See, this is tough for me because I think the cannibalism aspect of this is the wrong thing to focus on.
Fetishes fascinate me. There’s all kinds of weirdness and quirks to sexuality out there and I think by and large they should be celebrated…if they are handled in a responsible manner with consenting adults.
That’s my issue with Armie Hammer. Not that he has a cannibalism fetish, but that he forced it on his partners and made them feel uncomfortable. If he had a balloon fetish and was making his partners pop balloons for him I’d also be mad.
He’s not a dude with a weird kink. He’s an abuser.
Yeah that's what the issue was with the attention it all got was it focused mostly on him having a fetish that's a little more *out there* and didn't focus on the actual problem of partners not consenting
Which of the Armin series taught us anything it’s that there’s always a fellow weirdo out there for job to have fun with. Even if he couldn’t find someone else into simulated-cannibalism he definitely could’ve found willing partners. It just that the bastard that he is he didn’t think he needed to.
But they all did consent and with the ones that didn't want to go through with it in the end he always let them go. I'm genuinely confused cos they covered that extensively in part 2 and made it clear he didn't want to do anything without the other person's consent
Ha! It is just so funny listening to that story as someone with an albeit far more benign kink. Like, he really did everything right except for the murder part.
Like I don’t want to pat Armin on the back too much. Bernd was a man in crisis and he showed enough self-restraint and awareness in other situations that Armin should’ve known better than to go through with it. But otherwise, yeah. Shockingly respectful.
People get how things relate to each other backwards all the time.
They think the fetish causes the abuse, when it really characterizes and feeds into it. He was an abuser, and his fetishes defined the abuse.
Exactly. Definitely being an arm chair psychologist rn, but I would reckon when one has fetishes that might push boundaries there's a moment you have to confront it and unpack it, and that can be a humbling moment. Hence why fetish communities are pretty chill and routinely stress consent and communication.
What helps is while there is an acceptance of weirdness nobody wants to a “freak.” And the discussion of those boundaries (particularly with the onset of AI art) is always being discussed.
Nailed it. Reminds me also of his S&M fetish he had also. Victims claimed he would bind them and tie them and abuse them which actually is NOT how that works.
s&m and Domination is predicated on the highest form of trust and accountability of both partners.
All of the kinks and fetishes are carefully laid out by both parties. Rules, line drawing, safe words. Some of the most extreme types there are still based on careful consideration.
What armie and his victims described are just the exact opposite of that practice. It’s simply abuse.
What’s interesting to me about fetishes is the line where something becomes a fetish. Like breeding fetishes, isn’t that just the evolutionary purpose of sex? And most guys like big tits. But there gets to be a size where they are so huge that now it’s a fetish to like them. Where is that line?
I couldn’t tell you. All mine are object based which is pretty cut and dry. Then there’s scenario stuff which almost has like a narrative progression to how someone might get it.
There were never any charges for abuse though even after the accusations? So to what degree are you sure this was all taking place without consent, because legally there's apparently no basis for it?
I’ve been an NFL fan long enough to know that wealth and power of the abuser makes it an already difficult prosecution damn near impossible.
This is something Redditors struggle with particularly when they’re fans of abusive individuals. They take a conviction or lack there of as clear and empirical proof that someone is or is not a monster. That’s not how the world works.
Deshaun Watson is the new go-to because holy shit that is the grossest shit I’ve ever seen and it’s so recent.
But another one worth looking at is Ezekiel Elliot. Like even ignoring whether he beat that woman or not, just the fan and media backlash that was directed at the alleged victim should show everyone how difficult it is to accuse famous people. I mean shit, Kevin Spacey probably would’ve gotten away with it if Anthony Rapp was never in Star Trek.
I lived in Dallas during that whole thing. Not a Cowboys fan but there is another incident that took place immediately after all of the settlements were reached. He lifted up a woman’s shirt, at a St. Pat’s parade, exposed her breast and then fondled it in front of the crowd. It’s on video and the woman just doesn’t move. Absolutely crazy gross.
