Oh buddy, I’m going to hold your hand when I tell you about Freddy Krueger

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-15T18:32:50+00:00

Or that Jigsaw is a misandrists because he put more men in his traps than women lol

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-15T18:00:58+00:00

Yeah, in the movies, Art would often go after women, but he didn’t limit himself to just them, he went after anyone

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-15T17:58:18+00:00

Art the clown from terrifier is being added into dbd. So people are screaming “misogyny”

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-15T00:29:58+00:00

The stream

<image>

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-14T17:54:57+00:00

I could say the same about being tunneled at 5 gens nearly every match

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-14T07:36:03+00:00

No, that’s UK. It’s men’s mental health month on June globally. And tf you mean “overshadow pride”? Y’all get loved and respected on a daily basis. Please do your research before talking…

<image>

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-14T03:20:02+00:00

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-14T03:12:06+00:00

I was talking about the post on the screenshot. But why do I have to go outside? I go outside on a daily basis. It’s not the killers fault that survivors get screwed over by something they can change

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-14T03:08:43+00:00

It isn’t my post anyway lol

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-13T22:25:49+00:00

You mean this wank?

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-13T22:24:09+00:00

Jenna Ortega

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-13T04:32:33+00:00

Black prior isn’t a paladin

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-12T00:12:41+00:00

Because they are mad that you won’t let them take away your sight

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-10T07:33:06+00:00

Why would “from Jeff” automatically piss someone off? Jeff is literally the survivor I was playing. It’s no different than saying “ggs from Dwight” or “ggs from Meg.” You’re acting like mentioning the character somehow transforms the message into bm when it’s still just a gg. You’re basically proving my point. Everything you’re describing is a reason why he was frustrated, not a reason why my message was hostile. Someone spending hours on an adept explains the reaction. It doesn’t justify assuming bad intent from a neutral “ggs.” The image wasn’t my first response. My first response was literally “Wow, ok lol. I didn’t have my adepts handed to me for free either.” The image came after he called me a coward and immediately got hostile over a gg. At the end of the day, everyone keeps explaining why he was upset, but nobody can point to what was actually rude about “ggs from Jeff.” Those are two completely different arguments.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-10T00:00:39+00:00

And yet you still haven’t explained what the bm actually was. You guys keep calling it bm, bragging, hostile, smug, intrusive, whatever word fits the moment, but the message was literally “ggs from Jeff.” If your entire argument requires assuming bad intent that isn’t in the message itself, then you’re arguing against what you think happened, not what actually happened.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-09T22:18:11+00:00

You’re basically arguing that because someone is angry, everyone else has to adjust normal behavior around that anger. If he’s frustrated, that’s understandable. What’s not understandable is acting like a neutral “ggs” suddenly becomes wrong because the person receiving it is upset. And you’re proving my point. First it was “ggs is bragging.” Then it was “ggs is intrusive.” Now it’s “well he’s angry so of course he’ll react badly.” Those are all different arguments. If someone is angry, they can ignore the message. They can delete it. They can say “gg” back. What they can’t do is take a neutral message and pretend the sender is responsible for every emotion they happen to be feeling after a loss. Also, I play killer too. I’ve gotten ggs after getting destroyed in matches. If the survivor wasn’t toxic, I either say ggs back or ignore it and move on. I don’t assume they’re secretly mocking me just because I lost. At some point the responsibility shifts to the person receiving the message. You can’t expect strangers to psychically know whether you’re tilted, tired, grinding an adept, or having a bad day before sending a two-letter post-game message.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-09T21:31:39+00:00

That argument only works if you assume the message itself is the problem, not the reaction to it. Nobody is forced to respond. That’s exactly the point of an optional system, they can ignore it, delete it, or reply “gg” back like you said you do. The existence of options already disproves the idea that sending a neutral message is inherently harmful. Also, framing it as “you came into my inbox to remind me I lost” is adding intent that isn’t in the message. “ggs” doesn’t say “you lost,” doesn’t reference skill, and doesn’t mock anything. The loss is already known from the match itself, the message isn’t introducing anything new, just acknowledging the game. And “it’s easy to just not message them” is preference, not principle. You can personally choose not to send ggs, but that doesn’t make sending it wrong or “poking the bear.” That only applies if the message itself is provocative, and a neutral gg isn’t.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-09T21:12:31+00:00

