According to a poll from 2012, 20% of romney voters and 6% of obama voters thought obama was the anti-christ. I’m not shocked by the republican numbers but i cannot believe 6% of democrats voted for a man they thought were anti-christ. wild
In light of recent events, here is a post detailing Greg’s relationships with underage girls. Getting in trouble with the legal age of consent is nothing new to Greg and something he has a lot of experience defending himself for. I hope this sheds some light to the current situation with his forums and exploiting his underage fans.
In this screenshot, Shiloh recounts her abusive relationship with Greg again but with more details into his warped sexual fantasies. Near the end Shiloh mentions how young she was when she was taken advantage of and announces her fear that Taylor could experience the same abuse. She makes a point to mention her age being the same as Taylor’s when they began their relationship with Greg.
Greg knowingly entered a relationship with Taylor while she was underage and attending high school. Greg met with lawyers frequently to confirm the legality of their relationship, while Taylor’s father objected that it was illegal in his opinion. The age of consent in New Mexico being 17. Greg and Taylor met only 10 days making contact online and had sex the first day they met in person. Greg obviously does not take issue with having sexual relationships with minors. Greg also married Taylor secretly from her parents only a month after turning 18! Which doesn’t seem totally underhanded and sketchy at all! /s
Billie joined their relationship in the end of 2015/early 2016 when she was 18 years old. Age of consent in Billie’s home state, Virginia, is 18. I find it curious that Greg seems to carefully check the laws before pursuing anything. He’s aware he is doing something morally wrong and knows he can get into some legal shit if he isn’t careful.
Also here is a screenshot of Taylor patronizing Billie for her age even though she was even younger when she got with Greg.
Greg like to harp on to the fact that a lot of his criticizers seem to point out the fact that he’s been in multiple questionable relationships with minors, and still feels like he hasn’t done anything wrong. The fact that this has happened not once, but twice shows his true intentions when it comes to children. Greg likes to forget the fact that teenagers are still children.
His Audience in General
OnisionDrama made a great post outlining Greg’s target demographic and why YouTube analytics aren’t exactly a valid reference when trying to determine the average age of an Onision fan. I know personally I lied about my age online from the time I was 12-17, which is the exact age range of Greg’s followers. Here we have multiple polls from 2012-2016 showing the majority of fans are indeed minors. Which is why most of the girls featured in his “body positivity” videos are underage.
Here is a poll from Taylor as well, showing most of their shared demographic being under 16 years old.
Sarah is a friend of Taylor’s. They began talking when she was 14. After her sixteenth birthday, Greg and Taylor started housing her officially. She moved in with them around Halloween 2016 and has been there since. The age of consent is 16 in Washington. Notice how once again, Greg calculated the perfect time to move her in after she became legal.
What I feel to be pretty damning against Onision’s case of “dindu nuffin wrong” was the email scandal that happened in 2013. Someone sent Greg an email claiming to be a model/actress that would like to collaborate sometime, she mentioned being 17 years old, and attached a topless photo. Greg then pursued and asked for her facebook for more pictures and to communicate further. After this came out to the public, Greg began the process of covering his own ass at first by saying “I didn’t see her age!” then later changing it to “I never opened the attachment!”.
Another piece of damning evidence is how much Greg has announced that he isn’t a therapist. He has no desire to help his followers.
He never wanted to offer guidance to his audience. He dismissed and out right ignored any fans emailing him for help/advice. But now he has changed his tune since it’s more convenient for him to act like his videos are therapy for those who need it, rather than admitting he was asking for pictures of minors’ bodies.
It’s also important to note context. Greg says the photos are harmless and nothing you wouldn’t see in a public swimming pool. The context of underwear though is that is IS private. Swimwear serves an obvious purpose for being comfortable clothing specially to swim in. Underwear’s purpose is to protect your genitals, it is meant for privacy, to be worn underneath clothing. The hard difference between the two is obvious, swimwear is public, while underwear is private.
So understand that photos of underage girls alone in their room, posing in bra and panties, will always been seen in a sexual context.
So what we can gather from all of the above is:
Greg has no issues being in sexual relationships with minors. As long as it’s barely within the legal limits, he has no moral opposition to dating children.
Greg invites minors into his life and supports relationships with minors even as young as 13.
Greg is aware of his demographic’s age and takes advantage of their naivety for sexually themed photographs of minors.
Greg never intended his “body positivity” videos to be helpful. Greg never had any intentions on helping his fans.