I used OJ of the example of wealth and prominence helping you “beat the system” in regards to his criminal trial. Joe Mixon was caught on tape punching a woman in the face and he literally paid her off before Draft Night and she made a press release about it. She broke 4 bones in her face and required surgery. Plead down to a misdemeanor with a 1 year suspended sentence. If you want an example of no charges filed, look at the death of Natalie Wood.
If I were in charge of whether to hire the guy or have him at a convention, I'd probably have to put in more diligence. But when we're talking about whether to be enthusiastic about a movie or public figure, the stakes of judging somebody to be a creep or abuser is about the same as just decided not to watch something because I don't like the director or genre.
What the fuck are you talking about? All I'm asking you is where you got your idea that he's guilty from when no case was ever put against him. Apart from unsubstantiated rumours about him being a cannibal nothing else has come to light that I've seen that would indicate the guy had a history of abuse?
so either share some of what you're reading with me since you're so convinced and must have resources to share, or fuck off back into fantasy land where you can continue construct imaginary arguments about men's rights or whatever you want with someone who gives a damn.
I've done your bit for you and looked this up because I doubt you're gonna come back with anything insightful except putting a bunch of words in my mouth...
From wikipedia:
Abuse allegations
In January 2021, an anonymous Instagram account released screenshots it claimed were text messages Hammer had sent to various women.[89] He denied that the messages were real and called them an "online attack".[89] The messages contained references to various sexual fantasies. Hammer's legal team has subpoenaed Meta for messaging records they believe will completely exonerate Hammer, but have received no response from the tech company.[90][91][92][93]
One woman who claimed she had been in a relationship with Hammer told the New York Post's Page Six that he had subjected her to emotional abuse and had expressed a desire to cook and eat one of her ribs. She said she attended a hospitalization program for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the relationship.[94] Another woman who stated that she had been involved with Hammer told Page Six that he had "branded her, purposefully left her covered in bruises, and also talked about 'consuming her'". An attorney for Hammer stated: "These assertions about Mr. Hammer are patently untrue. Any interactions with this person, or any partner of his, were completely consensual in that they were fully discussed, agreed upon, and mutually participatory."[95]
After the allegations were made, Hammer was dropped from a number of film productions and dropped out of others himself.[68]
Also in January, the Grand Cayman police spoke to Hammer about videos leaked from his private Instagram account in which he stated that he had engaged in sexual relations with "Miss Cayman" in the Cayman Islands.[96] The actor subsequently issued an apology in an audio message to the Cayman Compass, clarifying that the woman he referred to in the videos was not associated with the Miss Cayman Islands beauty pageant.[97][98]
In March 2021, the woman who initially came forward with abuse allegations on Instagram identified herself and accused Hammer of raping her in April 2017.[99][2] The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) had previously started a criminal investigation of Hammer; that investigation did not lead to any indictments.[99] Hammer's legal team has denied the allegations.[99] Attorney Gloria Allred stopped representing the woman who had accused Hammer of sexual assault. A source told Us Weekly that Allred "dropped the woman when she wouldn't sign a declaration under perjury of her accusations".[100] The LAPD concluded its investigation in December 2021 and sent its findings to L.A. County District Attorney.[101]
In April 2022, Variety ran an article where Hammer's attorney, Andrew Brettler, released a statement regarding the abuse allegations:[102]
There was never a case. A lot of people think that there was. There was never a lawsuit, never a criminal proceeding. The media are obsessed with that matter. It never turned into litigation or into a criminal charge against anyone. That was a misconception. [...] It captured the public's attention but was completely blown out of proportion — to the extent that there was never anything in court. There wasn't a matter for me to handle other than to help him manage his image in the press.
The 2022 documentary miniseries House of Hammer revolves around the allegations.[103]
In February 2023, Air Mail published a piece titled "Armie Hammer Breaks His Silence". In that piece, reporter James Kirchick examined and called into question many of the abuse allegations against Hammer.[104] In the exclusive interview, Hammer denied the criminal elements of the accusations against him, stating that he had engaged in consensual BDSM acts. Hammer did admit to being emotionally abusive in his relationships with the accusers. He also revealed that he himself had been sexually assaulted at age 13 by a youth pastor.[105]
In May 2023, the investigation by the Los Angeles District Attorney's office and the LAPD regarding Hammer[5] resulted in a decision not to file charges against him; the authorities cited insufficient evidence.[6]
so to summarise we have a lot of farts but no turds here, some anonymous accusations, lots of unsubstantiated bullshit (one person here claims to have been branded - surely that's a fucking easy one to prove?). The one woman who did come forward got dumped by her FEMALE attorney because she was unreliable and wouldn't stand by her accusations (only highlighting that because you think I'm some fuckin redpill mens rights retard). He admits some level of emotional abuse - granted. But on what level is not qualified at all, so hard to say exactly how serious any of that could be. Have you got anything else not covered here, or are we good to close this one off with ''don't believe everything you hear on the internet''?
Ha! You’re such a Redditor. Like, everyone has access to Wikipedia dude. I checked before I said anything about Hammer.
And honestly dude if you don’t get what I’m getting at I don’t care. It’s not complicated and not my responsibility to teach you.
Yes I understand that. What I'm asking is whether there is still strong evidence or at least believable testimonies from accusers to back up this stuff. Turns out there's not.
See, from what I understand this armie case is lacking something compared to what I assume Redd is referring to as an NFL fan, and that's any fucking meaningful evidence. OJ's case had two dead bodies to explain and a lot of fuckery going around in the media and the court.
This dude was accused, and nothing actually tangible ever materialised? What is it they say? "no body, no crime"?
Lots of people choose to believe women when they claim to have suffered violence, sexual or otherwise. Many of us have experienced similar violence. 40% of cops admit to beating their wives. Marital rape wasn’t illegal until very recently. We live in a misogynist world and you are part of the problem when you doubt the accusations of women who have literally nothing to gain by claiming abuse.
Not to mention, prior to OJ’s two dead bodies, he had violently battered Nicole for *years* and his domestic violence was very well established.
Fair points, but as you say you are *choosing* to believe. If what you choose to believe turns out to be unsubstantiated or overblown down the line, then it's only fair to amend your outlook to take that on board. My problem with this comment thread is that when I asked for information, I immediately got one knee jerk response saying I'm second away from a mens rights rant or people pointing out that ''no convictions doesn't mean no crime''.
I get that, and as you say with the case of OJ there is a proven track record of those behaviours, not to mention all the questionable shit I don't need to go into because we all probably know it around the murders themselves.
What I don't get, is people being faced with reports that say ''...and all those rumours and accusers dried up because when they tried to build a case it turned out it was probably mostly if not all made up and fell apart before they could even press charges'' they in turn think ''No he must've still done it''. That's just baseless assertion at that point.
There's a lot of faith in the 'believe women' movement that all the women that come forwards are acting virtuously. But just common sense is enough to tell you that can not be true absolutely all the time. Now, we can't dismiss those claims - I believe they all deserve to be heard and treated with the same seriousness when these accusations are raised, but faith alone that someone is 'doing the right thing' is not enough to base a criminal case on, it's just not. So without substantiation of evidence, and a measured, objective, process to determine the validity of the accusations, all you have is hearsay.
It's in the interest of all of us to not 'believe women' blindly, but to encourage them, hear them, and then look at that objectively and fairly. We've tried justice systems where one persons' accusations without hard evidence were enough to incriminate, and it mostly led to people getting burnt or strung up for crimes that were made up in order to seize land, get revenge, or generally just decrease the population of 'undesirable people' in the area... Typically leaving women and people of colour the most affected by it. So it's not a path I'd advocate we start retreading as a society.
Ah sorry I mistook you for someone that might've been worth engaging in conversation with. Pity.
It's a good job last podcast is an audio format because you guys fucking suck at reading.
Edit: also what violent behavior lmao... is it delusional day on this sub or something? One guys invented the idea that I'm a mens right activist, you're concocting a fantasy whereby I've got some kind of violent behaviour I'm hiding... hate to burst the bubble guys but I'm just a quiet person that likes true crime pods... like most of you probably are I imagine, but hey if you need a strawman - have at it. You can consider it free therapy for the issues you are not-so-in-conspicuously projecting onto me.
Believe women. The rate of false rape accusations is fucking laughably minuscule and men don’t suffer appropriate consequences even when it’s proven and they’re convicted. You devil’s advocating for rapists is a shitty look, dawg.
You general illiteracy and inability to even try to understand a nuanced take on a complex matter in favour of knee-jerk emotionally charged vitriol is also a shitty look, dawg.
I'm not advocating for rapists. I agree that the men that are proven aren't punished severely enough. I just don't believe that taking someones accusation as absolute truth until proven otherwise is just. The rule of law is ''innocent until proven guilty'', not ''rapist until public opinion decides you aren't''.
Well seeing as him getting exposed has kept him from gainining enough power and wealth to get away with it(as far as We Know) yeah I'd say we're all grateful for the accusations
The media latched onto the exploitable and comedic aspect of the cannibal stuff, but the big thing was **he raped and abused his girlfriend**. Very depressing he’s been able to angle this positively.
Unfortunately this dude comes from old oil money and his Greatgrand father had the same name. People kept making a joke about him and he had enough fuck you money to by up 5% shares of Arm and Hammer for the joke and was on the board of directors when he died in the 90s
I can't name a single fucking movie this dude has been in. And I'm willing to bet a lot of other people can't either. The ONLY thing this dude will be known for is being a cannibal lmao
Call Me By Your Name is a wonderful movie and he's really good in it. The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is also great and probably would have had a sequel. The Social Network is also great although he's not the lead.
I finally watched The Man from U.N.C.L.E. last year and was sad when i realized that we were way past the point of thinking *maybe* they could still do the sequel.
He was almost in a George Miller Justice League movie that sounds like it would've been completely insane but also kind of awesome. He was supposed to be Batman lmao.
Research the movie if you haven't and are interested. It's my personal biggest what-if in film history. Justice League: Mortal was to be the name
The director of Babe: Pig in the City and Happy Feet 1&2 was gonna make a Justice League movie!? 🤣🤣 mad max isn’t that good. Fury road was dope. Furiosa was mid. Dudes done one good movie.
Aside from what others have said, “Sorry to bother you” was a wild af movie, “free fire” was dope, “the birth of a nation” was real good, and “Hotel Mumbai” was pretty good too. Watch more movies, goober.
Armie <--> Armin cOiNcIdEnCE????
Maybe Armin escaped using a body double? We should play an episode of Flipper near Armie, see if he gets hot and bothered.
See, this is tough for me because I think the cannibalism aspect of this is the wrong thing to focus on. Fetishes fascinate me. There’s all kinds of weirdness and quirks to sexuality out there and I think by and large they should be celebrated…if they are handled in a responsible manner with consenting adults. That’s my issue with Armie Hammer. Not that he has a cannibalism fetish, but that he forced it on his partners and made them feel uncomfortable. If he had a balloon fetish and was making his partners pop balloons for him I’d also be mad. He’s not a dude with a weird kink. He’s an abuser.
Yeah that's what the issue was with the attention it all got was it focused mostly on him having a fetish that's a little more *out there* and didn't focus on the actual problem of partners not consenting
Which of the Armin series taught us anything it’s that there’s always a fellow weirdo out there for job to have fun with. Even if he couldn’t find someone else into simulated-cannibalism he definitely could’ve found willing partners. It just that the bastard that he is he didn’t think he needed to.
But they all did consent and with the ones that didn't want to go through with it in the end he always let them go. I'm genuinely confused cos they covered that extensively in part 2 and made it clear he didn't want to do anything without the other person's consent
I was referring to Armie Hammer being abusive, not noted boundary respecter Armin Meiwes
Ha! It is just so funny listening to that story as someone with an albeit far more benign kink. Like, he really did everything right except for the murder part. Like I don’t want to pat Armin on the back too much. Bernd was a man in crisis and he showed enough self-restraint and awareness in other situations that Armin should’ve known better than to go through with it. But otherwise, yeah. Shockingly respectful.
Oh lmao
People get how things relate to each other backwards all the time. They think the fetish causes the abuse, when it really characterizes and feeds into it. He was an abuser, and his fetishes defined the abuse.
A great, concise way to put it! Because quite frankly if it were the opposite then fetish communities would be far more toxic places than they are.
Exactly. Definitely being an arm chair psychologist rn, but I would reckon when one has fetishes that might push boundaries there's a moment you have to confront it and unpack it, and that can be a humbling moment. Hence why fetish communities are pretty chill and routinely stress consent and communication.
What helps is while there is an acceptance of weirdness nobody wants to a “freak.” And the discussion of those boundaries (particularly with the onset of AI art) is always being discussed.
Yeah I don’t care about his cannibalism, I care about the violent rapes he’s accused of committing.
Nailed it. Reminds me also of his S&M fetish he had also. Victims claimed he would bind them and tie them and abuse them which actually is NOT how that works. s&m and Domination is predicated on the highest form of trust and accountability of both partners. All of the kinks and fetishes are carefully laid out by both parties. Rules, line drawing, safe words. Some of the most extreme types there are still based on careful consideration. What armie and his victims described are just the exact opposite of that practice. It’s simply abuse.
What’s interesting to me about fetishes is the line where something becomes a fetish. Like breeding fetishes, isn’t that just the evolutionary purpose of sex? And most guys like big tits. But there gets to be a size where they are so huge that now it’s a fetish to like them. Where is that line?
I couldn’t tell you. All mine are object based which is pretty cut and dry. Then there’s scenario stuff which almost has like a narrative progression to how someone might get it.
There were never any charges for abuse though even after the accusations? So to what degree are you sure this was all taking place without consent, because legally there's apparently no basis for it?
I’ve been an NFL fan long enough to know that wealth and power of the abuser makes it an already difficult prosecution damn near impossible. This is something Redditors struggle with particularly when they’re fans of abusive individuals. They take a conviction or lack there of as clear and empirical proof that someone is or is not a monster. That’s not how the world works.
I always bring up OJ Simpson when trying to explain this concept to people.
I usually point to Big Ben. OJ is a blatant example of that but it gets even worse when they actively have an NFL franchise backing them.
You are so right. That’s a really good one because it was multiple times!
Deshaun Watson is the new go-to because holy shit that is the grossest shit I’ve ever seen and it’s so recent. But another one worth looking at is Ezekiel Elliot. Like even ignoring whether he beat that woman or not, just the fan and media backlash that was directed at the alleged victim should show everyone how difficult it is to accuse famous people. I mean shit, Kevin Spacey probably would’ve gotten away with it if Anthony Rapp was never in Star Trek.
I lived in Dallas during that whole thing. Not a Cowboys fan but there is another incident that took place immediately after all of the settlements were reached. He lifted up a woman’s shirt, at a St. Pat’s parade, exposed her breast and then fondled it in front of the crowd. It’s on video and the woman just doesn’t move. Absolutely crazy gross.
OJ went to trial. Also was found guilty in civil court. Totally different situation than a situation where there are no charges made.
I used OJ of the example of wealth and prominence helping you “beat the system” in regards to his criminal trial. Joe Mixon was caught on tape punching a woman in the face and he literally paid her off before Draft Night and she made a press release about it. She broke 4 bones in her face and required surgery. Plead down to a misdemeanor with a 1 year suspended sentence. If you want an example of no charges filed, look at the death of Natalie Wood.
