#anticonspiracist

[getawayheaven]

'Hating Louis is like hating puppies and kittens'

Sure because puppies are out there abusing their employees for going to bed early and kittens are all racist and homophobic. Louis is problematic in the extreme.

Aww anon. Are you the almighty @anticonspiracist herself??? Or you are just a little religious follower of hers?? I know she's been sprouting this bullshit for weeks now. Just tell her she will get well soon. ❤️‍🩹

[themoodyestj]

I am not big into SPN at all, just saw some of your posts on someone else's blog. I support you in saying whatever you want to say, and think it's fine to criticize famous people but -- I just think it might be worth it to consider if you're slipping into conspiracy thinking territory. We don't know anything about the lives of famous people other than what they explicitly tell us, and we really have no idea. It feels really weird to see someone as a stranger talk about how an actor doesn't actually love his wife, and calling her trashy and slutty (which is what was on the post that prompted me to click over, after having seen a few) is absolutely rooted in misogyny.

You can criticize her for things she does wrong, but that specifically feels messed up -- 'dressing slutty' is not a moral failure. Criticizing people by calling them ugly, too, is usually misogynistic when aimed at women, and kind of ruins your point: it's not a valid criticism, it just makes you sound hateful. Equating bad behavior to physical ugliness isn't a good habit. All it does is reflect back in shitty ways on people who share physical traits or style choices with the people you don't like, who haven't done anything wrong. If she's been shitty in other ways, ways people actually know about and not speculation, then sure, that's fair game to criticize and discuss, though you'll never know everything behind the scenes. But her looks have nothing to do with that. It's not intentional misogyny, I know, and it's really easy to fall back on because it's everywhere, but it's worth being aware of.

I haven't even seen a full season of Supernatural, so that's not what this is about, I couldn't care less about shipping for that show and I don't ship real people, personally. But I am really interested in celebrity conspiracy theories and some of your language has started sounding really familiar (anticonspiracist on tumblr has been a good resource.) I'm very 'we only know what we're told' with celebrities to an extreme extent, where I genuinely just do not speculate because even if I'm a big fan, if they haven't told anyone, it's not my business, and I'm not expecting everyone to do things exactly that way. There's a lot of middle ground, and I know I'm on the really far end. But I think we also have to step back and embrace that we don't really know these people, and they doubtless have a lot going on that we will never know about, including their personal relationships. Do what you want! But please at least consider if you can make your point in ways that don't unfortunately follow in the footsteps of a lot of misogynistic behavior and cruel comments on people's looks.

You probably won't reply to this, but that's fine. Again, I'm not really in the fandom, so I stumbled across you by coincidence, so I probably won't see your blog much again anyway. I know an essay like this is a weird thing and it might make you doubt that I'm actually an outsider. But I genuinely have no opinion on these people or ships in the fandom or whatever. I just have a lot of opinions on appropriate boundaries in fandom discussions and on unconscious bigotry. Anyway, I wish you the best, and hope your general life is going well.

You'd be wrong. I have no issue answering these posts, provided they are respectful. I have absolutely no problem commenting on my own behaviour and stance, just as I have no problemon commenting on others. That would make me a hypocrite, right? Let's see if I can answer all your points, since your post is very long.

I just think it might be worth it to consider if you're slipping into conspiracy thinking territory.

This is an opinion blog, after all. What I write is my own take on things, what i interpret of the things I see. Ultimately, it is no different from the people who defend Destiel, or talk about Jenneel with the couples goals hashtag. Im just on the other side of the spectrum. You considering this side close to "conspiracy theory" shows me already you have a preference, and maybe youre not so impartial after all. Besides, there is a major difference between me and other people out there: I have no intention on enforcing my opinion on anyone. People read me because they want to. My inbox, however, it's full of people trying to shut me down because it's a threat to their own beliefs.

You can criticize her for things she does wrong, but that specifically feels messed up -- 'dressing slutty' is not a moral failure. Criticizing people by calling them ugly, too, is usually misogynistic when aimed at women, and kind of ruins your point: it's not a valid criticism, it just makes you sound hateful.

This alone tells me that you haven't read my blog in its entirety, and have cherry picked the things you wanted to criticize (very poorly, I may add). The conversation would have been a lot more productive if you actually had good ground to support yourself on, instead of coming to criticize me with no real valid arguments.

I never said Danneel is ugly. I've said she is filled with Botox and it's unbecoming of her, but I too am entitled to have a personal opinion on someone's appearance, and not have a silly justice warrior come here to call me on it. I also complimented her on her new hair color. We do all have physical preferences, do we not? Why is expressing mine misogynistic?

As for dressing slutty, I am going to refer to something that I'll roughly translate from my language as "situational awareness". My remarks are based on the fact that, as the wife of someone famous, Danneel has the responsibility to represent her husband as well as herself, and understand that, although she is allowed to express her creativity, she should be mindful of the surroundings and proper situation. It's not wrong to wear a see-through dress to a party, but i find it tacky that she does it in a situation where pictures will be taken, pics her kids will see. Again, my personal opinion.