Greg is not qualified to comment on the health of developing girls’ bodies. Greg has no medical certifications nor any experience in the medical field. This includes therapy.
Greg somehow doesn’t understand that you legally can’t make money from minors’ images without parental consent. Minors cannot legally consent without their parents permission.
No matter how many excuses Greg comes up with, there’s no way he can talk himself out of being a hebephile piece of trash.
Feminist and lesbian politician Kathleen Wynne visited a Canadian mosque to show that we should embrace Islam and we are all equal.. She was made to sit in the back corner away from the men as Islam teaches that a woman praying infront of a man makes the man’s prayer invalid. The woman, even with every piece of her skin and her body shape forced to be hidden, is a distraction to the men and must be separated. This is all under the assumption she has permission from her husband to leave the house first, of course.
Wynne must also have forgotten the part while she was giving her speech about equality, where if she visited any of the main 13 Muslim countries, she would legally be killed for being a lesbian and a further 3 would arrest her.
But Muslims outside of these countries don’t hold these views, right? They hold our equal western values, right? Well a 2007 survey of British Muslims showed that 61% believe homosexuality should be illegal, with up to 71% of young British Muslims holding this belief. A later Gallup poll in 2009 showed that none of the 500 British Muslims polled believed homosexuality to be “morally acceptable”. This compared with 35% of the 1001 French Muslims polled that did. According to a 2012 poll, 51% of the Turks in Germany, who account for nearly two thirds of the total Muslim population in Germany, believe that homosexuality is an illness.
Another YouGov poll for Muslim students was conducted across 12 universities in the United Kingdom and it found 40% support the introduction of sharia into British law. A third support the notion of a worldwide Islamic state based on sharia law. 40% feel it is unacceptable for Muslim men and women to mix freely. A quarter have little or no respect for homosexuals and that men and women aren’t equals. While 32% of them said that killing in the name of their religion was acceptable.
And these American kids complain about a cake not being baked and having to leave their mini skirts out of the classrooms. Oh the cruel, primitive western white oppression.
tfw everybody misses the point by a nautical mile and then it’s just dangling robo-boobs and cat meme gifs until the end of time.
The fandom’s response to little forum poll posted in 2012 on the tfw2005 boards. This was about 7 months before Rewind said those three magic words to Domey in MTMTE #16.
Consensus: Keep yer gender and sexuality representations out of Transformers! We don’t know how their inclusion could possibly make the stories and characters more unique, relatable or interesting! This poll is 100% talking about R rated robosex in saturday morning cartoons. Think of the children!
In 2014, ~34% of Germans claimed no religious affiliation. Christianity is the largest religion with around 50 million adherents (61%) of whom 23 million are Protestants/Lutherans (28%) and 24 million are Catholics (29.5%). The Orthodox Church accounts for ~2%. In 2008, the remainder belonged to small Christian denominations, each less than 0.5% of the population). The 2nd-largest religion is Islam with 2.1 - 4.5 million adherents (2.5%-5.5%) followed by Buddhism with around 270,000. Judaism has around 100,000 known adherents although there might be a further 100,000 whose status is unclear. Hinduism has around 100,000 adherents; Sikhism has about 75,000. All other religious communities in Germany have fewer than 50,000 (<0.1%) adherents.
Protestantism is concentrated in the north and east; Roman Catholicism is concentrated in the south and west. The former Pope, Benedict XVI, was born in Bavaria. Non-religious people, including atheists and agnostics, might make up as much as 55%, they’re especially numerous in Eastern Germany and major metropolitan areas. Most Muslims are Sunnis and Alevites from Turkey, but there are a small number of Shi'ites and other denominations. Only 1.3% of the population declare themselves Orthodox Christians: they’re mainly Serbs and Greeks. Germany has Europe’s 3rd-largest Jewish population after France and the UK. In 2004, 2 x as many Jews from former Soviet republics settled in Germany than in Israel, bringing the total Jewish population to more than 200,000, as compared to 30,000 prior to 1990. Around 270,000 active Buddhists live in Germany; 50% of them are Asian immigrants.
According to a Eurobarometer Poll in 2010, 44% of German citizens agreed with the statement “I believe there is a God”, whereas 25% agreed with “I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force”. 27% said “I do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force”. According to a new 2012 poll released by WIN-Gallup International, 51% of German citizens said that they were religious, 33% said not religious, 15% said atheist, and 1% gave no answer. A 2015 study estimated some 15,000 believers in Christ from a Muslim background in the country, most of whom belong to an evangelical or Pentecostal community.
