He wrote a long blog post going into great detail about how she’s not a real person and the lady in the photos and videos is just a model, with all the work being done by a man behind the scenes. I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help, but I’m sure you can find it if you look.
Why not link to primary evidence? How can someone make an informed decision without seeing it?
It is strange logic that shining a light on something supposedly reprehensible actually helps it. This 'I won't show you the thing I am criticizing but trust my description of it' shouldn't be accepted. It seems like someone won't show what they are talking about is afraid that people may come to a different conclusion then they did.
This is about a pattern I have seen, rather than any one specific thing. People criticizing something without giving a name or a link because it might give it exposure. If someone is criticizing something legitimately, then giving it exposure is precisely what they would want. The 'trust my description but I won't show it to you' should be called out when it happens.
I don’t want to give it any PageRank juice and I don’t want to call any more attention to it than is needed to explain it. This isn’t some controversial political literature, it’s a hurtful personal attack on someone who doesn’t deserve it.
I’m not asking anyone to trust my description. If anyone wants to read it for themselves, they should have little trouble finding it. I’m just not going to help them.
Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?
Per another comment, though, it sounds like you're misremembering things, and that he actually wrote no such thing. I'd really love a link to know what the hell we're all talking about here. Hearsay is notoriously unreliable.
This isn’t some controversial political literature, it’s a hurtful personal attack on someone who doesn’t deserve it.
Yet you do not show it. As I mentioned before It seems like someone won't show what they are talking about is afraid that people may come to a different conclusion then they did.
Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?
I didn't really want it to be about our comments. But this is where you have directed it. You talked about a specific think and didn't want to show it saying 'I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help', this is the logic I was specifically replying to. That is the logic people should reject, the other context has nothing to do with why I replied. Yet you are asking that talking about a generality or pattern I have noticed needs a link. They way you are arguing any statement that I make without a link makes me 'not practicing what I preach'. Your expectations of my post are massively higher than what I was criticizing, which I will repeat was the 'I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help' statement and the logic that comes from it. Your criticism also expected way more from my post than yours. The holding of ridiculous expectations someone with a different opinion to you is another pattern that should be criticized by the way.
But I did have something in mind actually when I mentioned the pattern. It may be slightly embarrassing that I came across this video while using the internet, but I will link to it.
They specifically didn't name the games they were describing used as far as I remember, using the 'I don't want to give them more exposure' line, and maybe not wanting to expose people to them (but hypocritically they can). Surely people can make up their own minds about things. The video also has a tone of voice to sound 'caring' and cute graphics to try and sucker people believe what they say and that they are 'good'. You bet I didn't like it.
I have been completely honest in my previous comment when I mentioned a pattern. I have been completely honest in this comment. You saying 'Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?' was completely unwarranted, I wasn't hiding anything or being dishonest, unlike your allusions.
You didn't want this to be about our comments, yet you replied to my comment to criticize it? That's nonsense, unless you really meant to say "I didn't really want it to be about my comment."
I'm not hiding anything and I'm not being dishonest. The only difference between your comment and mine that I can see, as far as linking to sources, is the motivation behind it. And I don't see why my motivation of not wanting to provide further exposure to an unpleasant personal attack should be so much worse than your motivation of... well, I have no idea.
You didn't want this to be about our comments, yet you replied to my comment to criticize it? That's nonsense, unless you really meant to say "I didn't really want it to be about my comment."
This is more misrepresentation. When I posted the first comment, I didn't want it to be about our comments. The reason I gave the reply was the utter misrepresentation of my comment. Your reply was clearly meant to deceive people. Especially when you said 'Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here?' and then pretty much asking to provide a link for each sentence I said. While I was just warning people about people saying that linking to something helps it. Surely it is just more evidence that people take into consideration.
Also you hyped up the harm that an article could cause, yet you had no trouble trying to discredit me, quite hypocritical really. Are you saying the article could cause harm because you believe it is convincing?
My motivation was very plain and transparent. It was to have have people notice the 'trust my description but I won't show it to you' logic be criticized for the harmful garbage it is.
Anyway if someone misrepresents what I said, I will sometimes reply.
