• Member Since 11th Jul, 2011
  • offline last seen 2 hours ago


The campiest of happers.

More Blog Posts151

  • 15 weeks
    Regarding Less-Than-Positive Interpretations of Pride

    Let's get a quick disclaimer out of the way before we really get going: I don't like foalcon. By "foalcon" here, I refer specifically to M-rated stories that depict characters who are very clearly meant to be minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct with other minors and/or adults. Not a fan of it! I find it gross on a personal level, I think it's morally reprehensible that a site of this

    Read More

    37 comments · 1,235 views
  • 25 weeks
    The Life That Was Given to Us (Or: The Unbearable Betrayal of Sincerity)

    Got a comment on my last blog a little bit ago that went something like this:

    "Why not get a life instead of taking Internet horse drama so seriously?"

    I'd like to talk about this comment a bit. Not the lazy insult itself, but rather the perspective it represents, and how I both sympathize with and can no longer accept that point of view.

    Read More

    33 comments · 1,071 views
  • 25 weeks
    Not Being Vague Anymore

    (4/21/21 10:15 AM EST: Slightly edited so as to play slightly nicer with others.)

    (4/21/21 IDK when: more edits from site mods; there used to be screenshots of the original post and a particular comment that prompted mine.)

    Read More

    151 comments · 3,124 views
  • 43 weeks
    Look What I Did Instead of Anything of Substance Today!

    Posh did this, and then Present Perfect and Jake the Army Guy did it too, so now I'm giving in to completely imagined peer pressure to

    Read More

    9 comments · 430 views
  • 60 weeks
    *noises of a horse vagueposting*

    Boy, you have some gullible fuckin' followers, fam.

    Read More

    27 comments · 762 views

Not Being Vague Anymore · 12:40am April 21st

(4/21/21 10:15 AM EST: Slightly edited so as to play slightly nicer with others.)

(4/21/21 IDK when: more edits from site mods; there used to be screenshots of the original post and a particular comment that prompted mine.)

Here is what I sent to TittySparkles in a private DM, reproduced below in text form so that it can be seen publicly without being deleted from under the relevant blog or removed with said blog:

I thought about just saying this in the comments of your blog. I don't remember if I've actually commented on any of your blogs before, but I've definitely replied to you in other places and copped plenty of downvotes from the folks who follow you to those places, so I'm certainly not DMing you out of fear that I'd get mean replies or lots of red marks on what I want to say to you.

It's also not because I'm trying to hide what I want to say to you. In fact, as soon as I hit send on this message, I'm going to copy the text into a public blog and repost it on my own page, along with a couple screenshots of your blog and a particular comment that really encapsulates the audience you enable. I want this to be as public as possible, to be honest with you. But more than that, I want to make sure you see it, and I want to preserve it somewhere you can't remove it, or selectively edit it to make yourself look better, as you've so often done in the past.

So here we go. Here's what I think of your post about Derek Chauvin's trial--or rather, what it has made me think about you.

The funny thing is, it's not your reaction to the verdict that got to me. I knew who you claimed you were before this, what you claimed you believed and what you pretended you didn't see your followers saying in response. I was pretty sure you'd be upset that a murderer was convicted of murder, based on some laughable argument like "you can't convict someone for manslaughter and murder at the same time" (you can; manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of murder that prosecutors very often throw at defendants with more severe charges, and Chauvin’s conviction for both will only lead to sentencing for the higher offense) or "he was only convicted because of the woke mob" (his defense team was a joke, there was literally HD footage of him committing murder, and even Fox News agrees that he's guilty). 

And of course, I was right. The person who claim to be isn't hard to read. None of you chuds are, much as some of you want to playact like adults with grown-up opinions about the grown-up truth of things. 

You know what got to me, though? You know what genuinely made my jaw drop and caused a shudder to crawl down my spine? The part where you mentioned you had won $500 by betting there would be "a human sacrifice on the altar of social justice." You bet--and won--money on the outcome of a murder trial.

