Do we really need the “still don’t know 100% if we can trust her on that”? Where does Naomi Wu have a history of false allegations?
I don’t follow Naomi Wu, so I don’t know her history. Therefore I cannot answer on the second part. But what I can say is: I don’t trust anyone who is part of an abusive, dysfunctional social system literally rendering people insane. The over sexualization of random content has to stop. It’s one thing to find NSFW material if you’re searching for it, it’s another to be constantly spammed with such content.
And the main issue being that she wasn’t quiet about a situation that made her feel incredibly uncomfortable?
When I get uncomfortable, I take a step back, I think, analyze, and find out what I can change so I don’t get in such a situation again. I don’t expect others to magically solve the problem for me. But being entitled comes with the job of “influencer”, I presume.
I mean, the “receipts” were mostly that Linus said she misinterpreted what he was asking for. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t.
At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if Linus is a fucking creep. He demonstrably lied about so much, this week alone. However, Linus being at fault here doesn’t exonerate Naomi then either. Two toxic people still produce a toxic result, they don’t cancel each other out, it’s not arithmetic.
Part of not being an asshole is not putting our colleagues into situations where they have to think “Is he trying to fuck me?”
Clearly, you’ve not met insane people. I have been around traumatized people, and they were absolutely convinced of me having intentions I never, ever had. Our society is raising lots of men to be creeps, and lots of women to be paranoid, so it doesn’t take much for shit to go sideways.
Regardless: If you don’t think they are valid allegations, maybe just don’t mention them at all? Rather than throwing shade at an accuser? Because this shit is WHY victims of abuse don’t speak up.
Oh, no. Just no.
First off: I named Naomi because she did, in fact, call Linus out, and it might also be true. Me not blindly trusting her (like you apparently do) doesn’t mean I think she’s lying either. I want proof, not drama. And so far, she only provided the latter.
Second, what shade? Me not unconditionally believing everything Naomi Wu says, or said, isn’t “throwing shade”…
Third, and that’s the reason for the “oh no, just no” above: Not only I did not throw shade (and saying it won’t make it true), but leave victims of abuse out of this. You fucking don’t get to use them for being “right” in an online argument. Seriously, that is disgusting. You frankly should be ashamed of yourself.
Well. Good for Madison. Even the incels are rooting for her.
Ad hominem. Thanks for directly admitting you don’t actually have arguments.
And a few notes:
Exonerate her for WHAT?
Exonerate her for witch hunting anyone out of her own paranoia. Linus being toxic elsewhere doesn’t suddenly make logic irrelevant. Proof or gtfo. Don’t expect others to solve your problems. Especially the ones you needlessly created, out of greed.
If you hate someone because they don’t walk around in a burka
Extremist much? So there are only two ways to dress up: a Burka, or showing your mound? Who taught you that, the supreme mullah of Iran?
It’s actually important to realize our society is insanely frustrating people sexually (but I’m guessing you know, given your ad hominem of choice), and that in those conditions, walking around people you don’t know half naked when you look any good, is absolutely irresponsible, and entirely disrespectful.
I’ve not followed much recently and have no idea who Naomi is or what the situation is so this conversation has been fascinating, I feel like the more it’s gone on the less I understand.
So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?
I can’t say I agree with this reasoning but I would like to understand what you’re saying, I assume you saying her vulva was excused is hyperbolic but could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men - if you’re wearing shorts what sort of level of sexual comments would I be allowed to make which I wouldn’t were you wearing trousers?
So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men
That’s simplifying. My argument is that she is causing harm to frustrated people (assuming that only men are attracted to women is factually wrong, assuming that only men are having difficulties getting their intimate needs fulfilled is equally wrong), and that she is doing so solely for the advantages it procures with regard to her influence.
therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable
She has every right to feel uncomfortable. It’s not about that, and it has never been. She has no right to aim at harming others for her feelings.
when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?
What we know for sure is that Linus asked her to come to his hotel in the late evening. Nothing else has ever been proven. From going to his room, to his intents of sexual assault, it is all pure speculation. I know mobs adore harming others based on speculation alone; but it is something we ought to get away from, if we ever want to call ourselves civilized.
I would be the first to want to put Linus’s ass in prison if we can get any proof that he committed, facilitated, and/or ignored sexual misconduct. Against anyone, not just women, not just (semi) public figures. But basing yourself on allegations only is comparable to SWATting: you’re causing harm, from assumptions. Irremediable actions (like loss of life, or trauma) should never be triggered from assumptions. We need actual, irrefutable facts. With, you know, chat logs, since Naomi has them.
could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men
Yes, absolutely. Basically, since you never know what triggers the random people around you in public spaces (and for online material, what triggers literally anyone), most “usual” attire is okay. As long as it does not highlight any part of your body that is associated with a physiological human need being denied to a large part of the population (men and women alike, that’s not an “incel” thing, no matter how much some people here want to say it), anything works. This is about “best effort”, and mutual respect. It also depends on context. It is totally acceptable to wear tight pants at the gym, because no one is forcing anyone to go to the gym. You can always find gyms that are “women only” or “men only”, etc. However, in the public space, such as a street, wearing tight pants has a totally different meaning. It’s always a question of context, always a question of introspection, and always a question of “am I doing this out of spite because of all the problems society is causing me, or is this this actually acceptable, considering the other problems people have to deal with?”.
And yes, that last question is something almost no-one ever asks themselves. That’s why we’re literally currently devolving. It’s a race to who is going to trigger the “other side” the hardest. It’s easy for algorithms to manage, so that’s what surfaced over the last decades, but it’s absolutely unhealthy. And it won’t end well.
Removed by mod
That really was a nice and good thing to do. Good lesson.
I don’t follow Naomi Wu, so I don’t know her history. Therefore I cannot answer on the second part. But what I can say is: I don’t trust anyone who is part of an abusive, dysfunctional social system literally rendering people insane. The over sexualization of random content has to stop. It’s one thing to find NSFW material if you’re searching for it, it’s another to be constantly spammed with such content.
When I get uncomfortable, I take a step back, I think, analyze, and find out what I can change so I don’t get in such a situation again. I don’t expect others to magically solve the problem for me. But being entitled comes with the job of “influencer”, I presume.
At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if Linus is a fucking creep. He demonstrably lied about so much, this week alone. However, Linus being at fault here doesn’t exonerate Naomi then either. Two toxic people still produce a toxic result, they don’t cancel each other out, it’s not arithmetic.
Clearly, you’ve not met insane people. I have been around traumatized people, and they were absolutely convinced of me having intentions I never, ever had. Our society is raising lots of men to be creeps, and lots of women to be paranoid, so it doesn’t take much for shit to go sideways.
Oh, no. Just no.
First off: I named Naomi because she did, in fact, call Linus out, and it might also be true. Me not blindly trusting her (like you apparently do) doesn’t mean I think she’s lying either. I want proof, not drama. And so far, she only provided the latter.
Second, what shade? Me not unconditionally believing everything Naomi Wu says, or said, isn’t “throwing shade”…
Third, and that’s the reason for the “oh no, just no” above: Not only I did not throw shade (and saying it won’t make it true), but leave victims of abuse out of this. You fucking don’t get to use them for being “right” in an online argument. Seriously, that is disgusting. You frankly should be ashamed of yourself.
Removed by mod
Ad hominem. Thanks for directly admitting you don’t actually have arguments.
And a few notes:
Exonerate her for witch hunting anyone out of her own paranoia. Linus being toxic elsewhere doesn’t suddenly make logic irrelevant. Proof or gtfo. Don’t expect others to solve your problems. Especially the ones you needlessly created, out of greed.
Extremist much? So there are only two ways to dress up: a Burka, or showing your mound? Who taught you that, the supreme mullah of Iran?
It’s actually important to realize our society is insanely frustrating people sexually (but I’m guessing you know, given your ad hominem of choice), and that in those conditions, walking around people you don’t know half naked when you look any good, is absolutely irresponsible, and entirely disrespectful.
Removed by mod
I really hope you get better. Sorry about what you had to go through…
I’ve not followed much recently and have no idea who Naomi is or what the situation is so this conversation has been fascinating, I feel like the more it’s gone on the less I understand.
So your argument is that she is attractive and walks around half naked which causes sexual frustration in men therefore she has no right to feel uncomfortable when people (i.e. Linus) create situations that would be unacceptable with a more modestly dressed woman?
I can’t say I agree with this reasoning but I would like to understand what you’re saying, I assume you saying her vulva was excused is hyperbolic but could you explain in your view where the line is with dress, what sort of outfits are we taking about for women and men - if you’re wearing shorts what sort of level of sexual comments would I be allowed to make which I wouldn’t were you wearing trousers?
That’s simplifying. My argument is that she is causing harm to frustrated people (assuming that only men are attracted to women is factually wrong, assuming that only men are having difficulties getting their intimate needs fulfilled is equally wrong), and that she is doing so solely for the advantages it procures with regard to her influence.
She has every right to feel uncomfortable. It’s not about that, and it has never been. She has no right to aim at harming others for her feelings.
What we know for sure is that Linus asked her to come to his hotel in the late evening. Nothing else has ever been proven. From going to his room, to his intents of sexual assault, it is all pure speculation. I know mobs adore harming others based on speculation alone; but it is something we ought to get away from, if we ever want to call ourselves civilized.
I would be the first to want to put Linus’s ass in prison if we can get any proof that he committed, facilitated, and/or ignored sexual misconduct. Against anyone, not just women, not just (semi) public figures. But basing yourself on allegations only is comparable to SWATting: you’re causing harm, from assumptions. Irremediable actions (like loss of life, or trauma) should never be triggered from assumptions. We need actual, irrefutable facts. With, you know, chat logs, since Naomi has them.
Yes, absolutely. Basically, since you never know what triggers the random people around you in public spaces (and for online material, what triggers literally anyone), most “usual” attire is okay. As long as it does not highlight any part of your body that is associated with a physiological human need being denied to a large part of the population (men and women alike, that’s not an “incel” thing, no matter how much some people here want to say it), anything works. This is about “best effort”, and mutual respect. It also depends on context. It is totally acceptable to wear tight pants at the gym, because no one is forcing anyone to go to the gym. You can always find gyms that are “women only” or “men only”, etc. However, in the public space, such as a street, wearing tight pants has a totally different meaning. It’s always a question of context, always a question of introspection, and always a question of “am I doing this out of spite because of all the problems society is causing me, or is this this actually acceptable, considering the other problems people have to deal with?”.
And yes, that last question is something almost no-one ever asks themselves. That’s why we’re literally currently devolving. It’s a race to who is going to trigger the “other side” the hardest. It’s easy for algorithms to manage, so that’s what surfaced over the last decades, but it’s absolutely unhealthy. And it won’t end well.