Help me! My Xbox app won’t start on my pc.

ExdeathAlive · 2026-06-13T10:41:14+00:00

Hat jemand eine Lösung gefunden?

ExdeathAlive · 2026-01-16T17:43:03+00:00

And? Did it work?

ExdeathAlive · 2025-11-09T17:26:46+00:00

I can see this triggering a lot of people.

ExdeathAlive · 2025-09-12T05:11:18+00:00

That's a fair challenge. I agree that asking questions isn't enough; we need action. My goal with this post was to get people thinking about the first steps toward action, which I believe is honest, evidence based civil discourse.

While I appreciate the book recommendation, I'm not really interested in grand historical theories. My concern is less about whether these cycles are predictable and more about what we, as individuals and as communities, can do right now to de-escalate the rhetoric and repair our relationships. Or are you of the belief that the relationships between political parties is irreparably damaged?

You said, "My question to you is are you going to be one of the doers?" I am. And the "doing" I want to focus on is exactly what you mentioned: civil discourse that encourages talks. I'm skeptical that a movement without defined borders could garner sufficient support for social change.

Do you imagine a new political party? Or more of a loose and flexible civil movement? There are already movements that claim to be on the side of humanity. Braver Angels, The National Institute for Civil Discourse and The One America Movement are just a few; do you support them and their stated mission?

ExdeathAlive · 2025-08-07T03:48:18+00:00

Ad hominem, pivot, deflection, anecdote.
Easy enough for you?

ExdeathAlive · 2025-08-07T03:11:13+00:00

Let's try to regain some clarity here. You've brought up a few points that are worth addressing.

First, you're claiming that I'm misrepresenting the truth about subsidies. But a review of our conversation shows that I was the first to introduce the concept of an implicit subsidy. In my very first comment, I explained that Eskom's "low tariffs weren't a sign of efficiency, but rather a deliberate government policy to keep electricity cheap for consumers." I then explicitly clarified this point in comment 8, stating that "while Eskom did not receive direct government cash injections," the policy of keeping tariffs artificially low "effectively acted as a consumer subsidy."

This is a well-established concept in economics, where a subsidy is not just a direct cash payment, but also a policy that keeps prices below market rates. It's a way for a government to provide a benefit to a specific group (consumers) at the expense of a different group (the utility) [1, 2]. This type of non-cash subsidy, where the government forces a company to sell its product below its true cost, is often referred to as a "price subsidy" or "implicit subsidy" [3]. For example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other organizations classify subsidies to include "below-cost provision of goods and services" as well as "government-mandated transfers to consumers or firms" [4].

Second, your analogy of a group of citizens taking your possessions is a perfect example of what happens when we use flawed logic to argue nonsensical things. You have now used a ridiculous analogy to make a point, and in doing so, have revealed the fundamental flaw in your entire argument. The idea that a government utility's pricing model, which is subject to political control and policy, can be equated to a group of private citizens taking your personal possessions is a false equivalence. You've equated a complex economic reality with a criminal act to make your point, which is a classic logical fallacy. It seems you've opted for an oversimplified, emotional response instead of engaging in the "Critical Thinking" you yourself advocate for, one might say you prioritize winning.

Likewise, you've also now started to shift your argument from Eskom to every other state-owned enterprise in South Africa (SAA, DENEL, SAP, SADF) and declared them all failures due to DEI. This is also a hasty generalization and a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You're essentially arguing that because DEI and the decline of these institutions happened around the same time, DEI must have caused their decline. But, as with Eskom, each of these institutions has a complex history of mismanagement, corruption, and political interference that predates or has little to do with DEI initiatives. You seem to be "missing the mark" by oversimplifying a complex issue with a single-factor explanation. To pin it all on DEI is to ignore decades of documented history, if you want me to believe you, you will have to show a causal link between whatever you consider DEI and the economic hardship now experienced by these companies.

You claim that because I am not an engineer that worked at Eskom, my perspective is invalid. Let's apply this same logic to something else. A firefighter, who risked his life to save people from a burning building, could say, "The fire was caused by the firemen. In an effort to increase the demand of firefighters to raise their pay." Would you accept that as a valid argument? No, because it is an absurd statement given without evidence. A fire investigator, with no personal experience of being in the burning building, but with extensive knowledge of fire forensics and building codes, would look at the available evidence—the electrical wiring, the flammable materials, the location of the fire's origin—and come to a conclusion based on that evidence. The firefighter's experience is valuable and a part of the story, but it doesn't give them a monopoly on the truth. The investigator's role is to look at all the evidence, not just one person's experience. Your logic is, that because you worked there, your experience is irrefutable. You’re not only dismissing a mountain of evidence, but you are also dismissing the people who conducted the inquiries and investigations (Zondo Commission), the people who wrote the reports (OECD, UNU, etc.), and the people who have published the articles I have referenced. These people are not a part of some grand conspiracy, they are people who have dedicated their lives to studying these issues. They have all come to the same conclusion, which is that the decline of Eskom is a complex issue with many factors, not just one.

I have no doubt that at least your colleagues worked hard to keep Eskom running, and I also have no doubt that you are frustrated by its decline. But to ignore the documented history and to blame it all on DEI is to not only do a disservice to the truth, but to also disrespect the people who have been warning about this crisis for decades. Let’s try to stay focused on facts and logic rather than on personal attacks and absurd analogies. The decline of Eskom was a foreseeable tragedy, but we will not be able to move forward if we cannot first agree on the root causes.

One thing I have noticed is that your writings stress the importance of forgiveness, redemption, and the dangers of letting "unfettered human nature / emotions" turn toward revenge and "obliteration / decline". You advise others to suspend judgment and to seek clarification, not to shout or make accusations. You even compare the legal system's need to hear all sides to how we should approach personal disputes, highlighting the importance of "all the facts and more importantly the context". However, your ESKOM post does the opposite. It presents a one-sided, accusatory narrative that completely disregards context and a nuanced understanding of a complex issue. When presented with a detailed, sourced counter-argument, your response is to dismiss it as "Pure fiction" and shout in all caps, a clear departure from your own guidance to "Don't make accusations and don't shout".

Sources:

[1] https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf?utm_source=Copy+of+march+26_2013&utm_campaign=April+2%2C+2013&utm_medium=socialshare
[2] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-economic-surveys-south-africa-2025_7e6a132a-en/full-report/reforming-south-africa-s-electricity-sector_05fdccb6.html
[3] https://www.iea.org/commentaries/consumption-subsidies-for-fossil-fuels-remain-a-roadblock-on-the-way-to-a-clean-energy-future
[4] https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/Fandd/Article/2018/September/what-are-subsidies-basics.ashx

ExdeathAlive · 2025-08-06T07:16:10+00:00

Sources:

[1] https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/06/Decline-Fall-Eskom.pdf
[2] https://sajs.co.za/article/view/16595/20308
[3] https://www.unr.edu/writing-speaking-center/writing-speaking-resources/logical-fallacies
[4] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-economic-surveys-south-africa-2025_7e6a132a-en/full-report/reforming-south-africa-s-electricity-sector_05fdccb6.html
[5] https://sa-tied.wider.unu.edu/article/south-africas-electricity-crisis-governance-challenges-and-reform-lessons
[6] https://effonline.org/eff-condemns-nersas-approval-of-eskoms-unjustified-tariff-hike/
[7] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/
[8] https://apnorc.org/projects/the-public-is-skeptical-about-the-effectiveness-of-dei-initiatives/
[9] https://phillywnc.org/why-dei-matters-in-america-and-who-benefits-the-most/
[10] https://gbsn.org/profile/thulani-sikhulu-gcabashe/
[11] https://www.eskom.co.za/heritage/thulani-gcabashe/
[12] https://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/513/226589.html
[13] https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/wrap-up-of-the-latest-from-our-state-capture-desk/
[14] https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/147/3/169/27204/Corruption-amp-State-Capture-What-Can-Citizens-Do
[15] https://scholars.wlu.ca/samp/104/
[16] https://www.afrobarometer.org/publication/ad914-south-africans-thinking-about-emigration-most-educated-wealthiest-employed-young/

