Untitled

Do certain competing codes of ethics have a "millet system" relationship to yours?

Triagonal talking to themselves on Twitter, replying to a post that was made in August 2025, and linking to their own blog. Triagonal doesn't like LovelessLass, which is why Triagonal's trying to defame her. The link goes to this post.

Triagonal still has me blocked on their deviantartdramahub blog because I call out their nonsense. You know they're rattled when they block you and start using alts to talk to themselves.

None of the links Triagonal shared under the Inquisitron sockpuppet prove the claims made. The first two contain nothing from LovelessLass, and the last three only show LovelessLass reasonably stating that monitoring a stalker isn't stalking, plus users posting the Artists Aware PSA on Triagonal. Triagonal hates that they can't spam an AI moderator into removing the proof. The ArtistsAware PSA is staying up and the ArtistsAware authors have no intention of removing it.

Triagonal loves false equivalences and still thinks I won't call them out on it.

It's pretty rich for Triagonal to make that accusation when Triagonal is on record of saying things like this about someone they knew was a minor while they were in their 20s. They've also stalked and obsessed over other teenagers, too, as recently as this year. Once a predator, always a predator.

Triagonal has claimed these posts are "fake", "taken out of context" despite archived pages being linked, and "you can't speak for my intentions", while never explaining what context was supposedly missing.

Speaking of which, LovelessLass has an excellent PSA about Triagonal.

1. You say Tynan is Shannan. Prove it in a way that's not quasi-proof.

2. You claim the reason you were banned from DeviantArtDramaHub is because you went against. Again, prove it.

3. You claim "Inquisitron" is a sockpuppet. Prove it.

4. You claim the "Inquisitron" post proves nothing. It wasn't trying to in the way you imply.

5. You say "Triagonal hates that they can't spam an AI moderator into removing the proof". Prove it.

6. You say "The ArtistsAware PSA is staying up and the ArtistsAware authors have no intention of removing it" as if anyone asked for it to be taken down.

7. You say "Triagonal loves false equivalences and still thinks I won't call them out on it". Prove it.

8. You claim she's the one making the claims you say she's making. Prove it.

9. You say she has never said the context. She has. But you won't listen, so nobody loses anything by not telling you anymore and simply telling other people who ask, since they don't have the issue you have with not understanding when it has been told.

10. Citing another PSA with points that are no different does not lead to different results.

If you can't prove things, there is no automatic incentive to believe you. Simple as that. Notice how every last word you said is a generalization (made in the name of trying to sound edgy).

But... could we take a moment to dissect a couple of these points? You know, for the sake of people who don't understand your psychology and how it's one big fallacy?

I have a question I've been thinking about since yesterday because of how peoples' humanity can be tested, and I'd like to ask it to you. I have been lost this month. My struggles lead me to seek advice in this way. I hope it's not too oddly specific.

So here is the question, which I will start with a preface. I know what it's like to both be lonely and to have a lot of friends (fortunately not at the same time). From experience, I can therefore say right away that bad influences know how to make use of people who feel left out by others. Cliques therefore form. And cliques typically consist of people who are willing to defend each other unconditionally. The key word here is unconditionally. It doesn't matter to the people in a lot of cliques if those they surround themselves with are assholes half the time, they will still see loyalty as the act of saying "these are my friends, right or wrong". Similar to how nepotism works in families.

When that happens, there's an old adage. There exists the adage that you're supposed to unconditionally defend virtues, not friends. Often people will say "a wise person has no friends, only wisdom". This usually means that everyone should be treated according to principles and not friendship.

However, suppose you have someone who is initially your friend and is friendly in every way. One day, something traumatic happens to them, or old age hits hard, or they have a brain injury, or they get dragged into something like war, or something like that. After a period of time in which the change occurred, they hang out with you again, but they're not who they once were. They're not as considerate, mindful, wise, or so forth because of whatever came to them.

When that happens, the same people who said to you "wise people lack friends" will often now say "a good person sees the part of them that's still within them". It sounds noble, but it seems to imply now you're there to unconditionally defend the human or friendship, not the principles.

Speaking as a fellow mass-goer, how do you square these two things, and do you understand what I am saying and what I might be going through that would lead me to ask this?

(personally I wonder if this question is proof of a soul)

Yes. Would you know what I mean if I were to say it's parallel to asking about the difference between having enslaved yourself and being enslaved by yourself, or between defining humanity by its search for for the light and by needing to search? That's what the local priestess said.

Also, is the removal of the N at the end too affectionate, or is the change too small for it to be a pet name? How does that work?

So I noticed that you've spoken/written a lot about theology and spiritual self-reflection and why the mundane is equal to mythology, whether it be in your digital gallery, on micro-mediums, on list-related mediums, or in your code of ethics (as well as by proxy, if you count what someone else said as a valid inclusion into your word, with me being unable to find some examples of that), in such a way that it has sprung a mind of its own and a life of its own and turned into its own school of thought...

...some parts of which have some profound statements such as "there are many paragods, many quasigods (often used to mean creatures with power), many semigods (often uses synonymously with demigods), many metagods, and many pseudogods (often meant to mean non-divine people respected as gods), but only one father (mother?)."

Everything you've said seems to blend the pragmaticism of Hinduism, Taoism, and Shintoism with the semantics of Humanism and the umbrella of Christ and Christianity (with some dual faith mixed-in in your case that isn't a part of your teachings but things you adhere to and speculate on a personal basis). It amazes me you've been able to share all of these kinds of thoughts even despite the way you see yourself treated on a routine basis (usually bad social luck does not mix well with the act of public denominational dabbling).

That's the key word there. This... "Lairdism", how self-aware is it as a sovereign denomination or religious group (or is it at a different stage)?

LizzyChrome also isn't a Neo-Nazi. She's Jewish and known for satirical, shitpost-style threads that mock the topic, like the one linked. Triagonal is taking LizzyChrome's satire/sarcasm literally in a malicious manner and treating it as an "own", but it mainly makes Triagonal come across like an angsty teenager who can't get their way. Triagonal was banned from DeviantArt long ago, but still obsessively monitors the forum regulars who called them out.

Here you say there exists an individual named Lizzy, and this Lizzy person has said a few things that suggest their gender is one thing but which you go out of your way to claim (notice the two instances of my word "claim" will be in Italics due to ambiguity) is another thing (despite their pronouns not being set). You also claim you are against KiwiFarms when pressed as to why you'd be excited that there is a thread about @the-abyss-watcher, when asked how you square that against you and/or your comrades saying elsewhere that you condemn Triagonal simply for having an account there.

For the shortest time, I'd watch about this in sensational magazines and I'd think it was fake. I never knew. Common sense would make you think "if this was as real as people claim, people would either be using this drug everywhere to gain an advantage or the governments around the world would be making it go the way of silphium".

The truth is more familiar than fiction.

Topics about people emulating the Mary Sue archetype seem to be common in your social circles. The few times I see this discussed in the way your social circles discuss it, it's either meant to signify admiration for someone's perfect luck and mind (when "Mary Sue" means one who is de facto perfect) or to signify disappointment for dependency on someone being understood as such (when "Mary Sue" means someone who is de jure perfect or won't relent).

That has led to discussion of the following hierarchies, juxtaposed because of the view that one represents the natural inclination of your haters' social circles...

...and the other represents the natural inclination of your own social circles...

...with them being rough representations (with the one being concluded as canon as a prescribed approach in your self-applied code of ethics you use as a manifesto for yourself and your groups), even if there are elements of both in both, and with the six criteria being as follows, if I'm not mistaken.

AI might have merged two and repeated one though.

My question is, is everything I just said true?

Before you claim the screenshot is fake, here's the link to the thread. https://x.com/Void_Squid/status/1601164056798208000

I have also got VoidSquid's comment archived. Their DeviantArt account is here. When your "it's just my old art" response got disproven, you then changed your excuse to "it was traded".

If you'd only lied once, it might be easier to believe. But you've proven yourself to be a pathological liar, and every accusation you make is a confession. More of your blatant lies were documented and disproven in MightyThistle's PSA about you. Before claiming those sockpuppet accounts aren't yours, remember you also lied about her on your main accounts, including this one (the-abyss-watcher (Tumblr)). You can deny the PSAs and gaslight all you want, it won't erase the archives people have on you, or stop people from seeing apples as apples.

Also, don't assume I'm unaware that you're drawn to machiavellianism, your tactics make that pretty clear.

The moment in time you allude to when you say that even goes into depth about this nuance (did you just choose to not analyze it), which was reflected upon during a time when I was often looked down upon for condemning the acts of violence in the news in the past two years (acts of violence which many of your peers supported), a time when "I have consequentialism, your argument is invalid" was never spoken outright but still considered (by arguably misguided people) to be an acceptable response to objections to what the rest of us saw as unfortunate escalation for the sake of results.

I was browsing one of Triagonal's Xitter alts and came across a recent post. Compare it to the photo of Triagonal on Buzzlyart, the one they didn't realize could be brightened. Once the enhanced version came out, they quickly went into damage control and deleted the original from their profile. But sure, that supposedly wasn't you, even though your reaction says otherwise.

Whose selfie have you stolen, Tynan? She looks like a teenager and is in a school uniform. Does that girl know that a 26 year old is stealing her selfies and claiming to be her? The photo even looks like you might've intentionally cropped it so that it'd be harder for people to reverse image search it.

There have been other occasions where you've shared staged or edited other people's selfies, like this one that appeared on your DeviantArt account. It was even pointed out by someone on Discuit.

Note the badly photoshopped/edited hands. This doesn't look like a "selfie", this looks more like a frame from a vlog.

Triagonal gaslighting the people putting 2 and 2 together, which is nothing new for them.

Think about what you're saying.

You're implying someone must be someone else simply based on your interpretation of their interactions (because God forbid someone speaks for themselves and what their own actions mean), which by what many might call proofing standards is a weird way to go and would make things uncomfortably easier in our current world situation where everyone is asking each other for proof of identity (in a way where, say, sharing a meme could not be mistaken as sharing oneself, which is what's going on with the picture that was shared on DA).

You then imply that those entities you tried to imply were other entities require a more shrewd level of proof when they imply something you don't expect them to imply.

In other words, you're implying your wishful thinking, which you tend to go by a lot (as if the fact your whole history is just you expressing one emotion about one person doesn't indicate something, as might the "checking in" you start off mentioning), is law.

You then throw accusations of gaslighting against someone who, in contrast, has always had a shrewd, unchanging, reflective way to go about this kind of thing, one that has always been lived up to.

I say how dare these people take someone's darkened kid pics and misgender you. Those kid pics don't have to be hidden from us though with an excuse as to why.

That moment when you learn from combining this with the ADC videos that the whole Triagonal drama is considered applicable an external aspect of the worldbuilding of the ADC that have to be considered to know how it all fully works.