hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2910111213 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 253

Thread: Sexual Misconduct Shenanigans Pool

  1. #221
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    No we're not and you know it. Someone sexually assaults someone, a publisher decides they don't want to publish their content anymore. It's not a law against it, it's a publisher not wanting to host content from someone who does something wrong. Unless you think no publisher should ever legally allowed to remove any content ever for any reason, just in case?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    He didn't sexually assault them though, he masturbated in front of them, with their consent. Not saying a publisher shouldn't be allowed to remove content, I simply question the reasons for it. If it is because the content is unsuitable or unpopular, then that's fine by me, but if it is simply because media opinion has moved against the content's creator then that's censorship.
    I don't think you know what consent or censorship mean

  2. #222
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,305
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    No we're not and you know it. Someone sexually assaults someone, a publisher decides they don't want to publish their content anymore. It's not a law against it, it's a publisher not wanting to host content from someone who does something wrong. Unless you think no publisher should ever legally allowed to remove any content ever for any reason, just in case?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    He didn't sexually assault them though, he masturbated in front of them, with their consent. Not saying a publisher shouldn't be allowed to remove content, I simply question the reasons for it. If it is because the content is unsuitable or unpopular, then that's fine by me, but if it is simply because media opinion has moved against the content's creator then that's censorship.
    I don't think you know what consent or censorship mean
    ^

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  3. #223
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,201
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    No we're not and you know it. Someone sexually assaults someone, a publisher decides they don't want to publish their content anymore. It's not a law against it, it's a publisher not wanting to host content from someone who does something wrong. Unless you think no publisher should ever legally allowed to remove any content ever for any reason, just in case?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    He didn't sexually assault them though, he masturbated in front of them, with their consent. Not saying a publisher shouldn't be allowed to remove content, I simply question the reasons for it. If it is because the content is unsuitable or unpopular, then that's fine by me, but if it is simply because media opinion has moved against the content's creator then that's censorship.
    I don't think you know what consent or censorship mean
    Just like the difference between speech and actions you don't know the difference between assault and harassment. You should be old enough to know what things are by now.

  4. #224
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,944
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    Marx had views on Jews, eh?

  5. #225
    Smarnca's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 30, 2013
    Location
    Lowlife.
    Posts
    7,301


  6. #226
    SAI Peregrinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 13, 2011
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    Marx had views on Jews, eh?
    "Oh the Catholics hate the Protestants,
    And the Protestants hate the Catholics,
    And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
    And everybody hates the Jews."
    --Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"

  7. #227

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    The fuck does a private company, a publisher, deciding they don't want to publish something have to do with any kind of censorship or this beyond idiotic diarrhea covered slippery slope argument exactly?

    Do you even understand the words you are typing anymore?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  8. #228
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,305
    Smuggo was better when he was in his full communism role playing

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  9. #229
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    13,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    The fuck does a private company, a publisher, deciding they don't want to publish something have to do with any kind of censorship or this beyond idiotic diarrhea covered slippery slope argument exactly?

    Do you even understand the words you are typing anymore?
    I think the more aghast and angry Isyel gets about what you're saying ideologically the more you know you're onto something.

    Half of you are fixated on punishment to Louis about what he did but if you think it's a stretch to suggest works would be taken out of circulation, particularly from schools, because some people decide they don't like the opinions of the authors, you're naive. All Contemporary Poster said was that it's an important question and clearly it is. If they find some serious fucking skeletons in the closet of an author of something great, there will be calls to purge it from some people and depending on how bad the skeletons are it can absolutely happen.

    Louis' stuff being pulled doesn't really fall under this category, he's got a current working relationship with companies that want to sever that relationship and that's their business. It's clearly more of a grey area. I'm sad he did what he did because now he's weird and gross and now I won't get laughs from more of his comedy.
    Last edited by Frug; November 11 2017 at 10:16:55 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  10. #230
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    No we're not and you know it. Someone sexually assaults someone, a publisher decides they don't want to publish their content anymore. It's not a law against it, it's a publisher not wanting to host content from someone who does something wrong. Unless you think no publisher should ever legally allowed to remove any content ever for any reason, just in case?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    He didn't sexually assault them though, he masturbated in front of them, with their consent. Not saying a publisher shouldn't be allowed to remove content, I simply question the reasons for it. If it is because the content is unsuitable or unpopular, then that's fine by me, but if it is simply because media opinion has moved against the content's creator then that's censorship.
    I don't think you know what consent or censorship mean
    Just like the difference between speech and actions you don't know the difference between assault and harassment. You should be old enough to know what things are by now.
    Is this satire?

  11. #231
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Isyel View Post
    The fuck does a private company, a publisher, deciding they don't want to publish something have to do with any kind of censorship or this beyond idiotic diarrhea covered slippery slope argument exactly?

    Do you even understand the words you are typing anymore?
    I think the more aghast and angry Isyel gets about what you're saying ideologically the more you know you're onto something.

    Half of you are fixated on punishment to Louis about what he did but if you think it's a stretch to suggest works would be taken out of circulation, particularly from schools, because some people decide they don't like the opinions of the authors, you're naive. All Contemporary Poster said was that it's an important question and clearly it is. If they find some serious fucking skeletons in the closet of an author of something great, there will be calls to purge it from some people and depending on how bad the skeletons are it can absolutely happen.

    Louis' stuff being pulled doesn't really fall under this category, he's got a current working relationship with companies that want to sever that relationship and that's their business. It's clearly more of a grey area. I'm sad he did what he did because now he's weird and gross and now I won't get laughs from more of his comedy.
    Yeah because Louis was an educational figure

    What the fuck?

    As an individual you are free to separate an individual from his material, which is fine.

  12. #232
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    11,197
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post

    As an individual you are free to separate an individual from his material, which is fine.
    But here we have a publisher who has made that choice for you.


  13. #233
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post

    As an individual you are free to separate an individual from his material, which is fine.
    But here we have a publisher who has made that choice for you.
    Clearly a return to bookburning.

    Publishers have always pulled books/material that they feel would be detrimental to their public reception.

    It's not like the skits aren't up on Youtube anyway

  14. #234
    Smarnca's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 30, 2013
    Location
    Lowlife.
    Posts
    7,301
    Quote Originally Posted by SAI Peregrinus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    Marx had views on Jews, eh?
    "Oh the Catholics hate the Protestants,
    And the Protestants hate the Catholics,
    And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
    And everybody hates the Jews."
    --Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"
    Ah yes: always the victim


  15. #235
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    13,041
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Yeah because Louis was an educational figure

    What the fuck?
    I think you need to learn to read. Your trolling would benefit from having something to do with the post you're quoting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  16. #236
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Yeah because Louis was an educational figure

    What the fuck?
    I think you need to learn to read. Your trolling would benefit from having something to do with the post you're quoting.
    So would yours m8

  17. #237
    big diiiiiiiiick Movember 2012Donor Dark Flare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,612
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    No we're not and you know it. Someone sexually assaults someone, a publisher decides they don't want to publish their content anymore. It's not a law against it, it's a publisher not wanting to host content from someone who does something wrong. Unless you think no publisher should ever legally allowed to remove any content ever for any reason, just in case?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    He didn't sexually assault them though, he masturbated in front of them, with their consent. Not saying a publisher shouldn't be allowed to remove content, I simply question the reasons for it. If it is because the content is unsuitable or unpopular, then that's fine by me, but if it is simply because media opinion has moved against the content's creator then that's censorship.
    Wasn't with consent fam.
    Quote Originally Posted by Amantus
    whats tyhe appear of a shnitifuck cu nt eve onlio9ne corpotraTION DICKOLHEAD FUCKIN AS

  18. #238
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Flare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    No we're not and you know it. Someone sexually assaults someone, a publisher decides they don't want to publish their content anymore. It's not a law against it, it's a publisher not wanting to host content from someone who does something wrong. Unless you think no publisher should ever legally allowed to remove any content ever for any reason, just in case?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    He didn't sexually assault them though, he masturbated in front of them, with their consent. Not saying a publisher shouldn't be allowed to remove content, I simply question the reasons for it. If it is because the content is unsuitable or unpopular, then that's fine by me, but if it is simply because media opinion has moved against the content's creator then that's censorship.
    Wasn't with consent fam.
    I know 3 out of 5 of them he asked if he could 2 of them (they were together) said yes but thought he was joking. The other he asked and she said yes because she didn't want to ruin her chance at something or other. I haven't read anything or don't remember what the other two's scenario was but I recal essentially the same scenarios. There were a collection of recounts from women who said no and he didn't.

