Your Top Priority is The Emotional Comfort of the Most Power

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Your Top Priority is The Emotional Comfort of the Most Power

Postby admin » Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:31 am

Your Top Priority is The Emotional Comfort of the Most Powerful Elites, Which You Fulfill by Never Criticizing Them. Corporate journalists have license to use their huge platforms to malign, expose and destroy anyone they want. Your moral duty: sit in respectful silence and never object.
by Glenn Greenwald
April 2, 2022

https://www.reddit.com/r/democrats/comments/tx1sfp/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_bidens_poll_numbers/

Original Post:

Image
Posted by u/6amp 1 day ago
can someone explain to me why Bidens poll numbers are so low?

https://thehill.com/news/administration/3256844-democratic-anxiety-grows-over-bidens-dismal-polls/

Democratic anxiety grows over Biden’s dismal polls
BY AMIE PARNES AND MORGAN CHALFANT - 04/04/22 6:00 AM ET


Answer:

He's as telegenic as a squinting scarecrow.
His agenda has been nothing but good for the giants, who gained billions, and a bane to the poor, whose bills are growing like magic beanstalks.
He's been punked by Manchin and Sinema and seems to have no idea how to make deals with these rogue elements.
He's a fool about marijuana legalization.
He's forgotten his promise to help student borrowers, just stringing us along with more extensions.
Merrick Garland is allowing Trump to get away with murdering five Capitol policemen through stochastic terrorism.
Pretty much losin' the left, right and center there, huh?

Answerer Banned:

Image

r/democrats You've been permanently banned from participating in r/democrats

[–]subreddit message via /r/democrats[M] sent 1 day ago

You have been permanently banned from participating in r/democrats. You can still view and subscribe to r/democrats, but you won't be able to post or comment.

Note from the moderators:

You have been banned for violating the rules of our subreddit.

Here's an sample of your comment:

He's as telegenic as a squinting scarecrow.
His agenda has been nothing but good for the giants, who gained billions, and a bane to the poor, whose bills are growing like magic beanstalks.
He's been punked by Manchin and Sinema and seems to have no idea how to make deals with these rogue elements.
He's a fool about marijuana legalization.
He's forgotten his promise to help student borrowers, just stringing us along with more extensions.
Merrick Garland is allowing Trump to get away with murdering five Capitol policemen through stochastic terrorism.
Pretty much losin' the left, right and center there, huh?


If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team for r/democrats by replying to this message.

Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole.


Image
The front-page reporter, Taylor Lorenz, recently of The New York Times and now The Washington Post, uses the skills she learned growing up in Old Greenwich, Connecticut and while being educated at Greenwich High School and absolutely lovely boarding schools in the Swiss Alps to express, on NBC News’ Meet the Press Daily, the trauma and victimization she endures from critics of her journalism: journalism which she has often weaponized to destroy the lives of many powerless people including teenagers, on April 1, 2022 (credit: MSNBC)

When Hillary Clinton's divine entitlement to the U.S. presidency began to look imperiled in 2016 — first due to the irreverent and unkempt (but surprisingly formidable) Democratic Party primary challenge from Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist Senator from Vermont — her campaign and its media allies invented and unveiled a deeply moving morality tale. A faceless horde of unnamed, uncredentialed, unmannered, violent, abusive and deeply misogynistic online Sanders supporters — dubbed with the gender-emphasizing name "Bernie Bros” even though many were women — were berating, insulting and brutalizing Hillary, her top campaign surrogates (U.S. Senators, former cabinet members, corporate executives), and especially pro-Hillary corporate journalists with a vast artillery of traumatizing words and violent tweets.

This storyline — and especially the way it cleverly inverted the David v. Goliath framework of the 2016 campaign so that it was now Hillary and her band of monied and Ivy-League-educated political and media elites who were the real victims — was irresistible to Harvard-and-Yale-trained journalists at NBC, CNN, The New York Times and Washington Post op-ed pages who really believe they are the truly marginalized peoples. This narrative scheme enabled them — the most powerful and influential media and political elites in the world, with access to the most potent platforms and megaphones — to somehow credibly lay claim to that most valued of all currencies in American political life: victimhood.

With this power matrix in place, what mattered was no longer the pain and anger of people whose towns had their industries stripped by the Clintons’ NAFTA robbery, or who worked at low-wage jobs with no benefits due to the 2008 financial crisis caused by Clintonite finance geniuses, or who were drowning in student debt with no job prospects after that crisis, or who suffered from PTSD, drug and alcohol addiction and shabby to no health care after fighting in the Clintons’ wars. Now, such ordinary people were not the victims but the perpetrators. Their anger toward elites was not valid or righteous but dangerous, abusive and toxic. The real victims were multi-millionaire hosts of MSNBC programs and U.S. Senators and New York Times columnists who were abused and brutalized by those people's angry tweets for the crime of supporting a pioneer and avatar for marginalized people: the Wellesley-and-Yale-Law-graduate, former First Lady, Senator from New York, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Image
The Bernie Pros are out in full force harassing female reporters
Image
Bernie Bros are Loud, Proud, and Toxic to Sanders' Campaign
The Washington Post, June 7, 2016; The Daily Beast, Jan. 20, 2020.

The genius of the Bernie Bro rhetorical scheme was two-fold. First, it prioritized and centered elite discomfort over the far more important and real anger and deprivation of ordinary people. Secondly, and even better from the perspective of elite interests, it implicitly imposed a ban on any meaningful critiques of powerful political and media elites by insisting that the online abuse and resultant trauma they endured was the fault of those who criticized them. According to this elite-protecting script, this crisis of online abuse and trauma did not materialize out of nowhere. It was triggered by, and was the fault of, anyone who voiced criticism of those elites. By speaking ill of these media and political figures, such critics were "targeting” them and signaling that they should be attacked.

Thus, the only way to be a responsible and respectful member of society was to refrain from criticizing Hillary and her media allies. As I wrote in January, 2016 when the "Bernie Bro” manipulation was first unleashed as the Democratic primary voting cycle began:

The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace. It’s intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are “bros”); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate)….

But truth doesn’t matter here — at all. Instead, the goal is to inherently delegitimize all critics of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism, thus distracting attention away from Clinton’s policy views, funding, and political history and directing it toward the online behavior of anonymous, random, isolated people on the internet claiming to be Sanders supporters. It’s an effective weapon when wielded by Clinton operatives.


Thanks in part to Sanders himself — who repeatedly gave fuel to this storyline by apologizing for his supporters’ supposedly unique misconduct and chiding them for bad behavior, rather than mocking the inherently moronic idea that Sanders supporters were somehow uniquely abusive in their online conduct — this spectacle was a smashing success. Thereafter, it was thus repurposed against any and all movements dedicated to challenging establishment power. Each time, the real victims — the ones who merited your sympathy, compassion and protection — were somehow the very political and media elites who wield the greatest power and enjoy the deepest wealth and privilege.

Thus was the exact same narrative used to delegitimize anti-establishment critics on both the left and right: it was the go-to attack by Oxford-and-Cambridge-educated journalists and Blairite Labour MPs against online supporters of interloper Jeremy Corbyn, and was then deployed in all realms against supporters of Donald Trump, all of whom were depicted as menacing threats to the most sacred, successful and manicured elites of U.S. and British high society.

Image
Cooper urges Corbyn to crack down on sexist trolling within Labour. Former leadership contender expected to say increasing levels of online abuse directed at women discourages them from joining party
The Guardian, Sep. 26, 2015


During Sanders’ second campaign run in 2020, the abuse-victim role of Hillary Clinton was played by her understudy Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School. When Warren's corpse of a campaign could no longer be propped up by millions of dollars in dark money from Silicon Valley oligarch Karla Jurvetson, the Massachusetts Senator dropped out and was immediately interviewed by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow — of Stanford University and the Rhodes Scholar program of Oxford — for eight straight minutes about the trauma and abuse Warren suffered at the hands of unnamed Sanders supporters, whose grave crimes were the use of a snake emoji and other online insults to brutalize Warren and her band of Ivy-League East Coast supporters. The DNC organ Vox — through its writer Zack Beauchamp of the Georgetown Day School, Brown University and the London School of Economics — promptly sermonized that continued irreverence and a lack of decorum on the part of the nation's unwashed to our country's most prestigious political and media elites will "backfire” against the hordes of online abusers and those who lead them:

Image
Elizabeth Warren's exit interview is a warning for the dirtbag left: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders supporters, and how online meanness backfires.
Vox, Zack Beauchamp, Mar. 6, 2020.


We have now endured almost a full decade of elites from the most prestigious schools, who work inside the most powerful media corporations, lecturing everyone that they are in fact the real victims, and that the most pressing national crisis is the ways they are criticized.

Even when one marvels, as one must, at all these impressive displays of cynical elite emotional manipulation and self-victimization, there is absolutely nobody who exploits it better than Taylor Lorenz. Raised in Old Greenwich, Connecticut, educated at Greenwich High School and lovely private boarding schools in the Swiss Alps, then graduating from the leafy private liberal arts Hobart and William Smith Colleges in bucolic upstate New York, Lorenz developed an intense and unyielding obsession with TikTok teenagers and their TikTok houses. This interest in the lives of online teenage culture was cultivated as she approached middle age, and she parlayed this unique interest into stints as a star front-page reporter with the two most powerful newspapers in the U.S.: The New York Times, which she quit two months ago, and The Washington Post, where she is now a star columnist.

It is almost impossible to envision a single individual in whom power, privilege and elite prerogative reside more abundantly than Taylor Lorenz. Using the metrics of elite liberal culture, the word “privilege” was practically invented for her: a rich straight white woman from a wealthy family raised in Greenwich, Connecticut and educated in actual Swiss boarding schools who now writes about people's lives, often casually destroying those lives, on the front pages of the most powerful East Coast newspapers on the planet. And yet, in the eyes of her fellow media and political elites, there is virtually no person more victimized, more deserving of your sympathy and attention, more vulnerable, marginalized and abused than she.

That is because — like Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren and Labour MPs and columnists from The Independent and The Guardian and The New York Times who pioneered these paths of elite victimhood before her — Taylor Lorenz must sometimes hear criticisms of her work and her views. Virtually alone among journalists — who are famously universally beloved and never subjected to any form of real abuse: as Julian Assange will be happy to tell you if you can visit him in his high-security prison cell in the UK, or as these Sri Lankan journalists will explain from their hospital beds after being physically brutalized by the police for covering an anti-government protest on Thursday — Lorenz hears criticisms of her work, sometimes in the form of very angry and even profane or threatening tweets from anonymous people online. This not only means that she deserves your sympathy and concern but, more importantly, that you should heap scorn and recrimination on those who criticize her work because they are responsible for the trauma she endures. Most of all, you must never criticize her publicly for fear of what you might unleash against her.

In other words, Lorenz — like all employees of large media corporations or powerful establishment politicians in Washington and London — is and always should be completely free to continue to publish articles or social media posts that destroy the reputations of powerless people, often with outright lies. But you must never criticize her because she suffers from PTSD and other trauma as a result of the mean tweets that are unleashed by her critics. If you believe that is some sort of straw man exaggeration of what political and media elites are trying to do — create a shield of immunity around them while they retain the right to target, attack, insult, malign and destroy anyone they want — then it means you did not see the Emmy-worthy performances of Lorenz and various NBC News personalities on Friday afternoon during their five-minute segment on Chuck Todd's Meet the Press Daily designed to fortify this warped, inverted standard of morality and power.

The NBC segment was ostensibly designed to "cover” a “study” from January published by the Brookings Institutions and conducted by "NYU’s Center for Social Media and Politics and the International Women’s Media Foundation.” This study purported to forensically analyze — and I am not joking — the increase in criticisms of Taylor Lorenz as the result of a tweet I posted criticizing her (re-cast in elite parlance as “attacking” and "targeting” her), as well as a television segment that aired on Tucker Carlson's Fox program that also criticized the NYT reporter. You will never guess what the study revealed: namely, our criticism of her was responsible for a torrent of violent abuse, misogynistic rage, and traumatizing brutality against the corporate journalist:

Our analysis used large-scale quantitative data to assess how the public conversation surrounding these journalists changed in the aftermath of being targeted by prominent media personalities. The research findings showed sharp increases in harmful speech after the journalists were targeted by Carlson and Greenwald….After Carlson targeted Lorenz in a segment on his Fox News show, we found that one in two tweets mentioning Lorenz contained either toxic or insulting language….In Figure 2, we plot the 24-hour moving average of tweets before and after Greenwald targeted Lorenz. The figure shows that after Greenwald’s attack, the likelihood that tweets mentioning Lorenz would contain harmful speech increased by 144%, peaking on Aug. 15, 2021, two days after he targeted Lorenz.


Now, permit me to pause to acknowledge an important concession. The three academic scholars who are the authors of this groundbreaking study on online abuse of powerful elites are absolute experts in marginalization, victimhood and abuse. They have the lived experience of it. Indeed, nobody has suffered worse deprivations than they, so one should be extremely deferential in treating their pronouncements with the respect they deserve. Zeve Sanderson is a graduate of Brown University and the Masters’ Program of New York University and is now the Founding Executive Director at the NYU Center for Social Media and Politics. The other two have degrees from New York University and George Washington University and are also now employed studying “online extremism” at NYU, one of the country's most expensive private universities residing in the heart of Manhattan. So they clearly know marginalization and victimhood when they see it.

The on-screen title of the NBC segment was “1 in 3 Women Under 35 Experience Online Attacks.” This was an extremely odd title since they interviewed two journalists who recounted their online trauma, neither of whom fall into that category. Though Lorenz is often infantilized by her media supporters as some teenager or very young adult — a natural assumption, I suppose, given her obsession with teenaged TikTok houses and other adolescent online paraphernalia — in fact her age is expressed at anywhere in the range from 36 to 43 years old depending on her mood of the day.

The other featured journalist alongside her was Kate Sosin, who does not identify as a woman at all but rather “a proud trans person” who uses the pronouns “they/them"; by referring to Sosin repeatedly as a woman and using the pronouns “she” and “her” to reference their work, NBC repeatedly misgendered the journalist. Anyway, one would think, or at least hope, that if NBC is going to broadcast a report on “women under the age of 35 [who] have experienced harassment online,” they could find journalists who actually fall into that group and not misgender a journalist who is already complaining about abuse and trauma.

The NBC segment has to be watched in its entirety to be believed. Though the emotional performances are moving and spectacular — no denying that — it is important not to let your tears drown out the actual point they are making. It is a quite sinister and insidious lesson they are preaching. When powerful media elites receive mean and abusive tweets from anonymous and random people on Twitter, it is not the fault of those sending those tweets but rather the fault of anyone criticizing their work and their journalism. The only moral conclusion is clear: one should refrain from criticizing employees of media corporations lest one be responsible for unleashing traumatizing abuse at them. Marvel at this performative elite victimhood by all the actors involved:



I knew this segment was coming. That was because a producer with NBC News, Aaron Franco, emailed me on Wednesday to tell me it was coming and to ask if I had any comment to include. I did, and you can read our exchange here:

Image
Franco, Aaron (NBCUniversal) <Aaron,
to GlennGreenwald@gmail.com
Hi Glenn,
This is Aaron with NBC News and MSNBC.
We're covering a recent study that found a segment on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" and a Tweet sent by you resulted in "sharp increases in harmful speech" directed toward one journalist.
Here is a link to the study and the relevant language in the summary:

"NYU's Center for Social Media and Politics and the International Women's Media Foundation -- collected data on three case studies: Carlson's targeting of Taylor Lorenz above, the journalist Glenn Greenwald's targeting of Lorenz on Twitter, and Carlson's targeting of Virginia Hefferman in a separate segment on Fox News.
Our Analysis used large-scale quantitative data to assess how the public conversation surrounding these journalists changed in the aftermath of being targeted by prominent media personalities. The research findings showed sharp increases in harmful speech after the journalists were targeted by Carlson and Greenwald."


Reaching out to see if you have any statement in response. Our deadline for this is 5pmET today.
Thanks,
Aaron Franco
Image
Glenn Greenwald
to Aaron
Every day, employees of large media corporations such as NBC post insults and attacks which "target" me and my journalism and me personally, often resulting in vile and bigoted attacks against me based on homophobia, anti-semitism, and the nature of my inter-racial marriage and family. But I don't whine about it or try to claim that nobody can criticize me or my work because I understand that those who seek out a large and influential journalistic platform that affects people's lives are fair game for criticisms, and that my critics aren't responsible for the bigoted and hateful bile I receive daily as a result of the hatred they stimulate.
Perhaps influential employees of the largest media outlets such as Taylor Lorenz will one day come to a similar realization: that being a front-page reporter for the largest and most influential news outlets makes you fair game for critique. Men such as yourself who try to impose a special shield that rules off-limits from criticism certain journalists -- those of us who are LGBT, women, religious minorities or other members of marginalized groups -- may think you're doing something noble, but you're not. You're actually imposing and upholding a highly regressive framework from the 1950s that maintains that only straight, white men are strong and important enough to be criticized, whereas women, LGBT and others are too fragile and weak to have their work criticized. As a member of various marginalized groups, I don't want or accept some special immunity shield against being criticized, and no journalist with any dignity or worth should want that either.
Glenn Greenwald

Email exchange with NBC News producer Aaron Franco, Mar. 30, 2022.


It cannot be overstated how often and casually corporate media employees like this destroy people's lives. They confront old women on their Florida front lawn for having promoted a pro-Trump event on Facebook that was supposedly organized by Russians. They threaten to expose their critics unless they promise to cease voicing critiques. They dox workers or the crime of producing videos that mock the richest and most powerful politicians in the country such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

And Lorenz has left behind a long list of victims — from teenagers whose old tweets and family history she dug up and published to a businesswoman whose life she destroyed to journalists and others about whom she maliciously lied. She was one of the media leaders mocking and shaming a college student for having published an op-ed in The New York Times on how intolerance for dissent from liberal pieties on college campuses has made her afraid to speak out. She's the vintage mean girl. So malignant and deceitful and destructive are Lorenz's shoddy journalistic methods that it took more than an hour for this investigative reporter to document in this great YouTube video all the lies and destruction Lorenz has left in her wake.



Yet look at what NBC just did. While flamboyantly displaying his newly minted credential as a Great Male Ally, Meet the Press host Chuck Todd ended the segment with this sermon: “folks who live online know exactly what they're doing when they target a journalist.” Do Todd and his fellow weeping actors not realize that they just spent five minutes doing exactly that: targeting journalists by blaming us for the trauma and suicidal ideation of the weeping Washington Post columnist? Why is it permissible for employees of NBC and The Washington Post and the rest to constantly use their platform to malign and demonize journalists, but we cannot criticize them without being accused of unleashing misogynistic violence?

And what about all of Lorenz's victims? Why do their trauma and the wreckage of their lives from her reports not matter? The answer is obvious. What elites have succeeded in training people to believe is that, somehow, what matters most is the emotional comfort of the society's most powerful and influential political and media figures. They have the unfettered right to demean and denounce and vilify whomever they want, no matter how powerless, but you cannot speak up or object when they do just that.

Image
Twitter avatar for @littlemissjacob
Ariadna Jacob
@littlemissjacob
I don’t want to share the ugly crying I did after my 15+ year career was destroyed by Taylor Lorenz. I want to move on. I also can’t help my visceral reaction to her crocodile tears. I am appalled.
Jon Levine @LevineJonathan

NEW: Taylor Lorenz says she has "severe PTSD" from being a journalist and breaks down in MSNBC interview https://t.co/G9FymoSdH8
April 1st 2022

2,026 Retweets15,903 Likes
Twitter avatar for @webdevMason
Mason
@webdevMason
@ggreenwald Taylor Lorenz went after me on-and-off for weeks over my activity on Clubhouse, screencapping my invites and rooms and insinuating to her following that I was some sort of racist nutcase. The only woman she's ever given a flying fuck about is herself.
March 9th 2021

323 Retweets2,654 Likes


All of this is psychological training to not only accept but be grateful for the unique privileges demanded by the most powerful people in society. As the former-Obama-campaign-operative-turned-incisive-social-commentator Shant Mesrobian put it: “The point of this is to silence certain modes of political speech by characterizing it as harassment and deploying groups of supposedly marginalized and oppressed people who aren't at all marginalized or oppressed but are in fact elite enforcers of a dominant political regime.”

I can guarantee you that there is no form of online abuse that Lorenz has received that I have not received. That is true of most journalists. In case anyone doubts that, you can read a nice sampling below of three emails I received after Lorenz and various NBC on-air personalities “targeted” me (meaning: criticized me). In 2020, The New York Times detailed the very serious, specific and pervasive death threats aimed at me as the result of the investigative exposés I published in Brazil and the work of my husband in the Brazilian Congress; the death threats were so continuous and credible that we were required to install teams of armed guards at our home and to never leave the house without their accompaniment. And that's to say nothing of the actual forms of real persecution my journalism has provoked, not from random liberal Twitter users — who every day call me a traitor, a Kremlin agent, a pedophile and everything else — but from the most powerful governments on earth.

Image

sniper75@secmail.pro
to me
Listen Greenwald:
You are flying too close to the sun bicha. You get 1 warning. Stop the path you are going on. If you do you will be fine. If you do not you will have that cock you like to have other men suck on cut off. We know where you live and your movements are ours. The cock will get cut or burned off, and your boyfriend will be shot up his faggot ass until smoke is coming out of his mouth. UNDERSTAND IT?
You are a filthy animal who should never be given birth to because you are deviant and defected. You started taking it up your ass when you were a little boy and now want others to suffer? Maybe you are a child fucker. Maybe no. But it makes not difference because our people will cut your nuts off like grapes and stuff them in boyfriends mouth until he chokes to his death. Your fat face looks like it always has his nuts in your cheekis.
1. you stop your pursuit
2. you can live
3. you dont and 4. you die crying queer motherfucker
monte de merda discrace to humanity and your parents
Take the warning and be smart.

Concerned
snipe75@secmail.pro
to me
Glen I am concerned about your safety.
There is something me and my friends are worried about and that is that you dont get hurt. Physical hurt is a concern of ours but before that there is a mental hurt. Like if your traitor homosexual faggot boyfriend gets snatched up and tied up gagged with a hood over his head, taken to a private house and have his balls jolted with car battery. That will be hurtful to you to watch on the HD video as this little dog cries for his mommy and you watch.
The other hurt will b if you are held down and your tongue is cut off, your fingers are smashed, your dick is ripped off and shoved into your bleeding mouth.
your familia must be disuted the whole life that what you turn out to be an old man with your ass used like a pussy from another man. We can comfort them...
Stop what you are doing homo and go home.

Poor little pedo bitch
GT <forcedtocreatethisacct817@gmail.com Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:17 PM
to GlennGreenwald
Did I make you cry, cunt? Good. Hey, you whine about cancel culture then block folks, I mean I know you're a piece of shit shill, but at least be consistent, you fucktard little bitch. I wish Bolsonaro had slit your throat on National TV, personally.

Sample emails received after being “attacked” by Taylor Lorenz and her colleagues in the corporate press


I could fill a book with those. I do not need lectures from anyone on online bigoted abuse. If I were going to invoke the same standard which NBC and Lorenz and their corporate media allies want to impose on everyone else, I would demand that they accept responsibility for this torrent of abuse, threats, bigoted hatred, etc. that I receive every day for doing my job as a journalist. I could weep on camera about what Taylor Lorenz has done to me — including publicly stating that I am not a “legitimate journalist”: the exact claims used by the U.S. and Brazilian governments to justify my prosecution for my reporting. That happened to be the tweet of hers that provoked my response which then became the subject of a "study” of online abuse by Brookings, NYU and NBC News.

Indeed, if I were using their manipulative, self-victimizing jargon, I would insist that Chuck Todd committed a horrible moral crime by devoting five minutes of some of the most influential airtime on television to depicting an LGBT Jewish journalist with an inter-racial marriage and family of having brutalized a woman. I would hold up every mean tweet and email I've received over the last twenty-four hours as proof of the abuse unleashed by this white, straight, multi-millionaire male host of a major news corporation.

But since I am a functioning adult, and realize that I have purposely sought out a public platform that can affect and influence the society around me and people's lives, I recognize that I am fair game for criticism, even harsh criticism, and have no desire to shield myself from criticism by exploiting my emotions from reading and hearing things like that. At some point, the richest and most powerful employees of media corporations should come to the same realization.

In part, all of this comes from the fact that most corporate journalists and their junior varsity cousins — the coddled Brooklyn-based digital media culture — never meaningfully challenge anyone in real power or thus provoke their anger. They have never experienced and will never confront actual journalistic persecution such as threats of imprisonment, actual criminal indictments for one's reporting, officially-sanctioned threats of violence, or violence itself. What stories has Chuck Todd or Taylor Lorenz ever broken to warrant the attention of any power center, let alone their sustained hatred? At most, Lorenz has probably angered several teenagers on TikTok while Chuck Todd does not even do that. Thus, the worst they have ever faced for their trivial, power-serving gossip masquerading as “reporting” are mean tweets, so of course they want to elevate those as the gravest moral crime, as the height of trauma. Only then can they center themselves and feel important.

But beyond the infantile psychological neediness on display, most of this is about something much more serious and substantive: namely, preserving and fortifying the caste system that has placed them at the top. Ever since they were rewarded with admission into elite universities or plumb prestigious jobs at the nation's most influential media corporations, they really have been told, and have come to believe, that they are entitled to their superior and elite status. They are the winners, the rulers, the opinion-makers. And that of course means that they have the right — the natural right — to say anything about you, to malign or smear you in any way they want, while you must not object in any way, and certainly not in any way that is irreverent or disrespectful, because doing so constitutes “harassment” and abuse and bullying of them.

Somehow, the bullies have converted themselves into the bullied. Your deepest concern and compassion must be directed to the richest, most powerful and most privileged members of society.

The only valid response to all of this is derision and contempt. I don't mean derision for Lorenz's weeping. It is entirely possible that, among powerful media elites, she has a unique inability to endure public criticism. It is of course likely that her suffering is real. What deserves contempt and scorn — the deepest and most visceral rejection — is the accompanying framework elites are attempting to erect on the back of her performative emotional instability. It is the claim that political and media elites can never be publicly criticized for how they wield their immense and often destructive power because such criticism may subject them to mean tweets. Ignore that, mock it, spew contempt at it and, most importantly of all: continue to criticize powerful elites with gusto and freedom.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Your Top Priority is The Emotional Comfort of the Most P

