- Joined
- May 31, 2021
Elon is a million times smarter than John too.
While your average retard is a thousand times smarter than John, Elon isn’t actually a genius, but he is at least above average.
Brianna Wu / John Walker Flynt - "Biggest Victim of Gamergate," Failed Game Developer, Failed Congressional Candidate
- Thread starter Jaimas
- Start date
-
🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Elon is a million times smarter than John too.
While your average retard is a thousand times smarter than John, Elon isn’t actually a genius, but he is at least above average.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2019
I wish I could figure it out. I really don't like Elton and that usually means there's something about him that reminds me of myself.. I think I'll just go with it, no need for introspection.
Stinkyboy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 22, 2021
He used his family's emerald money to buy his way onto oversight boards and into high positions at tech companies.
This faggot has never done a thing in his life.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2023
I doubt he's even read it properly. Even if he did, he doesn't have the ability to critically assess anything. He's incapable of being neutral because everything is about him. I've mentioned previously that he's unable to understand the collective 'you' or 'we' on twitter which has led to some major self owns . He wasn't involved in the report, therefore it is wrong.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
"profit motive"
John's whole rant is loaded with massive errors in logic.
1. He starts from an unproven premise and builds everything on it.
He treats “trans kids” as a biological category instead of a social label imposed by adults. That’s not science; it’s belief. There is no diagnostic biomarker, no objective test, no settled etiology. Every serious review — Sweden, Finland, UK, France, Denmark — treats pediatric “gender identity” as a psychological presentation, not a biological sex. His entire argument collapses if you don’t grant that premise.
2. He ignores the basic rule of childhood medicine: minors lack capacity.
Children can’t consent to tattoos, contracts, or most surgeries. But in his telling, they somehow have the insight and medical authority to self-diagnose a lifelong condition requiring sterilizing treatments. That’s not medicine; that’s ideology overriding developmental reality.
3. He inverts the physician–parent hierarchy.
Standard of care comes from physicians, not parents’ whims. A parent cannot demand chemotherapy for a healthy child, nor can he veto treatment for a sick one. There has never been a constitutional “parental right to specific medical interventions.” Courts have said that for a century. He tries to smuggle in a new right that doesn’t exist.
4. He assumes safety, necessity, and effectiveness without evidence.
This is the biggest scientific failure. He presupposes that “gender transition” is safe and necessary for minors when the best evidence shows:
5. He collapses correlation into causation.
Any child expressing discomfort or social distress is assumed to “need transition,” ignoring comorbidities—autism, trauma, depression, family dynamics—that European reviews identified as the dominant drivers of presentation. That’s a textbook logical error.
6. He reframes ideological claims as medical facts.
He takes activist talking points (“affirmation is suicide prevention,” “non-affirmation is abuse”) and states them as settled science. Every meta-review in Europe rejected those claims as unsupported. He’s not citing data; he’s laundering ideology.
7. He shifts burdens constantly.
Doctors must justify not following activist protocols, but activists never justify imposing irreversible medical treatments on minors based on self-reported feelings. The burden of proof is backwards.
8. His conclusion depends on accepting every one of his faulty assumptions.
If you don’t accept:
John's whole rant is loaded with massive errors in logic.
1. He starts from an unproven premise and builds everything on it.
He treats “trans kids” as a biological category instead of a social label imposed by adults. That’s not science; it’s belief. There is no diagnostic biomarker, no objective test, no settled etiology. Every serious review — Sweden, Finland, UK, France, Denmark — treats pediatric “gender identity” as a psychological presentation, not a biological sex. His entire argument collapses if you don’t grant that premise.
2. He ignores the basic rule of childhood medicine: minors lack capacity.
Children can’t consent to tattoos, contracts, or most surgeries. But in his telling, they somehow have the insight and medical authority to self-diagnose a lifelong condition requiring sterilizing treatments. That’s not medicine; that’s ideology overriding developmental reality.
3. He inverts the physician–parent hierarchy.
Standard of care comes from physicians, not parents’ whims. A parent cannot demand chemotherapy for a healthy child, nor can he veto treatment for a sick one. There has never been a constitutional “parental right to specific medical interventions.” Courts have said that for a century. He tries to smuggle in a new right that doesn’t exist.