Besides, I feel perfectly ok criticizing someone who basically made "being a hot girl" her whole identity. Its the product im shown, it's the product I criticize. That simple. It's not like she's writing master's thesis and Im focusing only on her body.

Oh, and by the way, what about objectifying Jensen? Do you have an opinion on that? Really curious. To conclude, saying my opinion is not valid is the same as saying no opinion is valid because they will always rub someone wrong. So, no, its perfectly valid to me and the people who read me. The others are welcome to block. But I am really interested in celebrity conspiracy theories and some of your language has started sounding really familiar (anticonspiracist on tumblr has been a good resource.)

God, you are so in the wrong blog, then. Did you try Cynifer's blog? She even makes whole speeches on how people should complain and react. Or some AA blogs, where one of them can get completely drowned in criticism because they say something the others dont agree with. Those dont interest you? Oooo I'd really like to see your opinion on how they say Destiel isnt a real thing because the network is homophobic. Or why Jensen is homophobic because he said Destiel doesnt exist, there's a whole article written about it. No? No bells at all?

But please at least consider if you can make your point in ways that don't unfortunately follow in the footsteps of a lot of misogynistic behavior and cruel comments on people's looks.

Why? (laughter) Because it rubbed you the wrong way and you decided they had these qualities to invalidate me? Unfortunately for you, I still reserve myself the right to say what i want to say, as you reserve yourself the right to judge it in any way you want. As much as it may pain you, you are not the gatekeeper of social justice, so nice try.

Again, I'm not really in the fandom, so I stumbled across you by coincidence, so I probably won't see your blog much again anyway. I know an essay like this is a weird thing and it might make you doubt that I'm actually an outsider.

Well, at least there is some self awareness, that's good. Indeed, I highly doubt you wont read this. I cant imagine why a rational person with a life of their own would write such an essay with no intentions of having an asnwer. Besides, for someone who tried very hard to show they are impartial... you failed terribly. I cant even imagine someone wanting to conduct a proper study and writing an ask like you did. In my (perhaps misogynistic) opinion, it's complete garbage.

I just have a lot of opinions on appropriate boundaries in fandom discussions and on unconscious bigotry. Anyway, I wish you the best, and hope your general life is going well. Thank you! I hope your life goes well as well. And for the sake of adding more content to your "study", i invite you to read more of my posts, especially the ones with anon asks. You'll find a lot of lunacy there. But unfortunately, you overlooked those. Perhaps because they didnt fit "your study". Ah well.

[anticonspiracist]

episode 33 -- @back-to-louis and @anticonspiracist discuss louis tomlinson's documentary all of those voices. this includes clips from the doc! we talk about louis, his career, his fans, and what larries must have had difficulty with if they bothered to see the doc.

enjoy!!

[zot3-flopped]

anticonspiracist still thinks “louis drinks beer” downplaying his alcoholism despite numerous evidence to the contrary aka literal pictures of louis with vodka in front of him while supposedly working/rehearsing, anecdotes of him taking shots before going on stage etc. the fact that it takes him so much to get drunk and he is now drinking to function rather than anything else should be 🚩

He's said so many times that he prefers to drink vodka Red Bull, in multiple promo interviews, and the reason he abuses his staff (which she disapproves of) is because they refuse to stay up drinking til dawn.

[heartstopper-harry]

Excerpts about the Doll Lady from Everything I Need, I Get From You by Kaitlyn Tiffany.

Skye = @anticonspiracist

Lisa = @amysparkles

Lisa is a One Direction fan in her late forties who has gone by several Tumblr usernames and is also in charge of a charitable organization that raises and donates money to various progressive causes on behalf of the fandom.

When I asked her to speak with me for this book, she declined to be interviewed and said, “Everyone hates us until they need us for something.”

She fields questions nearly every day from new Larries who don’t have the same knowledge of a decade’s worth of lore—if she’s in the mood, that is. Otherwise she might simply command them to “scroll down.”

Her bio explains that she has been part of the fandom since 2012 and a Larrie “since day 1.” She offers commentary on every event in the wide world of Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson—noting the movements of their friends, acquaintances, romantic partners (“stunts,” as in PR stunts), and anyone else who could be believed to know anything about them.

She does not engage with people like Skye. “We don’t talk to them. For ANY reason,” she wrote in an exasperated response to a question about the Anti crowd, and Skye specifically. “I’ve been here a billion years … anything they want to ‘learn’ about is probably within the bowels of my blog, which they are on 24/7 anyway LOL."

Lisa does not believe that Briana Jungwirth was ever pregnant, but she has entertained thought experiments about the possibility. She meticulously re-created the pregnancy timeline, starting with Tomlinson’s arrival in Los Angeles on May 4, 2015, then rattling off each night that he was photographed out with Jungwirth (May 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 22). From there, she offered piecemeal calculations of a stranger’s menstrual cycle.

