The only way to find out is if you hit up the company that hosted the vid and ask them what was the number of views prior to the allegation.. I’m pretty sure more people seen that vid now than the last 7 yrs it was online
Tiffany Haddish and Aries Spears accused of child sexual abuse. WTF?!!!
- Thread starter woodchuck
- Start date
The kids SHOULD sue if they were traumatized I'm not nor would I ever say they shouldn't...its their experience (why the parents didn't is another question #BELIEVEVICTIMS) But that really doesn't change the fact that that vids been out there and people had a chance to see and respond and almost all of us didn't. Now there are people who are going to say theyre just seeing it for the first time now....but there are others who saw it way back when and didn't think much of it THEN who are jumping on the bandwagon NOW. Thats why I ask for anyone who made a thread about then back then bump it NOW and lets see who was pissed and who was gave it a pass. Lets see whose consistent and whose bandwagoning. Thats why I posted the Seagal thread....you see whose who from to now.
As far as Seagal goes...I'm not talking about the criminal case (tho I'm glad there is one) I'm talking about the public outrage...there really wasn't any..hell KIMMEL HIMSELF laffed at that shit and he was the one who brought that pic out. Kinda like when hannibal burress told a joke about cosby and rape and that shit went viral.. Kimmel pulled out a picture on NATIONAL TV showing Steven Seagal fondling an underaged girl and guess what the public did.....nothing.
as far as the public is concerned....selective outrage is selective
The problem is lumping everything as "selective outrage" when there is context and reasons for why some things don't go viral. The internet was a very different place in 2014 than it is right now. And even today, it's easy for people to miss something that isn't at a viral stage. I never saw or heard about Kimmel showing that picture of Seagal. And if we're talking about the photo with him and a young Heigl, I get why. He's not fondling her. His hand is on her chest, not her breast. And that photo represents a millisecond in time. We don't know how long his hand was there or why. Was he redirecting her movement and his hand fell there or did he intentionally put it there in a sexual way? We don't know. Can't call a guy a pedo for something like that. NOW...Jason Momoa on the other hand is on FILM rubbing his daughter's chest in a gross, uncomfortable way. We can see the context there and know that Momoa should be dropkicked for doing that shit whether he's intentionally being pedo or not. And even in that situation...it didn't hit viral status and many people didn't see that clip.
Everything ain't selective outrage. Sometimes people just miss shit and when they do see it, that's when they're upset about it.
I get what your saying but in the seagal case heigl could have clear that up by saying its not what it looks like blah blah blah...but she didn't in fact she confirmed that he flirted with her and admitted to hooking up with underage girls to her....
As for momoa...I havent see what your talking about but dude is very popular now so that incident hasn't gotten a groundswell...but let him say some ill shit about the wrong group and you best believe that picture is coming back to bite his ass. He just has a shoe in the air that hasn't come down....YET....thats all.
Thats what I mean by selective outrage.
Ex. kevin hart gets asked to host the oscars and suddenly a 10 year old gay joke tweet (that he apologized for back then) resurfaces. Aint that a coinky dink??
Its never the thing by itself its always as something else is happening good or bad.
honest question....honest answer: DOES THIS ISSUE GO VIRAL IF SPEARS HADN'T FAT SHAMED LIZZO???
My contention....the lawsuit would still go thru but would be a smaller blip on everyone's radar.
I'd make it a poll if I could.
This shit was all but forgotten until he struck out at Lizzo. Lettergang and the fat feminazis clapping at him. Tiff is just cannon fodder. Got people talking about this shit like it just happened. He's getting the Kevin Hart treatment. Retro-ripping.
^^^^
How did they think this shit was in anyway shape or form remotely funny? Or that they wouldn't receive backlash from this at some point?
The original hosting site was the production company Funny or Die. They put out a statement saying it was uploaded without them reviewing it and then subsequently taken down once they saw the content. According to them it wasn't up long at all so it didn't do numbers.
And you're right, no one was really checking for Aries Spears post MadTV. Unlike his peers Bobby Lee, Key and Peele who flipped their time on the show to bigger opportunities.
I don’t think anyone who has been differing with your opinion will disagree. You’re exactly right. Except for the joke about Lizzo it would not have gone viral. But that’s not what you’ve been saying the whole thread.
It wasn’t about viral it was about outrage. You have been suggesting that the only reason people are outraged is because they’re mad that he told a joke about Lizzo so they’re not really outraged but just kind of faking outrage because of how he treated Lizzo. That’s what people are differing with you about.
Just in case you aren’t clear, the differing opinions are that the outrage is real and justified and it doesn’t matter if someone saw the video a year ago, 10 years ago or one hour ago, most people will be outraged.
Cool story bro. You wrote that yourself or do you have a staff? Btw, what does any of this have to do with you being a whole bitch?
^^^^
He defending them like he got his own video that he terrified about to be leaked.
Good come back, I'm sure your dad would be as disappointed as always, consistency
Tiffany hasn't been right lately. First , it was the DUI, now this....she needs to start doing some critical thinking or get someone to think for her.
This skit is 10 years old. You've got things way out of sequence.
Skit could be 20 years old, the idea is some things are not good for the eye. Besides there's always someone waiting to use shit against you. But I understand your point.
You were TOLD going in that "this is some sick fringe humor attempt that is child abuse" so that is immediately what you see when you watch it.
I finally saw the clip. When Aries was making the perv faces directly at the camera, the kid may not even have been in the room.
Shots are put together like puzzle pieces. When you take the shots individually, its never what it appears to be. This whole skit is built on impressions and perceptions. Its less about what's there and more what you can be made to think. This works as a perv vid only because of the way the shots are put together and the music that is incorporated into it.
I'm not going to sit here and defend an unfunny skit but I also won't be told what to think and shamed into thinking what I'm told to.
You could take ALMOST all of those same shots and reconstruct them in such a way that they'd be meaningless.
Watch the scene with the bathtub WITHOUT SOUND and fast-fwd through the eyehole newspaper scenes. It just looks like Aries is a dad who finally got the kid to take a bath and playfully dives in with him at the end.
The bug eye and eyehole shots are what make the scenes pervy. Without those and the sound cues to direct you on how to feel, it plays out differently. Now the zooming in on the kid in his underwear looks bad but more in the sense of "fire this fool because they don't know how to point and hold a camera steady." With a different intro, those same shots could be used to make the kid seem like a problem child.
Example: Add an intro where Aries is just a regular uncle and he's going to take the kid to the park, so he puts a jacket on him. He turns his back, turns around and the kid is in his underwear playing on the floor. Same shots of the kid - used differently. He keeps doing it over and over until his mom comes home, Aries walks her into the room and the kid is fully dressed and sitting on the couch, making Uncle Aries look stupid. The same shots of the kid could be used in that way. Its all in how you use the puzzle pieces.
Let's keep that same energy: 2nd scene - Uncle tells the kid he needs to take a bath and pulls his shirt off. He turns around and the kid is fully dressed with a coat and layers of clothes on. Uncle takes off his coat and shirt, goes out of the room to get the "cigarette" that is ever-present in the scenes and comes back and the kid is fully dressed with the coat on again. Uncle lights the cigarette/joint. The kid's eyes light up. Uncle looks at it, then the kid. Shoot a shot of cigarette smoke rising in the air (just that, nothing else) and cut to a shot of the kid happy and laughing with the Uncle. Now, watch the entire rest of the scene with the tub in slo-mo without the eyeholes in the paper and you have a scene that shows the kid having agreed to take a bath and is cool with the Uncle because they are both high. When Aries gets in the tub fully clothed with the kid, it would be interpreted as him and the kid both being high but cool with each other. Bad message? YES, but funnier than a perv skit.
I just re-wrote that entire skit off the top of the dome to make a point. Its all about perception.
The sound cues really amp up the creepiness factor. The whole point of this skit was shock value and high creep factor. It is a tasteless skit and went too far for a message but unless there is more, this isn't real sexual predator behavior - not with a camera pointed directly at you with the intent to distribute this skit for everyone to see. There is real Hollywood predator shit going on. This ain't it.
Its not the first skit to go too far to make a point.
MadTv was notorious for that back in the day and that is where he comes from.
The reason this shit has never gone anywhere in court is because everyone else looking at it understands how movies and tv shows are made. There are many shots of shirtless kids at pool parties, etc. in movies. Are they all abused? No.
This was about perception and virtue signaling.
I don't even like that asshole Aries Spears but let's keep it real: this is because he shot off his big mouth about that shit-imoji-looking broad Lizz-hoe. She is LGBTQ and a fat feminist. That is the only reason this is even a thread. Nobody gives a fuck about Aries Spears otherwise. He's probably happy because his name is finally coming up in conversations. Better to be the main villain than thug number three, I guess.
I finally saw the clip. When Aries was making the perv faces directly at the camera, the kid may not even have been in the room.
Shots are put together like puzzle pieces. When you take the shots individually, its never what it appears to be. This whole skit is built on impressions and perceptions. Its less about what's there and more what you can be made to think. This works as a perv vid only because of the way the shots are put together and the music that is incorporated into it.
I'm not going to sit here and defend an unfunny skit but I also won't be told what to think and shamed into thinking what I'm told to.
You could take ALMOST all of those same shots and reconstruct them in such a way that they'd be meaningless.
Watch the scene with the bathtub WITHOUT SOUND and fast-fwd through the eyehole newspaper scenes. It just looks like Aries is a dad who finally got the kid to take a bath and playfully dives in with him at the end.
The bug eye and eyehole shots are what make the scenes pervy. Without those and the sound cues to direct you on how to feel, it plays out differently. Now the zooming in on the kid in his underwear looks bad but more in the sense of "fire this fool because they don't know how to point and hold a camera steady." With a different intro, those same shots could be used to make the kid seem like a problem child.
Example: Add an intro where Aries is just a regular uncle and he's going to take the kid to the park, so he puts a jacket on him. He turns his back, turns around and the kid is in his underwear playing on the floor. Same shots of the kid - used differently. He keeps doing it over and over until his mom comes home, Aries walks her into the room and the kid is fully dressed and sitting on the couch, making Uncle Aries look stupid. The same shots of the kid could be used in that way. Its all in how you use the puzzle pieces.
Let's keep that same energy: 2nd scene - Uncle tells the kid he needs to take a bath and pulls his shirt off. He turns around and the kid is fully dressed with a coat and layers of clothes on. Uncle takes off his coat and shirt, goes out of the room to get the "cigarette" that is ever-present in the scenes and comes back and the kid is fully dressed with the coat on again. Uncle lights the cigarette/joint. The kid's eyes light up. Uncle looks at it, then the kid. Shoot a shot of cigarette smoke rising in the air (just that, nothing else) and cut to a shot of the kid happy and laughing with the Uncle. Now, watch the entire rest of the scene with the tub in slo-mo without the eyeholes in the paper and you have a scene that shows the kid having agreed to take a bath and is cool with the Uncle because they are both high. When Aries gets in the tub fully clothed with the kid, it would be interpreted as him and the kid both being high but cool with each other. Bad message? YES, but funnier than a perv skit.
I just re-wrote that entire skit off the top of the dome to make a point. Its all about perception.
The sound cues really amp up the creepiness factor. The whole point of this skit was shock value and high creep factor. It is a tasteless skit and went too far for a message but unless there is more, this isn't real sexual predator behavior - not with a camera pointed directly at you with the intent to distribute this skit for everyone to see. There is real Hollywood predator shit going on. This ain't it.
Its not the first skit to go too far to make a point.
MadTv was notorious for that back in the day and that is where he comes from.
The reason this shit has never gone anywhere in court is because everyone else looking at it understands how movies and tv shows are made. There are many shots of shirtless kids at pool parties, etc. in movies. Are they all abused? No.
This was about perception and virtue signaling.
I don't even like that asshole Aries Spears but let's keep it real: this is because he shot off his big mouth about that shit-imoji-looking broad Lizz-hoe. She is LGBTQ and a fat feminist. That is the only reason this is even a thread. Nobody gives a fuck about Aries Spears otherwise. He's probably happy because his name is finally coming up in conversations. Better to be the main villain than thug number three, I guess.
I agree,but I guess the mother thought since it was Haddish,who she was friends with she didn't think anything like that would happen.
