EmseB
-
Posts
5,796 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by EmseB
-
-
1 hour ago, square_25 said:
Predators also keep what's being done very, very quiet. I just don't see the analogy here.Â
Yes, this is more insidious because it's putting it out in the open and people are debating about whether or not it is or is not sexual exploitation, whether or not these girls were violated, if this is okay to do to send a message or express art, etc., etc.Â
It's an attempt to remove taboos surrounding young tweens and what's okay to do to them by putting a nice artsy sheen over it and claiming it couldn't possibly be a problem because the director is a woman and their parents were there and the message is to not to and they never would have had to act this out if it wasn't such a problem in society.
-
6
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, square_25 said:
I don't know what kind of "better" you mean, but I would guess there were lots of conversations how this stuff isn't done in normal life.Â
In order to get them to do it in their normal life! Predators say this. We only do this here, and it's okay because we only do it here. We only do this because you need it to be a better athlete. We only do this for the art of the film.
-
6
-
-
3 minutes ago, square_25 said:
See, I would guess this movie is less bad than most movies in terms of how the kids were actually treated on set. Again, female director, arty movie, involved parents who care about the (anti-sexualization) message... it's not the standard abuse set up.Â
Now, that doesn't mean I don't feel weird about it, because I do.Â
Treating them "better" while they were doing this stuff creeps me out more, tbh. It seems more desensitizing, more subtly undermining any kind of discomfort the kids would feel. But most people grooming kids treat them really, really nicely to get them over any self-consciousness or feelings of unease in order to get them to do what they want, so it seems very similar to me any way you slice it. Women are not excused from being predators or enablers. And parents go along with all kinds of nonsense to get their kids ahead in Hollywood in particular, but also think of Larry Nassar and parents being involved in their kids gymnastics careers and being told their girls needed this therapy to get ahead and they went with it despite later admitting they knew something wasn't right.
-
6
-
4
-
-
18 minutes ago, katilac said:
18 playing 14 is fairly easy. 16 playing 11 is nearly impossible.Â
Yes, I hope everyone who is up in arms about this film continues to be angry and concerned about what child actors are routinely exposed to and go through. And that's not me expressing an opinion on the film; I don't have one yet, but child actors act in potentially traumatic and embarrassing scenes all the time. Let's spread out the concern.Â
I don't know what actions you would consider angry and concerned or spreading out the concern, but I'm not unaware of this issue and won't watch films that portray kids in this way. Little Miss Sunshine, for example, was gross and I didn't know...and yet it was critically acclaimed. I know she's basically her own person now and an actress in her own rite, but just...I wouldn't want any of my kids to be involved in something like that.
In fact, would never, ever allow my kids to be child actors because I think most of Hollywood is a cesspool of predators in ways that I can't fully understand from the outside. I don't know exactly the chicken/egg dynamic going on, but most child actors with any prominence talk about being abused or harassed by agents/producers/directors/hangers on that I don't honestly know how it is not dealt with and prosecuted.Â
Like everyone knew about Weinstein as an "open secret" with young women, and I've heard enough about kids to gross me out.
It isn't just this film. But this film is a pretty egregious step over the line.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Sk8ermaiden said:
I feel like everyone who is like, "we sang songs with bad words and snuck glances at dirty magazines" is really, really missing, either intentionally or not, all the NOT normal stuff in this movie and how far beyond that kind of normally exploratory stuff the film goes. The things some of the girls are doing would get kids flagged as having been potentially abused themselves by mandatory reporters. Which is the point of the director, I think? How toxic internet sexuality is and how much guidance kids could use around it? But that director then made the decision to exploit tweens to make that point.Â
I think there is some naivete about exactly how much these scenes are specifically meant to arouse pedos while providing a cover of plausible deniability. Like, this is a very specific kink that I wish I had no knowledge of that someone(s) are overjoyed that people are debating the legitimate use of.
