#like. i don't know what to say to you. a statement as mild as 'george ignored me' was met with interrogation

[time-is-restored]

im seeing so many people say that sophietexas said shit she unequivocably Did Not Say so like. just for my own peace of mind.

when dream asked what she'd said about him/george, she explained that she had tweeted a friend's misogynistic experience with george (without details), which she took down because it 'caused more harm than good' and 'it was becoming more about me [than the victim]'.

they shared a screenshot of the tweet with him

dream, assuming there was more to the story (apparently he'd been told she was talking shit about him?) asked what else she'd said. he also asked why he/george wouldn't know what incident she was referring to if it was 'that bad'

sophie clarified they only tweeted about george, and said the interaction in question was not assault, and they wasn't accusing george of that

dream asked for more details, accusing them of not wanting to 'hear another perspective'. basically saying it wasn't fair that they'd say this shit when it could be a 'miscommunication' or not true

sophie said again she wasn't going to say anything else because it wasn't her story to tell

dream said that was ridiculous, and asked why they'd had positive interactions in the past if she was so negative towards them now

sophie explained george had ignored them + therefore been rude, didn't mention the context, and DREAM said it 'probably happened' in an among us lobby. made a comment about how he'll 'never know' why they don't like him

sophie said she didn't like his attitude. dream said it was hard to have a nice attitude when he was getting texts from people asking why everyone on twitter thinks he's a 'serial rapist'

sophie said that the conversation was getting unproductive, and that she wasn't going to expose her friend. she said she doesn't wish for dreams downfall, and she just wants the creator space to be safer

now, about what she DIDN'T say/do:

she did not accuse george of 'being a misogynist because he ignored her in an among us lobby'. she mentioned that they had been in among us lobbies when dream said he didn't remember her. separately to that, she said that george had ignored her when they'd spoken. seperately to that, the misogynistic behaviour accusation was her sharing a friend's personal experience. all she ever said was that george was rude to her.

they did not accuse george of assaulting anyone (aside from expressing support for caiti), and they clarified that their friend's negative experience was Specifically Not Assault before they deleted all related tweets.

she did not accuse dream of literally anything. i cannot emphasise this enough. dream clearly thought/was told that she said something abt him, and kept asking what 'else' she said apart from the tweet (which she willingly showed). again, all she said about dream was that she thought he was nice, and now thinks he has a bad attitude.

sophie did not share her friend's story in detail because that wasn't what the friend wanted. if you think that's shady, please consider that dream went public in order to accuse connor + sophie of saying shit about him/george without having proof. if sophie had named her friend, or given details, that knowledge would've become public too. then please consider the reaction that caiti has received these past few weeks, after accusing george of something george admitted to. consider the ways people are still calling her a liar, or a clout chaser, or of exaggerating/changing her mind and calling it assault after the fact, after george has agreed that what she said happened happened. would you, knowing that context, want to expose your friend (who already didn't want to come forward personally!) to that level of scrutiny and judgement?

leave sophie the fuck alone come on guys. their 'crime' is not liking george or dream and expressing that to dream's face. they made a tweet on behalf of a friend which they took down bc they felt it was detracting from caiti's story. that's literally it.

[monkberries]

I'd love to hear your take on that George quote, actually! I personally don't know what to make of it, mostly find it odd that he's divorcing himself from HDYS as a song when he's on it.

The first bit of it (the "I wish we could all be friends" bit) is galling from a current perspective, given what all we know about Klein now and how George ended up not renewing his contract and suing him a couple years later. If you're looking at it with 2021 eyes, it's very easy to see George as kind of "playing stupid", like pretending not to know that he was part of the cause of the breakup. I think there's probably a bit of that going on; but I also think to look at it with only that perspective obscures the whole truth of the statement. At the time, in 1971, George probably felt pretty hard-done-by because of Paul, for various reasons, both valid and questionable. He probably felt like he was being the "bigger man" by making the a move of reconciliation toward someone who had really hurt him. (Again, yes, I am rolling my 2021 eyes at him, but with my 1971 eyes I can see this justification making sense to him.)

As for the HDYS bit, I actually wonder, like, how many people really knew he was on that song. The Rolling Stone article didn't mention him being on that song at all; you might know if you looked at the credits on the record sleeve, but other than that, I don't know if the fact that that solo was him was common knowledge. Maybe it was, I'm not sure. But if it wasn't, I can understand just... not wanting to mention it. Especially because that song was seen among rock people and interviewers as pretty harsh and maybe over the line, or at least something to interrogate John about; why would George want to attach himself to that song if people didn't already know he was part of it?

Relatedly, I don't think George was ever that forward about claiming credit for playing on people's songs. Even when he came up with signature riffs or solos for Lennon/McCartney songs, he wasn't really the type to step out and say "I did that!" The person who wrote the song was generally seen by critics/interviewers/authors as responsible for it; an instrumental soloist wouldn't be answering questions about someone else's song. Perhaps he should have, at some point, though, in this case; I wonder if anyone ever asked him about playing on it and why he did, even after Ringo excused himself because they were being too harsh.

There are also other reasons to want to distance himself from that song, like legal ones (wanting to present a united front with Klein) and personal ones (not wanting to attract John's ire). There were a lot of good reasons to distance himself from that song and be mild about it, and basically no good reason to say it was anything other than "a little hard on Paul."