I was immediately skeptical, because it really reads like a 14-year-old boy's fantasy of how a woman would talk and behave. I know that women can perpetrate sexual assault, they have the capacity to be fucked up just like anyone else, but this just isn't how women speak. There are absolutely women out there who are into dirty talk, but even the cringiest dirty talk I've heard from other women doesn't sound like that.
I feel awful for Hajdini. There are men out there who have been found guilty of rape by actual juries getting off scott-free, meanwhile her life is completely ruined because some fabulist wrote erotic friend-fiction about her and used it to try and extort her for money. Not to mention, these high-profile fabrications make actual rape victims, male or female, less likely to be taken seriously.
I think in this case it definitely qualifies. It's not like he just said, "My boss groped my butt," and left it at that, he wrote long, profane erotic fantasies about her on the level of the minotaur milking book. I'd definitely counter-sue for sexual harassment if I were her.
The Tickle v Giggle case is genuinely radicalising. What a monumental waste of everyone's time. So utterly sick of these men and the cowards that enable them.
If you’ve seen the picture that dude submitted for the app it’s just a fucking joke. It’s literally mockery. He has ½ inch long stubble and sloppily applied lipstick. I refuse to believe he seriously wants to “pass” or be seen as a woman. It’s actually egregious. How can anyone take this seriously anymore?
I've seen the pictures. The fact we're all supposed to accept he is a woman and be cool with it. Jesse and Katie using she/her pronouns for him made me laugh out loud but also despair a little bit. Who is that "being kind" to!? Because it's sure not kind to women.
Honestly!! I’m so over respecting pronouns. These people have zero respect for us and all of the people they shove aside and take advantage of. It’s not kind, it’s catering to the incredibly unwell and narcissistic population that makes up most of that community. I’ve turned into such a terf. People like Jason “Roxanne Tickle” are so blackpilling to me.
It’s amazing how this movement has done more to dismantle women’s rights than anything even the most vile misogynist could ever dream up. And people are acting like it’s perfectly natural and acceptable. Jfc
I wonder if she could just appeal to the president and flee to the U.S. to avoid paying the money. Granted, she would lose a ton of cred with feminists, but it would be far from the first time Trump bailed a foreigner out of legal liabilities in their home country.
As Katie updated me on the status of the case, it just made me think “thank God I live in the United States,” not Australia, Canada, or the UK. Australia and Canada especially seem stuck in the 2010s. The UK Labour government at least pulled back from having the police visit people based on tweets.
I live in aus. It does seem like a dumb law/ruling/case, but I actually think overall Australia’s always been a lower level of woke than America. At least in terms of the people, it feels like they just give less of a shit about politics in a healthy way
I am sure you are right about Australian culturally, but I believe it was Aussies who gave us land acknowledgements. Plus the covid policy.
I think the judges correctly applied the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which was amendment to include gender identity in 203. It’s not quite self ID, but pretty close. It’s just an insane law.
Was there much debate and disagreement about this in 2013? Or because this was 2013, and the salience of this issue was so minute, that wasn’t particularly noteworthy at the time?
I sorta feel like these land acknowledgements make sense anywhere... if you're asked about the land, or who was here befor you were. Starting every public meeting intoning the (feckless) mantra is gratuitous and a bunch of other adjectives that are negative. My two cents.
The problem with too many people being politically disengaged is that it allows mobilized extremists to run roughshod over the government, and it sounds like that's what happened with Australia's gender policies.
The best part of this episode was Jesse reading about a woman forcing a man into doing something sexual against his will, and Jesse saying, "I can't read anymore," and Katie forcing him to. It really reinforced the narrative being presented.
He didn’t just falsely claim that his father died, he collected bereavement pay.
I don’t think K&J really acknowledged just how much this scammer has destroyed this woman’s life and reputation—made worse by how he seems to have chosen her at random. Her name and face are going to be associated with these degrading claims for the rest of her life. Every time she applies for a job or signs with a new business partner, this is what they’re going to find when they Google her. And that’s not even factoring in all the AI “art” that’s already been made about this.
They seemed much more concerned about Rana's mental state. Sorry, I'm not going lose sleep for this man just because that pig-faced bully Shane Gillis made a casually racist remark about him in order to impress Joe Rogan. That's just what he does!
Frankly he should be deported I don’t care that he is a citizen.
I guess it would be exile not deportation, but he clearly isn’t trustworthy, fuck him. Stick him on an island somewhere. He can be a banker there. Maybe Tristan de Cunha.
I don’t like Shane Gillis. I don’t like the majority of his comedy (used to) and listening to his podcast for years made me realize I don’t like or respect him as a person. He’s a follower and a celebrity ass-kisser and his co-host Matt McCusker is a gleeful animal abuser. Feel free to disagree.
I've never listened to his podcast, but I've watched a bunch of his comedy and some appearances on other podcasts.
He's friends with Joe Rogan, as many comedians are, I've never noticed any indication that he's a sycophant. But clearly you have studied and analyzed his interactions much more than I have.. Maybe you're right as result, or maybe you're overthinking it, I don't know.
And I don't care. I think he's a funny and genuine guy, and I've never seen any indication of him being mean to anyone.
And he's not afraid to piss off the uptight and easily offended people he seems condemned to have to frequently perform for (i.e. SNL audiences, awards shows), and I respect and appreciate that.
To further illustrate the point, this woman is now receiving death and rape threats, and unsolicited calls from guys looking to hook up. Megyn Kelly read through some of the transcript on her show yesterday:
Which is obviously wrong, but society generally shrugs when a woman destroys an innocent man's life. In fact, at the height of Me too, some women posited that innocent men swept up in the movement were simply an unfortunate, but acceptable collateral cost. We should despise anyone who makes false claims, but most people will not harshly criticize females who make false claims.
Regarding Tickle v Giggle: possibly the most important outcome of the case has been that it's galvanised some politicians into action. The leader of the Opposition (centre-right) has vowed to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to include a definition of biological sex, and the NSW Premier (centre-left) has called for 'biological differences' to be 'reflected in the law'. This is not a small thing for a country where the normal approach is to pretend the issue doesn't exist. The federal government has stayed more or less quiet about it.
Yeah, I was surprised there was no mention of the possible backlash in the episode. In some ways its a good thing she lost rather than win on some technicality.
Im in the UK and if that Supreme Court ruling had gone a different way I think we would have seen legislative change.
These sorts of victories are in a way a self-own by gender ideologues. They get a high-profile win that looks terrible to normal people, galvanizing those normal people into action. Lia Thomas is an example of this in the US. No regular person who looked at Thomas on the winner's podium, towering over the other competitors, could see anything but a man pushing himself into a women's activity. Horribly unfair for the women in the competition, but a pyrrhic victory for trans activists.
Surprised he was American. I walked away thinking the guy was a foreigner because, in the fanfic that he wrote, the lady refers to people from the Indian subcontinent as "Asian" which is a British thing, along with details like "fish head wife" and "my adjective noun" that don't sound like American English.
I also find it troubling that his creepy little fantasies got so much traction in that first day they dropped. The "press X to doubt" crowd got a lot less traction than the "man bites dog" "what does this say about society" people. There's a version of this same story where the media immediately expresses the extreme skepticism that was warranted, the social media accounts follow their cue, and the banker lady doesn't have to sit through ~12 hours of everyone thinking she's some pervert straight out of a Hustler letter. I wouldn't mind some news organizations getting sued for intentionally burying the lede on how ludicrous the actual documents were.
I think `south Asian' is growing in popularity in America to refer to people from India, etc. because there are now a great many more people of south Asian descent here and Indian to refer to Native Americans is still pretty common.
Also, South Asian refers to India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc. To distinguish from East, Central, and Southeast Asian.
"Asian" as an ethnic descriptor is fairly useless out of context. For a laugh, check out Wikipedia's page on "Academy Award Winners of Asian Descent," featuring such noted Asian people as Catherine Keener and Natalie Portman.
Perhaps. And Sephardic jews are certainly in the Western Asian diaspora. But pretty sure Portman is Ashkenazi. But what do I know?
My wife is 1/2 south East Asian and my kids are a 1/4. You'd never know by looks with the kids. And only people familiar with Hapa populations recognize my wife's ancestry.
Which is to say going by looks for ethnicity is err prone to say the least. But again, pretty sure Portman has publicly identified as Ashkenazi. . . which is primarily of European descent.
Asia is a big place and the populations there are not a monolith. South Asian is just more specific, it’s not a “woke” or politically correct thing or whatever.
No, I don't think indigenous is "woke" or anything either. Just saying that the same people who wish to be specific by using South Asian also tend to use the more specific Indigenous peoples or native Americans when referring to those populations.
Shady law firms love to put these lurid claims in lawsuits because certain media outlets (the New York Post is notorious for this) watch court filings and will jump on any colorful one and publish a story reprinting its claims along with photos of the defendant. They’re relying on readers not understanding that you can say anything in a lawsuit. It’s a form of legalized public humiliation and a way for firms to hasten a settlement.
