High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Nice. It isn't ok to question a man's guilt before the facts or a trial but it is ok to use slang that insults the mentally impaired.

Man you never stop digging do you

[FlamesAddiction]

You mean the guy who put out an album called "Smells Like Children" might be a sex offender? Shocking I tell you.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Man you never stop digging do you

Me? If I had posted that slang term I would be in the sin bin right now. Disgusting.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I would expect no less from you. Whether it is contact in hockey or anything else you seem to victim promote everything in here regardless of the topic. What if MM wins his defamation suit? Shall I come back and accuse you of victim shaming? Like I said, it's social herd conformity to not look at both sides but to automatically pronounce guilt on the accused, especially when it comes to famous sex assault accusations. Some of us are not afraid to look at both sides though, form an opinion, have a thought of our own, and speak out about it. If that gets me chewed up have it, don't care.

You can try to make this personal all you like but it’s not that interesting. You’re the same poster who, ironically, plays the victim and throws a fit every time someone calls out a bad take of yours, so I don’t hold your opinion of my posting history with any weight.

I will, however, explain what victim blaming/shaming is, since you seem confused. Victim blaming is when a victim (or in this case an alleged victim) is held partially or fully responsible for the criminal acts committed against them. An example of this would be saying things like “why didn’t she leave” or “they were infatuated with him” or “she wanted the bad boy.” That’s victim blaming. Victim blaming is not: talking about lawsuits and accusations brought against someone. No where have I said or suggested Manson deserves to be defamed or brought it upon himself, because if it true, he obviously does not. You can accuse me of victim blaming Manson whenever you want, but it wouldn’t matter, because it comes from a place of you not even understanding the term. It holds zero weight.

I’ll also ask again: can you please show some proof of the claims that people from the video set claimed it didn’t happen or that the police found nothing in the November raid? I think it’d be good if you’re interested in representing the truth here, right?

You’re using a lot of chintzy buzzwords to feign a point about how free a thinker you are, but if so, you should be smart enough to know that people can look at both sides (unafraid to do so even!) and come to the conclusion that in a situation where there are multiple lawsuits and over a dozen of other accusations, that the balance of probabilities tells us these are not all made up. Or is your position that all the women who claim to have been abused and the witnesses to this abuse are making it up? Dozens of strangers just conspiring to bring down one rockstar, some anonymously, some seeking no financial retribution whatsoever… for what, exactly? Use those thoughts of your own to shine a little light on it for us.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Me? If I had posted that slang term I would be in the sin bin right now. Disgusting.

That's possible but probably more to do with who you are perceived to be here rather than your language, something to ponder on if I was you

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

That's possible but probably more to do with who you are perceived to be here rather than your language, something to ponder on if I was you

Like I give a crap what some yahoo on here thinks I am perceived as.Oh no, some random nobody's who think accusations = guilt are jaded with me! Whatever will I do! Lol

[GGG]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Like I give a crap what some yahoo on here thinks I am perceived as.Oh no, some random nobody's who think accusations = guilt are jaded with me! Whatever will I do! Lol

Is legal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the only standard you should ever judge an individual on?

You seem to be making claims that if a person is not convicted of a crime then they did not commit that crime rather than what is actually happing. Which is there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual committed a crime or that a crime occurred.

For example OJ was not guilty of killing his ex wife. He was found liable for it and wrote a book essentially confessing to it. Do you think he did it?

[ResAlien]

I don’t think he’s a fan of OJ’s music so I don’t imagine he’s going to ride quite as hard for Mr Simpson. What an insane hill to die on.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is legal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the only standard you should ever judge an individual on?

You seem to be making claims that if a person is not convicted of a crime then they did not commit that crime rather than what is actually happing. Which is there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual committed a crime or that a crime occurred.

For example OJ was not guilty of killing his ex wife. He was found liable for it and wrote a book essentially confessing to it. Do you think he did it?

Not at all. I am saying that whenever accusations are thrown out at someone they are not innocent until proven guilty, in the public eye, they are automatically assumed guilty. Even if MM was legally cleared of any wrong doing, even if the evidence pointed toward him being played here the majority would still say he is guilty and got away with it. I posed a theory on what is going on and it wouldn't be the first time a famous person has had these accusations laid against them only to be proven false. I could be wrong and he is guilty as hell. I don't even think MM is a good person, he is an arrogant weird d-bag. I am saying that because of his image, because if the things he writes about in his music, he will be guilty in the public eye no matter what the facts actually end up being.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You can try to make this personal all you like but it’s not that interesting. You’re the same poster who, ironically, plays the victim and throws a fit every time someone calls out a bad take of yours, so I don’t hold your opinion of my posting history with any weight.

I will, however, explain what victim blaming/shaming is, since you seem confused. Victim blaming is when a victim (or in this case an alleged victim) is held partially or fully responsible for the criminal acts committed against them. An example of this would be saying things like “why didn’t she leave” or “they were infatuated with him” or “she wanted the bad boy.” That’s victim blaming. Victim blaming is not: talking about lawsuits and accusations brought against someone. No where have I said or suggested Manson deserves to be defamed or brought it upon himself, because if it true, he obviously does not. You can accuse me of victim blaming Manson whenever you want, but it wouldn’t matter, because it comes from a place of you not even understanding the term. It holds zero weight.

I’ll also ask again: can you please show some proof of the claims that people from the video set claimed it didn’t happen or that the police found nothing in the November raid? I think it’d be good if you’re interested in representing the truth here, right?

You’re using a lot of chintzy buzzwords to feign a point about how free a thinker you are, but if so, you should be smart enough to know that people can look at both sides (unafraid to do so even!) and come to the conclusion that in a situation where there are multiple lawsuits and over a dozen of other accusations, that the balance of probabilities tells us these are not all made up. Or is your position that all the women who claim to have been abused and the witnesses to this abuse are making it up? Dozens of strangers just conspiring to bring down one rockstar, some anonymously, some seeking no financial retribution whatsoever… for what, exactly? Use those thoughts of your own to shine a little light on it for us.

Actually that is not what victim shaming is. If a man rapes a woman and he says that she dresses provocative so she obviously wanted it and I agreed with that, that would be victim shaming. If someone claims one thing and the other person claims another and you try and look at it from both sides that is not victim shaming because either party could be the victim there. I find it hilarious people actually thanked that, Some people love a victim, back in the old days of Salem you would probably be burning innocent people at the stake because they were accused of witchcraft. Mob mentality loves it's victims and it loves destroying the accused no matter what the facts end up being.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Not at all. I am saying that whenever accusations are thrown out at someone they are not innocent until proven guilty, in the public eye, they are automatically assumed guilty. Even if MM was legally cleared of any wrong doing, even if the evidence pointed toward him being played here the majority would still say he is guilty and got away with it. I posed a theory on what is going on and it wouldn't be the first time a famous person has had these accusations laid against them only to be proven false. I could be wrong and he is guilty as hell. I don't even think MM is a good person, he is an arrogant weird d-bag. I am saying that because of his image, because if the things he writes about in his music, he will be guilty in the public eye no matter what the facts actually end up being.

How is one proven innocent?
When you say no matter what the facts end up being how are you going to determine what is fact?

You never answered your thoughts on OJ

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I just don’t understand why Wood would, after all these years, decide to take the jilted ex angle. Why would she gain from it? Other than death and rape threats from MM fans online.

She’s also spent a tremendous amount of energy fighting for victim’s rights. Clearly there is no financial or PR angle here for her. It’s not like her relationship with Manson was under the microscope so she scapegoated him.

Their relationship checks every box for an abuser grooming an impressionable young woman.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Actually that is not what victim shaming is. If a man rapes a woman and he says that she dresses provocative so she obviously wanted it and I agreed with that, that would be victim shaming. If someone claims one thing and the other person claims another and you try and look at it from both sides that is not victim shaming because either party could be the victim there. I find it hilarious people actually thanked that, Some people love a victim, back in the old days of Salem you would probably be burning innocent people at the stake because they were accused of witchcraft. Mob mentality loves it's victims and it loves destroying the accused no matter what the facts end up being.

Ignoring the fact that no one was actually burned at the stake in Salem (although there were executions by hanging, but that would assume you actually do research before making claims, which I think most will agree you are incapable of), you did say this:

If she had no intentions of making it a non profit thing why did she eventually mention his name? If these things were happening why was she totally in board with him for so long? She says he sexually raped her during a video that multiple people who were on set have stated is simply not true.

Maybe not following a strict definition of victim-blaming, but it;s pretty clear you've decided, in the face of a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that points toward him being a POS, you've just decided based on your how your brain works, that she must be lying.


Good thing you're not a judge.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Ped

Ignoring the fact that no one was actually burned at the stake in Salem (although there were executions by hanging, but that would assume you actually do research before making claims, which I think most will agree you are incapable of), you did say this:





Maybe not following a strict definition of victim-blaming, but it;s pretty clear you've decided, in the face of a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that points toward him being a POS, you've just decided based on your how your brain works, that she must be lying.


Good thing you're not a judge.

That isn't what I said at all. Another social media special, twisting what was said to fit ones narrative. You do you though.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Actually that is not what victim shaming is. If a man rapes a woman and he says that she dresses provocative so she obviously wanted it and I agreed with that, that would be victim shaming. If someone claims one thing and the other person claims another and you try and look at it from both sides that is not victim shaming because either party could be the victim there. I find it hilarious people actually thanked that, Some people love a victim, back in the old days of Salem you would probably be burning innocent people at the stake because they were accused of witchcraft. Mob mentality loves it's victims and it loves destroying the accused no matter what the facts end up being.

Of course it’s victim shaming. You’re not looking at it from both sides, you literally said you believe Manson did weird sexual stuff with these women but that they wanted it, despite them saying otherwise.

I notice you’re completely ignoring the ask for a source on either of your claims regarding people from the video shoot saying nothing happened and the police saying they came up empty in the investigation. Care to provide those?

[woob]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Man you never stop digging do you

nonodigupstudpid.jpg

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Ped

Ignoring the fact that no one was actually burned at the stake in Salem (although there were executions by hanging, but that would assume you actually do research before making claims, which I think most will agree you are incapable of), you did say this:





Maybe not following a strict definition of victim-blaming, but it;s pretty clear you've decided, in the face of a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that points toward him being a POS, you've just decided based on your how your brain works, that she must be lying.


Good thing you're not a judge.

One of my lifes hero's is Giles Corey, who died as a result of being pressed in an attempt to extract a confession, boards and rocks were laid over him as a form of slow painful suffocation.
For three days he bore it, if he confessed his family would have lost their farm and his wife and kids would have had to sell themselves into indentured servitude to survive, his last words when urged to confess were 'more weight'

[Locke]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I don’t think he’s a fan of OJ’s music so I don’t imagine he’s going to ride quite as hard for Mr Simpson. What an insane hill to die on.

But OJ ruined White Ford Broncos for all the rest of us normies tho!!

Those are sweet!

[FlamesAddiction]

The only thing that shocks me about the Marylin Manson allegations is that I always figured him as an edge lord trying to seem gross and controversial for marketing purposes, but it it turns out he might actually be the caricature that I figured was just invented for fame.

I always thought of him as the metal version of Miley Cyrus. Contrived and over-produced music where the image is the actual product.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Of course it’s victim shaming. You’re not looking at it from both sides, you literally said you believe Manson did weird sexual stuff with these women but that they wanted it, despite them saying otherwise.

I notice you’re completely ignoring the ask for a source on either of your claims regarding people from the video shoot saying nothing happened and the police saying they came up empty in the investigation. Care to provide those?

The truth is coming out.
POPTOPIC: It was Evan Rachel Wood's idea to have REAL sex in Manson video.
https://poptopic.com.au/news/it-was-...-manson-video/

As for the police if they had found any evidence where are the charges?