Postby admin » Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:05 am

Part 1 of 2



Transcript

0:00
i'm here in new york city the concrete jungle home of literary lions wall street bears
0:08
and reptilian reporters but today our focus is on one particular
0:15
viper who sits at the highest steps of journalism
0:21
that is the new york times building
0:26
and inside is a reporter who will suffocate your career like silent halon
0:31
gas they are a cobra of carnage they are the worst reporter working in
0:36
media and i think it's time someone spoke out on their lies
0:42
let's begin [Music] that journalist is taylor lorenz for
0:49
those not familiar she is a tech reporter for the new york times that is frequently featured on the front page
0:55
and read by millions of people who trust her opinion on millennials and gen z but should they
1:03
because taylor has quickly become one of the most toxic deceptful reporters working in american
1:09
journalism and it's time someone blew the lid off this on youtube she has a pattern of bullying
1:15
deception targeted intimidation and lies and for youtube who's watching this
1:21
video very carefully this is not creator intimidation this is legitimate professional criticism
1:27
by a peer here's me doing a story with ali watkins so this is allie watkins a reporter for
1:32
buzzfeed news and i first became interested in this story now the new york times here's me doing a
1:38
story with charlie roselle so once everything healed i decided that i needed to start now at the new york times here's me
1:44
doing an investigative piece on academic fraud with yahoo news this will be a
1:50
professional video look this is brooks brothers here in new york we try to elevate our
1:56
discourse so today we're going to document how taylor attacks women how in my opinion she manipulates
2:01
teenagers with their power imbalance and what makes your reporting so toxic to the youtube community that it's
2:06
time creators influencers and youtube stop taking her press seriously see
2:11
taylor lorenz's reporting is like a fractal in isolation it appears chaotic and
2:17
random but the closer we look in this video the more a recurring pattern will reveal
2:23
itself a pattern that shows this reporter is a clout chaser
2:29
and a liar
2:35
in order to establish this reporter chase's clout we must first use one of mrs lorenz's
2:40
own tricks and go back in time a few weeks ago taylor lorenz put out a fishing line for
2:46
any dirt on mr beast she tweeted from her account of a quarter million followers
2:51
looking to speak to some of the world's biggest mr beast fans people who know everything about his content and have followed his every move
2:57
is that you and i know not everybody spends their life on youtube so for people with real jobs mr beast is one of the most family
3:03
friendly creators on youtube his real name is jimmy he's a young guy who lives in north carolina and
3:09
is known for giving away money to working class and service workers he famously gave away lots of money to
3:15
delivery drivers
3:21
that's all right that's right since you downloaded it it's a good tip appreciate it but as a person
3:28
with a media trained eye i can tell you this tweet is no friendly fishing expedition she's like captain ahab
3:35
aiming to harpoon mr beast like a giant viral whale which if she's a normal reporter
3:41
fine but this reporter is more like a soviet scientist who starts with the conclusion she wants
3:47
and then searches backwards for any evidence she can use to fit that conclusion
3:53
even if it doesn't quite want to fit and indeed i was correct my power is a prediction accurate
4:00
because while i was working on this video taylor published this hit piece on mr beast
4:05
with all the accuracy of soviet lyshinkal farming the story is roughly about jimmy's
4:11
idolization of elon musk but also how jimmy has a toxic work environment and allegedly degrades some of his employees
4:19
at least according to taylor and her subject matt turner and nate anderson now all stories are like houses each
4:25
narrative has a set of evidence that act as load-bearing walls that support the rest
4:30
of the story but taylor is the cheapest contractor on planet earth the evidence her
4:37
load-bearing walls well her main subject nat turner has a history of contradicting himself writing on twitter
4:44
it was the most mentally degrading time of my life and saying in taylor's article mr beast used to degrade him every day and leave him in tears
4:50
and then makes a video praising mr beast if you if you have the opportunity to get this job that i had
4:56
um totally take it it's a lot of fun it's basically just like a friendship and going to work was a blast each and
5:02
every day mr beast i love you bro magically that video did not make it
5:09
into her article her second load-bearing wall for this article is mr b's history of problematic slurs
5:14
or as she writes his early videos and posts were criticized for their use of slurs and offensive jokes
5:20
the person who criticized mr beast for his slurs and offensive jokes
5:25
was taylor lorenz i know this because this is not the first time taylor has workshopped a hit piece on mr
5:32
beast she's been trying to nail him for years it's 2018 and mr beast is searing to the top of youtube like a spacex rocket
5:39
taylor publishes this article mr beast has a history of homophobic comments extraordinary headline you may have even
5:46
seen it judge mr beast for it but if we peer past the headline her entire article is held up by
5:53
three tweets three tweets are her evidence for his history
5:58
of homophobic comments and the tweets are i will read the examples in 2015 he tweeted windows is gay
6:06
i guess in regards to his computer in 2016 he tweeted i don't have a printer
6:13
and in 2017 he tweeted stfu that's it it's almost like this reporter
6:20
wanted a provocative story on a big youtuber like here's her fishing line on jake paul
6:26
but all she could find were three tweets from his teenage years
6:31
so made a story around that rather than let go and acknowledging there's no story and mr beast is not a homophobe
6:37
she wove those three tweets together like she's joseph making a dream coach call me generous but three tweets is not a panel
6:44
it's nothing except for taylor the first thing we should know about this reporter it's one of her reporting tactics
6:50
to mine newly famous people's twitter accounts searching for anything negative they've ever written
6:55
i call it the twitter trap the twitter trap the act of rifling through years of a
7:01
person's tweets to assign negative meaning to someone's character select tweets are used to establish a pattern while omitting context or time
7:08
elapsed between them can usually be done against anyone a common tool of low brow journalism
7:13
scientific term cherry picking or p hacking taylor knows the twitter trap well it's why she
7:19
auto deletes all of her tweets every 90 days she deletes them all and has for years this new york times
7:25
reporter is too cowardly to stand by anything she tweets but she has no problem
7:31
mining a decade's worth of other people's tweets and assigning meaning to them that helps her make a viral story and if
7:37
the article she writes isn't enough to sync them the first time so circle around and try it again a second time even that
7:44
requires citing a subject who contradicts himself mr beast i love you bro in her own flimsy prior
7:52
historic work windows is gay now taylor will say because i'm no fool that her reporting is made up of 11
7:58
people quick edit in for evidence i know taylor will argue this because
8:04
i have all of her discord messages told you had receipts these particular tale of discord
8:09
messages came right after youtuber philip defranco had made a video also pointing out matt turner's
8:14
video praising mr beast and wondering aloud if taylor was being entirely honest in her story but also now we're seeing a lot of
8:21
pushback on social media against the claims in the times article that's because of a now deleted video from turner who of course is one of the
8:27
main accusers in this article taylor was not happy with philip defranco and started writing on discord
8:32
she writes i spoke to 11 former employees some very senior and close with mr beast and people who worked with him so this
8:39
is not like one person but taylor doesn't state whether those 11 former employees agree
8:44
with the assertions in her article and what turner her main subject says speaking of turner turner posted that
8:51
nice video about mr beast basically under duress it's something i interviewed him about and talked to him
8:56
about at length phil would know that if he did research or simply even ask me so taylor was aware that turner had made a
9:03
positive video praising mr beast interviewed him spoke to him at length about it and then chose to omit that
9:09
fact in her article and when it is pointed out that turner her main subject has a video contradicting himself praising mr beast
9:16
she argues that well he made it under duress even though i admitted the fact that i didn't include the video nor the fact that he
9:22
allegedly did it under duress with no evidence cited for that we would all know this including philip
9:27
philip defranco if we had simply had the presence of mind to reach out to this new york times reporter directly to
9:34
ask her for the full context of the story because she left out half of it now
9:39
i won't read too much more of this i think people have a right to trash talk on discord but i will include a few quotes philip
9:46
defranco if you're wondering how taylor talks about you behind your back she writes this is gross of phil and
9:52
shows how these big rich creators don't want any accountability she's referring to the video you made it further emphasizes how these big creators have
9:59
never and will never hold their peers accountable i guess the case doesn't factor into her
10:06
opinion many of these big youtubers also boosted dobrik for years and jake paul even before that
10:11
it's really frustrating and maddening coming from philip defranco who postures as a journalist and even
10:17
takes journalism grants for his channel okay i'm in a twitter world with phillydeep now lol
10:23
i hope you guys give phil a piece of your mind it's super gross to see him act like this and push right wing anti-mainstream media
10:30
rhetoric well phil defranco your actions are gross you're pushing anti-right-wing mainstream media rhetoric
10:35
and she'd like her fans to give you a piece of their mind now i realize
10:40
you two philip defranco and taylor made nice in the dms i know this because i had the discord
10:46
messages but i thought it might be fascinating phil franco or philip defranco's audience or this
10:53
audience to understand how taylor talks about people behind their back also interesting to note taylor
10:58
employs the tactic of seeking her fans on someone when they say something she dislikes a tactic that is widely viewed as gross
11:05
and harassment when done by influencers in the youtube community i won't air anymore discord messages
11:12
that's enough of this i tell you this mr b story because it sets the tenor of her reporting
11:17
negative and manipulative it establishes this new york times reporter what will seek to find a pattern where none exists
11:23
will assume the most negative intent from an ambiguous situation windows is gay and runs stories where her main
11:29
subject contradicts her own thesis mr beast i love you bro but most importantly she
11:36
will disregard the journalism principle minimizing harm taylor lorenz doesn't
11:41
care whom she harms on her quest for virality and we're just getting started
11:51
the same year mr beast was labeled a homophobe two entrepreneurial women jackie and claudia osri were growing the
11:58
instagram account girl with no job it was their livelihood and if you're a
12:03
female millennial you may even be wondering oh yeah what did happen to girl with no job
12:11
taylor lorenz is what happened to girl with no job taylor lorenz boxed for views
12:17
for some reason taylor lorenz's clown radar locked on to jackie and claudia oshery
12:24
i'm not sure why and neither is claudia perhaps it has something to do with them being young successful entrepreneurial women
12:31
taylor seems to have a pattern of attacking them but more on that later like mr beast this reporter saw an
12:38
opportunity to cash in on girl with no jobs virality she began digging into the private lives of these young girls it's
12:44
so much easier when your victims i mean subjects are young am i right
12:49
did she find claudia or jackie breaking the law no did you find claudia or jackie doing
12:55
anything morally wrong no however as usual this reporter did discover some mean tweets they wrote as
13:01
teenagers taylor again using the twitter trap despite deleting her own tweets
13:08
but even more juicy she learned the name of claudia and jackie's mom pamela
13:14
geller and pamela giller was a trim supporter and an islamophobe taylor found out who
13:19
claudia's mom was and then used claudia's mom's name and history as a weapon against her to build a
13:25
negative viral story around her and that story was to expose boxed their mother-daughter
13:31
relationship to the entire world publishing the article instagram stars hiding their famous
13:38
muslim-hating mom pamela geller the story immediately broke waves the size of the san andreas
13:43
fault it's a scoop yes but one we should all feel gross about because taylor
13:48
publicly boxing claudia's mom forces a situation where the daughters must respond by one
13:54
either publicly disowning their mom in order to save their instagram account and bran
13:59
or two choose not to publicly disown their own mom but create the perception that they now
14:05
tacitly approve of their mom's kooky beliefs taylor knows this and sticks the metaphorical knife in
14:11
them writing quote none of the girls have spoken out or denounced their mother's extremist views
14:17
in fact the daughters had gone to great lengths to conceal their connection to their mother family photos including their mother had
14:23
been stripped from their instagrams like the mr beast article this story reads like the reporter wanted a
14:28
negative story on claudia and then sought out anything they could use as evidence to push her in a bad
14:34
light in this case her mom a story exposing the sins of someone's parents
14:39
but not them telegraphs a desire for clicks and hurt for these women and
14:45
this article hurt claudia badly verizon media canceled her show her agent dropped her her management
14:52
dropped her partnerships dropped her her career was effectively over but worse this reporter's story
14:57
possibly recklessly put claudia and her sisters in danger six months prior
15:03
to taylor publicly exposing claudia and jackie as pamela geller's kids the fbi
15:08
had caught an auris porter plotting to murder pamela geller
15:13
someone was actively trying to kill a person was actively trying to murder
15:18
pamela giller when taylor publicly went oh hey by the way those are her kids to the
15:24
world perhaps the daughters as public figures had a legitimate safety reason
15:29
for hiding their relationship with their mom from the public beyond just their brand deals they
15:36
didn't want to get killed so taylor went after mr beast for a few problematic tweets and went after claudia and jackie for a
15:42
problematic mother which is funny because taylor knows all about problematic takes
15:52
in 2017 taylor was at the charlottesville rally and reported that the hate-filled driver
15:58
who mowed into a group of people and murdered a person did it essentially according to her on
16:04
accident tweeting after she spoke to the police quote anyway several police officers here at the station think the
16:10
guy running people down wasn't malicious they said the driver was scared
16:17
thank you for that taylor now i know taylor tried to delete these tweets but she dug up mr beast's tweets so
16:25
i'll dig up hers she goes on to say that the counter protesters or as the media would later deem
16:30
non-violent protesters were quote according to her the car is being swarmed by protesters some of them who
16:35
are getting violent the police say the car was covered in dense and apparently hit by a bat
16:41
they're throwing rocks bottles and shoes but when her reporting and these tweets later did not fit the
16:46
dominant narrative she deleted her problematic reporting
16:51
tried to scrub it off the internet she deleted these tweets and pretended like she never made a big
16:58
mistake or was it a mistake given what she recorded wrote and then deleted either she was an
17:04
incorrect witness misreported what she saw then deleted her problematic reporting and
17:09
tried to pretend like she never said anything else or she tweeted a narrative of events
17:16
and when that narrative of events contradicted the prevailing narrative enough she wanted to be on the correct side of
17:22
history and decided she would just try to scrub her problematic reporting erase it
17:28
and quietly go with the new narrative and act like she never said anything differently which as we know this lack of
17:35
accountability and waffling on what is the true story is the kind of journalistic ethics
17:40
we would expect from the prestigious new york times but the larger question is why did this reporter editorialize her
17:47
own narrative on top of the footage she was already filming for the hill like her tweets i found her
17:53
live stream and the video reporting is fine the video captures accurately
17:59
what occurred but then she tweeted that protesters violently swarmed the
18:05
car throwing rocks bottles and shoes only to magically delete those tweets and claim she was live streaming to over
18:11
3 million people when that's false anyone can check the actual number is 1.3 million
18:16
which seems like a small lie but taylor lies everywhere that's what i'm getting at
18:23
it's easier to catch taylor line this new york times reporter line than a t-ball tossed by a toddler
18:30
so along with her lack of accountability and waffling on stories or numbers the digging up of other
18:37
people's tweets the doxing of people's moms i'm starting to get the vibe
18:42
that maybe this reporter is a bad actor and has a problem telling the truth
18:48
[Laughter] in the past two months taylor has at
18:53
least twice publicly lied about netscape founder mark andreessen two big factual heirs for a new york
19:00
times reporter but she lies over really small things too which in my opinion destroys her
19:08
credibility when covering big subjects here is an example that distills the banality of this reporter's dishonesty
19:15
and one she cannot wriggle out of after getting hired by the new york times this reporter subtweeted a colleague a female writer
19:23
named zenab for those unfamiliar zeneb is one of the most well respected writers by readers and experts alike she
19:29
was way ahead in the cove data thoughtful switchblade smart seriously also like claudia
19:35
is a successful woman so what's the story here okay zaneb two years earlier had called our
19:41
reporter unqualified to report on social media and taylor never forgot it 2017 zineb
19:47
had wrote her responses to trustee were condescending ignorant and rude she deleted them
19:52
so you can't see how out of line she was to someone who was politely commenting trustee is brilliant and taylor's other
19:58
rudeness was just unacceptable i'm surprised the journalist is surprised to me that's a sign she's
20:04
unqualified to report on the attention economy 2017 two years later taylor lorenz
20:10
begins subtweeting her but a new york post reporter named john levin recognizes taylor chirping at zaneb and
20:16
calls it out and what follows the most mind-numbing spat we can imagine
20:21
mind-numbing but important because it reveals taylor's dishonesty over even the most trivial subjects our
20:27
new york post reporter calls out taylor lorenz chirping at zineb on twitter feel it
20:33
and then blocks the new york post reporter on twitter the new york post reporter screenshots he's just been blocked by
20:38
taylor and tweets out the irony but then taylor unblocks him and tweets
20:44
you're literally not blocked stop trying to make things up it's so desperate law and then adds to her
20:50
followers this guy literally photoshopped being blocked by me to try to get clown
20:56
l-o-l-l-l-l like how desperate you gotta be which ouch therefore the new york post
21:02
reporter now has to respond and defend his credibility and tweets taylor lorenz is accusing me of photoshopping this
21:08
which is a lie she is a reporter for the new york times okay so this problem is simple and
21:13
binary either the new york post reporter is lying or the new york times reporter is lying
21:18
one of these reporters is lying but which one is it i spoke to someone on background who worked with both
21:24
taylor and john at mike and they can confirm the new york post reporter did not photoshop anything and i was able to
21:31
locate taylor's dms to john which show taylor literally dm'd john right after he said he had not
21:38
photoshopped anything and said do i need to block you again in all caps
21:44
thus confirming she had indeed blocked him and was lying about the entire thing the whole time
21:49
and then when jon doesn't take down that he's not photoshopping anything the messages become bizarre
21:56
she starts harassing him and acting on behind the scenes four hours later thank you for the help
22:02
i appreciate it smiley face five minutes later could you retweet this one too
22:08
please thank you really appreciate it prayer hand prayer ham prayer and it's
22:13
sarcasm and then finally when he still has not responded at 803
22:21
so funny you can't tell what's a joke alol i'm dying no she got caught lying after publicly
22:29
lying about another reporter she then taunts that reporter about her lies and dms him
22:34
unsolicited sarcastic messages this reporter is willing to call another reporter a liar and
22:41
knowingly lie to her own audience to try and win an argument this small but instructive conversation
22:48
was difficult to pin down because again taylor deletes all evidence of her
22:54
tweets tweet deleted tweet deleted tweet deleted tweet deleted
22:59
but then i found a female software developer named mason hartman who shared an eerily similar experience
23:07
with taylor writing at one point she even falsely claimed that i had photoshopped a screenshot
23:13
that i had taken of a man making a fairly horrifying comment about me once she realized that several other
23:18
people had seen the tweet i had screen capped she deleted the accusation and disappeared when it's a woman she
23:24
dislikes who's receiving nasty comments online her first impulse is to claim with absolutely no evidence whatsoever
23:31
that woman is lying she's too often the perp or enabler so the fact that we can
23:37
confirm taylor has lied twice in the exact same pattern and then deleted her tweets to try to erase the
23:44
evidence i mean she likely does this frequently this reporter is willing to call another reporter a liar and
23:51
knowingly lie to her own audience and when caught line her inability to acknowledge she was lying
24:00
should be worrisome to any reasonable reader what else is she willing to lie about personal anecdote but when i was
24:06
trying to confirm a few details on this i had an editor call my phone number
24:11
which was not public asking why i wanted to know people are literally scared of calling
24:17
out taylor they don't want to lose their jobs because she calls people's bosses to close out this chapter i'll
24:25
share what zeneb wrote in response to taylor quote i don't care about being subtweeted
24:30
no need to tag me obviously but just for the record i'm not a journalist as per your subtweet and neither is
24:36
tressy and we like our facts here's what had prompted my reply to you you had completely missed her as usual
24:43
super smart point zeneb september 24th 2019. so zineb was defending a woman while
24:49
taylor again was attacking another one [Laughter]
24:56
younger viewers may remember during the last year of the trump administration kellyanne conway's 15 year old daughter
25:03
claudia making eye-popping tick-tock videos about her family these videos were frequently intense
25:10
dramatic and unsettling i have people supporting me right now
25:16
don't touch my phone my live stream you need to turn it off right now then we'll get back to it i guess you
25:22
can get back to it turn it off hi turn it off now baby no i'm not okay thanks guys though
25:29
before you get it all over the sheets that i cleaned can you stop no you don't ignore me [ __ ]
25:36
i text them all day long and they're paying attention to you because they know
25:42
and these videos would frequently go viral and the initial viral boost behind
25:48
claudia's videos new york times reporter taylor lorenz who was sharing these videos with her
25:54
200 000 twitter audience saying quote claudia is not holding back end quote
26:00
now of course taylor has deleted her promotional tweets in an attempt to hide that she ever did
26:06
this it's predictable but i found bustles reporting slate magazines reporting
26:12
business insiders reporting washington examiner quote in june claudia had about 31
26:18
thousand followers after taylor boosted her celebrity to hundreds of thousands of twitter followers claudia's own tick tock
26:25
following skyrocketed to nearly 650 000 followers so we know
26:31
taylor was boosting claudia even if ever since she's tried to hide it again interpersonal family problems
26:38
are rarely solved in front of the public particularly when you have a new york times reporter promoting the drama
26:45
for sport indeed people criticize this adult new york times reporter for sharing 15 year old claudia's videos
26:52
and taylor's response taylor argued that she had done nothing wrong because she and claudia were quote mutuals
26:58
end quote and that claudia quote literally talked to her end quote about getting more followers
27:04
so a new york times reporter is just graciously helping teenagers get more
27:10
followers on tick tock or is it more likely that the favor of
27:16
promotion by a new york times reporter will be used as leverage to extract information
27:22
from teenagers if they become valuable as sources like claudium
27:27
i think the term is power imbalance taylor lorenz creates a power imbalance
27:34
but even when 15 year old claudia's dad george pleaded with the media to desist from contact with her daughter
27:40
taylor continued george quote two journalists kelly and i do not consent to any
27:46
communications between you and our minor children including our daughter claudia so desist even after that taylor
27:53
continued to amplify his daughter's posts why because establishing a quote mutual and she
28:00
calls it relationship with 15-year-old claudia is not an anomalous event
28:07
it seems to be taylor's mo like when she established contact with 15 or 16 year old aj
28:13
mitchell in 2017 so she could use him as a source when he turned 18
28:18
in her article jake paul promised them fame was it worth the price or 17 year old
28:25
who was given quotes in one article and then felt pressured to say something negative about another person in the second
28:31
article you see this new york times reporter likes to talk about tick tock tick tock is a hot topic and a lot of
28:38
tick tigers happen to be very young people now does this new york times reporter approach
28:44
reporting on young people with the thoughtfulness and grace we've come to expect from her no taylor told digiday that the parents
28:50
of the teens she talks with for her stories quote often aren't fully aware end quote
28:56
that she's in touch with them allow me to quote the article the biggest most challenging thing about my job is getting teenagers to talk to
29:03
them on my phone or having them let me into their house a lot of kids don't want anything to do
29:08
with it especially if their parents aren't fully aware of what they're doing as a formality do
29:14
you mind if i tape on my end i'm not gonna name you i'll keep you anonymous it just yeah
29:19
for sure would were you like hopping on calls like these were phone calls right you were
29:25
talking with taylor yeah and and your mom was listening too right
29:30
or no no oh okay so did taylor ever reach out to your mom
29:36
no she never reached out she just went straight to you
29:42
did that strike you as odd yeah
30:09
[Music]
30:14
oh okay so wait one of your friends told you that or one of them
30:23
okay so it was like hey taylor's working on an article respond if she messages you
30:30
their parents aren't fully aware of what they're doing luckily for taylor women have the
30:35
advantage here i think it's much easier for me to slide into these people's dms in a non-threatening way
30:41
than from a male journalist in his 30s kind of dm'ing random teen girls so i definitely use that to my advantage
30:48
i definitely use that to my advantage she uses her gender and her well-developed social skills to
30:54
establish connections with minors so she may mind them for material or as sources
30:59
without their parental knowledge i don't really use email my instagram dms is the first thing i
31:04
check in the morning i want them to feel casual enough that they could message me at any time
31:10
here's a text of a 17 year old tick-tocker saying they're scared of taylor
31:17
which is not that unreasonable if you're a 17 year old tick tocker
31:22
talking to a 36 year old new york times reporter who has the power to make or break
31:29
your reputation for the foreseeable future i think the term is power imbalance
31:42
okay with the new york times one she was trying to convince her
31:49
[Music] it's difficult
32:04
[Music] okay she was
32:12
not saying nice
32:30
and then it looked like i guess i i don't want to take up all you know your entire day it just looked like taylor talked
32:37
and something like you know she was app [ __ ] an agenda and then they spoke really say anything
32:43
negatively and then make it into the article
32:49
yeah i mean then she started going out oh really yeah i believe so
32:55
like i i don't think she was getting what she wanted
33:01
that's all i could think of you know right and then so she started going after did she
33:10
metaphorically metaphorically yeah but i think any reasonable juror would conclude repeatedly
33:17
using her power as a new york times reporter and her age and skills to extract
33:24
stories and drama from teenagers again and again so that she can materially benefit from
33:29
her job is a form of unsavory objective again i'm not the first person to
33:35
raise eyebrows here people criticized her in march for being a 36 year old reporter
33:40
who slides into the dms of teenagers her response first tweet her critics are full of
33:45
quote bad faith [ __ ] and then of course delete the tweet so we have a reporter who rifles through
33:52
other people's history looking for a negative narrative on them deletes their own record of errors doxes people's family members misleads
33:59
about the reach of the reporting and their quotes and slides into the dms of your teenage sons or daughters instagram account i'm
34:05
warning you this reporter is on the brown as we speak add your kids hides your wife and hatred because
34:12
taylor is damning him [Music] she's doing well all right i know we're
34:19
like 30 minutes in it's getting long but we need to keep going there's still some evidence that
34:26
requires us digging up it's gonna get good
34:34
[Laughter] new location i'm traveling but video
34:41
must go on in december 2019 verge reporter zoe schiffer and friend of taylor lorenz published
34:47
this incredibly interesting but terribly damaging article on the ceo of
34:52
away luggage the reporting detailed an environment of alleged intimidation and surveillance of its
34:58
employees by its female founder and ceo steph corey and when the story dropped
35:04
emotional baggage former away employees describe a toxic workplace this was immediately cheerlead by taylor lorenz i
35:11
remember sitting at my office in yahoo with a buddy watching the nuclear fallout in real time steph court
35:17
resigned from away the board issued an exclusive interview to wall street journal and cory apologized in a desperate dash
35:25
of pr to save her company's reputation it was a big story however after a few months
35:31
steph cory had a change of heart she felt the verge article had been unfair and her response and overreaction
35:37
she talked to the board she resumed her position as ceo at the company she founded and she did an instagram ask me anything
35:44
and one of her followers asked her why women were being targeted and who she thought was doing the targeting
35:50
and we can read steph curry's response she spoke about how she thought journalism incentives had shifted
35:55
and how this new economic model affects the reporting done by young reporters and benign answer particularly from
36:03
someone who has just gone through the pr nightmare of an incredibly damaging story i've
36:08
linked it down below you can decide for yourself whether you think it's a hip beater frankly that's beside the point because when steph cory
36:14
answers this instagram question who appears on the scene like rita skeeter ready to
36:19
drown hermione but taylor lorenz who tweets to her quarter million followers steph cory disgraced former
36:27
ceo of away luggage's ranting and ig stories about the media her posts are incoherent and it's
36:33
disappointing to see a woman who ran a luggage brand perpetuate falsehoods about the industry she has zero
36:38
understanding up one notice how taylor makes it about gender two i work in media steph's
36:46
answer makes sense but more importantly we have a new york times reporter who randomly
36:51
one attacks a female ceo out of the blue two makes a factual heir steph cory is the
36:57
current ceo of away three violates new york times social media guidelines i don't care about that
37:03
but four the one i do care about is when she is called out for her verbal broadside into steph
37:10
cory taylor plays victim and omits her own attack bellagi a business contemporary of steph
37:16
calls out taylor for her random harassment and factual heir and rather than taylor retract the
37:22
statement or apologize she doubles down and takes to her audience writing that bellagi has been
37:27
ranting about me by name for months now he has tweeted speculation about my salary bashed my education my writing my
37:34
career and worse i've tried to reach out to him privately today he declined my call once again
37:39
honestly how should i handle that that conveniently ignores taylor started all this by being the one
37:45
who randomly attacked steph cory but taylor continues on writing
37:50
well i've worked so hard to become a writer i took a massive pay cut to lead the strategy side of things
37:55
i take my job seriously and it built a reputation as someone who is fair and pathetic and honest i'm not sure
38:01
that's her reputation i think it's fear if i'm being honest total abject fear
38:06
it's part of what makes this video so difficult because i know multiple reporters of different genders
38:11
who are scared of speaking out against taylor lorenz even though they've had direct negative interactions with her because
38:17
they don't want to jeopardize their careers and i know of multiple tick-tockers and influencers that are equally scared of
38:22
taylor and worry that she may wield her power at the new york times to obliterate their future careers her reputation is not empathetic it is
38:30
fear what i can say is that people may be less likely to call her out if she took accountability for her own
38:36
heirs but no instead there's always a double down this guy reuben whom i don't know from adam but wrote
38:42
i don't agree with everything steph wrote but how are her posts incoherent and taylor responds as it's
38:48
completely wrong and delusional so not only is steph cory disgraced
38:53
former ceo but she's also delusional taylor is simply gaslighting here to bury anyone who disagrees with her
38:59
opinion on steph cory it reminds me of the same way she lied about the new york post reporter
39:05
photoshopping her for clout or about the female software developer and how she claimed she was a liar when
39:11
it was hailer who is lying anyone who disagrees with taylor is a liar or delusional according to her
39:16
and i'm sure the same inverted pyramid of piffle will be spread about me i don't know of any other reporter
39:22
who behaves like this but to pluck a cherry of irony up the tree of fate
39:28
to bookend this chapter after taylor going on about bellagi bellagi has been ranting about i've tried to reach out to
39:34
him privately today he declined my call once again they both happened to enter a clubhouse chat room
39:41
that same evening and shortly after bellagi joined taylor left she had her opportunity to talk to
39:48
bellage and settle their differences but instead she bounced so was the entire message she wrote to her audience
39:55
the quote i've reached out to him and he won't respond to me nonsense yes actions express priorities and her
40:01
action when she left taylor tells her audience one thing and then does something entirely different in real life
40:07
again and again and again and it becomes increasingly hard to take anything this
40:12
reporter says seriously we have a new york times reporter who rifles through people's history to find negative narratives on them
40:19
deletes her own record of heirs dox's people's family members misleads about the reach of
40:25
reporting slides into the dms of your teenage sons or daughters instagram account
40:30
and now has a troubling pattern of attacking successful women like claudia and jackie and mason and
40:37
zenab and steph corey and for the sake of argument if anyone thinks i'm making up a pattern
40:43
that does not exist in real life i'm not let me read what tai haney founder of
40:49
outdoor voices wrote it wasn't just me and outdoor voices i have this pure group of women
40:55
who became the faces of their companies around the same time emily weiss from glossier is a good
41:00
friend audrey and lauren from the wing jen rubio and steph cory from away we
41:06
kind of came up together and did similar things in different industries and over the past year we have all been
41:11
put on the chopping block at some point for some crazy reason all of these were female journalists going after
41:18
female founders i don't yet know what to make of that it's certainly been gendered i think
41:24
hugely steph cory disgraced former ceo of away luggage's ranting on ig stories about
41:31
the media her posts are incoherent [Music] [Laughter]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Your Top Priority is The Emotional Comfort of the Most P

Postby admin » Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:05 am

Part 2 of 2

41:39
i needed to re-record this because the first time i was low energy taylor lorenz's
41:46
emotionally draining but this chapter is important because in this chapter we dismantle
41:51
taylor's reporting on august 2020 taylor published another damaging piece on a female
41:57
businesswoman the article was titled making it big online getting signed isn't everything
42:03
and the subject of this article was a woman named arie jacobs and on casual reading
42:10
this article is good it paints a compelling picture of talent manager ari jacobs
42:17
and her content houses manipulating teenagers misleading them stealing money from them
42:23
on their quest to fame that's the thing about taylor she is extremely good at writing
42:28
convincing narratives she's like an agent in the matrix to the untrained eye you would never notice the deception but
42:36
once you've been inside for a few years you're like wait a minute
42:45
upgrade upgrades indeed taylor is no longer combing through old twitter accounts
42:50
so allow me to poke some holes in taylor's reporting and blow up this this story like there's 80 pounds of
42:55
tannerite inside it first issue taylor the new york times reporter is reporting on r jacobs management
43:02
agency while not disclosing taylor herself is signed to a competing agency
43:08
uta uta is a direct competitor to r jacobs influences nor does taylor disclose that a few
43:13
months prior to this article she had wrote a glowing article about uta
43:19
and let me parry what the new york times is going to say immediately because i know how this game is played they're going to say taylor was signed
43:25
to uta prior to joining the new york times and therefore does not need to disclose this conflict
43:30
of interest to her readers convenient but okay taylor does not disclose that
43:36
her and ari jacobs had a friendly relationship prior to taylor stabbing her right in the back here's a
43:41
text where taylor is thanking ari jacobs and hoping she's staying safe during covet taylor writes that
43:46
gary vaynerchuk is not associated with influences but fails to disclose that gary vaynerchuk
43:51
has a very personal relationship with re jacobs of influences taylor fails to disclose
43:56
these photos taken in the girl in the valley house those are interesting huh healer doesn't
44:02
disclose that tiana singer one of her subjects has no management contract with influences taylor doesn't disclose
44:08
that the house in question the girls in the valley house was bella thorne's house now why
44:14
wouldn't taylor disclose that is that maybe because taylor wants to preserve her own relationship with bella thorne
44:20
while happily trashing ari jacobs i think it is now part of taylor's problems and she has
44:26
many maybe because she didn't want to accept much on background i know this because i have all of taylor's emails
44:33
taylor thinks she's the only person that can play this game i know she moved to california with life is easy
44:38
and she can interview children welcome to new york i can see that taylor gave r jacobs only
44:44
72 hours to respond to all these questions before publication and then only 20 take that back
44:49
only eight hours to respond to an entirely new set of questions prior to publication indeed i can see
44:55
that taylor really wanted to nail her jacobs because she was probing over missed rent payments personal
45:01
misrep payments from 2018. to which ari's lawyer humorously responded i failed to see the
45:08
relevance to the claim here when she has actually timely paid her rent on all content houses and it is the kids who have in fact not
45:15
paid rent at all while i understand we aren't in a court of law this would be deemed
45:20
character evidence and circumstantial at best and would be inadmissible in an actual claim
45:25
if factual which i do not admit it is it is purely dirt being used to paint ari in a
45:31
negative light and dirt used to paint re in a negative light seems to be the main goal of
45:37
taylor lorenz's article how do i know this well a variety of ways first there was a little
45:42
enterprising mississippi reporter who talked about this subject and he noted taylor chose to liberally quote
45:48
some individuals who were promoting a negative narrative of rh jacobs while omitting or choosing not to quote
45:54
are his own rebuttals to these characterization a good example of taylor's unscrupulous reporting here
45:59
is the line she writes in her article gary vee says he has no affiliation with
46:05
influences this is a jujitsu like contortion to say something that is
46:12
legally correct but almost entirely false with context but that is taylor's way the full
46:17
context the actual context not provided with taylor is that while gary vaynerchuk has no
46:23
business relationship with influencers company garyvee does have a personal relationship with ari jacobs
46:29
a relationship i can document with video that shows ari jacobs and garyvee are close enough that one of ahri's clients
46:36
received a brand deal for this super bowl directly because of her relationship with gary vaynerchuk that's the scoop
46:44
wow wow i couldn't wait to do this phone call because i get to
46:52
go back to friends who i adore and change the course of somebody else's career who i enjoyed using very quickly but i'm
46:58
about to cry like you're happy so much you're welcome but i'll be honest with you like this is
47:03
really about you and ari for me um you know you know and and honestly you this is a place where i can
47:12
do something nice i'm really excited that we were able to put this together uh gary and i and both know hari for a
47:17
very very long time we're huge fans of everything that she's up to out there and just
47:23
[Music]
47:28
and these bullets of misleading statements are sewn like a scarlet letter throughout the article to
47:34
needlessly obliterate ari's character taylor reports the influencers signed by ari jacobs
47:40
living in the kids next door house were told they would quote have to pay more in rent jacob's lawyers responded
47:46
to this allegation prior to the article in their emails and called it a hundred percent false taylor
47:52
ignored this indeed the tick-tock tenants teenagers inside ari's content house had admitted to ahri
47:58
and her lawyers that they had taken side deals with brands in order to deliberately cut out aryan
48:06
influencers of contractually obligated commission one of the tick tock tenants jesse underhill
48:11
said that another one marcus zolin had told him to speak negatively about ari to
48:18
taylor in order to avoid paying commissions or rent indicating that they were able to
48:23
damage ary and influences enough they wouldn't have the resources to litigate the breaches and
48:28
contract indeed i have jesse underhill on record saying is it true that you talked to ari and
48:34
wanted to move into the house after ari's talk on the balcony at the content house jesse yes is it true that taylor
48:41
harassed i am using that term closely you to get negative info dirt on ari
48:47
jesse um inadvertently yes she constantly asked for quote dirt on
48:53
ari and said that my statement would make or break the case is it true that marcus advised you to
48:59
talk to the new york times to get out of your contract jesse yes i wasn't happy with ari at the
49:05
time and didn't want to be in the contract anymore to speak negatively about ari to
49:11
taylor in order to avoid paying commissions or rent indicating that they were able to
49:17
damage ary and influences enough they wouldn't have the resources to litigate the breaches and contract
49:23
but i can go beyond that i have another 16 year old tick tocker who's familiar with the situation on background
49:30
who says that taylor spoke to she or he and said that speaking to her and giving
49:35
negative information on ari would really help them get instagram verified a little carrot on a
49:41
stick meaning if you help me give me quotes i'll put you in the article that'll make you more famous and
49:47
probably get you instagram verified but when the tick tocker declined to say anything negative about ari taylor told them she was disappointed in
49:53
them and then took their quotes out of the article this source is a minor but i corroborated it with their parents and i
50:00
know anonymous sources are annoyed i don't want to have to use anonymous sources but i am weighing the strength
50:06
of the argument while simultaneously balancing the fact that i have multiple young tick talkers and
50:12
reporters who do not want to go off background for fear of being retaliated against by
50:19
taylor in their future careers which i don't think is entirely unreasonable given taylor's history and track record
50:24
of line and deliberately going after people who disagree with her
50:30
[Music] taylor you know basically
50:37
you know bad information on the art said that
50:43
taylor had offered instagram verification yep i mean she said you know my words
50:51
were she said this will help you get verified verified towards the fact that she's going to
50:56
help verify what does this mean like this article or no this article
51:04
okay so implying this article that i'm writing will help you get instagram verified yes and then the other part was
51:12
the not dirt but only wanted negative information but it's not even that
51:18
difficult i think by even looking at the footage we can see taylor's influence on these kids as some of the
51:24
tick-tock influencers use very specific language language that makes me think they got it
51:30
from taylor waivers that anything aren't you acting as an agency without a license
51:39
aren't you acting as an agency without a license so all your documents are invalid no legally tiana are you an attorney
51:46
i'm legally smarter than you apparently let me be clear they signed no talent agency contract with
51:54
influences they signed management or production contracts a small but very important legal detail
52:01
that taylor seems to obfuscate in her reporting like taylor obfuscates the fact that the tick tockers didn't call
52:07
the police ari jacobs called the police to the house taylor doesn't bother reporting that fact
52:12
just like taylor does not bother reporting someone spray painted ari is a [ __ ] inside the girls in the valley
52:18
house now some tick tockers say ari jacobs did this ari says some tick-tockers did this
52:24
i'll let you decide but i think it's important to point out those photos somehow never made it into
52:30
the reporting but what did make it in and i think this is important because it shows the depths of taylor's dishonesty
52:37
is a quote by devian young a really mean and insidious quote that has no business being in the
52:43
article except again to hurt ari's character you see taylor quotes drip [ __ ] founder devion
52:49
young who says she already manipulates you it's a nightmare devion young said
52:54
he said she used nude photos of his to shame him quote right before reported way she leaked my nudes
53:00
and sent them to business partners people in my house and potential investors to slander my
53:05
name saying i was unprofessional but ari did not leak devions nudes
53:11
and taylor has to know this because taylor writes in the emails no one is alleging already leaked nudes
53:17
so taylor knows debian is likely lying to her i have the emails no one is alleging already leaked nudes
53:23
and then includes the quote she leaked my nudes what kind of reporting are we doing here
53:30
because i also have the text between ari and devion regarding his nudes you
53:35
see someone had made ari aware that devion young's nudes were circulating on the internet
53:40
she then texts deviant to ask him why are his nudes on the internet and his response manages to be
53:48
unbelievable claiming that his phone was getting fixed and therefore someone had access
53:53
to his icloud and leaked his nudes everywhere these are the texts you can read them
54:02
[Music]
54:07
but even more compelling that something shady is taking place is the fact that all the allegations alleged by taylor
54:14
and her article against ari jacobs curiously the exact same allegations are alleged against devion young
54:20
at around the same time let me quote multiple altercations have broken out between members of drip crib and its staff due
54:27
to a total lack of income from any of its resident creators former residents complained that drip
54:32
trip manager davion young is incompetent and extremely self-centered [ __ ] has not made any payments on the
54:39
mansion they rent since march the property management company has been trying to entice them to leave or a
54:44
victim but has been unsuccessful due to la's current coveted freeze-on evictions since march
54:49
no rent or utility payments have been received by the property management company drip [ __ ] are unable to make rent
54:55
payments because they are not landing gigs and brand deals they were initially promised by debian young
55:00
instead creators complain that young has made the entire project about him and don't believe he cares about anyone
55:05
else devyon young who manages drip has not been following through with payments to his creators and has expressed frustration to many that he is
55:12
not being paid by creators for rent man does that seem really similar to the
55:18
allegations being leveled against ari jacobs and taylor's article we went into thinking this we'd have brand deals
55:23
weekly or monthly mr olin said we were expecting a quota where we could pick half of our rent through brand deals
55:29
but we weren't getting enough deals to cover our rent that wasn't all we didn't have working wifi for a month said jesse we couldn't go
55:35
live because our live stream would cut out i used to get three to five brand deals a week since i moved in it's one every
55:40
two weeks and they're low balling at the end of july the influencers were told they would have to cover a larger share of the rent
55:46
since march no rent or utility payments have been received by the property management company drip [ __ ] are unable to make rent
55:52
payments because they are not landing gigs and brand deals they were initially promised by debian young taylor makes
55:58
no mention of the fact that devyon young has the exact same allegations against him while simultaneously liberally quoting
56:05
him as a character assassination witness against ari jacobs claiming she leaked his nudes but while young may
56:11
say that and taylor can quote him it does not make the quote true i can play this game too
56:17
i can play this game all day i can quote ari saying that a uta agent told her not to worry
56:23
about taylor because taylor just wants to be famous taylor just wants to be famous
56:29
i was told by an agent at a very prominent talent agency
56:35
that don't worry about taylor she writes these things because she
56:41
wants to be famous okay they represent her
56:49
so her talent agency told you that yes but that doesn't make the quote true or
56:54
maybe it is true maybe taylor just wants to be famous and she's willing to do it over the bodies
56:59
of successful women and tick-tockers
57:05
she constantly asks for quote dirt on ari my words
57:14
all i can say is taylor reports line after dishonest line like quote which resulted in several
57:20
calls to local authorities to intervene taylor omits it was ari who made the calls to local
57:26
authorities ari not the kids or how taylor interviews chaz stahl
57:31
another industry talent manager but omits to chas she will be using his words directly against ari jacobs
57:38
rather than in the abstract a trick he realizes after the article is published and says wait his quotes weren't
57:44
intended to reference ari he doesn't think ari is a bad manager so i feel like if we were we're about the
57:51
same age and so i think that we're very ingrained in the social digital world
57:57
and i think that perhaps i had a little bit of an edge on her and and because i did have
58:04
gary vaynerchuk sort of backing and he's looked at as somebody that's very
58:09
knowledgeable in this space right uh to discredit me would be
58:14
to almost give her more credit and i don't know i i feel like there there
58:21
would have been plenty of room for both of us and i mean there was a lot of buzz about me writing a book about the tick tock
58:27
space and taylor um has a deal with simon issues sure about the tick tock space
58:34
i really don't know i mean i can't you know i can't speculate on what her intentions were but
58:41
several people have told me that they feel as though perhaps i was some competition for her
58:48
in the space taylor conveniently leaves out a lot of complex convicts to distill a thorny and tangled
58:55
story down to female ceo bad and exploits children when i would
59:02
argue it is taylor who exploits children with her leading questions and her massive power imbalance to get the
59:08
quotes she wants is it true that taylor harassed i am using that term closely you to get negative info dirt on ari
59:17
jesse um inadvertently [Music]
59:24
yes [Music] aggressive when she talks
59:34
[Music]
59:45
[Music]
59:53
and i can probably predict what taylor would say against this that i've been tricked by ari that i didn't speak to marcus or benji and that
1:00:00
she did the real reporting yeah yeah yeah yeah as far as i'm concerned currently on the
1:00:05
new york times article that tiana singer was promised money and fame and signed a management contract
1:00:11
but that is false whether tiana lied to you or you misreported it taylor i doubt you
1:00:17
saw a signed management contract because your subject tiana singer never signed a management contract with
1:00:23
influences because here it is still waiting to get signed the only thing tiana signed was a
1:00:30
liability and footage waiver for being inside the girls in the valley house i have it right here as well
1:00:37
here is tiana's signature may 23 2020 and it promises no money or no fame but
1:00:43
i guess taylor missed the nuance of these contracts taylor's reporting has holes in it the size of swiss cheese her
1:00:49
methods are questionable at best and she operates from a place of fear
1:00:55
because i'm not finished any disagreement with taylor's narrative events is met with
1:01:00
both public and private vitriol like when reuters did a story on r jacobs and taylor said
1:01:06
this on twitter or wait a minute what about taylor you'll know this story
1:01:14
when female reporter christy smith interviewed ari jacobs after you did and ran a story and then
1:01:21
you went around this female reporter's back called her boss and ranted to her
1:01:27
editor that it was irresponsible to interview alright jacobs that you should not be giving ari jacobs a platform
1:01:32
because she's a literal abuser taylor thrashes one woman and when another woman reports on that woman she goes
1:01:39
behind that woman's back and calls her boss to get her in trouble these actions strike me as deeply
1:01:45
troubling and tyrannical what taylor like to call my boss as well the number is joh n316
1:01:54
so this new york times reporter has a possible and very real conflict of interest reporting on one agency while signed to
1:02:01
a competitor but doesn't disclose this at all and that is demonstrated
1:02:06
selectively pulling clothes to procure evidence to push re jacobs like so many women
1:02:12
prior into a negative light this should be a warning to any influencer tick-tocker
1:02:19
youtuber this reporter is dishonest they have an agenda and if you stand in the way of their
1:02:24
agenda they will move to crush you and not to belabor the point but i think
1:02:30
it's worth noting taylor went after claudia and jackie oshery two female entrepreneurs for not
1:02:35
towing the gender line she went after her colleague zineb she went after female founder steph cory
1:02:41
she went after female developer mason she went after female immigrant founder ari jacobs and
1:02:47
then went after the female reporter for reporting on ari jacobs taylor is all about
1:02:53
building patterns to prove a narrative i think taylor has a pattern she told you this is why black creators
1:02:59
can't be great because of their teams and i was wondering is that that's she said that to you
1:03:09
she did say that i mean i'm just just being honest so she
1:03:16
when the new york times didn't get what they wanted she says this is she she kind of attacks you
1:03:22
this is why black creators can't be great yeah it definitely made i mean my my
1:03:28
experience of industry was challenged my everything right in front of my client and i mean i'm not hearing someone
1:03:35
who um you know works for the new york times and you know it's been an industry for a
1:03:40
long time she said she started as a publicist and i don't know what i'm talking about and as far as being an exclusive exclusive
1:03:48
concludes everything and like i said you have to be specific
1:03:54
you said you didn't know what you're talking about to you or to your client
1:04:02
so you guys are all on a group call and she tells your client that you don't know what you're doing as
1:04:09
a publicist and that and taylor then says i used to work as a publicist your publicist doesn't know what she's
1:04:15
doing and then she says this is why black creators can't be
1:04:20
great all while you're on the call how did
1:04:26
that make you feel
1:04:36
um it made me feel like the audacity
1:04:42
of this person who has not felt or
1:04:48
been a part of our struggle as far as advocates for these creators come in and tell us
1:04:55
why they aren't great not one of those people i'm a leader too i love multiple perspectives but it was an
1:05:00
insult because for someone who has dedicated their college experience
1:05:08
to making to ensuring that these digital creators didn't have successfully done it
1:05:14
that these digital creators get the um
1:05:20
get the exposure the money they deserve whatever
1:05:26
and it was it was really insulting the intentions of what she said in that moment couldn't have been to for us to take
1:05:34
he choose to change as much as trying to hurt me in that moment because
1:05:42
that was also said like you it feels like you're just ringing their opportunity
1:05:47
and i would when she said you're trying to ruin their opportunity was that on the phone call too yeah so distractify ran a
1:05:56
story and then taylor said you're trying to ruin their opportunity this is why black creators
1:06:01
can't be great and and you don't know how to do your job all because distract if i ran a story
1:06:11
yeah now that you're saying that yeah yeah i'm curious do you think she said
1:06:18
all that stuff on the call because she thought she could get away with saying it to you
1:06:27
100 i feel like in this industry in this world people
1:06:34
don't do things intentionally if they don't know that that is something that's
1:06:40
okay or has been permitted before
1:06:48
let's talk about clubhouse for those not familiar clubhouse is an app that allows people to group chat via their phones
1:06:54
and set up rooms to talk about ideas it sounds like this
1:06:59
i think it's boring but taylor feels differently when clubhouse was in beta she got special access
1:07:05
and spent her hours documenting every instance of political incorrectness she could find and then with the eagerness
1:07:12
of a marathon runner bringing news to athens she published her blacklist on medium she called it
1:07:17
clubhouse moderation issues and incidents specific choice examples of taylor's moderation issues
1:07:23
and incidents are tonight on clubhouse a room where users say sex work is unacceptable
1:07:30
tonight on clubhouse vc hosting group panel on curtis yarvin a far-right blogger and breitbart writer
1:07:36
often called quote the alt-right's favorite philosophy instructor often called that by whom taylor also on
1:07:44
clubhouse tonight quote a white teal fellow telling a room i just think quote racism is so
1:07:50
overblown okay people literally random people may speak obnoxiously and have problematic
1:07:56
conversations and taylor can call them out if she wants i do not care if people say stupid things
1:08:01
nor do i care if taylor wants to cosplay as hall monitor and police speech what i do
1:08:07
care about is after this new york times reporter had enumerated the reasons why she thought clubhouse
1:08:13
was toxic and why she was quitting i don't plan on opening the app again
1:08:18
i don't want to support any network that doesn't take user safety seriously after allegedly quitting taylor was soon
1:08:24
back with a new anonymous account trolling for stories and when she could not find a real story
1:08:30
she fabricated one in february 2020 this new york times reporter posted on
1:08:35
twitter that venture capitalist mark andreessen was just openly using the the r sluron clubhouse
1:08:42
tonight and not one person in the room was calling him on it or doing anything about it
1:08:49
false total lie the moderator of that room nate jones
1:08:54
immediately rebuked taylor's accusation i modded that room here's what actually happened felicia explained that the
1:09:00
redditors called themselves quote r word revolution but mark never used that word ever he referenced quote deep in value
1:09:07
end quote that's all and this is why people block because of this horseshit dishonesty so this new york times reporter like so
1:09:14
many times before is caught in a clear lie but instead of issuing an apology for
1:09:19
falsely accusing a man she doubles down on everyone in the group chat room except for herself thanks for clarifying
1:09:25
it was felicia saying that word rather than mark as many in the room heard it i hope you can understand how
1:09:31
some people in the room felt hearing it which is a great frame narrative distortion because
1:09:36
nobody in that room heard mark say the r word except taylor and nobody felt any way
1:09:41
about it except taylor and kaylee goes on to say people who use that word should think more carefully about what
1:09:48
they're saying but i would argue perhaps this new york times reporter should think more carefully about the facts
1:09:53
she reports as she seems to get a lot of them wrong she is the donald trump of reporters
1:10:00
gets caught line looks you straight in the face and doubles down thanks for clarifying it was felicia saying that word
1:10:06
rather than marked as many in the room heard it bro i feel like i should add in here what is
1:10:12
even taking place with taylor accusing mark of calling people why
1:10:18
is even a word in people's vocabulary in this situation recently a lot of retail investors have
1:10:23
gotten into the market with the rise of robin hood a lot of people that would normally not have access to the stock market are having fun with the
1:10:29
stock market and they're investing in all kinds of zany things like dogecoin or gamestop legacy investors legacy institutional
1:10:36
media don't understand this and they're generally condescending and negative towards these new retail
1:10:41
investors they call them idiots they call them fools they call them dumb money there is a level of of
1:10:48
arrogance and condescension towards these new retail investors
1:10:53
these new retail investors recognize they're getting condescended to and so they take that agency back this
1:11:00
is an anagram of traders say okay we're not legitimate traders fine it's an anagram and it's an anagram
1:11:07
deliberately designed to take back agency that hey we can make investments too you may call us dumb
1:11:14
money but we're going to make the investment decisions we want to that is the energy behind the
1:11:19
word in this situation it's not used as a slur towards anyone it's not used derogatorily
1:11:24
that is the context unfortunately we are not finished with taylor or clubhouse or mark andreessen because a few weeks
1:11:31
after falsely attributing the arsler to mark andreessen she publishes an article in the new york
1:11:37
times where she again reiterates her real or imagined stress that people
1:11:42
are having unfettered conversations on clubhouse and for good measure in addition tweets a thread about how
1:11:48
intimidation female journalist has ruined her life it's here where tiger carlson on fox
1:11:53
news and glenn green won't get all turnt up like overpriced avocado toast which i think was unfortunate because it
1:12:00
politicized and distracted from what was a real malicious slander by a new york times reporter
1:12:06
against mark andreessen but forget about fox news for a second do any of us think it is acceptable for the new york times
1:12:12
to misattribute actions to people without evidence no hands sad because she again targeted
1:12:19
mark andreessen a few weeks later they're writing it's friday night and mark andreessen and charles c
1:12:24
johnson are in a room bashing me on clubhouse false here's the context the clubhouse
1:12:29
room was titled taylor lorenz fans only and the assertion that mark was bashing her is false
1:12:35
a recording of the conversation showed the only words mark said were literally quote i don't want to talk i'm here to
1:12:42
listen i don't want to talk i'm here to listen and when taylor gets called on the lie
1:12:47
she you guessed it deletes the tweet you know this reminds me of someone
1:12:54
another fake allegation that he simply erases when it's not true how many times is keemstar gonna be
1:13:00
allowed to do this another fake allegation she simply erases when it's not true
1:13:05
how many times will taylor be allowed to do this it's almost like this new york times reporter has a
1:13:10
personal grievance against mark andreessen and is searching for any way to publicly wound him
1:13:16
whether through fact or fiction but finally in taylor's infinite audacity after misattributing smear quotes to
1:13:22
people and ruining numerous women's lives writes on the internet for international women's day
1:13:28
please consider supporting women in doing online intimidation it's not an exaggeration to say that the intimidation smear campaign
1:13:34
i've had to endure over the past year has destroyed my life no one should have to go through this
1:13:40
and attached a link to an article i agree with taylor gender intimidation is real but taylor
1:13:46
seems to be doing a lot of intimidation and i read every word of the article taylor soros because i wanted to take her tweet
1:13:52
seriously the article details one relatively poor black reporter living in the philippines who has been
1:13:58
the target of in particular the dictator dirty i'm not entirely clear how this applies to
1:14:03
taylor the american living in los angeles working for the new york times but one interesting datum
1:14:08
were the attacks on credibility well i have a problem with taylor's credibility this video is not an attack
1:14:14
on her personal life nor her gender nor her value as a human being
1:14:23
taylor trolls her negative narratives on public figures to make her reporting go viral and when she can't find any she stitches
1:14:30
them together with tweets teenagers and troubling quotes she is quick to judge her subjects
1:14:36
negatively slow to divulge her own conflicts of interest and rapid to use her gender
1:14:42
is both a pro bar to verbally bludgeon women and as a shield to obfuscate
1:14:47
accountability by men she is a strategic promoter of her own work and a swift destroyer of other peoples
1:14:53
in the court of public opinion she is a bully pushing people around on the playground okay i'm in a twitter
1:14:59
world philly deep now i hope you guys give phil a piece of your mind
1:15:05
so funny you can't tell what's a joke you think she said all that stuff on the call because she
1:15:10
thought she could get away with saying it to you when i was a teenager i worked at
1:15:16
mcdonald's i grew up outside a small midwest town and there were not a lot of job
1:15:23
opportunities and i can definitively say serving fries is not as romantic as dancing for tick
1:15:30
tock but i did learn honesty and integrity i made many mistakes in my youth but later when
1:15:37
i wanted to do more in my life i moved to new york city in my car i arrived in new york city with
1:15:44
an old car a 500 camera and knowing nobody i grabbed any
1:15:50
journalism job i could find and it took me years to make any money or meet people in the youtube community
1:15:57
now not every entertainer is an angel but when i watch a supposed
1:16:02
star reporter for the new york times so dishonestly right about youtubers
1:16:08
and tick-tockers and people who maybe move to the city to chase a dream get lied about and destroyed to feel
1:16:15
copy in sunday's paper man does that make me despise that reporter a reporter who makes their
1:16:23
living pulling down the dreams of young entertainers and tech developers and lying about other people and if she
1:16:30
did it honestly i would be the first to defend her work but taylor is dishonest and read by
1:16:36
millions of americans who take her and her accusations seriously and there
1:16:41
is real harm in that so what can we do to beat it well the simplest answer is to support
1:16:48
the very women taylor wants to suppress support arya jacobs the female
1:16:53
immigrant entrepreneur support jackie and claudia oshiri support zaneb support brandy support mason hartman
1:17:00
steph corey female writer christy support the women taylor tries to destroy and finally
1:17:06
taylor because i know you're watching this video i'm on a rooftop in the west village so life has been
1:17:13
pretty good but before taylor responds let me remind her who has
1:17:18
the power and the privilege i grew up in the midwest and worked at mcdonald's she grew up in
1:17:25
ultra wealthy greenwich connecticut went to a fancy swiss boarding school and flouts around la with the
1:17:32
full backing of the new york times while lying about women and other reporters
1:17:37
i am not the patriarchy you are
1:17:56
society
1:18:03
our focus besides not getting hit by [Music]
1:18:10
cars
1:18:24
don't count on me cause i'm not listening on the corner
1:18:40
[Music]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests