Your Fave is Problematic

www.welt.de

Till Lindemann and Rammstein: Behind the scenes - WELT

Rammstein is one of the most successful German bands of all time. Now women are making serious allegations against them: abuse of power, sexual assaults, spiked drinks. A woman from Northern Ireland has given the allegations a face and a name.
www.welt.de www.welt.de

Here's one longer account from "Die Welt " newspaper in Germany in english that I found and it looks like Lindemann had a system in place to get young women to him to have sex before, after and even during a break in the show. As the above mentioned article and some other from quality german magazines mention, ghere are dozens of women who seem to basically have similar stories that seem to check out. There is no hard evidence but the accounts seem to add up. I saw a pretty great video by German youtuber Rezo whoafter pretty neutrally analyzing what is known , what us creepy and what might be criminal that the system they had in place the young women were in a situation that makes it hard to make clear decisions ( lots of alcohol was offered, there was group pressure to go along, the women were not told what to expect and put into surpringly changing situations with no easy way out, being in special guarded parts of the backstage area where they had to hand in cellphones before etc. And suddenly one of them is alond in a small room with Lindemann who obviously expects sex.

I agree with Rezos conclusion: if this was about casual consensual sex , a 60yo wealthy pop star could either have escorts ( prostitution is legal in Germany and some other European countries) and they could probably even openly asked around in these after show parties who wants to sleep with him and would probably find enough women who would be willing to have consensual sex with their idol. But they seem to do it differently which means this is obviously more about abuse and power dynamics than it is about sex.
 
There’ve been rumblings about this one for a couple years. If you’d have told me the Uncle Sam from the mustardayonnaise commercial, Choo-Choo the Herky Jerky Dancer, the guy who kept falling into the thimbles during the story of Everest…that that guy would be an insurrectionist…well damn.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

‘Bob’s Burgers’ Star Jay Johnston Charged by DOJ for Storming U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6

Johnston, who also appeared in 'Mr. Show' and 'The Sarah Silverman Program' was arrested in Los Angeles Wednesday.
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com
 
yukbon said:
God fucking dammit Bob

www.sportskeeda.com

What did Robert Smith do? Grooming allegations explored as disbelief erupts among The Cure fans

British rock band The Cure’s lead singer Robert Smith is facing grooming allegations. Currently, a video accusing the singer of allegedly being in a relationship with a 14-year-old has appeared online.
www.sportskeeda.com www.sportskeeda.com

I know he was a drunk drugged out fucked up mess in the 80s but God fucking dammit Bob
Click to expand...
Yeah I think I'm gunna need a bit more info before I believe some rando website named "sportskeeda". Certainly possible but, this needs a lot more actual reporting first.
 
Mather said:
Yeah I think I'm gunna need a bit more info before I believe some rando website named "sportskeeda". Certainly possible but, this needs a lot more actual reporting first.
Click to expand...

Careful.

This is a common refrain in regards to doubting people coming forward with their stories related to SA.

Most large news websites won't touch a story at this point. There's not a lawsuit or a police report. They don't want to get sued themselves. Please don't let that be a reason to doubt someone's story.

Sportskeeda is a real site. This isn't someone's blogspot. But even if it was, this is how those stories tend to come out in the modern age.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
It's a tricky intersection of issues, because over in more political spheres, we're encouraging people to enhance their web literacy and use healthy doses of skepticism in examining the credibility of where their news is coming from.

Believe women, but don't necessarily believe every dubious platform that says it's doing journalism. Not a totally easy needle to thread.

Edit: for comparison, sportskeeda's editorial standards page vs. for example, NYT. Maybe an apples to oranges comparison, but one of those is a lot more robust than the other.
Click to expand...

Right, and one of those sat on the Weinstein allegations for decades due to their very high editorial standards.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
It's a tricky intersection of issues, because over in more political spheres, we're encouraging people to enhance their web literacy and use healthy doses of skepticism in examining the credibility of where their news is coming from.

Believe women, but don't necessarily believe every dubious platform that says it's doing journalism. Not a totally easy needle to thread.

Edit: for comparison, sportskeeda's editorial standards page vs. for example, NYT. Maybe an apples to oranges comparison, but one of those is a lot more robust than the other.
Click to expand...

My point isn't to never be skeptical. It's to not parrot right wing talking points while stating that you want someone else to tell you the information.
 
JonnyH said:
My point isn't to never be skeptical. It's to not parrot right wing talking points while stating that you want someone else to tell you the information.
Click to expand...
I work in news so I have to reserve judgement until more information comes forth, I can't just blindly take everything I see online as fact, it's just the nature of the business. Not saying this person is lying, but I'm going to need to see more information before I can take this as fact. There are certain journalistic standards that I feel have to be upheld, starting with simply confirming that the person who is making the accusations is actually who they say they are. Until now, I have not seen any confirmation that this person is actually the person in the photos that they are claiming they are. I think it has to start there.
 
I have no dog in this fight, I honestly don't care either way about Robert Smith. I assume most celebrities are awful people.
 
Mather said:
I work in news so I have to reserve judgement until more information comes forth, I can't just blindly take everything I see online as fact, it's just the nature of the business. Not saying this person is lying, but I'm going to need to see more information before I can take this as fact. There are certain journalistic standards that I feel have to be upheld, starting with simply confirming that the person who is making the accusations is actually who they say they are. Until now, I have not seen any confirmation that this person is actually the person in the photos that they are claiming they are. I think it has to start there.
Click to expand...

When I read, "I need to hear it more than from some rando website," that reads to me like someone who is not reserving judgment.

When you write, "Until now, I have not seen any confirmation," that leads me to a very obvious response. And that response is, "have you tried?" Because if not, it doesn't sound like you are reserving judgment.
 
JonnyH said:
When I read, "I need to hear it more than from some rando website," that reads to me like someone who is not reserving judgment.

When you write, "Until now, I have not seen any confirmation," that leads me to a very obvious response. And that response is, "have you tried?" Because if not, it doesn't sound like you are reserving judgment.
Click to expand...
With only one place reporting this, there is no where else to look for info. I've looked around and cannot find anything beyond the initial postings mentioned on that website. There is a big difference between not believing someone, and reserving judgement either way until even the most basic of information can be confirmed.
 
Mather said:
I work in news so I have to reserve judgement until more information comes forth, I can't just blindly take everything I see online as fact, it's just the nature of the business. Not saying this person is lying, but I'm going to need to see more information before I can take this as fact. There are certain journalistic standards that I feel have to be upheld, starting with simply confirming that the person who is making the accusations is actually who they say they are. Until now, I have not seen any confirmation that this person is actually the person in the photos that they are claiming they are. I think it has to start there.
Click to expand...

Also, I find it disconcerting that your response appears to be correlating of right wing talking points and working in the news.

I mean, I understand why that matters as a response to me here. I just wish it didn't matter as a response. In fact it kinda goes back to your original post and trust of sources.

Anyway, if you're waiting for a front page newspaper article or a conviction in order to believe that someone was sexually assaulted then it's unlikely that you would believe anyone. And that's sort of the point of why this thread exists in the first place. At least a piece of it.
 
JonnyH said:
Also, I find it disconcerting that your response appears to be correlating of right wing talking points and working in the news.

I mean, I understand why that matters as a response to me here. I just wish it didn't matter as a response. In fact it kinda goes back to your original post and trust of sources.

Anyway, if you're waiting for a front page newspaper article or a conviction in order to believe that someone was sexually assaulted then it's unlikely that you would believe anyone. And that's sort of the point of why this thread exists in the first place. At least a piece of it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what "right wing talking points" you're referring to. I don't read or watch any right wing anything, especially US right wing anything so you'll have to explain that part.

In terms of "trust of sources", my point is that a "source" needs to have a base level of verifiable info to be called "a source". Are they who they say they are, were they where they said they were. I mean that's pretty much the bottom rung of the ladder in terms of at least identifying that this person has conceivably verifiable info. There's simply too much EVERYTHING on the internet to blindly and without any identifiable facts carte blanche believe every single thing you read. It's not conspiratorial, it's just the way you have to operate in order to not go insane. This could very well be true, but I can't say without more than just a couple of anonymous internet posts.
 
Mather said:
I'm not sure what "right wing talking points" you're referring to. I don't read or watch any right wing anything, especially US right wing anything so you'll have to explain that part.

In terms of "trust of sources", my point is that a "source" needs to have a base level of verifiable info to be called "a source". Are they who they say they are, were they where they said they were. I mean that's pretty much the bottom rung of the ladder in terms of at least identifying that this person has verifiable info. There's simply too much EVERYTHING on the internet to blindly and without any identifiable facts carte blanche believe every single thing you read. It's not conspiratorial, it's just the way you have to operate in order to not go insane. This could very well be true, but can't say without more than just a couple of anonymous internet posts.
Click to expand...

It just seems odd that you haven't posted this on like, most of the posts in this thread then.

I broke it down in my first post. And you and I know we both see so much right wing BS in our day to day world. Without having to seek out US based right wing media. I mean you said it yourself, you work in news.

I'll see if I can explain it in a slightly different way than before:

News media don't want to get sued. That's why me too, speaking out, etc became as big of a cultural movement as they've become. Because no one was taking victims seriously. You know this. You work in news.

What's the best way to make a story like this go away? Dont even argue it on its merits. Laugh at the source. Say, yah I'm gonna need more than that- while knowing full well that our global society makes it almost impossible to get a conviction, and without a conviction it's almost impossible to get a larger media org to write about it.

The point is not to say you are a right winger. I have no reason to believe that.

The point is to say that if you find yourself parroting right wing talking points, or standing on their side, that it's a good time to have a think.
 
The problem with the internet is that it's just a giant fire hose of information that never turns off. 24/7 it's just full blast non stop EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME. In terms of my job there needs to be some discretion in terms of what information needs further looking into, and doesn't. I think this definitely needs further looking into. But I'm not a journalist and I, like most other people, have to rely on the information that's uncovered by journalists or organizations. That's just the nature of news and information for the most part. So until someone speaks to this accuser, or they provide more info, I just have to wait and see.
 
I guess I just simply don't really understand what you're suggesting. Are you saying that I should, carte blanche with no information whatsoever, believe every single thing I read on the internet? Because I feel like in that direction lies madness. You must surly have some place at which you personally start the process of belief in what you read? No?
 
Mather said:
I guess I just simply don't really understand what you're suggesting. Are you saying that I should, carte blanche with no information whatsoever, believe every single thing I read on the internet? Because I feel like in that direction lies madness. You must surly have some place at which you personally start the process of belief in what you read? No?
Click to expand...

No. That's not at all what I'm suggesting. And I'm not gonna speak for everyone here, but I'd say I don't believe that's the argument anyone is making.

"The point is to say that if you find yourself parroting right wing talking points, or standing on their side, that it's a good time to have a think." That's it.

Your apparent first reaction to reading the story was to take a shot at the source(in a public forum no less).

That's literally all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top