Fortunately, we live in a democracy that respects freedom of press. Even though Hajdini is a "private" figure, reprinting publicly available court filings cannot be a basis for libel.
my comment was specifically about the Post, which reprinted a legal filing.
I am not by any means an expert on defamation law, but I've never heard of a suit against a plaintiff and/or their law firm based solely on the allegations of a complaint. (Comments made by a plaintiff and/or their law firm to the media may be a different story; hence many judges impose gag orders. Or a smart lawyer tells his client not to talk.
If defamation cases were allowed against plaintiffs, imagine the libelous stuff that routinely goes into divorce and custody filings where the rules of evidence are not in play. Keep in mind that Johnny Depp's suit against his ex-wife was based not on allegations made in legal filings but on a newspaper column she had written.
We'll have to see. Seems to me like this case easily meets the New York State definition of libel:
Publication: The false statement was communicated in writing or permanent form (e.g., printed publications, social media, emails) to at least one third party.
Defamatory Meaning: The statement tends to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, shame, contempt, or disgrace.
Falsity: The statement is factually false.
Fault: The defendant must have been at least negligent in making the statement.
Damages: The statement caused actual harm or fits into libel per se categories.
Btw, New York State divorce and custody filings are sealed so the defamatory requirement is rarely met in those situations.
I only used divorce and custody proceedings as an example of clearly libelous material often found in court filings. You are correct about them being sealed.
However, I still see no evidence that any publicly-available court filing, in and of itself, can be the basis of a defamation suit.
I dunno about Lincoln because I am not immediately familiar with him but when I looked at it I certainly didnt think it was Trump. After staring for a bit I was like 'yeah I can kinda see it' but if that lady says it wasnt meant to be him I believe her.
It's mindboggling that just last week Jesse unskeptically tweeted out Nick Kristof's radioactive column about allegations of prisoner rape by suspected terrorists, all based on hearsay, and then have the gall to say this in response to the JPMC lawsuit: "I mean, with a level of harassment, this severe and insane and persistent, you would think he could provide some good evidence, right?"
I missed that. This was a new low for Jesse. He keeps trying to retain some credibility in progressive/Democratic circles by trying to be one of the "good" Jews. He is disgusting.
It's annoying when TRAs claim to be able to detect some sort of "secret sin" in the the hearts of liberal gender skeptics, just as it is tiresome when people try to psychologize away Jesse's liberal views on other topics.
Sometimes people just believe what they say they believe, for the reasons they say they believe it! Even when we think it's inconsistent with other beliefs, or the belief isn't well justified. It's not always all performativity, all the way down.
Because if people want to defund a person because of one re-tweet rather than looking at the 99% of content they enjoy they didn't understand the point of this whole podcast.
re: in the opening chit chat, Katie talked about removing the invasive plant "Scotch broom".
More info: "Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) is a highly aggressive, non-native perennial shrub that is classified as a noxious, invasive weed across North America, particularly dominating the Pacific Northwest and parts of the East Coast. Originally native to Europe and North Africa, it was introduced to the United States in the 1850s as an ornamental garden plant and later used by government agencies for erosion control along highways."
( I initially thought that the "Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board" might be a state agency that watches out for sales of poor quality marijuana products, but I was mistaken. Unless there are two departments with similar names ... but very different functions... )
Also, it was not promoted by Lady Bird Johnson. This is a persistent myth. Scotch broom was first used for erosion control in early 1900's by state of California; then widely expanded use in 1930's era New Deal soil conservation and CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) programs to rebuild degraded soil and control erosion. Maybe because Scotch Broom has pretty bright yellow flowers did Scotch Broom use get conflated with L.B. Johnson's 1960's highway beautiful work - and now people like Katie's fellow volunteers think the Scotch Broom was planted in the 1960's. In fact, L.B. Johnson was a proponent of planting or restoring *native* plants. She co-founded a wildflower center in Texas in 1982. https://www.wildflower.org/about/overview
I have a love-hate relationship with our invasives in the PNW.
Scotch broom changes our soil chemistry, worsens fire risk, and takes over our native savanna and prairie open spaces. But is also beneficial along highways, where it controls erosion and provides an objectively beautiful splash of yellow to our springtime landscapes. Scotch broom also mainly confines itself to the shoulders, never venturing past the tree canopy because it is so shade intolerant. While it needs to be controlled in many natural open spaces, its presence isn't an overall negative in the disturbed soils it was originally introduced to grow in.
I feel the same way about Himalayan blackberry. Like many people, I look forward to foraging berries in the late summer, and it makes me sad when work parties indiscriminately remove blackberries along our local bike paths in places where they aren't actively harming anything. Blackberry absolutely needs to be controlled along rivers or wherever it starts threatening shrubs and bushes. But if we're going to be cursed with an aggressive invasive plant, it's nice that at least we are cursed with one that grows abundant delicious fruit.
I spend plenty of time every season pulling out both Scotch broom and blackberry. But I have largely stopped doing so as part of organized groups, because I find those groups tend to focus on locations that area easily accessible, rather than locations where the control is most needed. I prefer to personally scout out locations where these plants are doing the most damage. This includes Scotch broom where it competes for water and sunlight with native Pacific madrone groves along the forest edges, and pulling blackberries away from river banks where they strangle Pacific willow, red alder, and black cottonwood trees. I wish that the organized work parties would focus their energies on these same environments, rather than just targeting the plants in the most easy to access locations without any defined strategy beyond "kill."
the most offensive thing about the J. P. Morgan hoax is the utter lack of creativity, realism, or effort in the writing.
I don't understand why any lawyer would agree to take this case.
I'm assuming this guy is a virgin.. Someone should subpoena his porn history.
(edit: The fact that this piece of shit was offered a million dollars, rather than being personally beaten to a bloody pulp in the boardroom by the CEO, his supervisor, and the target of his defamation, is the most offensive part..)
The weirdest thing to me about it was the stuff about the alleged harasser saying stuff over and over again about the guy's wife when he reportedly wasn't married.
The funny thing is I wrote a comment partway through listening to the episode about assuming he's a virgin, then I deleted that part when I heard the part about his wife (and was surprised that such an obvious loser was actually married), then I added it back in when it turned out that it was fake.
Learning that he was never married was the least surprising part of this, it's just bizarrely stupid of him to make such an obvious lie.
And very stupid of his lawyer for not realizing that almost immediately. Don't lawyers vet their clients at all before filing such a lawsuit?
I forgot about that part, yeah that's pretty bad..
But I think discovering that someone isn't married is even more obvious, anyone even a non-journalist is likely to discover that by accident very quickly, whereas the part about his Dad would require some digging. Not much, but some.
I have plenty of friends that I've know for years, and I have no idea if their parents are alive, and if they lied about it I'd be unlikely to find out the truth.
Your distinction makes sense. I was just a college reunion and the existence of a spouse was a very common topic (in some cases, the spouse was present). Yet almost no one spoke about the status of their parents (given my age, 56, I would imagine a substantial portion of my classmates have lost one or both parents).
Wow I haven’t heard sexual allegations that outlandish and implausible since last week’s op ed by Kristof in the Times.
100%. A reminder that Jesse unskeptically tweeted out that column. https://x.com/jessesingal/status/2053884572589252831?s=20
oy vey that’s pretty bad
Whoops
I was immediately skeptical, because it really reads like a 14-year-old boy's fantasy of how a woman would talk and behave. I know that women can perpetrate sexual assault, they have the capacity to be fucked up just like anyone else, but this just isn't how women speak. There are absolutely women out there who are into dirty talk, but even the cringiest dirty talk I've heard from other women doesn't sound like that.
I feel awful for Hajdini. There are men out there who have been found guilty of rape by actual juries getting off scott-free, meanwhile her life is completely ruined because some fabulist wrote erotic friend-fiction about her and used it to try and extort her for money. Not to mention, these high-profile fabrications make actual rape victims, male or female, less likely to be taken seriously.
Agreed. At what point does a fabricated sexual harassment complaint become, itself, a form of sexual harassment?
I think in this case it definitely qualifies. It's not like he just said, "My boss groped my butt," and left it at that, he wrote long, profane erotic fantasies about her on the level of the minotaur milking book. I'd definitely counter-sue for sexual harassment if I were her.
Dear Penthouse Forum: <paste allegations>
Exactly. “She then grabbed my leg and said ‘WOW BROWN BOY I WANT YOUR MEAT TORPEDO ALL OVER MY JUGZZZ’ with three Zs like that!”
Mmmmkay, Brown Boy.
;-)
The Tickle v Giggle case is genuinely radicalising. What a monumental waste of everyone's time. So utterly sick of these men and the cowards that enable them.
If you’ve seen the picture that dude submitted for the app it’s just a fucking joke. It’s literally mockery. He has ½ inch long stubble and sloppily applied lipstick. I refuse to believe he seriously wants to “pass” or be seen as a woman. It’s actually egregious. How can anyone take this seriously anymore?
