Liz Fong-Jones / 方禮真 / Elliot William Fong / @lizthegrey / Honeycomb.io Field CTO - 'Consent accident' enjoyer, ex-Google employee, nepotistic sex pest, Robert Z'Dar look-alike who wants authority over the Internet

[Procrastinhater]

Can we get a poll whether anyone believes the Consent Accident dog hair story?

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

There was one other Bob Ross Dong Gone edit too, not sure if this one originated here or elsewhere, found on Twitter recently in a thread discussing “consent accidents” of “Honeycomb.io’s field CTO,” commonly known as “Liz Fong Jones” and self described “rapist.”
Wyświetl załącznik 3894396
The running theory on why this rapist bailed on twitter is that everywhere he turned, the phrase, “consent accident” popped up.

Funny that something got thrown their way and then they fold like a house of cards. Also, dont disrespect Bob Ross like this.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Can we get a poll whether anyone believes the Consent Accident dog hair story?

I don't even understand the Consent Accident dog story.

 

[RedMage]

Can we get a poll whether anyone believes the Consent Accident dog hair story?

This is the first I have heard about a dog being involved and quite frankly, I don't think I'd even want to delve deeper into that.

 

[Discourteous Discourse]

I don't even understand the Consent Accident dog story.

You aren't meant to because Liz the Eunuch doesn't want you to. Another Kiwi wrote a good post about how narcs smear their victims by using limited info, and pieced together what probably happened based on the crumb trail dog hair trail that Stinkditch Fong left behind:

You know, reading the "dog hair" story reminds me of the examples found in the essay "The Missing Missing Reasons." (It's an old Reddit favorite.)

TL;DR version: When individual narcissists lose an argument in real life, they'll go out and get validation by smearing their opponents in front of their friendly Internet followers. When they do this, they tend to follow a consistent pattern: They'll always leave out the main argument presented by the opposing party, and fixate on certain details without providing the necessary context (like "dog hair") to make their opponents seem irrational or unhinged. (They, of course, present themselves as the calm, rational parties.) Liz's "consent accident" victim told him exactly what happened that made her feel violated -- but Liz pretends to not have been told this. Make no mistake, though -- he was.

Because Liz won't mention the entire tale, I'm going to try to put it together using the clues provided:

I assume that the victim became incapacitated when Liz was present. When she woke up, Liz claimed that nothing out of the ordinary happened while she was out. However, Liz was done in by the tell-tale dog hair . . .

If you own a pet that sheds, you know that hair can get on your furniture. As a result, it can get on your clothing and it can transfer to the clothing and furniture of others. Do you know where it doesn't go? On your underwear, and certainly not inside of it. The only way it would get there is if you were disrobed in a "consent accident."

When Liz was confronted with this, he realized he was caught. When the story started to make the rounds and he knew it would get back to him, he went to the Internet to throw as much misdirection as possible to his Twitter followers -- using the same techniques outlined in the essay. However, if he was innocent of this he wouldn't need to do that -- let alone "regret it for the rest of [his] life." All he would have to do is to tell the full story.

 

[The Elusive Earl]

At least on the Tranch he will be safe from elusive Earls, maybe not the other Tranchers though.

That's what you think. I've already been sniffing around. His tires won't stand a chance.

 

[FinnSven]

That's what you think. I've already been sniffing around. His tires won't stand a chance.

Don’t you think he is over-inflated enough already?

 

[He Found Captain Winky]

I just like the fact that none of this had to happen. We barely knew he existed. He decided, for no good reason, to claim he had a thread here. He jumped on Keffals’ crusade. If he’d just shut up and kept his square head down, he wouldn’t now have to perform desperate damage control. His consent accident would just be another bit of troon drama, largely unknown to the world.

I mean, he also shouldn’t rape people.

Elliott isn’t known for good decision making. Between choosing to troon out, being a rapist…
I mean consent accident enjoyer and making himself a Kiwi target during the Lucas shit, Elliot has done a shit job at making choices.

 

[The Elusive Earl]

Don’t you think he is over-inflated enough already?

Ego: yes
Gunt: yes
Tires: no

 

[Cuckoman]

Enjoy.
Wyświetl załącznik 3891873

Wyświetl załącznik 3891891

Consent accidents going mainstream.

