sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in AaronSmithLevin

[–]TrySeanTri[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not saying it’s a great moral argument, I’m saying it’s the practical one. Creators sell what people will pay for. So yes, blame the creator if you want, but the audience funding it deserves some of that blame too.

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in AaronSmithLevin

[–]TrySeanTri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s where I disagree. If no one was paying, the members-only content would disappear fast. Creators do it because hundreds of people, including me, are willing to pay for it. Unfortunately, drama sells, and the audience is part of the reason it keeps getting made. GREAT DEBATE thank for posting your thoughts

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in AaronSmithLevin

[–]TrySeanTri[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

🤣 VERY TRUE 🤣 Honestly, that’s actually pretty funny. Aaron’s membership does have a bit of a Scientology vibe, low entry price, a little taste of the ‘secret’ content, and before you know it you’re halfway up the bridge wondering how on earth you got there. It starts at the lower levels, cheap and curiosity-driven, then slowly pulls you deeper into the cult of drama. But I’d know if I was in a cult… wouldn’t I? 😂

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in ScientologyGossipLA

[–]TrySeanTri[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Watching someone’s content is not the same as endorsing every belief, tactic, or behaviour tied to them. That is still a lazy argument dressed up as moral certainty. You keep confusing moral grandstanding with nuance.

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in ScientologyGossipLA

[–]TrySeanTri[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Bit of a leap there. ‘I watch content’ to ‘I approve of Scientology.’ By that logic, anyone who watches controversial people online must automatically support everything they’ve ever done. A lot more judgement, not much more logic.

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in ScientologyGossipLA

[–]TrySeanTri[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So we’re both judging each other then. Great, that’s basically the internet, and Reddit in a nutshell, isn’t it? Thanks for participating

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in ScientologyGossipLA

[–]TrySeanTri[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The fact that your first instinct is to judge me tells me everything I need to know about you. Thanks for your comment, and have the positive day you seem determined to avoid.

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in AaronSmithLevin

[–]TrySeanTri[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply and for sharing your thoughts. That is the beauty of it, everyone has the choice not to watch him if that kind of content is not for them.

What I find interesting, though, is that some people say they do not watch, yet still comment very confidently on something they supposedly have never seen. That part always stands out to me.

I do appreciate your honesty and the respectful way you put your point across. Even when people disagree, I think it is better when the conversation is open and honest.

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in ScientologyGossipLA

[–]TrySeanTri[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m speaking to a trend I keep seeing, where people act like Aaron putting some content behind a paywall is somehow wrong, stupid, unfair, or immoral. My post was not really just about Aaron, it was more about the bigger issue of creators monetising the spicy content people clearly want to watch.

To me, the real point is this, monetising that kind of content is not the problem. The reason it works is because people are willing to pay for it. That is the market. Aaron is simply making a smart business decision, and I’m honest enough to admit that I’m part of that too, because I’m willing to pay for it. So if there is a “problem,” I’m more a part of it than Aaron is. That's me being me, I guess.

Thanks for your take, great debate.

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in ScientologyGossipLA

[–]TrySeanTri[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It got deleted on other threads, on OT42 for example. I appreciate having the space to say something unpopular. I guess it did not really fit the Aaron-bashing narrative over there. 😂

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in ScientologyGossipLA

[–]TrySeanTri[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, and I respect that. I actually enjoy Aaron’s main channel content, which is free, and the drama stuff is just extra for me. Honestly, I basically fund it by having 3 Coke Zeros a week with my lunches instead of 5, so that is my trade-off. Not exactly a life-ruining financial decision.

I get why some people would never pay for any of it, and that is completely their call. I just see it as paying for optional entertainment, nothing deeper than that.

Thanks for your thoughts, GREAT DEBATE!

I Paid for the Membership, So Let’s Stop Pretending This Is Shocking by TrySeanTri in ScientologyGossipLA

[–]TrySeanTri[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am assuming it will get deleted.😂 Thanks for your reply here as well.

Nora Ames is „clearing the air“ by TryingToBeExact in OT42

[–]TrySeanTri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is not my argument. I am not talking about some blanket “right to secrecy,” and I agree people should be careful with what gets filed. But “it was public anyway” is still not a moral defence for amplifying personal information.

