Pinegrove - Skylight (September 28, 2018) Album • Page 84

depends on when they took place I guess. If they were before the allegations than I'm not so sure. But yes, if it was something recent and during his therapy, yes that would be a huge blow to that. I havn't seen anything that suggests that though.

 

when I say "Not completely okay", I mean, maybe she gave them permission to move forward but is still upset with what happened.

Am I making more sense now, sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

And if that is true, that she is still upset with what happened, it makes a big difference on how a lot of people see this situation, and that would be counter to what was presented in the Pitchfork article. That seems the like crux of the entire issue: if the person that was hurt is actually ok with the band being a band again. The argument most people that seem to be pro-Pinegrove are making is: what else could they do to please anyone since even the person hurt says it's ok now ... but if that key fact is not actually true, that they aren't actually ok with that ... then isn't that the most important part?

 

Their existence would suggest that. The entire "rehabilitated" narrative is based on one situation and everything being worked out. If there's multiple situations, and those people are still upset, then by definition that's a massive blow to this "everything's ok now" story. And from what I've seen, it looks like people are saying multiple people were hurt and they're not ok with this. But that seems only explicitly stated a few places (in this thread), and hinted at around others.

 

But if people are saying he didn't make amends with them, which is what I'm picking up from multiple places is what is being said, or at least hinted at ... would that not be evidence that positive change was very specifically not made?

 

Leerkat knows another victim of Evan

 

This is what I've been told as well.

 

Yea, I’m sorry for me personally that is not enough to go off of. If that person speaks out and make that information public than I completely understand. But based off of the information I’ve been given I feel comfortable supporting. I don’t really care what other people do, if they want to not support I’m fine with that, I’ve said that all along.

 

This is a harmful attitude for allegations

 

It would be harmful if someone said something and I didn’t believe them, but rumors from some stranger on the internet. No, sorry that’s different than “not believing survivors”

I’m choosing to not believe leerkat, I’m not believing someone who is brave and coming forward with an allegation. These are very different things in my opinion. I can’t be the only one that feels that way.

This isn’t a first hand report, this is a second hand support from someone who I feel is extremely biased in this situation.

 

Wtfyd fam

 

Good god

 

And there it is

 

What is so outrageous?

 

I mean, does believing survivors really have to extend to trusting secondhand stories that can’t be told from anonymous strangers on the internet?

 

yikes

 

jesus christ teebs

 

teebs I genuinely, genuinely don’t think you’re trying to be a bad guy deep down but you’re saying some horrible shit rn. stop for one second and please reflect, I’m asking you kindly. do you know why victims choose not to come forward themselves? who wants to open themselves up to endless harassment and threats from strangers online? by dismissing all second hand information available outright you’re pretty much forcing their hand and putting the victim in a situation where they HAVE to come forward themselves, a dangerous situation. if you want to then fine, don’t believe leerkat, but I suggest you keep it to your damn self that you don’t if that’s the case. by vocally dismissing them you’re harming any potential other victims that don’t want to come forward, not just the one leerkat said something about.

 

Do you guys not understand why the survivor would want the information out there but not want to come forward themselves? The way fans of artists terrorize survivors alone would be enough for me to never come forward were I in that situation.

 

targeted harrassment campaigns launched against victims and their entire families are the norm for shit like this

 

Maybe, just maybe, it is excuseable to have bias against a person when you’re close to someone who that person has abused.

 

look dude you’ve seen my posts and know where I stand here, I don’t see eye to eye with leerkat on some things but do on others, but I can honestly say there is zero reason not to trust them on this. absolutely no reason not to whatsoever.

 

I think the heart of the misunderstanding here is

Not believing doesn't mean you're dismissing.
You can hear something and keep an open mind to it without dismissing or believing it.

For ex: If I told everyone here my friend was abused by Jason Tate, would you immediately believe and then shame others for not immediately believing? Would not immediately believing be considered "dismissal"?

You'd probably hold onto that piece of info and consider it going forward, seems like the responsible thing to do, no? It's the internet after all and Leerkat hasn't proven to be the most mature or level-headed person here.

 

Do I agree with the antagonistic attitude toward people asking questions and trying to understand what's going on? No. If the same people keep coming back being rude and showing an unwillingness to understand, it is better to ignore them. They won't understand or choose not to understand at the moment.

But I have absolutely no reason not to believe someone who knows someone who has been personally affected by Pinegrove. Don't know if that situation was before his "rehabilitation" or not, but this definitely muddies the waters, where there's smoke there's usually fire.

 

okay, maybe they said something I wasn't aware of. I blocked them a long time ago, don't really care to go back and look either.