I don’t know but whatever it makes me is less bad than whatever rejecting the claims of victims published through credible sources makes you 😜
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
You mean like utterly totally zip? Surely not. Surely one is at least a little something. Like a fart in a wind, or a fart in a colander, or something farty like that.
credulous
Was this posted by Ronald MacDonald from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia?
“Have you poured through the facts? Seen the figures? No? So let me get this straight, Mr. Reynolds… You get your information from a book, written by men you’ve never met, and you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of… humph dare I say it? Faith?”
I’m not familiar. But ya, same idea.
I’d attribute it to that willingness to believe, but I’d take it a step further. An eagerness to believe. An eagerness to enjoy the high of a good anger. Outweighing any loyalty to reality.
I’m assuming this is about Neil Gaiman. 9 women, the youngest being 18, have come forward and he made them sign NDA’s [Content Warning]. Even if it was consensual the stuff he’s admitted to doing is just awful. As a girl, I have every right to be angry that people like him view women as toys to use and abuse.
God damnit. I told someone recently “at least we’ll have Pratchett and Gaiman in the non-asshole writer zone”.
I’m rather hesitant to talk again…
Don’t take hearsay so seriously.
Don’t take the rabble’s judgment of great artists so seriously either
Nope. Purely in the abstract. It happens a lot on social media. The Gaiman thing is just one example.
My point still stands. If there’s evidence that someone has done terrible things, then most reasonable people aren’t going to stick up for that person. I’m not sure what relevance not knowing the people involved has. Normal people are angry at Neo Nazis even though they may not know one personally.
Hearsay constitutes weak evidence.
What’s the minimum you’d count as strong enough evidence to justify anger at the accused?
(Disregard that pm, wrong community)
The word of an authority that I respect would do it.
Someone who reads articles and has emotional bandwith.
credulous
A normal internet user
One word I might use is “premature”. I definitely don’t know about other people, but rather than the anger implied in the question, if someone had a crime or misdeed attributed to them, if what happened mattered, my biggest inclination would be to try to fill in the gaps in my mind. Along the way, this of course potentially implies things like “why did they do it”, “how was it done”, and “did they really”. A lot of people, however, consider it conclusive based on what amounts to public perception, something I am no stranger to being on the receiving end of, and I don’t think I have to tell you how destructive that has turned out. It compels me to wonder how scary our state of existence is, especially when typically getting “to the bottom of something” is associated with neurodivergence.
Are we talking about anyone in particular here?
They are talking about this thread despite denying that they are talking about it. And it would be a better denial if they weren’t literally arguing in a thread about a rapist that we can’t trust the article about him for this very reason.
Yeah, I guess I can understand the cognitive dissonance making people want to deny everything, but it doesn’t seem like there’s much room to doubt the veracity of the case against Gaiman. Really, that article has been a long time coming. Anyone paying much attention to Amanda Palmer (Gaiman’s ex-wife) has had plenty of clues this was coming, even if the full extent of the sheer depravity of the details weren’t publicly known until now.
Also, I haven’t read the Vulture article yet, but from what I’ve heard, it makes it sound like Palmer was complicit. She has also withdrawn from public places/platforms (like from her Patreon) since its publication.
She was complicit, and unless you have a strong stomach, I would not read the article. Let’s just say the multiple rapes also included his kinks involving bodily fluids. In the worst ways possible. It’s something I cannot unread.
He’s referring to Neil Gaiman.
Yeah, that’s specifically who I suspected it might be about. Either him or P. Diddy. But the news of Neil Gaiman is more fresh right now.
Nope
frysuspicious.jpg
Curious to find the same information from another source to verify it is real.
There are a ton of sources that talk about sexual misconduct when it comes to Neil Gaiman. This is just the most detailed.
I missed that reference in the original post.
whoever wrote that article must be good at either citing or rage-baiting.
or both.
angry
A conservative
