Danny Masterson and similar social issues

DakenMarquis

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
66
Hey guys,

Not sure if you've seen or heard about the Danny Masterson sentencing. I've read the articles on paranoid dating society and other similar social concerns on the boards here. Question is what if your successful in your career, are in the public eye, etc and something like this happens years later. We don't know if this was an FRA or real, but Ca courts, society, #MeToo type cases can be witch hunts for successful, influential and wealthy men.

How do we make our game so good, keep discretion b/w current and former partners, and insure something like this doesn't happen, years later. It concerns me and I've lost a lot of lays due to the woman wanting more aggressive interaction/pursuit from me and me letting the girl go, or having casual relations w women and not committing and being concerned about her after the fact. Women can be vindictive, society can be oppressive to men who are good w women and may live life that isn't promoted by the mainstream, especially since I'm not white or very tall.

Hope this really gets a good informative conversation going. I love women, but our society makes me concerned on occasion
 

ulrich

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
1,663
Well, if press is to be believed, Masterson apparently drugged the women before having sex with them.
Add to that, the fact Scientology is involved… which is basically a cult and a lot of weird sexual and power related things happen in cults.

I understand your fear but it doesn’t seem from my first outlook like Masterson is just a succesful guy trapped in a #metoo witch hunt.
He might as well be guilty.

Keep also in mind that this is his second trial… he avoided jail once because of a divided jury which puts another layer of protection for men.
As long as you have a reasonable explanation, in English law you only need to convince one jury to avoid jail.

Lots of bad things happen to good men.

I don’t think this is one of those cases.
 

ulrich

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
1,663
Although, to be fair… something strikes me odd here.
Doesn’t rape have a statue of limitation of 10 years or so???
Why is he being judged for something that happened 20 years ago?

Edit: Nevermind, California has no statute of limitation for rape.
 

Bill

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
May 20, 2023
Messages
70
You can get security cameras connected to your phone, and after sleeping together text something about it and save her reply indicating the consent along with other texts.
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,566
Well, if press is to be believed, Masterson apparently drugged the women before having sex with them.

The press, tragically, is rarely to be believed.

The two women claimed to have had drinks then "not remembered what happened next." This was used to imply there could have been drugs. There were no hints or evidence of drugs, and obviously they can't do toxicology because it's a 20-year-old case. IIRC they originally were not even permitted to imply drugs were involved, but there's no such rule on the media, which can spin stories however it wants. All Masterson's friends are claiming he's always been anti-drug and works with people to get them off drugs.

The tactical advice is, "Don't give women drinks at your place, and don't sleep with drunk girls, at all." You really don't need it. My recommendation is always just to get girls a glass of water when you bring them over. Comes across more confident IMO: "I don't need to get you drunk to shag you. Here's a water." If you're running your game right, they're already just about ready to go when you pull anyway. If she's drunk when you pull her, wait for her to sober up. If she's falling asleep, just get her in a car and send her home. Call a friend of hers to make sure she knows you're sending her home because she's just too sleepy. Also, don't pull tired girls.

At the more strategic level... there's nothing you can do to be totally safe against this kind of he-said she-said "we had sex twenty years ago but actually now that I think about it it was rape" accusation. False rape accusations are just something that is always a possibility. Potiphar's wife in the Bible, the Greek tragedy Hippolytus (the Greek hero Theseus -- slayer of Medusa -- believes a false rape accusation against his son and prays to Poseidon to kill his own kid)... IIRC Ovid cautions against it in Ars Amatoria; this stuff is not new. You can find false rape accusations described in every era, and they occur in every culture. The only thing is "how seriously does a society take women's word without any additional evidence at any given point in time?"

Right now in the West there's no longer any kind of physical or circumstantial evidence required. The definition of rape is also now so broad that it includes almost anything. It's pure he-said she-said, and the inclination is to give more weight to the accuser. You don't even have to shag the girl to catch a rape charge. Guys get rape-accused for turning women down.

So, the best strategic-level advice is keep your nose clean: do the stuff you should do to minimize accusation risks. Avoid psychos, don't do drunk girls, don't do tired girls, don't give girls drugs or alcohol at home, be nice to girls after the lay, get the next morning text. But beyond that, you need to be aware that if you do catch a decades-old accusation from some chick you probably don't even remember, and it's some loopy he-said she-said thing, this is not the judicial system of yore. You can't laugh it off as ridiculous, point to whatever evidence you have, and protest that this was decades ago and there's no way she's remembering things right and that'll make it go away.

You are up against a machine that is biased a certain way. You are unlikely to win fighting a huge machine.

So, don't be naïve. Don't go down waging some futile battle for truth and justice in a system where these values are out-of-date.

Instead, if you get hit with one of these he-said she-said cases from years before, my recommendation is "Get out of Dodge"... and stay out, until the whole hysteria's well and truly over.

When you live in a building that's a fire risk, it pays to know where the fire escapes are and be ready to use them... just in case...

Anyway, I don't want to alarm folks.

These rape accusations are still something only a small minority of men will experience.

That said, considering the impunity given to accusers, I think we can expect to see more and more of them until the burden of proof swings back toward accusers again... but who knows where that will be.

Chase
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,579
Seems pretty crazy to me that someone can be given a sentence like that (from what I can tell, the maximum possible) based on the victim's testimony alone from 20 years ago. You'd think that there would be some aspect of reasonable doubt based on the fuzziness of 20 year old memory, not to mention the inability to do toxicology and medical exams, and probably loss of all kinds of records such as phone messages, witnesses, etc.

Imagine some event from your life from that long ago and then trying to prove to a court that it happened the way it did, where would you begin?

The only thing that seems unlikely to happen to an innocent man is having five different women make an FRA. But then again, they were all (or at least most of them) connected by their past membership to a certain church that are currently public enemy no. 1, and it seems like they might have all been rallied together by the critics of that church who have an agenda against them. So maybe this case is more about attacking that church than it is about what Masterson did or didn't do, and he just happened to be an opportunity for that.

@Chase I'd love to hear what you have to say about the multiple accusations - assuming he's not guilty, what would make it more or less likely that multiple women would come out of the woodwork to make FRAs twenty years on? I don't think the vast majority of women would do that sort of thing just to get a bit of money, even if given an opportunity, so it seems to me that there is some common chip on their shoulders. Either he treated them badly enough that they still want to get revenge 20 years later, or they have an opportunity to attack that church .. or maybe hollywood is just so much of a rat's nest of messed up people that these things will catch fire out of nowhere.

How do we make our game so good, keep discretion b/w current and former partners, and insure something like this doesn't happen, years later. It concerns me and I've lost a lot of lays due to the woman wanting more aggressive interaction/pursuit from me and me letting the girl go, or having casual relations w women and not committing and being concerned about her after the fact. Women can be vindictive, society can be oppressive to men who are good w women and may live life that isn't promoted by the mainstream, especially since I'm not white or very tall.

I don't think there's a lot of tactics to make your game so good that it won't happen. But I do think the main thing to do is to treat women well and make sure they have an experience that they enjoy. At the end of the day both seduction and FRAs are driven by a woman's emotions, and while it's not always possible to manage how she feels, treating her well especially after sex is going to have the biggest impact. A woman doesn't have any more loyalty by default to society than she does to you, especially if the experience you had together is one that is a positive part of her identity, so if she has fond memories of it there's no reason to suspect that she's just going to turn around and destroy your life for no reason.

For those messed up women who slip by the radar, I concur with Chase's advice. You do not want to end up being a footnote in the fall of western civilization.

PS some might disagree with this, but I'll add it in. Don't go around looking like the sort of guy that might do that sort of thing. I heard someone say about the Weinstein case, and I think it's at least partly true: there seems to be a certain model of the sort of guy who is accused by women decades later, and it's the sort of guy that women are probably not all that proud to have gone to bed with and probably only did so for some objective that didn't pan out.

I think this has an effect not only in whether it will happen at all, but also in the way the case pans out. In Masterson's case the judge who slammed him with the max sentence was a woman who might easily have been a lot more swayed by a guy like Johnny Depp than him. And just look at the amount of favorable coverage that Depp got by comparison - he's a charming, charismatic, well-liked, and doesn't come across in any way as the sort of guy who would need to lower himself to forcing women to be with him. I'd never really heard of Masterson before, and I have no idea if he's guilty or whether he's a sinner or a saint - but his impression is simply not the best. Where are all the red pill videos defending him? Nobody wants to go to bat it seems, and it probably has a lot to do with how easily you can portray him as the sort of guy who never would have needed to do what he's accused of.

In the end it is people who put other people away or exonerate them, and people are driven by emotions and bias.
 
Last edited:

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,566
@Chase I'd love to hear what you have to say about the multiple accusations - assuming he's not guilty, what would make it more or less likely that multiple women would come out of the woodwork to make FRAs twenty years on? I don't think the vast majority of women would do that sort of thing just to get a bit of money, even if given an opportunity, so it seems to me that there is some common chip on their shoulders. Either he treated them badly enough that they still want to get revenge 20 years later, or they have an opportunity to attack that church .. or maybe hollywood is just so much of a rat's nest of messed up people that these things will catch fire out of nowhere.

There is a known tendency during moral panics for multiple people to accuse the same target of something once the first accuser comes forth. Multiple people accuse the same woman of witchcraft during witch hunts, for example. Once one person accuses her, others start to pile on. It is normally mostly/all women engaging in this pile-on accusation. At which point the hysteria evolves into mass hysteria.

This was known, established psychology at the start of the 20th Century, but it’s been buried and sanctioned in academia and popular thought for decades. Never refuted (because it’s solid and well-evidenced), simply not something you are supposed to talk about or ever acknowledge.

I know a guy who has dealt with a multiple-accuser rape scenario. In his case, three women came forward to accuse him of rape all at once. He’d only slept with one of them. I got very detailed breakdowns from him of all three cases. He was a bit of a cocky asshole, confidently persistent (not in any kind of way that would be considered ‘rape-y’), and was too cavalier IMO in how he left girls after an attempted hook up or an actual one. The girl he slept with wanted to keep dating him but he didn’t want to keep dating her. The other two girls had boyfriends and went with him in the heat of the moment, kissed him or he fingered them, then ‘came to their senses’ and broke it off and left. The most feminist of them (one of the ones with a boyfriend) started talking to people about three months later, found other girls he’d slept with or made out with, and looked to see who she could recruit to go after him. One girl he’d slept with who was not part of this accuser set came to him and warned him the feminist girl was doing this – building this team of rape hunt avengers. The girl in question had declined the feminist girl’s offer to be one of the accusers, and told her off / defended the guy, but the feminist girl proceeded regardless.

I don’t know enough of the Masterson case to know how the women came together or what (or who) triggered the prosecution. They started prosecuting in 2017 I believe, or 14 years after these incidents. I will tell you in 14 years memories can change a LOT.

I’ve had conversations with women about things from the past (not sexual) where the woman insists it was a certain way, that events happened in X, Y, Z fashion, or that she did something or did not do something or I did something or did not do something, and I very clearly remember it another way. Sometimes I’m able to find evidence that her memory was faulty (something written, or some video, or other people who remember the event and it’s not how she remembers it) and they’ll be stunned that their memory changed so much. Sometimes I have found memories that changed in myself – I go back and read some old journal or some old report of mine from years ago and something I very clearly remember happening one way I wrote about at the time it happened as having happened a different way.

So you can have scenarios (not saying this happened here, just a hypothetical) where a woman is a LITTLE bit drunk… years go by… there’s a rape mass hysteria going on and women are looking for rapists under every rock, hiding behind every bush… a woman looks back on some sexual encounter she had that she now feels bad about for whatever reason (maybe she even felt great about it at the time it happened) and starts “remembering” that actually she wasn’t a little bit drunk… actually she was REALLY drunk… heck, maybe he could’ve even DRUGGED her!