-
Saying that this movie has a moral so it's okay, nay valuable! to watch, is like saying that certain other movies can really teach us how women shouldn't let the pizza guy in the house when her husband is away.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Where's Toto? said:
There is an interview available that goes into how they handled the filming with the actresses involved.  They evidently did a lot to make sure the girls were okay and comfortable with the process.  I haven't seen the movie so I don't really want to say anything more until I do.Â
That is called grooming in any other context.Â
-
13
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, MercyA said:
I think this exactly.
Random thoughts because it is late. 🙂Â
The movie does not *promote*Â pedophilia, other than the fact that pedophiles would surely enjoy watching it.
Just quoting for this because you are 100% correct.
We can all acknowledge pedophiles would enjoy watching kids do any number of things that are otherwise innocent.
This is different. Every single scene in the trailer of the film and the 10 seconds of the link here that I was able to stomach looks like it was written expressly to arouse someone's sick fantasy about young tween girls. The tickle fights and wrestling in midriff shirts, the mother slapping the girl for being "dirty" or "shameful", one girl practicing on her own, girls spanking each other...and thats like 2 minutes of the whole thing!
Honestly, the dancing competition scenes are really the least of the problematic stuff.
These are real girls acting this stuff out for the enjoyment of pedos. That is what this movie is. They put a thin film over it of how it supposedly shows how bad this is, but these actors should have never been asked to do any of this. There should not have been a whole crew of people watching and filming it. Their parents should not have allowed it. They have been groomed by this. The fact that people don't see it as the straight up Humbert Humbert fantasy world is even more disturbing.
I am not in some QAnon save the children pizzagate conspiracy world. This movie is made for pedos to enjoy.
-
5
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Corraleno said:
OK, I read through as much of that thread as I could and the only actual "critiques" I saw were:
(1) A post from someone who did not appear to have read the study who said that since the heart tissue was derived from stem cells, the findings only applied to neonates.But they found exactly the same things in adults.
(2) Various people attacking the guy who posted it, saying he was creating fear and panic and the study was probably "bollocks," with no actual critique.
(3) Many people who also apparently didn't read the actual article saying that everyone knows viruses cause myocarditis, so why is this news.
(4) Several people linking to this one guy, Francois Balloux, whose incisive critique was as follows: "3 people who died had heart damage, likely before #COVID19 infection already. They also showed that the virus can kill cells in test tubes, but as someone mentioned, bathing the cells in orange juice would likely have had the same effect than 'virus juice'." Which again demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what the results actually show and an unwillingness to even read the paper.Â
If anyone can find an actual scientific critique of the methods, materials, results, or conclusions of the UCSF research, please link it. Because so far this is all just people who can't even be bothered to read the damn study tweeting totally uninformed comments. 🙄
That isn't what I linked so having trouble finding where it's directing you. For number 1 in your post, for example, he addresses that exact thing in the thread that you are taking issue with. He is a scientist offering scientific critique while also praising the paper on its merits.
For number four, Francious Balloux is the director of University College London genetics institute who has done extensive research on covid, not just some rando.
Most of the docs commenting are researchers/cardiologists/fellows/scientrandom. None of them are covid or science deniers. They tend to make fun of people who are or who promote "cures" like hcq or vitamins without rcts. Those are the people I'm reading, not random commenters in the threads, sorry if the links are not working properly. I have actually found really well reasoned discussion between researchers and docs and scientists on Twitter that has actually tempered a lot of the fear mongering I find in headlines. I see that you've already decided to dismiss it out of hand, or I've given bad links so the discussion isn't fully fleshed out, but it isn't all the nonsense you're making it out to be.
-
The trailer looks like it was made for and by pedos. Seriously gave me the creeps. I don't need or want to see more.
These girls who acted in this movie were exploited by everyone involved under the guise of telling a lesson abouthow bad it is to do that. The fact that it won film industry awards is irrelevant.
-
9
-
1
-
-
I also found this discussion of the discredited/revised jama paper helpful as to why rushing to print or preprint can have long lasting problems in the covid era.
