This guy is 38 and she was part of some chatroom and he started talking to her 13 year old little sister in a way that very obviously had ill intent. She called him out on this and posted screenshots of that chatroom online. Now ever since this, he has a site where he archives almost everything she says online. She made a post about how she prefers cats over dogs, then he archived that and posted the link to the archive on his site saying “never trust a dog hater with anything” and it just goes on, and on, and on for years.
When she even makes a passing mention about him, even if he’s not named or only vaguely mentioned, he chimes in, and posts a link to his site with some variation of “don’t trust her, she’s not to be trusted” and links to pages on his site which were all made by him over the years in an attempt to maliciously discredit her. It’s often a gish-gallop of links.
He also says that he’s made an account on every site he knows of, likely in an attempt at surveilling or intimidating her.
🙄 We’re all anonymous here.
I find it better to always post under my real name rather than believe I’ll manage to stay anonymous whilst discussing everyday things on social media. At some point someone will connect that Toyota Camry driving person in Oregon who works at a place that has just had a bunch of layoffs with that nickname and then you’ll have to rethink everything you’ve posted.
Victims aren’t the ones that need to close down and stay quiet. The perpetrators are.
So your real name is “troed?” Is that a single name like “Cher?”
Funny that you take the idealist approach while committing the very act that you’re railing against as if your whole argument is worthless. Should I call the police on you and report you to fedia.io as you suggested someone do when dealing with an unhinged individual like yourself?
It’s indeed - and unique enough that you should be able to find me in seconds.
Feel free to call the Swedish police and tell them that you don’t like my arguments. Or for that matter, Jerry (who runs fedia.io).
I guess you realized you couldn’t counter my actual point.
What’s your point, that you’ll gladly sacrifice your stated beliefs, completely contradicting everything you said previously, if you think it will help you win an argument? You should be a politician.
It’s hilarious how flippant you are here about calling the police or “Jerry” when you were previously so adamant about that being the best way for this woman to protect herself, proving exactly why that was a nonsense solution to begin with. Congratulations for completely demolishing your argument all on your own.
I’m not sure you’ve understood what you’ve read so far.
I’ve understood it quite well thank you. I would also be quite embarrassed making a chain of comments like yours, so I also understand why you’re now deflecting away from the topic and pretending like we’re talking about something else.
Ah ok. It looked like you tried to claim that reciting three facts from your public comments here was in anyway similar to what the topic of the thread is about - but I agree that even an american can’t be that ignorant.
I’m really interested in hearing your explanation for how it’s any different.
OP claims this stalker is also reciting facts from their public comments in an attempt to antagonize them too. I suppose you feel it’s okay for you to do it though since you seem to think you’re on some sort of moral high ground and “it’s different when I do it,” “this person really deserves it,” or whatever justification you need to tell yourself to clear the cognitive dissonance.