There’s all kinds of psychology you can go into here. You notice it’s never women who are super famous living awesome lives who become these Hollywood accusers. Why would a woman want to tell people she was raped by a Hollywood star? In a society that lionizes victims, and particularly rape victims, there’s a certain status tied to being a rape victim. A rape victim of someone FAMOUS? Those victim points are off the dial. Women who have status from other sources don’t need “victim status.” But those victim status points can be very attractive.

Remember, the modern West is a victim culture. The more you can position yourself as a victim, the more status you have in Western society, which is a managerial society where people are largely not permitted to do things on their own, and instead must appeal to bureaucracies to intervene on their behalf. Claiming a victim status allows you more leverage in getting the bureaucracy to come down on your side in a dispute.

As far as Scientology, a lot of ex-Scientology members turn very hostile to both Scientology and people they knew within it. A lot of apostates of ANY religion turn this way. Probably why Muslims are tolerant of conquered non-believers, but a non-believer who is an apostate gets death.

Why would a woman suddenly decide 14 years later that she was raped and something needs to happen to the guy? We can certainly come up with all kinds of excuses for “why she wouldn’t have accused him then” or “why the time was right to accuse him now” but let’s set that aside and look at it from a pure standpoint of “what’s the benefit to her NOW?” Why would someone wait 14 years, then suddenly get angry enough to reopen some old encounter and make a huge stink about it? This court case started in 2017. They waited 14 years, then opened up a case they then spent 6 years dealing with. You know whatever these women are doing now this whole thing is constantly at the top of their minds and has defined their lives for the past 6 years. I don’t care who you are, that is a huge mental penalty to incur, having some tangled up he-said she-said court case about something that happened many years ago defining and steering your life.

Again, we return to the hysteria aspect of it. Everywhere all across the media, people are being whipped into angry frenzies about all kinds of hysterias – rape, viruses, racism, sexism, men, women, dating, sex, population replacement, income inequality, runaway inflation, criminality, war – and they are being brought into these dark, negative states and polarized there. They’re being brought into very aggressive states and conditioned to seek outlets for their aggression; some kind of external tormentor. Of course the actual tormentors are the media and the other forces who are setting up all these hysterias and pushing them so hard, but people don’t see that; they just fall for the hysteria itself, then turn on each other.

When you start talking about rape, rape, rape, rape, rape all the time, telling people that everything other than sign-on-the-dotted-line contractual sex with a referee present is or could be rape, then you start seeing women lauded as brave and powerful for coming out with some dusty old rape story and winning in court against some shell-shocked guy who still can’t even believe he’s being accused of “rape: redefined”, you are going to trigger some women – especially those whose lives aren’t great, or who have some sort of disorder – to target the aggression they are feeling at whoever might fit the bill.

You can’t try to think too logically when you’re in the midst of a mass hysteria. Innocent people become the targets of people who aside from their accusations are also otherwise normal, innocent people.

What you end up with is normal, good people eating each other in the midst of an insane cultural maelstrom.

The only thing you can do is try to steer clear of the storm, or else make for higher ground if it looks like the storm is veering your way.

Chase
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,579
There is a known tendency during moral panics for multiple people to accuse the same target of something once the first accuser comes forth. Multiple people accuse the same woman of witchcraft during witch hunts, for example. Once one person accuses her, others start to pile on. It is normally mostly/all women engaging in this pile-on accusation. At which point the hysteria evolves into mass hysteria.

Yeah I'd read about that sometime ago, one of those crazy features of the psyche.

I don’t know enough of the Masterson case to know how the women came together or what (or who) triggered the prosecution. They started prosecuting in 2017 I believe, or 14 years after these incidents. I will tell you in 14 years memories can change a LOT.

Seems like one of them made a complaint to police soon after the fact but it wasn't pursued, and there was also some $400k settlement made either by Masterson or the church of scientology with one of the victims. So maybe there was evidence recorded at that point.

It's not easy to get an idea of what actual evidence was used in the trial to convict him though.


Why would a woman suddenly decide 14 years later that she was raped and something needs to happen to the guy? We can certainly come up with all kinds of excuses for “why she wouldn’t have accused him then” or “why the time was right to accuse him now” but let’s set that aside and look at it from a pure standpoint of “what’s the benefit to her NOW?” Why would someone wait 14 years, then suddenly get angry enough to reopen some old encounter and make a huge stink about it? This court case started in 2017. They waited 14 years, then opened up a case they then spent 6 years dealing with. You know whatever these women are doing now this whole thing is constantly at the top of their minds and has defined their lives for the past 6 years. I don’t care who you are, that is a huge mental penalty to incur, having some tangled up he-said she-said court case about something that happened many years ago defining and steering your life.

Yeah that's the thing that I don't fully understand. It's a hell of a lot of time and energy invested to pursue a court case like this, and if it doesn't pan out there's some chance of reputation damage (although even outright false accusers don't seem to get much of a backlash let alone a sentence in this day and age).

So if it is an FRA there must be a huge emotional driver of some kind. Maybe they are just self-selected - the same kinds of women who might go climbing into bed with a celebrity for a chance at money and fame are probably also the sort who aren't too fazed by the possible downsides of a court case.

And like you say there's definitely a stage effect from being a victim nowadays, so maybe failure at one opportunity led to another one.

Again, we return to the hysteria aspect of it. Everywhere all across the media, people are being whipped into angry frenzies about all kinds of hysterias – rape, viruses, racism, sexism, men, women, dating, sex, population replacement, income inequality, runaway inflation, criminality, war – and they are being brought into these dark, negative states and polarized there. They’re being brought into very aggressive states and conditioned to seek outlets for their aggression; some kind of external tormentor. Of course the actual tormentors are the media and the other forces who are setting up all these hysterias and pushing them so hard, but people don’t see that; they just fall for the hysteria itself, then turn on each other.

When you start talking about rape, rape, rape, rape, rape all the time, telling people that everything other than sign-on-the-dotted-line contractual sex with a referee present is or could be rape, then you start seeing women lauded as brave and powerful for coming out with some dusty old rape story and winning in court against some shell-shocked guy who still can’t even believe he’s being accused of “rape: redefined”, you are going to trigger some women – especially those whose lives aren’t great, or who have some sort of disorder – to target the aggression they are feeling at whoever might fit the bill.

You can’t try to think too logically when you’re in the midst of a mass hysteria. Innocent people become the targets of people who aside from their accusations are also otherwise normal, innocent people.

What you end up with is normal, good people eating each other in the midst of an insane cultural maelstrom.

Yeah it's a crazy world right now. A long time ago I used to read those accounts of the fall of the roman empire, and all the degeneracy and lunacy that went with it, and at the time I thought people must have existed in some kind of primitive, unconscious, animalistic state. But then you see whats going on now and you realize that all you need is a small shift in perspective and a lot of mass momentum to end up manifesting the kind of stuff that people read in history books and think could never happen again.
 

ulrich

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
1,663
Yeah that's the thing that I don't fully understand. It's a hell of a lot of time and energy invested to pursue a court case like this, and if it doesn't pan out there's some chance of reputation damage (although even outright false accusers don't seem to get much of a backlash let alone a sentence in this day and age).

Maybe they got caught in a witch hunt against Scientology… with lawyers and prosecutors pushing them to reframe the experience as victimization so they can be used as martyrs for “the bigger cause”
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,579
Maybe they got caught in a witch hunt against Scientology… with lawyers and prosecutors pushing them to reframe the experience as victimization so they can be used as martyrs for “the bigger cause”

That's one of the possible reasons. This Leah Remini woman pops up all over the place in relation to the case and seems like she ran a whole tv series against scientology featuring the accusers.

Whatever he's guilty of or not, there's no doubt he got caught up in the current whirlpool of feminist politics, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was pressure on the judge to get a guilty verdict - apparently in the first trial the prosecutors weren't allowed to say the women were drugged whereas in the second one this woman judge allowed it. Given the complete lack of concrete evidence for drugs, the fact that it adds a very sinister dimension to everything, and basically gives the women a free pass to have a messed up recollection of things (the recollection being, apparently, the main evidence) that all looks pretty dodgy to me.

What's also very interesting to me is the complete lack of coverage by the red pill youtubers who are usually all over anything like this. You'd expect there to be all sorts of hue and cry about it, but I don't see anything.

Anyway, the whole thing looks to me like the feminist shitstorm coming out of hibernation to claim its latest trophy victim. That's just the kind of world we live in now. Fortunately we don't live in a completely globalized society yet, so it's still possible to set sail for fairer lands.
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,566
There's an interesting quote in that article you link, @Will_V:

Cohen said despite repeated warnings from investigators, the three accusers had spoken with one another and already “contaminated” the case.

That's the same thing I saw in the multi-accuser rape hunt I saw go down... the women all got together and synced up their stories first, then worked collectively to take the guy down.

What's also very interesting to me is the complete lack of coverage by the red pill youtubers who are usually all over anything like this. You'd expect there to be all sorts of hue and cry about it, but I don't see anything.

The red pill YouTubers go for cases that look very transparently like miscarriages of justice.

This one with Masterson has accusations of drugging and choking. Nobody wants to comment on that. The case itself is murky. Honestly I am a bit wary about commenting on it. It is just universally a bad look to defend a guy who might be guilty. And he might be.

Of course, we all know there is all this BDSM stuff going on, and dudes are into choking, and a lot of women are into it. Maybe this dude Masterson was choking. Maybe she was okay with it at the start and then it got to be too much and it spooked her. Maybe it didn't even happen and she completely made it up. It's he-said she-said so there is simply no way to know.

But yeah, I have seen this repeatedly with all these rape case accusations -- if there is any mention of the guy being physical at all in any way, other men vanish completely and the dude is on his own, even if he is claiming it's a complete lie. Johnny Depp was a bit of a special case, because Amber Heard complained of bruises, but it looked super suspicious and she'd also hurt Depp in turn (cut his fingertip off).

It's guilt by association. You already saw it with the Kutcher and Kunis defense of Masterson. They came out saying we don't believe our friend would do something like this and the public and media skewered them. They had to apologize for defending their friend, lol. Kutcher and Kunis are probably done in Hollywood now. Some random no-name Red Pill YouTuber could very well get himself banned defending this stuff. You simply don't want to seem like you're defending a guy who a lynch mob has already decided is The Villain.

The other thing about this dude Masterson being The Villain... He's September 2023's Vladimir Putin / Donald Trump / Derek Chauvin / etc., except that he wasn't doing anything that anybody likes or supported, so he has no support base. Putin and Trump have the anti-empire people in their corner. Chauvin had the people who support police in their corner. Who's going to go to bat for this guy Masterson? He's a great Villain -- you can get to near 100% condemnation of this guy, whether he's actually guilty or not. No one's going to stick their neck out for him. He's just some random former TV show actor who was living on a farm with his wife and kid. He's toast.

Anyway, the whole thing looks to me like the feminist shitstorm coming out of hibernation to claim its latest trophy victim.

It's all part of the outrage cycle.

This Masterson case has been going on since 2017. The guy was fired from Netflix in 2017 over it. That Remini chick you mentioned (the wife from King of Queens) released a documentary on it in 2019. I'd never heard of this case until a week ago.

There are always things like this going on. They just dredge one up and make it a big story when it's needed for the narrative.

That's just the kind of world we live in now. Fortunately we don't live in a completely globalized society yet, so it's still possible to set sail for fairer lands.

Always has been and always will be possible!

There are always other societies.

Though it seems to me most people are too tied into the system they live in to consider leaving even if the system is coming to do them harm or execute them.

That's one thing the Greeks knew better than moderns do -- they were smart enough to know when it was time to go into exile to avoid the mob or an unjust prosecution.

Chase
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,566
Well, it appears this was indeed a case of "at first it wasn't rape, but after thinking about it, it was rape":


Here's testimony of a "Jane Doe" on the basis of whose credibility the actor Danny Masterson just got sentenced to 30 years in prison. Initially told police her 2002 encounter with Masterson was consensual. Then in 2018, concluded it was actually rape. Still seems a tad confused

Defense attorney: So your recollection of September 2002 is still very detailed. Correct?​
Jane Doe: Correct.
And is it your contention today that Masterson raped you in 2002.​
No, that's not the word I would use.
Is it your position that he did not rape you?​
No.
Is it your position there is some word between there?​
Mine?
You're the only person I'm going to be talking to today. Do you remember the name Officer Schlegel. You talked to a male officer at Hollywood PD. Did you tell that officer that you had consensual sex with Masterson in 2002?​
Yes.
You were truthful about that?​
To my understanding?
Again, I'm only interested in your point of view.​
Then to my understanding, yes.
So in 2004 your position was that the sex in 2002 was consensual, correct?​
[Objection: Asked and answered]
Has your opinion changed?​
Yes.
When?​
2018.
So in 2018, you come to the conclusion that in fact Masterson did in fact rape you in 2002.​
No.
End of day break.

Anyway, yeah.

I don't want to put anything cynical here, but just be aware of what the reality is in the courtroom for things like this these days.

Should you end up in any kind of sticky he-said she-said situation, and it gets too far along, adjust your plans accordingly.

Chase
 

Train

Chieftan
tribal-elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2020
Messages
478
It's guilt by association. You already saw it with the Kutcher and Kunis defense of Masterson. They came out saying we don't believe our friend would do something like this and the public and media skewered them. They had to apologize for defending their friend, lol. Kutcher and Kunis are probably done in Hollywood now. Some random no-name Red Pill YouTuber could very well get himself banned defending this stuff. You simply don't want to seem like you're defending a guy who a lynch mob has already decided is The Villain.

There's already two stories from today painting Kutcher as unfavorable, he's getting skewered for sure:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12503393/Ashton-Kutcher-fire-comment-Hilary-Duff.html

Basically he had a wager with Danny Masterson about kissing an underage Mila Kunis. And the other story is him saying Hilary Duff is one of those girls you wait to become of age.

It's funny because the dude is sorta woke but still being railed. Ex. He read bedtime stories to his girls first before his son. The son asked why and Kutcher said something along the lines of "Because the world will be unfair to the women."

With Masterson, the storyline is complete I figure. Not much to outrage but now they're using Ashton to keep the fire going.
 
Last edited:

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,579
There's an interesting quote in that article you link, @Will_V:

Cohen said despite repeated warnings from investigators, the three accusers had spoken with one another and already “contaminated” the case.

That's the same thing I saw in the multi-accuser rape hunt I saw go down... the women all got together and synced up their stories first, then worked collectively to take the guy down.

Looks like that's the female modus operandi for this sort of thing.

The red pill YouTubers go for cases that look very transparently like miscarriages of justice.

This one with Masterson has accusations of drugging and choking. Nobody wants to comment on that. The case itself is murky. Honestly I am a bit wary about commenting on it. It is just universally a bad look to defend a guy who might be guilty. And he might be.

Of course, we all know there is all this BDSM stuff going on, and dudes are into choking, and a lot of women are into it. Maybe this dude Masterson was choking. Maybe she was okay with it at the start and then it got to be too much and it spooked her. Maybe it didn't even happen and she completely made it up. It's he-said she-said so there is simply no way to know.

But yeah, I have seen this repeatedly with all these rape case accusations -- if there is any mention of the guy being physical at all in any way, other men vanish completely and the dude is on his own, even if he is claiming it's a complete lie. Johnny Depp was a bit of a special case, because Amber Heard complained of bruises, but it looked super suspicious and she'd also hurt Depp in turn (cut his fingertip off).

