I couldn't find it unfortunately but I did find more corrobation just like you guys. Perhaps I misread it a while ago.
Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
I couldn't find it unfortunately but I did find more corrobation just like you guys. Perhaps I misread it a while ago.
Fairly sure it hasn't been debunked.
Hard to argue against graphs like this really too..
https://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i5/Crimes-Lead.html
So social media take seems to be: "I was groped and that's terrible. I'm scarred. LOL! SOMEONE GRABBED HARRY STYLES' DICK!! HAAHAHHA"
I hate that I know what you mean.
I've been molested, intimidated and raped by the bullshit bragging in this thread. #metoomyarse
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/..._ways_unfamiliar_men/?st=j97m1cgg&sh=7a1c2237
Cringed pretty hard reading some of the shit men do.
Cringed pretty hard reading some of the shit men do.
Stumbled across a discussion about some guy who has something to do with a wrestling website, drunkenly asking for, and receiving, boob pictures of a 19 year old 'fan' on the internet. If you search Adam Blampied into your Twitter search it'd come up.
Folk comparing this to Weinstein and calling is sexual assault and him a sexual predator. Doesn't this shit undermine and make it harder for actual victims of sexual assault? Maybe it's me but if you wilfully send nudes to someone over the internet then as long as they don't share them or exploit you due to them, then who gives a shit? I really struggle to see how asking for nudes, then getting them, is such a heinous act. He didn't make these public, as far as I can tell the first time anyone other than the two people involved had any idea about this is when she made the story public herself.
I worry about sexual assault being hijacked by people on social media and becoming the new 'mansplaining', which seems to be defined as 'man once spoke to me OMG TRIGGERED!!'. Surely there has to be a clear line between abuse of women and someone who got nudes from someone. Else isn't anyone who's ever received a nude pic in their life now a sexual predator? Genuinely don't think it does anything to promote awareness of what appears to be a widespread problem of predominantly m on f sexual abuse and intimidation.
Folk comparing this to Weinstein and calling is sexual assault and him a sexual predator. Doesn't this shit undermine and make it harder for actual victims of sexual assault? Maybe it's me but if you wilfully send nudes to someone over the internet then as long as they don't share them or exploit you due to them, then who gives a shit? I really struggle to see how asking for nudes, then getting them, is such a heinous act. He didn't make these public, as far as I can tell the first time anyone other than the two people involved had any idea about this is when she made the story public herself.
I worry about sexual assault being hijacked by people on social media and becoming the new 'mansplaining', which seems to be defined as 'man once spoke to me OMG TRIGGERED!!'. Surely there has to be a clear line between abuse of women and someone who got nudes from someone. Else isn't anyone who's ever received a nude pic in their life now a sexual predator? Genuinely don't think it does anything to promote awareness of what appears to be a widespread problem of predominantly m on f sexual abuse and intimidation.
Last edited:
Yeah, some guy asking a 19yo for nudes might be creepy and disgusting, but voluntarily sending lewd pictures to some guy is worlds apart from getting assaulted and raped. It's like comparing getting brutally beaten up and robbed to someone in the office nicking your yogurt
I have every sympathy with those coming forward recently, however one group that I don't feel quite so sympathetic for are those women who claim to have been a victim because they slept their way up the corporate ladder. That's not necessarily your boss abusing his power, it's you using your body to get what you want. As long as it was totally consensual, then it's a two way street isn't it? You both got what you wanted.
Those trying to align these cases with what Weinstein did are reaching a bit imo.
Those trying to align these cases with what Weinstein did are reaching a bit imo.
Don't understand why some people are so paranoid about who uses the hashtag. It's possible a few women have misunderstood it, or equally possible your definition of harassment doesn't match up to their's.
It always happens with large movements like this. Discrediting people is not what we should be focusing on.
It always happens with large movements like this. Discrediting people is not what we should be focusing on.
If you read the "Freakonomics" book or articles on the subject the general slam dunk on reducing crime is the availability of access to safe abortions. The data is pretty conclusive as it tracks across different countries, different states and different timelines for the introduction of abortion legislation.
Unwanted babies turn to crime...fewer unwanted babies...less crime.
Unwanted babies turn to crime...fewer unwanted babies...less crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
It's not very conclusive and later research hasn't been able to replicate the original finding. Whatever link there is between abortion and crime is going to be minor because not that many people actually have abortions, even when pregnancy is unplanned.
Making it a film is a bit weird and long winded.
Fairly sure it hasn't been debunked.
Hard to argue against graphs like this really too..
https://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i5/Crimes-Lead.html
I actually am very interested in this theory and think there could be something in it, but on that graph doesn't the increase in crime pre-date the increase in lead?
Crime years are in blue, lead years in green.
Ahhhhh cheers!
I'm fairly convinced by the theory but also depressed as I was born just before the drop off.
No idea where to put this. It seems Mark Halperin who appears on Morning Joe has been accused by 5 women. I wonder if the floodgates are about to open and we'll see just how bad it has been for women.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/25/media/mark-halperin-sexual-harassment-allegations/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/25/media/mark-halperin-sexual-harassment-allegations/index.html
Freakonomics is a compedium of poorly substantiated arguments mostly included for their sensational value. I wouldn't take any theory spearheaded by that book seriously.
I can well believe that, because no sane woman wouldnt be utterly repulsed by his smug face.
Seems a bit out of context with the thread if you ask me.
"Corey describes what happened but it isn't clear who exactly the predators are."
This is an interesting case. It's pretty clear, imo, both those boys were subjected to some pretty shit things going on to put it mildly. But $10m to make a film about it? I'm not sure I get that, and why hasn't he named and shamed since.
There's undoubtedly a lot of stories like this, and most if not all will be real. Asking $10m to share such a story seems well off to me.
I can understand him not wanting to name and shame. There's legal implications and it's not easy going after powerful people with a lot to lose. He claims he's had threats these last few days as well.
But yeah, I don't get this movie thing. What if the movie sucks? The message would just get lost. If he is ready to share names, it needs to be done with the help of experienced journalists and their legal department.
Exactly, it needs to be a real thing. It just seems, so far, like his book in that it will talk about stuff but never actually give any information. You could make a documentary with experienced journalists and legal departments for much less I'm sure.
I have no doubt he has a real story to tell and it will really suck to hear that story too. But something about this just seems wrong.
Fairly sure it hasn't been debunked.
Hard to argue against graphs like this really too..
https://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i5/Crimes-Lead.html
That's a puzzling graph. The horizontal time scales for 'lead level' and 'violent crime' are entirely different. So what does the blue and green lines closely tracking each other mean? Their values at any point seem to refer to different years!
Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.
That's a puzzling graph. The horizontal time scales for 'lead level' and 'violent crime' are entirely different. So what does the blue and green lines closely tracking each other mean? Their values at any point seem to refer to different years!
Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.
Looks like they allowed some time for the kids to grow up and start being violent. It's impossible to prove anything like this, though.
That makes more sense. They're claiming it's a developmental thing so the effects will be delayed. It still seems very dodgy though.
Whatever the [lead] and [crime] measure, the point from that graph is that changes in either measure are correlated. In this case, they use [lead] as childhood lead level, and [crime] as the level of violent crime 23 yrs after the [lead] measure.That's a puzzling graph. The horizontal time scales for 'lead level' and 'violent crime' are entirely different. So what does the blue and green lines closely tracking each other mean? Their values at any point seem to refer to different years!
Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.
Apart from statically notorious time-correlations, there has been much more work done on the same, including geographic correlations as well as a putative (but broad) chemical mechanism. However, this time correlation remains the best visual way of making a point.
It's certainly a fascinating idea. Maybe it accounts for half the population of Rome regularly flocking to the Colosseum to watch people slaughter each other.
I'm not sure the researchers are saying it does. More than one thing could be involved in changing behavior, etc.
Rome's water supply was fed through lead pipes, and modern researchers have found high levels of lead in the bones of its former inhabitants.
Okay so I am watching The Mist, as the one episode opens up pop the names of the Producers with Harvey Weinstein leading the list. The scene it was shown over was a woman running away and screaming in terror.
Anyone else read the story about taibbi+Ames and can explain it to me? It just popped up in my twitter feed. It's already a few month old, but I've never saw it anywhere getting traction. Is it legit or nonsense?
It is due to their book -
"The eXile is the controversial biweekly tabloid founded by Americans Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi that Rolling Stone has called "cruel, caustic, and funny" and "a must-read." In the tradition of gonzo journalists like Hunter S. Thompson, Ames and Taibbi cover everything from decadent club scenes to the nation's collapsing political and economic systems - no person or institution is spared from their razor sharp satiric viewpoint. They take you beneath the surface of the Russia that most Western journalists cover, bringing to life the metropolis that Ames describes as "manic, nihilistic, grotesque, horrible; and yet, in its own way, far superior to any city on Earth." Featuring artwork and articles from their groundbreaking newspaper, The eXile is the inside story of how the tabloid came to be and how Ames and Taibbi broke their biggest stories - all the while playing hysterically vicious practical jokes, racking up innumerable death threats, and ingesting a motherlode of speed. It's a darkly funny, up-close profile of the sordid underbelly of the New World Order that you will never forget."
They claim that is a satire but at the same time it was/is marketed as a non-fiction.
tl;dr:
Ames and Taibbi were in the collpasing Russia of the 90s as journalists. They wrote in something called the Exile. Accordin to them it was a blend of satire and reporting. In it they reported themselves doing sexual assault and other crimes. Ames claimed to force a woman into abortion at knife-point. Taibbi IIRC talked about groping. There were many more examples, these are two I remember. They put these "exaggerated/satirical" experiences together in a book where many more of these claims are found. These are all their own words.
They claimed that in the Russian collapse, which led to women in particular losing jobs, desperation for money meant that women threw themselves at men, especially foreigners and oligarchs. Their writing was found online recently, and they were attacked for it for the last few months, but only by a handful of feminists,1-2 leftists and Gavin McInnes-style fascists, most of the world was unaware of this. It seems to have become a bigger issue after Weinstein.
In response Ames wrote this: https://exiledonline.com/about-those-exile-smears/
Their claim is that there has been no complaint against them (in fact a female staffer backed them on this) and that since their reporting was always a blend of satire and truth, this was the satire element. However, there is also this interview (thread):
and
Last edited:
Anyone remember the actress who played Gloria Trillo in the Sopranos?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...by-harvey-weinstein-i-felt-disgusting-1052718
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...by-harvey-weinstein-i-felt-disgusting-1052718