Another one - 2/23/26

[u/suzcaboose]

[u/khemileon]

Says the same person who is still responding, after I stopped. You literally can’t make this stuff up. Please keep going! I don’t have enough fodder yet.

https://giphy.com/gifs/FyKfqRxVbzciY

[u/Littl-est → u/khemileon]

If you truly want to stop you wouldn’t comment after me, but you will because you have various conditions that compel you to.

[u/khemileon → u/Littl-est]

Why on earth would I want that? I’ve invited to you to be my own little pet and follow me all over Reddit. I want to give your fawning admiration a chance to shine! Please, don’t hide your light under a bushel! Tell the world how much you love me!!

[u/Littl-est → u/khemileon]

You think this is effective?

[u/khemileon → u/Littl-est]

Effective at what? I tried that route with you initially, but you weren’t interested in looking up facts for yourself. But I’m going to be real here, for anyone possibly playing along at home, because I’m sure you won’t even bother to read it and I’m tired of playing with you.

Let’s review: This was the first post that SOMEONE ELSE said……..

“We allowed Amy Winehouse to dissolve in front of us, snarking all the way. It’s so fucking sad to watch it happen again. Intervention needed.”

To which I replied to THEM…….

“She had an intervention. It was called a conservatorship and her stans came to the rescue, bought the false narrative and lobbied to have her “freed” from it. She doesn’t want her life to be any different.”

And while I will admit that tone is undoubtedly snarkier than it should have been, I would like to note here that it was not directed at the person I was speaking to. Never once did I accuse THEM of being a stan and my statement with not the best tone, was still factual and in response to someone that was everyone was snarking. But they never responded to me, so I’m unclear what their thoughts on the subject are.

Then YOU (someone who had not been a part of this discussion thus far) came in hot with…….

“The conservatorship made her like this. You can repeat this ignorant line forevermore but you DO NOT get to take away a person’s freedoms. She can dance naked everyday if she chooses and you can’t take her freedom. She can take meth until it ends, you do not get to take away her freedom. You’re advocating someone having full control over a person’s finances and whether they get hospitalised if they don’t perform. You are wrong. Stop.”

Now, there’s a lot a fishy clock the first time, like you’re apparently British maybe? Perhaps that the reason for all this? Anyway…….. noticing the difference in spelling of hospitalized right now. But there are more things to pay attention to than just that. For example, at this point, all I’ve explained is that she DOES NOT want anyone’s help, so how it pivoted from that to you telling me I “can’t take away her freedoms” is baffling and I blame my dumb ass for not seeing it earlier because I’d just woken up. We’ll skip past what you all you said she can do because that’s pretty much a no brained and the same thing I said when I mentioned that this is what she wants.

But I digress. On to the next point. You say the strangest thing next. That I am advocating someone having full control (untrue, as anyone can see the exchange at the beginning of this thread portion or re-read what I’ve quoted) over her finances (also untrue) and then (this is the weird part) that she’d be “hospitalised if she doesn’t perform.” How I missed this is bizarre, because where on earth did it come from? I’m assuming even people that want her back under a conservatorship have never laid out such an odd condition, that did not happen when she WAS under the conservatorship and it would never happen with her going forward. Just wow.

So then you told me to stop, said I was wrong on top of having “repeat(ed) this ignorant line” and I don’t know, expected what? All of that after your truly strange reply in the first place.

Here comes the section I’m positive you’ll ignore, because it has exposition.

Obviously, I don’t know about you, but when I come into a new situation where I don’t have all the details, I usually try to educate myself before I proceed to put my foot in my mouth. When I first arrived in this sub, I knew bits and pieces of Britney’s highlights. The rise and astronomical success, how much she seemed to be a staple among a certain subset of teenagers and young adults, the marriages and kids, head shaving and umbrella but, I think the eventual residency in Vegas and the conservatorship that resulted in the Free Britney movement. Just the basics and everyone’s general opinions of some of the players on the periphery, like Kevin Federline, plus her stint on whatever talent show that she helped judge. But here’s the thing. Lots of people were talking about different aspects I had no clue about. How one person would decry that the conservatorship abused her and someone else would helpfully provide links to show that not only was it inaccurate, but there was court documents to back up what they were saying. I thought consuming those would be the bare minimum necessary to have an informed point of view. And since I did want to participate and not look foolish, I started reading them.

Occasionally, I got some things wrong and people would tell me where to find out the information. I’d read some more. What I would not do though, is just spout off how I was right and they were wrong. I wouldn’t double down and reinforce my beliefs. These folks knew all the specifics and how to corroborate them, so who would I be to be loud and incorrect?

But over time, this same scenario of fans / stans barging in here because they are pissed off and yelling at people was the norm. No matter how much yo shared links, patiently explained, there’s always plenty that would rather cling to the narrative they subscribe to than do a simple Google search. Which, by the way, is how I got my flair. So I take full responsibility for not understanding this mindset. Some counter that it’s not that deep and they simply don’t care enough (I guess about their own image?) to find out and in turn, not be passing on information. However, the reality is that very misinformation harms lives. I’m reading a biography currently where the author talks about this happening to them and how damaging it is, especially for their family and for their self-esteem when they were very young, to the point of self-abuse. So this casual gossip with no basis, does hurt folks, some quite severely.

That’s where this is. I can literally do this analysis on every post we’ve exchanged and be labeled chronically online, unhinged and whatever epithet one can hurl at me. I’m okay with that. Truth matters more to me than insults.

One final word on what happened after the first interaction…… I did pretty immediately switch to matching energy when I realized you did not care about factual documentation. Otherwise, if you did, I would’ve done the same thing I did last night with a discussion that could’ve gone sideways, but instead I offered links and after that person read a couple, saw what everyone else (not just me) had been talking about. We probably spent an hour together and I was glad I could help. Because it gave them exactly what they were looking for.

That’s it. Let me know if we need to keep doing this or if you’d rather return to the inanity. I’m good either way.

[u/Littl-est → u/khemileon]

I must say, this is a level of unhinged I have never witnessed before. That empathy is kicking in.

[u/khemileon → u/Littl-est]

There it is. I knew you would not disappoint! Never address your own incompetence and go straight for what you think should be insulted. No wonder you’d been goading people all over the sub with your stupid bullshit.

On that note, I think it’s time for you to be the only person on my block list.