Yeah that makes sense, and it's what I thought. The guy is just not an easy dude to defend.

It's guilt by association. You already saw it with the Kutcher and Kunis defense of Masterson. They came out saying we don't believe our friend would do something like this and the public and media skewered them. They had to apologize for defending their friend, lol. Kutcher and Kunis are probably done in Hollywood now. Some random no-name Red Pill YouTuber could very well get himself banned defending this stuff. You simply don't want to seem like you're defending a guy who a lynch mob has already decided is The Villain.

Man there's a tragic comedy to that sort of stuff. I saw the thumbnail of their apology video with them both sitting there looking like they just woke up next to a corpse. And this is all from them simply making a statement about what they knew of their friend.

Once the mob gets going honesty is nowhere near enough.

Well, it appears this was indeed a case of "at first it wasn't rape, but after thinking about it, it was rape":


Here's testimony of a "Jane Doe" on the basis of whose credibility the actor Danny Masterson just got sentenced to 30 years in prison. Initially told police her 2002 encounter with Masterson was consensual. Then in 2018, concluded it was actually rape. Still seems a tad confused

Defense attorney: So your recollection of September 2002 is still very detailed. Correct?​
Jane Doe: Correct.
And is it your contention today that Masterson raped you in 2002.​
No, that's not the word I would use.
Is it your position that he did not rape you?​
No.
Is it your position there is some word between there?​
Mine?
You're the only person I'm going to be talking to today. Do you remember the name Officer Schlegel. You talked to a male officer at Hollywood PD. Did you tell that officer that you had consensual sex with Masterson in 2002?​
Yes.
You were truthful about that?​
To my understanding?
Again, I'm only interested in your point of view.​
Then to my understanding, yes.
So in 2004 your position was that the sex in 2002 was consensual, correct?​
[Objection: Asked and answered]
Has your opinion changed?​
Yes.
When?​
2018.
So in 2018, you come to the conclusion that in fact Masterson did in fact rape you in 2002.​
No.
End of day break.

Anyway, yeah.

I don't want to put anything cynical here, but just be aware of what the reality is in the courtroom for things like this these days.

Should you end up in any kind of sticky he-said she-said situation, and it gets too far along, adjust your plans accordingly.

Chase

Now if that's the sort of evidence that can put a guy away for 25 to life, things are on very shaky ground indeed.
 

Regal Tiger

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
1,019
I used to get so angry about this crap. Now I just find it hilariously sad

Get out while you can, I'm planning my exit and I cannot wait for the Schadenfreude to kick in from afar
 

DakenMarquis

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
66
Love the informative comments so far. I remember an article called Moral panic and paranoid dating society. Would love to revisit a deeper analysis on how to bulletproof your life. I do somewhat mention things like this on social media but thru a screen name, perhaps its not as much of an issue as my paranoia makes it. But I do have plans for bigger exposure and perhaps political associations/work.

Now with the Russell Brand issue, there's another reason to lie low and not talk about certain topics, although his is a hit piece it seems. And there's very vocal disagreement on his current issue.

I want to know how to mitigate issues like this, if we're concerned about career opportunities, mine is all hush hush, but you never know. I just don't want to compromise my integrity and still write and comment about these things while dating beautiful women lol

A lot of wisdom and guidance here than in the real world, so always turning to places like this blog and everything is much appreciated 🙏
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,566
@D. Marquis,

I mean, the simple fact is that it’s a different justice system now.

If the testimony of an accuser is all that is required to convict you, there’s no such thing as bulletproof. Living in a society where testimony alone convicts and trying to bulletproof against that is like living in the ghetto trying to bulletproof against muggings and drive-bys. There’s stuff you can do to reduce your risk, but you are never going to get it down to zero.

My recommendations on reducing your risk:




But you’ve got to accept that living in the West means you are always going to be at some risk of this.

Just goes with the territory…

Chase
 
Top
>