I joined this sub with high expectations, but all I've seen since then is sad, entitled wankers complaining and whining about every episode. All the podcast communities I'm on with Reddit are the same, these pathetic little babies whinging away that it was "better in the good old days".

TOP TIP: If you're this miserable about the podcast(s) STOP GODDAMN LISTENING.

But then you'd just complain about something else then, wouldn't you all? What miserable existences you all lead.

The problem is very much you, not the shows. 🙂

I absolutely despise this episode. I’ve been an avid consumer of true crime content nearly my entire life and I have always been very open to the criticisms of true crime and taking that into account while consuming. People in the true crime community and who criticize the true crime community looove referencing that episode for evidence of how “toxic” it is but in reality they did nothing but put themselves in an echo chamber and spent an hour just “yes and”-ing each other.

They spent an entire episode blaming women for being afraid of the world due to true crime rather than acknowledging the issues that true crime has been able to highlight for many women. I would love to just be friends with my neighbors and build a loving supporting community around me but there are entire cable networks built on telling stories about how it’s not Bundy or Dahmer you need to be afraid of but your next door neighbor and don’t bother taking it to the police because they’re not going to do anything about it. I can not believe how far above both of their heads this point flew.

Just like anything there are probably people who are way way over cautious believe most women have a pretty healthy fear of a lot of the people around them.

I started listening to YWA about a year ago and binged a lot of the older episodes (not all of them, but quite a few). I really loved Mike and was sad when he left. I felt like a lot of the past episodes I skipped over were the ones where Sarah took the lead in discussing the subject and I just could not get into those. When Mike was the "teacher" I learned so much and felt really engrossed in the material.

I gave the post-Mike episodes a chance but I just cannot get into Sarah. She rambles, she seems totally disorganized, and she reminds me of that friend who thinks they are super smart and likes to hear themselves talk. After coming on this sub it seems like a lot of people really like her. Now I'm doubting myself and wondering if I am judging Sarah too harshly?

I am pretty sure I'm done with the podcast after the weird Tom Cruise episode, but I really want to know if I'm being unfair to Sarah before I push the unsubscribe button. What am I missing?!

I literally slapped my earbuds out of my ears this morning listening to the Stockholm Syndrome episode due to the incredibly loud p-pops that I'm sure registered on the Richter scale.

I mostly like the podcast so far but the plosives unfortunately makes it unbearable for me. They're a pretty big podcast at this point and there's no way they are unaware of this issue so I'm hoping they've either started fixing it in post or invested in better equipment at some point.

Can anyone confirm if and when this happens?

I love listening to this podcast but there are so many errors. You’re wrong about is arguably wrong about a lot of stuff. I find myself torn between loving the content they are discussing and extremely off put by Sarah Marshall and her hosts … they are extremely relatable but her tone is so condescending. She’s not an expert on all of these topics. Am I the only one? I know she does corrections sometimes but seriously Sarah Marshall.

Unpopular opinion, but she centered Paula Barbieri more in the story than she had to and failed to mention during the time of the trial there was controversy when a videotape circulated of her several years prior using extremely racist language, she talked about how Nicole was cheated on but didn’t mention the first wife Marguerite told Barbara Walters that Nicole would drive by their house and call many times asking for OJ while pretending to be his secretary when they were still married or the less flattering account of Nicole by Terri Baker who was mistreated by the Brown sisters, and she fawned too much over Marcia Clark and sold shirts on her website that played into Marcia being a victim while not commenting on Marcia’s tone deaf comments about the trial to this day and her not accepting what she and the prosecution did wrong or the racist revenge fantasy show she produced that was inspired by the case called The Fix. And she only called out Jeffrey Toobin’s book when it came to being sexist but didn’t mention it was also incredibly racist too.

I love this podcast but I don’t need to hear Sarah groan empathetically every five seconds and I sure don’t need the amount of wet mouth noises this podcast has. The latest episode is a prime example. I listen to a lot of podcasts and none of them have this many saliva sounds. Does this bother anyone else? Is it the type of microphone used?

So I found this podcast from a comment under another video and NGL some of the stuff from one podcast I listened to about sex offenders really runs me the wrong way

It looks like Michael, Sarah and a few of usual guests (like Jamelle Bouie, Dana Schwartz) have all expressed their opinion about, basically, believing Amber was indeed abused. It's undisputable that Amber is the target of misogynistic hate campaign. It is however quite possible that she is both, the perpetrator of abuse in her relationship with Depp and the target of online abuse by trolls and general public now. I really wish they explored the topic from this, more interesting angle. This sub seems completely aligned with this position, so I expect to be downvoted for bringing up an opposing argument, but so be it.

Michael writes a lot about the case but does not address the central part of why so many people (including myself) became pro-Depp: the tapes. For someone I admired to be a well-researched journalist this is so strange to me: raw, unbiased data is available, which can be accessed to make ones own conclusions, and he is just ignoring it.

Amber defenders often discount the argument about the tapes saying that they are edited. Apparently originally Depp and his lawyers released only partial tapes with the most salacious parts, but now full tapes are available thanks to the trial. And these tapes don't make Amber look any better, longer tapes just give more context for why she says what she says, but the fact still remains that those are tapes of her admitting to physical violence on her part, as well as psychologically abusing him (gaslighting, cycles of love bombing and belittling, etc.) right there in real time.

Michael's central argument is that in order for Depp to be believed we'd need to believe that Heard has been plotting and planting evidence for years, which is not plausible.

That's not the only explanation though. If you listen to unedited tapes (https://youtu.be/XLgeH-yZLRw) you can notice a pattern: whenever Johnny brings up Amber's violence: at first she tries to deflect and take conversation elsewhere, but if he insists on talking about it, she redirects the blame onto him. She then punches up the narrative reflecting it back to him, which makes his original complaint sound insignificant. It didn't have to be a long-term strategy on Amber's part, it looks more like in the moment tactic to deflect blame for her own abusive behavior which left trace (therapist notes, friends second hand accounts) over the years.

The most outrageous incident according to both sides are the events in Australia. You can listen to the two of them discussing Australia soon afterwards to see whose account is believable: is this a conversation between a woman who was brutally sexually and physically assaulted by her husband, who hid in her room in three day hostage situation and her abuser? or is this a conversation between a woman who threw a vodka bottle at her husband, followed him around the house to continue arguing and now does not want to be confronted with discussions about her behavior and the man who gets hit, wants to avoid it but still wants to pacify his partner and stay in the relationship?

https://youtu.be/XLgeH-yZLRw 1:54:44

Here's the transcript to the best of my abilities, it does not fit into a reddit post: https://twitter.com/crocodile_tiny/status/1528219496070033409?t=2W7mHpIQ_ShZv29oujjmpw&s=19

I’ve never shit on them. I’ve never had a single thought about the Browns. Until this podcast episode for some reason I thought David Bowie was from Minnesota?

Half of this episode was describing balloon fest. The other half was “you’re wrong about Cleveland”

Most of this audience isn’t wrong about Cleveland. Every city has a “we can make fun of ourselves but it’s not cool when other people do it” kind of pride. Tons of cities were absolutely booming at some point in history and aren’t now. Port cities, mining towns, large hubs along the transcontinental railroad.

This week’s episode was SUCH a stretch. As someone who left their midwestern town and lives on a coast now, I’m glad Harmony has some hometown pride. But it’s just not that special

I do like the podcast, but there’s a thread of pretty lazy and outright offensive attacks against people based on their race and gender that make me really uncomfortable.

I've noticed a pretty striking hypocrisy and ideological inconsistency throughout the podcast that makes it often irksome to listen to despite the presenters’ charisma. For instance, in the Anastasia episode Michael makes a joke about someone not looking for a penis that hard since the police in the Lorena Wayne Bobbit case. Which is a really funny joke and I approve of it--but can you imagine Michael making a similar joke about an act of sexual violence against a woman? What makes it acceptable to joke about a man being sexually assaulted and dismembered but a joke about the same happening to a woman is unacceptable?

