Chrissy Teigen is attempting a comeback - and I’m not ok with it

[Anonymous]

The "why do you care?" comments are weird. A lot of people care because they have experienced the kind of abusive bullying Teigen engaged in, in their own lives. It's the same reason that some people get especially upset when someone who turned out to be a sexual abuser (Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., etc.) attempts to mount a comeback.

If you've never had someone in a position of power say stuff like "you should kill yourself" while laughing at you and getting others to pile on, you may not understand. But as someone who has experienced something akin to what Teigen did to Courtney Stodden, my experience is that the "come back" is part of an abusive cycle. People who are comfortable exploiting social capital to psychologically destroy people in weak social positions also tend to be great at getting people to like them and manipulating that affection. So the come back is just another round of rebuilding social capital so that they can then wield it against others again.

That's why I don't think Teigen should get back to her old level of fame and influence, and why I think it's important to remind people what she did. I'm not trying to randomly cancel her -- there are plenty of ways to work and make money without being a Teigen/Kardashian type influencer. I just think that when someone has a track record of abusing power, maybe lets not just give them that exact same power again. Especially when they haven't shown much contrition or ability/willingness to see what the problem was with their prior behavior. It's dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "why do you care?" comments are weird. A lot of people care because they have experienced the kind of abusive bullying Teigen engaged in, in their own lives. It's the same reason that some people get especially upset when someone who turned out to be a sexual abuser (Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., etc.) attempts to mount a comeback.

If you've never had someone in a position of power say stuff like "you should kill yourself" while laughing at you and getting others to pile on, you may not understand. But as someone who has experienced something akin to what Teigen did to Courtney Stodden, my experience is that the "come back" is part of an abusive cycle. People who are comfortable exploiting social capital to psychologically destroy people in weak social positions also tend to be great at getting people to like them and manipulating that affection. So the come back is just another round of rebuilding social capital so that they can then wield it against others again.

That's why I don't think Teigen should get back to her old level of fame and influence, and why I think it's important to remind people what she did. I'm not trying to randomly cancel her -- there are plenty of ways to work and make money without being a Teigen/Kardashian type influencer. I just think that when someone has a track record of abusing power, maybe lets not just give them that exact same power again. Especially when they haven't shown much contrition or ability/willingness to see what the problem was with their prior behavior. It's dangerous.

Equating mean tweets to sexual abuse is absolutely INSANE. If there is no redemption possible, why would anyone try to improve. Mindsets like yours are what drive people to little internet hovels where they are accepted by horrific people and slowly lose their humanity to the QANON shamen.

Courtney Stodden did not kill herself. And to blame Chrissy Teigan for what happened to her is like blaming a single paparazzi photographer for what happened to Britney Spears. They didn't act well at the time, and they should examine what made them act so badly, but they were not the true villain in either story. In Courtney's case it was the MAN who abused her and the family that sent her off like a show pony to make them some money. I'm not saying Chrissy Teigan didn't act reprehensibly at the time, but people in here comparing her to Louis CK or, earlier in the thread, NAZIS, are completely off their rocker. She was a bullying b on the internet in 2008. She's allowed to get older, mature, stop drinking and apologize for that and have some people decide that's ok (and for some people to decide they don't forgive her!).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "why do you care?" comments are weird. A lot of people care because they have experienced the kind of abusive bullying Teigen engaged in, in their own lives. It's the same reason that some people get especially upset when someone who turned out to be a sexual abuser (Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., etc.) attempts to mount a comeback.

If you've never had someone in a position of power say stuff like "you should kill yourself" while laughing at you and getting others to pile on, you may not understand. But as someone who has experienced something akin to what Teigen did to Courtney Stodden, my experience is that the "come back" is part of an abusive cycle. People who are comfortable exploiting social capital to psychologically destroy people in weak social positions also tend to be great at getting people to like them and manipulating that affection. So the come back is just another round of rebuilding social capital so that they can then wield it against others again.

That's why I don't think Teigen should get back to her old level of fame and influence, and why I think it's important to remind people what she did. I'm not trying to randomly cancel her -- there are plenty of ways to work and make money without being a Teigen/Kardashian type influencer. I just think that when someone has a track record of abusing power, maybe lets not just give them that exact same power again. Especially when they haven't shown much contrition or ability/willingness to see what the problem was with their prior behavior. It's dangerous.

Then stop following her on social media, watching her on tv, opening threads about her, reading her cookbook, etc. Stop letting her live rent free in your head. If you don’t like her or she triggers you then stop coming into threads complaining about her. What’s weird are the people who hate her/seem triggered by her the most are the same people talking the most about her and starting threads about her. No one is starting a thread claiming to like her bc she isn’t that interesting and everyone knows she’s a b*tch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "why do you care?" comments are weird. A lot of people care because they have experienced the kind of abusive bullying Teigen engaged in, in their own lives. It's the same reason that some people get especially upset when someone who turned out to be a sexual abuser (Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., etc.) attempts to mount a comeback.