***

[Larries] were soon passing around what they thought might be Briana's sex tape, and publishing photo collages intended to prove that she’d gotten lip fillers and a nose job while pregnant. They refer often to her “new face,” and imply that she is using Tomlinson’s money to keep it up.

“The question is how is she paying for [these] procedures?” Lisa asked in 2020. “Babygate truly seems to have been an opportunity to get a ‘makeover’ for Briana at Louis’ expense.” In the same post, she annotated images of Jungwirth’s body.

[yessoupy]

anyone have any questions for us about kaitlyn tiffany's book?

[anexlarrieblog]

Hi ! I hope I am not bothering u ! You are super nice and it was great talking to you yesterday and the day before ! I just wanted to know if anyone had like threads of debunked Larry proofs or just accounts in general because I stopped being a larrie not too long ago so I’m still trying to find out more about the lies I’ve been told and the stories I believed in for so many years. It’s okay if no one has any but I’ll be grateful for anything that can satisfy this curiosity! Thank u !

Hi! No worries at all! Happy to help 😊 so here’s some of the debunks

This is a masterpost of debunks on the whole Larrie conspiracy by @toobadforthefacts including Eleanor debunks. Some posts may be missing.

This is a masterpost debunk by same user on the denials from Harry and Louis’ friends and family members

This is a debunk of the matching tattoo theory

I also recommend searching antis blogs and their tags. @back-to-louis has been around for ages and has lots of great resources. @thelarrative-blog and @anticonspiracist also have numerous debunk discourse from over the years.

If anyone else has any tips feel free to add

[back-to-louis]

@back-to-louis and I always wondered how larries deal with the cognitive dissonance of their conspiracy theory, and it turns out, it's very easy for you. You just don't allow the disproving information to ever penetrate your consciousness.

It's this bit for me, from @anticonspiracist's response to a larrie. I had hoped to see the mechanism by which disconfirming information is addressed, and then, presumably, rejected. I had no idea until now that it is never even being addressed.

[perksofbeingasunflowerblog]

Mana, quit stalking and sending tons of asks to anticonspiracist blog. Don't you know that is Sky from Shit Larries Say and she won't take your larrie bullshit.

???????? what

[getawayheaven]

Closeting

@back-to-louis I am creating a separate post here because this is gonna be long and I am really up for discussion because I think we both can gain some knowledge if we can have open discussion.

I did went through your closeting tag and you think forced contractual closeting isn't a thing, but rather being in a closet and bearding is a choice. I highly disagree. Being in a closet is never a choice. No one wants to live in hiding. The reason can be contracts, homophobia, the fear of coming out or anything else. But these all are pressures not choices. Being in a closet is never a choice and the person can't be blamed for it.

Second how can you say that forced contractual closeting isn't a thing when Rebecca Ferguson has been screaming about forced contracts since years now. Here is everything she went through. But then you said But I don’t believe that there are contracts holding people hostage for life. Where’s the proof that they have forced them to sign up for life on these contracts? Then here is the proof

And I agree that closeting is illegal. There can't be direct closeting contracts but what about other minor and hidden contracts that directly binds the person to a closet. One is image clause. I hope I don't have to explain you what an image clause is. Contracts can be very complicated and sometimes there can't be even a way to get out of them. Here is another example of how fucked up contracts can be.

Fun Fact -  Louis followed and after several minutes unfollowed JEDWARD on twitter and update accounts reported it. He brought whole fandom's immediate attention to them.

The next obvious question that you raised is - If these people can come out in public to speak up then why Harry and Louis can't, even though they are much bigger and richer than these people? Because the more bigger a person gets the tighter the closet gets. Millions and millions of dollars are at stake when it comes to Louis and Harry, those people can do anything to keep their image as they want it to be because they are getting hugely profited by it. Rebecca has been speaking about what she suffered but even she dosen't know how much worse Harry and Louis's contract were. You need proof again? Here it is -

Why was Harry so terrified? Why he didn't spoke against it if he was so terrified of a said clause? Why it took him more than a decade after signing the contract to speak about it in public? You know what's more to it that makes me question everything? It is this-

And about when he signed his solo contract and learned that the ability to make music would not be affected by personal transgressions, he burst into tears, a reaction he still seemed shocked by, retelling it to me now, years later. "I felt free," he explained. X

Now imagine how restricted he must be that he cried because he didn't knew he can have so much freedom. That he could be free. Do you have any idea how disgusting and gut wrenching contracts can be? Look at this -

X X

Rebecca tweeted this in 2021 and we know that since 2021 not a single boybander came out in public that he's been physically assaulted. Now imagine how disgusting this is. This means he's still going through it. Even Rebecca can't take any names. She can't do anything. Watch this video -

"The machine of the hiding is insane and inhumane. (...) It's gonna keep going until somebody who has something to lose stands up and says 'I am gay', somebody big." Country singer Chely Wright about being gay in Hollywood

This proves that it's easy for small artist to come out. But for big artists it gets much more complicated and difficult. And this -

@back-to-louis even now if you believe that forced contractual closeting isn't a thing then it's no wonder to me that Harry and Louis keep leaving hints for us. And you've been here since 2012 you know much more than me but I am shocked that how you just skipped all these crucial things and never discussed about it. I didn't found anything about these things on your blog. It's very easy to talk about convenient things but what about the other side of reality?

[anticonspiracist]

https://at.tumblr.com/seasurfacefullofclouds1/for-anyone-confused-why-harry-is-dropping-larrie/eng7uic3joqg

For reference. This is something I see a lot on solo blogs and anti Larry blogs. It’s so interesting but also kinda funny.

so... you've linked me to a conspiracy theorist's blog. this isn't some random solo Louis fan who stopped being a larrie, this is a larrie who just shifted who she thinks The Bad Guy is.

my uh.... my fandom lineage, as it were (see: @back-to-louis) is anticonspiracist wherever it is. back when I had shit-larries-say, and early on at that, I would take ex-larrie testimonials. one of my requirements was that they were COMPLETELY out of the CT mindset and recognized that that thought process, no matter where it was directed, was harmful. I had lots of people get into conversations with me who ended up being upset that I wasn't willing to help them absolve themselves of being larries. simply put, they were still conspiracists. seasurfacefullofintellectualbullshit (search 'orange cat' here for some fun) is just a conspiracist.

[zot3-flopped]

Anon, I can't post vast tracts from other blogs but it's interesting to hear that @anticonspiracist is no longer a fan of Louis. She was disgusted by him abusing his employees. See her blog for the full discussion.

[zot3-flopped]

New to tumblr, can anybody please suggest anti larries/Louie, anti OT5 or anti any of their annoying ships to follow? I like to see people debunking their crap since they all hate on Harry on Twitter. I’m here for Harry solo only.

@back-to-louis

@anticonspiracist

@styloff

@cantquitu

[zot3-flopped]

Wow! I didn't know about this pact by the big Larries to withhold information back then... anticonspiracist tumblr com/post/703542455868473345/i-cant-remember-if-it-was-on-sls-or-another-blog

Yes, they had their own private blog to discuss strategies! Whenever one of the 'beards' made an appearance they agreed to flood the timeline with fetus Larry gifs.

[getawayheaven]

Closeting

Most of the things written in cursive is said by @back-to-louis

Rebecca also says one can be, quote, “trapped in an abusive contract for life.” Still not seeing closeting. False premise.

So first thing first. I think you should make it clear first that you got over the delusion that life time contracts dosen't exist at all. Because you refused to believe it first and you wanted proof. So I am assuming that you now believe that life time contracts exist.

And in your bunch of debunks of clause I didn't found even a single debunk about image, morality clause or cleanliness clause??

Citation please? This segment is a bit of a word salad. You appear to be saying that because there’s a lot of money around Louis and Harry, someone (WHO? NAME A NAME) …. can do anything because they’re making money off of the image of Harry and Louis not being in a relationship.

Pls don't tell me that you actually think there's a single person behind everything and a NAME can be NAMED 😶

And after going through everything I can only conclude that you have so many misconceptions regarding closeting. But I would like to provide some debunks here first -

Lifetime contracts dosen't exist -

You were wrong. And just now you said "(quote me where I said lifetime contracts aren’t possible challenge)" I did quoted you in my previous post but I guess you didn't read it so here we go again . But then you said But I don’t believe that there are contracts holding people hostage for life. Where’s the proof that they have forced them to sign up for life on these contracts? You reblogged this, you supported this, you believe this and here is the proof that there are contracts that can trap a musician in an abusive contract for life.

Do I need to repeat it again? here - I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE CONTRACTS HOLDING PEOPLE HOSTAGE FOR LIFE.

2) "So, Rebecca Ferguson is talking about contracts, but not closeting. Very interesting. Almost like that’s what I say."

You are wrong again. Grooming 17 year old boys to remould their sexuality isn't closeting then I don't know what is. (Is it even legal?)

3) PR relationships don’t normally involve living together with dogs for years and years and being closely entwined with each other’s families. I think you are very much unaware of long term PR relationships. You call it PR but I call it bearding. Here is an example of long term bearding before the actor decided to come out, marry a man and have kids.

 Why buy out access to people’s families, including children, to sustain this ruse? Over the course of YEARS?

TO HIDE SEXUALITY. And tell me you have never seen beards who have been there for years?

They were together for 12 whole years, on and off, she knew he was gay, Rebecca to Ricky was like Gala to Dali. Dali was never sexually attracted to women but he loved his wife.

4) Its not all this 100 percent fake bullshit that the larries claim PR relationships are. It doesn't come from some evil PR company overlord telling them they must date! Sure they might encourage it, but it's not forced by contract.

Again there is nothing that is not possible in this shit hole called music industry. Try to open your eyes.

'My whole life was managed down to the finest detail. Down to who I'm allowed to date. I'd be told off, I'd be shouted at if I was going out with someone, I'd get shouted at like I was a child...