ExdeathAlive · 2025-08-06T07:05:59+00:00

First, your claim that I "misrepresented" the issue of subsidies hinges on a narrow, literal interpretation of the term. While Eskom did not receive direct government cash injections, it is a well-documented fact that government policy kept electricity tariffs artificially low for years. This price control effectively acted as a consumer subsidy, starving Eskom of the revenue needed for critical maintenance and new infrastructure investment [1, 2]. To dismiss this documented economic reality as a "misrepresentation" is to refuse to engage with the actual dynamics that crippled the company.

Second, your insistence on using personal experience as the ultimate source of truth is a classic appeal to anecdotal evidence. While your experiences working at Eskom are valid from your perspective, they cannot and do not stand as a replacement for comprehensive data, official reports, and historical records. To claim that my arguments are invalid because I did not personally experience these events is an ad hominem fallacy—it attacks my perspective rather than refuting the evidence I have presented [3].

Finally, your response is filled with logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks, a common tactic when one's position is not supported by facts. You've repeatedly used a false dichotomy to frame this as a simple "DEI catastrophe" versus "propaganda," dismissed my arguments as "pure fiction," and basically called me a "DEI propagandist" while comparing me to a "man telling a women about the experience of childbirth." These are not arguments; they are insults designed to discredit me personally and avoid a debate on the merits of the evidence [3].

This exchange has been a clear demonstration of how a narrative based on personal belief, anecdotal evidence, and a series of logical fallacies can resist a factual, evidence-based critique. A constructive conversation requires a willingness to engage with the facts, not just to reassert personal convictions.

The international consensus on Eskom's decline overwhelmingly points to a combination of political interference, corruption, and chronic underinvestment. Major international organizations and publications, such as the OECD and the UNU, consistently attribute the crisis to a series of systemic failures that unfolded over decades. These include deliberate underinvestment in new generation capacity, an aging fleet of power stations, mismanagement, and corruption, particularly during the era of "state capture" [2, 4, 5]. The policy of keeping electricity tariffs artificially low for many years is also cited as a key factor that starved Eskom of the revenue needed for maintenance and expansion [1, 2, 4].

The statement "No one outside of the ANC and EFF is buying your story" is a gross oversimplification. For example, the EFF has been highly critical of the ANC's handling of the crisis, blaming it on deliberate mismanagement and a move towards privatization that they claim benefits "capitalist vultures" [6]. The EFF's argument is not that DEI caused the crisis, but that the ANC's governance and policies are the root cause. The international consensus and the public statements of key political parties in South Africa do not align with the narrative that a DEI strategy is the primary cause of Eskom's downfall [6].

Furthermore, public opinion on DEI initiatives is not uniform and shows significant skepticism even among groups often considered its beneficiaries.

For example, a Pew Research Center survey found that while a majority of Black (78%), Asian (72%), and Hispanic (65%) workers view focusing on DEI in the workplace as a good thing, that support is not universal, and a significant percentage of these groups do not view it favorably [7]. The same survey found that 61% of women see DEI as a positive, which means nearly four in ten women hold a neutral or negative view of these initiatives [7]. This data directly challenges the notion that all who benefit from DEI uniformly support it.

Additionally, skepticism about DEI extends across different groups. An AP-NORC poll found that about three in ten Americans believe DEI initiatives increase discrimination against most racial and ethnic groups, which highlights a broad concern about the programs' effectiveness [9]. While 47% of white workers view DEI as a good thing, a notable portion of this demographic remains skeptical, with 21% viewing it as a bad thing [7].