If you've never had someone in a position of power say stuff like "you should kill yourself" while laughing at you and getting others to pile on, you may not understand. But as someone who has experienced something akin to what Teigen did to Courtney Stodden, my experience is that the "come back" is part of an abusive cycle. People who are comfortable exploiting social capital to psychologically destroy people in weak social positions also tend to be great at getting people to like them and manipulating that affection. So the come back is just another round of rebuilding social capital so that they can then wield it against others again.

That's why I don't think Teigen should get back to her old level of fame and influence, and why I think it's important to remind people what she did. I'm not trying to randomly cancel her -- there are plenty of ways to work and make money without being a Teigen/Kardashian type influencer. I just think that when someone has a track record of abusing power, maybe lets not just give them that exact same power again. Especially when they haven't shown much contrition or ability/willingness to see what the problem was with their prior behavior. It's dangerous.

Equating mean tweets to sexual abuse is absolutely INSANE. If there is no redemption possible, why would anyone try to improve. Mindsets like yours are what drive people to little internet hovels where they are accepted by horrific people and slowly lose their humanity to the QANON shamen.

Courtney Stodden did not kill herself. And to blame Chrissy Teigan for what happened to her is like blaming a single paparazzi photographer for what happened to Britney Spears. They didn't act well at the time, and they should examine what made them act so badly, but they were not the true villain in either story. In Courtney's case it was the MAN who abused her and the family that sent her off like a show pony to make them some money. I'm not saying Chrissy Teigan didn't act reprehensibly at the time, but people in here comparing her to Louis CK or, earlier in the thread, NAZIS, are completely off their rocker. She was a bullying b on the internet in 2008. She's allowed to get older, mature, stop drinking and apologize for that and have some people decide that's ok (and for some people to decide they don't forgive her!).

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why she attacked that girl? I don’t follow this stuff.

Anyone?
Was she just randomly going after someone? I don’t get it.

Literally EVERYONE was attacking Courtney Stodden at the time. Chrissy just got called out on it because Candace Owens tweeted about it.

[Anonymous]

This is literally the first time I've heard Chrissy Tiegen's name since the whole Courtney Stodden drama and it's because of you, OP. Think about that.

[Anonymous]

What does she even do? Does she have a paying gig doing anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, she's not canceled. She went to Obama's birthday. He disinvited everyone- his top advisor, Nancy Pelosi, David Letterman, Larry David-- and Chrissy Teigan was still invited. She's firmly rooted as a Royal Celebrity. Settle in and get used to it.

Hi Chrissy. How many times have you posted in this thread?

I'm not Chrissy. I'm just being realistic with you. She is far-- very far-- from canceled. And I never really liked her old persona, but her new "sober influencer" shtick is charming and I'm here for it. She has a lot of influence on moms and its a good counterbalance to mommy wine culture. 🍷

Make it more obvious you’re Chrissy or some crisis pr intern she’s blowing her husband’s money on.

You are delusional if you think these people care about what you post on DCUM.

I don't care about her either way, but anyone who is anti mom-drinking has a plus in my book. I am VERY sick of this whole "I am mom, must drink wine" thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does she even do? Does she have a paying gig doing anything?

She is a model and is selling a cookbook

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does she even do? Does she have a paying gig doing anything?

She is a model and is selling a cookbook

Also an influencer and host of a celebrity program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, she's not canceled. She went to Obama's birthday. He disinvited everyone- his top advisor, Nancy Pelosi, David Letterman, Larry David-- and Chrissy Teigan was still invited. She's firmly rooted as a Royal Celebrity. Settle in and get used to it.

Hi Chrissy. How many times have you posted in this thread?

I'm not Chrissy. I'm just being realistic with you. She is far-- very far-- from canceled. And I never really liked her old persona, but her new "sober influencer" shtick is charming and I'm here for it. She has a lot of influence on moms and its a good counterbalance to mommy wine culture. 🍷

Make it more obvious you’re Chrissy or some crisis pr intern she’s blowing her husband’s money on.

You are delusional if you think these people care about what you post on DCUM.

I don't care about her either way, but anyone who is anti mom-drinking has a plus in my book. I am VERY sick of this whole "I am mom, must drink wine" thing.