5) Right, I think the most important thing to take away is that PR relationships aren’t forced, aren’t contracted, and don’t at all resemble the relationships that the members of 1D had, or have. I don’t know the statistics on PR relationships but even if 99% of short term relationships were for PR, long term relationships and marriages between celebs and civilians, and the children they have together, and commercial partnerships between mutual celebrity partners (which might exploit their PR, as is their choice, just like you said!) just… AREN’T.

 They think they are FORCED PR relationships, which has NEVER happened in the history of Hollywood. Oh you have no idea how wrong this sentence is and you have been living in dark till now. and again it's not PR it's bearding.

I think you people need to read some HISTORY.

Again you call it PR but I call it bearding and here is how bearding can be forced to hide sexuality.

Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Taylor

The bedroom escapades of actress Barbara Stanwyck were the subject of rumors and conjecture. Although the actress had contracts with Warner Bros. and Columbia, she also worked for MGM. Robert Taylor had a contract with MGM. When it became clear that the stories of Stanwyck and her female lovers and Taylor and his male lovers were more than rumors, the MGM executives called them both in for a meeting. To preserve their careers and reputations, MGM ordered them to get married, which they did on May 13, 1939. At the conclusion of the wedding ceremony, Taylor refused to kiss Stanwyck and went home to his mother’s house for the night. X

Judy Garland and Vincente Minnelli

Judy Garland’s husband and the father of her only child, Liza Minnelli, lived as an openly gay man in New York for a number of years before hitting it big in Hollywood. It was the restraints of Hollywood’s morality clauses that forced Minnelli back in the closet. Apparently, Garland was well-aware of his lifestyle when she married him and had a child with him. Years later, she encouraged her daughter to marry gay men, stating that they make the best husbands. 

Bearding can't be forced? Think again.

And you can obviously come up with "Oh these are such old examples, the gay rights have improved so much, it dosen't happen how". Think AGAIN

It is more tough now.

6)  No, in the sort of situation I described with the movie co-stars it wouldn’t be a contracted arrangement

Lots of what we see is artifice, orchestrated or embellished. But that doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING is shady or fake.

 “Fake” PR relationships are usually just friendships or acquaintances that are spun as being more

And AGAIN because Larries have literally NO CLUE how PR works 

LOL let's see who has no idea. You all sound like celebs are pure souls who are living highly authentic lives. In what world are you living in?

EDUCATE YOURSELF

There are contracts, agreements, clauses.

Some non-disclosure lines are built in to ‘as to what cannot be said and what needs to be said’, suggesting there could be a script if they were challenged by the public.

 ‘if it was truly an arranged relationship, sex wouldn’t come into it’.

‘It was a big publicity stunt. She would come pick me up – I don’t drive – I think she called the paparazzi too.

6) PR relationships don’t normally involve living together with dogs for years and years and being closely entwined with each other’s families

And yes, “fake” PR relationships happen between celebs, but not the kind of relationships that the Larries claim are rife in the entertainment industry. They think that women are hired to work for years as fake girlfriends, to live with their celeb boyfriends, to be maid-of-honour at their mother’s weddings, to fake pregnancies and even have babies. Which is flat-out f’kin’ ridiculous. 

Oh but do you know what's the best way to dispel gay rumours?

This is Simon’s former publicist Max who passed away in prison in 2017. This documentary was published in 2002. Simon is the creator of The X Factor. He created One Direction and Fifth Harmony. They all had to (and still have to) follow the rules of these guys and their teams. Max worked for Simon and his artists until at least 2012. (He died in prison 2017.) Guess when all the fake girlfriend stuff started? End 2011/ begin 2012. He basically admit to do what Larries have been saying the whole time.

7) Once upon a time there was a very popular boyband with a gay member in it who were being abused by their contracts and worked nearly to death for very little money, while making millions and millions of money for their manager and record label. They BROKE THEIR CONTRACT and signed with another record label because they felt they were being abused. Do you know what happened to them?

Fortunately, I can tell you!

I don't understand how are you even comparing the two situations? This band, which was totally under another label, isn't even slightly related to 1D can get out of their contracts so you think that 1D can do it too? How? How do you know that both of the band had the same contracts, clauses and agreements? Nsync had proofs, they didn't had iron clad contracts, they made very little money, they switched to a different label and this is not the case with 1D at all. Rebecca was under the same label, same management, same year, same show, same producer and even she didn't had any clue that 1D signed such a abusive clause like cleanliness clause. So how can you even remotely compare NSYNC and 1D? Their situations are miles apart. What makes you say that it is this easy to break contract for 1D too?

And if you really want to compare, then let's talk about those artist who were abused by Sony and they ended up loosing everything.

George Michael - He sued Sony. Why? He called his situation "professional slavery" that left him little control over his own work and career. A 15-Year Contract. He wanted an out. He didn't wanted to work with Sony at all. He was trapped, unsatisfied and unhappy. But what happened? He lost. He lost the case. He lost his money. He lost his precious time. He lost his artistry.

 If artists were given freedom to break their contracts and walk away after an album or two, the companies would no longer be able to afford to spend so much on new talent, Sony executives said.

"In fact, there is no such thing as resignation for an artist in the music industry," Mr. Michael said. "Effectively, you sign a piece of paper at the beginning of your career and you are expected to live with that decision, good or bad, for the rest of your professional life." X

I am not gonna repeat the whole thing because I am assuming you know the case. And you have said times and again that artist sue their labels and bosses if they have any problem and they DO NOT RESIGN or RENEW it again. But can you guess what happened in this case?

He recorded two albums under Virgin and In 2003, he signs a new contract with... Sony Records. His 2004 album, Patience, is released on the label; it proves to be his last, as he stops recording and dies in 2016. Why did he signed under Sony again if he was that frustrated with Sony's work ethics? The fight here was not with a single person but with a huge label, with the whole team. Then why he signed a contract again?

Do you know how his situation ended? In July 1995, Sony sold the contract to rival record companies Virgin Records and DreamWorks Records. Virgin granted worldwide rights when DreamWorks granted rights in the U.S. and Canada. All releases for these labels were co-labeled with Aegean Records, a record company owned by George Michael. He, eventually, returned to Sony Music in 2004, on which he released his final studio album, Patience. Additionally, in 2011, all his catalogue for Virgin and DreamWorks were reissued on Sony.

At the end every fucking work of his life was Sony's. The law said there was nothing illegal in his contract and he knew everything when he signed it hence there is no crime. Nothing like professional slavery.

Read every word of this article, I know you won't so I'll highlight the key points here -

“The people in the industry thought, ‘Of course he’s going to win.’ The contracts of the 1980s had been got rid of in the film industry in the 1950s so why were they still there in the 1980s? It’s the only industry on earth that has no free agency.”

"A label often wants an artist to continue to trade on their established brand with the public. But after “Faith” Michael was trying for a new direction, to be taken more seriously as an artist instead of just as a pop star sex symbol.”

 it was a tough pill to swallow that the label was making more money off of him than he was making.

“As upsetting as it was, because it felt unfair, it [Michael’s record deal] wasn’t illegal,” Wagnon said. “It’s a similar situation to Kesha, in that the wrong done to her was arguably, according to Kesha, of a criminal nature, but it was not in breach of the contract she signed.”

“George Michael was a human laboratory for the power of the right of approval with respect to creative decisions and his contract that allowed anything he turned into Sony having to be in their view commercially satisfactory. Legally speaking Sony held all the cards.”

“He kept a brave face and made the best of it but it ruined his career,”

And oh my god let's talk about Kesha. What happened with Kesha. I hope I don't have to tell you the whole case. But you definitely know how it ended. She didn't had any creative control over her songs, she was forced to sing and not her professional but personal life was controlled too. She was forced to lose weight, she went through long-term emotional and psychological abuse involving fat-shaming, she was not credited even on the songs she sang, her voice was used but no credit and no money was given to her, she stated everything in her lawsuit and claimed alleged actions are a breach of contract, besides her sexual assault charges. But what happened? Her career came to a standstill, she lost all her money, she didn't even left with any funds to fight the legal battle, her career was ruined, court said that NOTHING ILLEGAL has happened and at the end she had to work under the same damn record label. X

And here too the fight was not with any one person, her lawsuit included the same allegations against Sony, she said that working with Sony is a risk to her life. Sony tried to conceal the information, but what happened? She's still not free. She doesn't have to directly work with Luke but she's bound indefinitely with him. He still till date is getting money from all her work, sony has still ties with him and Dr. Asshole Luke is still working and is very successful.

Kesha is working again, releasing music again but Luke and Sony is getting all the money.

Now you tell me, is it that easy to break free? At what cost would Harry and Louis break free. At losing all their money, all their success, all their years of hard work and sacrifice, and still they have no chance of getting free? What will happen? They will end up working with the same people anyway but after losing every fucking thing?

Is this better? Or what Harry and Louis doing is much better? They are playing by the rules, by the contracts, playing a public narrative, but being together secretly. Hence they are working hard, building up their own image and reputation, getting rich enough to fight the system and for fighting the system YOU HAVE TO A PART OF THE SHITTY STSTEM. Both Harry and Louis have been trying to build up their own production companies, especially Louis, he's trying dead hard to go independent, to build up his own label and management company, we know that, he even tried to launch some bands, but in the end he decided that all this needs more time.

The way Harry and Louis are doing things will end up getting them in a position where they can change the lives of many up coming artist, then why would they want to lose it all? And do they have any other option? Will they be able to break free even if they revolted against the system?

Now you tell me how it was so easy for NSYNC to get out of contract but not for George Michael and Kesha? You said that All they had to say was that they were mistreated and then detail that mistreatment. Then why Kesha and George can't get out of the contract with the same allegations? Is it really that easy? Now this is what you can't understand. There's difference in contracts, clauses and agreements.

8) Closeting - I can't believe that I have to prove here that contractual closeting exist but here you go.

