I understand Postpartum Psychosis/depression is real. I am not trying to downplay a real diagnosis that affects thousands of women every day. But to outright defend and “stand with” someone who strangles her 3 babies, one after the other…. That’s just ridiculous. That takes time to do. That’s not a quick and easy thing to get done. Whether she was in a state of psychosis or not she deserves to spend the rest of her life locked up somewhere.

I think men need to take a hard look at the women who are supporting Lindsay Clancy or pointing the finger at Patrick Clancy and note them as walking red flags and avoid having any type of relationship with them.

This whole situation is kinda the perfect example of how influencers on TikTok have way more control over public opinion, than should be possible or allowed. We have a bunch of truecrime wine box moms who think they know better than anyone else, giving their opinions as if it is fact and dragging a man through the mud, who had to find his children murdered by the woman he chose to build a life with.

Even the women who don’t think he did it, say he didn’t do enough… somehow still they find a way to pin it on him.

It’s really not fair to say Patrick “didn’t do enough” when you look at what he actually did. He took paternity leave, worked from home, helped with the kids, they had a nanny, and both sides of the family were brought in to help when Lindsay got worse. When she was barely sleeping, he changed their sleeping arrangements so she could get better rest and they canceled plans because of her mental health. He knew about her medications and treatment, drove her to specialized psychiatric care, went back to speak directly with her doctors, and when she was scared and didn’t want to go to McLean, he told her she had to go. He visited her while she was hospitalized and spoke with her doctors there too. Even the day of the murders, he was home taking care of two of the kids while Lindsay took the other to an appointment.

Obviously with hindsight you can point to things that could’ve been done differently, but that’s very different from saying he abandoned her or didn’t support her. She had a husband and extended family actively helping her, plus multiple mental-health professionals treating her. It’s hard to look at all of that and reasonably claim he just didn’t care or didn’t try.

She killed her three children in cold blood. It is actually disgusting watching the wave of psychosis happening to people supporting her. The disgusting videos coming out of parents wanting to harm their child, the weird commentary that she is somehow an amazing mother. I genuinely had such a bad view of society already, but this is a completely new bottom of the barrel low. Anyone who harms a child is a scumbag. Did she have mental health issues? Sure, maybe, it seems like it. So did most of the other school shooters, serial killers, whack jobs out there. There is a line where empathy goes TOO FAR.

The kids are the victim. It makes me sick watching this entire thing play out. I did not think it was possible but I am actually so much more disgusted with people than I was before.

Even if you did have empathy for her-to make her out to be some hero is repulsive

According to her original interview transcript, Jane Doe had consensual sexual contact with 4x total men in 3 separate threesomes (Male 1 & 2, Male 2 & 3, Male 1 & 4). One man made unwanted sexual contact with her via a face-grab / attempted kiss, Male 7. Everyone was drinking or doing drugs. If we're going to use her intoxication as grounds for dismissing her consent, then technically the boys couldn't consent either.

Males 4, 5, 6, and 7 were idiots who went to the room following the Snapchat, for reasons nobody can prove. (Curiosity, to be part of the crowd, to engage in activities, etc.) One or more of them asks permission to snort drugs off her body, which she consents to. The only identified male re: drug snorting off a naked body was Male 2.

So: Males 5 & 6 were never said to take part in any sexual activity. We can assume one or more of them may have snorted drugs off her body, with permission, but we can't confirm any or all of them did. As it stands, we have 2x males currently claiming they never touched her, which could very well be true.

So beyond being grossly immature and having extremely poor judgement, what crime can we confidently say Males 5 and 6 have committed beyond potential sexual exploitation re: the snapchat engagement? (depending on who arguably encouraged others to have sex with Jane Doe). There is a chance that 2 out of the 7 males never touched Jane Doe, but their faces & names are forever on the internet as "gang rapists" on a night where nobody actually forced any sexual contact.

*Edited to correct the documented Male who partook in naked body snorting and the documented Male in the final threesome. It was Male 2 who she claimed put drugs on his erect penis for her to snort, which she said she agreed to do.

In the Minnesota police manual, Derek was literally taught if someone is resisting then put your leg over a detainee to resist their movement. Flyod was saying I can’t breathe long before Derek arrested him and this whole BLM was just an excuse to vandalise and rob stores. Not generalising here but the amount of support a convicted felon got is insane.

This show is incredibly well done and yes, hyper realistic. Perhaps the only flaw keeping it from being perfectly realistic is that it is woke. It is actually the perfect case study of wokeness and helps clarify the term for those who deny that it’s a problem in the arts.

Woke television shows created to depict reality accurately will always fall short and become predictable. This is because the demographics of who is good and virtuous and victimized, and who is bad or oppressive, will always be engineered to match woke theories like critical race theory and feminist epistemology. Therefore they will be careful not to depict “marginalized groups” in any light that might confirm or support "offensive views." And so the depiction ends up being demographically improbable and predictable.

Bad, White, Raycist, Sexist, Ignorant Males who need to be Checked by Thoughtful, Vigilant, Wise, Heroic, Women, POC and, above all, Women POC

The Pitt can’t help but resort to this formula every time. There are two good very woke white males in the show who are shown over and over again needing to be educated by women/poc. Dr. Rabinovich and Whitaker. For example,

1. Rabinovich needs to be told to think of the girls who the incel boy might kill instead of just thinking about the boy
2. Whitaker needs to be educated that the black woman with sickle cell should get elephant doses of opiates and in no way can be thought of as drug seeking. And he needs to be taught that black women are treated unfairly in the health care system and their pain is minimized.

The rest of the white males are bad, ignorant oppressers:

1. The cartoonishly raycist fat white guy having chest pain beats a female nurse and says raycist slurs to POC healthcare workers and looks down on poor people and asserts his privilege. I’ve never seen anything like this in real life.
2. The bad white male (doing very predatory things to) his daughter
3. McKay’s ex who is unrealistically rude to everyone for no reason and irredeemable
4. Logan who is super dismissive, pulls rank on those under him, especially female, tries to get his female underling fired and commits theft of patient medications. He also doesn’t know how to speak to an autistic person and belittles everyone.
5. The white male homeless meth addict who pees on Whitaker and violently attacks everyone
6. A flurry of white privileged teenage and college age boys who do things like steal ambulances for fun and make lists of girls they want to kill.
7. Unlimited white men taking crazy, stupid risks and getting electrocuted or (a nail in their heart because of a nail gun fight)

Other problem people: white conservatives:

1. The female conspiracy theorist conservative who punches someone in the face and knocked her teeth out over an argument about masks. This has never happened in the history of the universe. She ends up asking for masks for her own surgery
2. The mom who won’t let her daughter get an abortion. (You don’t go to an ER for a non emergency abortion… this story does not belong in the show at all).
3. The Catholic parents of the brain dead son who are too superstitious to approve organ donation until their priest convinces them.

Other woke tropes that take you out of the realism. We have in the course of 1 shift:

1. “Fat phobia” (with zero mention of fat people suffering chronic disease because of obesity—wow no medical setting is accurate without this)
2. Misgendering and virtuous gen z female POC making it right

Virtuous women and POC:

Nearly all POC and women and especially POC women in the show are heroic and virtuous and pretty much never need to be corrected or informed of anything (except maybe by more senior female POC). They are often oppressed, never oppressers. They are the most flawless. Sometimes white women need to be educated but they are overall better than the white males by far every time. Sometimes they are oppressed by white males (the sex trafficked girl is oppressed by a white female who is complicit in furthering patriarchal institution of sex trafficking).

The only non-virtuous female POC is the hospital CEO. In real life only around 3% of healthcare company board of directors members are black females. So this shows black women in a position of power. (The Resident also has a black female hospital CEO so this is way more common on TV). The hospital CEO can teach us other woke lessons about capitalism and also show a powerful black woman.

Conclusion: The white home intruder problem

There’s probably much more I am missing. But one thing is certain: the realism will never be realized unless you’re willing to show some things that aren’t woke. Think of the commercials about burglar alarms. Would anyone be willing to bet that a commercial is going to come out showing a black burglar intruding in a white home? No you don’t want to lose your money. This will always be predictable. A home intruder system cannot make commercials that reflect reality (black burglars exist). Same concept with this show. Could you imagine a black, rude medicaid patient who hits a nurse, needs security called on them and is subdued by heroic cops or security guards? Not going to happen on TV. Does this happen in real life? Yes.

My suggestion: keep some of the woke if you must, but throw in some variance. Roll the dice on which race and sex is going to be a problem / incompetent.

(I was instantly permanently banned from another subreddit and muted from messaging the mods for posting this lol)

EDIT: Wow later episodes have cranked this up to 11. And yes we all know precisely what is going to happen for the finale. 😢

EDIT 2: Season 1 is now done and people KEEP flocking to this post. Overwhelmingly it's to agree with me and even add reasons why the show is ruined by being too woke. I thought the ending to the season was very strong. Still a fan of the show. But I will make 1 final point. The people aren't buying the wokeness anymore. At least not in the medical context. We have seen too many medical reality shows like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws4zlkzrO84 . Why didn't The Pitt have any patient like that? We know they are out there. So there's no point trying to act like this doesn't exist. If there is another season and I hope there is, try to make it closer to what everyone already knows to be true.

According to her own confession, Clancy strangled all 3 of her children with exercise fitness bands.

The second I read this, I could tell you she’s guilty as sin.

Here’s why.

Not only is strangulation one of the most violent methods of murder, but the fact that she used exercise bands makes it worse.

Her oldest child was 5 years old.

Now regardless of who’s doing it, the moment a human realize they’re being strangled, they’re going to struggle.

If you’ve never used an exercise band, this is a bit of a thing to explain, but this is a terrible weapon to use, because, by design, it’s meant to able to stretch by a pretty good length from its original size.

With this in mind, she not only had to wrap this big rubber band around her child’s throat, she had to pull it extremely tight, AND hold it for several minutes.

All the while this child is struggling for its life.

Which brings me to the second part of why she has no other defense.

People have seriously no idea how long it actually takes to strangle someone to death. It’s not something you do in something like 10-20 seconds like in fiction.

A small child, like a 5 year old, will obviously not be able to hold on as long as a full grown adult, but it’s not unreasonable for them to hold onto life for a relatively long time.

Not to mention, most often, the victim isn’t initially killed.

Usually when you strangle someone, they’ll pass out long before they actually die. You have to keep depriving them of oxygen to actually kill them.

Which means that long after a normal person would have believed their victim was dead, she kept strangling them.

So her murder took not only a lot of strength and effort, it took a long time.

All 3 times.

And at no point did she stop and think there was something wrong enough with what she was doing to stop.

She’s guilty of cold blooded murder of her own children, and deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison.

Even if you make an insanity case, she’s too dangerous to be allowed in public, because there is a completely valid point to say she’s dangerous to the most vulnerable people.

this whole thing started with

A: "a woman was drugged unconscious, raped by 7 men for 7 hours, 50 men were invited to partake in rape and those men only had to write essays as punishment for their crimes"

that was the starting point, but now a week or two later the discussion is along the lines of

B: " she consented to X but did not consent to Y" or even " she could not consent because she was drunk"

just to be clear, both of these things are serious, but they are completely different

the problem is that the initial wave of reporting from social media and most mainstream outlets was simply credulously repeating everything in the civil suit as fact. People were led down a path where everything is 100% certain, undisputed and that this is a slam dunk case, but more and more information is coming out that highlights inconsistencies and contradictions, however, people went all in from the get go and are so committed to this case that no matter what information or evidence comes out they will not budge from their original position, they will just try to explain it away or change the narrative

for example:

if she was unconscious then how is she giving a statement about the events of that night

if it's a case of "she consent to a 3some but didn't consent to the other stuff" then why are the men in the consensual 3some being accused of rape

if her civil claim says 3 of them did not have sex with her then why are they being accused of rape

if she could not consent because she was intoxicated then why is that standard only applied to her and not to everyone that was intoxicated

if it's the men at the frat house that got her intoxicated, why is she suing her sorority and the bar they went to, how can they be held responsible for what allegedly happened at the frat house

and on top of that, the "fawning" trauma response argument seems to be applied to literally any and all things

if she does not contact the accused, if she does contact the accused, if she is hostile towards the accused, if she is friendly towards the accused, if she avoids seeing the accused again, if she see and hangs out with the accused again, if she does not have sexual relations with the accused again, if she does have sexual relations with the accused again, if she tells the accused that what happened was not consensual, if she tells the accused that what happens WAS consensual....

every single one of these things is described as a normal trauma response, any evidence that comes out that contradicts the allegations or that points towards this actually being a consensual encounter, let it be a sworn statements or texts, is simply explained away as being a totally normal trauma response.....

yes these guys and absolutely scummy, but the reason so many are sceptical about this being classed as rape is because there is so much inconsistency and contradictory evidence that cause doubt on the original " gang rape of unconscious girl by 7 men for 7 hours " story

​

I genuinely think Hasan Piker might be one of the most insufferable people on the internet right now.

Even though I'm quite conservative that's not what annoys me, what annoys me is.

- Constant smugness

- Treats disagreement like a sign of low intelligence

- Interrupts people nonstop

- Can dish out insults for hours but reacts horribly to criticism

- Fanbase dogpiles smaller creators constantly

- Turns every disagreement into “everyone’s acting in bad faith”

- he's aggressive even in casual discussions

- Somehow every controversy becomes someone else’s fault

And then there’s him literally pulling a dog's tail in front of camera yet his streamer goons act like he never pulled a dog's tail even though most of them know about it, genuinely seem's like him and most of his supporters are in one singular hive mind where no one is allowed opinions.

There are multiple instances of this.

From videos of people literally stalking them to their cars outside the court every day of the trial and screaming at them, to dozens of influencers online making up lie after lie (all of which have been disproven) about them.

From people screaming stuff outside the courthouse like “THE ONLY GOOD RACIAL SLUR IS A DEAD RACIAL SLUR!!!” To the fact that a convicted baby shaking felon called him showing up to their press conference inappropriate. The father of the kid (he was 17) their kid had murdered (convicted this is no longer alleged).

The fact that at every turn the Metcalf’s were treated like they were the ones who had done something wrong, in spite of overwhelming evidence telling the true story, is clear, unabashed racism.

Because the people doing all this have all said so.

It’s because Austin Metcalf was white. It’s because the Metcalf family is white.

The Metcalf’s themselves even said FROM THE START that this whole ordeal was not about race, but they not only did exactly that, they weaponized it.

They used it to make money.

Not just the multiple times the murderer’s family begged for money, but also the dozens of influencers making MONETIZED videos off it, spreading lies, and inflaming hate.

I just finished watching Citizen Vigilante, and it is easily one of the most polarizing, unapologetic pieces of cinema in years. Predictably, the mainstream media is completely melting down over it, calling it "morally bankrupt" and trying to bury it. But here we should be able to look past the forced outrage and talk about what this movie actually represents: a brutal, direct confrontation with reality.

Exposing Migrant Violence and Far-Left Complicity

For years, the far-left establishment and corporate media have buried statistics and turned a blind eye to the skyrocketing levels of migrant violence across Western nations to protect their open-border narrative. Citizen Vigilante pulls no punches by showing how innocent citizens are targeted by violent foreign criminals.

The film highlights the exact cycle we see in real life: radical left-wing judges and soft-on-crime prosecutors handing out slaps on the wrist, treating horrific criminals like the victims, and leaving ordinary people completely defenseless. When the justice system is systematically dismantled by radical ideology, the rise of a vigilante like the main character becomes an inevitable, desperate symptom of a broken society.

Armie Hammer’s Perfect Revenge on Cancel Culture

Beyond the narrative, the casting itself is a masterstroke. Watching Armie Hammer deliver a powerhouse performance as a dead-eyed, righteous engine of vengeance is the ultimate middle finger to the Hollywood elite.

The industry tried to completely erase Hammer through cancel culture. Instead of bowing down or fading away, he teamed up with an anti-establishment director to deliver a performance that completely bypasses the traditional gatekeepers. The fact that it topped the charts on major digital platforms proves that audiences are completely starved for authentic, unfiltered content that doesn't cater to the hyper-woke studio system.