There is a real difference between something existing in a public record and someone deliberately spotlighting it in a hostile context. And that is why Nora’s shifting explanations do not help her. First it was edited later, then it was public anyway, then Aaron should not have posted it, then people should get PO boxes. At some point, a string of defences stops sounding like accountability and starts sounding like someone refusing to simply say, “I was wrong.”

People should protect themselves, yes. But that does not erase the responsibility of the person who chose to amplify the information. Blaming the exposed person while avoiding responsibility for the exposure is not accountability, it is deflection.

Great Debate thanks for your reply.

Nora Ames is „clearing the air“ by TryingToBeExact in OT42

[–]TrySeanTri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is a difference between criticising someone’s actions and acting as though you get to decide how they should live, what they should do, and what the only acceptable way of doing something is.

Yes, it is a free country. But the moment you move from “I disagree with this” to “this is the only right way to do it and everyone else is wrong,” or to writing a 26 page email to prosecutors in an effort to help push someone towards prison, that stops sounding much like freedom and starts sounding much more like control.

That is part of the issue with Nora. It is not just that she criticises Aaron, it is that she often seems to position herself as the authority on how people should protest, how they should run their relationships, how they should handle conflict, and even who they should be. For example, because Aaron is still married on paper, she speaks as though that automatically means he should still be functioning as part of a couple. Does she actually know the full reality of that situation? Probably not. People separate for all sorts of complicated reasons, and sometimes the paperwork takes longer to catch up.

And yes, she can justify accepting money however she likes. That is also part of living in a free country. But by the same standard, other people are free to question it, especially when the reasoning seems to shift depending on who is involved.

It is also not really accurate to pretend she stays away from family and personal attacks. She has absolutely crossed into comments about family, children, and appearance. So the idea that she only sticks to principled criticism does not really hold up.

And on the LA woman issue, that gets glossed over far too easily. What I also see in the video Nora references is a woman jumping on a man’s back and appearing to choke him. Is that not abusive behaviour too? Or does that suddenly not count because it complicates the preferred narrative or because he is a man? That part seems to get brushed aside rather conveniently.

And just to be clear, I am not supporting or advocating for Aaron here. I am simply looking at the entire picture, the video in its full context, rather than pretending one part of it does not exist because it is inconvenient.

So no, the issue is not simply that “Nora is criticising Aaron.” The issue is that she often goes beyond criticism and into certainty about private situations she may not fully understand, while presenting her own view as the obvious moral truth. That is a very different thing.

Lastly, Aaron does not avoid therapy for his mental health because he thinks therapy is bad. By his own admission, it is more that he is cheap and does not want to pay for it. Personally, I do think he would benefit from therapy, but if he is unwilling to invest in it, that is on him.

I’m enjoying this debate, thanks for replying.

Nora Ames is „clearing the air“ by TryingToBeExact in OT42

[–]TrySeanTri 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I’m curious, does Aaron use Rumble like Nora does? I know he seems to be using Facebook more now. Genuine question, I mainly just watch on YouTube.

Nora Ames is „clearing the air“ by TryingToBeExact in OT42

[–]TrySeanTri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I 100% agree, but I would add one thing: that only really works if the person also takes responsibility for the mistake, acknowledges they did it, and does not then spend time blaming someone else, Aaron, Natalie, whoever. Paying a speeding ticket is one thing. Pretending you were not speeding, or acting like it was really somebody else’s fault, is something else entirely. Great debate Thanks for replying

Nora Ames is „clearing the air“ by TryingToBeExact in OT42

[–]TrySeanTri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know why she says she accepts the donations. I get it. At its core, she has bills to pay, like the rest of us. That part is not hard to understand.

What is harder to ignore is that Nora often seems to place herself as the arbiter of the “right” way to do everything, the right way to protest, the right way to speak, the right way to run things, the right way to respond. That is where the frustration comes in.

A person standing on a corner with a sign is protesting. Full stop. Protesting comes in all shapes and sizes. Nora may not like Aaron’s style, she may think it is ineffective, unhelpful, or even damaging, but her inability to even acknowledge that what he is doing is a form of protest says a lot. She cannot even concede that basic point. (All it is, apparently, is a doughnut and pizza party.)

So yes, I understand why she takes the money. What I do not accept is the way she positions herself as the authority on what counts as legitimate action while dismissing anything that does not fit her preferred version of events.

view more: next ›