The Accusations Of Liana Kerzner

DISCLAIMER TO THE READER:

If you've arrived at this article via the scurrilous liana-k-truth tumblr, know this:  that particular blog owner is a sensationalist vulture and first-rate opportunist whose "reports" reek of yellow journalism and are suspect, often unverified. I do not condone her behavior and do not wish to be associated with her.  Whereas I prefer my criticism to stand on evidence of existing contradictions, Jen is clearly a destabilizing triangulator who thrives on the attention of drama and its perpetuation, not on the desire to stop it.  From the tone of her blog, it is very easy to see that she is but one more 'mean girl' on the internet who relishes strife.  Choose to lend her credence at your own risk.  

The Accusations

Mrs. Kerzner's video today begins with some very outrageous accusations about my partner and myself. Mrs. Kerzner makes the following claims at the start (direct transcript from YT starting at 0:18 seconds):

"There were people who were formerly good enough friends to know what my trauma triggers are um deliberately stomping on on them uh and I'm not going to get into it because part of the problem is they're trying to get into my Discord server and they're watching content and they're it's just anyway the important part is I got repeatedly triggered in a um fairly short period of time..." 

"They're taking out alt accounts and sending me shit that's full of half-truths and lies and worst-case assumptions."

"They were putting my personal information on public social media."

Firstly, addressing these points:

1. If a 'trauma trigger' is confronting someone because they misrepresented a situation, then it's not trauma in my opinion- the person may be uncomfortable about having lied. (I believe this falls under Mrs. Kerzner's "Hard truths that you need to hear" category)
2. We don't want to be anywhere near her Discord server. I have no doubt that there may be someone trying to access her server, but assuming that that person is me or my spouse is the height of paranoia. She also has no proof of this and knows it, so either Mrs. Kerzner is paranoid (as has often been commented by critics) or is intentionally trying to besmirch me by putting me on equal footing with the person(s) she has dubbed her stalker(s). A point to which we will return later.
3. Mrs. Kerzner is accusing us of taking out alt accounts and sending her 'half-truths, lies and worst-case assumptions.'  I only have two accounts on BlueSky- my main account, and my UFW account. My spouse only has one.  Mrs. Kerzner, however, has displayed intense paranoia and at one point was claiming that every troll account that was popping up was the work of Emily Schooley targeting her.  Having spoken with non-anonymous individuals who have shared their stories with me, all of which have many recurring patterns (as seen later in the article), I now find it not unlikely that there are, indeed, numerous critics who, for one reason or another, prefer anonymity due to what some claim is Mrs. Kerzner's litigiousness. This, however, does not excuse the manner in which some of them have conducted themselves, nor the things that some of them have done. Credible critics rely on the soundness of their argument and evidence, not their inflammatory language. As for half-truths, lies and worst-case assumptions, we will sample enough of those in this article, though not the examples she would prefer.  
4. Mrs. Kerzner is accusing us of putting her personal information on public social media. This is, once again, a baseless accusation for which proof needs to be put forth. I notice Mrs. Kerzner offers no substantiation for any of these claims except, in her own words, 'trust me bro.'  It would be helpful to see screenshots of this alleged information that is being breached, as well as the accounts that are perpetrating it. Surely if it comes to that, a subpoena for IP addresses belonging to the accounts can be arranged for Bluesky or the services in question. As it stands, this stands in the same field as item 2 on this list.

The Situation

I would like to draw attention to Mrs. Kerzner's constant accusation that we are 'deliberately stomping on' her triggers. Mrs. Kerzner constantly admonishes people against mind-reading and ascribing motivations to her, but it seems she knows the motivations of everyone else involved. To assume that level of omniscience borders on the baffling and is incredibly inconsistent with what she preaches.

I would also like to refer you to Mrs. Kerzner's cancellation video, which provides unnecessary (and inaccurate) details about the cancellation of her project, blaming my husband for it- after saying she "wasn't going to say what happened."

And then does- with an inaccurate version. I find it extremely surprising that a PR professional, as claimed, was consulted to craft the response. The professional game devs to whom I showed the statement- veterans from Origin, Interplay, etc, as well as independent developers of my acquaintance, were all completely baffled by how needlessly personal, detailed and unprofessional the statement was. If a PR consultant was indeed involved, ran the consensus, they weren't worth whatever rate they charged unless they were doing it pro bono.

Mrs. Kerzner has also stated that my partner is angry because she didn't name him in the video cancellation in which she blamed the project termination on him. Considering he has stated the reasons for which he is requesting redress in public multiple times- and they have to do with the existence of a false narrative - the only possibilities are that either Mrs. Kerzner is illiterate (which we know is not the case) or, once again, she claims to know everybody's true intentions, which is once again mind-reading and assumption of nefarious intent. The fact that one only need to look at the project bios to see his name attached to mine, although not attached to the project, exposes the performative "not naming" just as much as the performative "non-discussion of what happened" discussion. Which, once again, it baffled me that her followers did not even blink or question the oddity of it all. Just like, in today's video, Mrs. Kerzner claimed she "wasn't going to get into what happened", and then proceeded to talk about what happened.

Uncaring, or recriprocal?

Incidentally, what Mrs. Kerzner is referring to in the above timestamp is a comment I made that I did not care about her symptoms if she was unwilling to accommodate the symptoms of others. This is in reference to my partner taking 2.5 weeks to completely retreat after feeling completely invalidated by her.  Aware that he was about to suffer a split, he blocked all avenues of communication with Mrs. Kerzner in order to avoid acting in a way he would regret later. This blocking completely infuriated Mrs. Kerzner, who proceeded to comment angrily at me about it despite my assurances that my partner would eventually return. When he returned to apologize to her, Mrs. Kerzner was, in my opinion of what I observed, cruel -something that shares a common element in Song Eretson's defense video regarding Mrs. Kerzner, and which is a word that has been repeated often in regards to Mrs. Kerzner and her splits with friends and collaborators. 

Mrs. Kerzner has admitted that one of her triggers is someone not talking to her for a long period of time, this seems to be an incredibly precarious trigger to have in someone who wants to work on the mental health field and who wants to encourage neurodivergent individuals to frequent her and seek her advice. Consider this: a lot of neurodivergent individuals are prone to experiencing overwhelming events.  Mrs. Kerzner has  positioned herself in a situation in which she can be triggered frequently (and, from the trajectory of the last year, there is some reason to believe this) and may, therefore, not be suited for her current endeavor as a peer counselor. Triggers, therapists tell us, are our responsibility to manage. My partner managed his. Mrs. Kerzner did not, and this is what I meant about reciprocal action when I spoke about caring.

In the episode of her It's Not Therapy Show in which my husband was a guest about dispelling myths of borderline personality disorder, Mrs. Kerzner asked my partner a question about how he handled being emotionally overwrought and overwhelmed. He answered by stating that he shuts down and pushes everything away until he returns to baseline, however long that takes.  Therefore, Mrs. Kerzner knew what his response would be to an overwhelming event, so either her memory is atrocious or she did not care, or believe. In a Threads post , Mrs. Kerzner stated that there was only an acceptable period of time that one could take to return to baseline , which seems to indicate that she tolerates individuals practicing self-care, but only within a time frame that she deems acceptable.  Mrs. Kerzner, as she likes to tout on her introduction to her radio show, is not a therapist. Every therapist I have spoken to about the subject has said that there is, indeed, a timeline for recovery: "Whatever time is appropriate for you."  Mrs. Kerzner begs to differ, suggesting that time increases subjectivity.  She may not be aware of studies that show that time, in fact, decreases volatility. 

Incidentally, Mrs. Kerzner took my words and gave them different contexts. When I said I would care, I did not mean the emotion of caring, which one cannot control, but the action of caring: reciprocal action. The context was clear in the phrasing, unless one decides to interpret in bad faith.

The Two Trees

A good amount of that video is also Mrs. Kerzner vaguebooking her assumptions about us. The way she speaks about it, considering we are the only two subjects alluded to in the entire video, one could reasonably think that she is suggesting that my partner had grown up in an affluent environment (he did not, he grew up in a rural community), and that he grew up with a 'they're going to get me' mentality because she claims he grew up in an abusive environment. 

Mrs. Kerzner has been doing this for months since the cancellation of the project.  At one point during our final discussion, she assured me my partner was raging and furiously mad at her. He and I were in the same room, and unbeknownst to her, he was weeping.  He did not mention this to Mrs. Kerzner, but I did to demonstrate yet again another failure of her telepathic powers. I did not say it angrily, either, but matter-of-factly and expressing sadness and disappointment (which Mrs. Kerzner claimed was me 'exploding', of course). Later that week, she released a video titled Let's Talk About "Male Tears", the content of which is mocking at several points. In the wake of one of her ruptures, she centers the most recent objects of  contention as topics for her video, with enough signifiers to indicate to her community who the individual being pilloried is, while also having the plausible deniability of claiming they were not named.

