fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3963 ]

[ SECRET POST #3963 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3963 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04. [SPOILERS for Stranger Things 2]

__________________________________________________

05. [SPOILERS for Stranger Things 2]

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for Stranger Things 2]

__________________________________________________

07. [SPOILERS for Great British Bake Off, S08E08: Forgotten Bakes]

[Stacey Hart in Great British Bake Off]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #567.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

who would of thought a dude who consistently positions himself as a male ally would have had unsavory motives

this never happens

Well, like, also, all of these allegations have been rumored for like 5 years to the point of being an open secret.

It's "would have," not "would of."

Also, what the hell is a "male ally"? Ally of what?

Imagine having the audicity to correct someone’s grammar online and then ask for help on how you can’t understand basic context.

Imagine imagining you're imagining telling someone to imagine imagining having the audacity to imagine correcting someone's grammar in an imaginary world.

imagine how is touch the sky

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

(Anonymous) - 2017-11-10 02:57 (UTC) - Expand

We’ll see who’s laughing in 250 years when English as we know will be dead and only a few hyper obsessive geeks will even be able to understand this conversation.

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

(Anonymous) - 2017-11-10 03:34 (UTC) - Expand

What do you mean, audacity? Ayrt is referring to audicity, the thriving metropolis in rich bitch car world.

I understand it just fine. I'm just asking for confirmation, because I'm having trouble imagining someone having the audacity to: 1) use a term as stupid as "male ally" and 2) imply that any man showing support to women obviously must be creeping on them because there is no other explanation as to why they would do that.

“consistently positions themselves as a male ally” is different than simply being a male ally

"2) imply that any man showing support to women obviously must be creeping on them because there is no other explanation as to why they would do that."

I don't see anyone doing that. It's like you're twisting what the person said in order to stuff a stupid statement they didn't actually say into their mouth (well, post).

Which seems to be a really annoyingly common way to argue these days.

What the hell is up your ass? Fucking dick lol Jesus

Jesus hasn't had his dick around my ass for some time, dear.

I like this reply, anon. I like it a lot

RA

y'all too much out here; I can't even laugh.

I suspect they do it to cover up their real personality. Like if they make a big deal of being so feminist and everything, it will hide the creepiness better. But it just makes them look like even bigger hypocrites when they get caught.

To a certain extent, yeah, but I also feel like it's kind of... there's a point where looking for patterns is almost besides the point. I don't think there's really any one quality, or occupation, or behavior that you can use to ferret this out. The reality is, some people seek out opportunities to abuse people, and some people will take advantage of power and hierarchy to do so when it's possible for them. And that is true across the board. It's true of politicians and it's true of film directors and it's true in any other place you care to name. Ultimately, I believe the best answer to the question "why do male allies abuse women" is because that's what a lot of people do. Consistently.

My thought was more that he wasn't so much a male ally abusing women as an abusive person who thought "feminist ally" made a good cover-up personality that would deflect suspicions.

Similar to a politician that puts up a front of being all about family values and morals and so on, while actually being slimy and cheating on his spouse.

My point, I guess, is that the arrows of cause and effect that you're drawing don't necessarily hold.

It's less that they adopt those views as part of a tactic to abuse others, and more that people are just shit no matter what they claim to believe.

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

(Anonymous) - 2017-11-10 00:58 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

(Anonymous) - 2017-11-10 01:01 (UTC) - Expand

"The reality is, some people seek out opportunities to abuse people, and some people will take advantage of power and hierarchy to do so when it's possible for them. And that is true across the board. It's true of politicians and it's true of film directors and it's true in any other place you care to name."

Really! :0 Any other brand-new insights???

This has been an open secret for years. Glad the NYT finally fucking shed some light over it

Hopefully Bryan Singer is next to join is buddy Spacey

There were jokes about it. There were female comedians who wouldn't get anywhere near him. Read about Jen Kirkman or Roseanne Barr. Gawker posted an article "Which Beloved Comedian Likes to Force Female Comics to Watch Him Jerk Off?" in 2012 that didn't name names, but a lot of people understood to be about him. I thought it was true and I stayed away from anything with him in it. For fun, you can read about his new movie, I Love You, Daddy - C.K. cowrote, he plays the daddy, a television writer whose teen daughter has come into contact with an iconic film director, who is rumored to be a pervert and a pedophile (alleged to be a child molester), with a predilection toward much younger girls.

Same. This has been known for years. Guess it's just the thing now, because reasons.

People are willing to put their names on it now, and people are more willing to pay attention to it now, after Weinstein and Spacey and all the rest.

I think Weinstein was important because there were so many reports, and because he was important enough for everyone to know who he was but also in a position where he didn't really have any fans to defend him and muddy the waters. So everyone could kind of agree that, yeah, he was evil. And that really changed the discourse and sort of broke the dam.

But yeah it's the same stories that were rumored that are now being reported.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3963 ]

Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

+1

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

Re: Lewis CK sexual abuse

I heard about this years ago.

Re: I heard about this years ago.

Re: I heard about this years ago.