Yeah, I'm definitely not Chrissy. I'm from Gaithersburg and also over the mom wine culture thing because I think it is clever marketing but tangibly hurting women's lives and health. I've decided I'm over alcohol-- I'm not drinking at dinners out with the girls or at parties or even when we meet for drinks-- because I think it's harmful. I never liked Chrissy before, but I think what she's doing is a good thing and can help other women question why drinking wine has become so closely linked with being a woman. Yes, what she said to Courtney was absolutely awful. Terrible. But she is trying to improve and said she's genuinely sorry. Look, one of the most senior executives at Nike actually shot and killed a young man, who he admits was innocent and that the killing was senseless. And I'm glad he went on to make a life for himself! Chrissy is allowed to do the same thing, and she is allowed to live big, not in the shadows like a modern day Hester Prynne.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, she's not canceled. She went to Obama's birthday. He disinvited everyone- his top advisor, Nancy Pelosi, David Letterman, Larry David-- and Chrissy Teigan was still invited. She's firmly rooted as a Royal Celebrity. Settle in and get used to it.

Hi Chrissy. How many times have you posted in this thread?

I'm not Chrissy. I'm just being realistic with you. She is far-- very far-- from canceled. And I never really liked her old persona, but her new "sober influencer" shtick is charming and I'm here for it. She has a lot of influence on moms and its a good counterbalance to mommy wine culture. 🍷

Make it more obvious you’re Chrissy or some crisis pr intern she’s blowing her husband’s money on.

You are delusional if you think these people care about what you post on DCUM.

I don't care about her either way, but anyone who is anti mom-drinking has a plus in my book. I am VERY sick of this whole "I am mom, must drink wine" thing.

Yeah, I'm definitely not Chrissy. I'm from Gaithersburg and also over the mom wine culture thing because I think it is clever marketing but tangibly hurting women's lives and health. I've decided I'm over alcohol-- I'm not drinking at dinners out with the girls or at parties or even when we meet for drinks-- because I think it's harmful. I never liked Chrissy before, but I think what she's doing is a good thing and can help other women question why drinking wine has become so closely linked with being a woman. Yes, what she said to Courtney was absolutely awful. Terrible. But she is trying to improve and said she's genuinely sorry. Look, one of the most senior executives at Nike actually shot and killed a young man, who he admits was innocent and that the killing was senseless. And I'm glad he went on to make a life for himself! Chrissy is allowed to do the same thing, and she is allowed to live big, not in the shadows like a modern day Hester Prynne.

Hm. Hester actually didn’t do anything wrong, and she wasn’t a dick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "why do you care?" comments are weird. A lot of people care because they have experienced the kind of abusive bullying Teigen engaged in, in their own lives. It's the same reason that some people get especially upset when someone who turned out to be a sexual abuser (Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., etc.) attempts to mount a comeback.

If you've never had someone in a position of power say stuff like "you should kill yourself" while laughing at you and getting others to pile on, you may not understand. But as someone who has experienced something akin to what Teigen did to Courtney Stodden, my experience is that the "come back" is part of an abusive cycle. People who are comfortable exploiting social capital to psychologically destroy people in weak social positions also tend to be great at getting people to like them and manipulating that affection. So the come back is just another round of rebuilding social capital so that they can then wield it against others again.

That's why I don't think Teigen should get back to her old level of fame and influence, and why I think it's important to remind people what she did. I'm not trying to randomly cancel her -- there are plenty of ways to work and make money without being a Teigen/Kardashian type influencer. I just think that when someone has a track record of abusing power, maybe lets not just give them that exact same power again. Especially when they haven't shown much contrition or ability/willingness to see what the problem was with their prior behavior. It's dangerous.

Equating mean tweets to sexual abuse is absolutely INSANE. If there is no redemption possible, why would anyone try to improve. Mindsets like yours are what drive people to little internet hovels where they are accepted by horrific people and slowly lose their humanity to the QANON shamen.

Courtney Stodden did not kill herself. And to blame Chrissy Teigan for what happened to her is like blaming a single paparazzi photographer for what happened to Britney Spears. They didn't act well at the time, and they should examine what made them act so badly, but they were not the true villain in either story. In Courtney's case it was the MAN who abused her and the family that sent her off like a show pony to make them some money. I'm not saying Chrissy Teigan didn't act reprehensibly at the time, but people in here comparing her to Louis CK or, earlier in the thread, NAZIS, are completely off their rocker. She was a bullying b on the internet in 2008. She's allowed to get older, mature, stop drinking and apologize for that and have some people decide that's ok (and for some people to decide they don't forgive her!).

I did equate them. I drew a comparison. I never said it was the same, I used sexual assault as an example that might help people understand why people who have experienced bullying might care about Chrissy Teigen's redemption.

I blame Chrissy Teigen only for her actual behavior, which has been documented. Just like I would absolutely hold a paparazzi photographer responsible for aggressive, invasive behavior towards anyone, including Britney Spears. Just because other people did something does not mean an individual cannot be held individually accountable.

However, unlike an individual paparazzo, Teigen is in a unique position of power. Unlike some random person bullying Stodden online, Teigen's actions have more impact and influence. Her choice to bully Stodden may have made that behavior seem appealing or okay to many others, because of the reach of Teigen's fame and influence. That's why having influence is a responsibility.

And that's also why I think depriving Teigen of that influence makes sense. She has shown that she does not understand the responsibility and has poor judgment. People in positions of power need to be held accountable for abusing that power.

Everyone is allowed to get older, mature, stop drinking, whatever. No one is entitled to power. We should vest it in people who have shown they will use it responsibly. That's not Teigen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "why do you care?" comments are weird. A lot of people care because they have experienced the kind of abusive bullying Teigen engaged in, in their own lives. It's the same reason that some people get especially upset when someone who turned out to be a sexual abuser (Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., etc.) attempts to mount a comeback.

If you've never had someone in a position of power say stuff like "you should kill yourself" while laughing at you and getting others to pile on, you may not understand. But as someone who has experienced something akin to what Teigen did to Courtney Stodden, my experience is that the "come back" is part of an abusive cycle. People who are comfortable exploiting social capital to psychologically destroy people in weak social positions also tend to be great at getting people to like them and manipulating that affection. So the come back is just another round of rebuilding social capital so that they can then wield it against others again.

That's why I don't think Teigen should get back to her old level of fame and influence, and why I think it's important to remind people what she did. I'm not trying to randomly cancel her -- there are plenty of ways to work and make money without being a Teigen/Kardashian type influencer. I just think that when someone has a track record of abusing power, maybe lets not just give them that exact same power again. Especially when they haven't shown much contrition or ability/willingness to see what the problem was with their prior behavior. It's dangerous.

Equating mean tweets to sexual abuse is absolutely INSANE. If there is no redemption possible, why would anyone try to improve. Mindsets like yours are what drive people to little internet hovels where they are accepted by horrific people and slowly lose their humanity to the QANON shamen.

Courtney Stodden did not kill herself. And to blame Chrissy Teigan for what happened to her is like blaming a single paparazzi photographer for what happened to Britney Spears. They didn't act well at the time, and they should examine what made them act so badly, but they were not the true villain in either story. In Courtney's case it was the MAN who abused her and the family that sent her off like a show pony to make them some money. I'm not saying Chrissy Teigan didn't act reprehensibly at the time, but people in here comparing her to Louis CK or, earlier in the thread, NAZIS, are completely off their rocker. She was a bullying b on the internet in 2008. She's allowed to get older, mature, stop drinking and apologize for that and have some people decide that's ok (and for some people to decide they don't forgive her!).

I did equate them. I drew a comparison. I never said it was the same, I used sexual assault as an example that might help people understand why people who have experienced bullying might care about Chrissy Teigen's redemption.

I blame Chrissy Teigen only for her actual behavior, which has been documented. Just like I would absolutely hold a paparazzi photographer responsible for aggressive, invasive behavior towards anyone, including Britney Spears. Just because other people did something does not mean an individual cannot be held individually accountable.

However, unlike an individual paparazzo, Teigen is in a unique position of power. Unlike some random person bullying Stodden online, Teigen's actions have more impact and influence. Her choice to bully Stodden may have made that behavior seem appealing or okay to many others, because of the reach of Teigen's fame and influence. That's why having influence is a responsibility.

And that's also why I think depriving Teigen of that influence makes sense. She has shown that she does not understand the responsibility and has poor judgment. People in positions of power need to be held accountable for abusing that power.

Everyone is allowed to get older, mature, stop drinking, whatever. No one is entitled to power. We should vest it in people who have shown they will use it responsibly. That's not Teigen.

Failure is a part of success. Even moral failure. It's the beauty of being human.

[Anonymous]

For all the alleged HHI and educational credentials, DCUM attracts a lot of stupid women, such as the Teigen defenders here. The Madame puppet did not actually apologize to the minors she harassed and mocked. The comment section in the link shows why most people don’t care if CT’s bloated “sober” mangled-mug ass is like totally better you guys!


https://dlisted.com/2021/10/26/chrissy-teigen-says-shes-grown-and-learned-from-her-bullying-scandal/

And to the dimwit from Gaithersburg, she isn’t exactly the face of accountability for “wine mom” culture. Goddamn, you’re a slow one. There are dozens of podcasts, scores of books, and hundreds of women who have publicly talked about the flip side of letting drinking rule you over the past 25 years. Hell - the past 45 years, after Betty Ford. Get a brain. Thinking is practically free!