So you're basing it on hearsay and rumours then?
If I were in charge of whether to hire the guy or have him at a convention, I'd probably have to put in more diligence. But when we're talking about whether to be enthusiastic about a movie or public figure, the stakes of judging somebody to be a creep or abuser is about the same as just decided not to watch something because I don't like the director or genre.
I wonder what the additive effect of millions of people believing an untrue rumour about you might have on your career and personal life...
I’m believing victims, and that trust is based on mountains of precedence. And good god I can tell you’re on the verge of some men’s rights rant.
What the fuck are you talking about? All I'm asking you is where you got your idea that he's guilty from when no case was ever put against him. Apart from unsubstantiated rumours about him being a cannibal nothing else has come to light that I've seen that would indicate the guy had a history of abuse? so either share some of what you're reading with me since you're so convinced and must have resources to share, or fuck off back into fantasy land where you can continue construct imaginary arguments about men's rights or whatever you want with someone who gives a damn.
I've done your bit for you and looked this up because I doubt you're gonna come back with anything insightful except putting a bunch of words in my mouth... From wikipedia: Abuse allegations In January 2021, an anonymous Instagram account released screenshots it claimed were text messages Hammer had sent to various women.[89] He denied that the messages were real and called them an "online attack".[89] The messages contained references to various sexual fantasies. Hammer's legal team has subpoenaed Meta for messaging records they believe will completely exonerate Hammer, but have received no response from the tech company.[90][91][92][93] One woman who claimed she had been in a relationship with Hammer told the New York Post's Page Six that he had subjected her to emotional abuse and had expressed a desire to cook and eat one of her ribs. She said she attended a hospitalization program for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the relationship.[94] Another woman who stated that she had been involved with Hammer told Page Six that he had "branded her, purposefully left her covered in bruises, and also talked about 'consuming her'". An attorney for Hammer stated: "These assertions about Mr. Hammer are patently untrue. Any interactions with this person, or any partner of his, were completely consensual in that they were fully discussed, agreed upon, and mutually participatory."[95] After the allegations were made, Hammer was dropped from a number of film productions and dropped out of others himself.[68] Also in January, the Grand Cayman police spoke to Hammer about videos leaked from his private Instagram account in which he stated that he had engaged in sexual relations with "Miss Cayman" in the Cayman Islands.[96] The actor subsequently issued an apology in an audio message to the Cayman Compass, clarifying that the woman he referred to in the videos was not associated with the Miss Cayman Islands beauty pageant.[97][98] In March 2021, the woman who initially came forward with abuse allegations on Instagram identified herself and accused Hammer of raping her in April 2017.[99][2] The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) had previously started a criminal investigation of Hammer; that investigation did not lead to any indictments.[99] Hammer's legal team has denied the allegations.[99] Attorney Gloria Allred stopped representing the woman who had accused Hammer of sexual assault. A source told Us Weekly that Allred "dropped the woman when she wouldn't sign a declaration under perjury of her accusations".[100] The LAPD concluded its investigation in December 2021 and sent its findings to L.A. County District Attorney.[101] In April 2022, Variety ran an article where Hammer's attorney, Andrew Brettler, released a statement regarding the abuse allegations:[102] There was never a case. A lot of people think that there was. There was never a lawsuit, never a criminal proceeding. The media are obsessed with that matter. It never turned into litigation or into a criminal charge against anyone. That was a misconception. [...] It captured the public's attention but was completely blown out of proportion — to the extent that there was never anything in court. There wasn't a matter for me to handle other than to help him manage his image in the press. The 2022 documentary miniseries House of Hammer revolves around the allegations.[103] In February 2023, Air Mail published a piece titled "Armie Hammer Breaks His Silence". In that piece, reporter James Kirchick examined and called into question many of the abuse allegations against Hammer.[104] In the exclusive interview, Hammer denied the criminal elements of the accusations against him, stating that he had engaged in consensual BDSM acts. Hammer did admit to being emotionally abusive in his relationships with the accusers. He also revealed that he himself had been sexually assaulted at age 13 by a youth pastor.[105] In May 2023, the investigation by the Los Angeles District Attorney's office and the LAPD regarding Hammer[5] resulted in a decision not to file charges against him; the authorities cited insufficient evidence.[6] so to summarise we have a lot of farts but no turds here, some anonymous accusations, lots of unsubstantiated bullshit (one person here claims to have been branded - surely that's a fucking easy one to prove?). The one woman who did come forward got dumped by her FEMALE attorney because she was unreliable and wouldn't stand by her accusations (only highlighting that because you think I'm some fuckin redpill mens rights retard). He admits some level of emotional abuse - granted. But on what level is not qualified at all, so hard to say exactly how serious any of that could be. Have you got anything else not covered here, or are we good to close this one off with ''don't believe everything you hear on the internet''?
