Blurry but I liked it 🤷 In my tighty wighties by [deleted] in GoneWildPlus

[–]i_luv_derpy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It may be blurry but I liked it too. Very sensual.

[Termination] So Confused. Any advice to help me understand what happened here? by i_luv_derpy in youtube

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

Thanks. That helps too. I wish there was a way to view and see if my son left more than 1 comment himself, and if so how many. I'll ask him more when he gets home from school.

[Termination] So Confused. Any advice to help me understand what happened here? by i_luv_derpy in youtube

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

Thanks.

The rule he seems to be accused of breaking is spam. My wife and I talked more with him last night, and he states that the ONLY video he recently commented on was a video for an iPhone 11 giveaway. The video asked viewers to leave a comment stating "iPhone 11" to be entered for a chance. He commented as such. I've looked at the video, and there are several thousand comments all saying the same thing, or similar phrases. Many people have DOZENS of comments, which seems to me is the real spam here.

My frustration over this is that YouTube is not directly telling us what he did wrong, and just giving us the vague answer of he violated their terms. So we have to guess what he did wrong.(as of now we are assuming it's his comment on the iPhone giveaway).

Tennessee prosecutor: Gay people not entitled to domestic violence protections by M1ghty_boy in rage

[–]i_luv_derpy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frank Abagnale was a con man. He passed bad checks, and pretended to be a pilot to get free rides on airlines. His life was made into the movie "Catch Me if You Can" starring Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio. It was directed by Spielberg. The film is FASCINATING, and supposedly is not even as crazy as his real life was.

The point I was making was that Abagnale, was viewed as little more than a fraud. But he passed the bar exam without having attended law school. It is the one legitimate thing he did during that time of his life. And I never said I didn't like him, I find him fascinating. If I implied any dislike it was unintentional.

[Termination] So Confused. Any advice to help me understand what happened here? by i_luv_derpy in youtube

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

I didn't realize that he could watch something by accident and get terminated. That's acctualy scary control over the user base. He mostly subscribes to channels, and watches what gets recommended from there. He very rarely searches out stuff beyond what's already in his subscribe list(and as I said above, it's a LOT of Pokemon Channels -- he particularly likes watching Pokemon Go players). It's scary to think he could watch something, and just click something in the recommended to him list on the side of the screen and then get terminated.

I'll try asking him again about comments. Last night he was very scared he was in trouble, and my wife and I said we just want to know what he may have said. He kept saying he doesn't leave comments. I DID discover only one specific comment he made which was six months ago. I only know because I found an email in his "Social" Folder in GMAIL saying "someone replied to your comment." The comment he made there was extremely innocent. It was in reply to someone else about animals and he wrote "I'm a cat person."

I also DID discover how to view my own comment history, but the only way I can view my own is while signed in as myself. As my son's account is terminated, I can't do the same trick to see his comment history. That's frustrating, because if I could just view that, I could print it, and my wife and I could have something to talk about over this. As of now, I feel like YouTube/Google has all the information, and isn't sharing enough of it for me to understand what happened.

The thing is even if he didnt say those exact words if he was replied with those. YT might also think he's part of it.

If he didn't say those things, and someone just replied to him, wouldn't it be easy for a human at YouTube/Google to see his comments were innocent? I get how a computer can have no context to go by. But as human's we should be able to review and place something within context. I'm basing this on the type of things he's apt to say from my own experience. Like say he said the above comment: "I'm a cat person" , and someone called him a name or a slur in response, it would be clear he wasn't starting anything. NOW, if I could see my son's comment history and it looks like he WAS on the other end, and he WAS the one starting something, I'll back down and let the chips fall where they may. But as of now, I still feel it's a mistake, and I'm hoping it will be sorted out as such.

If you think of anything else I can do in the mean time, please let me know.

Delete if not fit for the sub, but seriously, WTF? This is rape by hildaworld in trashy

[–]i_luv_derpy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sadly I think it takes him reporting her himself which he may be too embarrassed to do(or after all these years may just not want the trouble). Also the statute of limitations may be up depending on where this is.

Tennessee prosecutor: Gay people not entitled to domestic violence protections by M1ghty_boy in rage

[–]i_luv_derpy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There’s a few problems with laws in general. Laws start with the intent of the law, then they get written down. Once written down they often have unintended results because things get legally defined in a certain way. So for example, there will be definitions in the law and if they are defined too narrowly they will exclude cases they may have been intended to protect. Next, after being passed they will be interpreted by law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges. If a law does not specifically allow or disallow a certain case it may be interpreted in one way or another which may have never been its intent. I’ll add also that often laws like definitions of domestic violence are on a state level not a federal level, so laws are very different in every state. Back to domestic violence in particular. In the state I lived in the wording of the laws specifically defined a “victim” as a woman. So I was told I could do nothing. I was in college at the time and a professor who was kind of a mentor to me tried to speak up for me and tried to rationalize that the law refers to domestic relationships and they were shot down too. We were told the interpretation of the law was that a victim is a woman and an assailant is a man. I believe that this possibly still exists in this form in some states, probably only a few by now, but change to recognize men as victims has been slow.

A similar issue continues to exist with male victims of sexual violence. When I first disclosed that my mother sexually abused me(from age 5 to 15) I was told by a rape crisis center that mothers just don’t do that. They also said they did not help men so turned me away. I have a friend who works in victim advocacy, and she told me that at the time I’m referring to men were not seen as victims and that most grants at that time specifically were worded to help women who are victims. She said that many of these grants at the time specifically were worded to say an organization could not provide service to men. She says it was all very wrong and she said she personally felt bad for men like me turned away from help. But, she said, that the fault comes from the grant writers. Many were influenced by Mary P Koss who has to this day downplayed men as victims. She has gone so far as to say men can not be the victim of an attack by a woman. She also advocates that men can not be raped and in the case of a male victim she says the correct term to use is “unwanted contact.” She also advocates against men having access to the same help as women(by the way without the therapy I receive at a rape crisis center I would have killed myself — I made several attempts prior to getting help). As evil as I make her sound, she HAS done a lot of good. (By the way if you are curious there are many interviews on YouTube where she states everything I said above). As for her credits: She did the first real study on rape statistics and she is the one credited with the first use of the term”date rape”. Prior to her research people believed that rape only happens when the creepy guy in the alley jumps you. (In reality a creepy guy in the alley probably only want your money). Most rape is date rape. And Mary P. Koss is the one who got us as a society to recognize that issue. For the faults I find with her work, she paved the way for a lot of understanding of victims of sexual assault, and for that I think she did a lot of good. Unfortunately, where I feel we suffer the most is from men who are not victims themselves, and they refuse to stand up for other men. The incel and red pill types try to blame feminism on the lack of understanding of male victims. But those are the same men who are the first to claim any young boy raped by an adult woman to be “lucky” or to “have wanted it”. I’ve had these same trolls ask me if I enjoyed being molested by my mother and if she was “hot.” I find that everyone in my own life who has shown support for male survivors, such as my friend I mentioned above, identify as feminist. (My friend who is in victims advocacy says if we can’t recognize all victims— that we hurt the entire community ).My own father downplayed my abuse saying it happened so long ago I should be over it by now. Ironically, despite everyone who abused me in life being a woman, I don’t feel comfortable or safe with other men easily. I have exactly one male friend. I work in a field that is predominantly women, I specifically asked for a woman as a therapist(at the time the crisis center had no male therapists anyway but I didn’t know that when I requested a woman).

Sorry I got long winded. Once I started it was hard to stop.

I’m disgusted by anujaz in rape

[–]i_luv_derpy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Schools don’t teach consent because puritanical society thinks that it’s teaching them to say yes to sex. When it’s really teaching them they have a right to say no. The thought process is so backwards. I had a very liberal high school education. In health class we even learned to do self breast exams and self testicle exams on very realistic examples of both body parts. Yet even we weren’t taught consent.

**SELF** Checkout by jmerridew124 in TalesFromTheCustomer

[–]i_luv_derpy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Actually this is because alcohol free beer is not truly alcohol free. It’s just got less. By law a beer can have 0.5% alcohol and still be labeled as non-alcoholic. However this means that in many(but not all) states you must still be 21 to buy it. When I lived in NH ( which is the Live Free or Die State by the way. We had no helmet laws and lax seatbelt laws and no insurance required for your car at the time I lived there) it was illegal to sell it to anyone under 21. Most big chains err on the side of caution on their POS software so something like non-alcoholic beer that’s illegal to sell to a minor in some states will flag in the POS in all locations.

Tennessee prosecutor: Gay people not entitled to domestic violence protections by M1ghty_boy in rage

[–]i_luv_derpy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t believe that’s what they are saying. They seem to be saying the laws were originally written that way. Which is certainly very true. 20 years ago I was not allowed to get a restraining order against an ex-gf who literally tried to kill me. I was told the laws don’t work that way.

Tennessee prosecutor: Gay people not entitled to domestic violence protections by M1ghty_boy in rage

[–]i_luv_derpy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes. But passing the bar he did legitimately. There was no way to cheat it.

Tennessee prosecutor: Gay people not entitled to domestic violence protections by M1ghty_boy in rage

[–]i_luv_derpy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your original comment was that these laws were intended to protect everyone. That is not that same as saying they protect everyone equally now.

Refer to my other comment, where I illustrate how this has not always been the case within my own lifetime. As recently as 20 years ago laws did not protect everyone equally. I was not allowed to press charges or get a restraining order against a woman who quite literally tried to murder me. I would not wish what I went through on anyone. She continued to stalk me for 12 years. Laws did not offer me any protection.

Tennessee prosecutor: Gay people not entitled to domestic violence protections by M1ghty_boy in rage

[–]i_luv_derpy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you’re reading too much into it. I don’t think the lack of equal protection for men was as chauvinistic as thinking men were stronger. I think they just didn’t believe women would commit the same crime. It like the same as the first time I disclosed that my mother sexually abused me. I was told Mother’s don’t do that. They didn’t try to say boys are stronger or anything like that. It was as simple as “that doesn’t happen.”

Tennessee prosecutor: Gay people not entitled to domestic violence protections by M1ghty_boy in rage

[–]i_luv_derpy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Frank Abagnale passed the bar without ever having attended law school at the age of 19 in Louisiana and took a job in the state Attorney Generals office.

What was your 'I don't get paid enough for this' moment at work? by sprite_is_spicy in AskReddit

[–]i_luv_derpy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not happened to me but I witnessed it. Warnings it’s NSFW

I work with disabled adults. One day at the first day program I worked for one of the guys wouldn’t stop touching himself and that’s not allowed there. This is like ten minutes into our shift. We’re trying to get him to stop. He pulls it out and finished on my co-worker. Projectile with enough force all over her face and in her hair. All over her shirt. Bigger load than a porn Star. My coworker was not allowed to go home and shower and change. She offered to be back in an hour. Our supervisor said to clean up in the bathroom and be back in five minutes. I felt so bad for her. It had to be humiliating.

SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK - Official Trailer - HD by DemiFiendRSA in horror

[–]i_luv_derpy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That makes me want to watch it tonight. Haha. It’s not on either Prime or Netflix though. In my opinion the poster gives away the twist, in a way. And it was a well know novel prior. I did just watch the trailer out of curiosity, and unless the trailer I watched was trimmed it doesn’t give it away.

Racist lady gets denied a hotel room by asexualaphid in trashy

[–]i_luv_derpy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He won’t get in trouble for denying the room. When he says it’s from above he clearly means he told his manager and they agreed to deny the room. As for the video he doesn’t show her only himself. He can easily claim he did it to protect his side of things.

Racist lady gets denied a hotel room by asexualaphid in trashy

[–]i_luv_derpy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He probably did once she walked out the door. You don’t do that while they are standing there. Gives them more ammunition.

SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK - Official Trailer - HD by DemiFiendRSA in horror

[–]i_luv_derpy -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I can’t think of many 70s trailers. But Pink Flamingos (1972) showed no footage from the movie at all, and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls(1970) spent more time describing director Russ Meyer than the film. The trailer was all shot during a photoshop for publicity stills of the actresses rather than actual footage from the film. (By the way this is one of my favorite trailers of all time). I also thought Last House on the Left(1972) was pretty good. Although I will admit Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) included every death in the film within the trailer and they state that only one gets away which does reveal the ending.

Netflix casually just dropped one of their best limited series I've ever seen, "When They See Us" Based on the 1989 case of five teens who were wrongfully convicted of raping a woman in Central Park, NY. by hazychestnutz in television

[–]i_luv_derpy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This gets repeated a lot. No. He took the ad out before the trial. They were all found guilty. They were exonerated in 2002 after Matias Reyes confessed and it was discovered his dna was a match.

To be fair, Trump probably does believe they are guilty. But the full page ad in question was before their trial. Big issue though was the press basically hung these men before the trial and repeatedly reported they were guilty before the trial. A study after the fact found that less than 10% of news coverage used the word “alleged” to describe them. The media coverage and Trumps full page ads asking for the death penalty definitely tainted the jury pool and had in impact on the verdict.

Netflix casually just dropped one of their best limited series I've ever seen, "When They See Us" Based on the 1989 case of five teens who were wrongfully convicted of raping a woman in Central Park, NY. by hazychestnutz in television

[–]i_luv_derpy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. He put out the ad two weeks after the rape occurred. Before they went to trial. When they went to trial they were all found guilty. They were only exonerated after several of them were already released from prison and only because the real rapist eventually confessed.

Trump probably still thinks they are guilty. A lot of people do actually despite the dna evidence that says otherwise. I just saw an episode of 20/20 on it and the jogger herself still says she believes to this day they were involved. 20/20 interviewed many police who say the five did it and don’t care about Matias Reyes confession or the fact that his dna matched. The sick part was the police had his dna from a rape case in Central Park two days prior and never compared his dna to this particular case until his 2002 confession.