V on Twitter: "@Wightout66 again, I would hope anyone would find it i…

archived 19 Nov 2022 06:02:50 UTC

archive.ph

Wyświetl załącznik 3891960

Dr. Alaric Naudé (기린/麒麟/ᡴᡳᠯᡳᠨ) on Twitter: ""Consent accident" a very…

보관 2022년 11월 11일 05:16:38 UTC

archive.ph

Wyświetl załącznik 3891966Wyświetl załącznik 3891969Wyświetl załącznik 3891972Wyświetl załącznik 3891975

Tabi on Twitter: "Now there are people who want to normalize rape by …

archived 19 Nov 2022 06:08:48 UTC

archive.ph

Wyświetl załącznik 3891984

Congratulations Elliot. Your crazy crusade against a fringe internet forum no one has heard about has woken up the normies on twitter and they don't like what they see.
Something something Streisand.
lol.

 

[Balr0g]

They never learn. Instead of being quiet and doing their attempts "behind da scenes" they yell and whine until someone looks at them. And lo nd behold they have more dirt on them then most were aware of. So elliot no dong here is an advice free of charge: don't mess with autists who just want to lazgh at idiots.

Also I wish you had a friendly fire accident. Preferrably you tied to the loaded barrel of a Pak 40 and then someone yells accidently "fire!"

 

[Al from Dadeville]

Someone has a Lyndon Fong Johnson parody account on Twitter @consentaccident
Archive

 

[barbie meat]

I wanted to see if googling "consent accident" by itself brought up our dear Elliot, and it didn't, but what it did bring up is kind of interesting.

Aside from catching some pages about informed consent and medical malpractice lawyers and such, the phrase seems to be used pretty much exclusively within the BDSM community, to refer to boundaries being breached by mistake rather than intentionally. So he didn't make the term up, but he definitely did get it from the kink sphere.

Possibly from this guy. One of the main people talking about "consent accidents" online is a dude named Charlie Glickman, who wrote an article about the subject that was circulated to other alternative sexuality type websites, like this one.

Guest Blog – Consent Accidents and Consent Violations

Make Sex Easy by Charlie Glickman I was at a discussion group recently and someone shared a term that I hadn’t heard before: consent accidents. This is a real

ncsfreedom.org

Guest Blog – Consent Accidents and Consent Violations – National Coal…

archived 19 Nov 2022 21:16:16 UTC

archive.ph

The reason I'm not linking it from Charlie's own page is that he has taken it down "as part of his accountability process".

Spoiler: consent accident blog post

Consent Accidents and Consent Violations - Charlie Glickman PhD

Consent accidents aren't the same as consent violations. Knowing how to navigate them makes it easier to find resolution.

www.makesexeasy.com

Consent Accidents and Consent Violations - Charlie Glickman PhD

archived 19 Nov 2022 21:40:44 UTC

archive.ph

Another part of his accountability process, following the link in the above page, was compiling a list, titled "Naming My Harms".

Naming My Harms

A Table of Contents for all posts by Charlie’s pod, including the dates each article was published and a brief description of the contents…

cgaccpod.medium.com

http://archive.ph/FqDnI

Relevant bit:

Spoiler: consent violation

But barbie meat, why are you telling us all this? Because this guy, Charlie Glickman, the only known person before Elliot who could be fairly dubbed "the consent accident guy", while he seemingly did popularize the phrase, never did actually rape anyone himself, rather he defended another person who did. Elliot William "Liz Fong-Jones" Fong (field CTO for honeycomb.io) on the other hand, is a bone fide rapist despite his lack of dong, rightly inheriting the title of "consent accident guy" now and forever.

Another thing I found interesting was Elliot's choice to refer to his BDSM practices as "risk-aware consentual kink".

Spoiler: shirtless guy covered in blood

The term was specifically coined because traditional BDSM practices do not condone anything that poses a risk of death, and some people wanted to be able to do those things anyway, so they splintered off into their own faction. Elliot using the term connotes that he participates in sexual practices which run the risk of actually killing somebody (like, for instance, suffocation or knifeplay). Cutting your dick off is a hell of a drug.

(Sorry for mobilefagging!)

 

[Accept Only Substitutes]

The term was specifically coined because traditional BDSM practices do not condone anything that poses a risk of death, and some people wanted to be able to do those things anyway, so they splintered off into their own faction. Elliot using the term connotes that he participates in sexual practices which run the risk of actually killing somebody (like, for instance, suffocation or knifeplay). Cutting your dick off is a hell of a drug.

(Sorry for mobilefagging!)

Whoa. Puts the tweet about women being suffocated in porn into a whole new context.

At least these psychopathic fucktards are self-iding as being a psychopath. With normal men you don't know if they are crazy enough to try to kill you if you make them angry, these guys tell you they are right up front so you can keep your distance.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

There was one other Bob Ross Dong Gone edit too, not sure if this one originated here or elsewhere, found on Twitter recently in a thread discussing “consent accidents” of “Honeycomb.io’s field CTO,” commonly known as “Liz Fong Jones” and self described “rapist.”
Wyświetl załącznik 3894396
The running theory on why this rapist bailed on twitter is that everywhere he turned, the phrase, “consent accident” popped up.

Bob Ross might spin in his grave now, feeling insulted to be compared to LFJ.

 

[AnOminous]

The term was specifically coined because traditional BDSM practices do not condone anything that poses a risk of death, and some people wanted to be able to do those things anyway, so they splintered off into their own faction. Elliot using the term connotes that he participates in sexual practices which run the risk of actually killing somebody (like, for instance, suffocation or knifeplay).

So this twisted pervert could literally murder someone (that is have a "mortality accident") in some depraved, degenerate act of sick fuckery, but Kiwi Farms is the real problem.

 

[Nuns with guns]

Whoa. Puts the tweet about women being suffocated in porn into a whole new context.

At least these psychopathic fucktards are self-iding as being a psychopath. With normal men you don't know if they are crazy enough to try to kill you if you make them angry, these guys tell you they are right up front so you can keep your distance.

So let me get this straight: the idea of a consent accident is so fucked up, that even the sex pest that came up with it regrets having invented to term, because it is used to minimize rape?

Elliot, you fucking idiot. That Charlie Glickman is probably grateful you are now the face of consent accidents.

 

[Hot HOT HOTTT]

Whoa. Puts the tweet about women being suffocated in porn into a whole new context.

At least these psychopathic fucktards are self-iding as being a psychopath. With normal men you don't know if they are crazy enough to try to kill you if you make them angry, these guys tell you they are right up front so you can keep your distance.

It goes deeper than that IMO. It's a coded clarion call. It's like a drug dealer on the street offering "snow" or asking if people want to go "skiing" or a customer asking for a "slice". It's a way of attracting attention from people "in the know" because the non-euphemistic and uncoded terms are risky to say in public. It's basically saying "DMs are open for strangulation and cutting fetishists" but in a way that normies won't fully understand. After all, you can't just come up to a person and bring up the topic of covering their head in plastic wrap without risking revealing your depraved self to someone who is not tolerant of such things.

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

You know, reading the "dog hair" story reminds me of the examples found in the essay "The Missing Missing Reasons." (It's an old Reddit favorite.)

TL;DR version: When individual narcissists lose an argument in real life, they'll go out and get validation by smearing their opponents in front of their friendly Internet followers. When they do this, they tend to follow a consistent pattern: They'll always leave out the main argument presented by the opposing party, and fixate on certain details without providing the necessary context (like "dog hair") to make their opponents seem irrational or unhinged. (They, of course, present themselves as the calm, rational parties.) Liz's "consent accident" victim told him exactly what happened that made her feel violated -- but Liz pretends to not have been told this. Make no mistake, though -- he was.

Because Liz won't mention the entire tale, I'm going to try to put it together using the clues provided:

I assume that the victim became incapacitated when Liz was present. When she woke up, Liz claimed that nothing out of the ordinary happened while she was out. However, Liz was done in by the tell-tale dog hair . . .

If you own a pet that sheds, you know that hair can get on your furniture. As a result, it can get on your clothing and it can transfer to the clothing and furniture of others. Do you know where it doesn't go? On your underwear, and certainly not inside of it. The only way it would get there is if you were disrobed in a "consent accident."

When Liz was confronted with this, he realized he was caught. When the story started to make the rounds and he knew it would get back to him, he went to the Internet to throw as much misdirection as possible to his Twitter followers -- using the same techniques outlined in the essay. However, if he was innocent of this he wouldn't need to do that -- let alone "regret it for the rest of [his] life." All he would have to do is to tell the full story.

Where in this thread can I find the details on this whole story. I am tangentially following dong gone due to him being related to Keffals.

 

[Sithis]

I haven't been ITT in a while but I just find it so hilarious that admitted rapist Liz Fong-Jones started this farce with 6 and a half years of perpetual stalking and lies about this place, only to give Josh the autistic resolve to resist his digital rape attempts and strengthen the site further. Not only that but Liz Fong-Jones, an admitted rapist employed by Honeycomb.io, has forgotten to bury his own secrets well enough and this has resulted in further scrutiny of Honeycomb.io and their untrustworthy and shady business practices. I am excited to see how it goes in the future but if I was Honeycomb.io the first step I would take in trying to repair my reputation would be terminating the employment of confessed rapist Liz Fong-Jones.