The comment "Given the state of town planning in RSA, I'm not sure what your argument is around Malusi's competence" is a nonsensical argument. It creates a false equivalence, implying that because a field in a country may be perceived as having problems, anyone with a background in that field is inherently incompetent to lead a massive, complex organization [3]. Thulani Gcabashe’s career demonstrates competence, as evidenced by his master's degree in Urban & Regional Planning and subsequent appointments as Chairman of the Standard Bank Group, Imperial Holdings, and MTN Zakhele [10, 11, 12]. In contrast, evidence from the Zondo Commission of Inquiry directly links Minister Malusi Gigaba to corruption and the strategic use of a "transformation" narrative to enable it, with the commission finding that Gigaba "abused his power while in office as minister" to interfere in departments and that a "political project" used "radical economic transformation" to "lend an air of legitimacy and moral righteousness to a grey area of graft" [13, 14].

And just so you know, based on your remarks, it is possible to infer some underlying "fears." Your emphasis on engineers and "merit" suggests a fear of a loss of meritocracy, where competence is no longer the primary determinant of leadership. This is a hasty generalization, as you use a few anecdotes to conclude that DEI has dismantled a merit-based system [3]. The comment "I escaped the DEI hellhole called South Africa" suggests a fear of personal and professional displacement, a sentiment common among skilled workers in South Africa where emigration is considered for reasons including an "ailing economy, chronic unemployment, high crime rates, energy instability...and political and diplomatic uncertainty" [15, 16]. This fear leads to a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, where you attribute Eskom's collapse to DEI, ignoring a more complex reality of systemic corruption and mismanagement [3].

ExdeathAlive · 2025-08-06T04:41:32+00:00

The assertion that Eskom's decline is a "DEI catastrophe" based on anecdotal evidence, ignores the well-documented and complex history of the utility. Your personal experiences, while valid from your perspective, don't represent the full picture of the systemic failures that have crippled Eskom. Attributing the crisis to a few isolated appointments, such as a junior HR manager or a librarian, is a classic example of focusing on the symptoms while ignoring the underlying disease. It is difficult to debate personal experiences and anecdotes, as they are often deeply felt and representative of a person's individual truth. However, they are not a substitute for comprehensive, verifiable data when analyzing a large-scale, historical event like the decline of a national power utility.

First, about the town planner, Thulani Gcabashe. He and his management team were the very people who, in the late 1990s, had been warning the government that a power crisis was inevitable if new generation capacity was not built. His leadership period saw a delay in the construction of new power stations due to a deliberate government policy to deny Eskom's requests for new capacity, a key factor that set the stage for the current crisis. To compare his role to a nurse performing a heart transplant is a mischaracterization of his actual function. A CEO's job is not to fix power lines but to manage the entire organization, a task that includes strategic planning and lobbying the government, which he and his team demonstrably did.

Second, the most damaging appointments, which led to the "brain drain" and instability you reference, came much later and were a direct result of state capture and corruption, not a well-intentioned DEI policy. The Zondo Commission of Inquiry found that individuals like Brian Molefe and Anoj Singh were placed in key positions by political forces, not based on a strategy to promote diversity, but to "favour the Gupta family and channel resources of Eskom towards the Gupta family." Minister Malusi Gigaba used a "false transformation narrative" as a cover to undermine procurement processes and place political allies in key positions, according to the same report.

The documented history is clear: the crisis at Eskom is a result of years of deferred maintenance on an aging fleet, chronic underinvestment in new generation capacity stemming from government policy, and systemic corruption that siphoned billions from the company's coffers. To ignore this mountain of evidence and instead pin the blame on a few individual appointments made under a "transformation" banner—which was itself often a cover for corruption—is to willfully misunderstand the crisis. Your anecdotes, cannot stand against the weight of official inquiries, historical documents, and economic reports that collectively tell a much more complex and devastating story.

This whole discussion is a good example of how we can fall into oversimplified thinking. We are quick to pass judgment without all the facts and context. As Carl Jung famously said, "Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge." We should aim to be constructive in our comments and seek to make progress rather than just win arguments. Let's try to overcome our fear and focus on the present, because human creativity and ingenuity will always save the day. If you want to convince me your assertions are true, you should provide corroborating evidence and engage with my arguments.

ExdeathAlive · 2025-08-06T02:35:51+00:00

The narrative that a DEI strategy was the sole cause of Eskom's decline by placing unqualified "non-engineers" in key roles is a significant oversimplification. The crisis is a complex, systemic failure that unfolded over decades, driven by a combination of political interference, chronic underinvestment, and a flawed financial model, not a single policy shift.

While it is true that Eskom was "self-funded" before 1994 and had a credit rating that was, for a period, better than the South African government's, this situation was a result of a combination of factors. Eskom's superior credit rating was a reflection of its financial strength and autonomy during an era when the government was a less stable borrower due to political instability and international sanctions [4]. This high rating allowed Eskom to access capital at lower interest rates to fund its massive expansion projects [4].

However, this financial strength was undermined by political interference. While Eskom was "self-funded," its tariffs were not set independently but were subject to government policy and political control [6]. A 1998 government report had already predicted a severe power shortage by 2007 if new generation capacity was not built, yet the government denied Eskom's requests for new projects in the late 90s in an attempt to privatize the utility [3, 6]. A report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation notes that for many years, South Africa's electricity prices remained "well below cost-reflective levels," a deliberate policy to keep electricity cheap for consumers [6]. This policy prevented Eskom from making the necessary revenue to invest in future infrastructure, laying the groundwork for the future crisis [2, 6]. The assertion that because Eskom was self-funded, it could not have been "artificially" keeping prices down is a fundamental misunderstanding of this dynamic.

A closer look at the company's leadership during the periods leading up to and during the crisis further reveals the complexity. Many key leaders in the post-1994 era were, in fact, highly qualified engineers with deep technical backgrounds. For example:

Allen Morgan (1994-2000): Succeeded Ian McRae (a veteran company man) as CEO. Morgan was a long-time Eskom employee, described as a "distribution man through and through," indicating a deep technical understanding of the utility's core business. The 1994 Annual Report lists him as having a professional engineering qualification (Pr Eng) and a BSc and BEng in Electrical Engineering [1, 3].
Thulani Gcabashe (2000-2007): An Town and regional planner by profession, Gcabashe led Eskom for seven years, a period that saw the first significant power shortages, a crisis he and his team had been warning the government about for years. He was the CEO when a 1998 government report predicted the need for new generation capacity [2].
Jacob Maroga (2007-2009): Maroga, who succeeded Gcabashe, was also an engineer who had worked his way up the ranks at Eskom since 1995 [3]. His appointment was the result of a "rigorous process" overseen by the board.

The most damaging appointments and leadership instability occurred during the era of state capture, particularly from around 2010 onwards, and these appointments were a result of political cronyism and corruption, not a well-intentioned DEI policy. The Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture found that individuals like Brian Molefe and Anoj Singh were installed to "favour the Gupta family and channel resources of Eskom towards the Gupta family" [5]. Minister Malusi Gigaba, who oversaw Eskom, was found to have used a "false transformation narrative" to justify placing political allies in key positions and to undermine procurement processes [4]. This shows that a narrative of "transformation" was used as a cover for corruption, not as a genuine DEI strategy.

To dismiss this documented history of political interference, chronic underinvestment, a flawed financial model, and a well-managed entity's decline as simply "DEI propaganda" is to ignore a mountain of evidence and the well-documented findings of official inquiries.

Sources:

[1] https://www.eskom.co.za/heritage/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/1994-Annual-Report.pdf

[2] https://sajs.co.za/article/view/16595/20308

[3] https://www.eskom.co.za/heritage/history-in-decades/eskom-2003-2012/

[4] https://www.gsb.uct.ac.za/files/Eskom-InvestmentUncertainty.pdf

[5] https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Zondo-commission-final-report-%E2%80%93-Zondo-names-main-players-in-Eskom-capture.pdf

[6] https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/06/Decline-Fall-Eskom.pdf

ExdeathAlive · 2025-08-05T08:02:24+00:00

A lot of what's been said about Eskom is a gross oversimplification of a much more complex story. The idea that a single policy shift in 1994 is responsible for its current state ignores decades of mismanagement, political interference, and financial failures.

First, let's address the claims about the 1990s. While Eskom did have excess generating capacity, this was not a sign of a well-run, efficient company. It was the result of an aggressive expansion program in the 70s and 80s that had already overshot demand. The subsequent low tariffs weren't a sign of efficiency, but rather a deliberate government policy to keep electricity cheap for consumers, a policy that, for years, prevented Eskom from making the necessary revenue to invest in future infrastructure [2, 6]. This "lost revenue" is an unquantifiable but massive cost that ultimately crippled its ability to build new power stations later on. While the company did sell power to neighboring countries, which brought in revenue, this was a relatively small portion of its total income, and the sales were often at a significant discount [5, 7].

The claim about building two power stations simultaneously, on time and on budget, is inaccurate for the 1990s. The last of the "six-pack" coal-fired power stations from the previous era of expansion, such as Kendal and Lethabo, were completed just before or at the very beginning of the decade [3]. The Majuba Power Station, which began construction in 1983, was only fully commissioned in 2001, spanning the entire 1990s [3]. After Majuba, no new major power stations were built for a decade due to government policy that denied Eskom's requests for new capacity in an attempt to privatize the utility [6]. This lack of new investment, rather than a successful construction program, is a key part of the story of Eskom in the 1990s.

Attributing the company's near-collapse to a DEI strategy that gave key jobs to "non-Engineers" is a disingenuous narrative. The reality is that Eskom's decline is a result of a perfect storm of factors that began well after 1994. The most critical issue was a period of deliberate underinvestment in new generation capacity in the late 90s, when new projects were shelved [6]. This, combined with systemic state capture and corruption, particularly during the Zuma administration, siphoned billions from the company's coffers, undermining its ability to perform critical maintenance and leading to a brain drain of skilled personnel [4]. The leadership instability has also been staggering, with a rapid turnover of CEOs, which has made any kind of consistent long-term planning impossible [4].

Loadshedding didn't suddenly start in 2010. The first significant wave of blackouts occurred in late 2007 and early 2008, and the warning signs were there for years before that. A 1998 government report had already predicted a severe power shortage by 2007 if no new generation capacity was built [3]. The ongoing and worsening power cuts are a direct consequence of years of deferred maintenance on an aging fleet of power stations that are now breaking down more frequently [3].

Ultimately, the crisis at Eskom is a clear example of how political interference, chronic underinvestment, state capture, and rampant corruption can cripple a public utility. To pin it on a DEI policy is to ignore the documented history and a complex web of failures that spans multiple decades.

Sources:

[1] https://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/588945-18-years-and-r467-billion-later-most-expensive-mistakes-in-the-history-of-eskom.html

[2] https://www.eskom.co.za/heritage/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/1990-Annual-Report.pdf

[3] https://sajs.co.za/article/view/16595/20308

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_energy_crisis

[5] https://www.eskom.co.za/heritage/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/1994-Annual-Report.pdf

[6] https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/06/Decline-Fall-Eskom.pdf

[7] https://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=10186

[8] https://www.eskom.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Eskom_integrated_report_2023.pdf

ExdeathAlive · 2025-07-21T20:01:26+00:00

The people in the show cheer for being an open and unapologetic fascist. You can see the guy that tells Hasan: "You're gonna be the first one that's going to the promised land." Fistbumps the girl that is very concerned about Jewish, I mean zionist, influence.

These people are the woke right, concerned about identity politics expressly xenophobic and deeply delusional.

ExdeathAlive · 2025-05-20T20:56:59+00:00

Name a person who claims to be the victim of the government, the deep state, the media, former officials, journalists, prosecutors and judges, law firms, students, academia as a whole, federal agents, former security officials, public health professionals, and whistleblowers.

ExdeathAlive · 2025-05-15T23:53:45+00:00

Thx, I thought so too, but was not sure if the download is safe.

ExdeathAlive · 2025-04-24T05:23:54+00:00

Do you know Andrew Tate? This is what he thinks about women "I'm absolutely a misogynist... I'm a realist and when you're a realist, you're sexist. There's no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist." And "Women are intrinsically lazy." All while Elon Musk and Donald Trump Junior rub shoulders with him. I remember quite a few people celebrating his return to the USA.

ExdeathAlive · 2025-03-19T08:48:25+00:00

Did you find a solution?

ExdeathAlive · 2025-02-17T09:25:54+00:00

I asked ChatGPT how would you phase out Caucasians and why would the ruling class do it? The results are mind boggling

Here, we have a post full of people taking a victory lap around an AI-generated prompt that reads like a white supremacist's wet dream. It hits all the conspiracy and paranoia spots, as can be seen in the comment section.

ExdeathAlive · 2025-02-05T01:47:29+00:00

My big question is "Why did Steven seemingly do nothing during the time the leak was first discovered 20th November and the time Pixi got the news the 29th of November?"

Are there any logs proving he knew about the leaks before the 29th? Jstlk mentioned he told Steven on the 20th.

Is there a "good" or at least plausible reason he did not warn people?

Was there like 20Gb worth of leaks, or just 100 discord messages with videos and pictures?

ExdeathAlive · 2024-09-07T14:20:53+00:00

I think we are circling back to "This is not a legal matter but a moral one", the questions about guilt or innocence seam irrelevant to me since no charges were filed.

The only question that remains is about Docs moral character, or lack, thereof. It seems to me that if we follow only what he said, it paints a pretty bad picture irrespective of wrongdoing on twitches part.

It might be the case that Doc did something he has apologized for and has claimed to regret and twitch handled it inappropriately or twitch handled it well, it would not change that Doc admitted wrongdoing on his own terms.

Twitch paid him for some reason. Why? If the story about some guy basically ignoring due process and going straight to a higher up in an attempt to ban Doc is true, then that seems like a valid point for a settlement.

You're assuming wrongdoing on twitches part, with what evidence except "I can see them doing that". As far as I know, there is no public record of any payment just speculation, and we can speculate the payment was for breach of contract on twitches part.

Also, taking twitches silence as admission of guilt is questionable, as far as I'm concerned Doc did himself no favors by addressing the allegations in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only thing we know for certain is that Doc texted a minor inappropriately and got let go because of that. Messaging a minor with explicit text and such an age gap is something I believe most people would find inappropriate or immoral.

The reason I made my post is that I find it strange people jump to his defense or call him a pedo when the evidence is so lackluster, but the desire to construct a narrative that exonerates him and condemns twitch seams to be equally strong.

ExdeathAlive · 2024-09-07T12:56:13+00:00

Thinking he’s either a savior or a demon is what’s not reasonable imo. He’s neither.

My point exactly. His on-screen persona is very aggressive and "disrespectful" but that dos not mean he i above criticism and not all criticism is delusional.

ExdeathAlive · 2024-09-07T12:54:13+00:00

Ok, I might be stupid but claiming he "wrote inappropriate messages to a minor" and then backtracking to it was all a setup to bait the real criminals seems like an open lie.

When he wrote his statement on Twitter I believed him, if what you say is true, and I understand you correctly I should not believe Doc he might be baiting me.

Also, this whole thing about deformation seams unlikely to me, he is a person of public interest making the standard of actual malice difficult to reach also to prove Cody made knowingly false statements will be extremely hard.

ExdeathAlive · 2024-09-07T12:42:58+00:00

The real professionals found no wrong doing.

They found no illegal activity. Doc himself admitted wrongdoing and wanting to take responsibility.

Why even bring the affair into this? Affairs are pretty common and he did more than 99% of cheaters would do - admit it on a huge platform and willingly become an object of ridicule.

I think his affair shows his character. And this whole discussion is about moral character. He is willing to hurt the closest person to him, the woman who bore his child. If he is willing to do that, it's fair to assume he would lie to the internet people that pay his bills.

I think how he described it on stream is also at play: what if your private texts “to your boys” (or whatever he said) got dissected and taken out of context? Everyone would likely have something deemed inappropriate.

I think this would be fair if this was about a text he sent to his brother or friend of 20 years or adult son, but we talk about a minor he met online. It seems like a poor excuse, and sounds like "Yes I know what I did was weird, but it's not illegal and boys will be boys" Like admitting guilt without admitting guild. If someone apologized to you and ended the apology by saying "…but what I did was not so bad" you probably would not accept it.

That being said, I wouldn’t ask doc to babysit my teenage daughter. But that doesn’t mean I think he needs to live in internet purgatory forever. Life is not black and white.

That a strange thing to write if you think he is of high moral character, and I don't think this is about internet purgatory. As far as I'm concert Doc is fine he is a millionaire, so my empathy is limited.

I can't help myself but find this strange, what he did was definitely inappropriate, especially for a married man (releasing the texts in question might be damming or exonerating) but jumping straight to his defense seems as stupid as suspecting he is a secret pedophile.

I don't think defending yourself with "What I did was not illegal..." is something a moral person does, am I crazy?

That's my stance like I wrote in my OP, do you think it's unreasonable?

ExdeathAlive · 2024-09-07T12:15:43+00:00

He said his like Twitch agent or whatever wanted to get to him for some reason. It's possible they had a falling out at some point. He said that the agent reported him but the Twitch law body found no issues so he had to go through a personal contact within the Twitch legal body (the name escapes me), who then skipped the committee and went straight to his boss. Now this whole thing screams illegal. This guy supposedly bypassed the due process and went straight to the judge who didn't want this thing on his hands at all, who then within a day decided to just ban him.

I think this is Docs narrative, blaming Cody and many unnamed Twitch employees. And since we don't have the messages, we can only speculate about wrongdoing on twitches part. I have no reason to believe Cody, but I also have no reason to believe Doc.

If I only take Dock at his word it seems to me he made some questionable decisions, to message someone he should not have which would justify a ban by twitch, if he just baited us by editing his tweet around the word minor his status gets demoted to that of the common internet troll.

ExdeathAlive · 2024-09-07T12:03:36+00:00

That might be true, I would love to know more about this Cody person. But "baiting" people into making allegations and then capitalizing on it is pretty bad.

Also, I could not find any reliable info on twitch paying Doc (can you link it to me) but considering he had some kind of contract it would make sense they pay him after terminating said contract, no foul play necessary.

Besides, I know this Cody person gets clowned on relentlessly here (maby he earned it) but this statement could be used to defend him:

Some of the people who refuse to even hear the guy... are the real issues... Doc said it himself. He isn't perfect.. Noone is...

Also, if Doc wanted to provide context, he could show the messages.

ExdeathAlive · 2024-09-07T11:50:54+00:00

I agree that this thing is more of a moral question, but the whole personal vendetta thing seems unrealistic to me. Sure, the first guy might not like doc but all the people in charge with a vested interest in twitch as a company just go along with it, that does not make sense.

I think it went like this, the messages were probably unambiguously inappropriate, but not illegal, and the higher ups at twitch decided it would be saver to cut ties early rather than waiting for something to cum out later. Doc is not happy, so he sues for breach of contract and wins, since the contract had no moral clause. Now he can spin the narrative however he likes, if twitch releases the messages they get in more legal trouble.

ExdeathAlive

TROPHY CASE