That's not what was said. It wasn't hinted at, suggested or otherwise implied. You do yourself and your cause a disservice by outbursts like this that seriously lessen your credibility.
Savvy?
[Link]
James Deen @ AnalVids| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06 |  Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 12:15PMThat's not what was said. It wasn't hinted at, suggested or otherwise implied. You do yourself and your cause a disservice by outbursts like this that seriously lessen your credibility. Savvy? [Link] |
| Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 12:28PM It occured twice in response to sparrows post - a post within my description of "questioning of the allegations , any slightest non-solidarity with stoya." sparrow made some observations relating to stoya. Cindy replied to the effect that sparrow was saying " People you don't like or don't agree with can be raped... wackos can be raped...... liars can be raped.... drug abusers can be raped.." Which he obviously was not saying. DVDstuff replied to the same post by sparrow to the effect ; "Meaning, just because she works in the adult industry she couldn't possibly be raped." which he was also obviously not saying. 2 examples in the last few posts. Its understandable that people feel strongly about the issue but that does not means its fair to attribute untrue and implicitly offensive meanings to the posts of others. [Link] |
| murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 12:37PM That's what you're suggesting is the mindset of some people here, yet that isn't what is actually being said. People are attacking specific victim-blaming, and calling it for what it is. They aren't suggesting that anyone who says anything negative about Stoya or dissents in any way is condoning rape. That is a fabrication on your part. You invented it. It isn't the mindset of anyone here that I can discern. But again, if you want to provide an actual quote from anyone here that says that I'll be glad to acknowledge it, and if you can provide multiple quotes of people saying that then I'll even concede the point that "people" here have that mindset, but until you can do so you're just inventing strawman arguments. If it is a recurrent topic, then prove it. Use quotes - not your cockeyed misinterpretation of whats been said.Yet that's exactly what you are attempting to do. People are free to criticize Stoya and her claims, but that doesn't mean every criticism is valid. People are allowed to point out those invalid criticisms and call them out for what they are. Neither side is beyond reproach. Edited by - murdock on 12/26/2015 12:40:05 PM [Link] |
| Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 12:50PM Was sparrow saying ; " People you don't like or don't agree with can be raped... wackos can be raped...... liars can be raped.... drug abusers can be raped.." or "Meaning, just because she works in the adult industry she couldn't possibly be raped." Is that pointing out invalid criticisms and calling them out for what they are ? Edited by - ben mockridge on 12/26/2015 12:51:17 PM [Link] |
| murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 1:09PM I'm not arguing if the replies to sparrow were accurate or not. (I don't think they are for the record) The issue was your response to them which was just inaccurate as they were. I'm asking for something very simple, but very specific, if you're unable or unwilling to defend your position, I'm not sure why you're putting it out there in public in the first place. [Link] |
| Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 1:13PM If i were to say your mindset based on your posting on adt was argumentative, abrasive and aggresive i would refer to your general posting history , rather than be citing a post where you yourself say " I murdock am argumentative, abrasive and aggressive" You could make a similar judgement of my mindest based on your perception of my posting history. [Link] |
| murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 1:20PM So if DVDStuff, and Canadian Cindy had just made some broad generalizations about sparrow based on his posting history would you find their comments more acceptable? I think you're moving the goalposts so fast now, even you can't keep up. [Link] |
| Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 1:22PM Obviously. Edited by - ben mockridge on 12/26/2015 1:22:55 PM [Link] |
| FlacFan Deactivated User 10088 Posts 8/15 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 1:34PM It might be advisable to go to PM on this conversation. Boycott James Deen, Silicone Is Evil, Razors Aren't Much Better [Link] |
| murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 1:36PM But we were talking about the perception of someone's mindset. I know because you said "A persons mindset is a perception." So can Canadian Cindy and DVDstuff not make statements about sparrows mindset based on their perception, especially with regards to his posting history? Why is it you continue to allow yourself to have these freedoms on here, to criticize others, but seem to take offense when someone holds you to the same standards? Sparrow has a pretty clear history of blindly defending Deen and attacking those who've defended Stoya. He's done some pretty obvious victim blaming, and he's tried to portray Stoya and the other accusers as unreliable simply because they don't conform to his definition of "normal" so is it unfair to bring that up in response to yet another post where he is trying to undermine Stoya with nothing more than his opinion of how a victim should behave, or must we treat every post as if it is made in a vacuum? [Link] |
| murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 1:37PM [Link] |
Flash  Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 1:54PM Both of you drop it. [Link] |
| Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 3:05PM Things like discrediting the accuser based on her lifestyle, career, past actions, how she treats other people, why she waited so long to report it. how she reported it, on and on...... I do not know if James raped her or not, and I have never made that claim. How I handled this was look at the entire body of work over several years; and I come to the conclusion he is not a good person, he doesn't treat women well, he gets off on hurting women or making them feel the need to escape, and most of all he doesn't know when to stop and keeps pushing peoples boundaries too far. Coupled with the number of rape accusers, and I think he is a guy who needs a warning attached to him. There is enough out there to know he isn't on the level and should be treated as such. The book of lists on what people say about rape accusers came out here verbatim. As it always does. There won't be any agreement between the two sides and never will be unless there is a video of the alleged act happening. [Link] |
| hoochimama Deactivated User 1437 Posts 5/10 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 4:47PM Judging people based off their porn performances? Seriously? ________________________________________________ Please ID these girls from PlayboyTV's Foursome show Edited by - hoochimama on 12/26/2015 6:04:49 PM [Link] |
| FlacFan Deactivated User 10088 Posts 8/15 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 5:06PM You are completely missing the point I think. Those women are Domme on set and were a safe word used, the scene would end. Stoya indicates she was raped in her own home, AFTER saying no and invoking her safe word. Boycott James Deen, Silicone Is Evil, Razors Aren't Much Better [Link] |
| whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 5:42PM I think you both are missing the point. He's making the point that judging James off the porn that he creates isn't necessarily a great idea, since the whole point of it is supposed to be for entertainment (it'd be like judging a domme based on what she shoots). But I also think that when Cindy said "body of work", she wasn't necessarily talking about the porn he creates, but the basic summation of what we've learned about him from all of the allegations. [Link] |
| hoochimama Deactivated User 1437 Posts 5/10 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 5:42PM ________________________________________________ Please ID these girls from PlayboyTV's Foursome show [Link] |
| hoochimama Deactivated User 1437 Posts 5/10 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 5:53PM body of work - the total output of a writer or artist (or a substantial part of it); "he studied the entire Wagnerian oeuvre"; "Picasso's work can be divided into periods ________________________________________________ Please ID these girls from PlayboyTV's Foursome show Edited by - hoochimama on 12/26/2015 6:09:25 PM [Link] |
| whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 6:16PM She mentioned the amount of accusations, not the content of them. The content of the accusations is how you would get an idea of his character. The amount just makes them easier to believe (you're more likely to believe 10 people telling the same story than 2). [Link] |
| Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 6:44PM Not that it matters at this stage.... People who use the same old reasons to dismiss a rape allegation will continue to do so. Their minds won't be changed in any instance. Edited by - Canadian_Cindy on 12/26/2015 6:46:31 PM [Link] |
| FlacFan Deactivated User 10088 Posts 8/15 | Posted - Dec 26 2015 : 8:09PM Boycott James Deen, Silicone Is Evil, Razors Aren't Much Better [Link] |
| sparrow55 Deactivated User 82 Posts 11/15 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 12:48AM If you are posting an opinion because you have an opinion, post and don't try to abuse your mod status to have an ego trip. "Previously warned" Right, you went through my profile and found another post made in a different context and attack me in this thread. Yeah, you will probably remove this text and ban me anyway. Don't even bother, [Link] |
| Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 3:41AM I dont agree with the last part because i think the 2 sides essentially do agree; Everyone agrees rape is wrong. Everyone agrees that we cannot categorically determine if JD actually raped Stoya. Everyone acknowledges that their is a body of knowledge to suggest (see what you wrote for detail) that there is some kind of issue with him. That is all pretty apparent and obvious. The only thing we do not agree on is if its ok to sctutinise the victim and her allegations. By scrutinise we mean test the credibility of. Personally i think it is ok (i have repeatedly said as much) because examining the credibility of the accuser/allegations seems a pretty necessary investigative proceedure. I guess it seems like people who scutinise Stoya are anti victim and by some kind of logical mental progression therefore pro rapist , but that is not the case. It is just a matter of being fair to both sides and examining both perspectives. Although i can appreciate that it can appear unsympathetic and harsh - scrutinising both the accuser and the allegations is a necessary evil in the service of fairness to all involved.
[Link] |
| Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 8:18AM [Link] |
 | |
| Janitor Retired Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 9:32AM Those of you getting into personal battles whether in this thread or via PM should turn off your computers, go outside and rethink your participation here. No one looks intelligent, articulate or anything positive fighting in an internet forum. Edited by - Janitor on 12/27/2015 9:38:17 AM [Link] |
| Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 9:50AM [Link] |
| Dread Senior Member Latex and boobs 5085 Posts 3/07 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 10:07AM ----Dread's Twitter---- [Link] |
| JigglyBoobs Senior Member 1614 Posts 3/12 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 10:12AM [Link] |
| klies Deactivated User 1733 Posts 5/09 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 10:14AM Edited by - klies on 12/27/2015 10:16:57 AM [Link] |
| Dread Senior Member Latex and boobs 5085 Posts 3/07 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 10:33AM ----Dread's Twitter---- Edited by - dread on 12/27/2015 10:33:22 AM [Link] |
| Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 11:42AM [Link] |
| FlacFan Deactivated User 10088 Posts 8/15 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 1:28PM Yes, that is true free speech, however the constitution provides people with no protection should using that freedom piss someone off. You do have freedom of speech, not immunity from retribution. The "Is it really free speech if someone can hurt you for using that freedom" is, while connected, a completely different issue. Boycott James Deen, Silicone Is Evil, Razors Aren't Much Better [Link] |
| murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 1:34PM [Link] |
| JigglyBoobs Senior Member 1614 Posts 3/12 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 2:06PM [Link] |
| Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 7:26PM It allows YOU to improve the article, but instead all you're doing is complaining saying "I don't like it." This is the essence of bitching. At least come up with some substance to your objection before accusing someone or something of being biased, otherwise you haven't a leg to stand on. You're talking about objectivity, but you didn't even read the article. If you did, then your silence is taken as a failure to rebut it. Seriously, if you think there's something wrong with the article, don't keep us in the dark. Tell us what you think is missing. [Link] |
| Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 7:40PM It's not like you can just spew a stream-of-consciousness editorial, hosing everything down in subjectivity. So again, for whomever might scoff at free information, with readily available resources and transparent disclosures or caveats at the beginning to inform readers if there is even the mere potential of shortcoming with respect to neutrality, what free resource would you refer to which is supposedly more objective? [Link] |
| JigglyBoobs Senior Member 1614 Posts 3/12 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 7:54PM Somebody could have used Wikipedia as a source to quote the US's biggest export goods being capital goods Previous reference But when you check somebody else's "revision" to the article, the United States's biggest export goods are... not capital goods "Revised" reference The world isn't so black and white that you always need to be more credible than your opponent. Even if on paper you are more believable and give more compelling arguments, that can all be wiped away if a sabotaged source of information leaves you being laughed at. For Wikipedia's "transparent, all-encompassing, free, amenable and objective" benefits, its generally open nature leaves it susceptible to incidents such as that mentioned above. Edited by - JigglyBoobs on 12/27/2015 7:56:16 PM [Link] |
| JigglyBoobs Senior Member 1614 Posts 3/12 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 8:03PM [Link] |
| misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 8:05PM Edited by - misspornUSA on 12/27/2015 8:05:25 PM [Link] |
| murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06 | Posted - Dec 27 2015 : 9:05PM That said when we're talking about polarizing, emotionally charged topics like rape, I think that increases the likelihood of some Wikipedia shenanigans so I would certainly do my due diligence and check the articles out in its entirety (and the sources) before I linked it, but I would also expect anyone else to do the same for a linked article before they dismissed it. Related tangent: I love it when people unwittingly link to a satyr site as if it is a legitimate source. [Link] |
| Imaladyman Member 434 Posts 7/15 | Posted - Dec 28 2015 : 4:32AM [Link] |
| JigglyBoobs Senior Member 1614 Posts 3/12 | Posted - Dec 28 2015 : 5:44AM [Link] |
| Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15 | Posted - Dec 28 2015 : 12:28PM Stoya makes some valid points about sex workers. However for all the noble talk of sex workers rights her situation was a domestic , loosely a girl strung out on drugs, low self esteem/self respect, with pschologixal problems and a guy who didnt respect her either. If her message is a cautionary one based on personal experience rather than just some spin about protecting sex workers it would be more on point if she cautioned women against the pitfalls of low self esteem drug fueled cycle of whoredom and abusive/destructive relationships that invariably deteriorate into violence and etc etc. It should not be a taboo subject to recognise womens part in proceedings , indeed isnt it better to try and prevent rape by cautioning against other women making the same mistakes rather than simply repeating the same sad lament #solidarity with another rape victim. Acknowledging mistakes and warning women against similar pitfalls isnt victim blaming. Rather condemning the rapist and warning against becoming a victim are two sides of the same coin (female empowerment). I guess in that respect one has to respect ex-pornstars/activists who warn against the dangers of working in porn - there are dangers , its good to warn people. [Link] |
| dpence2013 Deactivated User 69 Posts 6/15 | Posted - Dec 28 2015 : 6:53PM Bree Olson.... [mod edit: comment removed. See the ADT forum etiquette, 3rd paragraph.] She has been milking that Charlie Sheen situation for years now. Even before he was diagnosed the girl was thirsty for attention. She would talk about Charlie Sheen to ANYONE who would throw her a dollar I find it amusing that now, after not shooting for 5 years she comes forward with her "story" The girl is thirsty for any attention. Girl give it up already. Your stories are tired. No one buys your bullshit. Edited by - killbillvol69 on 12/28/2015 10:59:33 PM [Link] |
| yourmomma Member 279 Posts 10/14 | Posted - Dec 28 2015 : 10:45PM someone comes in and calls a woman a bitch. [Link] |
| Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15 | Posted - Dec 29 2015 : 9:01PM Bree came forward now because this is when Charlie finally revealed publicly he has HIV. It is now known he has it ,and several have said he didn't tell them; and he has been a known bareback customer with escorts for years. So, I hope you are not saying this is all made up and yet another grand conspiracy against men. it really doesn't connect to this James Deen stuff. At least in my opinion. [Link] |
| Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15 | Posted - Dec 30 2015 : 4:37AM Basically the physicality was real to the point where it made Bree genuinely upset and tearful. The right and wrongs of this obviously need to be considered in the context of what the performers were being directed to do by their employer. Similar to the Amber Rayne situation : Consensual on set incident under the direction of notorious director Chico Wang where Amber suffered a ripped fissure in her anus that required stitches. The pair are doing on set consensual under direction anal. Amber "said something like, ‘Yeah fuck me like that you son of a bitch.’" Jd proceeds to fuck her so vigorously she rips her anus and requires stitches. Amber years later in the midst of all this controversy feels the need to leap in and accuse JD of a breach of the duty of professional care. Well that duty and responsibility works both ways and - more than simply 2 ways their is the duty of care incumbent on the director also. They are all complicit in the occurence of an incident that resulted in injury. Indeed Amber is on video describing the incident saying how "i ripped a fissure in my ass". [Link] |
| BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Dec 30 2015 : 9:11AM I've experienced this myself a few times when I added some sourced material and found it edited out again and again until I gave up.What you see there is not the result of vetting, it is the result of attrition. Wikipedia has even moved to close off certain political entries from outsidr editing because of this. In fact most of Wikipedia is dominated by groups of editors. Wikipedia is a great source for TV shows and comic books, politics, not so much. [Link] |
| wassaaaaaaaaaap Member 26 Posts 9/08 | Posted - Dec 31 2015 : 5:00AM [Link] |
| Rosco Fuji Deactivated User On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09 | Posted - Jan 2 2016 : 7:09PM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |