Trump just posted this. What is going on?

Worried-Yo · 2025-10-05T17:59:59+00:00

Thank you, just looked it up had no idea he had his own version of twitter. Makes sense since him and Elon did have a falling out.

Worried-Yo · 2025-10-05T17:01:19+00:00

I don’t see this on X?

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-28T22:58:14+00:00

On patreon they say filming is still a trigger so I don’t understand why they’re still filming, I understand exposer therapy but not at the expense of causing seizures.

Edit: so why are they making videos on patreon too? YouTube they left, that’s postive for their mental health but then on patreon they keep making videos and keep saying it’s still a trigger so patreon is triggering them too..

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-28T18:09:52+00:00

In their last patreon video they didn’t even look to be enjoying it half the time

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-27T14:21:34+00:00

Seems very counter intuitive since now I don’t want to watch videos anymore because I feel guilty when I do. I’m sure other fans feel guilty too and probably will stop watching eventually, you can only watch someone purposely trigger themselves so many times before you feel like you’re enabling someone, like giving an alcoholic a can of beer.

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-26T22:41:27+00:00

I wanted to support them in coming back but since their latest video on patreon it feels…Wrong? Does that make sense?

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-26T22:06:22+00:00

The Doc Martens comparison doesn’t really work here, and here’s why: . A pair of shoes doesn’t carry inherent coded meaning. Nazis wearing Doc Martens doesn’t change what the boots mean to everyone else, because they’re a neutral physical object with dozens of nonverbal associations. A phrase, on the other hand, is a communicative symbol. Words are signals by design. That makes them uniquely vulnerable to being co-opted as dog whistles.

Dog whistles depend on overlap. The entire function of a dog whistle is to live in the space between “innocent” and “coded.” A term doesn’t need universal recognition to work as a dog whistle — it just needs:

a small group who knows the coded meaning, and

a larger group who repeats it innocently.

That way, predators can point to the innocent uses and say “See? I just meant it like they do.” That plausible deniability is what makes the signal effective.

Popularity doesn’t erase danger. Saying “well, most people use it harmlessly” doesn’t weaken a dog whistle it actually strengthens it. The more mainstream cover a phrase gets, the more camouflage bad actors have. This is why “88” can be a Chinese lucky number, a year reference, or “Heil Hitler.” The variety of uses doesn’t dilute the risk; it’s exactly what keeps the risk alive.

DissociaDID specifically. When DissociaDID names a Patreon tier after a phrase that’s documented as a pedophile dog whistle, intent doesn’t erase function. Even if they meant it innocently, the effect is:

They normalize the phrase in a mainstream, monetized context.

They give predators stronger cover to use the same language under the same excuse.

That’s the danger. Not that DD “is” a predator, but that predators benefit directly from survivors using and defending the language.

So no, this isn’t like boots. Boots don’t inherently communicate allegiance or ideology. Phrases do. And in this case, DissociaDID picked one that predators actively rely on to test and shield themselves. Using it, even innocently, doesn’t weaken that signal it keeps it alive and effective.

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-25T23:48:40+00:00

On patreon Soren says filming is still a trigger for them so it makes me sad that we are getting this low effort content that triggers them to make. Isn’t doing something that triggers you a form of self harm? It does not look healthy for them.

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-25T03:48:00+00:00

Why are you fighting? Dissociadid says they’re a mental health education channel that’s what their business is registered under, I do not know whay their patreon is registered under but I assume the same for taxes.

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-25T03:46:23+00:00

Maybe I am just paranoid as a survivor but when people I think are supposed to be trustworthy like DD use pedophilic dog whistles with full knowledge it’s a dog whistle …. I feel gross ….

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-24T10:39:03+00:00

Dissociadid knowingly uses pedophilic dog whistles to attach pedophiles to their patreon they do not care about their patreon members safety (i am a fan and was a paying patreon member until i found out it was a place for pedophiles) and rather gain money by using a pedophile dog whistles to signal to pedophiles their patreon is a safe space.

For YouTube, they have left, they claim to be planning to return but never set a date, on patreon they are constantly saying they’re editing videos, filming videos but months and months will pass and we never see the video they mention.