Â
-
I had to run errands so haven't caught up on posts, but here is another discussion I found helpful:
Â
-
1 minute ago, Corraleno said:
His whole schtick seems to be snarky, dismissive comments about other people's research, and he clearly didn't even read ANY of the actual research or data. He read the first line of the abstract (which of course doesn't include references, abstracts never include references), then he finds the references in the paper that relate to the first line of the abstract, dismisses them as "irrelevant" and says the paper is not worth reading. How could he possibly know if they're irrelevant to the actual research if he didn't bother to read the research? One of the references he dismissed as irrelevant is about stem-cell derived heart tissue, which is what they used in the in vitro part of the study. So clearly relevant to the actual research, but he wouldn't know that from only reading the first line of the abstract.Â
I looked at his list of publications and none of them have anything to do with virology, he appears to focus on heart attacks and coronary artery disease. So, with zero background in this area, he is dismissing the work of multiple academic researchers who specialize in this exact area, without even reading the paper, because he gets attention on social media for being snarky and dismissive. Not impressed.
Wait, isn't this all rather dismissive? Are you an expert in the field??
-
14 minutes ago, square_25 said:
Because they are different people? I don't understand the question. I'd obviously not pay attention to anything published by the Surgisphere people.
Sorry, I was speaking generally not about surgisphere or these people in particular.
I mean, who can ever say about causation? But yes, there's been an athlete heart attack death after a COVID infection.Â
So what does that mean vis a vis all sports? I mean, we still have NBA, NFL, MLB going, AFAIK.
Right, which is why the in vitro study and the autopsies are INTERESTING -- they suggest that our vague feeling that something's weird is going on may be justified. I don't remember people having reports of crazy heart dysfunction after colds... it's possible they had cardiac inflammation they didn't know about, of course, but I don't remember reports of striking heart rate symptoms, for example.Â
Â
Â
-
I feel like this is the exact opposite of the HCQ discussion in terms of who is now more accepting of retrospective observational and in vitro studies and if or what action should ensue. Except I am not @Pen. 🤣
-
7 minutes ago, square_25 said:
Â
See, this doesn't make me feel a lot of trust, because it's incredibly dismissive. Namely, he doesn't even engage with the topics -- he just criticizes the things they are citing??Â
Â
Â
Lol, okay, I gotta actually do something in the forum. He's explaining why he doesn't trust the paper based on what they wrote in just the abstract and citations. If you read something and immediately find the first paragraph to be wrong do you trust the person's expertise going forward?
He also does touch on other issues if you read the thread.
He is irreverent but friendly and interacts with those he critiques sometimes. It seems like pretty normal science discussion to me.
-
15 minutes ago, square_25 said:
Well, yeah, the Surgisphere thing was awful. That was bad science and should have been caught and ugh.
As for the math being obviously wrong, I gotta tell you -- medical researchers are often not that good at math and mess it up all the darn time. They don't have a background in statistics and often just run the numbers in their software, which can lead to ridiculous numbers they don't catch because they don't know what the numbers are supposed to be. That's not always evidence of ill intent -- it's as often evidence of rushing.Â
We've already had athletes die from heart attacks, no? And there's plenty of evidence of people with serious heart irregularities that are not just in these new preprints. If it was just ONE big paper that had tons of mistakes, I'd agree with you.Â
I am not suggesting ill intent, but sloppiness in the interest of being firstor publishing the most or just fatigue in trying times. Why do I believe they were sloppy with one set of data and not another, or not their conclusions?
Bolded -- you mean generally or because of covid? Because I know it does happen. I have a kid with benign PVCs and every cardiologist he sees says they are not an issue. I still worry he is going to get a virus (or even not get a virus) and be one of the news stories you hear about of random very healthy athletes having a cardiac event during sports and dying.
And again, I don't know about plenty of evidence vs. a baseline of normal or even normal in the course of other viruses. That was my original post today, that these exact issues were seen after and during the common cold.