That is monstrous. That is inhuman. It is a genuinely disturbing admission that shocked me in a way that, desensitized to the far right's inhumanity as I am, I didn't realize I could still be shocked. And I think the reason it shocked me was because of how much it revealed about what you are inside--not who you claim to be, not the principled anti-SJW voice of reason you dress up as, but the fundamental nature of you.

You don't care about Derek Chauvin, or a miscarriage of justice, or any of the beleaguered facts or logic that you say are under attack by BLM and their Marxist lackeys. How could you? You bet on his conviction! The person you claim is a victim of unspeakable injustice, who will now apparently spend his life behind bars for a crime he didn't commit. You bet money on him dying in prison.

It's an attitude so foreign to me that I can't even comprehend what you get out of it, a mindset I can compare only to that of serial murderers who hide behind the stolen skin of humans they observe, toying with people around them and destroying lives for the macabre fucking sport of it. I'm a writer--I know how to write antagonists. I know how to portray inconsistent morals, how to defend depraved actions taken "for the greater good," how to put myself in the shoes of someone who would commit evil acts for profit or a higher purpose or simply for personal satisfaction.

But I don't understand you. I simply cannot wrap my brain around cruelty for cruelty's sake--around purposeless depravity with no end goal or higher aims. I don't write how to write someone who is simply, without qualifications, evil.

I suppose I always knew, on some level, it was what you were, but I didn't want to believe it. I didn't want to stare into that abyss--to see the yawning emptiness where a soul should be. I don't think I even meant to tonight. I just checked the page of recent blogs out of curiosity regarding responses to the verdict, saw yours, thought, "Oh, this'll be a laugh"... and I was in.

And god help me, do I loathe what I made myself see.

Don't reply. I've already blocked you. Feel free to screencap this and post it. As I mentioned up top, I've already done the same. If I ever see you in person, at a con or anywhere else, I'll say this all again to your face, and I'll mean it just as much. This isn't funny anymore, even to me. I just wish the "joke" had never been told at all.

Report Aquaman · 3,124 views ·
Comments ( 151 )
Thaums #1 · April 21st · · 28 ·

You sort of ruin it with "Don't reply, I've already blocked you". If you're going to make a statement then you can expect a response. It doesn't matter if you don't think of them as human, this is a cowardly move on your part

Comment posted by Samus deleted April 21st
Aquaman #3 · April 21st · · 21 ·

Why would I allow a psychopath around people I like, on my own page?

Why would I want a "response," as if I'm debating them about their fundamental lack of humanity?

And most of all, what about "posting a PM in a public blog specifically so it can't be deleted by the recipient" makes you think I'm interested in anything anyone has to say about it, including said recipient?

The worst part? She has children, and is likely perpetuating her vile ideology into the future.

You know that common hypothetical: if you could have any one superpower, which would you pick? It's people like her that lead me to always answer with the Penance Stare. So I can look into their eyes and watch as all the misery they've put others through is returned to sender.

I've checked out the UndeadEmpire dude, pretty bare page. Might be a sock puppet. You could report him to the mods, but there's not much we can do beyond that.

If Tittysparkles were one-hundredth the badass he acts like, he'd have bigger worlds to conquer than a brony blog. As it is he's just an attention whore, and right now business is good.

Thaums #6 · April 21st · · 31 ·

Because that means you aren't trying to engage in a dialogue, you just want to scream and dehumanize them (You just lack humanity!) and then plug your ears. You're free to do that too but it comes across as immature.
If you fear they will dismiss anything you say, thus making debating them pointless, well, guess what you're doing right now.
If you aren't interested in their words then do not engage them. You are childish.

Honestly not surprised.

Given what I've heard regarding TS, the biggest shock here for me is that there's a page that lets you look at all recent blogs.

R5h #9 · April 21st · · 4 ·

Titty's a woman, as it happens.

But yeah, I can't disagree with anything you've posted here, Aqua. TS is shockingly vile at every opportunity.

Aquaman #10 · April 21st · · 20 ·

Probably childish of me to block you too, then.

Oh well. Growing up's for nerds.

Yeah, if you select "Blogs" in the dropdown menu next to the search bar and send out the search without typing anything into said bar, you can just scroll through every blog posted by every user in chronological order. It's neat sometimes. Other times... you know. Abyss.


Titty's a woman, as it happens.

Have you actually met this person? If not, um...


MrNumbers #12 · April 21st · · 17 ·

We can rail against it all we want, but people like TS are the ones pulling in the followers and views these days. This is representative of the fandom more than it's not, now, I think.

The time and opportunity to do something about it was several years ago, though.

Solidarity for posting.

Comment posted by Fleurs du Mal deleted April 28th
Aquaman #14 · April 21st · · 12 ·

Does seem that way, yeah.

This wasn't meant to fix anything, though. This was just as close as I could get to the appropriate response that an in-person encounter would've allowed for (punching them in the face).

Site Blogger
RBDash47 #15 · April 21st · · 12 ·

This is the part that troubles me the most, tbh. Can't imagine what their lives are like.

Author Interviewer

The only thing missing was a request they DFE and get the hell off this site.

That shit's not welcome here if I have anything to say about it. :|

There are certain incorrect assessments in there. Chauvin was found guilty of second- and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. The third degree murder and second degree manslaughter make sense, as they don't require intent. Second degree murder, on the other hand, does require intent (at least in Minnesota), and they couldn't have actually proven that. In fact, there was a plethora of evidence – and even testimony from several of the prosecution's own witnesses – directly contradicting intent. Reasonable doubt was undeniably present for anyone actually watching the trial closely. I can't imagine any way for any jury to find guilty on second degree murder in this instance, save except perhaps in terror of being doxed and threatened by the inevitable violent mob.

To clarify, I'm not arguing that Chauvin is innocent and shouldn't be punished. He absolutely should. But I won't be the least surprised if he wins an appeal because a later judge thinks the second-degree murder charge is inappropriate.

Look on the bright side: Now, when you need to write up a character for a story who is an incomprehensible psychopath with no redeeming features whatsoever, you'll have perfect reference material! TS has made her one - and only - possibly positive contribution to the planet by giving us a concrete example of 21st-century amorality.

And wow, i didn't know she had kids. I feel sorry for whatever guy was so desperate for sex that he willingly stuck his dick in that much crazy.


This is incomprehensibly, extremely not the point, but to prevent this being discussed further:

Second degree murder requires intent to commit a felony that resulted in death. To quote the AP on this:

To prove this count, prosecutors had to show that Chauvin killed Floyd while committing or trying to commit a felony — in this case, third-degree assault. They didn’t have to prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd, only that he intended to apply unlawful force that caused bodily harm.

If I am robbing a bank, and a security guard shoots at me as I escape and kills a bystander, then I am guilty of second degree murder for the death of that bystander, because their death was the result of a felony I was committing. The intent in this case is in committing the crime that resulted in the death, not in the killing itself.

This is clear cut.

Because I trust the AP about as far as I can throw Jupiter, I decided to investigate this further by targeting sites actually devoted to interpreting the law. And...

I'll be damned. The AP got it right. I withdraw my argument.

MrNumbers #21 · April 21st · · 12 ·


I can't imagine any way for any jury to find guilty on second degree murder in this instance, save except perhaps in terror of being doxed and threatened by the inevitable violent mob.

Paul I cannot stress enough that you came to this conclusion first that was disproven with five seconds of your own Googling. Very happy that you now Googled it, but coming here to make that point is part of the problem.

I make no apologies for the mob comment. The jurors had to drive through the mobs to get to the courthouse and the judge refused to sequester them. These people already threatened the defense's witnesses, there's zero reason to think they weren't going to do the same to the jurors. There's not a chance in heck this wasn't on the jurors' minds.