In the face of this, her surprise and shock that we finally started speaking up borders on pantomime. 

For the record, Mrs. Kerzner has implied that we should have approached her and spoken to her after this video came out. We were supposedly taking a break from each other- but the chance for rapprochement was closed when she crafted a  story that benefited her. Mrs. Kerzner did not approach me, the project collaborator, with the copy of her cancellation statement before release, otherwise I would have immediately brought the issue of how the situation was portrayed inaccurately. She has also refused to address my own direct public responses to her: Every time I addressed her directly, it was answered with a new post vaguebooking general terms for the crowd, instead of a direct reply to me.

In my research, I have now seen many first-hand examples of Mrs. Kerzner repeating this pattern with friends and associates over many years, some of which I witnessed myself in the past without seeing the pattern.

The Patterns

Mrs. Kerzner complains she is sleep-deprived, ragged, hounded by 'harassers' who 'stomp on her.' This draws away from the fact she has a trail of neurodivergent individuals who have stories of being the recipients of harsh and at times emotionally abusive behavior. Aside from those, as of late, more people with verifiable presences who cannot be dismissed as 'troll accounts' have started to recount their own hostile interactions with Mrs. Kerzner. Interactions in which a very consistent pattern emerges: Upon reaching a point of disagreement, Mrs. Kerzner becomes completely intractable and impossible to apologize to, coupled with a seeming inability to read anything but the most nefarious intents behind the other person's interactions, and the constant assessment that the other person is 'raging'. I guess that if one assures another person that they are raging over and over, there is a high likelyhood that that person will grow irritated at having their minds read and their emotions dictated to them by a third party.

The inevitable fallout then carries into a severance, and then a reporting back of the individuals' many failings. Mrs. Kerzner always, somehow, only seems to be guilty of being too understanding, of giving too many chances.

Another thing to notice is Mrs. Kerzner trying to constantly portray me as 'exploding' at her. It takes a great deal of creative writing to convert my firm public statements to her as any kind of explosion. By that metric, it is not too much of an absurdism to imply that a pigeon quietly passing gas in her vicinity would be seen as a nuclear apocalypse.

Mrs. Kerzner's version of 'being yelled at' by me  is not accurate , but the language is crafted to convey someone who is unbalanced and acting out of anger rather than thought.

In one thread, she has claimed that calling my responses an 'explosion' was in regards to the number of posts rather than an allusion to my tone ("Yeah this same person also denied exploding, but it was a very long chain of posts. So he's being cruel and is an asshole, but I figured I'd take the opportunity to push back on stigma", January 14, 2025 at 12:41 AM), but this is once again untrue, as she said "I got screamed at yesterday by someone insisting that the behaviour of his spouse wasn't relevant to public opinion about a project" in her skeet about Michelle Obama not attending the presidential inauguration (January 14, 2025 at 3:22 PM).

Mrs. Kerzner seems to equate the addressing of points over a limited-character medium as 'exploding' and 'screaming' because it suits a  narrative. What I said may have been stern and verbose, but anyone capable of reading paragraphs instead of existing in a soundbite universe would look at those accusations askance and, perhaps, wonder about the person claiming that the existence of a paragraph is the equivalent of verbal violence.

These are pages out of a troll playbook: every criticism is 'harassment.' Every protest is 'screaming', verbosity becomes 'u mad bro?', every unflattering result of a partnership or association is to be painted as disgruntled 'stalkers', and every single one of them is 'raging'- a vilification of the human need for accountability and resolution. Incidentally, Mrs. Kerzner has recently made videos about internalized misandry painting anger as always bad: 

"This is where you know the internalized misandry comes in, this idea that anger is always bad right? that it's socially acceptable to be afraid of anger especially male anger and so there's been this sort of reverse like this emotional DARVOing right? Deny and reverse victim and offender like anger is always bad therefore if you're angry it's bad therefore you're bad that's not true right?"

 In light of this, I am not entirely sure what the purpose of pointing out that someone is 'raging' (if they were, in fact, angry and not merely her own  projection) is, except to weaponize that societal and internalized misandry towards her detractors. Which seems rather counterproductive to her stated endeavors. 

As an aside, I will point out something that recently came to evidence when a friend whom I hadn't seen in over 20 years reached out to me after hearing of my experiences. She shared another experience in which Mrs. Kerzner had 'exploded' at her with a torrent of quick Twitter responses, which my friend labeled a 'tirade' at the time, to which Mrs. Kerzner took deathly offense. It is almost as if Mrs. Kerzner is aware that the limited scope of the medium necessitates multiple messages in a row to communicate anything serious or at length. This double standard seems to suggest that she intentionally weaponizes this against critics, but has and has had no issue resorting to it herself.

Furthermore, every person who has been ousted by Mrs. Kerzner has had very similar experiences, and has seen common patterns. They remember that the individuals who were ousted prior to them had a narrative laid over that discouraged anyone in her community from reaching out for their side of the story, trusting only Mrs. Kerzner's account of events over everything else. This has been reported as being accompanied by an environment that suggested that any visible interaction between one of her community members and an ousted party would be seen as 'collaborating with the stalkers.' Indeed, those existing and identifiable individuals who were not anonymous trolls who reached out to me to share their experiences were reticent to do so visibly because that is such a pervasive narrative. Another commonality that they shared was that no-one from her community ever reaches outside of the fold, and never reached out to those ousted as they indeed never reached out to me. These dynamics are evident to anyone who takes a step back, and should cause concern because of their paralells to other group dynamics of concern throughout the internet.

Mrs. Kerzner asks "Why won't they just let me go?"

Letting Go And Theater

It is puzzling that this should be a mystery. We would have no reason to want to hold her accountable if she hadn't lied and thrown a vulnerable individual under the bus to save face. The accusations of transphobia are unfounded and something I have said multiple times I can debunk, as have trans individuals I know who have seen the full event and the subsequent claims made about it by Mrs. Kerzner. They have judged the claims spurious and infantilizing, as Mrs. Kerzner claims that it was transphobic to claim a trans individual was being manipulative. The claim was made not because they were trans, but because they were being manipulative. Mrs. Kerzner calls this a 'transphobic stereotype' now, but in her cancellation video she paired it along with 'perpetuating mental health stigma',  which is a charge she quickly dropped afterwards in order to focus on the allegation of transphobia. It is worth noting that  both  individuals in the exchange in question suffer from the same personality disorder, so the accusation would have had a hard time truly sticking, or it might have also drawn scrutiny to the behavior of the other party during the conversation. Focusing on a 'phobic' tag makes it inherently dangerous to question the accuracy of the event description, for fear of social reprisal.

Mrs. Kerzner seems uninterested in engaging me directly on this matter. Truth survives in the testing of proof, not in its absence.

In fact, Mrs. Kerzner could easily solve this situation, but she doesn't seem to want to do so, as she continues to perpetuate a narrative that does not adhere to the facts. Someone does not have an obligation to reach out to you after you have lied about them in public. The onus is on you to make amends.

If Mrs. Kerzner wants to quote the Stoics so freely, then perhaps Seneca's letters to Lucilius about honesty and friendship will serve as a refresher. It is needed.

In today's video, Mrs. Kerzner claims that she still cares for us. I find this incredibly strange  as she made no attempt to reach out to me after I indicated she could speak to me. Every single instance in which I adressed her directly, she addressed the audience in the room instead of me.

It's very performative.

Once again, I shall repeat: The object of your misrepresentations is under no obligation to reach out to you. They owe you nothing. It is you who puts yourself in debt to them and to reality.

I suggest brushing up on the four Stoic virtues as needed.

I will point out that the crux of this entire situation came about through someone objecting to the meme 'Hurting an abuser's feelings by telling them what they did' and who then called, instead, for 'empathy' for those defending abusers instead of accountability. My husband asked some very pointed questions that highlighted implications the party in question did not like highlighted. In my own fashion, I told Mrs. Kerzner what it was that I saw her do from my perspective, and she terminated our friendship. It was a lot more important to her that I said it, not the why- it's never the why. It is almost as if a lot of this therapy talk maneuvering is geared towards perpetuating unhealthy situations in the service of 'empathy.'- but it is carefully calibrated so that the question 'empathy... for what?' is just as outside of bounds as getting both sides of the story.

In a response to Nedra Glower Tawwab, who said "It can be liberating to say, 'I'm bothered by something you said," Mrs. Kerzner said "It's a way for someone to show they actually give a damn, or prove that they totally don't." For two months now we have made it very clear that we are, indeed, bothered by something she said, as well as what was it that was said.

If Mrs. Kerzner wishes to care instead of continuing to  talk about it, she can reach me directly through known means.

My partner no longer has any interest in speaking with her after the most recent doubling down of the false narrative.