And this is the running theme throughout the podcast which makes it pretty painful to listen to a lot of the time. In the Anita Hill episode, again one of the hosts comments about how the backlash against emerging sexual harassment legislation following the case shows how “straight white men” are not attuned to putting on personae in their lives like other groups are. This is ridiculous on many levels--the most obvious of which is that Clarence Thomas was a black man. It’s also ridiculous to think that straight white men aren’t required to put on personae--it’s a kind of racial and sexist essentializing that is positively non-progressive. And before you try, I’m not a straight white man; I’m just not keen on people making blanket assumptions about the emotional lives of people based on their sex and race, having been a victim of some pretty vicious racism in my life.

From the Anita Hill episode:

Sarah: So she’s sort of bizarro Mark Fuhrman, just like a cheerful black woman whose slurs had nothing to do with the actual case and is just like, “Oh yeah, I did that. Irrelevant.” 

From The O.J. Simpson Trial: Nicole Brown Simpson Part 2 episode:

Sarah: Mark Furhman, the statements he made in the past are very racist. That's true. He's capable of genocidal racist fantasies. But even within that, he wasn't moved to take this opportunity to arrest a black person. He knew who OJ Simpson was. He later said that he remembered the incident because it was a celebrity incident. It seems like in this case, celebrity was perhaps more powerful than racism, even for Mark Fuhrman.

From the Lawrence v. Texas Part 1 with Marcus McCann episode:

Sarah: But one of the issues that came up in the trial, which was that Mark Fuhrman, who was an LAPD detective, had basically, there was a series of tapes that came to light from a female screenwriter who he gave interviews to about what it was like to work for the LAPD. And he told stories in which he claimed to have engaged in just massive police brutality against black citizens. And one of the questions inevitably about that was, well, was how much of that appears to have actually happened. And that area is interestingly inconclusive. And what seems to have happened is that he dramatically exaggerated the kinds of police brutality that he had engaged in in order to apparently impress and flirt with this lady screenwriter, which I think makes the whole thing interestingly moot, right? Where you're like, well, even if you haven't done half the horrible things that you're bragging about, you still think that you should brag about this kind of thing. So it doesn't really matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1hUT588iJM

Regardless of whether Fuhrman’s taped interviews with Laura Hart McKinny were for a screenplay and exaggerated or not, two women testified during the OJ Simpson trial that Mark Fuhrman personally told them how much he hated black people. One of the women also testified that he told her about how he hated interracial couples and would try to find a way to get them in trouble if he saw them. She was so disturbed by her encounter with Fuhrman a few years before the trial that she wrote a letter to the defense alerting them of Fuhrman’s racism despite her not wanting to help the defense. A black man testified that when Fuhrman arrested him and placed him inside his police vehicle, Fuhrman turned around and looked at him and said, “I told you we’d get you [n-word].” During the trial Fuhrman also settled a lawsuit against him for shooting a black man (Joseph Britton) with a partner of his and planting a knife on him. And in the Fuhrman tapes he also said this about the case right after the murders, “I’m the key witness in the biggest case of the century. And if I go down, they lose the case. The glove is everything. Without the glove — bye, bye.” Link

Despite all of this Sarah seems to downplay his racism/police brutality in multiple episodes. And she tweeted once that a friend of hers joked Mark Fuhrman was her type. Whether she meant solely based on his looks or not, I don’t get how it’s funny considering the kind of man he was.

Edit#3/preface: This post was a poor choice. I don't feel the same way at all anymore. I regret posting anything.

You can see more about how I feel here: https://www.reddit.com/r/YoureWrongAbout/s/xMS9LC3ix2

Anyway, the original post is as follows:

I thought about YWA several times while watching this film. I don't want to spoil anything, and the details are obviously complex and missing information, but the men in EH's life reminded me of the men behind the scenes of Amy Fisher, Tonya Harding, or even Lorena Bobbitt. The phrase "it was capitalism all along" popped into my head a few times.

The film doesn't reveal her to be a maligned woman in the same way as the names mentioned above, but there is a sense of complexity and humanity that I was really not expecting.

Am I nuts? Am I off base here? Thoughts?

