The Contrast Effect, The Moral Credential Rebound, The Accuser Backfire Effect, The Inferred Innocence Heuristic, “They picked the wrong villain.”
If you think women aren’t perfect flawless innocent angels incapable of malice or dishonesty, you’re a nazi incel chud who should fuck off back to /pol/!!!
According to the girls — but not denied by him — he recreationally abuses Adderall. This is known to mess up sexual function.
Yes I agree, but that should be kept private if that’s the case, no? It’s only funny because she opened the flood gates for everyone to make up the funniest assumptions about him and her. She didn’t say he was on SSRIs or anything like that, but it’s something that should’ve stayed private regardless, because it’s either fucked up she told the entire world that and it’s because of medical issue, or her pussy just sucks.
Women: Not Even Once.
I disagree its embarrassing for her, it's more embarrassing for Tom.
She’s the type of woman who would use children to get access to a pedo.
Listen man, you gotta learn to be a bit patient. There's a time and place for that. Right now we're too busy dunking on lying BPD e-thots. The tom feltening will continue after sacramento and katie inevitably leave the internet.
With all due respect, Turkey Tom gets sexual gratification from causing physical harm to women. That's not just "a weird gooner kid" who "should know better." Furthermore, Null does not owe Turkey Tom, or you, or me, or anyone else anything. He was more objective in his interview with those women than most "journalists" and gave them a chance to explain themselves.
HE'S GAY! HE CAN ONLY GET OFF TO THE FEELING OF A MAN'S HAND TOUCHING HIS PENIS!
Your hate for women and love for Tom is outweighing your love for content.
I don't think Null's mistake here was giving them a platform to speak, or even giving them the interview. His mistake was continuing to speak about it on MATI after the interview, and taking their side before a response came out. Regardless of your opinion on Tom, he was one of the few big names that wasn't actively hostile to the site, and burning bridges like that is just reckless. The objectively correct thing to do was to just let them speak and then step away from the topic outside of covering the news on the following episodes.
I don’t disagree with you, but because neither party says why, it could easily be because she sucks in bed. I would never shame a fellow lady for that, but I’ve seen multiple people say she must just suck in bed and laughing about it. Why would you ever open the door to allow people to assume either situation? Either you slept with a gooner freak who beats off too much or you’re a terrible lay and continued to beg for dick, groveling at his feet like a dog. Embarrassing.
Owned by one McCurdy Revocable Trust. Pretty fiscally responsible action.
It's not normal for women to directly ask him to do that, beg tom to make them bleed, then threaten to blackmail him either.
Dawg, this is a Post Hoc fallacy. Just because someone has committed foul on their behalf doesn't beget something worse- and it also negates your prior reply to me:
You can't outright say that Null 'should've done the right thing, then justify Brandon's/Tom actions. Either they're both justified, or they're not. Which one is it?
Those practices are only there to provide defense against slander, which you have to prove that was the intent w/Null. He already said he was looking at this from a Drama angle, plus he already dislikes Tom due to his (in)actions. Assumption of a action doesn't equate to intentionality though.
