U really don't think Angie is scammin......okay
many of you sent this type of ask already..
I didn’t say what I thought of Angie either way, and tbh I’m still unsure of the whole picture - but I reblogged her explanation/evidence post since many people I follow reblogged the accusation, and should at least have the chance to read her reply - if people just read the accusation with no critical thought and without looking into it farther or even glancing at her refutation of those points, she’d never get a chance at justice even if it turned out she’s not in the wrong.
honestly this attitude is hypocritical. people reblogging the accusation keep saying “why doesn’t she thoroughly refute every point, then we’d give her the benefit of the doubt” but now that she’s done exactly that (literally what she’s been asked to do), people are dismissing it without even reading. and now apparently sending anons to anyone sharing the post at all too.
my other problem is with the ethics and accuracy of info in the callout. it’s fair to want proof/clarification of the authenticity of a fundraiser the scale of Angie’s, but this attempt at an exposé was poor - it had misconstrued (or just incorrect) info in major places, used questionable sources and methods that could have put Angie in danger IRL, and at times was just grossly ignorant (re: medical disability as well as familial abuse). I’m not criticizing the need to know more from her to feel comfortable supporting her, but there were tons of better ways to handle an investigation into the situation.
here are just some of the things about the accusation post that I’m uncomfortable with (I’m listing them not to prove things - her detailed post which covers all of this with sources/specifics is for that - but to say why I can’t support or trust the accusation post by itself):
-accuser (or at least someone involved with the investigation) called her providers to get information about her and their services to her (these people/companies/services will not disclose to a random caller that they give a patient a service, that’s confidentiality) which is a huge breach in patient privacy. and then tried to use the fact that they wouldn’t give them personal info on their services towards Angie as evidence that Angie is a fraud.
edit: I have since received the following clarification which is confusing because in the accusing post there is explicit wording about contacting certain services/providers, but ok:
^ either way, not everything that a provider possibly does will be listed right on their website lmao Angie has gone out of her way to explain that there is a special arrangement between that provider and other services that work with her.
-accuser misconstrued / misrepresented numbers (one example: implying she had claimed her rent was $5,000 or so a month when that was a YEARLY estimate and she never claimed it was monthly)
-other Australians (you can find this in reblogs of her explanation post) have been debunking and correcting things the accuser said about various AUS govt funds, programs and legal aid; it is clear that the accuser did not have all the information about Angie’s eligibility or lack thereof, or about how much of her daily and yearly expenses these would have covered. those are big holes in the accusation.
-accuser misconstrued the fact that she had terms / quantities changed to ones more comprehensible by ppl in the USA - when she had already explained her reasoning for this publicly (being on a platform with a majority of users from the USA and all)
-accuser misconstrued other statements (said she forbid people from calling the charity, when her real words - I’ve seen the post cited - were along the lines of “pls don’t spam / harass the charity”) and went as far as to cite Angie once using a profile picture of herself pre-disability as “suspicious”
-accuser called her suspicious simply for how many times she’s been close to homelessness/fatal neglect - this is speculation, not reasonable evidence, and besides, it’s not automatically suspicious or unrealistic to need continuous funds / be in danger a lot when someone is continuously bed bound, seriously disabled, and being charged thousands a week for basic life care she can’t do by herself. this part of the accusation was worded in a way that was disrespectful and totally ignorant re: what it’s like to be disabled to that extent. the post could have stuck to reputable forms of evidence without throwing in a speculative “isn’t it weird that this gravely disabled person cut off from lots of resources is always in danger and struggling to live? how unusual” which is just callous to people with permanent disabilities who do need constant help.
-accuser, with no relevant evidence or medical knowledge of the type of disability Angie has, tries to speculate that the doctors notes “looked fake” (again based on nothing but speculation) - as if it’s at All weird for someone with a complex neurological / regional pain related condition to have ongoing diagnosis, multiple terms to refer to clustered symptoms, opinions of multiple doctors, etc. it’s also not at all weird for different doctors to have a different style of writing a letter lol - I’ve bounced between specialists myself for undiagnosed chronic illness, and neither of those are red flags - doctors regularly print or email something they typed up in their patient notes database or a word type document. again, people automatically taking this as reliable evidence are out of touch with what it’s like to be disabled to that extent and seeing multiple doctors.
-accuser calls into question changing URLs, changing fundraising platforms, etc, all while omitting one very important fact that is necessary to qualify those situations (which Angie has made common knowledge) - that she has been stalked persistently by a documented abuser and had her funds threatened, and this has publicly put her in danger over the past couple of years. other people have also tried to slander and stalk her in the past which she’s also talked openly about. she’s had to change platforms semi regularly for her safety. most bloggers I follow have changed URLs far more than Angie without it being treated like a federal offense. once again not reputable or concrete evidence, lots being stretched, & lots of omitted context.
-accuser cites a person as a major source of info who has been outed in the past with evidence as fraudulent / dishonest themself, and is therefore not a reliable source.
-accuser brings in petty unrelated shit like an allegedly biphobic post that was taken out of context in the first place (why was that even on a serious scamming callout??) this just reveals desperate and unprofessional attempts to smear character.
-accuser frames the fact that Angie is a Chinese woman living in an English speaking country with both a Chinese and anglicized name that are both used officially in different contexts as “suspicious” despite how ridiculously common that is like… come on.
-as a side note, people have been total hypocrites re: how they question her disability - doubting it because ‘oh she has the time and energy to make posts’ (ignoring that she does have friends help her with maintaining posts, letters, documents etc), but then when she doesn’t immediately respond to all the accusations in less than 24 hours they slam her for that too (where’s your concern for her energy and ability now?) again like.. regardless of if y'all are right about Angie’s specific case, this is hypocrisy and you evidently don’t know how to treat / talk about seriously disabled people.
there are more but that’s enough lol. again this wasn’t meant to corroborate itemized proof against the accusation, or state an opinion on the conduct of Angie’s fundraiser (like I said I literally don’t know) - if you’re looking for that I would recommend reading Angie’s post thoroughly and coming to your own conclusions. all the links, math, explanations are there. this was to denote my more objective concerns with how the callout was conducted and why I can’t trust it as credible or support it ethically.
if you think Angie’s situation doesn’t add up even after reading her explanations, feel free to pursue more info in a way that is more accurate and ethical, or just don’t give your money. but you don’t slap together a callout with this many holes and discrepancies and bad conduct and let it go public right away when you run this high of a risk of ruining someone’s life if you’re wrong - you make sure you have your shit straight. you bring questions to the person first without jumping at them in an accusing/dehumanizing way right off the bat (which yes will get you blocked, shockingly), and give them a chance to provide evidence and explanation before you try and no platform them. and if it comes down to you making the public post and they reply with evidence/explanations after reading your accusations, you do your due diligence again by taking that into account.
like I said I have no idea how much of Angie’s fundraiser has been handled in a legit way (I for sure don’t think she’s faking being disabled and that’s about all I know), but I feel uneasy that hundreds of people are taking that post at face value and aren’t even giving her thorough response a glance - you’re deciding a vulnerable woman’s fate, of being cut off and kicked off her platform, through hearsay, which is stupid and dangerous in this kind of situation.
if you’re right, congrats I guess, on your pure dumb luck (because your investigation had so many holes). but god help you if you’re wrong and you further isolate her with your sloppiness. matters like this require attention to accuracy and ethics, things that were lacking in this callout. I’m not dumb for being concerned about that, and finding it reason enough not to take that callout at face value without looking at both sides more. don’t think badly of me just for reblogging Angie’s explanations and giving people a chance to read them as well as the accusations.