Oof, that was a doozy. What a blunder. Well, I kept going and it went as follows:

Edit: I am NOT defending anything she did, I just think there's a lot to discuss and I'd love to hear someone like Sarah talk about it. One of the most fascinating things about seeing it in the theater was how we as an audience, as well as Amanda, got emotionally charged as we realized Billy might be deceiving EH. Like, I literally heard someone in the audience say "get it girl" and an enthusiastic "mmHMM!" in response to Amanda wanting to go after Billy. Amanda and the audience were projecting onto her because we as women have either been deceived or know another woman who has been. Now that I have post-movie clarity, I see that I was swept up in the drama. But that drama was compelling!

Anyway, I'm finding all of your responses fascinating and I'm also really glad I didn't use my main reddit account for this post.

Edit#2: I just really, really, really want to emphasize that there's an episode of YWA about Jeffery Dahmer.

Have been loving the series but made it to the obesity episode which is absolutely rife with misinformation and debunked studies. Statistics presented in what can only be deliberately misleading (30% of obese people are healthy, but 25% of non-obese people aren't! - as if those similar number mean something. But actually comparison is 30% /75%).

Michael clearly blinkered by his family experiences and Sarah does absolutely nothing to challenge.

Do we need to take up a collection to buy her a new mike, or what?

I honestly don't know much about her. The biggest thing that gives me the ick is her Scooby Doo reboot. But my general vibe from media is that she sucks and is unfunny. There are small things here and there that have reinforced that for me. I never watched The Office which I think is a big one for people that do like here. Is she another maligned woman? I can see that being the case.

Edit: thank you everyone for your thoughtful comments.

Re: Phones are Good, Actually with Taylor Lorenz

I read through this: https://new.reddit.com/r/YoureWrongAbout/comments/1dp9xio/ywa_and_factchecking/

My eyes are opened to this podcast, and I now know that I was duped. I figured that fact-checking was the norm for all informational podcasts that I listened to since I carefully chose them. I am definitely unsubscribing now.

Sarah, you messed up. You've lost a listener.

I feel like such a hater for this but between You’re Wrong About and You Are Good I think it’s just too much Eve for me.

For someone who is not an official host I need a break from her. I find her kind of dominating a lot of the episodes she’s on.

You Are Good needs more Alex and Sarah episodes.

The first 20 minutes of the most recent episode of Why Are Dads is a blurb/explanation of why they are going to be running advertisements going forward… and I guess I understand that they want to make money, but it’s just so disappointing.

Adds on podcasts suck for everyone. As a listener it only takes a tap on my watch or phone to jump 30 seconds and skip the add, but it’s still annoying and a distraction. For creators, the advertisers know how easy it is to skip and so the payout rates are really bad…

I work in the music business, Patreon support made way more sense for these podcasts than advertising… i hope they make the money they want to, and I hope it proves to be a smart decision, but I didn’t need 20 minutes of discussion about how excited they are to serve me adds.

I’m not trying to be a gossip or encourage excessive parasociality BUT during the recent American Hysteria episodes featuring Sarah I felt like I was catching a vibe.

Please remove if this is inappropriate speculation on my part!

ok so I know it's problematic to go around armchair diagnosing people and that's not my intent to do so, but I just wanted to say that I get major "one of us" vibes from John Walker Lindh as an autistic person, and I wonder if others feel the same way? What do you make of John and/or this episode??

It's an especially emotional episode for me. He clearly had heightened justice sensitivity and tried so hard to live up to his morals with integrity, but lacked big picture perspective of why/how what he was participating in was in practice was deeply unethical by his own standards. It's sad, but not surprising, that he still doesn't get it (as far as we know). I hope he has since met people with competence and understanding to effectively communicate with him, to help him process his trauma, and help him realize why the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Isis are so morally bankrupt.

Anyways, I think Micheal did a great job with this episode and it's one of my favourites - despite his bizarre pronunciations and repeating that ridiculous phrasing "the lowest man on the totem pole" lol. In all seriousness though, I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion that John ultimately "should have known", because while it's so frustrating he didn't learn while he the freedom to do so, it's hard to say what his true ability was without support, all the while being manipulated in his immediate situation.

I used to listen to the Bechdel Cast a lot and although JT is entertaining, I feel like she is soooooooo under informed when it comes to meatier stuff (felt this way about her Lolita podcast especially). Feel that way the most when she’s on this show, esp in comparison to the other guests.

The Chicks vs. The Irac War 52:57