The Glory Hole - Paranoia, private investigating, damage control

Author Topic: The Glory Hole - Paranoia, private investigating, damage control  (Read 27279 times)

Bullstuff. I got kicked because I was associated with people who let it air they were trying to forget with beach. This was all damage control and I'm pissed the forget off I got dragged into the middle of it.

hey i was there in the call when we were kicking ppl. it was both because of the leak and because the decision was made to kick inactive people.
i was against kicking you up until i was told that you never posted. looking back it probably wasnt smart to do both at the same time, but it was kind of rushed anyways.
anyways, i was convinced that kicked people would be able to join back not much later at all. i really dont know how it happened that you basically got blocked from communicating, and afaik that wasnt the intention. since gh doesnt really have staff, or people that felt accountable at all, it was up to the person kicked to try to get back in at all. sorry that you got unfairly involved like this, and that i didnt get back to you after you got removed.

sorry for the 3 "at alls" i woke up like a minute ago

it takes talent to be this handicapped
True master-class at picking apart an argument.

How is it that whenever anything related to the glory hole is brought up, everyone's unresolved feelings about NickPB are projected onto the issue.

Disclaimer: I feel it necessary to state beforehand that I am a member of GH, but I haven't been as active lately so I found out about this drama through the forum

As far as Verification goes, and I truly mean this, how detached from reality are you? So far, you have unironically compared the GH to the kool kids klub and tried to legitimately construct an argument for GH being a "cult of personality":

do whatever you want with this info, i left the glory hole a while ago, this entire thread should be considered old dirt.
if you want to support beachbum thats fine with me, but you have to acknowledge that he was doing the exact same thing as Nick, at the same time.
only beach decided to make a drama about it 3-4 months later
I left the kool kids klub in early summer. Every news article about me should be considered old dirt.
If you want to support the News Boogieman then that's fine to me, but you have to acknowledge that he was doing the exact same thing as White Supremicists, at the same time.
Only beach decided to arrest me 3-4 months later.
A group of friends is like the clique - a friend group which is private but not selectively mean to certain users. Your group is a cult; a group of people who share common interests (nickpb or otherwise) with nckpb or it's a cult of personality (a group of people who look up to something in your group), and the difference is that you don't allow things like beachbum's private investigating out - it has to stay private or the leakers get kicked from the group. They're no longer nick's friend because they reported nick doing something illegal. Him leaking out that you blatantly cheated just to get a good name for your buddy on a poll that's supposed to be a light hearted vote on who people like in the community and getting banned for it means that you're blocking out the negativity even if it's your fault. That's why it's a cult as opposed to a friend group.

The ridiculous nature of comparing a belief that thinks black people should be lynched (kool kids klub) to interpersonal problems (this drama) should be blatantly obvious.
However Verification, for your benefit I labelled them for you since you seem to have no problem equating these two issues.

Now to address the cult issue:
Your primary argument seems to be that what constitutes a cult of personality is when there is a group of people sharing private things and they look up to a person or an idea.

By that logic, a Facebook group chat could be a cult. After all, certain people tend to be more charismatic than others. In addition to that, if someone is found out to be sending screenshots of the messages to other people without the group's consent, they would most likely also be removed from the group.
That decides it, most Facebook users are cultists.
...
Except you skipped over a few key details about cults, or rather most of them. To name just a few:
Quote from: cultresearch.org - "Characteristics Associated With Cults"
  • Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
  • The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., members must get permission to date, change jobs, or marry—or leaders prescribe what to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth). (Editorial note: Before you go on to theorize that Nick somehow mind-controls us into defending him, I'll just refute that beforehand to save us all the time and effort. We are independent thinkers who make our own judgements on issues and it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with Nick just like with any other member of GH)
  • Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

Therefore I propose an alternative theory:
The Glory Hole is just a group of friends with similar interests and opinions. And as far as the strict privacy rules go, I would argue that they are completely necessary. I wouldn't be comfortable with sharing almost any of the things I have up to this point if I wasn't confident that only reasonable, normal people would have access to that information. That guarantee is undermined when screenshots of the messages from the chat are posted on a public forum.