Why have we scientists failed so miserably? I think the answers lie mainly in psychology, sociology and economics. A scientific lifestyle requires a scientific approach to both gathering information and using information, and both have their pitfalls. You’re clearly more likely to make the right choice if you’re aware of the full spectrum of arguments before making your mind up, yet there are many reasons why people don’t get such complete information. Many lack access to it (97% of Afghans don’t have Internet, and in a 2010 poll, 92% didn’t know about the 9/11 attacks). Many are too swamped with obligations and distractions to seek it. Many seek information only from sources that confirm their preconceptions–for example, a 2012 poll showed 27% of Americans believing that Barack Obama was probably or definitely born in another country. The most valuable information can be hard to find even for those who are online and uncensored, buried in an unscientific media avalanche.
Then there’s what we do with the information we have. The core of a scientific lifestyle is to change your mind when faced with information that disagrees with your views, avoiding intellectual inertia, yet many laud leaders stubbornly stick to their views as “strong.” Richard Feynman hailed “distrust of experts” as a cornerstone of science, yet herd mentality and blind faith in authority figures is widespread. Logic forms the basis of scientific reasoning, yet wishful thinking, irrational fears and other cognitive biases dominate decisions.
So what can we do to promote a scientific lifestyle? The obvious answer is improving education. In some countries, having even the most rudimentary education would be a major development (less than half of all Pakistanis can read). By undercutting fundamentalism and intolerance, education would curtail violence and war. By empowering women, it would curb poverty and the population explosion. However, even countries that offer everybody education can make major improvements. All too often, schools resemble museums, reflecting the past rather than shaping the future. The curriculum should shift from one watered down by consensus and lobbying to skills our century needs for relationships, health, contraception, time management, critical thinking and recognizing propaganda. For youngsters, learning a global language and typing should trump long division and writing cursive. In the Internet age, my own role as a classroom teacher has changed. I’m no longer needed as a conduit of information, which my students can simply download on their own. Rather, my key role is inspiring a scientific lifestyle, curiosity and desire to learn more.
Now let’s get to the most interesting question: how can we really make a scientific lifestyle take root and flourish? Reasonable people have been making similar arguments for better education since long before I was in diapers, yet rather than improving, education and adherence to a scientific lifestyle is arguably deteriorating further in many countries, including the United States. Why? Clearly because there are powerful forces pushing in the opposite direction, and they’re pushing more effectively. Corporations concerned that a better understanding of certain scientific issues would harm their profits have an incentive to muddy the waters, as do fringe religious groups concerned that questioning their pseudo-scientific claims would erode their power.
So what can we do? The first thing we scientists need to do is get off our high horses, admit that our persuasive strategies have failed, and develop a better strategy. We have the advantage of having better arguments, but the anti-scientific coalition has the advantage of better funding. However, and this is painfully ironic, it’s also more scientifically organized! If a company wants to change public opinion to increase their profits, it deploys scientific and highly effective marketing tools. What do people believe today? What do we want them to believe tomorrow? Which of their fears, insecurities, hopes and other emotions can we take advantage of? What’s the most cost-effective way of changing their minds? Plan a campaign. Launch. Done. Is the message oversimplified or misleading? Does it unfairly discredit the competition? That’s par for the course when marketing the latest smartphone or cigarette, so it would be naive to think that the code of conduct should be any different when this coalition fights science. Yet we scientists are often painfully naive, deluding ourselves that just because we think we have the moral high ground, we can somehow defeat this corporate-fundamentalist coalition by using obsolete unscientific strategies. Based on what scientific argument will it make a hoot of a difference if we grumble, “We won’t stoop that low” and “People change” in faculty lunchrooms and recite statistics to journalists? We scientists have basically been saying, “Tanks are unethical, so let’s fight tanks with swords.”
To teach people what a scientific concept is and how a scientific lifestyle will improve their lives, we need to go about it scientifically: we need new science-advocacy organizations that use all the same scientific marketing and fund-raising tools as the anti-scientific coalition employ. We’ll need to use many of the tools that make scientists cringe, from ads and lobbying to focus groups that identify the most effective sound bites. We won’t need to stoop all the way down to intellectual dishonesty, however. Because in this battle, we have the most powerful weapon of all on our side: the facts.
Tegmark, Max. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, p.189-191. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014. Print.