wtfNeedSignUp
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
So was there any smoking gun with the guy? It start to sound like the usual case of a person that was at the very least smart enough not to do his degeneracy outside of Epstein island.
Dan Schneider - sick fuck, might be much worse than Weinstein
- Thread starter Jiminez261
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2021
Thanks, this is exactly the sort of thing I wanted Drake to talk about in the doc. I get why he and the producers wanted to brush it aside, but I still think hearing him talk about this would strengthen his credibility regarding Brian Peck, not weaken it.
But I guess I expected too much from a doc that alleges a joke about snot was secretly a cumshot joke.
No smoking gun of any actual pedophilia or sexual abuse. Apparently his bad attitude towards staff and his blatant fetishization of underage girls' feet was enough for Nick not to take any chances on him anymore.
furniture0
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2020
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2022
Here's the relevant part of Drake Bell's victim's statement [Bell was not charged with sexual abuse, and his lawyer denied the victim's allegation that he had engaged in such abuse.]:
This portion of my statement explains how he started grooming me when I was 12 years old. I started off as a fan of him. I was definitely one of his biggest fans. Everyone who knew me as a child knew that he was a hero to me. I would have done anything for him. When I was 11, I learned that my aunt had a mutual friend who knew the defendant. [That] led to my aunt taking me to meet him for the first time in 2014 when I was 12. I adored him and he instantly made me feel that he adored me right back. From the time I was 12 to 15, my aunt took me to meet him and spend time with him many times. After I met him for the first time, he started speaking to me more frequently online. I confided in him about very personal things about myself, including my struggle with my mental health. I went to him for advice and for someone to lean on, and he gave me that. I felt protected and loved by him. When I was 13, I went to him for boy advice. He told me that I was beautiful and that boys were stupid. He then sent me a photo of myself that he had screencapped from my Instagram, telling me that I was, quote, "Such a cutie." I took and uploaded that photo online a year earlier when I was 12 years old. He saved that photo of me onto his phone. I didn't realize how disturbing that was for many years. Later, another instance of creepy behavior happened when I was spending time with him at the age of 14.He told me that he couldn't believe how much I'd grown since he last saw me.He said that I wasn't little anymore, and I was, quote, "A woman now."
When I was 15, I noticed a huge shift regarding his treatment and attitude towards me. When I was younger, he was sweet and actually wanted to talk to me about my life. But at 15, he started sending me messages about how, quote, "Hot," I was. In the summer of 2017, I messaged him, telling him that I was going to see him in concert in the following months. He replied by telling me that he couldn't wait to see me. He also asked me, quote, "How old are you now?" I told him 15. He then told me to, quote, "Hurry up. Don't smile at me." Not too long after that, his messages to me became blatantly sexual. This eventually led to many months of inappropriate messages and photos being exchanged over Instagram and Snapchat. The photos exchange included photos of my body, and photos of his body and his genitals. In the beginning, I was excited. I thought that he really liked me and I felt that I meant something to him, but that didn't last. Back then, the last thing I wanted was to lose him. Not only because I was completely infatuated with him, but because I became scared of him. There were times where I felt really uncomfortable talking to him in such graphic sexual ways and wanting to be left alone. But I had a very hard time telling him that, because I was terrified of upsetting him. So I would make excuses. When I did, quote, "Upset him," he made me cry. If I didn't give him what he wanted, he was spiteful. It made me feel guilty. He made me feel disgusting and absolutely awful about myself. At that point, it was clear that he was the one who was in control. I felt trapped and stuck because I still idolized him. He had me wrapped around his finger. This caused a tremendous amount of stress and shame, crimes that he committed against me in Cleveland.I want to make something very clear. The reason that these particular incidents did not result any further than oral sex was because the defendant knew that I was menstruating at the time. Had I not been menstruating, then he would have raped me. [To Bell over Zoom:] Don't look at me like that! [Continuing statement:] Because he would tell me how badly he wanted to penetrate me vaginally, but use much more vulgar language. On December 1, 2017, my aunt took me to the Odeon concert club to watch him perform. That night, the defendant took me backstage to be alone with him. He started kissing me and the night ended in him having me perform oral sex on him twice. The next incident happened on December 2, 2017. While I was alone with him in his hotel room, he had talked to me about seeing me one last time before we all left Cleveland and went home. So, we went to his hotel to say goodbye in his hotel room. He started kissing me and had me perform oral sex on him again. My aunt was right outside the room waiting in the hallway while this was happening. She trusted him, and never thought that he would ever do anything to hurt me.
[...]
Since his arraignment and plea hearing, his actions have been loud and clear, and they have shown that he simply does not care, and does not have an ounce of remorse. I won't be surprised if he tries to manipulate everybody into believing that he's changed, but he can't fool me. If he is truly sorry for anything, he is sorry that he has finally been caught. I can assure you of that. He committed these crimes against me with pride, a defendant who clearly feels no remorse for his crimes deserves to be given the maximum sentence possible. I will never forget what he did to me. I idolized and looked up to him, and he took that and broke it in the most sickening way possible. He is the epitome of evil. I deserve better than to be used for his sick desires, and for my suffering to be used for his amusement. Jared Drake Bell is a pedophile, and that is his legacy. Thank you, Your Honor.
One day both Schneider and DSP are going to meet, and Steven Segal is going to join in
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2021
If Dan Schneider has the look of DSP and Steven Seagal, this guy has a look of Breckin Meyer and Spoony
a terminal posture
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2019
I really hate this documentary. The Dan Schneider stuff was known and talked about on the internet for decades but 'someone' gave the go ahead to do this documentary. Now we have this ugly turdskin cunt with stupid arm tattoos 'culture writer' as the main talking head to whine about Dan's 'sexism' and 'racism' (oh he also raped girls nbd).
Last edited:
NoonmanR
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2021
Two episodes in and this documentary kind of sucks. They don't have shit on dan schneider himself so the first episode is just entitled actors whining about how they didn't get paid what they were owed, how weird he is with feet, trying to invent innuendos, and that nickelodeon called one of them fat. Second episode has a bunch of horror stories but its prefaced by a black dude talking about how he had to get therapy because they did shit like dunk his head in a bin of beans or had a scopion goes in someone mouth, which looks silly as fuck being put RIGHT NEXT TO THE STORIES OF CHILDREN GETTING MOLESTED and a dude who is bragging about being friends with god damn John Wayne Gacy while a victim of his relates the story of what he did to them. I don't even think they're gonna touch on shit like John Krisfaluci, despite mentioning Ren and Stimpy.
Also, i wonder who THIS could be talking about...
Also, i wonder who THIS could be talking about...
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2020
Maybe it was to get their cooperation, maybe it was because they were mostly women, maybe it was because they only had the funds for 4 episodes, who knows... but the documentary pretty much ignored parental abuse and complicity in a lot of what was going on. They showed Jennette McCurdy's photo many times throughout the 4 episodes but the Dan Schneider shit is the absolute least interesting part of her story which is why her book is called "I'm Glad My Mom Died" and not "I'm Glad Dan Schneider Was Fired".
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
I just finished the first part after seeing it mentioned in Community Happenings a while back and decided to come here and read other people's comments.
I agree with everyone here about part one (which I switched to 1.5 speed on VLC after about 10 minutes); the fat bitch and and the creepy hag who bobs her head like a chicken when she talks were just bitching about money and muh discrimination and did not add to a "smoking gun" whatsoever. I had no idea who the twat with the retarded arm tattoos was until someone said she was modern journoscum, so fuck her.
The rest was mostly Z-list actors and digging for things which may or may not have been taken out of context. Reading the comments here I don't know if I really want to watch the rest. They make it look like the dyke from iCarly is a part of it when she isn't and I don't need to hear about that kid getting raped.
I have no idea if Dan is the Cancel Creep they are saying or not and I never watched any of these shows anyway. I will say the most offensive thing that fat ass did that I saw (in part one) was him claiming that nobody had ever done a sketch comedy with kids before him. Fuck you, tubs. Ever heard of "You Can't Do That on Television?"
I agree with everyone here about part one (which I switched to 1.5 speed on VLC after about 10 minutes); the fat bitch and and the creepy hag who bobs her head like a chicken when she talks were just bitching about money and muh discrimination and did not add to a "smoking gun" whatsoever. I had no idea who the twat with the retarded arm tattoos was until someone said she was modern journoscum, so fuck her.
The rest was mostly Z-list actors and digging for things which may or may not have been taken out of context. Reading the comments here I don't know if I really want to watch the rest. They make it look like the dyke from iCarly is a part of it when she isn't and I don't need to hear about that kid getting raped.
I have no idea if Dan is the Cancel Creep they are saying or not and I never watched any of these shows anyway. I will say the most offensive thing that fat ass did that I saw (in part one) was him claiming that nobody had ever done a sketch comedy with kids before him. Fuck you, tubs. Ever heard of "You Can't Do That on Television?"
Huh what?
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2024
This documentary made no mention of Bella and the Bulldogs (by far the most disturbing show aired on Nick) and they only really went after guys who were already convicted of crimes decades ago. Unfortunately, this was a very safe documentary that will change nothing in the long run.
This documentary was the same level as the John K. documentary from four years back. There were many missing important details and all and all, it comes off as biased, let alone pointless
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2019
Too lazy to see if this was mentioned already, but the cast for Ned’s Declassified School Survival Guide got into some hot water after making an immature joke regarding Quiet on Set and Dan Schneider.
Their apology video and thoughts on the TV show:
Their apology video and thoughts on the TV show:
Life is Hell...
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2020
Last edited:
Travoltron
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
This #ChangeTheChannel-tier whingefest documentary has only convinced me that Dan Schneider is probably not guilty. I'm sure he is an asshole, but so is everyone in Hollywood.
Pedowood has always been full of nepotism, which has gotten worse for years and years, and people residing or auditioning there should've known this before October 2017 when the #MeToo shit happened and when cancel culture became so much of a norm.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2022
Somebody at Viacom slipped up on burning incense on the right altars. The rant about "hiring straight white men" bit is why we hear a lot about Nickelodeon scandals and less about the Disney Channel. That's despite Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, and many other troubled household names who never worked with Dan Schneider.
The truth is much darker than any streaming documentary would ever show you.
Paramount Global, not Viacom. They've changed the name in 2022
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2021
The sexism/racism claims are distracting from the real story. The nose boy/cumshot thing is overblown. The dog/peanut butter thing is something that should've gotten more attention but was placed next to a complaint about someone being covered in earthworms (kind of seems like a given for a kid version of Fear Factor). The Amanda Show stuff isn't particularly convincing, but does give some background on Dan Schneider.
One of the more interesting things is the parents' involvement or lack there of throughout these years. You had a 20 something PA interacting with these 10 year old girls who just played random extras on one or a few episodes. Why are the parents letting a 20 year old interact with their 10 year old children? Even the "innocent emails" are weird. Why are they letting this guy into their home to let him play videogames with their daughters? The mother who was interviewed even had a parent who was aware of the shit that goes on in Hollywood and she just lets this shit fly. When there's absolute proof of the guy sending her 10 year old a photo of him masturbating, she just sits on it because she doesn't want to be the bad parent. Brian Peck shows the kids and their parents his autographed painting by John Wayne Gacy as well as all the correspondence between them. Again, where's the response? The only parent who actually seems on the ball about this stuff is Drake Bell's father. However, this could simply be that they didn't interview the normal people or the people who were unaffected.
The attempt to build a connection between the pedophiles was really poor. It really shouldn't be surprising that pedophiles are attracted to positions in which they have access to kids. Additionally, the two involved with the show are really two different flavors. Brian Peck is a homo. Homosexuals are extremely accepting of these 40 year old men attempting to fuck teenagers. It's they culture and the documentary didn't really seem like it wanted to tackle that. The attempt to throw in the random janitor at the start of the fourth is just stupid.
The letters of support written for Brian Peck are very interesting and should've been highlighted for longer. But it does contradict the thesis of of the documentary. It makes Dan Schneider look better by not defending a pedophile. The thesis really ramps up in the 4th episode. However, they're still sandwiching interesting shit (Arianna Grande videos) between weak claims. The goo-shit and the other clip (basically saying it looks like the other child actor is humping Miranda Cosgrove) where it looks like the joke is that the kid is a weakling are poor. The video of him scaring the teenager is weak. The documentary doesn't really make a good case that Dan Schneider is a pedophile. It's more like he's somewhat similar to Tarantino but likely a bigger asshole and it's less acceptable because he worked with children.