4. He assumes safety, necessity, and effectiveness without evidence.
This is the biggest scientific failure. He presupposes that “gender transition” is safe and necessary for minors when the best evidence shows:
- puberty blockers lack long-term safety data,
- cross-sex hormones cause permanent infertility,
- surgical outcomes in minors are understudied,
- Europe has pulled back precisely because evidence is weak.
5. He collapses correlation into causation.
Any child expressing discomfort or social distress is assumed to “need transition,” ignoring comorbidities—autism, trauma, depression, family dynamics—that European reviews identified as the dominant drivers of presentation. That’s a textbook logical error.
6. He reframes ideological claims as medical facts.
He takes activist talking points (“affirmation is suicide prevention,” “non-affirmation is abuse”) and states them as settled science. Every meta-review in Europe rejected those claims as unsupported. He’s not citing data; he’s laundering ideology.
7. He shifts burdens constantly.
Doctors must justify not following activist protocols, but activists never justify imposing irreversible medical treatments on minors based on self-reported feelings. The burden of proof is backwards.
8. His conclusion depends on accepting every one of his faulty assumptions.
If you don’t accept:
- that “trans kids” exist as a biological category,
- that minors can consent to sterilizing interventions,
- that parents have a right to demand specific care,
- that “transition” is proven safe and effective,
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Hell, you don't even have to go that far. If the anti-troon movement were based solely in profit, why would people risk the total destruction of their careers by vindictive tranny mobs to speak out against them? For nearly the entire last decade, anyone who dared to question the safety and efficacy of tranny "healthcare" fell to cancellation mobs who browbeat them into silence and got them fired from their jobs, all while troons continued to enjoy the benefits of a left-wing grift machine. It has only been very recently that the tide has turned and the astroturfed support for trannies has faltered."profit motive"
John's whole rant is loaded with massive errors in logic.
Or put another way: John is retarded.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
Exactly. Riley Gaines only became a phenomena AFTER John and others like him made troonery a major problem for the public. John tried to invert this timeline.
"Everyone agrees with me." - John Walker Flynt
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2021
lol bless his heart, he’s just hopeless. Even if the focus were retarded John acts like the people shitting and dunking on trannies would suddenly refocus elsewhere by listening to…a tranny. Maybe if he says “dignity” enough women will disregard their own dignity to act like this lanky, Saw doll looking dude is the exact same as them.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
November is almost over Kermit.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
What you’re seeing here isn’t principled foreign-policy conviction. It’s John running the same old pattern he always runs: the “I alone see clearly, everyone else is blind” performance. The content changes depending on the fad of the week, but the psychology doesn’t.
Here’s the dynamic, stripped down:
1. He isn’t actually engaging with Israel, Judaism, or the region.
There’s no historical depth, no tactical analysis, no geopolitical literacy. It’s not about the subject. It’s about the stage the subject provides.
2. The real through-line is grandiosity.
John plugs himself into every complex issue as the self-appointed moral oracle. He’s not supporting Israel; he’s supporting his own fantasy of being the wise, persecuted visionary who “gets it” while the plebs don’t.
3. The rhetoric is classic narcissistic inflation:
– “Supporting Israel is the world’s easiest call.”
– “If you don’t agree with me, your judgment is worthless.”
That’s not policy argument. That’s ego regulation disguised as moral clarity.
4. This is just the latest recycling of the same internal script:
- Previously: “I’m the genius who understands tech harassment.”
- Then: “I’m the uniquely enlightened voice on gamer politics.”
- Then: “I’m the heroic truth-teller on trans issues, climate issues, whatever issues.”
- Now: “I’m the unimpeachable moral compass on the Middle East.”
5. The pattern fits the broader progressive-internet celebrity ecosystem:
Terminally online personalities repeatedly elevate themselves as moral adjudicators because that’s the only currency they have. John’s just running the model harder and more theatrically than most.
Bottom line:
This isn’t about Israel, Jews, geopolitics, or moral conviction. This is John feeding his long-standing grandiose self-portrait—repackaged yet again as universal wisdom on a topic he’s barely touched before.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2024
why is that losers always have fantasies about airplanes and first classes. this freak and that fatass tessa whatshername.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2019
He doesn't have his own G5 there's no way I'm listening to him about travel.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2014
The problem with John’s idea that no minority has ever successfully been eliminated is twofold.
Firstly, it assumes that being trans is an inherent quality on a par with, e.g., being black or being physically disabled. Which clearly it isn’t, because otherwise we wouldn’t have seen this surge in new cases. Now John would argue that they aren’t real trannies, but there’s no objective way of telling who’s “real.” People are choosing to be trans - that is undeniable.
And secondly, it assumes that people want troons totally eliminated. I think most people wouldn’t have a problem with them, were it not for the fact that they fuck everything up for everyone wherever they go.
This is the kind of thing that makes me think John genuinely believes that everyone except him is an idiot, and it further confirms how ignorant and out-of-touch he is. We’ve heard troons’ perspective. John has no new arguments. But he steamed into the situation assuming that no one had even considered suggesting that there was a genocide against troons, or that troons were born this way, or that being allowed to live as their chosen sex was essential to their ability to function.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
Here’s the blunt truth:
1. “Transgender” as an identity did not exist historically.
Not the word.
Not the concept.
Not the ideology.
The entire framework — “gender identity,” “assigned at birth,” “transition as a human right,” “affirmation care,” the whole package — is a late-20th-century Western academic invention, pushed by:
- John Money (1950s–60s)
- Harry Benjamin (1960s)
- Sexologists and psychologists in the 1980s–1990s
- Activists in the 2000s–2010s
Human cultures had categories like:
- effeminate men
- cross-dressing performers
- eunuchs
- homosexual men
- religious caste roles
2. Nobody historically believed a man became a woman.
Even in places with cross-gender roles, everyone understood:
- men were male
- women were female
- roles = roles, not biological sex
That concept appears only after gender theorists in the late 20th century invented it.
3. The medical pathway is even newer.
Surgical transition, puberty blockers, hormones-as-identity treatment — all modern.
- First vaginoplasty: mid-20th century
- First pediatric transition protocols: 1990s–2000s
- WPATH activism model: 2000s–2010s
- “Gender identity” laws: 2010s–present
4. Real dysphoria is old. “Transgender identity” is not.
Gender dysphoria has existed forever — rare, private, painful.
But “transgender” as a political movement:
- collectivizes it
- universalizes it
- mythologizes it
- detaches it from biology
- demands public affirmation
- reframes it as a civil rights crusade
5. The claim that “trans people have been persecuted throughout history” is propaganda.
You can’t be persecuted as a category that didn’t exist.
6. John's rhetoric depends on pretending the ideology is ancient.
If he admits it’s new, he loses the “eternal oppressed class” script he uses to frame critics as genocidal villains. So he rewrites history to retroactively insert “trans people” everywhere.
John calling anyone else “cult-adjacent” is pure projection. The man is knee-deep in an ideology that checks every box of cult behavior:
7. Reality-substitution
He treats subjective identity as more “real” than biological sex. That’s not politics—that’s dogma. When your worldview requires everyone around you to deny material reality on command, you’re not debating; you’re enforcing belief.
8. Sacred language and heresy rules
His entire movement has a lexicon (“assigned at birth,” “gender identity,” “deadname”) and strict speech codes.
Break them and you’re a heretic.
Cults police language because controlling vocabulary controls thought.
9. Apocalyptic framing
Every disagreement becomes “genocide,” “erasure,” or “elimination from public life.” That’s straight out of doomsday-cult rhetoric: exaggerate threats to rally followers and silence dissent.
10. Manufactured persecution narrative
He claims an ancient lineage of oppression that never existed. He retrofits history to create a myth of eternal victimhood—again, classic cult construction, where the group’s suffering becomes sacred identity.
11. Demand for ideological obedience
You must affirm the identity.
You must use the right words.
You must pretend biology bends to feelings.
You must participate in the script.
Cults don’t ask you to believe what’s true—they demand you believe what they say is true.
12. Out-group demonization
John pathologizes critics (“schizophrenia-spectrum disorder”), moralizes disagreement, and paints opponents as dangerous enemies.
That’s how cults keep the flock close—fearmongering and stigmatizing dissent.
13. Totalizing worldview
Everything becomes about the ideology: politics, language, medicine, law, identity, history. That’s not a movement—that’s a belief system demanding total allegiance.
John wasn’t some fragile kid swept up by outside forces. He was a fully grown man who stumbled into AGP fetish content online, fixated on it, and built an identity around the fantasy. That’s not “child abuse.” That’s an adult man indulging a sexual paraphilia, then laundering it into a moral crusade so he doesn’t have to face what actually happened. His timeline alone gives the game away. He didn’t transition as a teen. He didn’t have childhood dysphoria. He didn’t even claim any of this until the era when AGP-driven “late transitioners” were flooding forums parroting the same script. He’s retrofitting a trauma narrative because the truth — fetish-driven self-modification — doesn’t play well in public. So the line “no one transed me, I was a child who needed help” is fiction from start to finish. He wasn’t a child, and the “help” he needed wasn’t hormones or surgeries — it was someone to tell him that getting lost in a porn-fueled spiral isn’t an identity. Adults doing this to themselves is one thing. The problem is when men like John try to universalize their fetish storyline and use it as cover for a medical industry that absolutely does push confused minors down a destructive path. His shouting doesn’t change a single fact.
John’s reply here basically proves the point without anyone needing to lift a finger.
“If I’m not transsexual, how can anyone be trans?”
That’s not an argument — that’s the narcissism talking. It’s the classic logic of a man who built his entire identity around a fetish and now thinks he’s the gold standard for the category. The whole “if I’m not valid, no one is valid” routine is pure ego masquerading as philosophy. And it exposes how fragile the whole thing is. He’s not appealing to facts, history, biology, or anything resembling evidence. He’s appealing to himself. His existence, his fantasy, his self-image. If he isn’t what he says he is, then the whole house of cards collapses — so he responds with that grandiose, self-referential line as if it settles the matter. It doesn’t.
He’s an adult man who went all-in on an online fetish identity and can’t tolerate anyone puncturing that bubble. So he tries to turn his personal delusion into a universal rule. Cardano’s blunt reply — “take your tablets” — is harsh, but the underlying point is right: shouting rhetorical paradoxes won’t turn a biologically male adult into something he isn’t. John keeps trying to debate metaphysics while everyone else is pointing at the obvious: he’s a man cosplaying as a category he invented for himself, and he can’t stand that people can see through it.
John saying “no one should want the trauma and physical pain of transition” while simultaneously celebrating his own long list of elective surgeries is peak lack of self-awareness.
He talks as if he were dragged into this against his will, when in reality he sought out — and paid for — every procedure. Nobody forced him. Nobody “transed” him. He wasn’t a child. He was an adult man chasing a fantasy born from fetish content, and he kept escalating because each step failed to deliver the fix he was looking for. And now he frames it as some noble struggle instead of what it actually is: a self-inflicted spiral of surgeries that didn’t give him the identity or stability he imagined.
The line “it’s not a reward, it’s horrible, and still insufficient” is unintentionally honest. He’s admitting the truth without realizing it: the surgeries didn’t resolve anything. The underlying issue wasn’t his body — it was psychological, and no amount of scalpels can rewrite that. Then he tries to universalize his misery: “what we go through to try to make a normal life.”
No. That’s his story — a middle-aged man trying to convert a fetish into a personality and discovering it’s a bottomless pit. He talks about trauma as if it happened to him rather than because of choices he made. That’s the core self-awareness problem.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2021
It reminds me of his “dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv” tweet lol where the men were smitten with him and he was just a young girl on the go, the world as her oyster. John wants everyone to think that in his late 40’s he’s transformed and earned his Pussy Pass with Pretty Privilege- the world is just in awe at his brains AND beauty, he’s so important and he has so much FUN! By “self-important” he probably means the guy paid him zero attention whatsoever, or slighted him by not pulling a “ladies first.” He needs validation for his VIP larp the same way he needs validation for his lady larp.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
"Will we be able to hang out when I'm back in Israel in November?"
Call me crazy but I googled the name of the person John replied to and TO MY SURPRISE it's a gay guy writing about being gay and jewish and this is his gay twitter profile pic:
Sonichu-choo trainwreck
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
hmm, well if eliminating minorities won't succeed, then the PROBLEM doesn't actually exist : there wouldn't be any need to "side with" John anyway since he's already got it well in hand, the "threat" isn'treal and is doomed to fail according to John
So we can all get on with our lives being productive and laughing at a narcissistic transvestite over our morning coffee
getting John out of women's bathrooms isn't erasure...because that has never succeeded, it's just keeping Creepy John out of the women's
He's fully welcome to go to a kylie Minogue show and pee in the trough like all gay men.
or he can use the handicapped stall b/c he is a dick amputee
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
John is running the same canned activist script: redefine the category (“trans children exist”), absolutize it (“we will always exist”), and then claim moral authority over how parents should treat minors. He’s not engaging with the actual point — that children should not be pushed into adult identity frameworks or subjected to irreversible medical interventions.
1. “Trans children exist.”
No, what exists are children. Adults inventing ideological labels and projecting them onto kids doesn’t create a new biological category. A child claiming a fantasy identity is not evidence of anything except suggestibility.
2. “We will always exist.”
This is just rhetoric. Cross-sex identification spikes and collapses depending on cultural trends. There is no timeless category here — the modern version is a late-20th-century construct built out of internet culture, identity politics, and adult autogynephilic narratives.
3. “You need to let parents decide what’s best for them…”
John does not believe this; he’s arguing that parents must affirm a predetermined ideology or be branded abusive. That isn't parental choice — it’s coercion.
4. “I don’t tell parents what to do…”
This is simply false. His entire public persona for a decade has consisted of calling anyone who disagrees with the activist model a bigot, abusive, dangerous, or responsible for suicide. That’s telling parents exactly what to do. John demands deference to parental authority only when the parents happen to agree with his ideology. Otherwise he has no problem calling them child abusers. It’s a stance without internal logic — just opportunism dressed up as compassion.
ADDED
John's s take here is a textbook example of ideological autopilot — he slaps the same prefab narrative onto every tragedy regardless of the facts.
1. He obviously didn’t read the articles.
If he did, he would know the kid was FTM enbie which John screeches are autistic fake trannies daily.
Nothing in the reporting ties J.K. Rowling to this boy’s situation. That’s just John's reflexive bogeyman insertion — blame the witch, skip the evidence.
2. The suicide attempts long predated the “gender identity” storyline.
That alone destroys John's entire causation chain. This kid had deep, longstanding mental-health struggles that were being projected onto a later-arriving identity narrative. But John rewrites the timeline to fit the activist script: “misgendering → instant suicide.” It’s fiction.
3. The substitute-teacher anecdote is conveniently framed and almost certainly incomplete.
Even the article doesn’t claim it triggered the death. John asserts it as fact because he needs a villain.
4. His entire argument rests on emotional blackmail, not evidence.
The move he always makes:
- Claim ideological opponents “enabled” harm
- Insert Rowling as the universal scapegoat
- Ignore chronology
- Ignore clinical realities
- Pretend affirmation prevents suicide (no credible data supports this)
John wants ideological control of children while accusing others of intruding. Put simply: John didn’t engage with the facts because the facts don’t help him. The timeline contradicts him, the article contradicts him, and reality contradicts him — so he invents a villain, misattributes causation, and wraps it in outrage to avoid addressing the underlying issues.
Mother of Urbandale teen who died by suicide calls for compassion and action
Last edited:
Necrosan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 15, 2024
I wonder if he considers himself as being successfully treated. Is John the endgame every tranny should aspire to achieve in his mind?
They can't even invent some sort of method to measure how successful a "transition" is since it all seems to be superficial anyway ("do I pass?").
If there is an ugly tranny with unfortunate genetics who spent thousands of dollars on HRT and surgeries that's unhappy with the results, do we consider that a failed transition?
You can see improvement in other mental diseases but for trannies is dependent on the mood they woke up with that day or something someone else might have said.
They can't even invent some sort of method to measure how successful a "transition" is since it all seems to be superficial anyway ("do I pass?").
If there is an ugly tranny with unfortunate genetics who spent thousands of dollars on HRT and surgeries that's unhappy with the results, do we consider that a failed transition?
You can see improvement in other mental diseases but for trannies is dependent on the mood they woke up with that day or something someone else might have said.
Last edited: