that my emotions are of the utmost import in this conversation?

Don't answer that; it's a rhetorical question, and the answer of rhetorical questions is almost always meant to be "No".

Am I writing that I find the word offensive? Is this about my feelings?

Or am I actually appealing to science?

See, that one you also shouldn't answer. It, too, is a rhetorical trick — I already know what the audience's answer is, and I already know what your answer is.

That's a rhetorical trick — a trick to get you to respond in a particular manner, to expose your own attitudes and biases and preconceptions.

To the audience.

Maybe to you, too. But typically, that part I'm never around for.

It normally happens in dreams, or in conversations with friends or lovers, or experiencing the situation thrust upon you by necessity, from your own realisations, or those of your children.

So perhaps you may sense here that I feel that my part of this "exchange" is over, that I can produce little or no more communication.

So perhaps I shall — rather than "Stop" — simply … move on.

Here we spot wild Bardfinn Bluesky activities.

Be valid and ping ! bardfinn for something worthwhile or create a new thread.

Live feed of the best moderator on the internet, straight into your veins.

Here's todays official post from the BARDCHIVE:

06/13/19 12:17:16 with a score of -5: https://old.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/c07wd6/weve_still_got_your_back/er2mppq/?context=8

There are 8.3582221e+48 (83,582,221,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) (83 million billion billion billion billion) possible subreddit names; roughly 1.2 million of those have been claimed. That's 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all the possible subreddits that could exist. There's nothing stopping you from making a new subreddit and running it any way you like, with whatever rules you like (inside of the limits established by the Reddit User Agreement, Content Policy, and US & California laws) -- and attracting & retaining an audience in any way you can think up.

The only limiting factor on your part here is Freedom of Association, and the fact that you clearly, repeatedly, often have conflated (and lamented) the fact that you aren't allowed to force other people to associate with you, give you access to a platform, and hijack their speech and spaces.

When you complain about "Power Mods", you're not expressing a passion for free speech - you're declaring your hatred of other people's free speech.

"I WANT THE LOLLIPOP! MOMMY MAKE HIM GIVE ME THE LOLLIPOP!"

Here we spot wild Bardfinn Bluesky activities.

Be valid and ping ! bardfinn for something worthwhile or create a new thread.

Live feed of the best moderator on the internet, straight into your veins.

Here's todays official post from the BARDCHIVE:

06/06/24 21:09:52 with a score of -1: https://old.reddit.com/r/AntiTrumpAlliance/comments/1d9sz38/former_federal_prosecutor_appreciable_chance/l7gvxre/?context=8

Do not threaten, advocate for, wish, hope, celebrate, express extreme indifference towards, or otherwise encourage or suggest harm of any kind, violence, or death.

Neither aid, nor abet, command, counsel, induce, nor procure violence.

This rule applies to everyone.

Users who engage in this behavior may be subject to a permanent subreddit ban.

Bardfinn stole his look from Trey Parkers historical character, Alfred The Colorado Cannibal Packer from his documentary Cannibal!!! The Musical.

literally, You know this tune from the ending diddy after literally every South Park episode ever

!bardfinn !bardistry !nooticers !familyman

I am certain you do not wish to argue that several years ago you assaulted me at Tanglewood Forest. Several of your fellow company members have chased me and thwapped me with Amtgard -legal boffer weapons on Company Road while I was making announcements on behalf of Kingdom Officers.

https://wiki.amtgard.com/index.php/Finn_McGill

Live feed of the best moderator on the internet, straight into your veins.

Here's todays official post from the BARDCHIVE:

09/04/19 18:09:07 with a score of -4: https://old.reddit.com/r/ContraPoints/comments/czp41z/her_twitter_is_gone/ez0ln0x/?context=8

The problem seems to be Twitter.

Nah. The problem is that she needs to listen and acknowledge that things she said accumulated into misrepresentations of swathes of the transgender community, and apologise for the harm.

Here we spot wild Bardfinn Bluesky activities.

Be valid and ping ! bardfinn for something worthwhile or create a new thread.

Notice how there are precious few photos of Bardfinn post alleged transition. There's a few selfies taken at his g*mer den where he's "girl mode", but all this is is him with long hair and wearing what is obviously a mismatched dress combo that was slapped on for the photo. For someone so thoroughly doxxed, we have little to no information which provides any idea of Bardfinn as someone who is actively presenting as a woman.

My theory is that the trans thing is just another of Bardfinn's stories like how he's apparently a high level government operative, and he's committed to the bit too far now and it offers too much online credibility in the antifa space.

BF is at best a middle aged gross guy with AGP who jerks off wearing family member's clothing. He is not living his life as a train

Here is Steve aka a bard named Finn writing longposts about how one dude he was LARPing with allegedly said he would break steve's arm, resulting in Steve fearing for his safety and then threatening legal action against the LARP group, so the LARP group had to send him a registered letter that he was being ridiculous and to stop crying wolf. Steve continues to essaypost in his signature legalistic style of writing to try to make his case but no one in the group is falling for it. The whole thread is hilarious, and full of smug bardfinn clapbacks:

Thread Part 1

I will thank you to not hold nor espouse strong opinions about things you do not understand. Also, this is not the Smack Talk forum. Would an administrator please take note of Forest's behaviour, and take due action? Thank You.