The Real-World Connection: The Murder of Iryna Zarutska

If you think the movie's premise is exaggerated, you don't have to look far to find its real-world parallel. Think back to the horrifying killing of Iryna Zarutska. She was a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who fled a literal war zone to find safety in the United States, only to be randomly and brutally stabbed to death on a transit train.

Her killer, a repeat offender with an extensive, violent criminal history, was walking free because our broken, left-leaning justice system repeatedly refused to keep a dangerous individual behind bars. The graphic surveillance footage of that attack sparked massive national outrage because it perfectly illustrated what Citizen Vigilante is screaming at the audience: innocent people are paying the ultimate price for the elite's ideological failures.

Citizen Vigilante isn't just an action movie; it's a mirror. It shows exactly what happens when the state abandons its obligation to protect its own people. It’s aggressive, it’s uncomfortable, and that is precisely why it is so necessary.

Crip walking was popularized as a dance done over the dead body of the person you just murdered. It’s not something to be proud of.

We (society) need to be able to point out bad culture. Even when it’s a minority’s culture.

It is, in fact, “too ghetto”.

What have we seen Reddit and civil society at large say for the last decade;

1. Extra judicial murder is wrong. Nobody gets to decide who lives and dies.

2. Dont sexualize people without their consent.

3. Dont speculate about the sexuality of others.

Every single one of those apparently sincerely held beliefs is OUT THE FUCKING WINDOW in light of the recent events.

We have posts on every subreddit lusting after this guy

We have posts speculating about his sexuality (even ostensibly, outing him).

We have posts worshipping him, wishing he was a serial killer not just a one-off.

The batshit insane hypocrisy that has been shown here has permanently closed the door on me ever being a member of this (read, reddit, left/liberal) rot community.

"You're only mad because it applies to you" is a common saying on the Internet, usually used by ladies when a lad objects to a negative generalization and/or misinformation about lads made by said lady. Lads have had no choice but to accept negative generalizations of their entire gender from terminally online ladies for years, with any objections being misinterpreted as an admission of guilt if you're a lad or "pickme" behaviour if you're a lady.

Shane Gillis said that ladies dress like whores at the gym. If you don't dress like a whore when you go to the gym, then why does his statement bother you?

If you were indifferent and/or participatory in the use of this logic against lads, keep the same energy now that the roles are reversed.

Either everyone can use it, or no one can.

What people don’t realize is the argument between the jurors wasn’t really “guilty vs NGRI” it’s “guilty vs not guilty.” People are forgetting this shit happened three years ago. She is NOT psychotic anymore, or at least not relating to the murder of her kids. An NGRI verdict would amount to a brief stint in a mental facility and then she walks.

While I will say the prosecution was terrible at vetting the jury, it amazes me that 75% of the jury basically turned out to be activists who showed a clear bias in their freaking PRESS RUN after the mistrial.

Now, if she walks I see one of 2 things happening:

1) it becomes permissible to kill or maim people then claim insanity, because Clancy didn’t have jack shit to support said claim and it still almost went through

2) Laws pass to restrict women’s rights as if they’re not in control of themselves all the time people will use that to push legislation which restricts what they’re able to do.

Either way, it would topple the system we have right now and we’d need sweeping changes to correct for the new environment

I feel bad that that woman was shot today. I'm an advocate for non-violence in all situations.

That being said:

If you were happy that a guy who just wanted to have discussions was shot and killed in broad daylight because of some of his views, then why do you care that a woman was shot and killed in her car? Its the same vein, but some of you want to spin the narrative to claim he deserved it but she didn't. You're a bunch of assholes, sit down and be quiet if you don't respect human life across the board.

I know this doesn't apply to everyone, but enough people were showing their evil ways after kirks death that they need to be called out on their hypocrisy.

I can only hope both killers receive the appropriate punishment, whatever that may be.

We've all heard this point made by someone in our lives and it usually comes from people who are centrist about the whole thing.

I see so many posts and people saying that being okay with them "as long as they don't shove it to my face" is homоphoьic statement and it's not acceptable.

But let's try to flip the tables now.

Let's say that Liberial would say "I am okay with conservatives as long as they don't shove it to my face" and it's completely understandable.

See how liberal saying the exact same thing is understandable but conservative, hell even a centrist saying the opposite isn't?

Noone likes MAGA people who make Trump their whole personality and noone likes Leftists that make being leftist their whole personality.

Yes, both MAGA lunatics and super Leftists can make it their whole personality, I can't stop them, but I don't have to be okay with it.

I mean seriously. I want them to strum and sing and THAT WILL BE ALL. I do not need their opinions on current events. I mean do I expect BBC news to suddenly drop a mediocre rap song about a thrift shop??? NO. I don’t want Macklemore to do it either, but if it has to be someone, then at least that’s his area of relative expertise.

God save me, these morons are asking for ED SHEERAN, the fucking lute player, to give his opinion on the conflict in the West Bank. Let’s also hear Ronald McDonalds take on the political structure of South Sudan while we’re at it. Fuck me.

Yeah let’s cancel the sweet red headed guy who sings nice campfire songs about dancing in the dark with his sweetheart in his arms.

“BuT wHaT DoEs hE TiNk AboUt thE miDdLe east?”

WHO GIVES A FUCK.

Some people just wanna hear some goddamned music at the end of a tough week. BUT NO. We can’t have that until ol’ fire crotch gets on his soapbox.

Maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m crazy.

I dont even care if you agree with his politcial takes.

It is very easy to prove he once electrocuted his dog live, and then even if you don't want to beleive that there is footage nearly everyday of him yelling at his dog if she tries to move away from the camera. He just did it again yesterday. He keeps his dog on camera as some kind of bizzare set piece.

Great qoutes like " shes always trying to move around the house!"

Footage of him berating his staff too. He's just a shit human. I thought no matter who you were or what you said animal abuse was a united front for people to be pissed off about but I guess not.

If i knew I could get famous on twitch just by saying America bad. Commie good. As if that's a one in a million brilliant take no one else has ever said I would have jumped on that bandwagon a long time ago🤣

Having a host who tells half the country they are idiots beneath his contempt isn’t a great strategy for a late night show or even the network more broadly. It’s that simple. Colbert could bring in a sizable audience of Liberals who think exactly like him but turned everyone else off.

Like several current late night hosts, Colbert is a formerly great comedian who turned into a bitter, ranting hack who toed the party line and clearly considered himself brave and righteous for doing so. Let this be the end to the insufferable trend of replacing comedy with mindless political preaching.

Were the texts gross and dehumanizing? Absolutely. But ‘free pussy’ does not say anything about the circumstances of the situation. Doesn’t say anything about her mental state, whether she was incapacitated or not, and doesn’t say whether she consented to more men joining or not. If you’re a random guy in that group and see that message, you might just expect there’s a woman down there who wants to have a little fun and acknowledged she was okay with multiple guys joining. And of course maybe more details will come out that prove otherwise, but so far, from what we know, there’s no reason to hold the majority of those guys in the group chat responsible (even morally) ASSUMING that the only info they had on the situation, was the texts we see and know about now. I see so many people saying all 57 men in that chat are morally responsible, I strongly disagree (again, based on the info we have now, I’m absolutely willing to change my mind if you have more info I’m unaware of or if further info comes out).

After losing almost a decade's worth of fap material as a result of my mobile device being rendered virtually unusable, (My screen broke), I decided to go back to the ol' drawing board and see what I can find on the sites.

Dude. Today's young'uns have no idea on the golden age they've missed out on. Why is nobody talking about how there's barely any porn left on the internet? Before, there were thousands of sites... Now, there's only Pornhub (which is shit, especially if you're looking for something that's not your typical slop), and a bunch of paywalled shit. (What kind of moron pays for porn?).

"This video has been removed."

"This video is for premium users only."

"This video is not available in your country."

"Blahblahblah copyright blshblahblah."

I genuinely want to cry and scream right now from sheer sexual frustration. I've been masturbating since I was around 10-11, and it feels like seeing a once mighty well get dried up.