...you're telling me you're not a talking horse?


Here's the thing though, as almost everyone's mother once said, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." Saying anything demands a response, be it in support of or against whatever has been said. If you do not desire a response, why bother saying anything at all? It is simply a waste of energy, and a waste of time.

All that is accomplished otherwise is virtue signaling. As a general rule that is the case at least. For some, such acts can be inspiring and lead them to take comparably honorable action. In this case? While I agree with the overall sentiment, it strikes me as naught but virtue signaling. It's nice to have an opinion validated, for sure. However, as a general rule, if the opinion is truly valid, it does not need validation of the sort than be obtained through forums such as this.

For those that may lack reading comprehension skills: This does not mean I find the opinions in this post invalid. This does not mean I find them to he stupid. This does not mean I disagree. I agree wholeheartedly on most aspects. This means, that they do not require validation here, and seeking such validation through here is in fact demeaning to the overall stances in opinion. It is demeaning to them because they do not require this type of support.

Comment posted by jakkid166 deleted April 21st
MrNumbers #26 · April 21st · · 15 ·


Paul the problem isn't that you don't like mobs but that you saw it as the only possible explanation, and put that assumption as more likely than misunderstanding what the charge was - which was actually the case. And that assumption was so solid you did not even Google it before making that very confident assertion here, which led you to concern-trolling for the neo-nazi this post is about.

This is a problem.

DrOcsid #27 · April 21st · · 7 ·

Publicly calling out someone on their behavior and choosing not to directly engage with them afterward due to the sheer pointlessness of it is not virtue signalling. Sometimes people just need to be called out on their shit behavior without bothering giving them the time of day further because it's apparent "debating" them isn't going to achieve anything. It's the smart move because you know they wouldn't listen to a single voice of reason in here. Might as well not waste your time.

Somehow quoting Thumper's rule makes your point even less decipherable. I can't tell if you're vaguely upset that Aquaman chose to not deal with someone toxic, or if this was a weird sort of 'debate me, scrub' move that really resembled carrying water for nazis. Bet your back is real sore after that one, buddy.

Or rather, since it seems you agree with the points of this blog, maybe this is just you trying to Vampire's Castle your way into feeling superior. Wow. You must be very smart.

This sort of post reminds me that the biggest overlap between the right and the left is that they both hate leftists. Brava.

First of all, there was nothing "concern-trolling" about my earlier statement. What I was worried about – which I pointed out directly – was that a judge would see things as I thought they were and allow an acquittal. Which could still happen if a later judge concludes that the jury was influenced by the possibility of danger to themselves.

Yes, I saw that as the only possible explanation. That's not because I didn't bother to look up information to prove what I thought I knew wrong. The problem is that I did, and my usually reliable sources got the facts wrong, so I had to check somewhere else. That's life. Nobody is correct 100% of the time, and I'm not going to act guilty because I or the sources I tend to frequent don't meet that impossible standard.

Engage them on what? What's there to debate?

Anyway, I'll raise a voice of contention and argue that her bet probably didn't actually happen. She's a compulsive liar to an utterly psychotic degree, and that makes me think the bet was either completely fictional or money wasn't actually put down on it. Which doesn't really change anything, because even if it wasn't real they still thought it was something to brag about like it was an activity a normal, functioning human would partake in and not something that wouldn't immediately get your kids gets taken from you if people found out.

And here's fimfic still not doing anything about it. For bonus points there's even a story with aryanne's sister in it near the top of the feature box.

Unfortunately, I don’t think she’ll be interested in giving you a response. You’re obviously well above the age of consent.

Blarghalt #33 · April 21st · · 10 ·

I mean this in the most polite way I can:

does knighty just, not give a shit? That he's letting people like this run rampant all over his site?