-
6 minutes ago, square_25 said:
@EmseB -- you gotta give me at least a bit of credit for knowing how things work in academia, lol. I'm married to a mathematician, and both my dad and my first stepdad are professors who publish papers all the time. (I've proofread both of their papers and inserted the articles "a" and "the" where appropriate, because as Russian speakers, they can't manage them, lol.) Oh, and I have a math Ph.D, so I'm really no stranger to academia. So I do happen to know how the publishing process works for the sciences.Â
I can give you credit! I have however read many academic types very concerned about the way science is being done and published wrt covid.
-
@Corraleno, this was the original critique of the original link you posted. There is more cardiology twitter discussion of more issues with the paper itself.
Second tweet of his just for fun:
Â
-
Just now, square_25 said:
But papers are also making deductions from the data. There's no reason that the more concerned people publishing the papers have to be wrong, and the people who are less concerned have to be right. It's just different interpretations of the data, and there's currently no consensus. That means it's worthwhile paying attention to both sides.Â
Â
I mean... that's science for you. People always do release preprints -- that's how things work in most sciences, including in math. It's just that mainstream media has much more interest in them now.Â
If one is an intelligent consumer of science, then one does sees the corrections. I agree that it's a problem that the media jumps on the sensational paper and not on the 10 papers that then show no effect, but that's always been the case. Hence the coverage of the "chocolate prolongs your life for 10 years, scientists say!!" and not much coverage of the "...actually, not if you do proper statistical analysis it doesn't."Â
I don't know that public health decisions ARE being driven by these preprints all that much. Do you mean the decision to pause sports? Because otherwise, I'd say that if anything, our public health decisions have been way too far behind the data -- too inertial, not too reactive. In my opinion, it should have been obvious from the data not to open restaurants and to mandate masking and to worry about air conditioning... people were too slow.Â
Well, I disagree with just about all of this when it comes to the how's and whys but my eyes are crossing on my phone.
If someone is publishing something that is an objective misrepresentation of the data, or overstating risk of severe illness, and the math is very obviously wrong, or a database is falsified or WHATEVER the issue that is a huge problem if we even react a little bit. For instance, pausing sports, whether we want it to or not, causes millions of dollars to be lost in jobs, scholarships lost, etc. And you will get no argument from me on that score if we're talking about saving tens or dozens of lives due to heart damage from covid. But my feeling after reading is there is much greater risk to football players from things like TBI rather than covid and we don't stop them playing football (maybe we should!).
Anyway, I am not talking about a simple disagreement on evaluation of accurate data. I am talking about disagreement on the validity of the data and research itself.
-
15 minutes ago, Corraleno said:
Did you read the actual paper we're talking about? Your comments make it sound like they just found some generic heart damage that could just as easily have been caused by lots of other things, or could have been due to pre-existing health conditions. The damage the UCSF team found in both the in vitro samples and the autopsy samples is VERY specific:
"“Widespread myofibrillar disruption throughout the cytoplasm, which manifested as a unique pattern of very specific periodic cleavage of myofibrils into individual sarcomeric units of identical size but without any alignment. <snip> The striking consistency and periodicity of this fragmentation suggests it is the product of cleavage by a specific protease…” and then they go on to describe the mechanism by which they believe this may be caused by a specific SARS-CoV-2 protease.
This isn't just edema or inflammation or generic myocarditis, this is a very specific and "unique" pattern of damage, which the lead researcher said he had never ever seen before in a decade of research on myocytes, and it was found in both the in vitro samples (which obviously did not have any pre-existing health conditions) as well as in all three patients who died.Â
If you have read specific criticism of the UCSF paper (not the German paper, I've seen plenty of criticism of that), I would be grateful if you would link it, because I would very much like to read it.
Â
Unrelated, but did you notice that the one you linked has already been corrected/amended in some way? There's a red box towards the top with a link to a newer version. I don't know exactly what's changed other than the first line of the abstract (c&p below)Â so I'm looking at that and hunting the links for you that I saw a few days ago.