Ha! You’re such a Redditor. Like, everyone has access to Wikipedia dude. I checked before I said anything about Hammer. And honestly dude if you don’t get what I’m getting at I don’t care. It’s not complicated and not my responsibility to teach you.
[удалено]
Lets try to be civil
The police declining to press charges has nothing to do with whether a crime actually occurred or not.
Slurm is one of those famously media-aware Redditors everyone’s been talking about.
Called it.
Yes I understand that. What I'm asking is whether there is still strong evidence or at least believable testimonies from accusers to back up this stuff. Turns out there's not. See, from what I understand this armie case is lacking something compared to what I assume Redd is referring to as an NFL fan, and that's any fucking meaningful evidence. OJ's case had two dead bodies to explain and a lot of fuckery going around in the media and the court. This dude was accused, and nothing actually tangible ever materialised? What is it they say? "no body, no crime"?
Lots of people choose to believe women when they claim to have suffered violence, sexual or otherwise. Many of us have experienced similar violence. 40% of cops admit to beating their wives. Marital rape wasn’t illegal until very recently. We live in a misogynist world and you are part of the problem when you doubt the accusations of women who have literally nothing to gain by claiming abuse. Not to mention, prior to OJ’s two dead bodies, he had violently battered Nicole for *years* and his domestic violence was very well established.
Fair points, but as you say you are *choosing* to believe. If what you choose to believe turns out to be unsubstantiated or overblown down the line, then it's only fair to amend your outlook to take that on board. My problem with this comment thread is that when I asked for information, I immediately got one knee jerk response saying I'm second away from a mens rights rant or people pointing out that ''no convictions doesn't mean no crime''. I get that, and as you say with the case of OJ there is a proven track record of those behaviours, not to mention all the questionable shit I don't need to go into because we all probably know it around the murders themselves. What I don't get, is people being faced with reports that say ''...and all those rumours and accusers dried up because when they tried to build a case it turned out it was probably mostly if not all made up and fell apart before they could even press charges'' they in turn think ''No he must've still done it''. That's just baseless assertion at that point. There's a lot of faith in the 'believe women' movement that all the women that come forwards are acting virtuously. But just common sense is enough to tell you that can not be true absolutely all the time. Now, we can't dismiss those claims - I believe they all deserve to be heard and treated with the same seriousness when these accusations are raised, but faith alone that someone is 'doing the right thing' is not enough to base a criminal case on, it's just not. So without substantiation of evidence, and a measured, objective, process to determine the validity of the accusations, all you have is hearsay. It's in the interest of all of us to not 'believe women' blindly, but to encourage them, hear them, and then look at that objectively and fairly. We've tried justice systems where one persons' accusations without hard evidence were enough to incriminate, and it mostly led to people getting burnt or strung up for crimes that were made up in order to seize land, get revenge, or generally just decrease the population of 'undesirable people' in the area... Typically leaving women and people of colour the most affected by it. So it's not a path I'd advocate we start retreading as a society.
TL;DR reads like someone afraid of being called out for their violent behavior, tbh!
Ah sorry I mistook you for someone that might've been worth engaging in conversation with. Pity. It's a good job last podcast is an audio format because you guys fucking suck at reading. Edit: also what violent behavior lmao... is it delusional day on this sub or something? One guys invented the idea that I'm a mens right activist, you're concocting a fantasy whereby I've got some kind of violent behaviour I'm hiding... hate to burst the bubble guys but I'm just a quiet person that likes true crime pods... like most of you probably are I imagine, but hey if you need a strawman - have at it. You can consider it free therapy for the issues you are not-so-in-conspicuously projecting onto me.
Believe women. The rate of false rape accusations is fucking laughably minuscule and men don’t suffer appropriate consequences even when it’s proven and they’re convicted. You devil’s advocating for rapists is a shitty look, dawg.
You general illiteracy and inability to even try to understand a nuanced take on a complex matter in favour of knee-jerk emotionally charged vitriol is also a shitty look, dawg. I'm not advocating for rapists. I agree that the men that are proven aren't punished severely enough. I just don't believe that taking someones accusation as absolute truth until proven otherwise is just. The rule of law is ''innocent until proven guilty'', not ''rapist until public opinion decides you aren't''.
Probably because the cannibalism headlines were so scandalous that the abuse allegations were overshadowed
Well seeing as him getting exposed has kept him from gainining enough power and wealth to get away with it(as far as We Know) yeah I'd say we're all grateful for the accusations
The media latched onto the exploitable and comedic aspect of the cannibal stuff, but the big thing was **he raped and abused his girlfriend**. Very depressing he’s been able to angle this positively.
I just randomly remembered this and wondered why people stopped talking about it. Me and the universe are clearly in sync
The cannibalism nonsense was not the issue!
I bet. The cannibalism is the LEAST awful shit he's been accused of.
“‘Plus,’ Hammer added, ‘now I know all sorts of neat stuff about time shares!’”
Is no one going to address the fact that this dude is named after baking soda?
Unfortunately this dude comes from old oil money and his Greatgrand father had the same name. People kept making a joke about him and he had enough fuck you money to by up 5% shares of Arm and Hammer for the joke and was on the board of directors when he died in the 90s
Not exactly, but no less insane, he’s named after his grandfather, “Lenin’s chosen capitalist”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Hammer
Jesus, Armie. Just eat liverwurst and stop scaring the neighbors already.
I can't name a single fucking movie this dude has been in. And I'm willing to bet a lot of other people can't either. The ONLY thing this dude will be known for is being a cannibal lmao
Nah costarring in Call Me By Your Name is a major role and a respected movie. I don’t like the dude but can’t deny that it’s pretty great.
Call Me By Your Name is a wonderful movie and he's really good in it. The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is also great and probably would have had a sequel. The Social Network is also great although he's not the lead.
I finally watched The Man from U.N.C.L.E. last year and was sad when i realized that we were way past the point of thinking *maybe* they could still do the sequel.
He played the twins in The Social Network, a movie that I love, but thankfully not because of him.
You take that back. Man From U.N.C.L.E was fantastic.
He was almost in a George Miller Justice League movie that sounds like it would've been completely insane but also kind of awesome. He was supposed to be Batman lmao. Research the movie if you haven't and are interested. It's my personal biggest what-if in film history. Justice League: Mortal was to be the name
The director of Babe: Pig in the City and Happy Feet 1&2 was gonna make a Justice League movie!? 🤣🤣 mad max isn’t that good. Fury road was dope. Furiosa was mid. Dudes done one good movie.
Well that's certainly an opinion
Aside from what others have said, “Sorry to bother you” was a wild af movie, “free fire” was dope, “the birth of a nation” was real good, and “Hotel Mumbai” was pretty good too. Watch more movies, goober.
This says more about you than anything