From what I understand from the articles I read;the daughter said Ms Haddish lied to the mother about the Nickelodeon reel being at an actual studio. I don't think the mother know the reel would be at Aries house..
thats the part where the parent fucked up at...not knowing where and who you dropping your blood off at... irresponsible and zero accountability...on the parent.. brah
I believe most people are outraged because they know the result not because they saw the skit. In fact theyre seeing the skit AFTER hearing about the case brought against spears and haddish.
At the time that skit was released no one knew anything and therefore didn't think anything other than its either funny to them or it isnt. No one would think OMG theres child abuse going on here! Even Funny Or Die themselves are doing damage control by saying they took the skit down because they were outraged...really?? you saw a clear case of child abuse happening and the best decision they could think of was just take the video down?? NO ONE CALLED THE AUTHORITIES?? Cacs call the cops if they see blacks just walking in their neighborhoods but black kids being abused on a video uploaded to their site and the BEST they can do is a finger wag and " Har- rumph! I disapproved of it!"
So its EASY to be outraged NOW because you know the result. Thats why I asked if theres an original thread on it to bring it back up and lets see what the ORIGNAL REACTION to it was back then.
Last edited:
I believe most people are outraged because they know the result not because they saw the skit. In fact theyre seeing the skit AFTER hearing about the case brought against spears and haddish.
At the time that skit was released no one knew anything and therefore didn't think anything other than its either funny to them or it isnt. No one would think OMG theres child abuse going on here! Even Funny Or Die themselves are doing damage control by saying they took the skit down because they were outraged...really?? you saw a clear case of child abuse happening and the best decision they could think of was just take the video down?? NO ONE CALLED THE AUTHORITIES?? Cacs call the cops if they see blacks just walking in their neighborhoods but black kids being abused on a video uploaded to their site and the BEST they can do is a finger wag and " Har- rumph! I disapproved of it!"
So its EASY to be outraged NOW because you know the result. Thats why I asked if theres an original thread on it to bring it back up and lets see what the ORIGNAL REACTION to it was back then.
You and I disagree. That is all. You will continue to argue that the outrage is not simply based on the video itself and what happens in the video, but outside factors influencing peoples outrage.
I disagree. I believe that when people see a young boy wearing nothing but his underpants getting baby oil squirted on him by a man acting like a pedophile; and then that man starts rubbing the baby oil over the back and shoulders and chest of the young boy who is wearing nothing but underpants, in a lustful manner, they need no outside influence to feel outrage. It is automatic. In fact I will go further and say it SHOULD BE AUTOMATIC. Of course, based on you and others, I know it is not automatic, but it damn well should be.
You can keep typing until your finger tips fall off and you keyboard is dust...you will never convince me otherwise.
Why now? Did the video resurface? Was it reposted anywhere? How many people have ACTUALLY watched the skit? Was there a thread on here about it? How was the reaction back then? Are there any criminal charges being pressed? Civil? I was cats would get out their outrage bag and start think critically. Shit don't add up.
Basically. If you aren't automatically outraged by watching that bullshit you probably the type of people Aries was making it for.
I was thinking the same shit.
Where was the parents?
I'm sure they were on the set of every shoot!
So where was the backlash and lawsuit then?
Where was the parents?
I'm sure they were on the set of every shoot!
So where was the backlash and lawsuit then?
Bruh WTF!!!!!!!! I turned this shit off with the newspaper part son WTFbrah..it's fucked up...both parties with the dumbass momma...need to be under the slab...no telling what happened to the lil girl...brah
The Mind Of A Pedephile- Aries Spears
PSA by Aries Spears for single mothers. http://ctt.ec/girL7 Click To tweet This Video! Get more of Aries @ AriesSpears.com Tour Dates, Appearances... Subscri...web.archive.org
100% agree with you.
While,I think the mom have some blame for this situation. My issue is that people are putting the majority of the blame on her.
7 year old and 14 year old though. Those ages have to be factored in. I'm not saying to lock anybody up, but civily....they may be out some $$$ deservedly.
I agree,but I guess the mother thought since it was Haddish,who she was friends with she didn't think anything like that would happen.
From what I understand from the articles I read;the daughter said Ms Haddish lied to the mother about the Nickelodeon reel being at an actual studio. I don't think the mother know the reel would be at Aries house..
keep spitting....this is what I see...my nigg
calling that mother a "b*tch" aint a good way to go.
Similar threads
