DEBATE Allison Mack alleged to be second in command of a violent sex cult

Obviously if the allegations against Alisson are true and she did it fully willingly she deserves to spend years if not the rest of her life behind bars.

If as some sites are saying Alisson was brainwashed then I'm not sure what should happen to her.

 

Absolutely, which is why I'd rather not buy into any opinion that seems to be "ignore this newspaper because...", since the job of those working there is to investigate and report on findings. Anybody here or elsewhere that isn't an investigative journalist for a living should really remain neutral and not be completely accusatory, nor completely dismissive of potential allegations, without evidence either way.

 

The benefit of the doubt is hers until proven otherwise. That's how "innocent until proven guilty" works. As things stand, she has been accused by a single low-quality tabloid with woeful reporting standards, and others have then jumped on that bandwagon and parroted the story - including the accusation.

They may well be right, but there is currently no evidence that they are. She gets the benefit of the doubt simply by virtue of there being no evidence that those accusations are true, and baseless tabloid articles and narcissistic, self-congratulatory social media comments don't change that. If someone comes up with some actual evidence then she may have a case to answer, but we're not at that stage yet.

 

No evidence? DOS is real. That's been proven. So too has Mack's status as one of the closest acolytes of Keith Raniere, a man who has a mountain of evidence of his illicit activities going back thirty years. And that "single, low-quality tabloid" you're so hung up on wasn't the one to first break the story of Mack's involvement in all this. That was Frank Parlato, a former NXIVM insider with sources close to Raniere. He was the first person to report on DOS, which has now been proven real by reputable sources such as the New York Times. And according to him and his proven sources, not the Sun or the Daily Mirror, Allison Mack was the one who started DOS in the first place.

 

Now if we could all see the leaked set of her that the collectors have, we’d all be able to enjoy this conversation more! Lol

 

The cult exists, yes, and it seems reasonable to conclude that the reports of its practices are valid too. I have yet to see any verifiable information that Mack is anywhere near as prominent or involved as you insist, though, and you appear to be basing that insistence on a tabloid report and some anonymous forum comments.

As for Parlato, I can find certain details of his being possibly confirmed by the NYT, but Mack's involvement is not among them. Once again, you are seeing a few confirmed facts and then leaping to the conclusion that everything else must be true by virtue of the fact that they appear in the same article. As I originally mentioned, this is no different to those obviously-fake "leaks" that often get shoved into folders of non-nude actual leaks and rely on those non-nudes to persuade people of their validity.

Imagine I told you that I sat and watched the rain gently pour down from the UK sky outside my window. Imagine I mentioned glimpses of blue through the clouds between showers. Imagine I also stated that I saw legions of UFOs performing complex dances as they arranged their craft to spell out the lyrics to "Tribute" by Tenacious D. Would you believe the latter details just because the former weather reports could be verified? You wouldn't (I hope), yet this is precisely what you're doing here. You're taking a report with some confirmed details and presuming that the unconfirmed details must also be true.

Edit: just as a disclaimer, I have literally no idea who she is. Never watched Smallville, and don't know her from anything else. I have no horse in this race.

 

I don't know about that because you seem too invested in this whole thing.

 

Something you need to understand is that I've been following the reporting on this cult for over a decade. I know my stuff. And Mack's involvement in the worst of Raniere's dealings has been all but confirmed. I don't need to wait for a NYT article with her confessing her crimes complete with a picture of her brand to respond to this news with the appropriate level of anger and disgust at her actions. And frankly I am baffled at your willingness to respond to this news with such skepticism, especially since you say you're not a fan. But I see now that I'm not going to change your mind, and we're kind of derailing this thread, so...can we just agree to disagree?

 

As someone that has only seen the Daily Fail & the S*n reports on this matter, I'm sceptical as hell.

If there's a better source that confirms the claim she's involved, can you post it please.

 

Sure. Here's one: www.frankreport.com

 

I'm not actually disagreeing with you - I'm pointedly refusing to take any stance here. Remember, I've been extremely clear that I'm not arguing that she isn't involved, or even that she isn't involved at the level specified by a woeful source that even Wikipedia rejects as unreliable. They may well have got every detail exactly correct. I'm pointing out that the only details that have been confirmed here don't support the points ascribed to her or her level of involvement.

Objectively speaking, if you've been glued to this for "over a decade" then you're far more likely than most to have fallen victim to confirmation bias. It's the same reason die-hard believers are forever convincing themselves they see evidence of molten steel, or chemtrails, or Bigfoot, or aliens building pyramids. A newcomer to this topic sees no corroboration whatsoever for some of these points, and corroboration only for those details that don't involve her at a high level of involvement. It's certainly possible that evidence will come to light, but until then she does deserve the benefit of the doubt, because we're supposed to have culturally moved on from knee-jerk accusations.

You could convince me in an instant by citing verifiable evidence that supports every claim made in the DM. It's not about "changing my mind", because I haven't taken sides here. Some here clearly have, and that's not healthy.

 

Fellow red? Or just someone familiar with that shitrag and why reds hate it?

 

Which one?

 

Again, I'm just sitting here dumbstruck. I'm talking about a cult that was outed in the New York Times, and the involvement of an actress who is known to have been heavily involved in the affairs of the leader of this cult for the better part of ten years...and you're comparing the whole thing to bigfoot and chemtrails. How do I respond to that? 'Cause I've got nothin'.

 

That's the problem with claiming she "is known" to have been as you say - it's a position that has built from sources that are dubious at best, and supplemented by an association fallacy in which you connect certain parts of one article to verified points and use that to presume the veracity of those details which have not been confirmed.

I'm not comparing this cult to those conspiracy theories, I'm comparing the mindset of those who have asserted unproven points to the exact same actions on the part of believers in those debunked pseudosciences. You may be incredulous, but that doesn't mean anything. Do you not see the missteps in logic here? Or, to put it in a more unintentionally confrontational way, can you link to specific sources that directly implicate Mack in the manner outlined in the DM article?

I have issues with Parlato too, but I think I'd be pushing derailment a little too far to bring that up here. Suffice to say that I'm having a tough time seeing things like this:

https://frankreport.com/2017/11/10/...ents-show-cross-section-of-viewers-reactions/

- as the kind of thing a careful, objective researcher would do. It's bizarre, if nothing else, to present a site that seems to be dedicated to exposing the practices of that cult and then devote an entire article to YouTube reactions to the as-yet-unsubstantiated reports of Mack's involvement, don't you think?

 

If you're open to a little digging, I'd be happy to switch this to PM's. Reading what Parlato says about Mack's diet and exercise requirements, she should be dead. And that's not hyperbole - she should LITERALLY be dead.

 

I'm here for boobs

 

Ain't we all?

/jk

 

Honestly, this sounds too good to be true.

 

So.....did she have sex with the cult members....preferably in a group situation?