The most distressing thing to me is how many of these people apparently can't conceive of a situation where a black person doesn't deserve to die. They - including several members of my family, unfortunately - always, always, always take the side of the killer, and assume the black person had it coming. And it's not even a matter of "supporting the cops" or some BS, because they took George Zimmerman's side, too.

And the thought process is so transparent. TS gives the whole game away when they (she?) mentions "social justice". They're so preoccupied with winning their mostly bullshit culture war against SJWs that they're willing to accept what is obviously murder when the alternative is merely admitting that racism exists.

The fact that people like this exist in this fandom might disappoint me more if my reserves of disillusionment hadn't already been depleted by... you know: *gestures wildly at everything*

Georg #35 · April 21st · · 11 ·

5502776 Don't sweat any lack of understanding fine detail on this case. Even the *lawyers* have problems with the current definition of Minnesota's Second Degree Murder/Manslaughter/Assault law as the courts have interpreted it. (note that the Third Degree Murder charge was dropped at one time, but the appeals court reinstated it, so even the Big Lawyers are fuzzy on the point, and I wouldn't trust any of the media's lawyers to fight a parking ticket.) There's going to be a well-worn path to the appeals and supreme courts on this case, so the drama isn't over, even if the arson and looting is fairly light tonight.

It wasn't a productive conversation, but I'm sure you feel better after this, good on you for getting some catharsis from that individual. At least there's some good from them. lol

Site Blogger

1. Just to be clear, I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've spoken directly with knighty over the past ten years. I, and as far as I know this goes for PP too, are not "site staff" the way the moderators or even story approvers are. Our only power here is making front-page blog posts; we're not in any special staff chats or anything like that.

2. With that disclaimer in place -- i.e. that I essentially have the same access to info you or anyone else has -- yeah he and most of the staff seem fine with it. Something something free speech marketplace of ideas?

Considering everything I've heard about them, I shouldn't be shocked but I'm still shocked nonetheless. Absolute yikes.

Comment posted by SweetBanana deleted July 12th

TS said she was going homeless a few years ago, went offline, then came back online and suddenly had these views. This is just what I've heard. The implication becomes much darker.

I feel for her kids, as someone who grew up with shithead parents, but even *they* aren't as low as betting on someone they think is innocent like that.

Apogee #41 · April 21st · · 6 ·

What, what an absolute shit take she has. I'm happy you wrote your message to her because it's nice that someone can at least outline her wrongful views for her.

I'm absolutely not putting the blame on you, and I know you don't have any real power to stop it, I was honestly asking about knighty himself. Based on that blog post he posted and deleted, he's long since checked out but I've always wanted to hear from someone who interacts with him more reguarlarly. I understand you don't, I was basically just taking a shot in the dark.

One simple word I can say about this. Just one word that popped in my head:


Uh, this comment is gonna get a thumbs down or two, isn't it?

Judge ROYALLY Screwed Up In Chauvin Case ADMITTING Maxine Waters Threats May Overturn ENTIRE Trial

Reality is rarely so black and white

Just yesterday I was introduced to the Olivia Hill Rule and honestly I should start putting it on all my stories.

RoMS #46 · April 21st · · 13 ·

TittySparkles is a far-right grifter who tries to cling to a 2013 fame acquired via foalcon posting. Nothing new under the fimfiction banner, and of course the mods will do nothing about it.

edit: Apparently, she was banned (don't know for how long). Good.

Truly an parody image destroys all my arguments beyond repair you have won this battle of wits

RoMS #49 · April 21st · · 7 ·

Tim Pool is to politics what a creationist is to biology. You're not owed a debunk because you quickly posted a link to a fake news peddler who "analyzes" a daily mail article during one of his daily 4h-long livestreams.

Ice Star #50 · April 21st · · 18 ·

Yo, Nonce Sprinkles got banned. Another pedo gets hit with the bye-bye hammer and nothing of value was lost.

Login or register to comment