Ya...blame the victim.
Please show me where I did that.
I was just making an observation about how 'happy' she looked, which makes the circumstances surrounding her ordeal even more eerie and creepy. And also demonstrating what some people are capable of when under immense fear and stress. Nothing more. Somehow you and many other people took me saying that her smiling and body language was very convincing (when looked at without context) as me victim blaming and negating her suffering.
I brought up my experiences as a ND because for many of us, it doesn't always matter how much we mentally and emotionally adapt to our environment or want to do that, not all of us can mask as well as she does and in fact, fear and stress actually has an adverse effect for many of us. As it does for a lot of people. We as humans are just as capable of fully rising to the occasion when faced with life-threatening circumstances as much as we are of crumbling under it.
LMAO so a comment with facts and logic was emotional to u??
Anybody can believe that anything they say is factual or logical if they yell it enough times. You're just desperate to shut this person down for saying negative things about Cait that he witnessed and experienced when nobody is forcing you to believe him. Maybe take this passionate energy you have for defending Cait and use it on something more useful like, oh idk...touching grass??
Oh, and nice racism with the photo you shared. I definitely should take lessons on using facts and logic from somebody that uses racism to get their point across.
Of course it was!! Who wants to explain a topic that is quite sure about it doens't need to over explain. Make it simple!
All I'm saying is instead of going after how long our responses and comments are, actually address what we say. I'm willing to have respectful back-and-forths over the substance of what has been said, but not over hissy fits over the fact that you don't have the mental energy, the time, or whatever to read what we say and need a tl;dr to break it down for you. You not liking how long my and his comments are aren't our problems.
U didn't have to repeat. Whoever reads all knows that u both guys are wrong, no matter how long ur answers be.
Maybe if you demonstrated based on your words that you did read my previous reply, then I wouldn't have to repeat. Explain to me how he is wrong, if you weren't there when these incidents happened.
Yep, she answered his dm, so what u think that made him feel? Wake up, dude...
Yeah, I literally addressed this in my previous reply...
LMAO, that's exactly how cancel culture works. Don't play the dum dum card. Also, I don't care if u call me a boomer or whatever u want to call me. Just do it. Generation Z is fucked in the head.
If you think just saying negative things about a public figure you like is 'cancel culture' then that says more about you than anything else. And I'm glad to learn now that you think Gen Z is an insult because you think other generations are superior.
Oh, let's cancel this lady bc she didn't attend my expectations, and she likes dark humor and blah blah blah blah...
Dark humor? Wtf are you talking about?
Whatever, dude. I showed solid arguments, but u try to make like nothing bc u felt hurt and embarrassed.
All you've shown is that you either didn't read or misinterpreted what he and I have said. At the same time, throwing ad hominems at us, attacking our character and who we are, rather than what we've said. If you don't like what we have to say, then take it or leave it. Nobody's forcing you to believe him or stop supporting Cait.
Oh, I go touch grass quite often! U, on the other hand, seriously need to go touch grass LMAO I seriously hope that u get better and more mature! Bc for as I've seen in ur counter comment/answer and profile... go touch grass dude fr
How ironic of you to hope I get more mature when you make an emotionally ramble-y comment like this.
If he was right, u shouldn't do such a big answer/text for a person that u dunno.
Really? Your first counter argument to what I said is about the length of my comment? I basically just re-hashed a lot of what he said in his posts and Google Doc, which based on your original reply it seems like you either didn't read at all or are highly biased towards her. And sure, I don't know this person personally but I have had many exchanges with him online both open and private about this situation and his experience is one that I can relate to on some level as somebody that has been alone, lonely, and chronically online at points in my life.
And u are wrong. It's obvious that he created expectations over a social media person, and that's alright. I never said it was wrong, expecting better from someone.
Well, this was a quote from your original reply: "she's tired of all guys expecting something from her and even all that u guys over expecting something."
I said his first DM to Cait was done without any expectation of her responding. Once she responded to it positively and they had a back-and-forth that eventually developed into a friendly online relationship, then of course he would've started having expectations about her. Funny how your inability to read carried over to my comment as well.
