DMT-nexus moderator accused by nytimes

[newusername1]

Seems like you didn't actually read the links? Like, I provided a direct link and also mentioned the Dose Nation podcast that was linked on Facebook. I think that's more productive than any discussion I could offer?



I feel like I keep pointing out that there's been extensive social media discussion (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc) and am sharing the relevant information but rather than engage with any of that, you'd rather keep shadow boxing your own projections. As I said earlier, it makes discussion difficult.

That extensive social media discussion wasn't left out. It was called something like "agressive social media campaigns". Forgive me if i missed a capital letter somewhere.

 

[Memberberries]

I honestly don't understand. The linked document includes a bunch of disturbing behavior from Bia Labate, including arguing that no doesn't necessarily mean no in the context of sexual intercourse. The Dose Nation podcast discusses it in more depth. You said my post ignored addressing these issues but I linked to the most extensive documentation I've seen, which for some reason was excluded from the NYT article. I don't see an issue with calling attention to the behavior documented in the link and I find it confusing that NYT didn't cover it (nor did they call it false).

 

[newusername1]

And wikipedia ain't exactly kind to you guys either snozz. It's not just me or the new york times.

By the way, i know another weird american-cop story: there was some kind of martial artist guy, in a dutch podcast that i listened to, who had trained SWAT officers in america and the netherlands. He even went to raids to see how they operated in real life. He said that in some big american cities, the SWAT unit as a whole lacks basic fire-arm training and is not familiar with concepts as "try not to get in eachothers line of fire".
Weird huh?
Is there mercury in the hotdogs or something?

 

[Memberberries]

I honestly don't understand what's going on here. Best of luck to you.

 

[ommani]

The drama in this thread is thicker than a hippos booty.

 

[newusername1]

I honestly don't understand. The linked document includes a bunch of disturbing behavior from Bia Labate, including arguing that no doesn't necessarily mean no in the context of sexual intercourse. The Dose Nation podcast discusses it in more depth. You said my post ignored addressing these issues but I linked to the most extensive documentation I've seen, which for some reason was excluded from the NYT article. I don't see an issue with calling attention to the behavior documented in the link and I find it confusing that NYT didn't cover it (nor did they call it false).

From the first moment on, you've been trying to suggest that the NYT author is bought, and all your victims connected to big money. Even though they wheren't.

While, wich is often the case with newspapers, the article headline doesn't exactly match the content of it. The article makes it clear that psymposia is not responsible for the failure of the lykos stuff. It is merely the involvement of a small group of activists that sparked an interest in the author to take a closer look.

wikipedia is even more transparent. The whole lykos set up was so inherently flawed that it would have been rejected with or without psymposia.

There is no reason for big money to fund a hitpiece on psymposia, because 1-you people didn't make a difference, and 2-it was all over and done anyway.
And is wikipedia bought as well then?

 

[newusername1]

Man....are you fucking shameless?

So i'm thinking:"no, not this game again where he provides a link that will prove me wrong, and it's an opinion piece or something else that doesn't".
But then again, maybe this time he actually has information that sheds another light on the case.

Turns out it IS an opinion piece. Written by yourself. Wich you failed to mention btw.

I am not going to click on any more of your links.
I checked one. It was bunk. Therefore the rest is bunk as well.

Bye snozz.

 

[Varallo]

Man....are you fucking shameless?

So i'm thinking:"no, not this game again where he provides a link that will prove me wrong, and it's an opinion piece or something else that doesn't".
But then again, maybe this time he actually has information that sheds another light on the case.

Turns out it IS an opinion piece. Written by yourself. Wich you failed to mention btw.

I am not going to click on any more of your links.
I checked one. It was bunk. Therefore the rest is bunk as well.

Bye snozz.

The easiest solution would be if, for each accusation, you could simply indicate what the evidence is, because at the moment, at least from an outsider’s perspective, it’s really impossible to see what it is you’re seeing. And that makes it feel like your frustration, while I can understand it to some extent, doesn’t actually seem to be directly linked to anything that can be verified later on.

So far, what I mainly see is that you’re very angry, but that anger doesn’t appear to be based on anything concrete, aside from the same kind of gossip and hearsay that you’re accusing the other party of.

I think it would be helpful if you could just clearly list what exactly you have proven, what there is actual evidence for, and then we can move forward.

Right now, it’s becoming a bit of a “he said, she said” situation, and that’s a real shame, because I do think it’s valuable to discuss this, to ultimately arrive at a kind of judgment, or at least give people the chance to make up their own minds.

 

[newusername1]

The easiest solution would be if, for each accusation, you could simply indicate what the evidence is, because at the moment, at least from an outsider’s perspective, it’s really impossible to see what it is you’re seeing. And that makes it feel like your frustration, while I can understand it to some extent, doesn’t actually seem to be directly linked to anything that can be verified later on.

So far, what I mainly see is that you’re very angry, but that anger doesn’t appear to be based on anything concrete, aside from the same kind of gossip and hearsay that you’re accusing the other party of.

I think it would be helpful if you could just clearly list what exactly you have proven, what there is actual evidence for, and then we can move forward.

Right now, it’s becoming a bit of a “he said, she said” situation, and that’s a real shame, because I do think it’s valuable to discuss this, to ultimately arrive at a kind of judgment, or at least give people the chance to make up their own minds.

You are right. Last night i was a bit adrenaline-fueled.

But no. My main mistake was that i was a bit sloppy: i read his post, that he started with cases that where not related in any way to the problems adressed in the NYT article. And actually the article had given him credit for those things, so it was clear this had nothing to do with the allegations.

That is something i don't need to prove because you can just read post 76 in this thread to see that the cases he mentions in the bulk of the text are not the cases the NYT reports about.
My only sloppyness was that after having gone through 70% of the post, and i recognised his tactics, i glanced over the last bit where he does indeex provide a link to one of the two cases.

It is still true though, that this post is a cleverly constructed deflection. And again, i don't need to prove that because you can just skim through post 76 to see that the names he mentions in the first part are not the cases the article is about, and that there where also cases where he did the right thing was never denied. So a point completely irrelevant to the gist of the article.

And there's another thing i also don't need to prove because you can just see it for yourself: in post 80 he provides a link that he keeps talking about.
And that he insists is the most extensive documentation, etc about one of the cases discussed.

But it is an opinion piece written by himself. Wich he doesn't mention. But his name is in the NYT article, so you can see it for yourself.

So now i 100% know it is him. He's a sly trickster, but these things you can just see for yourself.

 

[newusername1]

And that text written by himself is actually one of the very hitpieces, that is part of one of the smearcampaigns the NYT article mentions.

I must be honest, when i saw it was written by himself i decided not to read it.
Maybe i will.

But i've been here before and he always had these dodgy sources that he insited you should read. And it was always like this. They where always bunk sources.

There always was something with these sources. Usually not that they where written by himself, but they where always problematic as a source to begin with.
And everytime i took the trouble to actually go through them, it was always either a bullshitstory or his conclusions simply didn't follow from the premmisses.

And then there was always another, and another.

I remember one time that he tried to convince me that a vast majority of the american population wanted to abollish the police (not de invest but abollish it altogether). He provided an opinionpoll that was done with a very small sample of people, and all of the participants where colege students at i don't remember wich university...but by far not an accurate representation of the USA population.

 

[Varallo]

Okay, but what still stands, even now, is that you’re the one making an accusation. And then it’s almost like you expect someone else to defend themselves and provide evidence that it’s not true. Whereas honestly, I’d say in this case it should be the other way around. In my view, you’re kind of dodging that question.

And I get that you mean well, and I also understand if you say, yeah, I don’t have that evidence. But right now it’s really difficult to move forward in this discussion. Because if we’re only supposed to rely on the article you shared in your first post, and the criticism that article has received, then I think, you also need to show why that’s the case, with evidence.

I did read that post 76 and I also read the links. And I thought, okay, it’s not how I would have handled it. He’s calling someone to account and the other person basically says, I don’t owe you an explanation. And sure, that doesn’t come across very well. But at the same time, it’s also not that extreme, in my opinion.

I think the real issue is that some trust got damaged there. And yeah, he writes about how he made a deliberate choice. You can agree or disagree with that, but to me that doesn’t justify the accusations you’re making, at least not based on what I’ve seen so far.

So again, I’m asking nicely, please show what you’re basing these accusations on. Then we can take it from there and see, okay, is this something that needs more attention? And then people can start forming their own ideas and opinions about it. But right now, that’s just not possible.

 

[Voidmatrix]

 

[Voidmatrix]

Well that was fun.

I'm confident @newusername1 was able to get what they needed for something that bothered them deeply. It was something they needed to get out of their system. And all factors considered, it's understandable that it came out here. It's appropriate. There is a long history in this forum, and when new, and viewing threads like this, get a glimpse of the long and complex history of this forum.

I would like to suggest that we exercise a bit more temperance and have more interpretive wiggle room. While the I understand why people wanted more information because it was such a juicy subject, it wasn't about that. It wasn't about getting down to the bottom of anything. We're all so intellectually astute that we forget the barometer of emotion. We sometimes also miss the barometer of our own emotions.

This whole thing was about closure.

While there are certain standards that make this place the wonderful one that it is, we're still allowed to be human.



With love,
One love,
Vm