Thread Part 2

Actually, ignore that. I should have stopped talking to you a while back. I am not going to go into a battle of classical wit with an obviously unarmed opponent.

Thread Part 3

Thanks for admitting that you haven't read what I've written. I have quoted the corpora, just not in that last post. I have no need to quote material that is easily locatable, that I have previously quoted. I am not a mere parrot, and I do not talk to nor with mere parrots. I use my brain and expect you to use yours in the discourse.

I described in plain English why our traditional practice, our Corpora, and a reasonable expectation of the duties of a Reeve prohibits restricting those duties to a mere Battlegame. You patently did not read it or you patently do not understand it or are patently using Socratic ignorance maleficly to pointedly harass me.

If you cannot keep up with the argument, but feel the need to engage in it, ask someone to explain it to you - do not join for the mere purpose of saying "I don't understand it and am too lazy to read it - shut up." If you're feigning ignorance to harass me, please accept my invitation to go outside and climb a tall tree.

Thread Part 4

Again - it is not my responsibility that you are unable to distinguish between a hypothetical situation based on the logical consequences of your hypothesis, and an actual reality. I never said you assaulted me. Never. Ever. You misread it. I never insulted your character. You misread it. I have explained and clarified at length. You continue to ignore what I wrote. I would prefer that you be able to comprehend plain Written English, but I am continually disappointed every time you reply.

You continue to refuse to even consider that you are the one with the reading problem. If you /ever/ respected me, you would not have jumped to your preferred conclusion(s) and twisted the facts to justify it; You would instead have asked for clarification, would have realised when clarification was offered that the mistake is on your part.

I offended you, for whatever reason, while I was advocating my conscience and my informed opinion regarding my legal rights. You chose to bully me about it. I will not concede to your bullying.

That's it.

End of discussion. Ignomine elenchio non excusat.

BONUS: Steve's old profile page - I'm a 32 year old atheist. I was diagnosed in 2002 with Asperger's Syndrome, and have grown up adjusted to it. I spend a lot of time listening to music on an mp3 player, or making music with my drum, or playing Guitar Hero in order to improve my left hand co-ordination, speed, and strength in preparation for trying to learn to fiddle. I haven't actively practiced Irish Trad music for over a year because of the circumstances of my life - I have found a wonderful snuggly woman who has me all to herself. She has a three-year-old son.

https://www.rawstory.com/news/trump-assassination-attempt-2668902622/

Here we spot wild Bardfinn Bluesky activities.

Be valid and ping ! bardfinn for something worthwhile or create a new thread.

Live feed of the best moderator on the internet, straight into your veins.

Here's todays official post from the BARDCHIVE:

09/09/15 20:44:20 with a score of -7: https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3kayy8/til_men_and_women_experience_near_equal_levels_of/cuwb0dw/?context=8

It may help to define the types of adversarial discourse that people engage in. You get :

DH0, "Name Calling";

DH1, "ad hominem";

DH2, "criticising the tone";

DH3, "Flat contradiction";

DH4, "Counterargument";

DH5, "refutation"; and

DH6, "refuting the central point".

Men can all agree that DH0 has no value in settling an argument; they are just signifiers of emotional state.

DH1 is simply a (faulty) appeal to decide the argument through establishing social rank.

DH2, Criticising the Tone of the argument, is simply a signifier that the respondent has taken offense — or is trying to derail an argument. It includes Gaslamping and is a form of Changing the Subject.

DH3 is simply a challenge — it is a declaration of position. It isn't a settlement of an argument; it is the beginning of one.

DH4 is playing out the "hand" — setting out cards, and elaborating on one's position. It demonstrates confidence in the position — or a lack of confidence.

DH5 and DH6 are, respectively, persuading an audience and making a locked-air-tight justification that the other person's position is not tenable.

Men use this model in social challenges in order to establish social dominance. Most men recognise DH0-DH2 as simply trolling — a bunch of noise, or, at best, a Wikipedia entry.

DH3 and DH4 are seen by men as social, and make up the vast majority of "debate" in forums.

DH5 and DH6 are the things that get gilded — because someone demonstrated dominance of a subject by putting it forth persuasively and convincingly.

For women, and sometimes for men, DH5 and DH6 are the stages where stalking steps in. Someone — usually male, sometimes female — is invested in the social adversarial game being played out, to the point of needing to demonstrate dominance, that they begin trying to push the other person into submission.

This is the possible end-point of adversarial social-pecking-order-determining discourse on the Internet, for women: that it escalates to the point of someone transgressing social standards to show up on their doorstep to "win an argument".

Moreover, while men feel comfortable in this social dance, and use it to practice social hierarchies, women see it as valueless — because it doesn't actually establish their social order, it doesn't establish their sense of social hierarchy, the challenges are rarely escalated above the level of DH2 once the challenger knows they are female (they will get mansplained to, not engaged as an equal), and there is no payoff for them.

So all of this adversarial discourse — from experience of the way they are treated — is worthless to them in "mixed" company.

They are more likely to make their arguments to academia, where there is a sense of social equity, or to their established social circle — rather than to the public, which will inevitably draw bullshit noise they don't need.

That is why women are more likely to be upset by online harassment.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/06/us-neo-nazi-base-election-rinaldo-nazzaro

https://prlpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/Political_Violence_Trump_ITS_public.pdf