"COVID-19 causes cardiac dysfunction in up to 50% of patients,"
Vs.
"Although COVID-19 causes cardiac dysfunction in up to 25% of patients"
-
15 minutes ago, square_25 said:
Yeah, and hopefully those comparisons will be done. I don’t think you’re being kooky, I just think we both don’t know enough to make intelligent deductions from the data.Â
Well, I think I can read other people making intelligent deductions from the data. That's what helps me understand most of it, to be honest.
I do think public health decisions are being driven by these preprints, and by people who are not dissecting the studies or thinking about them with a critical eye on the science. And amplified in the media by like 1000%. And causing people to feel freaked out perhaps unnecessarily, or at least without complete information for people like you and me.
I am honestly really concerned about the sheer volume of unvetted data being published and consumed as sensationalist headlines AND the vetted data is letting stuff like the Surgisphere debacle just slide right by.
-
36 minutes ago, Corraleno said:
Well you can't really have "a control arm of healthy individuals" in a study that relies on chopping up heart tissue. If your argument is that maybe people who die of influenza also have the same pattern of heart damage that these researchers found (i.e., "distinguishing features of myofibrillar fragmentation in cardiomyocytes due to SARS-CoV-2 exposure are extremely precise, ordered disruption to the sarcomeric structure and complete dissolution of the cardiac contractile machinery"), then I suppose researchers could try to obtain post-mortem heart tissue from patients who died of influenza or other viruses and see how prevalent it is. But the possibility that this may occur with other viruses doesn't refute the theory that this is the mechanism by which Covid causes heart damage, which is the point of the research.
You can examine people who have died of other things, though. And again, if you're only examining people who have gotten so sick so as to have died from covid, a)you already have quite a selection bias right there that is necessarily going to involve maybe sepsis and multi-organ failure, and b) you need to control for people with prior heart issues really well, especially since we know that prior disease means people are more likely to die of covid.
These are not my pet theories or kookiness, it's stuff I've seen experts bring to the forefront about these particular papers and subsequent headlines.
-
10 minutes ago, square_25 said:
I had the strong impression other respiratory viruses didn’t directly attack other organs. Is that wrong?
I don't know why other viruses wouldn't, I guess. They manifest as respiratory viruses because that is where the most ace 2 receptor cells are, but we have them in other organs in our bodies (heart and kidneys and gi). I think of other viruses that cause cold symptoms but also a rash, etc. Or nausea with cold symptoms maybe? I could very well be wrong, but it seems like at least other coronaviruses would use the same mechanisms. I guess I've never thought that colds only impact the parts of the body where I'm directly experiencing symptoms.
Cuties and cancel Netflix?
in The Chat Board
Posted
I would rather that exact behavior *not* be normalized and made socially acceptable in order to keep said 50yos from being able watch their objects of fantasy slap each others bums in a tickle fight and grind on the floor in a widely released motion picture and then have people excuse such things as art or tales of soceital morality.Â
It is a tragedy when children are sexually abused and used for adults to get their rocks off, no matter the exact circumstances. It is one of the most heinous things a human being can do. I don't understand the impetus to defend this act of exploitation by using an example of another. I also don't understand failing to see that those exact type of creepers were probably on set making sure the girls were okay with what was happening and reassuring their parents about how on the up and up it all was.
Yes, children in our culture have been sexualized so gradually that the heat is being slowly turned up on the proverbial frog in the pot. This film is a symptom of that and the reaction to it shows that the people releasing film started boiling the frog a bit too fast for some. But I fear that the questions about if it's truly wrong for tweens to participate in this project (not my children, of course, because I'm not okay with *my* kids doing that!) means we're already too far gone.
You don't see the sexuality of the scenes. I get it. I honestly wish I was that blissfully unaware of what the issue is here. The writer or someone involved in the making of this film knew what they were doing and it honestly makes me feel sick every time I spend much time thinking about the girls who were involved in this as able to consent to what's going on.