The discussion of trauma and wellness at the end is poor and feels tacked on. It's not clear to me how responsible Nick or the entertainment industry is for their issues with the exception of Drake Bell. Quite frankly, some of them are just dumb. Earlier they referred to a day in which the child-actors were separated from their parents and basically asked if they were molested (didn't use direct language, but the intent seems pretty obvious) by the legal team. The issue with this approach is that they had all these kids in the same room instead of doing it privately, but the child stars point to the lack of parents. The idea of it is to give the kid a chance to say something without fear of how the parent may react. Maybe they did it intentionally to lessen the likelihood of someone actually coming forward, maybe they wanted to avoid splitting up the group even with multiple adults.
Lastly, the documentary seems to make an attempt to defend the industry by pointing to how Schnieder quickly found himself in trouble upon coming back due to a changing culture. They don't seem to talk about the fact that the stuff he was producing was dogshit in ratings compared to his previous hits. To me, the question is as follows: If he produced something with the popularity of Drake and Josh or iCarly, would he have been allowed to stay?
One of the more interesting things is the parents' involvement or lack there of throughout these years. You had a 20 something PA interacting with these 10 year old girls who just played random extras on one or a few episodes. Why are the parents letting a 20 year old interact with their 10 year old children? Even the "innocent emails" are weird. Why are they letting this guy into their home to let him play videogames with their daughters? The mother who was interviewed even had a parent who was aware of the shit that goes on in Hollywood and she just lets this shit fly. When there's absolute proof of the guy sending her 10 year old a photo of him masturbating, she just sits on it because she doesn't want to be the bad parent. Brian Peck shows the kids and their parents his autographed painting by John Wayne Gacy as well as all the correspondence between them. Again, where's the response? The only parent who actually seems on the ball about this stuff is Drake Bell's father. However, this could simply be that they didn't interview the normal people or the people who were unaffected.
The attempt to build a connection between the pedophiles was really poor. It really shouldn't be surprising that pedophiles are attracted to positions in which they have access to kids. Additionally, the two involved with the show are really two different flavors. Brian Peck is a homo. Homosexuals are extremely accepting of these 40 year old men attempting to fuck teenagers. It's they culture and the documentary didn't really seem like it wanted to tackle that. The attempt to throw in the random janitor at the start of the fourth is just stupid.
The letters of support written for Brian Peck are very interesting and should've been highlighted for longer. But it does contradict the thesis of of the documentary. It makes Dan Schneider look better by not defending a pedophile. The thesis really ramps up in the 4th episode. However, they're still sandwiching interesting shit (Arianna Grande videos) between weak claims. The goo-shit and the other clip (basically saying it looks like the other child actor is humping Miranda Cosgrove) where it looks like the joke is that the kid is a weakling are poor. The video of him scaring the teenager is weak. The documentary doesn't really make a good case that Dan Schneider is a pedophile. It's more like he's somewhat similar to Tarantino but likely a bigger asshole and it's less acceptable because he worked with children.
The discussion of trauma and wellness at the end is poor and feels tacked on. It's not clear to me how responsible Nick or the entertainment industry is for their issues with the exception of Drake Bell. Quite frankly, some of them are just dumb. Earlier they referred to a day in which the child-actors were separated from their parents and basically asked if they were molested (didn't use direct language, but the intent seems pretty obvious) by the legal team. The issue with this approach is that they had all these kids in the same room instead of doing it privately, but the child stars point to the lack of parents. The idea of it is to give the kid a chance to say something without fear of how the parent may react. Maybe they did it intentionally to lessen the likelihood of someone actually coming forward, maybe they wanted to avoid splitting up the group even with multiple adults.
Lastly, the documentary seems to make an attempt to defend the industry by pointing to how Schnieder quickly found himself in trouble upon coming back due to a changing culture. They don't seem to talk about the fact that the stuff he was producing was dogshit in ratings compared to his previous hits. To me, the question is as follows: If he produced something with the popularity of Drake and Josh or iCarly, would he have been allowed to stay?
Last edited: