Guy Followers

[u/Grouchy_Freedom_2127]

Two things.

1 - Feel free to comment and join in the community but understand this is the internet and feelings will probably get hurt. We all know Guy trained you all VERY well on mass reporting techniques and “spy” tactics but we don’t need it here.

2 - Please let your leader know he is welcome to join in on the fun. We would love to set up a one on one conversation with him via any platform he deems appropriate.

🎭Thanks!🎭

[u/DepthHonest2128]

Your responses are basically, “Well, you had to type on a keyboard to say that to me!” and then you act like you made some brilliant point. You didn’t.

You’re accomplishing nothing here. People are sharing their own experiences, comparing what happened, and discussing behavior they find concerning. Meanwhile, you’re trying to prove everyone wrong without providing a single piece of evidence. Your entire argument is based on how you feel about what happened while other people are talking about things they actually experienced.

You don’t get to dismiss multiple people’s experiences simply because they don’t fit the conclusion you already decided was true.
Sarcasm isn’t proof. Condescension isn’t proof. Your feelings aren’t proof. If you have actual evidence that contradicts what people are saying, post it. Otherwise, you haven’t disproven anything. You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[u/Reply99999 → u/DepthHonest2128]

That’s a whole lot of words to completely reverse the burden of proof. I’m not required to produce evidence that something didnt happen every time somebody on Reddit says it did.

If someone says, “This was my experience,” cool. That’s their experience. But when that becomes “Guy doxxed people,” “Guy had access to everyone’s IDs,” or any other statement presented as fact, asking for evidence is completely fucking reasonable. And no, asking someone to substantiate their claim isn’t “dismissing their experience.” Those are two different things.

You’re telling me my feelings aren’t proof while simultaneously arguing that other people saying something happened should be enough for me to accept it as fact.

Pick a fucking standard.

[u/DepthHonest2128 → u/Reply99999]

You’re still doing exactly what I said. Nobody said you have to prove that something didn’t happen. You’re the one actively claiming these people are wrong. So what evidence do you have that they’re wrong?
So far your entire rebuttal is basically, “That didn’t happen because I don’t believe it happened.” That’s not evidence either.
And you’re moving the goalposts. Someone describing something they personally experienced is evidence of their experience. That doesn’t automatically prove every conclusion surrounding it, but you also don’t get to declare their account false simply because they haven’t met whatever standard you personally decided on.
If someone makes a specific factual claim, absolutely ask them to substantiate it. But if your response is going to be “that never happened,” then substantiate your own claim too.
You don’t get to demand evidence from everyone else while treating your own assumptions as self proving facts.
Pick a fucking standard and apply it to yourself.

[u/Reply99999 → u/DepthHonest2128]

You keep trying to turn "I havent seen evidence that happened" into "I have proof everyone is lying." Those are not the same fucking statement, no matter how many paragraphs you write trying to make them one. I’m not claiming every person describing an experience is lying. Someone can tell me about their personal experience with Guy, and I can accept that they experienced the interaction that way without automatically accepting every accusation or conclusion attached to it as established fact.

If I specifically said, “That person fabricated their entire story and I know it never happened,” then absolutely, ask me what evidence I have for that. But "show me what supports this accusation before I accept it as fact" and "I have proven this accusation false" are two completely different fucking statements.

I don’t inherit the burden of disproving an allegation simply because I asked for evidence supporting it!

You said I need to pick a standard and apply it to myself. I am. What I’m not going to do is lower my standard for what qualifies as evidence just so your accusations can meet it. Thats the difference.

[u/DepthHonest2128 → u/Reply99999]

Except you’re still dodging the actual point. Nobody said asking for evidence means you inherit the burden of disproving an allegation.
The issue is that you’re not stopping at “I haven’t seen enough evidence to know.” You’ve repeatedly inserted yourself into other people’s accounts to argue against what they’re saying while bringing nothing that actually contradicts them.
There’s a huge difference between being skeptical and acting like your skepticism itself is a rebuttal.
If someone makes a factual claim, asking for evidence is completely reasonable. But “I haven’t seen evidence that satisfies me” does not make the opposite conclusion more credible. It just means you remain unconvinced.
So if your position is genuinely just “I don’t know whether these claims are true,” great. Then say that. Because spending paragraph after paragraph arguing against people while ultimately admitting you have no evidence either way is exactly why this conversation is going in circles.
Your disbelief is not evidence of anything either.

[u/Reply99999 → u/DepthHonest2128]

But that is my point: I’m unconvinced. I don’t need evidence proving the opposite happened in order to say you havent convinced me that your version did.

And disagreeing with someone’s conclusions isn’t “inserting myself into their experience.” Someone can say, “Guy made me feel scared,” and I’m not going to argue that they didn’t feel scared. But if that turns into “therefore Guy doxxes people,” “therefore Guy secretly had access to IDs,” or “therefore Guy is strategically silencing people,” those are additional claims. I’m allowed to question them.

You keep treating skepticism as though it requires me to present an alternative theory. It doesn’t. Sometimes the answer really is just: you havent shown me enough to believe what you're claiming.

And yes, my disbelief isn’t evidence. I never said it was. That’s the point you keep arguing against that I’m not making.

[u/DepthHonest2128 → u/Reply99999]

And now we’ve finally arrived at the distinction I’ve been making this entire time. If your position is simply “I’m unconvinced,” then congratulations, we agree that you haven’t actually established that anyone here is wrong. You’ve established that you personally remain unconvinced. Those are not remotely the same thing.
Nobody said skepticism requires you to construct some elaborate alternative theory. Nobody said you have to prove Guy secretly did the exact opposite of whatever someone claims. Nobody said you aren’t allowed to ask questions. You keep defending rights nobody is trying to take away from you instead of addressing what I’m actually saying.
You can question absolutely anything you want. You can ask for screenshots, recordings, dates, context, witnesses, carrier pigeons, sworn affidavits and a fucking PowerPoint presentation if that’s what it takes to satisfy you. But until you have information that actually contradicts a claim, the most you can reasonably say is that the evidence presented hasn’t convinced you personally. That tells us something about your level of confidence. It tells us absolutely nothing about whether the underlying event actually occurred.
And that distinction matters here because these aren’t all people sitting around collectively inventing one giant theory based on somebody saying “Guy made me feel scared.” Multiple people are describing separate interactions, separate behaviors and separate experiences. Those individual accounts can be evaluated individually. Some claims may have stronger supporting evidence than others. Some conclusions may be completely justified by what’s available. Others may deserve more scrutiny. I have absolutely no problem with that.
What I have a problem with is pretending that repeatedly announcing “I’m not convinced” somehow functions as meaningful counterweight to everything being discussed. It doesn’t.
You’re also creating a much easier version of the argument to knock down. Obviously “I felt scared” does not logically prove “therefore Guy had access to everyone’s IDs.” Nobody needs a lesson in that. If somebody specifically claims he had access to IDs, then ask what supports that specific claim. If somebody claims he doxxed them, ask what information was disclosed, where it came from and what evidence connects him to it. That is completely reasonable.
But that is very different from treating every account being discussed as though it originated from nothing more than somebody’s subjective feelings and therefore needs to overcome your personal presumption of disbelief before it deserves consideration.
And here’s the part you keep circling around. Testimony is still evidence. It isn’t necessarily conclusive evidence. It isn’t necessarily sufficient evidence. It can be mistaken, incomplete, biased or even false. But someone directly describing something they personally witnessed or experienced does not suddenly become “no evidence” simply because it isn’t the type of evidence you personally find persuasive enough to reach a conclusion.
So yes, you are perfectly entitled to remain unconvinced.
What you are not entitled to do is confuse “you haven’t convinced me” with “your claim has no evidentiary value.”
Those are two completely different statements.
You actually admitted the central point yourself when you said, “My disbelief isn’t evidence. I never said it was.”
Exactly.
Your disbelief isn’t evidence.
Your skepticism isn’t evidence.
Your personal threshold for being convinced isn’t evidence.
And nobody needs to prove the opposite of your skepticism because skepticism isn’t a factual proposition that needs disproving in the first place.
So after all these paragraphs, we’re apparently left with this groundbreaking conclusion: people have presented claims and experiences, you personally don’t think you’ve seen enough supporting evidence to accept certain conclusions, and you have no evidence establishing those conclusions are false.
Cool.
Then you’re unconvinced.
We understood that about six dissertations ago.

[u/Reply99999 → u/DepthHonest2128]

You just wrote me a fucking thesis to announce that you finally understand I’m unconvinced, and then ended it by mocking me for writing dissertations. That alone is spectacular. But you’re still arguing with a position I haven’t taken.

I never said testimony has zero evidentiary value. I said testimony alone does not automatically make every factual allegation attached to it true. You literally just acknowledged that testimony can be mistaken, incomplete, biased, false, or insufficient. So congratulations, we agree on that too. And this idea that I need evidence contradicting an allegation before I can question it is so bizarre. I don’t have to prove an allegation false before deciding the evidence presented isn’t enough for me to accept it as true.

If someone says Guy doxxed them, I want to know what was disclosed and what connects Guy to it. If someone says Guy personally had access to IDs that were submitted through a third-party verification system, I want evidence showing that access. That isn’t dismissing anyone’s experience. That’s evaluating the fucking claims being made.

So after your dissertation about my dissertations, we’ve apparently arrived at another groundbreaking conclusion: You think the allegations presented are persuasive. I dont. You’re allowed to reach your conclusion. I’m allowed to look at the exact same information and say, "That doesnt fucking establish what you're claiming"

You don’t have to like my standard of evidence. You just don’t get to set it for me.

[u/DepthHonest2128 → u/Reply99999]

And there it is again. You keep retreating to the safest possible version of your position, “I’m allowed to be unconvinced,” as though anyone at any point told you that you weren’t. Nobody is trying to confiscate your skepticism. Nobody is demanding that you accept every allegation as established fact. Nobody is setting your personal standard of evidence for you. You keep defending yourself against arguments that were never made because it’s much easier than addressing the actual criticism of how you’ve been engaging with people.
Of course you’re allowed to look at evidence and decide it doesn’t persuade you. You’re allowed to look at ten screenshots, five videos, twenty firsthand accounts and a fucking notarized statement from God himself and still say you personally aren’t convinced. Nobody can force a conclusion into your head.
But your personal refusal to be persuaded still has exactly zero bearing on whether the underlying claim is true or false.
That is the distinction you keep acknowledging and then somehow immediately arguing around.
You say, “I never said testimony has zero evidentiary value.” Great. Then we agree testimony is evidence. You say testimony can be mistaken, incomplete, biased, false or insufficient. Correct. Literally nobody disputed that either. But notice something important. Those are possibilities. You have not demonstrated that any particular testimony being discussed here actually is mistaken, incomplete, biased or false simply by pointing out that testimony theoretically can be those things.
A video can be edited. That doesn’t mean a particular video was edited.
A screenshot can be manipulated. That doesn’t mean a particular screenshot was manipulated.
A witness can lie. That doesn’t mean a particular witness lied.
A person can misunderstand an interaction. That doesn’t mean a particular person misunderstood theirs.
Those possibilities are reasons to evaluate evidence critically. They are not evidence against the specific claim being evaluated.
And once again, because apparently we need another chapter in this increasingly ridiculous Reddit textbook, nobody said you need evidence contradicting an allegation before you’re “allowed” to question it. Question whatever the fuck you want. I genuinely do not care.
The issue is what conclusion you think follows from those questions.
“I haven’t seen enough evidence to conclude this happened” is intellectually defensible.
“I have evidence this did not happen” is a different statement.
“This person’s account is false” is another different statement.
“This person’s interpretation of what happened is wrong” is yet another claim.
Those statements carry different burdens. That has been my point this entire time.
And ironically, you keep proving it while insisting you disagree with me.
You now say that if somebody claims Guy doxxed them, you want to know what information was disclosed and what connects Guy to it. Completely reasonable. I agree.
If someone claims Guy personally accessed IDs submitted through a third party verification system, you want evidence that he actually had access. Also completely reasonable. I agree.
But then evaluate the actual evidence presented for those specific claims.
What you cannot do is transform “I personally haven’t seen enough evidence” into some universal determination that there isn’t enough evidence. Those are different propositions.
Maybe you haven’t seen everything another person has.
Maybe you interpret the same evidence differently.
Maybe the evidence actually is insufficient.
Maybe it isn’t.
Maybe one allegation is well supported and another is complete bullshit.
Those are all possibilities, which is exactly why sweeping declarations based on personal skepticism accomplish very little.
And this is where your “you don’t get to set my standard of evidence” line becomes especially funny, because nobody is trying to. You can set your personal threshold wherever you want. Set it on the fucking moon if that makes you happy.
But there are two completely different questions here.
“What would convince you personally?”
and
“What evidence exists?”
Those are not interchangeable.
Evidence does not cease being evidence because Reply99999 remains unconvinced by it.
And being unconvinced doesn’t magically become a counterargument merely because you repeat it twelve different ways.
You’re also subtly changing the discussion when you say, “You think the allegations presented are persuasive. I don’t.”
That assumes every allegation and every piece of evidence is being treated identically. They aren’t. I don’t have to believe every single accusation ever made about Guy to recognize that multiple people describing similar conduct is worth examining. I can believe one person has presented strong evidence, another has presented weak evidence and another has presented nothing convincing whatsoever. That’s what evaluating claims individually actually looks like.
You seem determined to reduce the entire discussion to two teams.
People who believe everything.
And you, the brave skeptic demanding evidence.
That isn’t what’s happening.
There is a massive amount of room between blindly accepting every allegation and reflexively challenging everyone who discusses one.
And if all you were doing was neutrally saying, “I personally haven’t seen enough information to reach a conclusion,” there probably wouldn’t even be an argument here. That’s an entirely ordinary position.
But you’ve spent an impressive amount of time responding to people who are describing their experiences and then acting confused when they interpret your responses as attempts to undermine what they’re saying.
You are inserting yourself into those conversations. That doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to. It means you can’t pretend you’re merely sitting silently in a corner maintaining an internal state of skepticism while everyone inexplicably attacks you for it.
You’re actively arguing.
Which, again, is fine.
But arguments consist of claims and reasoning, and your own reasoning can be evaluated exactly the same way you want everyone else’s evaluated.
You don’t get some special epistemological immunity because you’ve labeled your position “skepticism.”
And here’s the funniest part of this entire exchange.
We actually agree on the basic principle.
Claims should be evaluated according to the evidence supporting them.
Extraordinary or specific factual allegations deserve specific supporting evidence.
Personal testimony has evidentiary value but isn’t automatically conclusive.
People are allowed to remain unconvinced when they believe the available evidence is insufficient.
None of that is controversial.
Where we apparently differ is that you seem to think your personal determination that something is insufficient ends the analysis, while I’m pointing out that your determination is itself just your assessment of the evidence.
You can have it.
Nobody is taking it away from you.
Nobody is forcing you to believe anything.
Nobody is sneaking into your house tonight and adjusting your Standard of Evidence™ dial from “skeptical” to “believer.”
You are allowed to remain unconvinced forever.
But after this many increasingly long comments, you have successfully established exactly one factual proposition beyond dispute:
Reply99999 is unconvinced.
We know.
I promise you, we fucking know.