I've seen the pictures. The fact we're all supposed to accept he is a woman and be cool with it. Jesse and Katie using she/her pronouns for him made me laugh out loud but also despair a little bit. Who is that "being kind" to!? Because it's sure not kind to women.
Honestly!! I’m so over respecting pronouns. These people have zero respect for us and all of the people they shove aside and take advantage of. It’s not kind, it’s catering to the incredibly unwell and narcissistic population that makes up most of that community. I’ve turned into such a terf. People like Jason “Roxanne Tickle” are so blackpilling to me.
Same. I'm not giving guys like Tickle any courtesy when he has shown no respect whatsoever for women.
It’s amazing how this movement has done more to dismantle women’s rights than anything even the most vile misogynist could ever dream up. And people are acting like it’s perfectly natural and acceptable. Jfc
I wonder if she could just appeal to the president and flee to the U.S. to avoid paying the money. Granted, she would lose a ton of cred with feminists, but it would be far from the first time Trump bailed a foreigner out of legal liabilities in their home country.
As Katie updated me on the status of the case, it just made me think “thank God I live in the United States,” not Australia, Canada, or the UK. Australia and Canada especially seem stuck in the 2010s. The UK Labour government at least pulled back from having the police visit people based on tweets.
I live in aus. It does seem like a dumb law/ruling/case, but I actually think overall Australia’s always been a lower level of woke than America. At least in terms of the people, it feels like they just give less of a shit about politics in a healthy way
I am sure you are right about Australian culturally, but I believe it was Aussies who gave us land acknowledgements. Plus the covid policy.
I think the judges correctly applied the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which was amendment to include gender identity in 203. It’s not quite self ID, but pretty close. It’s just an insane law.
Was there much debate and disagreement about this in 2013? Or because this was 2013, and the salience of this issue was so minute, that wasn’t particularly noteworthy at the time?
IMO land acknowledgements make more sense in an Australian context.
I sorta feel like these land acknowledgements make sense anywhere... if you're asked about the land, or who was here befor you were. Starting every public meeting intoning the (feckless) mantra is gratuitous and a bunch of other adjectives that are negative. My two cents.
The problem with too many people being politically disengaged is that it allows mobilized extremists to run roughshod over the government, and it sounds like that's what happened with Australia's gender policies.
Katie, please never stop coercing Jesse into reading horribly uncomfortable smut. It is keeping me going.
I lol’ed but I think Jessie could bring a sexual harassment case against Katie for being forced to read humiliating sexual content.
I only subscribe to hear Katie bully Jesse
Idea: BARpod side hustle of Jesse and Katie narrated erotic audio novels.
bet it would do better than the merch store
Some men rely on Viagra.
The best part of this episode was Jesse reading about a woman forcing a man into doing something sexual against his will, and Jesse saying, "I can't read anymore," and Katie forcing him to. It really reinforced the narrative being presented.
He didn’t just falsely claim that his father died, he collected bereavement pay.
I don’t think K&J really acknowledged just how much this scammer has destroyed this woman’s life and reputation—made worse by how he seems to have chosen her at random. Her name and face are going to be associated with these degrading claims for the rest of her life. Every time she applies for a job or signs with a new business partner, this is what they’re going to find when they Google her. And that’s not even factoring in all the AI “art” that’s already been made about this.
They seemed much more concerned about Rana's mental state. Sorry, I'm not going lose sleep for this man just because that pig-faced bully Shane Gillis made a casually racist remark about him in order to impress Joe Rogan. That's just what he does!
Frankly he should be deported I don’t care that he is a citizen.
I guess it would be exile not deportation, but he clearly isn’t trustworthy, fuck him. Stick him on an island somewhere. He can be a banker there. Maybe Tristan de Cunha.
No, a native born American citizen should not be “deported.” That makes no sense. Jail and restitution, that’s what they’re for.
Meh exile is a perfectly fine punishment. Call it that.
How is Shane Gillis a bully? And what did he say that is racist?
I also compared him to a pig and suggested he is a Joe Rogan sycophant, I take it you have no qualms with that.
I disagree with both of those assertions also, I just figured I'd stick with the more specific and serious accusations.
I find it odd how much you hate this comedian, what is the basis for this?
I don’t like Shane Gillis. I don’t like the majority of his comedy (used to) and listening to his podcast for years made me realize I don’t like or respect him as a person. He’s a follower and a celebrity ass-kisser and his co-host Matt McCusker is a gleeful animal abuser. Feel free to disagree.
I've never listened to his podcast, but I've watched a bunch of his comedy and some appearances on other podcasts.
He's friends with Joe Rogan, as many comedians are, I've never noticed any indication that he's a sycophant. But clearly you have studied and analyzed his interactions much more than I have.. Maybe you're right as result, or maybe you're overthinking it, I don't know.
And I don't care. I think he's a funny and genuine guy, and I've never seen any indication of him being mean to anyone.
And he's not afraid to piss off the uptight and easily offended people he seems condemned to have to frequently perform for (i.e. SNL audiences, awards shows), and I respect and appreciate that.
To further illustrate the point, this woman is now receiving death and rape threats, and unsolicited calls from guys looking to hook up. Megyn Kelly read through some of the transcript on her show yesterday:
https://youtu.be/ehzFlz4b128?si=M746TP-kHGkrxxXm
Which is obviously wrong, but society generally shrugs when a woman destroys an innocent man's life. In fact, at the height of Me too, some women posited that innocent men swept up in the movement were simply an unfortunate, but acceptable collateral cost. We should despise anyone who makes false claims, but most people will not harshly criticize females who make false claims.
What are you talking about yes they will
"The witness paw-tection program." Good one Jesse!
👍👍👍👍👍
I smiled
I'm a terrible pedant because my first thought was pigs don't have paws, they have trotters 😬
Regarding Tickle v Giggle: possibly the most important outcome of the case has been that it's galvanised some politicians into action. The leader of the Opposition (centre-right) has vowed to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to include a definition of biological sex, and the NSW Premier (centre-left) has called for 'biological differences' to be 'reflected in the law'. This is not a small thing for a country where the normal approach is to pretend the issue doesn't exist. The federal government has stayed more or less quiet about it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-16/opposition-leader-angus-taylor-vows-amend-sex-discrimination-act/106688258
https://qnews.com.au/chris-minns-biological-sex-comments-criticism/
Yeah, I was surprised there was no mention of the possible backlash in the episode. In some ways its a good thing she lost rather than win on some technicality.
Im in the UK and if that Supreme Court ruling had gone a different way I think we would have seen legislative change.
These sorts of victories are in a way a self-own by gender ideologues. They get a high-profile win that looks terrible to normal people, galvanizing those normal people into action. Lia Thomas is an example of this in the US. No regular person who looked at Thomas on the winner's podium, towering over the other competitors, could see anything but a man pushing himself into a women's activity. Horribly unfair for the women in the competition, but a pyrrhic victory for trans activists.
Do pigs have paws
Yep. Cloven paws. It’s in the Talmud, do your research.
They have trotters! I never heard them referred to as paws. Cloven hooves or trotters. Trotters is a much better word imho
Surprised he was American. I walked away thinking the guy was a foreigner because, in the fanfic that he wrote, the lady refers to people from the Indian subcontinent as "Asian" which is a British thing, along with details like "fish head wife" and "my adjective noun" that don't sound like American English.
I also find it troubling that his creepy little fantasies got so much traction in that first day they dropped. The "press X to doubt" crowd got a lot less traction than the "man bites dog" "what does this say about society" people. There's a version of this same story where the media immediately expresses the extreme skepticism that was warranted, the social media accounts follow their cue, and the banker lady doesn't have to sit through ~12 hours of everyone thinking she's some pervert straight out of a Hustler letter. I wouldn't mind some news organizations getting sued for intentionally burying the lede on how ludicrous the actual documents were.
I think `south Asian' is growing in popularity in America to refer to people from India, etc. because there are now a great many more people of south Asian descent here and Indian to refer to Native Americans is still pretty common.
Also, South Asian refers to India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc. To distinguish from East, Central, and Southeast Asian.
"Asian" as an ethnic descriptor is fairly useless out of context. For a laugh, check out Wikipedia's page on "Academy Award Winners of Asian Descent," featuring such noted Asian people as Catherine Keener and Natalie Portman.
there's got to be some wild ass wiki editing troll war to land Portman on Nominees of Asian descent lol.
Israel is in Asia.
Perhaps. And Sephardic jews are certainly in the Western Asian diaspora. But pretty sure Portman is Ashkenazi. But what do I know?
My wife is 1/2 south East Asian and my kids are a 1/4. You'd never know by looks with the kids. And only people familiar with Hapa populations recognize my wife's ancestry.
Which is to say going by looks for ethnicity is err prone to say the least. But again, pretty sure Portman has publicly identified as Ashkenazi. . . which is primarily of European descent.
She is Israeli. Born in Israel. Israel is in Asia.
Pretty sure the same people that would care to distinguish South Asian are also preferring to use Indigenous.
Asia is a big place and the populations there are not a monolith. South Asian is just more specific, it’s not a “woke” or politically correct thing or whatever.
No, I don't think indigenous is "woke" or anything either. Just saying that the same people who wish to be specific by using South Asian also tend to use the more specific Indigenous peoples or native Americans when referring to those populations.
Probably because they care about being specific.
Shady law firms love to put these lurid claims in lawsuits because certain media outlets (the New York Post is notorious for this) watch court filings and will jump on any colorful one and publish a story reprinting its claims along with photos of the defendant. They’re relying on readers not understanding that you can say anything in a lawsuit. It’s a form of legalized public humiliation and a way for firms to hasten a settlement.
Hajdini has a libel case here.
Fortunately, we live in a democracy that respects freedom of press. Even though Hajdini is a "private" figure, reprinting publicly available court filings cannot be a basis for libel.
She can go after Rana and the law firm and may well name the Post as well.
my comment was specifically about the Post, which reprinted a legal filing.
I am not by any means an expert on defamation law, but I've never heard of a suit against a plaintiff and/or their law firm based solely on the allegations of a complaint. (Comments made by a plaintiff and/or their law firm to the media may be a different story; hence many judges impose gag orders. Or a smart lawyer tells his client not to talk.
If defamation cases were allowed against plaintiffs, imagine the libelous stuff that routinely goes into divorce and custody filings where the rules of evidence are not in play. Keep in mind that Johnny Depp's suit against his ex-wife was based not on allegations made in legal filings but on a newspaper column she had written.
We'll have to see. Seems to me like this case easily meets the New York State definition of libel:
Publication: The false statement was communicated in writing or permanent form (e.g., printed publications, social media, emails) to at least one third party.
Defamatory Meaning: The statement tends to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, shame, contempt, or disgrace.
Falsity: The statement is factually false.
Fault: The defendant must have been at least negligent in making the statement.
Damages: The statement caused actual harm or fits into libel per se categories.
Btw, New York State divorce and custody filings are sealed so the defamatory requirement is rarely met in those situations.
I only used divorce and custody proceedings as an example of clearly libelous material often found in court filings. You are correct about them being sealed.
However, I still see no evidence that any publicly-available court filing, in and of itself, can be the basis of a defamation suit.
I think that the sculpture looks about as much like Lincoln as Trump. The beard is a neckbeard. She's not a good artist.
I dunno about Lincoln because I am not immediately familiar with him but when I looked at it I certainly didnt think it was Trump. After staring for a bit I was like 'yeah I can kinda see it' but if that lady says it wasnt meant to be him I believe her.
I think it looks like someone sculpted a normal face, then whacked it with a skillet several times.
It's mindboggling that just last week Jesse unskeptically tweeted out Nick Kristof's radioactive column about allegations of prisoner rape by suspected terrorists, all based on hearsay, and then have the gall to say this in response to the JPMC lawsuit: "I mean, with a level of harassment, this severe and insane and persistent, you would think he could provide some good evidence, right?"
Where are your standards, Jesse?
https://x.com/jessesingal/status/2053884572589252831?s=20
I missed that. This was a new low for Jesse. He keeps trying to retain some credibility in progressive/Democratic circles by trying to be one of the "good" Jews. He is disgusting.
It's annoying when TRAs claim to be able to detect some sort of "secret sin" in the the hearts of liberal gender skeptics, just as it is tiresome when people try to psychologize away Jesse's liberal views on other topics.
Sometimes people just believe what they say they believe, for the reasons they say they believe it! Even when we think it's inconsistent with other beliefs, or the belief isn't well justified. It's not always all performativity, all the way down.
I completely agree. I wish we could allocate our money. Mine would go to Katie, not Jessie.
I will defend my favourite (male) podcast host.
Because if people want to defund a person because of one re-tweet rather than looking at the 99% of content they enjoy they didn't understand the point of this whole podcast.
re: in the opening chit chat, Katie talked about removing the invasive plant "Scotch broom".
More info: "Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) is a highly aggressive, non-native perennial shrub that is classified as a noxious, invasive weed across North America, particularly dominating the Pacific Northwest and parts of the East Coast. Originally native to Europe and North Africa, it was introduced to the United States in the 1850s as an ornamental garden plant and later used by government agencies for erosion control along highways."
https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weeds/scotch-broom
( I initially thought that the "Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board" might be a state agency that watches out for sales of poor quality marijuana products, but I was mistaken. Unless there are two departments with similar names ... but very different functions... )
Also, it was not promoted by Lady Bird Johnson. This is a persistent myth. Scotch broom was first used for erosion control in early 1900's by state of California; then widely expanded use in 1930's era New Deal soil conservation and CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) programs to rebuild degraded soil and control erosion. Maybe because Scotch Broom has pretty bright yellow flowers did Scotch Broom use get conflated with L.B. Johnson's 1960's highway beautiful work - and now people like Katie's fellow volunteers think the Scotch Broom was planted in the 1960's. In fact, L.B. Johnson was a proponent of planting or restoring *native* plants. She co-founded a wildflower center in Texas in 1982. https://www.wildflower.org/about/overview
I have a love-hate relationship with our invasives in the PNW.
Scotch broom changes our soil chemistry, worsens fire risk, and takes over our native savanna and prairie open spaces. But is also beneficial along highways, where it controls erosion and provides an objectively beautiful splash of yellow to our springtime landscapes. Scotch broom also mainly confines itself to the shoulders, never venturing past the tree canopy because it is so shade intolerant. While it needs to be controlled in many natural open spaces, its presence isn't an overall negative in the disturbed soils it was originally introduced to grow in.
I feel the same way about Himalayan blackberry. Like many people, I look forward to foraging berries in the late summer, and it makes me sad when work parties indiscriminately remove blackberries along our local bike paths in places where they aren't actively harming anything. Blackberry absolutely needs to be controlled along rivers or wherever it starts threatening shrubs and bushes. But if we're going to be cursed with an aggressive invasive plant, it's nice that at least we are cursed with one that grows abundant delicious fruit.
I spend plenty of time every season pulling out both Scotch broom and blackberry. But I have largely stopped doing so as part of organized groups, because I find those groups tend to focus on locations that area easily accessible, rather than locations where the control is most needed. I prefer to personally scout out locations where these plants are doing the most damage. This includes Scotch broom where it competes for water and sunlight with native Pacific madrone groves along the forest edges, and pulling blackberries away from river banks where they strangle Pacific willow, red alder, and black cottonwood trees. I wish that the organized work parties would focus their energies on these same environments, rather than just targeting the plants in the most easy to access locations without any defined strategy beyond "kill."
This guy has definitely been spending quality alone time with his own legal complaint.
This story is Napalling.
My File: 👍
White lady here
Indian guys are hot
So hot
They tend to have a very good sense of humor, which is always a plus.
In matters related to sex, sex matters. If I’m a heterosexual male on a dating app, I don’t care if the person with a penis “identifies” as a woman.
This is all so silly
I'm entirely into lady parts. Butch lady parts. Feminine lady parts. Lady parts.
So in that sense, it's all about the genitals for me, I guess.
And I like it if she makes me laugh and laughs at my jokes. And has lady parts.
Same
the most offensive thing about the J. P. Morgan hoax is the utter lack of creativity, realism, or effort in the writing.
I don't understand why any lawyer would agree to take this case.
I'm assuming this guy is a virgin.. Someone should subpoena his porn history.
(edit: The fact that this piece of shit was offered a million dollars, rather than being personally beaten to a bloody pulp in the boardroom by the CEO, his supervisor, and the target of his defamation, is the most offensive part..)
The weirdest thing to me about it was the stuff about the alleged harasser saying stuff over and over again about the guy's wife when he reportedly wasn't married.
The funny thing is I wrote a comment partway through listening to the episode about assuming he's a virgin, then I deleted that part when I heard the part about his wife (and was surprised that such an obvious loser was actually married), then I added it back in when it turned out that it was fake.
Learning that he was never married was the least surprising part of this, it's just bizarrely stupid of him to make such an obvious lie.
And very stupid of his lawyer for not realizing that almost immediately. Don't lawyers vet their clients at all before filing such a lawsuit?
Is claiming to be married any more bizarre than claiming that your father died but your father is alive to debunk it.
I forgot about that part, yeah that's pretty bad..
But I think discovering that someone isn't married is even more obvious, anyone even a non-journalist is likely to discover that by accident very quickly, whereas the part about his Dad would require some digging. Not much, but some.
I have plenty of friends that I've know for years, and I have no idea if their parents are alive, and if they lied about it I'd be unlikely to find out the truth.
Your distinction makes sense. I was just a college reunion and the existence of a spouse was a very common topic (in some cases, the spouse was present). Yet almost no one spoke about the status of their parents (given my age, 56, I would imagine a substantial portion of my classmates have lost one or both parents).
Very true. The only way I would believe this guy is if he said she was in a Nazi skin tight outfit and was whipping him.