Another example of rewriting history
There are a few deleted accounts here. I marked red my messages, and green Matthias’s messages.
Matthias said that he let his tulpa talk to her friends who happens to be a lolicon. He originally put “as well” in the end but he clarified that he didn’t mean that he is a lolicon too after An called it out and he categorically denied it.
Matthias is using the word loli to describe teen girls who visited him on Halloween dressed up as zombies. An insists that he had outed himself as a lolicon and finds the situation concerning. Matthias’s tulpa is surprised by it but there is no further reaction here.
After Matthias posted a meme containing word “loli”, An insists that he is telling everyone that he is a lolicon. This time he doesn’t let it go and the drama sparks out.
I’m telling An to stop saying that Matthias told people that he is a lolicon.
An also said that Matthias revealed that Felicia has been doing erp with that friend who was a lolicon.
I try to explain to An that she is the one who has been painting Matthias as a lolicon all the time. She keeps blaming Mathias’s oversharing.
Cerys says that An never said that Matthias was a lolicon and tries to push it on him. I reply that she might not have such an intention but it looked ambiguous at best.
Cerys is implying that I consistently assume bad intentions from An and tells me to stop insinuating bad faith from her. She accuses me of not helping by derailing the topic.
An is repeating my argument at me, applying it to Matthias’s messages. We continue discussing for a while.
Finally, it’s finished.
To be clear, I agree with An’s diagnosis about Matthias. He’s been consistently shaming himself in masochistic way and as I said here, he needs professional help (which he consistently refuses to get btw.). I am very aware how appalling this guy can be too, like probably many of readers too. It doesn’t excuse An bullying him though.
Her being right in this case doesn’t mean that falsely implying that Matthias outed himself as a lolicon right. An has assumed it after Matthias’s ambiguous message about his tulpa being a friend with a person who happened to be a lolicon and consistently ignored Matthias’s denying him being one when asked. Each time Matthias used the word “loli”, she reminded him of outing himself as a lolicon which he didn’t do.
We can also clearly see An not being able to take responsibility for her mistakes. When I call her out on defaming (as he stated multiple times that he isn’t a lolicon and doesn’t approve them) Matthias, she is consistently pushing the responsibility on him and distracting us from her falsely saying that Matthias outed himself as a lolicon. Later Cerys supports her in that, denying that she did anything wrong. Cerys said that An has never said that Matthias is a lolicon but doesn’t mention that she said that Matthias himself said that while he didn’t. It’s a clear distraction.