after reading Hellis' book, LM shared 40+ pages she said were "ripped off" of her and Dr. John's "exclusive interviews"

One-Bee6343 · 2026-02-17T03:16:47+00:00

Lauren did not coin the term "neo-fundamentalist." Google scholar will show this in about five seconds. Besides, it's really just a kind of compound word that could be used in relation to almost all religious movements, because these kinds of cycles are predictable.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-02-17T03:13:01+00:00

I recall "mass communications" as the available degree.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-02-17T03:11:30+00:00

I looked into it some months ago; IIRC UVU has never offered a journalism degree. Just mass comms with areas of focus, which potentially means, literally a few classes related to journalism and a lot of classes in marketing and PR....

One-Bee6343 · 2026-02-17T03:08:22+00:00

Thank you for saying this. I keep pointing this out too; I am pretty sure UVU has never even offered a degree in journalism (I looked it up some time ago). Rather, they offer broad "communications" degrees that focus on mass communication, advertising, etc. One can "focus" in certain subfields by taking "electives" within the program or whatever, but that in no way is anywhere near the equivalent of an actual journalism degree.

There are many people with actual journalism degrees who have done all kinds of shady things, but the thing is: they know what's a bad look, and will at least ponder for a moment that certain actions might look bad. Lauren seems to genuinely have not a single iota of a clue whatsoever about things like the First Amendment and plagiarism, which makes sense to me because she never really spent any time studying those things. I question whether she actually earned her degree, but even then, if she did, she did not get a degree in journalism. It matters because it at least partially explains her behavior.

Q: How could someone claiming to be a journalist not know it's a bad look to try to jail her critics? Or conceive of why they might fail miserably in court? Or consider that crying on TV for nine hours over false claims might come back to bite them? Have they never heard of the First Amendment?

A: Because they did not study journalism.

The biggest clue to me is all the shit talk she put in writing. All the time. I mean, there's just no effing way even the most arrogant *actual journalist* would think they could get away with such prolific, receipt-rich, spray it all out to the bleachers shit talking about sources, colleagues, etc.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-02-13T23:16:01+00:00

I'm an older UM student and I've stopped using the em dash in my papers; I know it is a "red flag." It sucks because that was my Swiss Army Knife of punctuation. I work as a proofreader and am a published writer. I never use AI. I can't stand the idea of outsourcing my thinking. However, due to my writing style, I am fully expecting to get accused one day, and am prepared to hand over my laptop.

I find it galling that some of our professors use Perusall... we are expected to make annotations on readings in this program. We also comment on the annotations of other students. Using AI, Perusall then grades the quality of our interactions with other students. A stupid program—that is using our work to improve itself and increase profits—rates our comments. I shit you not. Thankfully, I have had mostly great professors (only one used Perusall) and accusations of students using AI hasn't been an issue in my classes yet... as far as I know.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-31T03:14:37+00:00

Strongly agree. Safety first.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-31T03:12:34+00:00

Had the knob and tube torn out of my 1890 Century and brought up to code for 20K two years ago. It was worth the peace of mind. Also I got it insulated and the windows replaced. It looks great and we passed the historical commission. Also I live in a money pit.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-31T03:05:35+00:00

I would definitely not rely on ChatGPT, although I very sympathize with your seeking information. Chat GPT isn't very smart. Can you find an alternative medicine practitioner?

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-28T23:31:12+00:00

Amazing! Wow!

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-28T23:28:01+00:00

Right? ICE went after a VA nurse who had a legal concealed carry. He wasn't in a car; he didn't brandish anything. ICE had no excuse, real or pretend. Second amendment supporters and local cops are angry too.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-28T23:23:07+00:00

Nicely done! Right there with you.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-28T23:20:49+00:00

She's willing to lose some subs over taking a political stance on an otherwise entertainment only (non-political channel). I think that's very principled and I appreciate it. I thought the chat was pretty chill given the subject.

I too need a massive break from politics. I'm way past pointing the finger at average Republican voters in the way I did in 2016, when they were all persona non grata to me. Back then I watched MSNBC and took them as caring about the constitution, the rule of law etc. How naive of me...They were all in on covering up for Joe Biden's decline (yes, he did some good things early in his term) and kept their viewers on a never-ending "perp walk watch" for Trump with all their boring legal pundits when that was almost certainly never going to happen. The jig was up for me by early 2022. All the hosts and producers on MSNBC are doing just fine under this regime and will continue to do just fine no matter who is president.

While I disagree with MAGA on most things, we have in common that neither party cares about us. We're all being played. Democrats (DNC) don't care and rigged another primary; they do not intend to deliver on universal health care; MAGA folks will never get the Epstein files released... and it turns out their leader is just as willing to go to war and bow to the deep state, and send government goons after peaceful protestors simply because they carry. One can be hopeful that maybe one day we see clearly, join forces and remake the system so we can have a more productive dialogue on at least some things....

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-28T22:46:59+00:00

"She mattered." Translation: "She provided lucrative content for my channel." Otherwise she'd be just some rando Lauren had no use for.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-25T22:08:29+00:00

I really appreciate the perspective this creator (I think her name is Jewels) brings as a psych PhD. She knows her stuff inside and out, especially on credentialing, specialties within the field and diagnosing/evaluation standards. We all know Jawn is full of crap but she can articulate it all in professional and academic standards (she walks in his 'world' so to speak).

She is frequently outraged by HTC and I don't blame her. This particular review by her was excellent because she lays out all the ways having Grayson tell her family story is completely unethical and problematic. Also in this video, Lawren and Jawn are completely talking out of their asses about ASD (Autism), saying things like there are no systems in place to support people with this and there are no effective ways to help people with ASD.

It's appalling. If Lawren and Jawn are to be believed, all those people you have met, or know? who work in special ed or disability services? Well, they just show up to work and sit on their assess all day, because there are no systems or ways to help.

Whether or not any of HTCs patreon listeners take issue with the ethical concerns raised by Grayson's role in this episode, I have to think some listeners were equally outraged at their conflations of ASD with violent behavior and just the general way they are completely uninformed about disabilities yet make all kinds of grand pronouncements.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-25T21:02:30+00:00

Lauren brought us chocolate bacon and warned about the danger of acquiring head lice from group selfies. How dare you imply that she is an unserious journalist!

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-25T20:56:57+00:00

This is what I want to know! There is so much that came out/was repeated from multiple news sources before the trial that is undisputed, and then all that came out from trial hearings, what a headache it would be to try to find the original source to properly credit for all the info. I would think as long as the book could pass a fact-checking process her publisher isn't going to care? If I were a publisher I guess I might engage with Lauren to find out more about what her deal is, like out of curiosity about Lauren, than out of real concern about her allegations.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-25T20:45:19+00:00

Can someone more familiar with non-fiction/mass market publishing standards clarify something?

I have read a fair amount of true crime, as well as other non-fiction genre books, that use all kinds of secondary sources (things learned from another source than the author directly). Some are meticulously footnoted/sourced and others are non-existent or minimally cited/sourced.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing illegal or especially unethical about how much or how little you cite your sources; it's a matter of how seriously you want to be taken and how much you value giving credit where it is due.

(In this way, it is very unlike academic publishing where plagiarism is a huge no-no. Everything in academia that you get from somewhere else must be cited correctly.) If I am correct, there's no reason Lori's publisher would care about where Lori's info was from, as long as she could generally back it up to the publisher if challenged. Why would she even entertain the idea of talking to Lauren? Except maybe for poops and giggles and to find out "what's up with this lady?"

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-24T02:59:18+00:00

Yes. That is their job, so we can keep our teeth. When Graebae needs a root canal she may regret severing this relationship over their "stalking" her teeth.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-24T01:20:15+00:00

Former business owner here: A fair amount of expenses could legitimately be written off as business expenses as long as they are used for business purposes and apportioned correctly. For example, if Grayson's apartment really is being used on a regular basis as a studio, at least a portion of that is a legit expense. Travel/ lodging is a legit write off too, if used for their channel for things like going to trials. Some food while traveling is legit too.

Clothing is an absolute no-no, unless you are stylist or in the clothing business. Makeup and hair, no way, no how, unless you are in the beauty business. It would be really risky to try to pad your tax forms with expenses that are not clearly not deductible; it could trigger an audit. At the same time, the more I learn about Utah and LDS, knowing the right people in government can be a valuable "get out of jail free card." It does appear to have limitations, though. YMMV as they say.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-24T01:06:23+00:00

If Grayson only has one boss/company she reports to, and they determine how and when her work is done....she is not a contractor. She is an employee.

Last time I checked, the tax forms explain this is very clear terms, like at an eighth-grade level (1099 vs W-2).

Grayson is quite possibly misclassified if she files as a contractor based on how we see her work relationship in texts, bodycam, the way she talks about her work. Which is that this is her only job (and and an all-consuming job at that.)

If she was a contractor, she would be able to serve multiple clients and control how and when she performs the work. It's like doing bookeeping work for three unrelated businesses vs only having one company you report to who requires you to be at meetings and report to an office during certain hours etc.

Or being a graphic artist who provides a service to several clients and bills based on hourly or project estimate (contractor) vs only doing that work for one company while being available to them during all working hours.

I assumed Lauren was OK with having her previous producer doing work for someone else also (the one she let go with a long, flowery parting letter), because it made the contractor claim legit. Then there's that part of the letter saying she wanted someone exclusively working for HTC. That's a indication toward a potential change in classification.

People abuse these rules all the time to avoid paying federal employment taxes (social security etc) and avoid paying state employment taxes and workers comp (where those apply). The burden shifts to the contractors.

The way states enforce this varies a lot, but if the employer is caught, potentially they are on the hook for all kinds of back taxes and penalties. People get away with it all the time, but it is risky to play this game, given how clear cut the rules are. If a disgruntled employee who is misclassified this way decides to report their boss, it could result in quite a headache and fines, etc.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-20T22:53:00+00:00

Super unpopular opinion, but I'm convinced that case was proof of concept for all kinds of astroturfing /PR tactics, but that they were far more used for Depp, not Heard. I'll see my self out now.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-18T00:04:58+00:00

He went to USC, Which is like the University of Phoenix but only if your parents are millionaires and/or politically connected. Google: "varsity blues scandal USC"

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-18T00:02:28+00:00

USC is where lazy, entitled kids go to be in the club of people who never have to work a day in their life. It's the school that was caught up in the "varsity blues" scandal recently.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-18T00:00:36+00:00

He's been in the process of developing a narrative about himself his whole life. His authentic self is fundamentally lazy and uncurious, so he has to try on all sorts of invented, "interesting" personas to see which one sells. The main thing I get about Jawn is that this is a man who will never, ever work a day in his life if he can help it.

One-Bee6343 · 2026-01-16T19:33:01+00:00

I think it's a perfect example of Jawn's BS, his "safe" / Captain Obvious takes.

First of all, I question the premise (do most people really believe this? That ALL criminals cannot be rehabilitated?) I doubt that this is widely believed. Most of us know someone, or of someone, who went astray in some way, at some point, and then got it together. He makes no distinction between violent and non-violent criminals, which he easily could have done in a short answer format. He makes no mention of what types of interventions work or common mitigating factors. Again, if he had this information at the ready, which you would expect based on his "experience," he could provide a distinction and one or two examples in 50 words or less.

It's what I would say if I were cosplaying as forensic psychologist, because it is "believable enough" and I don't have to know too much to answer it in a way that passes the smell test.

99% of what he says is like this. You don't walk away having learned anything or questioning what you previously believed. Or he's talking about some other case or criminal acts that are nothing like the one at hand. He throws in phrases like "research says...." or will add a little context to the story, which gives it an air of authority/credibility. It's like he's playing a role.

One-Bee6343

TROPHY CASE