“The irony being man you know antis spent so long trying to get me and others to stop making art and sure I now have severe psychological damage due to slander and harassment that can never be taken back or undone but man all they had to do was hook me and sugarbitz up from the get go rather than waiting for our friend to do so because now I’m too mentally distracted to draw.“
‘I have severe psychological damage due to slander and harassment’?! Honestly, I don’t know how K. M. Claude can accuse his critics of being professional victims when he posts things like this. Criticism isn’t a form of harassment, and Claude isn’t being slandered because the claims about him are backed up by evidence.
Besides, even if he did have psychological trauma as a result of being outed as a pedophile, it’s not reasonable to expect others to keep quiet about something that serious.
“If you call someone a monster enough, sooner or later they’ll begin to believe it despite being the farthest thing from it. If you’re not careful, some of the “monsters” you so carelessly made may begin to act monstrously and the fault will lie partly with you. And the rest of us you carelessly made believe in our nonexistent monstrosity? The many of us? Will just suffer in silence because beliefs are damn hard to change.“
#1. If you act like a monster because people are calling you one, you’ve only proven them right.
#2. People aren’t accusing K. M. Claude of being a terrible person for no reason. He’s openly admitted to being a pedophile, drawn sexual artwork of children, and harassed (Page contains depictions of blood and self-harm) people who disagree with him.
“Amen. Antishippers are abusers. Anyone who says otherwise willfully put their head in the sand (and that is it’s own disgusting behavior.)”
Critiquing fiction for glamorizing pedophilia/abuse/incest/etc. isn’t abuse, we’ve been over this already. Instead, I’d like to draw everyone’s attention this part of the original post:
“This isn’t hyperbole. Just yesterday an anti boasted about sexually harassing his 11-year-old sister because he caught her searching for Voltron porn, and about how he’d tried to convince his parents to abusively restrict her internet access.“
For those who are hesitant to click that link, an anti shipper was venting his frustration over how easily his 11-year-old sister could access pornographic Voltron fan art on Tumblr. He never harassed her or did anything to hurt her.
The fact that Claude uncritically reblogged a post citing this as an example of harassment proves he knows nothing about actual harassment. It also indicates he’s okay with minors viewing pornographic content, which is really disturbing in light of how he fetishizes them in his artwork (Porn/gore warning).
Edit: I should probably add that the person being falsely accused of sexual harassment is only 16.
“Should the mermaid story really be a comic? Should it stay as a short story? Should it be an illustrated short story, as if it were an ultraviolent pornographic children’s book? Should I just give up? So many questions…”
Why couldn’t Claude just describe this as an illustrated short story? Comparing it to an ‘ultra-violent, pornographic children’s book’ in light of how Claude depicts pedophilia and child abuse sounds… not good.
#id like every anti to pay for the therapy i need#id like my hateblog to personally pay for my therapy for at minimum a year of weekly visits ti a therapist#bc i need it and not just for being trans
[“Let me play a sad song for you on the world’s smallest violin!”]
Hot tip: other people aren’t responsible for the consequences of your bad behavior. If you get called out for being a pedophile and you feel bad about it, that’s entirely on you.
“I’m not a huge fan of them, no. I’d never be senselessly cruel to a child or purposefully hurt a child – or anyone, really – but I’m not a big fan.”
Just because you don’t like kids in general doesn’t mean you aren’t sexually attracted to them (For people who haven’t heard about K. M. Claude, read this list for proof that he’s a pedophile). Sexual attraction to someone doesn’t necessarily mean you want to spend time with them on a regular basis.
“Having seen like… one episode of Gravity Falls (the one with Bill possessing Dipper and he had a reverend suit because my roommates were like YOU WANNA FUCK PRIESTS YOU LIKE DEMONS LOOK and for that I thank them), I am terribly confused as to how the fuck antis survived there, like, it seems like the same kinda weirdly dark “””kids””””” show that I would’ve grown up on in the 90s or early aughts, like, it was weird and creepy like how you gonna not tolerate dark content, that shit got dark. Nice sure but…a kid got possessed. You don’t usually have possession in kawaii, nonproblematic, sugary sweet shows. How you get Purity Wankers in such a fandom/show blows my mind.”
#1. Dark content ≠ fetishizing gross shit. People who create dark or creepy works of fiction don’t have to glorify things like incest and pedophilia the way Claude does.
#2. The statement ‘You wanna fuck priests’ is really disturbing in this context, considering Dipper is officially underage.
“I probably am one – I go on mild benders, then stop for mooooonths, and then whoops. Which… probably fits the definition of ‘functional alcoholic’.
But I can’t use art as an outlet without being called every horrible thing in the book, harassed, abused, and treated like crap by everyone (including people I like) while the entire world around us goes to hell, so I might as well slowly kill myself and numb everything in the process. I’m just hoping I can make good enough art before that happens.”
Dude, you’ve reblogged posts blaming minors for their sexual trauma, you’ve openly longed for your own harem of little boys, and you’ve repeatedly treated your critics like crap. I don’t want to hear about how people who call you out are bullies and abusers. Also, quit blaming your critics for your drinking problems, it’s manipulative as hell.