    It's harassment clear as day because in almost all cases he was in a position of authority, but for the life of me I can't understand why people need to make shit up when the facts of the matter are all over the place in the form of interviews with women are part of the claim or have had similar run ins with him.

  19. #239
    big diiiiiiiiick Movember 2012Donor Dark Flare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Flare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    No we're not and you know it. Someone sexually assaults someone, a publisher decides they don't want to publish their content anymore. It's not a law against it, it's a publisher not wanting to host content from someone who does something wrong. Unless you think no publisher should ever legally allowed to remove any content ever for any reason, just in case?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    He didn't sexually assault them though, he masturbated in front of them, with their consent. Not saying a publisher shouldn't be allowed to remove content, I simply question the reasons for it. If it is because the content is unsuitable or unpopular, then that's fine by me, but if it is simply because media opinion has moved against the content's creator then that's censorship.
    Wasn't with consent fam.
    I know 3 out of 5 of them he asked if he could 2 of them (they were together) said yes but thought he was joking. The other he asked and she said yes because she didn't want to ruin her chance at something or other. I haven't read anything or don't remember what the other two's scenario was but I recal essentially the same scenarios. There were a collection of recounts from women who said no and he didn't.

    It's harassment clear as day because in almost all cases he was in a position of authority, but for the life of me I can't understand why people need to make shit up when the facts of the matter are all over the place in the form of interviews with women are part of the claim or have had similar run ins with him.
    Source for them saying yes? What I read (written by them afaik) said they laughed when he asked, then laughed when he did it. Not said yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Amantus
    whats tyhe appear of a shnitifuck cu nt eve onlio9ne corpotraTION DICKOLHEAD FUCKIN AS

  20. #240
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Flare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Flare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Contemporary Poster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
    But he's not having his work taken down for what it says, so this line makes no sense.
    No, but the consequences of his actions are that his work is no longer on show. Doesn't matter that his work doesn't show him taking his cock out.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    And where does this end? Shall we no longer be allowed to read Dickens because of his attitudes to women, or Marx because of his views on Jews? We're coming alarmingly close to trying to rewrite history to try and erase all trace of anyone who does something wrong, instead of leaving it where it is to remind us that we're all flawed in some way.
    No we're not and you know it. Someone sexually assaults someone, a publisher decides they don't want to publish their content anymore. It's not a law against it, it's a publisher not wanting to host content from someone who does something wrong. Unless you think no publisher should ever legally allowed to remove any content ever for any reason, just in case?

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    He didn't sexually assault them though, he masturbated in front of them, with their consent. Not saying a publisher shouldn't be allowed to remove content, I simply question the reasons for it. If it is because the content is unsuitable or unpopular, then that's fine by me, but if it is simply because media opinion has moved against the content's creator then that's censorship.
    Wasn't with consent fam.
    I know 3 out of 5 of them he asked if he could 2 of them (they were together) said yes but thought he was joking. The other he asked and she said yes because she didn't want to ruin her chance at something or other. I haven't read anything or don't remember what the other two's scenario was but I recal essentially the same scenarios. There were a collection of recounts from women who said no and he didn't.

    It's harassment clear as day because in almost all cases he was in a position of authority, but for the life of me I can't understand why people need to make shit up when the facts of the matter are all over the place in the form of interviews with women are part of the claim or have had similar run ins with him.
    Source for them saying yes? What I read (written by them afaik) said they laughed when he asked, then laughed when he did it. Not said yes.
    It was a voice interview on NPR, finding that will take to long their web search for radio clips is sub par. Feel free to assume I'm full of shit if you want. If you feel like looking for it, it is the clip where one womans recount of a similar situation he asked her if he could masturbate in front of her and she said in response "you have a wife and children" and responded with "I have a problem" and walked away ashamed.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •