#mostly just victims | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

batsplat · 5 months ago

Note

hello, i have a question. what is the difference betwwen a hard and a dangerous racer? is there some sort of characteristics like how succesful a racer is or is more of a "a dangerous racer races on the limit and that's dangerous. a hard racer races on the limit but. its just a hard racer". thank you for answering!

completely in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. it's a perpetual debate, and one where everyone draws the line differently... very much a case of one man's dangerous manoeuvre is another one's hard but fair overtake... that being said! I'll have a go at coming up with a general framework with which people assess this stuff

let's bring in two strawmen, which feels like the most direct way to illustrate the possible stances you can take on this debate. to be clear, nobody really fits neatly in either ideological category - but, well, these are pretty much the two most extreme positions anyone could have:

when people are describing something as 'hard racing' (as opposed to... idk, 'clean' racing), they are usually talking about a) contact between the two bikes, and/or b) an action that forces the other bike to take evasive action. what constitutes forcing evasive action? well, this is all very nebulous and hard to define - there's crossing another rider's racing line, making them pick up the bike mid-corner, forcing them wide/off-track, not yielding in situations where one of you will have to yield to avoid a crash... but this is always an assessment that will depend on the specific circumstances. not every block pass is considered hard racing, for instance, even though you are quite literally 'blocking' the other bike. contact is the more straightforward one... if you initiate a move that leads to contact, then most people would agree this is 'hard' racing

so say you are in the 'A' camp. according to this line of thinking, pretty much every contact is 'dangerous' riding and should not be allowed. here's what gibernau said about jerez 2005, included in the sete post:

let's not discuss the merits of the jerez 2005 move specifically here - this is an expression of a broader ideological position. "this is not a contact sport" "it's not about hitting another guy"... so, according to this stance, actions that knowingly result in contact should not be acceptable and as a result need to be penalised. taken to the logical extreme, any and all 'hard racing' is dangerous

let's go to the other extreme, 'B'. let's say you're very pro-hard racing, to the point where you think that contact is more than fine and that it is unreasonable to call it 'dangerous'. sure, of course it is dangerous, but inherently all motorcycle racing has a lot of risk attached. racing that involves contact is basically acceptable. even within this extreme, my lovely venn diagram allows for some actual 'dangerous' riding - either behaviour that is wholly irresponsible during races... or stuff that doesn't count as hard racing because it's not 'racing'. here are some examples:

stuff that happens during races but is like... egregious misbehaviour. cf romano fenati pulling a rival's brake lever during a race - obviously dangerous and no longer really exists within the confines of actual racing

in either races or non-race sessions - not following proper safety procedures like for instance ignoring yellow flags. again, should be pretty obvious why that's dangerous

poor behaviour in non-race sessions,the general tag for not exhibiting appropriate care, awareness for your environment, all that stuff... the extreme example is marc barrelling into the back of another rider after the chequered flag had been waved in friday practise at phillip island 2011 (more on that here). it's also things like faffing about on the racing line, see the pecco mugello dramatics

so, yes, everyone will agree that there's some stuff that counts as 'dangerous riding' that's distinct from 'hard racing' just because it's not actual racing. that's the most straightforward stuff... but yeah, anyway, those are basically the two extreme positions you can take. you can say that all contact is bad and dangerous, that any time you're forcing another rider to take evasive action and are making a pass that isn't 1000% clean, you are putting others at unnecessary risk. or, you can say, hey, everything goes, rubbing is racing on steroids - sure, there's a small category of things that aren't acceptable, mainly stuff that isn't actually racing, but otherwise you should be allowed to brute force yourself past riders whenever you please

obviously, they're strawmen for a reason. basically nobody holds either of these positions in their entirety - and in race situations, there's always going to be actions that are seen as hard racing by some and as dangerous by others. so, unfortunately, we're going to have to dig a little deeper here, and figure out by what metrics people draw the line between hard and dangerous. let's... hey, how about we bring in casey stoner, just this once. as a treat. here's what he said after laguna '08:

“I’ve been in hard racing all my life, some very aggressive racing, but today was a little bit too much. I nearly went in the gravel so many times and I don’t think it was necessary.”

hard racing? casey's done that before. some very aggressive racing? no issue. but what valentino did at laguna was "a little bit too much" and not "necessary". the specific thing casey cites is nearly going into the gravel - and indeed, forcing other riders wide/off-track is one of the types of racing behaviour that most finely straddles the line between 'hard' and 'dangerous'. for other examples, see suzuka 2001 in which biaggi forced valentino off-track and valentino flipped him off when he eventually got past (a few more details here), qatar 2012 where marc forced luthi off-track and got slapped after the race (here) and sepang 2015, where... uh. you know. or how about argentina 2018 where... look, I think you get the point - plenty of controversy comes from forcing your opponent's bike into places where it's simply not supposed to be

while we're at it, let's throw in a little excerpt from casey's autobiography about the race:

A lot of it was fair racing, he was out-braking me on the inside and riding better than me around a lot of the track. If it had all been like that I would cop it sweet. But a couple of moves off camera added to my frustration. I risked running off the track, and racing at the limits like that as we were I even became worried about my safety.

(does have to be said that the pair of them spend... relatively little time off-camera, never when the bikes seem to be particularly close - but of course the problem this statement creates is that by definition you can't judge any footage you don't have access to)

so, let's strip away the details and think about what casey is actually talking about here. it's a risk/reward calculation. this is what's at the heart of this riding standards debate: what level of risk is acceptable for what level of reward? there are situations in which there is inherently a higher level of risk in a way that isn't caused by either party - influenced by the circuit layout, what the weather is like, how hard you're both pushing aka how much on the 'limit' you are, and so on. but even if that risk isn't your 'fault', if you are riding at very high speeds on a dangerous track, you can still be considered a dangerous rider if you're not exercising appropriate levels of caution

so, let's break it down even further and try and come up with some basic criteria by which people judge whether a specific move is 'hard' or 'dangerous'. how about this: (1) does the action have a reasonable chance of coming off, (2) is the risk you're taking proportionate to the reward, and (3) is the move likely to cause serious harm to you or the other rider. let's take them one by one

listen, it needs to be plausible that you're going to be able to pull this move off. if you're firing the bike from fifty miles back into a gap that doesn't exist, then this is by definition an unnecessary risk. you are not going to do yourself any good and you are also not going to do the other rider any good. (sometimes it might be in your interest to crash the other rider out so you might as well, but unsurprisingly this is frowned upon. see the 1998 250cc title decider.) obviously, this is going to be affected by your skill level - if you're a mid rider, there will be fewer moves that are 'plausible' for you than for the best riders

this is basically the common sense metric. if you are riding in a pack, make sure to keep in mind that crashing in this situation could get ugly. if you are fighting for p5, maybe a different approach is fitting than fighting for p1. if you can make an overtake a lap later as long as you're patient, in a way that's a lot safer than doing it now, perhaps just do that instead. don't be silly in the wet! this comes down to stakes, whether it's worth it, how likely the move is to succeed... and also what the consequences would be if you got it wrong, for both yourself and other riders. you're making an overall judgement based on all of those factors... sometimes you need to take risk, but it's better to make sure that risk is reasonably sensible

however high the potential rewards are, there's a certain level of risk that is no longer acceptable, where the 'risk/reward calculation' stuff has to be thrown out of the window because the reward no longer matters. this is basically the catch-all for 'wholly irresponsible riding' - anything that's just going too far

so, uh. obviously everything described above is super subjective... but that's what people are judging in my opinion, this is the standards they are using in their head to determine where they draw the line. so, as an example, to bring back the stuff from this post about the inter-alien ideological differences:

and again, this is also what the debate after aragon 2013 was about:

if you think aragon 2013 is unacceptable to the point of being dangerous, then you probably take quite a hard line view and think pretty much any action that could lead to contact needs to be stamped down on. while that contact did have unpleasant consequences for the other party (dani wasn't able to walk for several days and his title bid was basically over), it is perhaps a little worse than could have been reasonably expected in that situation. in that sense, there's a bit of surface level similarity with jerez 2005... there, valentino made the pass for the win at the last corner, knowing he would probably bump into sete while doing so. neither rider is knocked off their bike (though sete has to leave the track) and it is at a slow corner, with relatively 'light' contact. unfortunately, as a result of where valentino's bike impacted sete's body and sete's preexisting shoulder issues, it ended up injuring sete (see here for valentino learning of this perhaps a little later than was ideal and only after he'd taken the piss out of sete for dramatically clutching his arm). at aragon 2013, marc was harrying dani and sticking very close to his rear tyre as he applied pressure to his teammate before he made a small misjudgement, getting his braking a little wrong and clipping the back of dani's bike. he happened to cut a crucial wire in the process, causing dani to highside a few moments later

these aren't equivalent situations and each have their own risk/reward profile. but the basic point is this: inviting contact with another rider will always generate more risk, and can always have unintended consequences... even when the action is relatively innocuous and the rider would not have expected this outcome. if you are in the 'all passes should be clean passes' school, this risk is fundamentally unacceptable. even trickier - what if contact is made as a result of a move you initiated but the other rider could have avoided? of course, you started it, but they could have yielded... and maybe they should have, maybe that would have been the wise, the sensible thing to do in that situation. it's always important to remember that at least two riders are involved in all these situations - and there are many cases where contact and/or crashing is not 100% the fault of any one party. so, for instance, there are several moments in laguna 2008 that are so risky in part because casey is also refusing to yield. that's not to necessarily imply any blame or fault! of course, it might not be ideal for the most aggressive riders being able to bully everyone else as they please because they know they can generally rely on everyone else being more sensible and yielding. but the differing outcomes resulting from the choices made by the 'other' rider will always help influence perception of any race situation - a move that is seen as 'hard but fair' might have been seen as considerably more dangerous if the other party hadn't yielded

and yes... yes, there is absolutely a question of your success rate. this links back to point (1) - is the move plausible? there are moves that aren't really considered examples of 'hard racing' and certainly not dangerous... because they worked. take valentino's last corner move at catalunya 2009, at a corner where you don't traditionally overtake (remember, before the race jorge was going around tempting fate by saying that if you're ahead by that point you're sorted). sure, he goes for a gap that exists, but it could easily have gone wrong - and if a lot of other riders had tried that, then it would have. how do you think yamaha would have felt if valentino had taken both yamaha riders out at the very end of the race to allow ducati to claim an unlikely victory and an increased championship lead? here's another one: misano 2017 and marc making a last lap move in treacherous conditions to snatch the win. no contact required to make that risky as shit - and if stuff like that goes wrong too often they call you an idiot at best and dangerous at worst. of course, both valentino and marc have had moments where they very much did not pull off moves they were intending, which is how we get ambition outweighing talent and 'I hope he can learn from this one and improve for the future', among other hits. but, relative to the amount of risk they're regularly taking in their racing, they get a lot of reward for their troubles... because they're very good at what they do. the risk/reward calculation is one that they... uh, can both be very adept at, but it's also one that's fundamentally easier when you're skilled enough to pull off a lot of moves that would be beyond the capabilities of other riders. it's when you don't know how to judge your moments, when you keep trying moves that you can't pull off - that's where other riders will start having a problem with you

which is where we get to reputation! how different incidents are judged will also depend on the existing reputations of the riders involved and whether they are seen as 'fair' racers or not (an even more nebulous term, if possible), versus hard racers, dangerous racers... often, this is a question of quantity too - with certain riders on the grid, you will notice they're involved in controversial incidents disproportionately often. how likely people are to pay you the benefit of the doubt... how likely they are to believe you as to what your intent was in a certain situation, perhaps the most nebulous concept of them all. 'hard' and 'dangerous' aren't assessments that are made in isolation, and how severely riders are judged will often depend on their pasts and how those pasts are perceived by others

where you get into really sticky territory is... okay, both valentino and marc have more often than not (arguably) been able to stay on the right side of 'the line', where their moves might be hard but aren't putting anyone else in active danger - but that's because they are at least theoretically capable of exhibiting a good sense of judgement and are also good at what they're doing, as covered above. here's a question: do they bear any responsibility for when younger and/or worse riders copy their moves and/or general approach to racing, with worse consequences? when they have been criticised, when they are called dangerous, at times it's not just what they're doing in the moment... it's what they're inspiring. so you've got stuff like this from sete:

even more drastically than that, after the death of a fifteen year old rider in supersport in 2021, one of his fellow rider said this about marc (which marc unsurprisingly strongly pushed back on):

(just worth remembering, this is a rider who did walk away from the sport as a result and was clearly deeply affected by what happened - the marc comments were part of a longer statement that got overshadowed by this part and the resulting controversy)

setting aside the merits or lack thereof of these specific assertions, what of the general questions they raise... can you be a dangerous rider in an indirect fashion like this, by the very nature of your legacy? are riders who helped bring about a more aggressive baseline standard of racing in any way responsible for anything that happens as a result of this standard? (even worse, there's a line of succession here - after all, who was marc's biggest inspiration?) or does individual responsibility reign supreme here? athletes are by design only interested in their own successes, aren't they - and 'legacy' is so abstract, how can anyone know how others will be influenced by what they do? how can we even begin to assess how big an influence individual riders really are? let's not forget that there will be other factors - riders in the past have discussed how particular characteristics of the moto2 class have bred more aggressive racing, or the influence of the size of motogp bikes, or how difficult it is these days to overtake in a completely 'clean' manner, or the rules themselves and to what extent they have actually been enforced etc etc... maybe there's also an element of people focusing on the easiest, most visible explanation in the form of star riders, without giving proper consideration to the underlying factors that will influence an era's style of riding. again, how you feel about all of this will vary from person to person - but part of the hard vs dangerous debate is inherently forward-looking. and it's hardly just legacy... your hard/dangerous moves may also be setting a precedent in the present. to what extent is it the duty of riders to worry about that?

so then, that's what I've got. how you draw the distinction between hard racing and dangerous riding will come down to your individual ideological position and what you think racing even entails. do you think all contact is objectionable? do you think only the most extreme of transgressions - most of which don't qualify as 'racing' per se - should be labelled dangerous? somewhere in between? everyone will draw the line in a different place, according to the situation and their individual biases and understanding of events. it comes down, generally speaking, to how you judge the risks and rewards of a certain move, whether you think what a rider attempted was 'worth' it. all of which depends on whether the rider could realistically have managed whatever action they were attempting, whether the potential rewards were proportionate to the risks, or whether the whole thing was just too flat out dangerous to ever be worth it... of course, none of these are objective standards by which you can assess the racing, but they should give you a rough indication of what people are even talking about when they're distinguishing between hard and dangerous racing. riders as individuals are also far from consistent in their stances (surely not!) so you do have to play it by ear a lot of the times... and while there are plenty incidents where the majority can agree whether it is 'hard' or 'dangerous', there are plenty more where you're going to get a lot of contradictory opinions. no definitive answers here - unfortunately a lot of the time you'll just have to make your own mind up

#is this actually coherent? please write in if it's not coherent #tried to mostly stick to examples I've discussed elsewhere but still feels a bit short on details in places... kinda wishy washy... eh. idk #this is SUCH a vibes thing I cannot stress enough what a vibes thing this is #please don't judge the venn diagrams they were made in two minutes in google slides... not my best work but it'll have to do #smolnerdz #motogp #//#brr brr #batsplat responds #I do find this stuff really tricky myself because. okay so you might not have noticed this but I'm rather fond of both marc and valentino #and I clearly do derive quite a lot of enjoyment from their racing not *in spite* but *because* of their aggression #which is all well and good but it's healthy to always just... engage with the other side of things. ruminate on it a bit #a morally tricky sport to engage with in lots of ways - doesn't mean it all has to be done in only the most self-flagellating of ways #but personally I do feel like you shouldn't just. shut yourself off from the critiques. idk it IS a dangerous sport with real victims #and yet several of the races I've mentioned here made it to a list of my all time favourite races I posted *yesterday*. so now what hm #anyways #current tag

42 notes · View notes

randomfoggytiger · 6 months ago

Text

"I find it tasteless that you don’t really care what KF did to those young people as long as your golden boy comes out looking alright...."

"You’ll defend anything adjacent to D. I see a lot of arguments that do not have anything to back it up, like he probably acted inappropriately while drunk at a party before and so what? I’m taking about MP (who said she was drunk?) being unable to control herself because she needed everyone to know she was with D and touches his dick in her spare time. Disturbingly, that’s what seems to give her self-worth. All that is why she’s not very likable or tolerable. Evidence shows that chiropractic adjustments do more to harm than help, but as long as people feel they work everything is hunky-dory? It alarming that you don’t care about real harm being done to people’s spines because it’s D’s gf’s father providing the service? I can’t respect people who push any of that bull crap."

-@iwantapenguin, 2024

Lie, verb: lied; lying. To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. To create a false or misleading impression.

Slander, verb: slandered, slandering. To make false and damaging statements about (someone).

Gloves off, then. But next time, tag me properly so I can be notified that you are going to abandon a civil discussion and resort to violence.

Post I'm responding to here (and tangentially, here.)

I shall also give you the curtesy of quoting you directly so that everyone can judge for themselves if my claims are valid, fair, or truthful.

**Note**: I do not begrudge anyone feeling disgusted or grossed out by age gap relationships: the majority of those relationships start from a bad place, continue in a bad place, and are doomed to fail or take both parties down with it. However, the accusations flung against David and Monique without merit-- not those that are or were provably awkward or roughshod -- are a waste of my time, energy, and brain power. Give me proof or give me death.

First: "Whataboutism?" Wherefore art thou, 'Whataboutism'?

Next: "People who post their family’s whole lives on social media for attention or to make money are vultures." Except Monique doesn't get a cut off of management deals, engagement, or even ads. DD and his kids have posted pics of their personal lives, homes, and vacations, as well. They not only let Monique continue to post pics and videos, but also respond to (West) or engage with (David) them. And hi, yes, hello, I also despise family vloggers because they exploit children who can't consent.

Next: "MP has thousands of followers she does not know, so private her account is not." ...What? You can have a private account and still have followers without following them. I know people who operate their dinosaur Facebook accounts like that, young and old generation; and they're most certainly private citizens. I know youngins and oldins who operate their Twitters like that. You probably do, too, or at least know someone who does. I'm hungry for facts, but nothing's been proven with that statement.

Next: "D is so clueless he didn’t know that Gillian was taking BTS pictures on TXF’s set to post on Instagram." David didn't know GA was posting their bts vids online, true; but he was also the one who brought up that she was "always taking pictures and videos" when they were discussing fan engagement; and he and she both laughed over it while he assured Gillian he was okay with "it", regardless.

Their exact dialogue, transcribed:

David: "You know how stupid I am? How innocent and naive I am? You would take a video and I'd go 'oh, cool'."

Gillian: *smiling* "And not realize that I was gonna post it?"

David: *smiling*: "Yeah, and then you'd post it. It'll be like, 'Oh. Well, I should have taken a look at that one.'

Both: *laughing*

Gillian: "Well, you never complained so I thought you were okay with whatever...."

David: "I AM o-- y'know, none of it was terrible; but it was like, I never think to do it."

Also, he clarified in May 2015 (before, as you theorize, Monique could have gotten her hands on his phone or publicly posted about him) that he doesn't trust social media because of the assumptions, misinterpretations, and no-going-back nature of technology: "The 54-year-old actor, who has daughter West, 16, and son Miller, 12, with ex-wife Téa Leoni, admits he only uses Twitter because he was ''prodded to do it.'' The 'Aquarius' star said: ''I'm skeptical of Twitter. I'm prodded to do it, and so I do it. But I feel like there is an opportunity to screw up constantly. You have to be careful. It doesn't go away anymore! I tell my kids the same thing.'" Not because of some high-minded but too-lazy-to-accomplish-her-schemes gold digger posting his private business behind his back.

Next: "A few of his daughter’s friends unfollowed her after the sneaky filming started. The photos are already out there for many people to see curtesy of MP, so I’ll document her ridiculous behavior." Perhaps. I don't discount it. But if David didn't have a problem posthumously with Gillian filming him then, and if he still doesn't have a problem with Monique filming him now-- and I know he doesn't because I've watched him play to the camera in some leaked vids others repost here or there-- it would make sense, logically, why West engaged in the same behavior then and now, on her own and with Monique. Some days he might not want to be on camera for all posterity-- indirectly implying that lightheartedly to Gillian in the above transcript-- hence the leg and feet filming.

Again, we. don't. know. If she's a monster or he's a monster, I cast them off into the abyss. But we, the public, have no actual, factual information of... anything, really, other than rumors, speculations, or opinions. What we do know is: he was fine with Gillian posting, even after being made aware of it. He's fine with West posting his apartment and their family activities. He was fine posting a pic of Miller to his own account. He seemed fine with West's boyfriend posting an intimate father-daughter hug for Bucky Dent's premiere. And he seems fine with Monique posting since then.

For every mention you have of West and her friends not engaging with Monique years ago, she most certainly does now. And you can't hide that fact behind West using her father as a leg up in the industry without bringing Tea's contacts from both entertainment and finance into the discussion. Tea who, by the way, has been more than cordial and civil in each outing and sighting with David, saying they're friends, saying they still love each other, telling him he's a good influence and father to West, etc. Even after the timeline you allege he started dating Monique. Even after the other dating timeline you allege she gave fans in a conversation somewhere. Even after he flew in and out of New York before the pandemic. Even after spending the pandemic locked down with his son.

Next: "The photos are already out there for many people to see curtesy of MP, so I’ll document her ridiculous behavior. I’m not his gf, I’ve made no vows to him. He likes to make money on voicing his feelings and opinions. While I’ll continue to comment on a public figure." 'Ridiculous behavior', you say, about an adult posting milestones or cute pictures and videos to her Instagram. Interesting. If she were trying to launch her own career-- which you and your responders have said before she would, a couple times, without anything coming to fruition (the archives don't lie)-- your argument would have a leg to stand on. But then again, David and Tea talked about explicit sex (and their sex lives) back in the day; rolled atop each other on a crowded, public beach; sold David's bottom-as-brush paintings for charity; and promoted her charitable causes during their various movie interviews... so, I would still retract half a point.

Next: "She should have the loyalty, respect, love and care to not use him for attention." Would you say he used her for attention during his performance the night before Bucky Dent, pointing at her and waiting for her response during one of his songs? Did he use her for attention during his recent stories about their private lives on recent podcasts? Did he use his children for attention on his podcasts? Did he use Tea for attention during their collaborations? Did she use him for attention to promote her friend's brand during their recent family vacation? If we broaden this out to its conclusion: do the Obamas use their children or each other for attention, setting aside their 'loyalty, respect, love, and care' for each other in order to do so? Or do they just say or post what they want within personalized limitations that are narrowed or broadened as relationships shift and grow?

Next: "He’ll hold her hand or leg in public now that his mother isn’t here to witness them. How romantic." David's stated in the past his mother didn't listen to what the talk shows said or read what the papers wrote about him. If you want to be really technical, he's also said she had dementia or Alzheimer's (can't recall which specifically) for a few years now; and that it was so advanced by the time of her death that she didn't recall one day from the next. Would she have disapproved? You bet your bottom dollar she probably did. She also would have disapproved of him being as explicit and cussy as he was for decades; and she would more than likely have disapproved of him getting tattoos; and she would have most definitely disapproved of all his youthful, adult, and older adult sexual shenanigans, innocent or not. That didn't stop him before.

To be even more technical, most of the pap shots of DD and MP are taken at Soho House and Erewhon Market, two celebrity hotspots that managers, publicists, and paparazzi use to prearrange meetups in order to get the celebrity's name out there in advance of the next promotional tour, as well as merge their interests to get a split of the photograph proceeds. (I covered the topic here.) All David has to do is show up--ultimately, they're business strolls. He's annoyed (even angry) at having to do it; but he still holds up his end of the celebrity bargain 'cuz that's Hollywood, baby. And he's always brought Monique along with him.

Next: "He pushed her hand away when people were looking before...." Continuing on my train of thought. The other times he and Monique were caught unawares by paparazzi (his band at the airport, Vancouver, the beach, etc.) were during the Revival hype. Monique didn't try to snuggle up, grab his hand, or get too close most incidences. The hand move you're referring to was, I believe, after a live show when he was super-duper keyed up, wanted to leave, and was followed (semi-circled?) by fans. Yeah, it could be a sign he wanted physical distance from her... except he acted out the exact same routine with his kids whenever they got papped or surrounded by a crowd: walking ahead of them, retreating into himself, not touching anyone unless they were feeling insecure or scared, looking serious or annoyed unless talked to or joked with. It was a clear pattern to me, so I guess I'm surprised you didn't notice it, too.

Next: "...and made her hold his arm like he was her gramps." I have an older couple-- 70s-- who have been married forever and still hold each other's arm like that, preferring to keep any romantic overtures tightly under wraps. I knew other older couples who would think that's rubbish or insanity. I know other young couples who are physically affectionate in public; and others who, again, would prefer to keep contact to a minimum. I've seen, read, or heard of every shade in-between; and I know you have, too. Maybe David likes how it makes him feel. Maybe Monique likes reenacting Austenian period dramas. Of all the accusations brought against them, this amuses me the most.

To be even more technical, I can pull up preeeeetty much all the paparazzi pics between he and MP in chronological (not release, they were reshuffled) order to prove that he initiated more contact with MP than the other way around, stemming as far back as 2017.

Next: "They didn’t have to have contact with Tim once he started dating their mother but they always did." First of all, I challenge you to prove that assertion. Second of all... why is that the focus of your question? Why did or didn't they have to? That's an assumption equal to the kids having no contact at all with MP for years. We don't know.

Tim said on a podcast that he and Tea shared a trailer to catch a nap early on in their relationship. Their coworkers suspected they were dating the entire first season, long before they announced it publicly (five-six months later around Christmas.) Tea and David previously married each other within eight weeks. Tea moves fast. We don't know how fast; but we do know one source alleged she and Tim were an item since summer (July) of 2014. David then filed for divorce in August, citing an "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" (meaning Tea was ready to move on, that's her prerogative); and she and Tim spent Season 1 fake kissing but looked like they were "really kissing", according to an onset actor friend. All this to say, pretty sure Madam Secretary's pilot filmed in May; and if she and Tim were "on" by July, etc., it stands to reason she moves at the same pace as she did with her first husband; then David; then (presumably) Tim. Meaning, we don't know how much contact the kids had with Tim; but it was probably, likely, a lot. Monique, meanwhile, lived primarily in California; and she and the kids had separate worlds, we assume, until West graduated and started forming her own relationship behind the scenes. Miller seems to have followed suit; and the rest is history. All of those are provable facts because we have what David and Tea have said about and done with each other; what Tea and Tim have said about each other; what observers have confirmed or denied on all angles of the situation; and what the kids were doing then and doing now.

Next: "She smoked, loved red meat, wasn’t a gym rat etc. It’s just a little thing, not marriage ending but people fair better the more similar their habits." Your previous implication in the comments of our last chat here was that they wouldn't have lasted long because David couldn't mold Tea into the woman HE wanted. You assume he cheated, cheated, cheated until rehab, then cheated, cheated, cheated some more until their second and final breakup (despite the fact sources from her side said the final dissolution was due to her love not being the same as pre-rehab, not that he'd kept acting reprehensibly), then hooked up with a 19-year-old mercenary social climber that, somehow, waited two years before accidentally leaking where she and her boyfriend would be working out (in a reply to the owners of the Instagram gym they would be going to... which means someone had to have been stalking who she was talking to in order to find that information, hm) so he could no longer hide her away like a dirty secret. Those aspects of Tea were brought up to subtly back your larger point, which was to lay the blame at David's feet one way or another. If he deserves it, lay it there. But prove that he deserves it.

Next: "MP is at his beck and call, she will also twin him without hesitation." MP at his beck and call? ...Or maybe she's down to fly free to any cool new location, down to fly wherever he is because he's her boyfriend and she loves him, down to enjoy a financial freedom we mortals could only dream of having, etc., etc.? Assumptions on all sides; and, again, no proof.

Next: "They didn’t follow each other before because they didn’t interact in real life either. She had to leave when they were visiting up until 2022 and 2023. They didn’t have to have contact with Tim once he started dating their mother but they always did." Never denied that was the case. Still don't buy there was some grand conspiracy happening behind the scenes to keep the kids away from the disgusting age gap relationship and the dastardly, evil machinations MP was concocting on her evil Instagram account. I need hard proof before I believe assumptions.

Next: "Regarding Téa you are assuming she must be ok with MP because she’s good with D but I’m pointing out that she admitted she still wanted to strangle him sometimes for the things he does on a national television show" I never said Tea was okay with MP, just that she's more than okay with David despite his relationship.

Also, Tea's throttle comment disproves your angle, actually. Might as well throw it in here because that's a point you've not let go.

Tea's comment with full context:

In fact, the exes are on very amicable terms and talk almost every day, they even shared a rental home with all of their family over the Christmas period. But this doesn't mean the pair's current relationship is always smooth sailing. “On occasion, I want to throttle him,” she said of her former hubby. "But in any real relationship with someone you love, that’s true.”

Tea's quote the previous year, fresh from divorce:

"Listen, David gave me the two greatest gifts on the planet; I don't know how I could ever hate him. We've always loved each other, and we adore these kids," the 'Jurassic Park 3' actress said of her children, Kyd Miller, 12, and Madelaine West, 15. "I'm not playing stupid-I understand feelings can get hurt and things can get icky. We've had our moments like that. But these kids are too important, and he feels the same way. I know it," she continued. "He's a good guy."

Next: "Of course MP showed everyone the second she first hung out with both of them to no one’s surprise." This doesn't hold up in court, either, because West and her boyfriend gushed over MP all summer. West would have complained to her mom or dad if she felt uncomfortable with the video posted; and neither parent have would let that happen again. Furthermore, guess who was relaxed, smiling, and engaging with the camera, other than Monique? West. Guess who hugged up on Monique while her dad and Ben Stiller celebrated Bucky Dent's release with a performance? West. Guess who gave Monique a happy Happy Birthday message? West. Guess who attended a Taylor Swift concert with Monique? West. Guess who went with her to London to, as you say, "babysit" Monique? West. Guess who celebrated her birthday in New York with, you assume, Monique? West. Guess who'll be elsewhere with Monique in future? Probably West.

Next: "What are you taking about fixing things because of what’s written about her? She made fun of people for saying her friend was her boyfriend because they were disgusted by thought of David dating her and didn’t want to believe she was for real. So that was proof she was reading a few tumblrs when her name was first revealed." Logical inference but incomplete reasoning, I believe. David knows exactly what was said about his House of D movie; David knows what everyone was saying and has said about him during his rehab, reunion, and divorce; Tea knows what might be said and forbids Tim to talk about her in interviews; I know and you know what is being said about each other, which is why we're here (but at least I'll respond to you properly with a reblog or @); and Monique knows what people say about her because she possibly Googled herself or, I don't know, took a look at the vitriol in her comments section-- a few of which you've reposted in the past so even I got to see them. Lovely times. Again, no definitive proof.

Next: "How am I supposed to know if she’s read my blog? But what a dedicated reader you are." Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment instead of a barb. I began poking around your archives right around the time you made a post trying to debunk my David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson seasonal palette posts. (If you're trying to put me off, consider that you brought up our difference of opinion once again in the midst of an entirely separate talk about Monique and David's relationship.) You didn't have the curtesy to @ me then (and now); but I started scrolling while waiting for you to respond, came across a host of information, and decided to come back later to iron out some details. Needless to say, you can't passive-aggressively point a finger at me when your posts are supposed to be public to begin with, not even coyly private like you claim Monique's Instagram account is. One pointing forward, three pointing back, after all.

While we're on the topic, I also caught a lie you told during our previous conversation. Back in 2019? you put a cryptic message saying you didn't believe David and West were close because of Monique; and when West posted the next day for Father's Day, you followed up with another cryptic post hinting MP was reading her Tumblr detractors; and when another user called you out for that, you denied, denied, denied that was your intent; and then you confirmed that that had been your intent to me (in essence, restating that you believe MP keeps up with her anti Tumblr accounts and pressures DD's kids through him to post nice family tributes so they'll cover for her manipulative tactics actively destroying everyone's hunky dory life.) It's the same train of thought as "Gillovny is married"; except your theories are couched with half facts instead of pure insanity.

Next: "She’s never looked anorexic to me so thin yes but not too thin. D was only shockingly thin after Téa left him for good in 2011. My criticism has alway been to question the men in her life and her surroundings pushing her to get plastic surgery and to over exercise which made her much slimmer than she was before. Is that constructive enough?" Yes, actually; because this ties beautifully into my next point about your warfare tactics.

Indirect aggression is a form of aggression that hides behind "my opinion" or "my two cents" to bully others without receiving backlash. While it can be used in sexually competitive environments (in same sex bullying, for example), it mainly extends to interpersonal groups, families, and anonymous online forums. To quote National Library of Medicine: "According to Björkqvist [15], females prefer to use indirect aggression over direct aggression (i.e. verbal and physical aggression) because this form of aggression maximizes the harm inflicted on the victim while minimizing the personal danger involved. The risk to the perpetrator is lower because he/she often remains anonymous, thereby avoiding a counterattack. As well, indirect aggression harms others in such a socially skilled manner that the aggressor can also make it appear as if there was ‘no intention to hurt at all’." I recommend reading the study: it has a few fascinating things to say about perceived threats and thinness, as well.

The study continues: "Indirect aggression is circuitous in nature and entails actions such as getting others to dislike a person, excluding peers from the group, giving someone the ‘silent treatment’, purposefully divulging secrets to others, and the use of derisive body and facial gestures to make another feel self-conscious." While I can't see your face while typing out a post, your words do a sufficient enough job: "When has she ever been stunning honestly? She’s comparable to Perry Reeves and Suzanne Lanza. Average, a little masculine, thin and no sagging. The face doesn’t matter to men like David, nor intellect."

Another quote from a study published on PubMed Central: "In indirect aggression, the aggressor often uses others in the social group to harm the target and may avoid direct confrontation, whereas in direct aggression, the aggressor either physically or verbally confronts the target." Examples? Posting one's opinions about another person indirectly to their blog by not, say, tagging or addressing the 'opposition' directly, leaving them to be told about it or stumble onto it later before they can defend themselves... that might, perhaps, fit the bill. As would calling David and Monique names; then, when given pushback, telling detractors they don't need to care about your opinions, anyway. (For the record, I don't. Just found it fascinating to study the oh so subtle shifts of your narrative back and forth. That compliment's a freebie, by the way-- I try to hand out at least one in each negatively bent post.)

Don't get me wrong: if Monique were a provably bad person, I'd dust off my hands and let you have at. But for all your opinions, you have very few facts; and the mess-ups, flubs, or ill-thought actions on MP's part you have mentioned are so disparate and scattered-- and rarely repeated-- that they look less like condemning incidents and more like overblown reactions to mundane or innocent mistakes.

And before you write off my points by claiming I'm claiming you're jealous of Monique or some such nonsense, one of the above studies openly acknowledges that indirect aggression is not built on the premise of intrasexual competition strategy: "...developmental psychologists have tended to not conceptualize females' use of indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy."

Next: "Again with the whataboutism." Art thou 'Whataboutism'?

Next: "So you were at the after party to see people’s reactions and parties where D’s been drunk?" No, and neither were you. You were also not at David's apartment when Monique and the kids might or might not have been there; you were also not in the room when David and Tea and the kids discussed Tim or Monique; and you were also not in either Monique's or David's head during the posts, blocks, unfollows, refollows, etc. decisions that were made. I merely commented on the fact that you have brought up his drinking before events in in the past, your reactions to it, others on here's reactions to it, and David's circle of friends, and what I do and don't know of said friends' behavior in the past.

Next: "D and T were inappropriate but consensual. PM pulled G’s bikini bottom down when she was trying to close the umbrella and I slammed him for that too. She was humiliated and embarrassed when the pictures were released." Conflation. David and Tea were surrounded by people in both instances, knew others could see them, and didn't care, inappropriate or not. Peter Morgan and Gillian were on a private vacation; and their privacy was infringed on by the paparazzi and media. For all the negative talk that came out of that incident, not one person stated that G was unwilling, visibly uncomfortable, or angry at Peter Morgan for doing so; only that she was "humiliated and embarrassed" after the fact. The problem in BOTH situations is that PM and MP were groping their partners in what they took for granted as private situations-- I have a casual understanding of David's friends and wouldn't be surprised if they didn't care about her or his antics in the long run-- and were filmed without any parties' consent.

Next: "D did not know what MP was doing, he almost spilled his drink jumping back away from her and he did not look like he enjoyed that trick in a room full of strangers." I saw the video a couple times. Did you not catch his smirk once he realized she wasn't trying to tickle his stomach but was doing a game to end up at his junk? It wasn't a polite one, either. If she had intentionally crossed a boundary and made him uncomfortable, I condone that behavior.

Next: "Defending that kind of public humiliation is repugnant." That's a lie, and you know it. Not once in our conversation have I taken the position of condoning, endorsing, or rug sweeping manipulative, abusive, coercive, or other boundary stomping behaviors. They are repugnant to me; and though being called 'repugnant' doesn't make a dent because you have no proof to back up your claim. And, frankly, it speaks to your character that you would try to blacken mine.

Next: "I find it tasteless that you don’t really care what KF did to those young people as long as your golden boy comes out looking alright."

Excuse you, that is a lie and slander.

In the comments of our previous conversation, I stated over and over he was a pimp. He should absolutely rot for what he's done. But you assume that Monique is just as guilty: benefiting from a business relationship with him, sweeping his treatment of other girls under the rug, using a victim's story to score back pats for herself. The reality is, the victim sided with Monique, both when MP supported her in the comments and when MP posted her own Instagram story sharing she'd been "there" before. Foregoing the obvious conclusion, you posted their first back and forth with other comments tearing Monique apart as the secret villain in this tragic story. That's disgusting, in my opinion. I tried to understand why you got to that conclusion; but if not only her friends, not only her coworkers, but the victim HERSELF is standing by Monique, then it is not the time to vindictively insinuate she exercised the same mean, grasping, oily tactics as her former boss. Further, that she was exploiting someone else's tragedy and trauma for her own gain.

Next: "She can be immature and also be a user who uses situations to her advantage." To quote you once again: that's a lie. Prove it. You can't. You can only assume what her intent, motives, and actions are based on your inference of her character.

Next: "...the old greasy celebrity rocker KR was trying to push on them." You can't prove that; and until you can, I can sit here and say it's a lie. It's your inference against mine.

Next: "She did not say she was mistreated by her boss." I never said her boss mistreated her. I never even got that indication from the post you spread around. She related to her coworker's experience through her personal one. Just because KR was an absolute monster to other girls doesn't mean he was a monster to all of them: monsters, abusers, and manipulators pick on the weakest person who has no one to stand behind and back them up. Her father, for instance, would have been a not insignificant buffer. He's well-connected in California, or so you imply by saying he's met David before. And it stands to reason he would be, supplement and wellness culture being what it is in the Golden State.

Next: "According to you MP was an adult and mature enough so she should have know what those special favors from the boss looked like to everyone else." Let's not get into the "his family and friends should have known Ted Bundy was a horrible person" of it all. No one knows what they're not aware of. I have a close, close family member who grew up adoring an abuser because he'd never abused her; yet was horrified and had to process the fact her other sibling was being used for everything short of penetration. To quote a good ol' Aslan meme: "Do not cite the deep magic to me, Witch! I was there when it was written."

Next: "She wrote a short perfunctory show of support for damage control and went back to thanking her lucky stars she now has an easy life of privilege living in a multi-million dollar Malibu home by the ocean thanks to her boss at SLO." First: prove it. You can't with any degree of fact. Second: I'd be thanking my lucky stars, too. So would you. So does everyone who's been in a tangential situation to an abuser and escaped unscathed-- so unscathed that they didn't even know the boss was perpetuating abuse. And that can at least be proven because, as you say, MP's boyfriend was still buying from that shop days before everything broke out; and she publicly empathized with and received empathy from the victim right after. Has the victim made a scathing comment calling out Monique later? Nope. Bet they're still on good terms, too.

Next: "What else does a very rich 54 year old man want from a 21 year old but lots of sex and an easy relationship with someone who doesn’t know any better?" Lots of sex, an easy relationship free of the complicated dynamics of children from other relationships, and someone to love and love him. Seems logical to me. What is unacceptable in age gap relationships are the predators who aim for 21-year-olds (or 19-year-olds, as you posit) because they pull women their age and can't aim lower; and who lock 'em down and knock 'em up as quickly as possible so they can't escape. Or those who say "yeah, sure, I'll marry you" while dragging their feet until the girl (as they see her) gives up and stays or gets up and leaves. If the latter, they start fresh with another young woman who might not see through their routine bag of tricks. David, for all his faults, has stated his intentions up front and publicly: he's not marrying again. He still wears the ring tattoo from his previous relationship. He relived the trauma of a broken home through his own actions. He still can't dwell on the pain his kids went through during that time. Unless he decides to change his mind, Monique's outta luck. Yet, I don't believe she cares as much as you do if they do get married or not. Certainly not as far as either of us can prove, anyway. By the way, Tea and Tim haven't married yet, either; and they've been together provably longer than Monique and David.

Next: "She was male celebrity obsessed, younger but she went with the one who came into the shop and showed interest." Prove it. You can't. Let's say that's the case: she would've hopped to a new person long before now. David's got friends, she's gone to his parties, she's met his people. Opportunists don't sit long with a second option when they get an opportunity to grab for their first. I read your old posts about her Twitter/Instagram follows; but none of you take into account if she was following other people and pruned those people out as her interests changed. You also can't prove when she followed those accounts: the next day after she opened her account? A month after? A year after? I have accounts open I've never used; I have family and friends that do, as well. Let's say she opened it right away and began using it: again, when did she follow those accounts? Were those celebrities part of a collective that her boss or coworkers said came into the shop? Did she prune out the others after seeing them in person? Why? Because you assume other celebrities are immune to her masterfully unskilled manipulation, but David wasn't?

Next" "You’ll defend anything adjacent to D."

That's a lie.

Prove it. He had to go into a sex addiction program because he hurt his wife and kids. He talks about saving the planet yet doesn't take more than bare minimum actionable steps himself. (What he does in his personal life is of no concern to me; but it is hypocritical of him.) If he backs up Chris Carter against Gillian in the Revival controversy, I will lose a qualitative amount of respect for him (because there is actual, factual proof of wrongdoing on Chris's part to his longtime friend and mother of his goddaughter.) He has blind spots, faults, weaknesses, and failures like any other person.

Next: "I see a lot of arguments that do not have anything to back it up, like he probably acted inappropriately while drunk at a party before and so what?" No, my comment was even you have picked at DD for drinking before his shows. That even he has probably acted on impulse before or during a party. That even he didn't seem too bothered after he realized MP wasn't tickling him. That his expression changed when he saw someone filming their interaction. I also pointed out his and Tea's post-rehab reconciliation shenanigans of equal and greater caliber (having a jolly time at a public ballgame and rolling on top of each around other beachgoers.) I also pointed out that GA had a Portofino moment. Would I grab my boyfriend's junk if we were in public? No. But David did with Tea. The only difference between those situations was DD and T had the power of denial on their side while MP was not afforded that luxury. You called her behavior trashy; but posting someone's junk grab to the internet without their consent is trashier to me.

Next: "Disturbingly, that’s what seems to give her self-worth." Prove it, with testimony and evidence other than assumptions you and other Tumblr, Instagram, or Twitter jockeys assume and interpret. Give me a firsthand witness of her behavior. Give me a former friend or a colleague. Give me a family member. Give me someone other than people on Twitter being blocked by DD's account and assuming it's her. Further, give me proof what they were saying before they were blocked: I don't give mercy to people being snide, snarky, or vile and boohooing about it later. You don't, either, so I'm sure you'll respect that quality.

Next: "Evidence shows that chiropractic adjustments do more to harm than help...."

That's a lie, and a pretty brazen one.

WebMD, MayoClinic, Medical News Today, healthline, and more medical websites and journals have articles promoting chiropractic methods, as well as the warning signs like any other medical procedure. The only disclaimer they put up was that chiropractic adjustments haven't shown a conclusive improvement in athletic achievement.

One of their articles state: "All chiropractors must earn a postgraduate degree (DC), taking up to 4 years to complete, and are required 90 semester hours of undergraduate coursework, and some programs require a bachelor's degree. All states also require chiropractors to be licensed." And all medical doctors and nurses are required to be licensed if they practice medicine; yet, bad apples slip through the cracks. It's slander to paint me as a blackhearted, single-minded, "let them eat cake" person towards victims of possible scammers, manipulators, and frauds just because I don't fall in line with your viewpoint. Further, you indirectly lump me in with your public statements about her "snake oil salesman" father without having any proof whatsoever that chiropractic practice is detrimental other than a few studies-- which I hope you didn't lie about looking up, too-- that the medical community doesn't even stand behind, while using them as your sword and shield. All because you didn't have concrete proof against Monique's father, all because Monique is dating David, all because you don't like their relationship.

More quotes and linked studies from healthline: "For example, in a 2015 study, researchers found that a group of 544 people in chiropractic care reported a high level of satisfaction. ...A 2016 study found that the Cobb angle in a group of five children with scoliosis improved after 8 weeks of chiropractic treatment. Noticeable improvements were seen after 4 weeks of treatment. ...A 2017 case study examined the effect of chiropractic treatment on a 27-year-old woman suffering from back pain, neck pain, and headaches caused by hyperkyphosis posture." They even provide guidelines to find a chiropractor-- "Ask for recommendations from your doctor, physical therapist, or other healthcare provider." And-- "Ask your friends, coworkers, or family members if they have any recommendations."

Next: "Evidence shows that chiropractic adjustments do more to harm than help, but as long as people feel they work everything is hunky-dory?" Prove it. I have genetic backproblems riddling the maternal side of my family; and my great grandmother, a nurse, and her daughter, my grandmother, both had their spines slowly realigned over time with chiropractic procedures. From an almost noticeable hunch to an almost straight line.

Next: "It alarming that you don’t care about real harm being done to people’s spines because it’s D’s gf’s father providing the service?" I also have a maternal family member who suffers from severe back pain every day but can't afford treatment where she lives. You know how I help? Reflexology. Every time, it takes her back from a ~8/10 to almost nothing-- and this from a woman hypersensitive to her body's workings and with an incredible pain tolerance. And yet, I'd be the first person to sign her up for surgery if I could. I regularly push her to seek medical attention for the most minor inconveniences.

CONCLUSION

I'm sorry to say that you are either: A. blinded by my lack of agreement into misinterpreting my words to fit your own narrative-- which is really probable, actually-- or B. willfully telling lies, to yourself or others, because it helps you feel like you've come off on top of an argument.

I'm not interested in creating a rift or a war. I'm also not interested in lies, slander, gossip, and bullying disguised as "this is my opinion."

You can attest I've been nothing but kind, overly so, in the past; and that I didn't ever strike out unless you struck first-- and even then, only to mimic your words or phrases back to you.

I do not respect your opinions: they are baseless and poisonous.

I do not respect your tactics: they are beneath you and I.

I do not respect your lies and slander: that is a given.

Fare thee well. I'm sure we shall speak again.

#iwantapenguin #drama #skip if you don't want to read a breakdown of lies and slander XDDD #this has devolved from a civil discussion to a slander campaign #no chiropractic measures are not anti-science: even WebMD/healthline/Mayo Clinic promotes them #no I do not stand behind all age gap relationships #no I don't believe David is faultless #no David is not my golden boy #no I do not believe in your assumptions because I've tracked all of them to their starting points and they mostly contradict each other #or are based on anons or blind items that ALSO contradict your opinions #yes West is a nepo baby but no she is not friends with MP to get jobs from her dad when she can also get contacts from her mom #who has long-standing connections in the financial/wealthy/high society money class as well as entertainment #no I do not repugnantly defend public humiliation #(I pulled up exact quotes to prove my points below:)#no MP doesn't post behind DD's back and no DD wasn't uncomfortable just because he wasn't aware of it #no Tea does not want to strangle him because of Monique #no MP isn't exploiting the victim of a pimp and groomer just because she worked at his shop (like... y'know... the victim)#yes I do care about victims who are duped and deceived by snake oil salesmen #yes this post is long. Had a lot to respond to; and a lot to disprove

26 notes · View notes