Antipodean fruit growers 2 - Canary in the internet coal mine

[Bosky]

Continuation thread from Antipodean fruit grower statement

A statement from the owner reads in part:

Downtime Update as of August 26th, 2022

"What I fear more than losing my site, being sued, or dealing with police is living in a world where [REDACTED] can [REDACTED] little boys and girls into [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], while normal people are not allowed to even discuss it.

The mob has already planned subsequent targets. Should we stay down, they will then attack 'gender critical' communities - especially those ran by and for women. No place can exist online which allows criticism of their [REDACTED], and nothing would excite them more than this power and domination struggle being inflicted on a female space instead."

I would link to the statement on the Internet Archive aka "Wayback Machine" but it has made all pages archived from the relevant site unsearchable (or deleted?).

Mumsnet does not permit links to the site Archive Today so that is out too.

1st Thread Antipodean fruit grower statement
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4620584-antipodean-fruit-grower-statement

@Bosky

Says all I need to know about you if you're happy to use the terms "insane tr**n" to describe transpeople.

TRANSPHOBE

RAPE APOLOGIST

See, we can all do shouty caps, but it doesn't really move the discussion along.

I think Jersh is describing a specific sort of activist.

Have you really not noticed any TRA behaviour that goes beyond what is acceptable? Lots of examples have been posted here. And Jersh has his own experience to go on.

I’m starting to believe @MerlinsLostMarbles is engaging in Andy Kaufman levels of performance art rather than being actually genuine. It’s kind of the only rational explanation at this point

We can all make web archives too. I hope Liz sues the posters on her falsely and libellously calling them a rapist.

Do you know Liz?

You sound quite chummy.

LOL yes I'm sure Fong-Jones is super keen to get all of this out in a court of law.

Oh, is there a court case in the offing? <ears perk up>

Stop. Liz prefers she/her pronouns. Stop misgendering Liz.

IT'S TRANSPHOBIC

The ones admitted to by them? And what if some of the victims were other tw? What about them, are they phobes?

You have publicly accused a person of rape and failed to provide any evidence. You've posted a twitter archive where they stated they had consensual sex, and you posted a screenshot that showed their Wiki page had been vandalised which included doxxing. It is clear Liz is the victim here of a stalking and hounding campaign the police might want to be aware of. You and your kiwifarms friends are just hating her because she's trans.

Yes I bet he can't wait!

Who are you directing this wacky comment towards, Merlin?

@MerlinsLostMarbles
"You've posted a twitter archive where they stated they had consensual sex,"

Third time for the Heck of it, no. Be complete. Liz Fong-Jones said the sex was consensual, the other person just doesn't agree it was.

"and you posted a screenshot that showed their Wiki page had been vandalised which included doxxing."

No I didn't. I showed that a lot of information had been redacted and what that information was is hidden. The above is your supposition. Also, if it's the truth is it still vandalism? Wikipedia is supposed to detail people, after all. It's not meant to be a hagiography.

It is clear Liz is the victim here of a stalking and hounding campaign the police might want to be aware of.You and your kiwifarms friends are just hating her because she's trans.

You appear to be unequal to the intellectual weight of the conversation. Fong-Jones is not a victim, Fong-Jones is the aggressor, trying to take down a legal website because it contains truths Fong-Jones doesn't like. Neither MN nor KF stalks or hounds people, and KF both ignores hundreds upon hundreds of trans people, and laughs at hundreds upon hundreds of non trans people. Fong-Jones has not been stalked or harassed, Fong-Jones merely needed to not look at the thread on KF about Fong-Jones if Fong-Jones didn't want to see what they were saying. A thread incidentally which has only now come to life since Fong-Jones tried to shut KF down. Streisand effect, right there.

There are posters on here claiming Liz Fong-Jones had "confessed" to rape, and claiming to have "evidence" which isn't evidence at all.

The Wikipedia screenshot states that multiple posts have been removed due to vandalism, and that Liz's Wikipedia page has been protected/locked because someone then edited the page to dox her.

Wikipedia is not for harassing/doxxing/slandering people. Wikipedia isn't a "tool" for you to attack people you hate.

"if it's the truth is it still vandalism"

I'm guessing someone from here or Kiwifarms was editing it to claim Liz is a "rapist", correct? You can't legally do that unless said person has actually been convicted in court of said alleged crime.

@MerlinsLostMarbles

Do you routinely not believe women who accuse someone of sexual assault if the alleged victim is denying it?

I'm guessing someone from here or Kiwifarms was editing it to claim Liz is a "rapist", correct? You can't legally do that unless said person has actually been convicted in court of said alleged crime.

Do you regularly accuse people of a crime based on a 'guess'?

Do you think that it’s acceptable behaviour to use tactics like threatening the wives of tech firm employees in order to exert influence to take a legal website, operating within the law and in keeping with First Amendment principles applicable in its jurisdiction, because users of the website have archived evidence of comments freely made by the person issuing said threats?

Do you automatically believe anyone alleged to have committed an unwanted sexual assault if they claim it was consensual when their alleged victim disagrees, or just the trans ones?

(The word “offline” is missing from that first paragraph, before “because”.)

Meh...

Here’s a link to the archive of LFJ tweets http://archive.today/3n908. In this they discuss the consent accident. I think there was another incident that LFJ was accused of as well.

To me, it seems like a she said/she said situation but the lengths that LDJ has gone to to hide this seems extreme.

It seems so odd to me the lengths people (keffals, LDJ and more) will go to to get dodgy stuff that THEY POSTED THEMSELVES off the internet. There seems a really simple way to avoid this … don’t post dodgy shit on the internet. Better yet, don’t do dodgy shit, but if you’re going to, don’t post about it on Twitter.

"Consent accident" is a euphemism for rape.

Apologies for my earlier post that has now been deleted. I copied and pasted a chunk of text, authored by Captain KiwiFarms, after cursorily skim reading it. Unfortunately, I did not notice that it contained the reprehensible allegation that an unnamed person who is "literally paying people to contact ISPs and Datacenters to fuck with them" lacks mental stability.

Another word that I should have redacted has a pleasing recreational connotation:

"Today the name of T~~~n is synonymous with the game of golf. The town is home to the Royal T~~~n Golf Club, founded in 1878, which hosted the Open Championship in 2004 and 2016. But Royal T~~~n has just two of the six golf courses which together entirely surround T~~~n. The others are the Kilmarnock (Barassie) Club plus three municipal links courses, including two of championship standard.

"T~~~n also has other attractions. The harbour is now home to a vast marina reflecting its importance as a centre for leisure sailing in the Firth of Clyde. It also offers the North Sands and the South Sands, the wide beaches backed by promenades and the trappings of a fairly genteel seaside resort."

I have a horrible suspicion that "the trappings of a fairly genteel seaside resort" might be Estate Agent-speak for "shabby and has seen better days but at least there is still a cobbler's, a decent hardware shop and somewhere to get afternoon tea served served with proper cake forks and sugar tongs" but who knows?

ps. The orchards lie fallow until a cyber-thingamajig is replaced.

(1) Liz lives with a dog. Liz's clothing has dog hair on it. (3) Liz had consensual sex with someone. (4) That person has phobia of dog hair and didn't say so. (5) That person thinks Liz deliberately/maliciously got dog hair on her. (6) She accuses Liz of sexual assault

Details of the 'consent accident', as described by Liz Fong-Jones in their own words. I'm guessing there's no way to hear the account as described by the other party involved.