Sounds good, if only it were true. In the most recent case someone said "I don't understand why Margaret says Venus bullies her", I explained reasons why Margaret would say this. Whether or not anyone agrees with that reasoning is up to them. You erroneously construe this as some kind of advocacy. I seemed to have missed the rule where every post has to be a Margaret Palermo summary. I don't, it just looks that way to you. It's easy to fall into the trap of viewing neutral analysis of someone you strongly dislike as support for that someone. If your argument depends on this knowledge, then of course it should be pointed out that you shouldn't make it unless you have this information. That's what PULL is traditionally about. Information. "Pretty Ugly Little Liar". If you want to prove someone a liar then you have to be honest about what information you have and what information you don't, unless of course you wish to end up a liar yourself.
Please learn the following: 1. Understanding is not the same as 'agreeing with'. I can sometimes understand the motives of a murderous dictator, it doesn't mean I agree with them. 2. By the above, explaining this understanding to someone who states that they do not understand is not the same as white knighting. 3. Also following from #1, you can explain your understanding of someone else without them being your 'bff' or 'heroine'. Well we don't know do we? Take Anita Sarkeesian for example. I'm sure she was bullied, but she could be exaggerating as well. I have no way of knowing how many private messages she received or what all was said. The fact that I disagree with pretty much everything Anita Sarkeesian says and stands for has nothing to do with it. Unless you have access to their private e-mail and social media accounts, there is no way you could know this for sure, yet you make it sound factual. I at least was clear that I was speculating on the possibilities of their private correspondence.
Welp, she's did say Venus had a eating disorder in her original rant, and then if you recall recently Venus wrote "I also realized there is more meaning to life than losing weight", hinting that she may indeed have had an eating disorder (although this is still not proof). Just one week ago Manaki wrote on his instagram "I lost 5kg/11lbs in 1 month but I have to lose 11kg/24lbs more". He always looked skinny to me, but that's just my opinion from superficial glances at vague photos. None of this proves Margaret's concern warranted, just that it's not completely random, not 'out of thin air'. People do the same with Venus. If you're advocating for a more skeptical world then I'm with you.
It's more like the same 5-6 bad things, repeated many times. So a few things: 1. We can't be sure of what Venus sends her mother privately. We have some evidence that there was private correspondence between the two over e-mail, perhaps some of it what Margaret considers bullying takes place there. 2. Margaret doesn't always use the past tense of some verbs, which might make it sound like something is presently happening when it happened in the past, or she uses the present tense as a kind of adjective for a character testimony. (x bullied in the past, they are someone who bullies people.) 3. I know that everyone believes Venus when she talked about the knife story, or that her mom recently tried to break in to her home, but consider for a moment that these things are not true. If I wrongfully accused someone of such things in a very very public forum, would that not be a form of bullying? Even if you don't think Venus is guilty of any bullying, I think with the above points the claim can at least be 'understood'.
Definitely going into a 'my favorite Venus moments' video, if I ever make one. (Also if I can figure out how to make it in such a way that it's like a fan vid and not just a random copyright violation)
I tried to explain this to her a few times before to no avail. That small adjustments to her language (and I provided extensive examples) would make a large positive difference to how she is perceived. It's difficult to explain what her response to this was, because it had little or nothing to do with what I had written and was barely coherent. I believe it was something to the effect of that the way she speaks is perfectly fine and only people who don't like her care about such things. I told her I like her just fine and that if I didn't I wouldn't bother putting any mental energy into things that she might be able to use to improve her content and public perception. I don't think she thought I was telling the truth on that. So it's like she's created a mental trefoil knot (a knot that cannot be unraveled). If someone likes her and her content, well that's the way it should be. If someone doesn't or has any criticism, there's something wrong with them. So there's no path for her to change, improve or grow. She's stuck. At this rate, what we see today is a just a physically more 'youthful' version of the Kanadajin from 2050..