“Boundaries”, “Harassment”, and the Convenience of Victimhood
July 8, 2025
It seems ladyyomi’s group has gathered enough people. Who else is there? Quickly give her a like so I can recognize everyone one by one.
It turns out ladyyomi is even more cowardly than I expected. She didn’t dare touch my statement explicitly declaring a break with Autumn — she simply ignored it and doubled down on the claim that “they’re the same person” in her pinned post.
Why? Because if she acknowledges that statement, her entire villain-narrative falls apart. So she pretends it doesn’t exist, because that’s the only way to keep her version of events intact.
This is classic performance: create a sealed script, claim moral high ground, and rely on people not doing their own reading.
And when I call it out? I’ll be labeled “harassing” again.
She doesn’t actually believe we’re the same person. She just knows that if we’re not, she has no story, no victimhood, no spotlight.
📌 Quote: ladyyomiart
“She seems to have a lot of trouble respecting other people’s boundaries, sigh. 😓 I hope she won’t bring more problems to the zine…”
Response: This is not the language of someone setting boundaries. This is public insinuation, character judgment, and moral framing — all under the guise of concern. Boundaries are silent. Defamation is not. If you block someone, and then publish multiple posts referencing them indirectly and encouraging others to block them too, the term “boundary” loses all credibility.
📌 Quote: vicecommanderhijikata
“Honestly, I am sorry about that. My suggestion to all of you is just to block her…”
Response: Blocking is a personal right. But coordinated mass-blocking, especially in response to a public statement of defense, is an attempt to erase discourse. If someone is accused, writes a detailed clarification with no threats or doxxing, and the only reply is “just block her,” the message is clear: you are not interested in truth. You are interested in silence.
📌 Quote: msbeastlyeevee
“We, zine staff, had to make a decision to remove Autumn from the project due to concerns related to this…”
Response: “Concerns” is a deliberately vague word that conveniently avoids accountability. Were the concerns about her conduct — or about public pressure and optics? If your decision was about project management, it should have been handled internally, not broadcast as evidence of her guilt. You cannot remove someone and then claim to be neutral.
📌 Quote: scarletfantasia
“I blocked her just because she flooded Tumblr and I was tired of blocking all the tags…”
Response: Blocking is your prerogative. But your follow-up, publicly blaming someone for “flooding” the tag space while simultaneously writing long messages accusing them of ruining the fandom, is not neutral. You used your platform to frame someone’s presence as a problem, not their actions. That’s not personal discomfort — it’s narrative control.
📎 Context Clarification:
The original AO3 post under the tag “ygpgsgl’s rights protection record” contained:
- No personal attacks
- No threats, no doxxing
- Full documentation of events and accusations
- A request for public clarification and responsibility
In response, the opposing party launched vague character critiques, labeled the author as a problem, and encouraged mass blocking. The term “harassment” has been used liberally, while the only documented “evidence” provided has been tone-based accusations and social discomfort.
🧾 Final Note:
To call for accountability is not to harass. To defend oneself is not to cross a line. To write a rebuttal with citations is not “drama.”
And if this is a lawsuit — I want my lawyer to be Kazama.