As far as changing the rule to include context, my counter-argument is the following:
I'm not comfortable with someone else deciding what info regarding me is worthy of privacy and what isn't. Sure, some cases are clear-cut, but others are not. It is much easier to have a black-and-white rule where the consent of the group is required to share anything.


I mean, people who use facebook regularly are apart of a hive mind 😂

I mean, people who use facebook regularly are apart of a hive mind 😂
Literally.

True master-class at picking apart an argument.

How is it that whenever anything related to the glory hole is brought up, everyone's unresolved feelings about NickPB are projected onto the issue.

Disclaimer: I feel it necessary to state beforehand that I am a member of GH, but I haven't been as active lately so I found out about this drama through the forum

As far as Verification goes, and I truly mean this, how detached from reality are you? So far, you have unironically compared the GH to the kool kids klub and tried to legitimately construct an argument for GH being a "cult of personality":
I left the kool kids klub in early summer. Every news article about me should be considered old dirt.
If you want to support the News Boogieman then that's fine to me, but you have to acknowledge that he was doing the exact same thing as White Supremicists, at the same time.
Only beach decided to arrest me 3-4 months later.

The ridiculous nature of comparing a belief that thinks black people should be lynched (kool kids klub) to interpersonal problems (this drama) should be blatantly obvious.
However Verification, for your benefit I labelled them for you since you seem to have no problem equating these two issues.

Now to address the cult issue:
Your primary argument seems to be that what constitutes a cult of personality is when there is a group of people sharing private things and they look up to a person or an idea.

By that logic, a Facebook group chat could be a cult. After all, certain people tend to be more charismatic than others. In addition to that, if someone is found out to be sending screenshots of the messages to other people without the group's consent, they would most likely also be removed from the group.
That decides it, most Facebook users are cultists.
...
Except you skipped over a few key details about cults, or rather most of them. To name just a few:
Therefore I propose an alternative theory:
The Glory Hole is just a group of friends with similar interests and opinions. And as far as the strict privacy rules go, I would argue that they are completely necessary. I wouldn't be comfortable with sharing almost any of the things I have up to this point if I wasn't confident that only reasonable, normal people would have access to that information. That guarantee is undermined when screenshots of the messages from the chat are posted on a public forum.

As far as changing the rule to include context, my counter-argument is the following:
I'm not comfortable with someone else deciding what info regarding me is worthy of privacy and what isn't. Sure, some cases are clear-cut, but others are not. It is much easier to have a black-and-white rule where the consent of the group is required to share anything.


If you have fears of people screenshotting things you say, it's probably because you say stuffty things about people or something else and you don't want others to find out.

If you have fears of people screenshotting things you say, it's probably because you say stuffty things about people or something else and you don't want others to find out.
yeah, or because its the internet and people who have a grudge on you will take literally anything you say and spit it out of context if it means making you look bad

one of the two

yeah, or because its the internet and people who have a grudge on you will take literally anything you say and spit it out of context if it means making you look bad

one of the two
I speak as a member of of GH. People have shared some very personal things and sensitive information about themselves and entrust a group of individuals who are bound by honor first and by a rule second that the information would not be shared without consent.

Well I sure as forget didn't consent to my dox being publicly posted in your discord.

I speak as a member of of GH. People have shared some very personal things and sensitive information about themselves and entrust a group of individuals who are bound by honor first and by a rule second that the information would not be shared without consent.
that doesn't really justify a rule that gets someone booted for doing the right thing. like I have said several times by now, there is literally no reason to have this rule over a more specific one. it provides no privacy benefit, the only thing it does is allow things like this to happen. that's just a stupid excuse

yeah, or because its the internet and people who have a grudge on you will take literally anything you say and spit it out of context if it means making you look bad

one of the two
Then you give the actual context to what they post you saying because you know, you were there and have the chatlog just like they do? Your point doesn't make any sense.

Well I sure as forget didn't consent to my dox being publicly posted in your discord.
Glory hole is a private discord, plus they have that rule not to leak stuff so your picture and name should be safe in theory.

Glory hole is a private discord, plus they have that rule not to leak stuff so your picture and name should be safe in theory.
private + leaked name and picture + have rule against leaking stuff out of the discord

HmMMmMMM I wonder

Also nick technically broke Discord guidelines so report him Beach.

I did discord did nothing. They want a specific message id which is impossible for me to get.