4·
7 days agowho still wants a television in this century?
This is so out-of-touch it’s unreal.
—Someone who doesn’t still want a television in this century
TheTechnician27
“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift
- 0 Posts
- 8 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 25th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
my SPECULATIVE STATEMENT.
Pfffffffffffffft. What a chode. “I hedged with ‘most likely’ bro so you can’t poke holes in the ridiculous bullshit I’m asserting with zero evidence.” You’d be really good at JAQing off. “Were the Olsen twins sold into sex slavery on Epstein’s Island? We can’t say for sure, but it’s impossible to rule out.”
Yeah, no, I totally agree that sexualization by the public when they were underage (even as adults) probably took a psychological toll, as it probably does on a lot of teen stars (and IIRC it was quite bad with Mary-Kate & Ashley).
That is a completely different statement from “they were most likely molested by some of Epstein’s Hollywood buddies”.
That’s a seriously bold claim that you don’t bother to support at all and just take as common knowledge. After doing a few minutes of searching: what the absolute fuck are you even talking about?
Genuinely the most I can find are a small handful of trashy outlets like The Sun (at the least trashy) talking about a baseless Twitter accusation against Bob Saget after his death and then – even as trashy as they are – unanimously arriving at the conclusion that Saget unequivocally did nothing to them. (To that end, I can’t even find anything about Saget having ever interacted with Epstein, so there’s a baseless, nonsense Twitter accusation – only discussed by the trashiest outlets who have every incentive to imply that it’s true for clicks but instead deny it completely – about a man with no connection to Epstein.)
No names, no sources (probably because there’s jack shit), no anything, so what exactly the fuck are you basing “most likely” on?
It still wouldn’t make it consistent given you’re still advertising Adam in the post body. Anti-advertisement ethics aren’t the problem; your lens for evaluating them clearly is, and I’m not here to bodge together the garbage it’s feeding you.
I’m pointing out that your reductionist, black-and-white attitude is so convoluted and so unhelpful that it’s not even practicable for you to follow while complying with your belief that – to the author and the reader – it’s wrong to erase credit. And I can tell that’s your ethical stance because you re-added credit despite no rule and despite sponging up public ridicule like you practically enjoy it.
Edit: I will tell you just to drive this point even further that your post is an advertisement for Ellis’ work for anyone (like me) who recognizes his distinctive art style. So be sure to take it down or run it through a slop filter to genericize it.
This is an advertisement for Reddit, Inc. that most people won’t even realize they’re being served until they click the link. I’m not contending the link is a big deal in a vacuum; I’m contending you’ve actively substituted a completely benign – even quite helpful – advertisement with a slightly yet definitely worse advertisement and are claiming this is rooted in staunch anti-advertisement ethics.
Man, Adam Ellis’ work isn’t, like, mind-blowing to me, but I would’ve never believed how good he actually is if you told me before he escaped from BuzzFeed. This was my only glimmer of hope at the time:
sigh
bapanada