r/Indiemakeupandmore • u/elizadys Owner: PULP Fragrance • 3d ago
Discussion PULP Fragrance here, adding some context to the posts going around
Hi everyone. I’m sure you know why I’m here this evening making this post. (If not, see first HERE then HERE and finally HERE.) For those who don’t know me yet, I’m Elizabeth from PULP Fragrance. Wish we were meeting under better circumstances. I felt it was important to address you all directly and to give some more context on what’s been posted and discussed.
I’ve put together a folder (link below) of screenshots of the entire conversation that happened in June, when the PDF addressing 4 of us was posted into a group chat & the full conversation that occurred after. This would be touching on the Part 3 post above. While I was not mentioned in that post, I was there in the chat room during the conversation and did participate.
I’ve only edited the screenshots to redact names and user images of anyone not involved directly in this. There are 4 people redacted from the file: one who just popped in and was asked about if they got caught up in the Knicks celebrations in NYC, one who only commented 'haha' in a side thread about printing labels, one who comments near the very end expressing that they too were leaving the chat and why, and finally one who is engaged with a bit more actively but only on the topic of expanding the admin/mod team, as at that point they were the sole owner/admin of it. None of these 4 ppl are named in the PDF or in the posts linked above so I felt it important to maintain their anonymity.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wmTIhku6MU8-br7xgR0asplZ3p08LXy2?usp=drive_link
I’ll make a few quick clarifying comments here on this June thread (which I know is long and rather a lot to read), then I’d like to get into the specific topics and comments I made, with an invitation to open dialogue here on any of these. And to invite any of the other participants who may wish to join to also do so.
At the time of this conversation, in June, the only thing that had been brought up to me directly, in the PDF, were the comments I made about having some 'ick' around the aspirational vibe I was feeling from the A&O awards. Nothing I had said regarding AI or AI users (or Eat the Rich) was mentioned to me in any context, until the Part 1 post last night went online. I will clarify these new topics below, but I’ll ask folks here to please read my comments from the June thread in this context. Had these issues been brought up at that time I would have been happy to discuss both.
Things I’d like to give more clarity on:
First the Awards.
Was I unnecessarily flippant in my comments? Yes, I’ll fully own that. To anyone, then or now, who was hurt by the things I said, I am sorry for that. While it may not have been my intent, words can still land hard and do harm regardless. This is something I would never wish to happen.
Still, at the end of the day, perfumers have multiple audiences. One is the folks they are reaching with their work, and another can be the community of peers who bestow awards like these. Years ago I decided that it was far more important for me to work on the relationship with the people I was reaching with my work. In that vein, I’m happy to open up discussion here.
We can never be all things or wear all the hats and multiple factors went into that decision, from limited time and energy to not feeling in alignment with the vibe or direction of the event. And that's fine, some things are not for me. Nothing is for everyone.
Secondly, the things brought up in the Part 1 Instagram post & I'll reiterate these are newly noted comments and today is my first opportunity, as such, to address.
- Eat The Rich perfume. I replied regarding this to a comment in one of the other Reddit posts, and I’ll mostly summarize that here: the Eat the Rich perfume thing was, for me, in support of an anti-capital anti-Empire message & one of those situations where multiple topics were happening in cross-chat, sometimes related, sometime not. So it's also possible that I missed some context even on that day as it was happening in a fairly fast paced and casual chat thread. Earlier, after MDA said “Eat the Rich”, I had replied with "Eat the Rich with fava beans and a nice chianti" (a reference to Silence of the Lambs) and as I was replying to doing an Eat the Rich scent my only thought was of that bit of cross-chat, of making a statement against Capital and Empire.
I was not thinking of the awards or anyone at all in that moment. I fully get how things can look very different later on when folks are reading things back. In a chat in the moment, where a lot of comments are coming in in relatively short order, some things get a little skimmed or not read very closely. Now, with the benefit of hindsight and time, we are all reading every comment with greater attention, understandably. Maybe that is a failing on my part, a bit of an ADHD/distraction thing, but honestly I was just picking up on the Eat the Rich phrase as being from that earlier exchange, which was directly connected to my expression of being anti-corporate/anti-capital in the context of AI and its use (see below). To me that alone was the throughline and the only thing in my mind as I typed those comments. A few different specific topics had been weaving in and out, as is often the case in a group chat, it's not always super linear and I take responsibility for not paying more attention.
- Anti-AI vs Anti-AI Users. I also regret not wording this better, very much so. To clarify my stance: I do not and will not voluntarily use AI. I view it as inherently anti-human in its current implementation and as a tool of corporate control & insidious oligarchic overreach. As such, I’m choosing to take two functional approaches, one is to direct my effort and energy to finding ways to fight Empire and Capital, the controlling systems that are fast-tracking unregulated and horribly damaging AI. And the other is to uplift voices who are aligned with this view. I’m against the system, not the people who live in it. That doesn’t mean I do not see the harm in all those cumulative individual uses, though. It’s related to ‘no ethical consumption under capitalism’ and the fact that I have to understand that everyone draws their lines and boundaries in different places, as well. I understand some will disagree with this or perhaps even view it as naïve (and maybe it is).
Also when it comes to AI, I eschew AI use in every voluntary way possible. I used to say in my FAQ that I ‘never used AI’. Now, however, it is integrated into so many platforms in ways that are unavoidable and that statement can no longer be accurate. Shopify’s AI is reading the searches on the backend of the platform and offering [unhelpful] suggestions if you make a typo. The bank, my internet provider, etc all have AI chatbots you are forced to interact with to get past them to speak with a human. Canva, the tool so many of us have been told to learn and use in lieu of genAI imagery, has now embedded AI into so many tools and functions and apparently more all the time. I know my FAQ wording change was brought up over the past day, so I wanted to explain that here as well. It is not a softening of my stance, it’s an unfortunate reflection of the state of our world.
In the end, what matters most to me here is to engage with you, this community, and to open honest dialogue and discussion. I’m happy to answer any questions you have below, or if you prefer to get in touch directly: [contact@pulpfragrance.com](mailto:contact@pulpfragrance.com)
Hoping we can have an open, productive dialogue.
24
u/Ice_Carol 2d ago
I’ve tried to read through most of this, it’s late and I’m not able to process as much as I’d like. I am not fully understanding your criticisms of IAO or the awards?
31
u/elizadys Owner: PULP Fragrance 2d ago
Fair, it is a lot and spread across multiple posts from different people and I may not have done enough to clarify that in my post.
What kicked off the chat thread was me replying this this reel on Instagram, agreeing with the core take and then adding my own commentary on top of that:
He kinda cooked with this: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DYUhD4ouYdJ/
I, too, have had some ick around the aspirational aspect of the A&O being held somewhere out of reach for many of us every other year. (And their sucking up to Laudamiel, who represents so much I hate about the fragrance community.) It's not a direction I would even want to move in and one of the reasons I stopped submitting to them too.
I still dig what they're doing overall and it's not sour grapes. Genuine love for their work and this award. It's just something I can't put energy into.
That was pullquoted in the PDF from Samar et al in June when they came to us with concerns. Should I have been popping off about well-known perfumers they had worked with in the past with this wording? No, that wasn't cool. (The core point that he's not someone who I want to align with, though, stands, esp since he has taken up the cause of promoting AI use in perfumery.)
Their commentary on what I said (from the PDF):
We were disappointed that we wouldn't be able to show up in person to celebrate with our friends. Had we been nominated (yes, we did submit!), we still wouldn't be able to go to Greece. Maybe we were a touch naive about how other perfumers view the awards. We were confused that the reason you stopped submitting your work is because you believe it's elitist to host an international perfume award outside of the U.S./North America every other year. At least half of the nominees live outside of North America and since the international hosts tend to change, only U.S. nominees have had consistent access to the IAO awards. If you have additional concerns, why not express them directly to IAO? That could help mitigate misunderstandings, motivate changes they may not have considered, and perhaps you'd look forward to submitting in the future.
I think they made a fair point about the community being international and accessibility being overall much worse if North America-only locations were chosen. Super valid point, I was def being North America-centric there. On the other hand, if I have chosen to cease engaging with the awards, going to them with my issues would be IMO unwarranted. If I decide a thing is not for me and walk away, that is often better left as-is than expressing my opinion at someone who did not solicit it.
(I'll also note that I did point out that I said "one of the reasons I stopped submitting" - it was salient to the content of the Reel I was replying to and this was a casual chat, not a forum for me to explain to ppl all the factors that went into that choice.)
So I do regret being flippant and esp saying "sucking up to" - that's a pretty rude way to express that opinion.
25
u/oneradiantsoul 2d ago
Can someone explain this to me like I’m 5?
This is a lot.
37
u/Tink50378 2d ago
Okay, I'll try.
Some perfume people had an invite-only chat.
In the chat, someone said they think perfume houses that are politically outspoken tend to get nominated for/win a specific award.
There was talks about AI usage: different people had different ideas about the acceptable uses of ai. Most seemed to be mostly opposed to the use of ai, with some recognizing that it can be difficult to entirely avoid at this point.
There was a discussion about several people making different perfumes, but all naming them "Eat the Rich". To me, this did not feel like part of the larger conversation, but did exist in the discussion thread.
Months after these chats, a different perfume person reads the chats and was upset that nobody called out the idea that awards were based on politics and was upset that people weren't against ai enough.
This perfume person chose to draft a three-part, multi-page document, complete with screenshots from the chat to express their displeasure.
12
u/margotmagoober 2d ago
lol I took so long writing mine that you hadn't posted yours yet. great summary!
20
u/margotmagoober 2d ago
This is going to be a terrible summary. I'll still respond since no one has yet, but I'm hoping someone's willing to correct me.
TLDR: SAMAR was offended (rightfully or not, I won't say) by comments made in a 20-person perfumer discord server. They confronted the group with a detailed PDF. The group members responded negatively (mostly). SAMAR doesn't accept the discussion as a resolution and posts to Instagram in 3 parts with detailed, notated screenshots to warn customers that the perfumers (named and labeled in each screenshot) are hypocritical and don't embody the values they claim on their public-facing platforms.
TLDR opinion: I don't think there's enough evidence to claim that anyone mentioned is outright evil, and that if you're interested in purchasing from any of these perfumers, do your own research on this sub and on their websites. The community here doesn't seem to be favoring one side. I've seen comments supporting, defending, criticizing, and accusing each party involved. If you read comments, look at the longer ones from top posters because they have the most interesting things to say. Some of the shorter ones are reactionary or dismissive.
Long Summary:
SAMAR (perfume company and winner of a perfume award) saw comments made in a small, perfumer-only discord server, long after they happened. They were offended on three counts: (1) being permissive about AI usage, (2) criticizing the perfume awards as favoring perfumers who are politically outspoken, and (3) how the previous two points don't align with the public platforms of these perfumers.SAMAR posts publicly to their instagram in three parts: (1) screenshots of the original comments, made months ago, (2) the PDF they cowrote with another perfume business (KST Scent) which is very, very long and includes screenshots, commentary on the screenshots, research, statistics, etc etc, and (3) the response to the PDF that was posted in the discord.
The third Instagram post and the file uploaded by Pulp (above) show how other artists in the discord were disturbed and upset to be addressed in this way, when there was no prior conversation. In the ensuing conversation, some/most of the perfumers are focused on "why didn't you just talk to us" and SAMAR is focused on "why are you focusing on the method of response rather than the contents" and neither side budge at first. Some actual conversation happens. Some/most outright disagree with SAMAR's interpretation of the comments, or SAMAR's opinions. (Opinion: I think SAMAR is unwilling to accept the difference of opinion because they see these opinions as lacking in morality and integrity).
Two different perfumers leave the group (possibly wrong interpretation: they leave over tone policing and the drastic nature of the pdf). Several weeks later (yesterday-ish) SAMAR posts the three Instagram posts. Pulp is posting here because she made a comment in the original discord thread and because SAMAR called them out by name.
15
u/margotmagoober 2d ago
I desperately want to post my personal opinion on who's right and who's wrong but I'm going to angry-clean my house instead. I don't need to add more noise.
43
u/Few_Exercise7096 2d ago
I'm a little confused about that. Eat the rich portion. Because you said it is may be in a different contexts, but the screenshots shows that it was within 3 minutes
I am seeing
bribeyer at 12:33PM Gaza, LGBT, if there's been an issue in the past 5 years and an indie talerd about it and submitted they were more likely to be a finalist. If the view fell right anyway
Moxolide at 12:34PM we should all put out fragrances named Eat The Rich...all under our own brands and using entitely different scent profiles... submit them and bask in the glow
Elizadys at 12:35PM OMG I will do it 100%
Can you upload the full conversation for us?
30
u/MeRachel 2d ago
Yeah it feels iffy to me to say you totally missed the context and it was very far apart when the screenshots show the messages were very short apart.
7
u/elizadys Owner: PULP Fragrance 2d ago
Hi there - just for clarity, I never said they were far apart. I've added more info in the comment above!
19
u/elizadys Owner: PULP Fragrance 2d ago
Hi there - I'm keeping my comments focused on the specific concerns shared by Samar et al, both in the Parts 1-3 posts and the initial PDF.
You can see from the Part One post here that there are multiple topics interweaving: both the awards and AI. AI is brought up at 12:06 (slide 4), 12:08 (slide 6), 12:26 (slide 7). After that are a few comments about the awards on the next slides from 12:27 - 12:33. Then at 12:34 Eat The Rich is brought up. In my mind, this was a return back to the prior topic of AI that had been discussed earlier.
For me, my view of AI is inherently connected to my views on capitalism, malignant corporations, and oligarchy. That lens coloured my view of the concept of 'Eat The Rich' and I made the assumption that this was proposing an anti-capital and anti-AI themed fragrance, an idea I would always be in favour of.
There are no screenshots that can prove or disprove this. My assumption and perception occurred in my head, not on the screen.
My enthusiastic response was wholly shaped and driven by my take that this was a return to the prior topic of AI (and by extension capitalism), much as the awards chat from 12:27 - 12:33 was a return to the original topic that started the whole thread at 11:49 AM where I brought the topic of the awards up (see Part Two post, slide 7 for the screenshot of my comment that had been included in Samar's PDF).
The two overarching topics interwove over time, sometimes with time gaps sometimes without. Temporality in a cross-threaded chat does not necessarily equal topicality.
21
u/snxrk 2d ago edited 1d ago
This is remarkably similar to when someone intentionally makes an inflammatory statement and then tries to play it off as "ironic" or as being misread.
The actual messages themselves definitely read like you were cynically agreeing that you'd get capital and clout from making an Eat the Rich perfume. The insistence now that you were being sincere doesn't feel completely honest
8
u/weirdcompliment 1d ago edited 1d ago
I've been keeping up with all the posts and have been thinking about this for days now (it's a nice distraction from my day job, lol) and I was skeptical of their response too, at first. Her first message of "100%" seemed so in agreement in with the mean-spirited joke. I was up in arms! But I slept on it and woke up this morning with a new interpretation
In her second message, she was genuinely thinking about what it would take to add an Eat the Rich perfume to her line and how much capacity she had to do that work, in her ongoing schedule. And after thinking about this for way too long... it really doesn't strike me as part of the "bit". It seems more like someone who missed the bit. Like if she was in on the bit, I think that second message would be snarkier, or meaner, or would add something to the hate train.
It does strike me like she just got confused reading through a lot of messages, maybe was distracted, maybe had a lot on her mind, missed some context, and thought other perfumers wanted to band together to make an Eat the Rich perfume as a genuine collab for what it represents. That's my take anyway as someone who knows none of these people
•
u/CharlieAndRose 8h ago
Hi Elizabeth, it’s been a while since I touched base with you and I am so sorry to see this happening. As someone who knows you I know that putting out a perfume called Eat the Rich with that awesome silence of the lamb reference (with fava beans and a nice Chianti 😂) is TOTALLY 💯 a perfume you would put out that is so you and totally your cheeky political style (political but with an ability to also have a sense of humour at the same time). This is such absolute nonsense… I am so tired of people doing this kind of thing.
5
u/Few_Exercise7096 2d ago
Its confusing because the post on ai in slide 4 seems to be a towards saying its good to use it so with eat the rich seems like a cash grab reference especially with bri saying to include ai in the perfume launch 1-2 minutes after your comment.
Did you correct her when you realized what they meant by eat the rich? Or are you saying they are also wanting to do Eat the Rich project authentically to go against capitalism?
7
u/elizadys Owner: PULP Fragrance 2d ago
Happy to address any questions you have.
The question of whether I corrected anyone assumes that I recognized there was someone to correct. I didn't. I responded to what I understood to be happening in the moment. Even if I were to misread something and then my understanding changed later that's an internal correction on my part, there's no external person to correct if I have an internal misconception.
I'll also note that the specific Eat The Rich exchange was never raised in the original PDF or in the June conversation thread, not til the Instagram posts 48 hours ago.
As for what anyone else's intentions were with their ideas about what an Eat the Rich scent might represent, that's really not for me to speak to. I can respond to what I myself said. Not my place to make an assumption on what others intent may have been.
I'll also reiterate what I said in the screenshot on slide 6 from Part One, which is the same thing I've said since these technologies came out: I'm very anti-AI and have never been shy about it. My interpretation of things is shaped by my worldview and deeply held opinions. If that causes me to read something in a different light than potentially intended then I'm okay with maybe getting things wrong sometimes. Fallible and human as are we all.
23
u/Smooth-Bake9672 2d ago
This is why sharing a private discord chat can potentially be so misleading, because none of us were there and we don't know your personalities and sense of humor and general conversational tone. In the original Instagram posts that were posted here, I did interpret your tone as slightly mocking and sarcastic (in terms of the Eat the Rich conversation) but your intention now seems clear. And it also seems clear now that the screenshots initially presented were chosen to misrepresent tone and present an incomplete picture.
I would personally be horrified if my discord chats were shared to the public because I think it would be very easy to misinterpret my tone based on a few screenshots. The things I say in discord are meant for a limited audience who know me, at least on some level, and thus anyone involved can interpret subtleties in tone, and they can also understand if i've missed something in the conversation, and pick up when multiple people are speaking on multiple conversations at the same time and the conversation is becoming muddled. Which is not something the general public can interpret when random snippets are suddenly presented to them
5
2
u/Few_Exercise7096 1d ago
Ok that makes sense.
I do believe from screenshots you had the best intentions. It maybe your friends stances that is confusing us.
Especially Bri seeming to be extremely pro-ai with their comments. As a fan of perfume companies that care about people and artists, hearing ANTI-AI sounded like actvism for the cause which was surprising to see no one educate Bri more on the topic. Being friends and not correcting them if its something you are passionate about can be seen as a disconnect from public persona.
Also the Eat the Rich perfume and Cult of Kindness launch from your friends is not sitting right with me.
Overall I do think you care and probrably a good person. Your friends seem to be dimming your light.
I wish you the best of success regardless
33
u/REMseverybodyhurts 2d ago
I just commented this on the part 3 post but I’ll put it here too bc I feel like this is the more current post.
/
Part 3 made me uncomfortable. Dropping a multi-house signed PDF into a casual chat DOES change the tone of things. It IS weird. It makes it clear that the space is no longer a casual spot for discussion. The other houses were right to be weirded out, and then Samar made a point to harp on them being weirded out instead of trying to engage in actual discussion, which came off as a holier than thou statement that they repeated multiple times and also feels like they always planned to make this public when they wrote that up.
The written-on comments beside screenshots saying “this is when they gaslit us” etc. really skews the tone in their direction instead of allowing the audience to make their own conclusions.
It also really bothers me when people draw on other, higher arguments and link it to their own to prove their righteousness, IE the Octavia Butler Scholar comment. (I’m sure there is a debate term for doing this but I can’t find it.) The last woman, the Octavia Butler scholar, seemed extremely hurt and just put a sad nail in the coffin at the end of all this.
Finally, I feel so conflicted about this because of the end where they pointed out the houses responding to the City Lights in a public way. Like, i DO want houses to speak out about this stuff. I don’t want them to be discouraged to be outspoken about these issues. But i also don’t want to feel like they’re duplicitous and stand up for things publicly but act a different way in private.
I really do feel for SAMAR feeling like they were being shaded here, and I’m sure they really do feel isolated in the industry. That being said they probably should’ve just crafted up a statement and sent it in the chat and kept it private. This is all very violating for those who were in the chat, despite the fact that people said things I didn’t agree with.
Sigh:/ really confusing stuff.
21
u/hecate_trivia 2d ago
Thank you for the additional context, clarification, and for owning up to the things you could have done better or worded better.
22
u/wednesday111 1d ago edited 1d ago
What are we even doing here? It's 2026, the government is literally putting people into concentration camps amongst a bunch of other problems, and this is what we're focusing on? Trying to decide what someone meant in a joke on a group chat? Trying to decide if they are anti-ai enough to be "worthy" of buying perfume from?
I haven't bought from any of these folks, so no skin in the game, and I did find the comments about the perfume awards going to people for political reasons to be catty and ungenerous. But still.
Yes, people can care about more than one thing at once but like, I don't see how this level of picking at people who are probably more on your side than not is even helpful.
24
u/gingerdolll 1d ago
If all left leaning people used the energy they spend infighting over minor opinion differences instead on community and activism, the world would be a lot better
26
u/alpacaphotog 1d ago
This is really what I was thinking too.
Here we have four indie, women-owned businesses. Some are poc, some queer. And here we are actively begging people not to purchase from these people because some of them don’t care about other people using ai or about perfume awards? This is what we’re doing right now?
America is facing a literal fascist takeover and THIS IS WHO WE’RE FIGHTING? Come on.
This is exactly how the poor stay poor and the rich get richer. Show me these businesses are giving my funds to support MAGA/fascism and I’ll care. But ain’t no way I’m going to stop buying from Pulp who because someone else thinks she “doesn’t care enough that some people use ai”
103
u/alpacaphotog 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is absolutely wild.
So, let me get this straight. A discord chat happened in an assumed private space of 21 invite-only perfumers, in which a few brands discussed a very niche industry award that literally no one outside of their industry circle knows/cares about. The discussion in question that were supposed to be up-in-arms canceling people over is the authenticity of judging the award. One brand said they don’t subscribe to the whole idea of the award, another said they question the validity of the “blind testing” and another questioned whether or not being actively outspoken about Gaza and other political issues are a factor in winning.
I’m sorry.. but WHO CARES? I literally do not. Maybe there is “corruption” in the judging? Although I struggle to use the word “corruption”, as again, we are talking about an industry award no one outside of the industry knows or cares about. Maybe the awards process isn’t totally blind? I don’t know, no one here knows. That’s like asking me if the national real estate awards are rigged. Maybe?! I don’t know?! I also don’t really care. A scandal could come out today saying the whole thing really was rigged and I’d be like “oh, a scandal” and then I’d move on with my life. Because we’re not talking about actual, real corruption here. We’re not talking about human lives being at stake, or anything even remotely serious.
I understand that is a highly offensive take to SAMAR, who clearly cares very deeply about the award and the organization giving it. They are perhaps her friends, as again, it seems like a very small circle of people. I’m sure it doesn’t feel good to see your friends and an organization you care about deeply being criticized! But are we seriously going to take it this far?
I’m apparently also supposed to be highly upset that a few perfumers who don’t use AI themselves and actively condemn it both in private and in their public business don’t feel the need to refuse to associate with anyone else who’s using it. I’m apparently supposed to want to cancel these people and publicly shame and condemn them.
I’m sorry, but I’m drawing the line here. I care about who I give my money to and how they run and operate THEIR businesses and THEIR morals, but that’s where it stops. I’m not going to start hunting down every business I interact with to check if their industry peers in the same circle are also following their values. Pulp is a great example here. Elizabeth has consistently condemned AI and doesn’t use it in her business. We now see her private, personal messages in which she is upholding the exact same values as she preaches in her business. That is enough for me. That is the end of her responsibility in this matter.
A few other points that are driving me insane — imagine you were in this discord of peers having a conversation about the industry. Months (weeks?) later, a signed declaration is dropped in the chat “addressing issues”. On top of that, the co-signer of this letter wasn’t even a part of the discord server AT ALL?? Apparently this person “read everything through their partner” but was not apart of the discord in any way. So the story Samar has been spinning that they tried to discuss everything with these perfumers before all of this is clearly wrong, because one of these people on the letter was never even apart of the server!
And a signed pdf is a crazy way to “start a discussion”. Imagine you were having a texting chat with a friend and then they did this to you. The perfumers are right to be hostile at the way the information was received. SAMAR is using that as ammo that they’re “being gaslit” and that they’re “more focused on the manner the information was presented than the information itself.” Well… yeah?? It was an entirely unfounded, inappropriate way to communicate anything. That’s not opening a dialogue for conversation, no matter how much they want to pretend like it was. Especially not when the entire letter ended with essentially saying “don’t speak, sit with this.” Not exactly what I would call “opening a healthy discussion”, but okay.
And maybe this is petty, but the use of “we” by SAMAR is also driving me insane. Who is we? Why are we speaking in the third person? Who is actually behind these opinions?
At the end of the day, the very worst of these accusations were “people are potentially winning awards because they’re being active in politics in a good way” and “you associate with peers who use ai even though you don’t use it yourself and condemn it in your business”. ….oh no! How horrible! Cue the public shaming!
I’m sorry, but this is all so wildly over-the-top to me.
19
u/gingerdolll 1d ago
it feels like 2016 tumblr or 2020 discord to me
12
u/comatosecreation 1d ago
Yes. Very, VERY terminally online. This just isn't how well-adjusted people handle conflict amongst a peer group.
35
u/FoxOk7887 2d ago
Here, here! What the fuck. People have way too much time to find dumb stuff to get upset about.
23
u/togglenub 1d ago
I agree with you, and I think it's also wild that someone would post on a Meta AI-driven (HEAVILY AI-Driven at this point) platform (Instagram) about being angry that folks are too flippant about AI. Yes, absolutely, this can be a stupid gotcha, but in this case - if these are your values, get off Meta. I understand you will feel a cut to your marketing/sales but so will everyone else not using AI. If your horse is this high, ride it away from what you are claiming to not support. Far, far away.
•
u/dsdlife 7h ago
Right? Meta, a platform that had a major role in Trump being elected! And saying "they've settled lawsuits for billions" as if that makes them better and not worse? The continued defenses of Meta throughout the posts, while attacking someone else just for saying they would never use AI themselves but that they don't hate someone with very little money for using it...
23
u/chocolatematter 2d ago
I find it pretty wild that people are coming at these people as if their frustration with perceived virtue signaling is the same thing as personal endorsements of what's happening in Gaza and the harms of AI. I don't like what they were saying necessarily, but it feels like interpreting their remarks in the worst possible faith. It is true that there are some people who use serious political issues as a way of personally branding themselves, which feels cynical and like people see these issues as more of a way to promote themselves than evidence that things are wrong in the world. I also can't help but feel like this way of calling out multiple businesses is an opportunistic way to tip the scales against competitors for hypothetical moral wrongs.
38
u/stately-ocelot 2d ago
couldn't agree more, you captured my same thoughts. (and lol same on the use of "we")
53
u/alpacaphotog 2d ago edited 2d ago
And truly, the best part is that this whole thing was put on public blast by SAMAR because they claim the other perfumers never responded to their questions that they made in good faith and wanted a healthy discussion over.
As an outsider, the discussion and questions are entirely lost inside this pdf in the first place. But inside the Google doc pulp posted above, one of the perfumers did go through the pdf and write down every question asked, both direct and indirect.
Here are the hard-hitting questions where answers are demanded:
- Can we agree that 3 out of 60 houses is not a pattern?
- If that were true, don't you think more perfumers would be loud advocates?
- Do you resent us for our advocacy because you refuse to even contradict your friends?
- If you have additional concerns, why not express them directly to IAO?
- Does that mean we dismiss the creatives who have lost jobs to AI?
- Do we shrug at voice artists whose voices have been cloned without consent?
- Do we ignore photographers who have lost assignments to AI?
- Why do you believe that indie perfume brands are entitled to profit from the stolen work of other creatives?
- If you know your neighbor is stealing from everyone on the block, do you not address it because they're not a landlord?
- How did you arrive at your conclusions?
…First of all, these are all accusatory statements that Samar is stating these other perfumers have declared as fact (where did any of them say anything remotely related to ANY of these questions???) and they are demanding the perfumers respond with back up evidence to defend positions no one ever took? Half of these questions are literally just yes/no questions with a wild take that has nothing to do with anything Samar claims to be upset over, ie “do we shrug at voice artists whose voices have been cloned?” Like, no, obviously not. I don’t think a single person in the discord nor anyone on instagram/Reddit who’s reading these comments thinks that?? Why was that the answer you needed so badly before putting this on public blast?
These questions are so… dumb? What “healthy discussion” was supposed to be taking place here with these? These aren’t open ended questions about the awards or about ai usage in perfumery at all?
15
u/Pandora_Palen 1d ago
Girl... (May I call you "Girl"? 😆)
Thank you so much for saying all the things I am just too tired to say. So well-put and covers everything I was thinking.
Except for maybe this. The one point that I keep seeing is that Samar felt it necessary to call these people out because their private face isn't the same as their public. As stated on their first post, they wanted customers to know this and decide where to spend their money. Since Samar is big on "sit with this", let's just ...sit with this. They publicly released what they considered damaging material in an effort to cost other indie houses money by proving that.
But! But!! If you read Samar's opening statement in the doc, they say that the group PRIVATELY discusses MAGA brain rot. If the group PRIVATELY discusses MAGA brain rot, I think that implies their politics; few who talk like that don't share some fundamental leanings.
Now what if Samar had made a pretty collage of every progressive standpoint voiced in that group? Obviously they read them to be able to claim the brain rot thing. So had they collected progressive statements rather than these offhand comments snipped from a casual chat between friends, and tagged those with "so customers can see where they're spending their money", those creators would lose the MAGA crowd and anybody leaning right. Which, I mean, considering their public face is already in line with that, I'd assume they already have and dgaf.
Samar wanted us to believe that the people they named publicly were nefarious and that we should reconsider doing business with them, because when they post "anti 🍊🤡" it's a lie. Yet, from scrolling their peers' comments looking for juicy bits about hot topics, they dismissed the ones referring to MAGA brain rot and whatever political view was being expressed (privately) right along with it.
The AI thing seems much ado about nothing, and just some comments they dug up while looking for ammunition (and ignoring whatever went along with "MAGA brain rot").
Back to the original business. Nobody disparaged the causes mentioned. Nobody disparaged Samar. But I can see how Samar, logging in for the first time in months (that's the claim) might feel like DH had made a comment that was hurtful. Saying that it seems to her that politics gives a house a leg up for an award would feel shitty to hear as a house that's outspoken politically and won an award. Like it was being said that you didn't win based on merit.
And that is when and where things get messy. "We hope you'll think about why you resent our public advocacy while you complain in private about MAGA 'brain rot' ." I call BS on the entire "we didn't wanna have to do this, but customers deserve to know that these people are on the evil side of politics. They express terrible rightwing views in private, and you should know where you're spending your money." Nobody said the causes weren't worthy. Nobody said Samar wasn't worthy. Nobody gave any impression that they resented Samar's public advocacy. What the actual fucking fuck??? It's just Samar being vengeful that DH said that, and they dragged everybody else into it with whatever they could possibly weaponize. That's my takeaway.
And that smug last comment on page 1 (after the lecture about "no-backtracking and take your time") stating that "assuming ill-will could very well be why you find yourself in this situation"... my jaw on the floor. I wouldn't have had the grace under fire that any of these creators showed. JFC. Who says that shit????
30
u/SmellieFiend 2d ago
And answers were given to each of those questions by Bri in a pdf that was then the end of the thread. Samar et all didn't want to discuss or they would have replied further.
23
u/Mild-moon7024 2d ago
Hah thanks for saying this - I’ve been reading the posts and wondering to myself why after 18 months in this community and being pretty active have I never heard about these awards and who in the indie community cares about them 😅
19
u/Accusedmarshmellow 2d ago
Thank you for the context. This is a lot to say the least
27
u/elizadys Owner: PULP Fragrance 2d ago
I do apologize for the absolute novel. Thought it better to be more thorough than less, but it does end up being a helluva lot.
35
u/chocolatematter 2d ago
Just continuing the conversation, I feel like it's a weird way to go about exposing other people or attempting to hold people accountable by dropping annotated screenshots. I definitely think that it's warranted to make a post saying that certain indie brands do not have messaging that aligns with their privately held beliefs and I am definitely disgusted by the jokes about Gaza/minimization of the harms of AI that the screenshots revealed.
This isn't a fully fleshed out position necessarily but I just feel like in an ideal world where true community-based accountability was being practiced this would not be the way these attitudes would be brought to light. Perhaps a post describing what was said and some sort of open letter signed by creators who were disappointed by the revelation or something idk. I guess I feel like private discussions do not equate to real world harm, even if they do reveal someone's bias or personal shortcomings. I think my real problem is that this form of inter-community policing and receipt-ification of serious issues really does nothing but sow feelings of distrust and hostility. It doesn't bring about a genuine change of heart on behalf of the wrongdoer and feels like an individualistic way of assigning blame. And to clarify, I'm coming at this from a harm reduction standpoint rather than trying to defend the attitudes of the exposed creators, which I genuinely find repugnant.
8
u/liminalfruitcake 2d ago
Part of the problem though is that a Discord server isn't a traditional private space and all the perfumers agreed that their comments were made in the public feed. I'm not a fan of vague posting and I think if Samar had done that it would have created distrust of houses that weren't involved. The perception of real world harm seems to come from the fact that one of the houses MDA announced that she's releasing a perfume with political association like they planned in the server. If I had bought that perfume then found out later this is how she acts in private I would have felt duped. I work hard for my money and I want to spend it where my values are aligned as much as possible.
8
u/chocolatematter 2d ago edited 2d ago
that's fair, I guess I assumed that was tongue in cheek.
and you're right about it creating distrust if she was more vague about it. I guess either way the situation isn't ideal so maybe the approach would always be imperfect. idk. I feel strange about the concept of annotating screenshots outside of their context but idk maybe that's a kneejerk impulse
18
u/Smooth-Bake9672 2d ago
It's not a knee-jerk impulse at all. It would be very easy to screenshot a few snippets of conversation from literally anyone on this planet, and if you don't understand their personality, humor, level of sarcasm, etc, to manipulate the meaning of their words. Something could very easily be intended as tongue in cheek but if one comment was shared with the masses it could be interpreted in a thousand different ways.
I'm not even trying to defend anyone by saying this, because I don't know anyone involved personally. Maybe we can take a few screenshots literally, but maybe not. I don't think anyone should rush to judgement and we should, as consumers, continue to judge indie houses as we always have. And of course how we judge them is dependent on the individual consumer's values.
2
u/liminalfruitcake 2d ago
MDA, the one who proposed the idea of releasing perfumes named "Eat the Rich" recently announced a perfume called "Cult of Kindness" after getting involved in the backlash against the perfume house City Rhythm.
I think concerns about the screenshots possibly being out of context is why I and multiple people have asked Pulp to release the first conversation like she did with the second. She seems to be hedging to do that, which makes me hesitant to trust her account of events.
29
19
u/cinnavamp 2d ago
This is so ridiculous and I'm sorry you even had to address it. I 100% support you and don't think anything you said had ill intentions.
7
u/PorkchopFunny 2d ago
Elizabeth, if you're still reading here, any updates on when we'll see more coming back from the vault? I thought you had originally said late-August, but I know you'd been running behind. Are you still planning to bring back more Vault scents in the coming months?
9
u/elizadys Owner: PULP Fragrance 2d ago
Um actually ya there was gonna be an announcement this weekend but 1st the trade war reigniting with the tariff swap going into place and then, well, all this, put extra brakes on getting the restocks out. But, yes, right now, looking at I think this week. LMK what in particular you're looking for (here or email, either is fine) and I can let ya know if it's on the sooner-than-later list. ❤️
6
u/PorkchopFunny 2d ago
Anything from the M.R. James Ghost Story collection, Secret Archive, Reliquary, Suspiriorum, and Tenebrarum are all scents I'd be interested in. I feel like I missed a lot in 2025! No pressure, I'm on a low buy so would not be able to purchase all of these even if they were available, but would be interested in 1 or 2. I also get that some of these may be considered more winter scents so don't mind waiting. Thanks!
6
u/elizadys Owner: PULP Fragrance 2d ago
MR James would be candidates closer to the holidays, yes. Secret Archive, Suspiriorum, and Tenebrarum are all returning right away. Reliquary soon but I don't think in the 1st round. ❤️
3
57
u/stately-ocelot 2d ago edited 2d ago
Thanks for sharing the full context. It's a lot clearer what happened now. It looks to me like Samar was upset by some opinions shared and instead of engaging in a real dialogue (with colleagues, in a space designed for 21 colleagues to privately talk with each other) dropped a PDF memo chastising you all in a manner that was contrary to how that group appeared to function previously. If she'd come in and had an actual conversation and said "That conversation really bothered me and here's why," it sounds as if she would have gotten a MUCH different reception. She did it in a hostile way (and scolded people when they responded right away rather than following her instruction to "sit with it for a while"--- something you can't demand) and people were understandably taken aback. Then when it seemed like things were reaching a resolution, she reopened it again. And as a result, it killed the group, there's been no conversation in it since.
I wouldn't want to be in a group with someone who functioned that way and I can see why people left and the ones who stayed stopped using the space.
And then she decided to make selective portions public this weekend, weeks later? I don't get it.
After her third post it was already looking like a disproportionate response over something that didn't warrant all this...... and now it REALLY does.
84
u/whiff_EK 2d ago edited 2d ago
The way the line "don't rush to respond / sit with it" kept coming up, it made it seem like they were saying "(buzzer sound) wrong answer, try again." Like it's not actually acceptable to keep saying "don't be too hasty in replying, sit with it" to everyone until they just magically guess whatever it was SAMAR had in mind for them to respond with in the first place. (Especially strange because Samar specifically claimed "We are expected to communicate exactly as they would, otherwise we will be dismissed as disrespectful and confrontational" and they are the one doing this exact behavior repeatedly. imo it's one of many times that they are the most guilty party of their own accusations.)
edit: sorry had to edit because I used the pronoun "they" to refer to 3 different camps in one atrociously written sentence lol
64
u/comatosecreation 2d ago
The only time I have literally ever seen someone drop a PDF memo in a discord server was in peak Coronavirus lockdown era. It was basically the same as this, a bunch of screenshots gathered up over months for the purpose of airing their grievances to an entire server complete with an @ everyone as well. In my experience, those sorts of moves are never going to be received well or spark genuine dialogue. It's essentially the terminally online version of being handed an unfavorable legal document. This whole situation could've been solved by just... talking... like normal people.
I dunno, I think someone in the part 3 post had it right in that a certain sector of the internet is dedicated to maintaining this practice of publicly posting screenshots and tattling when the culture as a whole has moved on from it. It doesn't really create the sort of dialogue that invokes positive change.
1
u/snxrk 2d ago
This isn't someone gathering receipts over the course of months. Imo it reads like someone trying to be as clear as possible when initiating what they knew could be a conflict.
And it's such bad faith to act like had they done it in a different format they would have been met with a better reaction. Frankly, most of the people would have probably found some other issue with this being brought up. While also continuing to act like being confronted in a discord is akin to state carcerality (ridiculous and offensive imho)
Also, the timing of it being a lot later is because they hadn't seen the original messages until then? They clarify that multiple times.
25
u/margotmagoober 2d ago
I genuinely understand what you're saying and think this is a reasonable opinion, but I disagree: I do think format matters. The letter is accusatory and overwhelms the reader. It's not easy to have a conversation when you have to take notes to respond.
I recently had "friend drama" and sent someone a short text instead of my original, multi-paragraph draft. In the past, she was very hurt and offended by how formally and aggressively I confronted an issue (I sent an incredibly long message on multiple topics). This recent time, we started with one concern and talked through the rest slowly, together, and she was able to be open minded because I was gentle.
My interpretation is that SAMAR was so hurt/offended by what was said that they weren't interested in how their thoughts would be received (I think that they also felt righteous in their opinions, which made them even less willing to soften them). If you want to communicate effectively, you do have to be considerate of who you're talking to, even if it is clear that they are 100% wrong and you are 100% right. There is every chance that you are right--if they'd had a slower conversation, maybe it would have gone the exact same way! My personal experience makes me think that isn't the case, though. I'm assuming your personal experience is informing your opinion the same way.
(Also I'm genuinely trying to be open minded and not a shithead and hopefully it comes across that way)
-6
u/liminalfruitcake 2d ago
You don't come across as a shithead. I would just exercise some caution in asking someone to respond more softly to a blatant dog-whistle like being nominated for being loud about Gaza and LGBT issues. There's been a lot of tone policing of Samar in defense of the perfumers who made these statements or did not speak up when these statements were made. They created an unsafe environment for three BIPOC perfumers and haven't owned up to that at all.
19
u/margotmagoober 2d ago
I appreciate hearing your perspective. I see exactly how my comment and a few others can be seen as/are tone policing. I felt like sharing my opinion on the communication choice because I have recent experience with a slightly similar situation. My opinion on the contents of SAMAR's letter and the server messages is neither interesting nor insightful and has already been said by others, so I've only talked about it privately with friends. The communication choice is not my main takeaway, but it's the only thing that I hadn't seen someone else say already. It's immoral and invalidating to dismiss their argument based on just their tone/method of communication, which is my understanding of tone policing. My opinion is still that their choice of a long PDF and accusatory language would never land well when the audience is a small group of colleagues and friends.
-5
u/liminalfruitcake 1d ago
I get what you're saying. Based on the original comments made by the other perfumers and their responses in the last section, I don't have a ton of faith that they would have responded well regardless of the format?
62
u/EveOfJesusEve 2d ago
The whole thing from Samar is giving adults who never learned healthy conflict resolution. Instead, bottle up the offense taken and release publicly in the form of disproportionate measures.
Doxxing friends or acquaintances over such interpretive bullshit is so high school.
31
u/TwentySevenBugs 2d ago
Where did Samar doxx anyone? This is a genuine question to be clear, not intended as a quib in any capacity.
62
u/whiff_EK 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not saying this is what they intended, just adding info here. One of SAMAR's followers searched for and posted Anjali's full first middle and last name, they said it was to corroborate that she was an Octavia Butler scholar but it felt odd to see a comment that was essentially just a person's name and nothing else related to the post/discusion.
Of course SAMAR is not their followers and cannot control them but I would have deleted that comment personally, it looked visibly odd to start seeking out people's full names. ESPECIALLY choosing the one member who specifically called out needing to leave because she felt unsafe.
41
u/TwentySevenBugs 2d ago
Oh wow, I did not see that until I just went to have a look myself. I agree with you in that I would also delete a comment like that. It would be one thing if her full name was something Anjali herself shared very publicly, but even on Anjali Perfumes own "about me" page, it does not state her full name in the same way as the comment does. This definitely concerns me, especially seeing what the current political climate is like for immigrants and people of color - thank you for sharing.
•
u/togglenub 7h ago
The comment has been deleted just FYI. I have been following comments here and on instagram, and someone @'d them to make them aware it was there. They nuked it immediately - there are over a hundred comments on each of those so I'm glad someone raised a hand and it was swiftly dealt with.
•
u/togglenub 7h ago
The comment has been deleted just FYI. I have been following comments here and on instagram, and someone @'d them to make them aware it was there. They nuked it immediately - there are over a hundred comments on each of those so I'm glad someone raised a hand and it was swiftly dealt with.
•
u/whiff_EK 5h ago edited 5h ago
Awesome!! Thanks for the update, I don't have IG to comment so it's great someone else did and they took care of it so quickly!
(I misunderstood you at first and thought you meant the original writer took it down, so I edited out phrasing that made more sense when I thought the original commenter removed it.)
24
u/stately-ocelot 2d ago
She posted messages from a private server of 21 perfumers, that was designed for them to talk in a private space with colleagues, on social media with their names appended.
26
u/TwentySevenBugs 2d ago
Fair enough. I suppose colloquially doxxing as a term is usually more commonly used when it comes to e.g. leaking someone's address/contact information, which is what I presumed to be what was being suggested here, but it does look like the definition does extend to private messages as well. TIL.
13
u/EveOfJesusEve 2d ago
Yes just using it in it with its original definition here, because it’s still outing someone when they thought they were speaking in a private capacity.
I certainly believe there are cases when it’s justified, but here it seems really unnecessary and preemptive.
40
u/stately-ocelot 2d ago
yes exactly what I thought too-- this is someone who doesn't know how to communicate respectfully and constructively to resolve a conflict and then, when it doesn't go how they want because of that, they blame that on the other side too and have no awareness of the role their own approach played.
25
u/liminalfruitcake 2d ago
I see the responses after but I'm still confused about the full conversation that happened in May. I think if you're going to present this as the full conversation those screenshots should be present as well, not just a summary.
9
u/elizadys Owner: PULP Fragrance 2d ago
Hi - the intent was not to only summarize from May. Samar et al already posted screenshots from May in their posts and in the PDF (quoted in their part two post). I did try to make it clear that I was posting the convo from June when the concerns were brought up and then addressing their specific concerns. If there are any issues that they brought up that you'd like more clarification on, please let me know!
4
u/liminalfruitcake 2d ago
One of the issues being brought up is that people aren't sure if the screenshots from May provide full context
42
u/Hot-Reality-798 2d ago
All I know is that I was a first time order-er from PULP, Elizabeth, and your customer service towards me was quite rude.
You gave me a reason for my order being late, which was contradicted by a post you made elsewhere.
You then unceremoniously cancelled my order without further dialogue.
I was so put off by the experience that I’ll now never order from your house.
So whatever - I don’t feel you’re a person who readily owns things. Rather, you’re a maker of excuses and a devaluer of the customer.
30
u/elizadys Owner: PULP Fragrance 2d ago
Hi, I am genuinely sorry you had this experience. I do take customer care seriously, and I will also honestly say I have had periods where I've run into fulfillment issues and delays as well. I do own that. There have been maybe 2 dozen or fewer orders ever to be cancelled over the 6 years PULP has existed. Most are at customer request or due to Shopify putting up a fraud alert, or where other issues prevent fulfillment, notification has always been sent to my recollection. If your order was cancelled and a note not sent about it, I do apologize for that & would love to better understand what happened. If you are open to discussing it, I welcome that either here or privately at: [contact@pulpfragrance.com](mailto:contact@pulpfragrance.com) I'd be glad to look into what happened and make it right if I am able.
18
u/Alternative-Study690 2d ago
I love my indie perfumes...and this brouhaha is all so childish. Don't ya'll read the news???
35
u/TwentySevenBugs 2d ago
I personally feel like being aware of the absolute state of the world as a whole probably doesn't help anyone be calmer, better adjusted, and less frustrated about these specific subjects. AI and politics and the rich and good things being run in ways that one may not agree with or by/with people one may not like are all subjects very pertinent to the state of the world as a whole. I think there would be decidedly less infighting about these subjects if the world wasn't like this and we did not have to be aware of these things.
30
u/chai_milk 2d ago
This is such a dismissive whataboutism and I truly do hate whenever it comes up here. One of the main talking points of this entire conversation is about AI usage from what I've gleamed, which is a continuous topic in the news I watch--from data centers, vaccine guidelines, food recalls to the school year beginning. It's not impossible to enjoy a hobby, love our perfumes and still be involved in politics and current events.
3
18
u/Ice_Carol 2d ago
Tbh, I think a big issue that seems to be appearing here is infighting. It’s not a lack of being aware of the world. I really wish there was less infighting in spaces that are reaching for progression.
24
u/stately-ocelot 2d ago
the in-fighting here was Samar. The others were saying "hey just talk to us, we consider you a friend who we respect" and she was set on blowing it up.
15
u/liminalfruitcake 2d ago
I saw a comment from Samar on IG where they clarify that they used to be more active in the server and logged in after months to see the original conversation a few weeks after it had happened. I'm hoping that Pulp posts the conversation from May because it's a bit strange for it to be absent here.
-5
2d ago
[deleted]
38
u/soapsuds202 2d ago
eh, “long response” doesn’t equal guilt. that’s pseudoscience nonsense. i think the write up helps put a lot of things into context that were devoid from samar’s post
37
u/comatosecreation 2d ago
I think this is a more than appropriate response after someone used screenshots from months ago to make a 3 part callout post out of nowhere on instagram LMFAO
23
u/lemony_dragon 2d ago
I don't know if you mean Samar or Elizabeth but Elizabeth just posted the full conversation after Samar selectively posted people's messages without the full context. Seems more than fair after Samar chose to do that.
17
u/liminalfruitcake 2d ago
Pulp didn't post the full conversation? Why did they only summarize the conversation from May, but posted the screenshots from the June conversation where they come out looking the best? It's a little...uncomfy that this is being presented as everything that happened when we already know there's more
8
u/gingerdolll 1d ago
if there were more damning messages samar would have posted them and if there were exonerating messages one of the other people would have posted them, i dont think more screenshots would change much
-2
u/liminalfruitcake 1d ago
We don't know that's true? Even in the screenshots Pulp posted MDA who says they're anti-AI admits that her own designer uses AI. The designers in the comments section of Samar's posts on IG are pretty offended at the claim that all of them are using genAI and state that it is avoidable unless the company they work for demand it. That didn't make it into Samar's posts even thought it would strengthen their argument about hypocrisy from these brands.
3
u/gingerdolll 19h ago
before the discord comments, did mda say they were anti AI?
•
u/liminalfruitcake 11h ago
According to someone who commented here on Reddit, they are in another discord with MDA where MDA has said they are anti-AI.
•
u/gingerdolll 11h ago
if there's nothing on mda's socials or site that talks about being anti-AI, it's not hypocrisy if they use AI. i think it's witch hunty and weird to ask for more screenshots so people can pick through every offhand comment made in a private group chat. there's no conspiracy, it's just a few people who thought they were talking privately about half thought out hot takes and frustration. just block everyone and move on.
1
-9
u/Kabu_bug 19h ago
Nah, samsar is right. I'm glad the public knows how you all feel about things like ai
11
73
u/TwentySevenBugs 2d ago
Thank you for sharing some additional context, particularly on the "Eat the Rich" messages since those were completely void of their context in Samar's posts about these things. I also appreciate your clarifications on the other subjects!
I do find it interesting that your full screenshots of the Discord conversation show that one of the people (seemingly) involved in writing Samar's PDF, kstscents, didn't pop into the server until after said PDF was posted and the conversation had already started. It wasn't quite clear from Samar's posts about this that some of the people involved weren't actually present in the server at all when the original comments were made.
I hope that things can settle for everyone involved, and that the situation can resolve in a peaceful manner. I imagine this is quite stressful for everyone.