You have said numerous times that closeting is illegal, and forced contractual closeting does not exist. The argument is that they were contractually forced to be closeted, but thus would be illegal and render the contract null and void (unlike the Dr. Luke case). The terms of such closeting would have to be explicitly spelled out in the contract, not merely covered by a general “morality clause.”

Well I have stated above that morality clause can even force people to get married but even keeping that aside, why haven't you discussed anything about cleanliness clause? Do you even know what cleanliness clause is?

Let me tell you.

While he's finally landed in a place where he feels comfortable speaking about his sexual past with close confidants, the singer didn't always feel that way. In fact, during his One Direction days, the bandmates had something called a 'cleanliness clause' baked into their contracts, which had strict stipulations about how they could and couldn't behave publicly and what they could and couldn't say in interviews. As the name suggests, anything explicitly sexual was off the table, and the mere hint of anything sexual threatened to jeopardise their squeaky-clean, boy band image. X

As Rebecca said, this is some level of control. According to this clause, the management team and label dictate HOW CAN THEY BEHAVE IN PUBLIC, WHAT CAN THEY SAY IN INTERVIEWS. This is fucking abusive and this should be illegal. How can your boss decide what you can say in public and how you can behave in public? This is some real control over his image and sexuality. This directly means that he has to play by the image that his team created for him. Anything said or done opposed to his public image created by the label would be a breach of contract.

And this clause if fully legal. 1D boys signed this when they had no idea what even cleanliness clause is.

Along with the constant probing into his personal life, Styles said he was instructed to behave in accordance to “cleanliness clauses.” The rules were embedded in contracts that he had to sign, which threatened consequences if he did not obey the rules. The restrictiveness of those agreements ultimately led Styles to be fearful of making mistakes during his most formative years. X

Harry says the entire ordeal left him feeling "terrified" over messing up or saying the wrong thing and "ashamed' about the details of his own sex life.

And this clause existed when Harry was portrayed as a womanizer, his portrayal of public image started with dating a woman who was 14 year older then him and he was merely 16, when he was papped going to Taylor's hotel late at night with an overnight bag, when young models was getting papped going to his hotel/apartment at night and then getting papped while coming out with disheveled hair in the morning, when zayn was accused of cheating Perrie and sleeping with other girls while being with her, when Louis was getting papped taking a new girl every single night to his hotel room, when Louis hooked up with a random girl he met at a bar got her pregnant, when Louis and Zayn's video of smoking weed came out, when Taylor was writing songs about how Harry was sleeping with other girls while being with her, while he was making out with half naked Kendall on yacht.

Where is the cleanliness clause then? Oh but wait. Nothing is against their build up public image here. They have to be young boys who fucks any girl they find and they are womanizers, right?

The tabloids had explicit headlines about his sex life, they were asked questions about their sex life in interviews, everyone knew who he was dating, when is he spending a night in taylor's hotel and when a model spent a night in his apartment, beacuse everything was papped, then why was he so terrified of everyone finding out who he was having sex with? What were his personal  transgressions that made him burst into tears when he signed his solo contract?

Have you heard about cleanliness clause ever before? By any celebrity? By any musician? Did you knew that musicians have to sign such an abusive clause? Even Rebecca didn't knew it.

What would have happened if Harry refused to speak and behave in a certain way because of this clause? That would have been a breach of contract from his side. What would have happened if Harry would have taken this to court because he didn't wanted to behave in a certain way? Court would have dismissed this and Syco had the right to counter sue him.

That's what happened with George Michael, court said that he himself signed the contract in the first place, on his own free will, hence he knew what the contract carried, then how can he say now that he want to back out?

Same is Harry and Louis's case. They signed the contract on their own free will, hence they knew what was in the contract. Contract says that they agree to behave in a certain and speak what their team tells them to. Even if they want them to behave straight not gay. It was THEIR CHOICE in the first place, that's why they signed it. It was THEIR CHOICE to not to let people know their actual sexuality. They can't just suddenly change THEIR CHOICE and decide not to go with the PR strategies of their label. Then every other artist will change THEIR CHOICE to not to go by the signed contract and that's just not possible. This is closeting and this is not illegal.

And that's why a wise woman once said :

"Read your contracts. Up and down, left and right. Hire five different lawyers to read it for you if you have to, but read your f*cking contracts" - Lauren Jauregui

As stated in the George Michael article above "It is of criminal nature but it is not illegal"

9) I wanted to address this as the last point because what you said here was really really absurd.  If they are…. why are they risking it all by giving out signs over the internet? Do you feel any connection, as the target of those signs, to the risk they might be undertaking to give you signs? Do you think about that at all when you discuss them in public forums?

Why is it such a bizarre idea to you that celebs gives hints to their fans about their work and even about their personal life? Have you never heard about this before? Let's take a simple example of Taylor Swift. She gives hints to her fans about her personal life all the time. Giving an small example here, she threw direct shade at her enemies in her work, like in music videos, pictures, tweets, insta posts, she threw shade at Kendall, Kanye, Katy, Karlie, Jake Gyllenhaal, all these people betrayed her in personal life and she used her work to threw shade at them and let people know about it. And her fans start throwing public hate comments on these celebs.

Do you think this is allowed by her label and her team? Why would they allow it when they perfectly know that Taylor can get in serious legal trouble for this? These celebs can file a libel case against her. It will be difficult for both Taylor and her label. Then why are they allowing it? Why is she risking it all by giving out signs over the internet? Do Swifties feel any connection, as the target of those signs, to the risk she might be undertaking to give them signs? Do Swifties think about that at all when they discuss them in public forums?

(For those who don't know Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.)

Answer to all of this NO. Because there is no evident proof that Taylor shaded Kendall or Katy. She didn't took any direct names, she didn't directly used their photos, then what's the legal proof that Taylor shaded them? It is dead obvious to her fans that she's throwing shade at someone and everybody knows it, but even her team knows that fan theories proves nothing in reality and Taylor can continue doing this as much as she wants. It's like a connection between Taylor and her fans and nobody can pick it up as offensive.

Oh but wait nobody has ever given hints about their sexuality right? That's something very personal and nobody wants to discuss it with fans in this hints game right? Think again.

 "I've hinted about my sexuality for years while being afraid to spell it out for everybody." she said. "I did a lyric video last year for 'We Belong.' It had moving line drawings of people falling in love… It was all a man and a woman making out, and it was a weird moment for me."

The star revealed she felt uncomfortable with the video showing only heterosexual couples. "It was so bizarre that I had to ask to mix in different orientations. People started asking for hints about the video, and I used different combinations of emoji couples making out.” 

She wasn't able to come out, because of the fear of homophobic reactions and pressure of getting her career ended if fans didn't accepted her for who she was. She thought they will think that she lied for years. But no, fans caught her signs.

You have linked Lauren's reaction she was outed as bi because BECAUSE HER FANS THOUGHT SHE AND HER BANDMATE WERE SENDING THEM SIGNALS. But what about the other side where celebs wants us to catch hints?

Let me tell you first, that's how strongly and firmly you shut off the dating rumours, which Harry and Louis has never done, but Louis said PEOPLE CAN BELIVE WHAT THEY WANNA BELIEVE and Harry said I WOULD NEVER LIKE TO TELL SOMEONE THAT THEY ARE WRONG. And sometimes celebs need that support. Celebs give hints so that they can know that people will support them or not. When you are forced in a closet by a homophobic industry you sometimes become so afraid of people knowing who you actually are that you desperately just want everyone to catch on hints so that you can know if anyone will support you or not. Showing support is important.

"Whitney Houston was in a lesbian relationship with her assistant and friends believe coming out of the closet could have SAVED her life." “I really feel that if Robyn was accepted into Whitney’s life, Whitney would still be alive today,” Bobby Brown told Us Weekly.

Wentworth Miller ("Prison Break") admitted that he tried to commit suicide while struggling to come to terms with his sexuality. "I gave thousands of interviews. I had multiple opportunities to speak my truth, which is that I was gay, but I chose not to." In 2013 he came out.

Westlife's (A famous boyband) Mark Feehily said -

'I became depressed. People think, "Sure, he’s living the life of Riley in a massive band, how could he have any problems?" but there has to be a balance and back then my career life was fulfilled, but my personal life was a total shambles. His inability to be honest about his sexuality led Mark to feel there wasn't any point in life at times.

The bravest thing I’ve ever done is… come out as being gay. In hindsight it was brave because silly former me thought the reaction from everyone was going to be one of shock and disappointment.

Little did I know it would be the opposite.

If only they knew that they will get immense support even they came out the next moment. Hints are given because even artist knows that only fans who are playing close attention will catch on them and nobody will ever directly ask them about it. They do not owe fans any explanation or clarification for leaving hints. Nobody has asked Taylor about the shade thrown on other celebs.

10) Lastly I want to let you know this story.

First a set up by a label

HE DIDN'T WANTED TO DO IT. HE DIDN'T WANTED TO DO IT.

Second he SUGGESTED he's gay.

And boom third comes a fake engagement and a fake pregnancy.

Oh wait I totally for your questions about has anyone faked pregnancy before? Has anyone faked fatherhood before for SEVEN YAERS? Has anyone forged birth certificate and documents before? You are most welcome to read my babygate masterpost. X

@back-to-louis maybe this is not everything I wanted to cover, because I totally forgot to add how Zayn was able to leave. Because I think that's what you will ask next. But I might add it in the next post, as for sure you are gonna throw more questions now.

Adding this today just because I want everyone to laugh after reading this long ass post. LOL

[getawayheaven]

It's funny how @back-to-louis didn't answered you back as soon as you presented the proof. Especially the one where they had this delusion in their head that life time contracts aren't even a thing. THEY REFUSED to believe that people can be signed to something for lifetime. And now they don't have any answer. Lol.

That's what happens. People refuse to believe the things that are dead obvious. And they think that the ones who believe in these very obvious and actual real things are conspiracy theorist who are living in dilusional world. Add what Rebecca just said

And who knows maybe @back-to-louis is just busy🤷