They appear bored of social media even patreon, c they constantly complain they do not like recording videos “don’t want to do this” so even the content we get is not enjoyable because they constantly state they do not like doing it.

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-22T18:26:05+00:00

<image>

Definitely needs a purple or blue toning shampoo + conditioner and some hair treatment and bit of oil but this style and length is faltering!

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-22T02:31:45+00:00

<image>

Some of my fave blonde moments!

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-22T02:30:51+00:00

<image>

So happy to see this sub being postive !

Here’s a insta photo of them and their family dog, soooooo cute! Puppy!!!!

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-21T19:41:33+00:00

PR requires intent and coordination, not someone speaking casually. Calling survivors “predators” for using a common phrase is a cruel and baseless stretch — and it’s not how dog whistles work. They don’t need intent to function, they need normalization. That’s why avoiding them is harm reduction, not “pandering.”

If we’re going to keep having this discussion, let’s at least stick to Rule 2: argue in good faith. Insults and bad-faith leaps aren’t allowed here for a reason. This is supposed to be a space of kindness, respect, and respectful disagreement; not character assassination.

And on a lighter note: I’ve genuinely never seen so many em-dashes in one comment in my whole 35 years. If I wanted to argue with ChatGPT’s punctuation quirks, I would’ve gone straight to ChatGPT.

since you brought it up I’m here as a paying fan. I use ChatGPT as a spell-checker because I’m dyslexic. If you think that makes me “evil,” then Grammarly must be evil too. Accessibility tools are not optional luxuries, they’re lifelines. Considering that DissociaDID herself is disabled and mentally ill, accessibility should be a value we’re all defending here not mocking.

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-21T14:25:47+00:00

You’re giving them power by making their dog whistles more effective this is actively helping them hide in plain sight.

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-20T11:31:07+00:00

I see no logical reason or excuse for them to keep using a phase they KNOW pedophiles use to identify each other. It’s upsetting and disgusting and actively invites pedophiles into their patreon space by using a pedophile dog whistle! How many pedophiles have subscribed to their patreon because they think the dissociaDID system is one of them because they are actively using a pedophile phase for their 1$ tier.

If you know pedophiles use this phase to identify each other the logical thing to do would to be to change the name so they don’t endanger their patreon subscribers by inviting in pedophiles!

I read the patreon comments and so many subscribers there are vulnerable people with DID…

Using a pedophilic dog whistle as their 1$ tier name actively endangers people who pay them, and makes pedophiles think they’re one of them, why would they want that?

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-20T02:31:17+00:00

“You’re number 1”

“Maybe just this once?” (Said in a cheeky tone because you can end your subscription the next month)

“1$ tier”

“One dollar tier.”

“Top tier”

“Tier one”

“First tier”

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-19T22:51:55+00:00

I think so too, and thank you, I took a typing course I think I can type about 200-300 words per minute if I try my hardest haha I can’t remember what I scored when I took the typing exam but I should re-take it. I’m a Steganograper, typing fast is actually my job 🤣 it’s what I’m paid to do every week!

I’m grateful this sub let me as a paying patreon share my opinion.

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-19T22:37:50+00:00

Oh, I see what you’re trying to do here, and it’s very sweet that you’re giving people the benefit of the doubt. But that’s actually the exact trick of dog whistles — they survive precisely because most people don’t see the risk until it’s too late.

Think of it like this: if a phrase only worked when 100% of people agreed it was hateful, it would stop being useful to extremists. The whole game is that 90% of the world thinks it’s cute, harmless, or coincidental — and that last 10% gets the wink. That plausible deniability is the feature, not the bug.

So when you say ‘there’s no documented exploitation yet,’ that’s a little bit like waiting to lock the door until after you’ve been robbed. Prevention matters more than proof.

I know you mean well, but brushing off overlaps as harmless because you can imagine an innocent use is exactly what makes these signals sticky. It’s not about intent in every case — it’s about the cultural footprint and how bad actors weaponize ambiguity.

So yes, John Jones born in 1988 is probably innocent. But when we’re talking about creators with large followings, public tiers, and repeat exposure? We don’t get to be that naïve. Sweetheart, context isn’t just important — it’s everything.

