Okay guys hear me out
Me Too by Meghan Trainor
But with Braixen
Okay guys hear me out
Me Too by Meghan Trainor
But with Braixen
alex is the emotional one they say……sure jan….
We were out with my work group at a restaurant (socially distanced in a conference room btw.)
And he’s with me living his best life.
Then he says, “I need to go to bed. They got any beds here?”
“I’m gonna go find me a bed.”
Yeah, he’s my kid. We got that same energy.
ilysm glob omg ure a heaven sent babie lskdkdndickci 😖😖😖❤❤
Hav a small lil sneak peak at smth 😳 Avpol related 👉🏽👈🏽
Taylor’s eyebrows tonight
@didilydee I really appreciate you critically considering my discussion points and showing an interest in not spreading misinformation! OP blocked me so my post debunking their’s wouldn’t show up in their notes where other people could see it being criticized and to ensure I couldn’t respond to their reblog directly so it would look like I failed to offer a counter argument in order to give the illusion of them being in the right since it would apparently be too much of an effort for them to engage in an actual discussion where their claims could potentially be debunked. In any case, since their response involved you I felt as though you might be interested in considering giving it a look :)
I used this particular article because it was a convenient compilation of facts from various certified legal sources that’s geared towards relaying those facts— not unsourced gossip. It contains links and references to the court documents and other certified sources within the article and the judge is not the sole source within each point that relays facts— not opinions. Therefore, it’s not clickbait unless you consider summaries of legal documents and testimonies clickbait. If you see something specific that’s not a fact outside of the closing statement that includes the author’s opinion, you’re more than welcome to say so.
I didn’t spam every single person who reblogged it with tags— I only brought this to the attention of those who had posted their own comments implying they were open to a discussion given their willingness to reconsider things when presented with facts. Even then, I didn’t tag everyone who commented— only a handful of people. You act like I was making a callout post towards them when I said, “This isn’t a callout post of course I just wanted to bring this information to the attention of individuals I noticed were reblogging with comments. Dylan Farrow and Soon-Yi are often mixed up with each other so I can see how this might be confusing in that sense. You’re not obligated to reblog my fact-checks of course but please consider at least deleting OPs misleading post from your dash to prevent spreading misleading information”, which can be found in my reblog. If they want to say something, let them say it— you don’t have to put words in their mouth akin to how you’re putting words in mine given the unwarranted accusations you attempted to make throughout your post.
It’s very telling of you to claim people who make an effort to be informative when encountering misleading information are “loony” while also acting as though my request for others to consider information you refrained from relaying was a callout rather than a request. I generally refrain from making unwarranted accusations towards people I discuss things with, but given your reaction it’s evident I’m not the one with issues here, so don’t try to project your own problems onto people who consider things critically just because you expect them to believe you with ease and without question on a public platform given how that would be rather loony. Everyone else I’ve had a discussion with on this matter thus far have at least been receptive regardless of where they stand agenda-wise. However, your decision to block me so that my post debunking your own wouldn’t show up in the replies along with your decision to attack my rhetoric without giving me a chance to defend it or criticize your own is another story entirely.
Again, you clearly care more about pushing an agenda here through being selective about the facts you choose to relay rather than addressing the fact that you purposefully left out legal information that didn’t align with your own. Your comments about the #MeToo movement make that evident given how you didn’t address the fact that I said, “Both Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were horrible people and the abuse they committed should not be politicized for the sake of pushing a feminist nor anti-feminist agenda.” You’ve become so obsessed with spewing misleading information to push your own agenda that you’d rather jump through obstacles than acknowledge that your cherry-picking argument is based off of that very agenda rather than the facts that overshadow your personal bias.
It’s interesting that you said, “the words of the person known to have abused and manipulated”, in regard to Moses given how this is known because of his and his siblings allegations that didn’t result in Mia being imprisoned yet you still obviously believe these allegations— as people should given the evidence despite Mia trying to dispute as much. However, you’re dismissing the allegations of Dylan, her mother, three witnesses, and Woody’s therapist who saw him for inappropriate behavior towards Dylan before Woody was even caught cheating. Bringing attention to your hypocrisy isn’t idiotic but nice try.
It’s also odd but not unsurprising that you’re saying Moses should be trusted in regard to denying Dylan’s trauma since that evidently aligns with the agenda you’re trying to push here in favor of dismissing all the other witnesses and legal officials that conflicts with your argument— such as Dylan, Mia, the three witnesses whose timelines aligns with Dylan’s story, the judge, the state prosecutor, Woody’s therapist, Dylan’s pediatrician, investigating officers, and even the state attorney.
I want to reiterate what I said before: “I don’t doubt Moses Farrow was abused by Mia in the least, but the source also brings attention to how Dylan’s story aligns with [four] other peoples [accounts]— not just Mia’s. Moses likely wasn’t present during the assault [itself], so he can’t say she wasn’t assaulted anymore than Dylan can say he wasn’t abused.”
As for the New-Haven Sexual Abuse Clinic, if you actually bothered reading through the article’s legal sources, accounts, and testimonies then you’d know that the doctor who signed off on the legal report you’re referring to never actually met Dylan personally to make an in-person assessment, no psychologists or psychiatrists were assigned to her panel, the notes regarding her evaluation were destroyed, her confidentiality wasn’t respected, this institution welcomingly invited Woody to profess his innocence when they should have remained professionally unbiased, and the judge and state prosecutor deemed this claim as unacceptable given that.
As for your defense of how Woody being a pedophile and assaulting Dylan would have been irrational… yes— you’re right. That’s the point and yet you still missed it somehow. Pedophiles aren’t rational in the risks they take as pedophiles. Your rhetorical questions usually don’t bode well for defending people accused of pedophilia given how it relies on defending their character and the characters of pedophiles don’t have much worth defending since their judgements are skewered, impulsive, and dangerous.
As for inconsistencies, you fail to address the inconsistencies about Woody’s story changing and you honestly just dug a deeper hole for yourself in regard to the attic thing given how Woody’s story pertained to a police report in which he told them he’d never been in the attic before changing his story and saying he had gone up there before.
Oh, an on another note… demeaningly claiming that an issue as complex as this one is something people should “obvious[ly]” be able to make sense of in attempt to make people feel foolish for not unquestioningly agreeing with you is not a very good look at all. It’s dangerous to suggest people shouldn’t be critical of the concepts you push onto them.
I can quote things, too, but from multiple sources instead of just cherry picking ones that align with pushing a specific agenda.
Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.”
In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”
“You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her … You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”
Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan’s lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch “staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.” A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress. The first babysitter also testified she did not tell Farrow that Allen and Dylan had gone missing until after Dylan made her statements.
The state attorney, Maco, said publicly he did have probable cause to press charges against Allen but declined, due to the fragility of the “child victim.”
just say when!
And not in a good way.
The way film producer John Milton clearly knows he has done *really* bad stuff to Sydney’s mom and the Stab 3 actress, and has some regrets, but justifies it because “Well, this whole place is fucked up anyway. Nobody innocent ever comes here.”
Almost as if he’s absolving himself of responsibility. Because, in his mind, everyone else is just as bad, right?
The OP defending Woody Allen in this post blocked me when I brought up evidence as to why Woody is a pedophile. Given this, it’s pretty clear that they obviously had no counter evidence to the misleading claims they were making. Unsurprisingly, they did the easy thing and blocked me rather than address the fact that they were being deceptive in purposefully leaving out dire information regarding Farrow’s case that I brought up since they failed to include as much. Now, this ensures my response doesn’t show up on their post so they can continue spreading misinformation.
They were insisting Dylan Farrow’s trauma was a hoax and no more than a plublicity stunt created by the mother, Mia Farrow, as a claim to fame. They brought attention to Mia being an abusive mother towards Moses Farrow and used this to insist she was the real abuser. However, what they failed to understand was that both Mia and Woody were abusers— Woody molested Dylan and Mia abused Moses as well as her other children. Essentially, they weren’t in the wrong for calling out Mia’s abusive tendencies but they were absolutely in the wrong for excusing Woody’s. They could have brought attention to Mia being an abuser without undermining Dylan’s abuse.
I made this post to ask you to please consider reblogging the debunked linked version of the post instead of feminismisahatecrime’s (yes that’s their username) original misleading post to ensure misinformation isn’t further spread. If you reblogged their initial post, please consider deleting it and taking a look at the debunked one to see why their post is geared towards relaying misinformation that fails to address the primary legal aspects that weren’t in their claim’s favor. Furthermore, I believe this behavior should be brought attention to given how it’s one thing to share someone’s beliefs, but it’s another to be aware of how they practice those beliefs since practices can be unacceptable regardless of whether or not values may be shared. I would personally want to be aware of whether or not someone I looked up to did things such as this.
I appreciate everyone who has contributed to resisting misinformation by reblogging the debunked version so far!
That being said, please don’t derail this post. I don’t want to use this post to engage in drama regarding whether or not it’s okay to watch Woody’s content if you refrain from giving him profits in doing so. I also don’t want this to be derailed into a discussion about how he ended up marrying his wife’s of-age daughter after meeting her when he was over thirty years older than her, and so forth. Those are all valid things to discuss if you want to make your own post, but I don’t want this post to get derailed. This post is about the user I referenced valuing a boy’s allegations against his mother over a girl’s allegations against her father to push an agenda. The trauma of both Dylan and Moses should be respected and the abuse that both Mia and Woody engaged in should result in them being acknowledged as abusers. The Farrow siblings trauma is not meant to be pitted against one another and treated as a means of providing personal experiences to be drawn from selectively in order to push personal agendas. Their trauma is not something to invade with a bias in order to promote a misleading dictation of it for personal gain.
Ryan: anYway, let’s get to the next story
Shane: this… the first story ryan, this is the first story
I can’t reblog the post because OP blocked me without acknowledging any of the points made so my response wouldn’t show up on their post. I would have enjoyed having a discussion on there, but unfortunately that isn’t possible.
I used this particular article because it was a convenient compilation of facts from various certified sources that’s geared towards relaying those facts— not unsourced gossip. It contains links to the court documents and other certified sources within the article and the judge is not the sole source within each point that relays facts— not opinions.
There’s a judge, state prosecutor, three witnesses, Woody’s therapist and others sourced, so no— this is not a single judge’s view. The article’s closing is a personal statement regarding the author’s opinion on the matter but the ten points are facts with sources.
Furthermore, as far as I’m aware Mia was never jailed either, but that doesn’t make her any less of an abuser than it makes Woody a pedophile. Defending/believing one without defending/believing the other in this sense brings attention to one of my main problems with this post— both are abusers that don’t need to be defended since the evidence against them both is incriminating regardless of people who try to dismiss evidence against one or the other as no more than allegations since the justice system failed to deliver appropriate consequences.
What loopholes are you referring to? I don’t tend to consider gossip— I prefer sources supporting claims made, as seen in the article I referred to regarding ten incriminating legal facts. Woody had loopholes in his defense given how he backtracked on his story and changed it as seen in the source, so that should be noted if we’re going to talk about loopholes.
tl;dr: The sources are summarized and quoted facts with evidence provided, although there is an opinionated closing— given that, it’s not celebrity gossip unless you consider legal documents celebrity gossip just because they happen to be about a celebrity. In that sense, wouldn’t that mean Moses Farrow’s claims are celebrity gossip? To argue this would be to argue that any facts pertaining to celebrities legal cases are just celebrity gossip. Additionally, there’s at least four people that worked legally on this case and three other witnesses that relay these facts— not just one judge.
@ everyone considering engaging in a discussion: Please consider actually going through the article and its sources rather than just giving it a glance beforehand. Having to be repetitive doesn’t add anything to the argument and stating information that isn’t true (such as this just being one judge’s opinion and claiming the sources supported by legal documents are no more than celebrity gossip) just spreads more misinformation. Additionally, please provide sources (such as the loopholes accusation) since accusations can also tend to be misleading and I’d prefer looking at the evidence you’re referencing in comparison to the evidence I’ve brought to the table. You aren’t required to discuss this with me, but if you do please be equipped to do as much by also bringing something to the table.
LMFAAOOOP HAD ALL THAT DICK BUT DIDNT EVEN 😭😭😭😭😭 BYEEEEEE
Me: *In the mirror, pretending to be a model in a shampoo commercial.*
Friend 1: Okay, now left, right, and…
Friend 2: ArE yOu TiReD oF dRy, UnRuLy HaIr?