The other day, I tried to be all nostalgic and find some videos I fapped to ages ago when I was a wee lad, (For example, this one lez BDSM nun vid), and I couldn't find a single one.

No wonder men are going crazy nowadays... There's nothing to pound the juice box to anymore.

This incident took plalce in california where a minimum waged employee working in a warehouse got upset and straight burned up their good causing a massive fire. But people online are supporting him and calling for change but go protest against the companies or the senators who allow such policies. Why burn tons of prepared goods and cause immensive damage to the environment with global warming being such a big issue. Why support this kind of behaviour knowing very well the company could shut down due to loss and more people will be jobless instead of protesting in a friendlier manner?

To all of the people who have lately been defending the casting choice of The Odyssey: would you be here arguing that black people are racist were they to find the whitewashing of one of their mythological figures offensive?

If the answer is yes, that you would be here arguing that they don't have a right to be upset and that they're racist, then you're not a hypocrite.

If the answer is no, that you would understand that they have right to be upset, then you are a hypocrite.

Just going to be real here.

If you have access to a stovetop, oven, microwave, and fridge (and let’s be real, 95% of you do) you can eat healthy and not be fat.

It’s not that hard. Chicken, frozen veggies, potatoes, ground turkey, cheese, oats, etc are all pretty cheap. Bananas, apples, are cheap as hell too.

It’s also not that hard to meal prep. Come on - grocery shopping and cooking 4 days of meals takes 2 hours. That’s 30 minutes a day if you divide it out. That’s how long it takes for you to go grab McDonald’s a few times a week.

You choose to eat like shit. Healthy food isn’t that expensive, and it’s not as time consuming as you think to cook healthy.

I think that while it's true that she made some nasty comments, she is getting way too much backlash and hate. Not only her, but also people that try to defend her in some way, and in some cases only talk to her (a post on another subreddit in which people criticized Stephen King for commenting under one of her tweets regarding her book inspired me to make this post). When the game Hogwarts Legacy came out, a group of people tried to convince the community not to buy it because it would further help the Harry Potter franchise (and thus Rowling) economically.

People often forget that she is a victim of domestic violence, and her views may come from the abuse she's suffered (wether they're legitimate or not) Plus, she donated a lot of money to children and women in need, and that just seems to have vanished in the air for everyone. I'll write down here some of the opinions people have gave about her, and let those do the talk.

"I think she has been hounded, it’s been taken to the extreme, the judgmentalism of people. She’s allowed her opinion, particularly if she’s suffered abuse. Everybody carries their own history of trauma and forms their opinions from that trauma, and you have to respect where people come from and their pain. You don’t all have to agree on everything, that would be insane and boring. She’s not meaning it aggressively, she’s just saying something out of her own experience.” - Helena Bonham Carter

“There’s a bunch of stuff about Jo… […] One of the things that people should know about her too - not as a counter-argument - is that she has poured an enormous amount of her fortune into making the world a much better place, for hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children through her charity Lumos. And that is unequivocally good. Many of us Harry Potter actors have worked for it, and seen on the ground the work that they do. So for all that she has said some very controversial things, I was not going to be jumping to stab her in the front - or back - without a conversation with her, which I’ve not managed to have yet” - Jason Isaacs

“I couldn’t speak for […] what she said, to be completely honest, but I’m often reminded, attending Comic-Cons in particular, that no one has single-handedly done more for bringing joy to so many different generations and walks of life, I’m constantly reminded of her positive work in that field and as a person. I’ve only had a handful of meetings with her but she has always been lovely. So I’m very grateful for that. […] I don’t tend to pick sides […] I enjoy reminding myself and others that a lot of my good friends have ways of life or personal decisions that I don’t necessarily agree with.” - Tom Felton

"I just felt that her character has always been to advocate for the most vulnerable members of society, the problem is that there’s a disagreement over who’s the most vulnerable. I do wish people would just give her more grace and listen to her. During the height of the Troubles, the way of dealing with it was to kind of shut down people who disagree with you, and I do see a parallel in today's whole cancel culture thing. I just don't feel comfortable with this idea that if you don't like what people are saying, you silence them. I do think the next step is violence, really” - Evanna Lynch