Cultcow Russell Greer / Mr. Green / @ just_some_dude_named_russell29 / A Safer Nevada PAC - Swift-Obsessed Sex Pest, Convicted of E-Stalking, "Eggshell Skull Plaintiff" Pro Se Litigant, Homeless, aspiring brothel owner

[Kosher Salt]

I can't wait for Russ' next installment of the "Why I Sued..." video series: "Why I Sued That Hooker (in under 90 seconds)"

"A little over 90 seconds (part 3)"...

 

[ScooterL]

I'm waiting for his stalker conviction

I wonder if he's smart enough to resist the urge to slander his stalking victim. Probably not.

In order to succeed in the entertainment business, you need some combination of talent, connections, money, above average looks, and luck.

He could try transing, and see if he can pick up a few sponsorships.

 

[The Dude]

I can think of a few "90 seconds" videos Russ could make that would be incredible. Feel free to add your own.

"Why I Can't Write Songs (Longer Than 90 Seconds)"
"Why I Prematurely Ejaculate (In 90 Seconds)"
"Why I Soak My Beard and Shirt With Drool (In 90 Seconds)"

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

I can think of a few "90 seconds" videos Russ could make that would be incredible. Feel free to add your own.

"Why I Can't Write Songs (Longer Than 90 Seconds)"
"Why I Prematurely Ejaculate (In 90 Seconds)"
"Why I Soak My Beard and Shirt With Drool (In 90 Seconds)"

"Why I want to make it illegal for your 18-year-old-daughter to refuse to fuck me (in more than 90 seconds)"

 

[SunburnNation]

One convincing evidence of low IQ is a lack of theory of the mind. If a person is unable to put themselves in the shoes of another, their IQ is likely below 100. A lot of criminals, particularly uneducated ones, aren't complete psychos- they simply cannot comprehend how other people feel. If you were to ask one "Well, how do you think that mother felt when she learned you murdered her son?" you'd likely get a blank stare- not out of Hannibal Lecter-esque malevolence, but because the murderer simply cannot comprehend the question. To the murderer, this question makes as much sense as asking "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

It's the same with Russell. He thinks if he can just explain his side of the story, everyone will agree with him. It literally does not occur to him that, even if he explains, someone will find it unconvincing. And he absolutely doesn't consider that it'll make him look worse in our eyes. Part of it is definitely his narcissism, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn his IQ is in the double digits. Maybe it's the way he was raised (we've theorized before that when he was a kid, his peers were obligated to accept his insincere apologies). Maybe he is evil and actively malevolent. Maybe it's just basic stupidity. Maybe it's all three. For whatever reason, he believes we're obligated to accept whatever explanation he throws out.

It's this kind of aberrant psychology that keeps me coming back to the Farms. It's just so far beyond what's considered normal. It's something that any Hollywood showrunner would dismiss as being unrealistic. And yet, it's real. We have the proof.

I.Q. isn't that much of a benchmark as everyone in the 90s thought it was. I'm sure plenty of people below triple digits would be perfectly capable of this. That said, I 100% agree that he absolutely cannot comprehend the existence of perspectives outside his own.

 

[Spunt]

Ok, this would seem to lend credence to the idea he got rejected from the law firm for his history of vexatious litigation. Again Russ, you don't get to decide what people hold against you. You sued Taylor Swift three times because of a ridiculous fantasy you had. You wrote a an entire book about it. You sued a major production company for not making the cut for AGT. Any law firm would be rightfully worried you'd use firm resources for your personal vendettas.

Not to mention that if Russ worked for your law firm, any google search of "Russell Greer" or "Russell Greer law" would return both the name of your company AND his retarded litigation history. Someone not paying attention might think that your firm was responsible for those lawsuits, and someone who *was* paying attention would notice that your firm hired a lunatic who doesn't understand the law and loses idiotic lawsuits. Not to mention a stalking conviction and a history of misogyny and creeping on women on Instagram. The harm from simply having him show up in search results for your firm could cost the firm huge amounts of money.

I hope he sues one of them and has the above explained to him in court at his own expense.

 

[AngryTreeRat]

I.Q. isn't that much of a benchmark as everyone in the 90s thought it was. I'm sure plenty of people below triple digits would be perfectly capable of this. That said, I 100% agree that he absolutely cannot comprehend the existence of perspectives outside his own.

Reminder that 100 IQ is technically a shifting benchmark and simply represents "average intelligence based on all collected scores so far", though the way it is measured is heavily affected by level of education which fucks up a lot of standardized tests and isn't really that great of a measure of intelligence to pick out exception individuals if they aren't educated to a similar level. 100 IQ is the expected result of you grabbed a random person off the street, with something like 70% of the population being between 85 and 115. Statistically speaking, about half this thread is double digits and the other half is triple digits. This is because the way it is calculated is a bit wonky and is actively manipulated to ensure the yearly average maintains that a certain bell curve exists so that outliers are easier to detect, as IQ is primarily intended to detect notable individuals, in particular it is meant to detect the intellectually disabled.

A great example of how useless it is for detecting "conventionally smart people" most scientists and engineers, even those at the top of their fields, will fall under 115. This is because it is more so resources, ambition, passion and education that allow science and engineering to progress in the modern age, not outstanding intellect. A dedicated and ambitious moron with the resources to experiment and a library to learn from is more likely to push our understanding of the universe forward and create a cool thing than a lazy pauper of a genius who never learned more than needed to get out of high school.

That said, the outliers beyond the 85-115 range are normally notable people. Many high scoring outliers are brilliant polymaths within their fields of interest mastering multiple skills, and those scoring low are a special kind of stupid, and exceptionally low is a measure for intellectual disability. Once again, IQ is actually more valuable of a tool at detecting mentally stunted individuals than detecting outstanding individuals destined for greatness.

That said, Russ is probably below 85, not too low, and probably above 70. 70 and below are generally too dumb to function in society, classified as actually disabled, while 71-85 are capable of functioning, though they tend to make frequent fools of themselves, being simply below average morons who are not disabled intellectually. I don't think Russ is intellectually disabled, just a fucking moron.

You shouldn't really have anyone 85-115 stand out as exceptional if the system is working. Your clever friend is probably no higher than 110, while you dumb ass friend who frequently fails to think things though is in the 90s. You know, the two sides of average. Russ sticks out as a special type of stupid, so he's likely below 85. I won't accuse him of sub 70 without a professionally administratored test as he's not beyond functioning in society.

Alternatively he might have a higher IQ than we give him credit for, but he psychologically disabled in a more specific way causing his issues.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

View attachment 5020959

Is this video essentially just "yes, I know I said I loved the concert and meeting her, but I wuz lying actually"? Because that's all I got from it. Like the single (possibly) important accusation (guard manhandling him) is mentioned once and never again (you know, the sole thing that might get you some sympathy?)

Also, I love how he admits that he sued her because she wasn't smiling enough at him, even though she smiled as much as with any other person she took the photo with

 

[The Great Citracett]

Is this video essentially just "yes, I know I said I loved the concert and meeting her, but I wuz lying actually"? Because that's all I got from it. Like the single (possibly) important accusation (guard manhandling him) is mentioned once and never again (you know, the sole thing that might get you some sympathy?)

Also, I love how he admits that he sued her because she wasn't smiling enough at him, even though she smiled as much as with any other person she took the photo with

And that blurry photo of the back of a bald security guard standing near the stage during the show was his "smoking gun" bombshell evidence that security had "manhandled" him backstage before said show.

 

[Drowningman]

Actually I think his Ariana photo, she has this exotic interesting look which he should be proud of but not Russ, he wanted her worshiping him because he is " so awesome ".

 

[SteveGoatman]

Actually I think his Ariana photo, she has this exotic interesting look which he should be proud of but not Russ, he wanted her worshiping him because he is " so awesome ".

Same reaction here. I know almost nothing about her beyond she's a pop singer but if you showed me this picture with no context I'd think it was exactly the same as any other meet and greet kind of thing. She's certainly pretty and is doing kind of an interesting pose/expression and she doesn't look like she's rather be anywhere else in the world and that's an amazing testament to her acting ability (seriously...how boring/exhausting does that have to be?). The idea that anyone else in the world is going to agree with him based on this picture is pure Crusty Rusty insanity.

 

[AngryTreeRat]

Same reaction here. I know almost nothing about her beyond she's a pop singer but if you showed me this picture with no context I'd think it was exactly the same as any other meet and greet kind of thing. She's certainly pretty and is doing kind of an interesting pose/expression and she doesn't look like she's rather be anywhere else in the world and that's an amazing testament to her acting ability (seriously...how boring/exhausting does that have to be?). The idea that anyone else in the world is going to agree with him based on this picture is pure Crusty Rusty insanity.

I think she used to be one of Disney's Nickelodeon's (thanks to @Massa's Little Buckie for the correction) prosti-tots so she's got a decent amount of acting experience, especially when it comes to appeasing creepy men. A perfect person for Russ to take a photo with.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

I'm waiting for his stalker conviction

If the video calls Erica "the mentally ill girl" as he has in court documents, she could ACTUALLY sue him for defamation

 

[Daddy's Little Kitten]

I think she used to be one of Disney's prosti-tots

Nickelodeon.

 

[AngryTreeRat]

Nickelodeon.

I hate remembering Nickelodeon going to shit by purging all cartoons that weren't Spongebob or Fairy Odd Parents. Still, despite that I still find it hard to associate Nickelodeon with live action, because they had good branding and even to this day lean into their legacy of things people liked while trying to hide from the stuff people didn't. Which Russ could learn from.

 

[RodgerDodger]

He could try transing, and see if he can pick up a few sponsorships.

what? Chop off him his penis? He'd never go for it.

 

[The Great Citracett]

what? Chop off him his penis? He'd never go for it.

That might lower his sex drive though...

 

[Falcon Sebben]

If the video calls Erica "the mentally ill girl" as he has in court documents, she could ACTUALLY sue him for defamation

Only if she can show that his video caused her reputation to go down. She would need to prove harm and often times that's hard to do.

But it's hypocritical of him to say that as he himself claims people have defamed him in the process and he's been unable to prove any of it.

That might lower his sex drive though...
View attachment 5029419

Actually if he got his balls chopped off that would do so. Cutting off the dick would just mean he'd have no way to deal with the desire.

But he's not understanding the article unless he's saying he has a chemical imbalance and a low sex drive? But he's one of the most sex obsessed people I've heard about. It's practically all he thinks about.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

That might lower his sex drive though...
View attachment 5029419

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/hj5bj

 

[Vibromatic Heart Bed]

Is this video essentially just "yes, I know I said I loved the concert and meeting her, but I wuz lying actually"? Because that's all I got from it. Like the single (possibly) important accusation (guard manhandling him) is mentioned once and never again (you know, the sole thing that might get you some sympathy?)

Spoiler: autistic metoo speculation

So this could be completely off base but I'm getting the vibes that he's trying to liken himself to a #MeToo sexual assault survivor. He reminds me of how a woman who has a painful/regrettable/humiliating (but consensual) sexual experience, may realize months/years later that she identifies with the label of "rape victim" or "sexual assault survivor" and then tries to seek justice or otherwise tarnish the reputation of her sexual partner. Or genuine rape situations where women "change their stories" over time as they remember new bits of information about their assault.

I get the impression that Rusty followed the #MeToo movement, noticed that these women could "pretend to enjoy something at first, but actually later realize it was assault", that they could "change" their stories and blast them from the rooftops, and be met with mass support/sympathy.

We know Russ is prone to extrapolating ideas from one situation, and inappropriately trying to make them fit into some tangentially related situation. He also hates women and loves to be the perpetual victim. So I could see him appropriating the plight of sexual assault victims:

"Yeah I took the picture with Arianna and stayed for the concert (I went to Tinder guy's apartment on a first date) because I spent all this money on tickets/suit/flowers (I got all dolled up for this date, I wanted to make a connection, I didn't want to make things awkward by saying no...) but then Arianna grimaced at me and she wasn't very friendly (my Tinder date was mean to me and the sex was traumatic). I was conflicted, but I tried to stay positive because maybe I misread Arianna, maybe she was tired (I tried to stay positive about my Tinder date, I even gaslit myself into thinking the sex was actually great! I didn't go to the police or say anything) but 3 weeks later the concert pictures were posted and my feelings were hurt (years later after I pieced together the details I realized my situation was actually coercive/rapey). The judge said that I was lying and suing Arianna for attention (people are saying I'm now lying and accusing my date of rape for attention years later). I know I said I loved the concert at the time, but I wuz lying actually, BUT THAT'S OKAY because women lie about/misremember their sexual assaults, and you give THOSE women lots of attention/sympathy/grace even though their actions seem contradictory (they had a whole movement!!)... now give that same attention and sympathy to #metoo, please and thanks!"

The whole thing requires schizo-level mental gymnastics and I'm hurting my brain trying to write this out. Hopefully I'm wrong about Russ and he wasn't actually trying to equate his contradictory behavior with the contradictory behavior of real assault victims. But he does think that dirty grimaces = discrimination, lying is okay in the "right" circumstances, and sympathy/power is the end goal. So who knows what's going on in that giant greasy noggin...