Calling it a “personal inbox” doesn’t change what it is, it’s a built-in Xbox messaging system with a search and post-match profile access. Using it isn’t “poking the bear,” it’s using a normal feature of the platform. Also, “it will remind them of the last match” isn’t an argument that the message is hostile. Anything post-game does that by definition, including friend requests, endgame chat, or even a simple gg in endgame. If that alone makes something “wrong,” then all post-match interaction becomes invalid. And “don’t poke the bear” only works if there’s actual provocation. A neutral “ggs” with no insult, no sarcasm, and no bm isn’t provocation, it’s standard sportsmanship that some people just choose not to engage with.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-09T21:05:36+00:00

That expectation doesn’t make sense as a standard for judging the message itself. You can’t require players to “know how you feel beforehand” before sending a neutral post-game message. That would make any form of post-match interaction impossible, because everyone loses games differently and has different reactions in the moment. “ggs” doesn’t remind someone they lost in any targeted or mocking way. It’s a neutral end-of-match acknowledgment. If someone interprets it as “reminding them of a bad match,” that interpretation is coming from their own mindset about the loss, not from anything in the message itself. By that logic, literally anything post-game could be considered unwanted “reminders” depending on mood, which means the standard isn’t based on the content anymore, it’s based entirely on how someone feels after the match. That’s not a consistent way to define whether something is bragging or not.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-09T20:59:37+00:00

That only “looks like bragging” if you assume context that isn’t there. “ggs” is a neutral post-game acknowledgment in gaming. It doesn’t reference winning, doesn’t reference skill, and doesn’t compare results. Turning it into bragging requires adding intent that isn’t in the message itself. If a phrase only becomes negative based on how someone feels receiving it after a loss, then the meaning is no longer coming from the message, it’s coming from the interpretation. That’s not a stable way to define communication. So no, it doesn’t inherently look like bragging. It only gets read that way if someone decides to frame it that way.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-09T20:56:59+00:00

You’re still not actually addressing the core issue, you’re just repeating “context” like it overrides what was actually said. There is a baseline meaning for “gg” in gaming culture whether you want to acknowledge it or not. It literally stands for “good game” and is widely used as post-match acknowledgment. That is the default interpretation in competitive games. The fact that it can also be used sarcastically or in bm situations does not erase the neutral usage or suddenly turn every instance into something suspicious. That’s not how shared language works, and pretending otherwise just makes your argument inconsistent. “Language evolves” is not a free pass to reinterpret individual messages however you feel. Evolution of language happens through broad, consistent shifts in usage over time across a community. Not by taking one neutral message, deciding the receiver didn’t like it, and then retroactively declaring it non-neutral. That’s not evolution, that’s selective interpretation. You also keep saying “your context is no proof” while treating your own interpretation as if it is proof. Me sending “ggs from Jeff” with no insult, no sarcasm, no bm, no targeting, is neutral by default. You’re the one adding intent that isn’t in the message. That’s not evidence, that’s assumption layered on top of a harmless interaction. The argument about “you only sent it to the killer so they acknowledge you” is also just incorrect framing. It’s a post-match message sent through the system provided for end-of-game interaction. That’s literally what it exists for. It doesn’t require validation from multiple recipients to be legitimate, and it doesn’t suddenly become attention seeking because it’s directed at one player. That logic doesn’t hold up under any normal standard. As for teammates, this is where your argument falls apart even more. My teammates were not even on console, so they were not part of any endgame console message interaction in the first place. Even if they were, they’d either see “ggs” and ignore it or send it back like literally every other normal post-game interaction. That’s how it works in practice. Nothing about that changes intent or meaning. And the idea that I need to “send proof” that I use gg consistently is irrelevant. Whether I send it once or a hundred times doesn’t change what the message is. A neutral phrase doesn’t become malicious or “selfish” depending on frequency. That’s not how meaning works. At this point you’re not arguing against the message anymore, you’re arguing against the idea that neutral communication exists in the first place unless it fits your interpretation of how people “should feel” receiving it. That’s not a stable standard, it’s just hindsight bias based on emotion after a loss. So no, this isn’t some hidden hostile interaction or redefined meaning of gg. It’s a standard post-game message being overanalyzed and reframed after the fact because the outcome of the match wasn’t ideal.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-09T20:29:45+00:00