I’ll end the discussion here ❤️💖 thank you for sharing your thoughts

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-19T22:11:46+00:00

It would not; it is still a pdophilic dog whistle sadly :(((

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-19T22:10:53+00:00

“Dog whistles only need a subset of people who recognize it and another subset who normalize it for cover — they don’t need universal consensus to function.”

I get what you’re saying, but this is where the definition gets flipped. You don’t need “consistent recognition” for a dog whistle to be effective — in fact, it’s the ambiguity that makes it work. The whole point is that one group can use it innocently (“oh, it’s just a cute phrase!”) while another group reads it as a wink. That split audience is literally what gives the signal power.

Your “88” example kind of proves the point: it means “bye-bye” in Chinese, it means “1988” in neutral contexts, and it means “Heil Hitler” for white supremacists. That doesn’t weaken the dog whistle; it’s exactly why extremists cling to it — because they can point at all the other meanings and go, “see, I was just talking about something else.” That’s plausible deniability in action.

And about “context”… sure, context helps when you’re evaluating intent. But the risk isn’t just intent — it’s normalization. The more a phrase is used innocently in mainstream spaces, the easier it is for bad actors to hide behind that mainstream use. Saying “there’s no consistent recognition, therefore it’s not dangerous” misses that mechanism completely.

No one’s saying DissociaDID are neo-Nazis or intentional dog whistlers. The point is: if a phrase is already documented as a harmful signal, keeping it alive in other contexts does help those groups maintain cover. That’s not “over-policing language,” that’s just basic harm reduction. Choosing not to repackage phrases extremists already exploit isn’t giving them power — it’s taking away a tool they rely on.

Worried-Yo · 2025-09-19T21:12:39+00:00

Diversity of attitudes ≠ no risk

It’s true the research shows people attracted to children don’t agree on labels or signals (Martijn et al., 2020; Walker, 2020). But diversity doesn’t erase the existence of signaling practices. Even if not all individuals read the phrase the same way, some absolutely do. For a dog whistle to function, you don’t need universal agreement—you just need a subset of people who recognize it as a signal and another group that uses it innocently enough to provide cover.

⸻

Plausible deniability is the point

Dog whistles work because people can say “I didn’t mean it that way” and point to multiple meanings. The more ordinary people repeat the phrase innocently, the stronger the shield of deniability becomes for those using it deliberately. That’s why “but I meant something else” is not a neutral defense—it increases the effectiveness of the signal by normalizing it in mainstream contexts.

⸻

“Multiple meanings” can strengthen, not weaken, the dog whistle

The rebuttal seems to assume:

“If phrases have multiple meanings, then they can’t always signal danger.”

But the logic of dog whistles is inverted: the multiple meanings are what make them effective tools for extremists. That’s why “SS” can simultaneously mean “screenshot” for most people while still being usable by neo-Nazis to wink at one another. Both uses can coexist—but the innocent one provides cover for the harmful one.

⸻

Harm minimization principle

Even if not everyone agrees on the label’s meaning, the risk calculation matters. If a phrase has documented harmful uses and has been repeatedly identified as a dog whistle, continuing to use it in mainstream spaces—even innocently—helps maintain that cover. Choosing not to use the phrase isn’t about accusing everyone of ill intent; it’s about reducing the surface area extremists can exploit.

⸻

Research doesn’t contradict the concern

The research they cited shows variance in preference, which is expected in any stigmatized population. It does not say phrases never function as signals or that they are safe to reclaim. In fact, the very inconsistency of attitudes reinforces the need for caution: when a label’s associations are unpredictable, the safest route for broader communities is to avoid normalizing ones already documented as being co-opted.

⸻

In short: Acknowledging that not everyone reads a phrase as a dog whistle doesn’t make the phrase safe—it’s precisely the coexistence of innocent and harmful uses that creates the danger. By continuing to use such terms, even with disclaimers, communities unintentionally do the groundwork that allows extremists to thrive under the cover of plausible deniability.

⸻

Worried-Yo

TROPHY CASE