Don't try to twist my words, dude LMAO his intentions are indeed twisted. Why try to destroy someone online like that??
You must've missed the part where I said: "If you don't like what he has to say, then by all means, continue supporting her. But don't get his intentions twisted." The posts and the Google Doc were meant to inform everyone of her actions. What they want to do with that information in terms of deciding whether or not to believe him and/or continue supporting Cait is up to them. Unless he or anyone else is saying, "You must believe the accounts or you must stop supporting Cait or else you're a moron/idiot!" then your reaction would be understandable. But you're literally acting like someone that's throwing a hissy fit just because someone dared to say negative things about your favorite ASMRtist. So you go after his intentions for saying them because you don't have any other good counter arguments.
Cancel culture is so ridiculous as the guy is. Just let it be. Whatever, if she wasn't what he expected her to be, move on, and that's all. If a crime happened, that would be understandable for a big text, and a lot lot of arguments like that, but just bc the lady wasn't what he expected?? Cmon now... Cancel culture sucks...
Uh, that's not how 'cancel culture' works. For someone to be 'cancelled,' it would require fans and those neutral about her to read these posts and then decide to do things that impact her channel, her career, and the positive attention she gets online. Which would mean that a sizable number of her nearly 150k subs on her YT channel would have to unsubscribe and stop watching her videos, which ain't happening. The person coming forward with accounts and allegations can't 'cancel' someone.
And I said before, he has moved on based on my conversations with him. The incidents happened late 2022 and only when he found out that the suicidal person on Discord that was bullied by her fans had disappeared and he continued to see people praising her did he decide to come forward. The fact you continue to go after the length of his and my comments shows you don't have any other good arguments against what we've said.
but u guys are definitely Generation Z, right?? So that's understandable
Why tf would our generation matter? Based on that, if I called you a boomer for your responses, would that be ok?
You all go touch some grass!
Likewise! :)
Toxic masculinity
"And Tom Brady wins his 20th consecutive game against Miami."
So you provided some background on how this case has actually been exploited for morbid pleasure over ethical investigation, which as someone that only knows about this case through name and superficial details of it, I appreciate you educating me on that.
What I will say with regards to her being a child that isn't alive to to tell about her ordeal is that I know Casefile has worked with the families and loved ones of victims before on past episodes mainly for missing persons cases, but with how much research they put into every one, it's hard to imagine that they don't do some kind of behind-the-scenes interviews and consulting with family members on much of them. But that's just my speculation. But mainly what I'm saying is that I do trust them to handle the consent aspect of retelling a case ethically more so than other podcasts. At least I hope they would if they're a podcast that prides itself on objective, raw telling of the events and details of cases.
Response to your edit: Except Casefile is unlike other true crime podcasts in that they do exhaustive research beforehand (which you can see in the links below every episode page) They even use primary sources sometimes. So you may catch some pieces of information in a well-known case that's not widely public knowledge.
people just want to continuously gawk at her ordeal for entertainment; people get such a kick in talking/listening about all the torture she went through.
Well if there are people out there that do that, then there's something really wrong with them and they probably shouldn't be spending their time listening to true crime content.
But yeah, I do listen to true crime for entertainment. Not because I get a kick out of hearing about people being killed, tortured, or humiliated in graphic ways, but because of the process of listening to the suspense, the twists, the whodunit, and finally solving the case. It's kind of the same reason why some people enjoy horror movies. And before you say, "but the people in them are fictional," yeah they are, but I don't listen to true crime to just hear about the gruesome details, I want to hear about how they solve the case, and like most people, I get frustrated whenever a case is revealed to be unsolved. That's the big difference with true crime - if your enjoyment in listening to it doesn't also come from an interest in learning about how they solved the case, then all it is for you is torture porn.
The other thing is if we continuously use the argument of 'we shouldn't be hearing about the graphic details because it's exploitative and will further traumatize victims,' then we will also fail to learn from them and how we can try to prevent these cases from happening again. And by that, I don't just mean in terms of catching the perps and punishing them, but the red flags to look out before a crime can happen and the various factors that contribute to why somebody would commit such crimes. And this is why 'Casefile' is the only true crime podcast I listen to, because they just present the facts, while still also respecting the victims and their loved ones.
Lastly, I'll leave you with this perspective from someone that commented on the Colleen Stan case in response to how a lot of people were upset at how much graphic details were revealed in that episode:
"Yeah I have a really hard time when people complain that it was too much. Like for real? This lady SURVIVED all of this and yall have the audacity to complain about how you are disturbed by listening? Hear her story, listen. Understand what humans are capable of going through, have some dang compassion. If you felt weird listening, good, it means you’re human and have a heart. It’s just really mind blowing to me that so many people are complaining."
"The true crime industry has really done a disservice to victims by making their stories into palatable pieces of media that can be guzzled down on the drive to work. Casey is doing them a service by actually telling their story."
"Sorry for the rant, I am a survivor and can’t imagine how hard it was to re tell this story in this much detail and still be alive. What I experienced was a grain of salt compared to her and it’s done a number on my soul. She is a freaking hero."
Casefile is not even the kind of podcast that does takes, in fact Casey himself prides on the podcast being the exact opposite of that lol and instead tries to be as objective as possible and only retell the events, that’s it.
That's exactly what I meant by their 'take' lol. Retelling the events and details of the case, as opposed to also reacting to and giving their opinions on them. You're way too caught up in the semantics.
And I don't have a strong opinion either way about whether they should cover the case or not. I was mainly just responding to the assertion that Casefile shouldn't do cases that are well-known.
On the first part of your comment, the issue is that longer sentences are often (but not always) a compensation for a prison system that is not set up for rehabilitation in the first place. Not to mention knowing how to tell if a criminal is truly rehabilitated or not. And for some criminals, prison may be the only place where they achieve some kind of rehabilitation because of its structure and controlled environment. But I feel like most people tend to overrate how 'rehabilitative' the prison environment is in most societies.
In past episodes, there have been perpetrators that were given shorter sentences because of age, the victim survived, or the judges deemed them unlikely to re-offend. And their justifications for the third reason were usually flawed or kind of arbitrary, like the one case in Austria where a serial killer was released early just because of things he wrote while in prison, which he to learned do while there.
Personally, I've only heard of this case through people recommending this case for the podcast, but if there's a podcast I would want to hear their take on an infamous and brutal case, it's this one.
I hear what you're saying, but that is what I was getting at. The fact that the prompts are more gender neutral now shows that they are at least more aware that both genders can be poked fun at in this context. If they had more regular women performers (which is a whole different discussion) we'd probably hear more jokes from the (straight) female perspective.
"I knew I should've stayed home that day..."
"Mr. Perlstein, your Mallow-Blasters are here."
This same account over a month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/ASMRSnark/comments/18cv0vp/comment/ktyuf4i//
This post is just a desperate attempt at self-aggrandizing your beliefs just because somebody said things you don't like about your favorite ASMRtist.
None exists, but it should be something they make note of in the official episodes spreadsheet.
and the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
And what is that 'simplest explanation?'
I don't agree that my post is an invalidation of how he felt.
It kind of is when it just basically repeats the same things you said in your original reply to him (which he already saw and everyone else can still see). Unless he or anyone else was forcing you to believe him, an entire separate post about it was not necessary, and you still haven't given a good explanation as to why you did that.
No to all three because like I said, I was done after I made this post.
Well you wouldn't have spent time analyzing the evidence as you said you did if there wasn't a reason for it. So what is that reason?
For clarification purposes, the problem here is not me making a post at all, but that you consider my post to be an attempt to seek proof beyond doubt?
I consider your post and what you said in it contradictory to your assertion that you acknowledge and respect his feelings about what happened even while not believing his actual claims.
This is part of what you said in this post:
"There are some important things about this situation that I'm sure many people can acknowledge. There are no screenshots in the document showing Cait actively encouraging harmful behavior, or her engaging in harmful behavior herself. It's difficult to believe that there was not enough time to take and show screenshots that actually prove these claims. Especially since the screenshots shown in the document were of interactions on Discord."
"Validating an emotional response does not require believing unsupported claims about somebody else."
And here are parts of your reply to him in the original post:
"Hello. Would you mind providing screenshots of the following:"
"Cait actively encouraging toxic behavior."
"Pretty much the entire conversation that occurred before and after you were muted.*"
"Providing those screenshots should clear up what exactly happened. Until then, people will remain justified in not believing your claims."
In this post, you kept talking about how there are no incriminating screenshots, which is basically no different than when you implied the lack of screenshots and asking for more of them in your original reply to him. And in this post, you say that validating how someone feels does not require believing their claims, yet by virtue of you coming back here after analyzing the evidence further just to repeat much of the same things you said in your original reply IN THE SAME PLACE HE POSTED ABOUT HIS CLAIMS, you're coming across like someone that isn't validating his feelings, and just wants to complain and vent about how your questions and doubts about his claims haven't been answered. So why make an entire post about it, if your analysis didn't change your initial doubts at all? And don't give me that it's for everyone else that has the same doubts. Nobody's being forced to believe him, and your original reply is still there for everyone to see.
Rebecca Schaeffer. The way they juxtapose the stories of the victim and the perp before their inevitable meet up was really well done. Now, there is ONE instance of violence and graphic detail although it's relatively brief, but just fair warning on that.
I made this post partly just to see the ratio of body/sex-related jokes to non-body/sex-related ones compared to the 'only man in a room full of women' post. As somewhat expected, this one is winning by a landslide, which I think says a lot...
Let me put it to you this way - WHY do you need your questions about his accounts and evidence answered (other than you don't believe his claims)? Is it because you want to decide whether or not to continue giving Cait your support and loyalty? Is it because you're worried about Cait's channel being impacted? Or is it because you just want to make a point about incontrovertible evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
If it's the first one, that's your problem. I don't mean to sound brash when I say that, but if you want to be someone that can still acknowledge someone's feelings about what happened to them while not actually believing them, then at some point, you can't keep expecting or demanding them to provide you with those answers (for reasons I explained in my other reply and several times already in my previous replies), you'll have to deal with those questions yourself. Otherwise, coming back here to just write this post to rehash your points from the original post comes across like you don't really want to acknowledge his feelings. As soon as you did your analysis and whatever on the evidence, you should've just left it at that. That was the best way you could've remained skeptical about his claims while still being respectful about his feelings.
If it's the second one, her channel will only suffer because of this if enough of her fans decide to stop supporting her (which is unlikely). But once again, that's not his problem. Her supporters ultimately have the choice to believe him or not, and to continue supporting her or not supporting her. And if somehow her channel does get impacted because enough fans felt swayed by his posts, well then tough luck. As a content creator, she should be smart enough to recognize the risks that could come with depending on fans that voluntarily choose to support her.
If it's the third one, much of the second scenario applies. It would be more important to provide incontrovertible evidence if we were trying her in a court of law because the stakes and the consequences would be higher. But fans don't need to be 'told' that the evidence is enough beyond a reasonable doubt or not before being allowed to break off their support for her.
I didn't say it required her being taken to court per se, I think it's fine and understandable on a personal level that you still have some questions about the accounts and evidence. But I just don't think it's his responsibility to answer your questions by providing you with more evidence if we're not taking her to court. Nor do I think it would necessarily help his case even if he did provide evidence that did convince you, but actually create more questions about his credibility than what you think he lacks right now.
He's not just giving his opinion or personal beliefs about what happened, he's telling us exactly what happened to him, and what he saw. And because you weren't there when these things happened, it's really still mostly on you to decide for yourself whether you choose to believe him or not. And if you don't, well then, you just don't believe him. Whatever questions you still have about the evidence are just things you're gonna have to deal with yourself. I'm sorry if that's not a satisfying answer to hear, but I just don't see why you needed to write a whole post rehashing the same questions you had about his accounts on the original posts when he nor anyone else is forcing you to believe him.
Forensic Files also covered this case
Case 284: Widden Hill Farm
Casefile