>>822546
you have never "spoken for kiki". all you do is say kiki believes something when it is the exact oppersite of what she has actually said just like today when you said kiki doesn't have a problem with sizequeen jokes then she said she does and you got real quite. that's the real problem you have with me. it's not gatekeeping or bullying, you defended the newchamp and diminished kiki's problem because you yourself agreed with it. and that's why you continued to make excuses like kiki never actually had a problem she was just tired and hungey. or source source source even though you know kiki had a problem with it and all us old champs know that too
>>105073762
>>105073800
>>105073922
and your response
>the joke was fine, don't be gaslit champy. she didn't take it well but i don't think you could've known this would happen.
and after the fact
>it isnt an anti talking point. you are merely too far up your own ass to realize not everyone is as prudish as you, kiki included
>kiki inculded
you know kiki has a problem with it.
you have known this for years and cope with
> but she also didn't want to make small-champs feel bad too
>nuh uh kiki secretly agees with me even though she repeatedly says the opposite
deep down you know kiki has a problem with it yet you still do it. Because you disagree with kiki. kiki is too, prudish, too trad for you, so you (in your own words) force your beliefs of what you want kiki to be
and i wouldnt care if this was an isolated incident. you do this all the fucking time.