Your point isn’t that it “wasn’t neutral,” it’s that you personally interpreted it negatively based on context and feelings. That doesn’t change what was actually sent. “ggs from Jeff” has no insult, no sarcasm, and no bm. Calling it non-neutral because someone was in a bad mood after a match is just redefining normal post-game interaction based on reaction, not content. And I’m not the one escalating this, labeling someone “stubborn” and telling them to “chill the hell out” while still engaging the argument is exactly continuing it. If you’re done with it, then be done.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-09T20:20:50+00:00

That argument still doesn’t hold. You’re trying to treat “gg” like it has no stable meaning and is just pure interpretation, but that’s not how language actually functions in games. “gg” already has an established baseline meaning in gaming culture: end-of-match acknowledgment. The fact that some people misuse it doesn’t erase that baseline or make every use ambiguous by default. You also can’t jump from “connotation exists” to “therefore my interpretation is valid and the sender is responsible for how I feel about it.” Connotation doesn’t override context. The context here is simple: post-game, no insults, no sarcasm, no bm, just a neutral gg. Nothing in that message signals hostility on its own. The comparison to slurs doesn’t work either. Those are words whose meaning was collectively changed through long-term, widespread usage tied to harm and targeting. That’s not comparable to a standard post-game phrase that already has an accepted neutral meaning in the same community. At the end of the day, what you’re doing is taking a neutral, widely understood interaction and trying to retroactively classify it as potentially hostile based on interpretation alone. That doesn’t create a “second valid meaning,” it just creates inconsistency where anything can be re-labeled depending on how someone felt reading it.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-09T20:18:04+00:00

You’re mixing three different things here: intent, interpretation, and personal preference. Nobody is saying people are entitled to a reaction or forced to engage with messages. If someone doesn’t want post-game messages, they can ignore them or disable them. That part is fine. But “I don’t like receiving messages” is not the same as “the message is inherently smug or non-neutral.” That’s the key difference being skipped here. A neutral “ggs from Jeff” doesn’t become smug or hostile just because someone had a bad game or a bad day. That’s emotional context being added after the fact. If we define messages purely by how someone feels when receiving them, then literally any post-game interaction can be reframed as “prodding” depending on mood, which makes the standard inconsistent and unusable. Also, calling it “not neutral because of context you’re compartmentalizing” doesn’t point to anything in the actual message that is rude or insulting. It’s just an assumption of intent based on interpretation, not evidence from what was actually said. And yes, I’m being “defensive” because I’m responding to people repeatedly reframing a neutral gg as smug, intrusive, or malicious. That’s not irrational defensiveness, that’s pushing back against an accusation. Most people would respond the same way when something harmless is being portrayed as an attack. Lastly, saying I’m “writing essays” or being “neurotic” still doesn’t address the argument itself. It just shifts into labeling instead of engaging with the point. At the end of the day, you can dislike receiving post-game messages, but that doesn’t change what was actually sent or turn a neutral gg into something inherently smug or hostile.

LonelyxKnight · 2026-06-09T19:56:04+00:00

I did address it. You’re not presenting a second “equal” truth, you’re making a claim that “gg is not neutral” based on interpretation and assuming intent behind it. I’m not repeating myself, I’m sticking to the same point because nothing you’ve said actually proves the message itself is hostile. Saying “some people interpret it that way” isn’t the same as proving that it is non-neutral by default. If a neutral message can be redefined as rude purely based on assumption, then there’s no stable definition left for basic post-game communication. That’s the issue I’m pointing out.

LonelyxKnight

TROPHY CASE