I swear people online never actually think about anything, it’s all just knee-jerk reactionary crap.
Honestly, it is totally expected that some/most friends would stand by their friend when being accused of something, especially if they never saw anything like that. Supporting a friend being accused of something means absolutely nothing on its own, especially in the beginning. What people need to be thinking about is if/when they stopped being supportive.
For whatever reason, people seem to believe that everyone that’s a predator is making that obvious to their friends, and those friends were either in on it, or at least not opposed. Sometimes, it is the whole group, like with the recent college rape stuff… but quite often the predator is hiding that side of them both publicly and privately, even from their friends.
Not all allegations are real, it’s just as easy to falsely claim abuse as it is for an abuser to lie about doing it. One is not inherently easier to lie about. Some people abuse this to try and destroy someone’s life, especially out of spite or if they think they can get something out of it.
Given that Emily only went to the first preliminary hearing, and dropped supporting him after… it seems most likely that she never saw any of that behavior herself and was there to support a friend she thought was being falsely accused (or at least giving him the benefit of the doubt), and once there were actual facts showing the allegations were true, she stopped supporting him. Which is what you would expect from everyone not involved.
They were all in the same religion, even if not formally, and there are accounts of them intimidating witnesses to not talk. They knew.
Do more research.
Amazing how the low effort responses always say shit like “do more research” instead of actually contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way.
You’re clearly referencing the Church of Scientology part. Was there something in my comment that intimated that Scientology wasn’t a factor at all? No. While it very well could be a facto, likely even, simply supporting a friend they thought could be falsely accused is also likely.
Emily hasn’t talked about the Church at all, and was last seen at a Church gala way back in 2013. Then there are the song lyrics back from her time in Dead Sara that seem to reference criticism of the Church. And the fact she identifies as queer, something the Church is very outspoken against. But of course the Church must be the only explanation, simply because it’s tangentially involved. To the point that you feel the need to assume someone talking about this online and not mentioning Scientology clearly must have no idea what’s going on, and a low effort comment is necessary.
We’re clearly talking about two completely different things here. And you seem to be ignoring that, despite me very specifically talking about the last time she was (at least publicly) directly involved with Church events being over a decade ago, lyrics that seem to criticize the Church, and her public personal identity not matching Church beliefs.
You are talking about Scientology involvement with Masterson’s actions in general. I don’t give a shit about that. That’s obvious. Stevie Wonder could see that involvement. Why would I even mention all those other things if I was talking about the Church helping Masterson, covering it up, etc.?
I only care about whether Emily is actively involved with the Church still, and whether that is why she went to the first hearing. That is what the original comment we’re responding to was talking about. And there isn’t any evidence of that. Only that she went to support (at the time) a friend she believed.
“there are accounts” isn’t convincing. Seems like pasting an article would’ve taken moments and may have been. You responded to someone who made a decent point, criticizing jumping to conclusions, as if they jumped to a wild conclusion themselves.
You could have used Google at the beginning. Or not contributed to bullying a stranger over a comment that was equally as valid as the one above it.
Everyone found the time to call me out but couldn’t go to a search bar.
Do you think they all knew that he’s a rapist? Seems speculative
I swear people online never actually think about anything, it’s all just knee-jerk reactionary crap.
Honestly, it is totally expected that some/most friends would stand by their friend when being accused of something, especially if they never saw anything like that. Supporting a friend being accused of something means absolutely nothing on its own, especially in the beginning. What people need to be thinking about is if/when they stopped being supportive.
For whatever reason, people seem to believe that everyone that’s a predator is making that obvious to their friends, and those friends were either in on it, or at least not opposed. Sometimes, it is the whole group, like with the recent college rape stuff… but quite often the predator is hiding that side of them both publicly and privately, even from their friends.
Not all allegations are real, it’s just as easy to falsely claim abuse as it is for an abuser to lie about doing it. One is not inherently easier to lie about. Some people abuse this to try and destroy someone’s life, especially out of spite or if they think they can get something out of it.
Given that Emily only went to the first preliminary hearing, and dropped supporting him after… it seems most likely that she never saw any of that behavior herself and was there to support a friend she thought was being falsely accused (or at least giving him the benefit of the doubt), and once there were actual facts showing the allegations were true, she stopped supporting him. Which is what you would expect from everyone not involved.
They were all in the same religion, even if not formally, and there are accounts of them intimidating witnesses to not talk. They knew. Do more research.
Amazing how the low effort responses always say shit like “do more research” instead of actually contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way.
You’re clearly referencing the Church of Scientology part. Was there something in my comment that intimated that Scientology wasn’t a factor at all? No. While it very well could be a facto, likely even, simply supporting a friend they thought could be falsely accused is also likely.
Emily hasn’t talked about the Church at all, and was last seen at a Church gala way back in 2013. Then there are the song lyrics back from her time in Dead Sara that seem to reference criticism of the Church. And the fact she identifies as queer, something the Church is very outspoken against. But of course the Church must be the only explanation, simply because it’s tangentially involved. To the point that you feel the need to assume someone talking about this online and not mentioning Scientology clearly must have no idea what’s going on, and a low effort comment is necessary.
Scientology was heavily involved, provided victims for him and helped cover it up. Your comment is longer, but I don’t see much effort.
We’re clearly talking about two completely different things here. And you seem to be ignoring that, despite me very specifically talking about the last time she was (at least publicly) directly involved with Church events being over a decade ago, lyrics that seem to criticize the Church, and her public personal identity not matching Church beliefs.
You are talking about Scientology involvement with Masterson’s actions in general. I don’t give a shit about that. That’s obvious. Stevie Wonder could see that involvement. Why would I even mention all those other things if I was talking about the Church helping Masterson, covering it up, etc.?
I only care about whether Emily is actively involved with the Church still, and whether that is why she went to the first hearing. That is what the original comment we’re responding to was talking about. And there isn’t any evidence of that. Only that she went to support (at the time) a friend she believed.
“there are accounts” isn’t convincing. Seems like pasting an article would’ve taken moments and may have been. You responded to someone who made a decent point, criticizing jumping to conclusions, as if they jumped to a wild conclusion themselves.
Their unresearched account is valid but I need to provide a link?
They said people jumped to conclusions. No one, especially you, has given any support for those conclusions.
Also thanks for the especially you part. I hope from now on every time you make a comment, you feel an urge to provide a source.
It is literally a Google search away. I’m annoyed that I have to provide links but the musings they pulled out of thin air seem to be taken as gospel.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/danny-masterson-church-scientology-sued-stalking-rape-cover-up
Also this was a good watch: https://youtu.be/ogiuctcOz-o?is=1f1XqUNHgoY0hyrN
You could’ve just done this at the beginning
You could have used Google at the beginning. Or not contributed to bullying a stranger over a comment that was equally as valid as the one above it. Everyone found the time to call me out but couldn’t go to a search bar.
Church of Scientology was involved here.