Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

What's hilarious is these out of touch PR hacks think Trump's base gives a flying f*** about her and her Canadian husband. I bet 95% of Trump voters have no idea who Lively even is. She's just a D list actress. And maybe only 25% of Trump voters recognize Reynolds, from Deadpool? Maybe.

Go back to the drawing board because this crisis spin is DOA.

Americans dislike these two ORGANICALLY. Nothing to do with a vast conspiracy or politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to not some of the politics going on in this controversy, which I think might be flying below the radar for some people.

Baldoni has hired numerous professionals who are aligned with the right or Donald Trump. His attorney, Bryan Freedman, has ties to a lot of journalists on the right -- Megyn Kelly is a former client and has spoken out a lot on this case, seizing on the "she lied" aspect of Baldoni's argument. Freedman has also previously represented Perez Hilton, whose website has a spotty record, at best, with its treatment of women. Perez Hilton has recently been discussing the case on Ben Shapiro's podcast. Meanwhile, well known alt-right Nazi Candace Owens has been posting constantly about the case and become a darling of pro-Baldoni support. When her disturbing views (she's a Holocaust denier and has engaged in danger conspiracy theorizing about everything from Jews in Hollywood to mass shooting events), they often reply with comments like "Sure, I don't agree with all her views, but..."

Meanwhile, Melissa Nathan, the crisis manager Baldoni hired to help him with his conflict with Lively not only famously worked for Johnny Depp in his takedown of Amber Heard, she also worked for Donald Trump during the "Russiagate" controversy and associated impeachment proceedings.

Meanwhile, Blake Lively is a fairly standard Hollywood liberal. Not super outspoken but has spoken out against Trump and aligns with the left on immigration and abortion. She's also close friends with Taylor Swift who, while also not super outspoken on political issues, became a very public enemy of Donald Trump by endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

Lively is also represented in the case by Mannatt Phelps. Mannatt is somewhat unusual among big law firms in having a decidedly liberal bent. The firm is best known for its work in the healthcare space, where its hybrid legal/consulting work crosses over into advocacy for Medicaid expansion. Many Manatt lawyers and consultants are outspoken in their political views in a way that is uncommon in corporate law.

As I have watched an army of people mobilizing online against Lively, seizing on both the standard online hate directed at women (also seen in the Heard case) but also more fully embracing alt-right advocates and conspiracy theorists, I have grown increasingly uneasy. I want this to be your standard Hollywood gossip -- juicy and interesting because it involves people who are rich and attractive. But I think it's more than that. I don't think Baldoni himself is actually conspiring with the right directly, but I think he's become a useful cause to advance the alt-right in a time when we are genuinely at a dangerous crossroads with regards to the direction of our country and democracy.

I am sure this comment will be attacked. I'm sure I'll be dismissed. But there is a subtext to this controversy that is easy to miss if you are someone who is quick to dismiss or roll your eyes at Hollywood gossip. I think Jeff is missing it and it's one reason he's not understood what is really happening in these threads. But I want to put it out there.

Be careful who you listen to and use critical thinking when you read, even about Hollywood gossip. These are dark times and the weapons being used by people who want to destroy this country might come in odd disguises.

DP (I'm the person who just posted the quotes from reddit) and I think this is interesting and worth discussion. But am not surprised that the Baldoni side doesn't want to discuss it except to deny any possibility that they are being pulled into supporting someone who, by taking down a liberal woman, is perfectly in line with right wing talking points. After all, they can't get enough of Candace Owens' takedowns of Lively, either.

Omg hilarious!
If BL hadn’t allegedly orchestrated a whole movie takeover and then used SH accusation as a weapon, Candace Owens would have nothing to say about her at all.
In fact you’d be more likely to hear her rail against the silliness of JB’s “male feminist” persona.
It literally has zero to do with CO wanting to “take down a liberal woman”
—BL isn’t even all that liberal.
CO just doesn’t like entitled bullies, and BL appears to have been one to JB.
That’s it.
She is fully aware that neither of them would have Candace over for dinner or as part of her inner circle, and it’s clear she is good with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to not some of the politics going on in this controversy, which I think might be flying below the radar for some people.

Baldoni has hired numerous professionals who are aligned with the right or Donald Trump. His attorney, Bryan Freedman, has ties to a lot of journalists on the right -- Megyn Kelly is a former client and has spoken out a lot on this case, seizing on the "she lied" aspect of Baldoni's argument. Freedman has also previously represented Perez Hilton, whose website has a spotty record, at best, with its treatment of women. Perez Hilton has recently been discussing the case on Ben Shapiro's podcast. Meanwhile, well known alt-right Nazi Candace Owens has been posting constantly about the case and become a darling of pro-Baldoni support. When her disturbing views (she's a Holocaust denier and has engaged in danger conspiracy theorizing about everything from Jews in Hollywood to mass shooting events), they often reply with comments like "Sure, I don't agree with all her views, but..."

Meanwhile, Melissa Nathan, the crisis manager Baldoni hired to help him with his conflict with Lively not only famously worked for Johnny Depp in his takedown of Amber Heard, she also worked for Donald Trump during the "Russiagate" controversy and associated impeachment proceedings.

Meanwhile, Blake Lively is a fairly standard Hollywood liberal. Not super outspoken but has spoken out against Trump and aligns with the left on immigration and abortion. She's also close friends with Taylor Swift who, while also not super outspoken on political issues, became a very public enemy of Donald Trump by endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

Lively is also represented in the case by Mannatt Phelps. Mannatt is somewhat unusual among big law firms in having a decidedly liberal bent. The firm is best known for its work in the healthcare space, where its hybrid legal/consulting work crosses over into advocacy for Medicaid expansion. Many Manatt lawyers and consultants are outspoken in their political views in a way that is uncommon in corporate law.

As I have watched an army of people mobilizing online against Lively, seizing on both the standard online hate directed at women (also seen in the Heard case) but also more fully embracing alt-right advocates and conspiracy theorists, I have grown increasingly uneasy. I want this to be your standard Hollywood gossip -- juicy and interesting because it involves people who are rich and attractive. But I think it's more than that. I don't think Baldoni himself is actually conspiring with the right directly, but I think he's become a useful cause to advance the alt-right in a time when we are genuinely at a dangerous crossroads with regards to the direction of our country and democracy.

I am sure this comment will be attacked. I'm sure I'll be dismissed. But there is a subtext to this controversy that is easy to miss if you are someone who is quick to dismiss or roll your eyes at Hollywood gossip. I think Jeff is missing it and it's one reason he's not understood what is really happening in these threads. But I want to put it out there.

Be careful who you listen to and use critical thinking when you read, even about Hollywood gossip. These are dark times and the weapons being used by people who want to destroy this country might come in odd disguises.

DP (I'm the person who just posted the quotes from reddit) and I think this is interesting and worth discussion. But am not surprised that the Baldoni side doesn't want to discuss it except to deny any possibility that they are being pulled into supporting someone who, by taking down a liberal woman, is perfectly in line with right wing talking points. After all, they can't get enough of Candace Owens' takedowns of Lively, either.

This case is not a right wing conspiracy. Not everything is political. The FACTS thus far based on the released EVIDENCE are that Blake Lively lied when she accused Justin Baldoni of sexual harassment. She tried to ruin an innocent man’s life.

*She & her creepy husband. This needs to be emphasized. People should honestly go to jail for this.

And more than likely it was for money in the form of rights to the sequel. So gross

This is just silly. Lively brought her harassment concerns up (the 17 points) pretty early in the production. She legit wanted them addressed so the remainder of filming would be free of the same issues. Whether you agree with her that Baldoni and co. were harassing her on purpose, or at all, is between you and your god Candace Owens I suppose, but the idea that Lively made everything up to eventually get the rights on a sequel of a movie that hadn’t even been released yet is honestly pretty laughable and logic impaired.

[Anonymous]

Also you know what else is common in right wing world? Elevating a person on their side who is ostensibly a “feminist” and then using that credibility they have bestowed upon them to cut down a woman without pushback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to not some of the politics going on in this controversy, which I think might be flying below the radar for some people.

Baldoni has hired numerous professionals who are aligned with the right or Donald Trump. His attorney, Bryan Freedman, has ties to a lot of journalists on the right -- Megyn Kelly is a former client and has spoken out a lot on this case, seizing on the "she lied" aspect of Baldoni's argument. Freedman has also previously represented Perez Hilton, whose website has a spotty record, at best, with its treatment of women. Perez Hilton has recently been discussing the case on Ben Shapiro's podcast. Meanwhile, well known alt-right Nazi Candace Owens has been posting constantly about the case and become a darling of pro-Baldoni support. When her disturbing views (she's a Holocaust denier and has engaged in danger conspiracy theorizing about everything from Jews in Hollywood to mass shooting events), they often reply with comments like "Sure, I don't agree with all her views, but..."

Meanwhile, Melissa Nathan, the crisis manager Baldoni hired to help him with his conflict with Lively not only famously worked for Johnny Depp in his takedown of Amber Heard, she also worked for Donald Trump during the "Russiagate" controversy and associated impeachment proceedings.

Meanwhile, Blake Lively is a fairly standard Hollywood liberal. Not super outspoken but has spoken out against Trump and aligns with the left on immigration and abortion. She's also close friends with Taylor Swift who, while also not super outspoken on political issues, became a very public enemy of Donald Trump by endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

Lively is also represented in the case by Mannatt Phelps. Mannatt is somewhat unusual among big law firms in having a decidedly liberal bent. The firm is best known for its work in the healthcare space, where its hybrid legal/consulting work crosses over into advocacy for Medicaid expansion. Many Manatt lawyers and consultants are outspoken in their political views in a way that is uncommon in corporate law.

As I have watched an army of people mobilizing online against Lively, seizing on both the standard online hate directed at women (also seen in the Heard case) but also more fully embracing alt-right advocates and conspiracy theorists, I have grown increasingly uneasy. I want this to be your standard Hollywood gossip -- juicy and interesting because it involves people who are rich and attractive. But I think it's more than that. I don't think Baldoni himself is actually conspiring with the right directly, but I think he's become a useful cause to advance the alt-right in a time when we are genuinely at a dangerous crossroads with regards to the direction of our country and democracy.

I am sure this comment will be attacked. I'm sure I'll be dismissed. But there is a subtext to this controversy that is easy to miss if you are someone who is quick to dismiss or roll your eyes at Hollywood gossip. I think Jeff is missing it and it's one reason he's not understood what is really happening in these threads. But I want to put it out there.

Be careful who you listen to and use critical thinking when you read, even about Hollywood gossip. These are dark times and the weapons being used by people who want to destroy this country might come in odd disguises.

DP (I'm the person who just posted the quotes from reddit) and I think this is interesting and worth discussion. But am not surprised that the Baldoni side doesn't want to discuss it except to deny any possibility that they are being pulled into supporting someone who, by taking down a liberal woman, is perfectly in line with right wing talking points. After all, they can't get enough of Candace Owens' takedowns of Lively, either.

This case is not a right wing conspiracy. Not everything is political. The FACTS thus far based on the released EVIDENCE are that Blake Lively lied when she accused Justin Baldoni of sexual harassment. She tried to ruin an innocent man’s life.

*She & her creepy husband. This needs to be emphasized. People should honestly go to jail for this.

And more than likely it was for money in the form of rights to the sequel. So gross

This is just silly. Lively brought her harassment concerns up (the 17 points) pretty early in the production. She legit wanted them addressed so the remainder of filming would be free of the same issues. Whether you agree with her that Baldoni and co. were harassing her on purpose, or at all, is between you and your god Candace Owens I suppose, but the idea that Lively made everything up to eventually get the rights on a sequel of a movie that hadn’t even been released yet is honestly pretty laughable and logic impaired.

The prospect of money and power make people do evil things, even your gods Blake lively and Ryan Reynolds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to not some of the politics going on in this controversy, which I think might be flying below the radar for some people.

Baldoni has hired numerous professionals who are aligned with the right or Donald Trump. His attorney, Bryan Freedman, has ties to a lot of journalists on the right -- Megyn Kelly is a former client and has spoken out a lot on this case, seizing on the "she lied" aspect of Baldoni's argument. Freedman has also previously represented Perez Hilton, whose website has a spotty record, at best, with its treatment of women. Perez Hilton has recently been discussing the case on Ben Shapiro's podcast. Meanwhile, well known alt-right Nazi Candace Owens has been posting constantly about the case and become a darling of pro-Baldoni support. When her disturbing views (she's a Holocaust denier and has engaged in danger conspiracy theorizing about everything from Jews in Hollywood to mass shooting events), they often reply with comments like "Sure, I don't agree with all her views, but..."

Meanwhile, Melissa Nathan, the crisis manager Baldoni hired to help him with his conflict with Lively not only famously worked for Johnny Depp in his takedown of Amber Heard, she also worked for Donald Trump during the "Russiagate" controversy and associated impeachment proceedings.

Meanwhile, Blake Lively is a fairly standard Hollywood liberal. Not super outspoken but has spoken out against Trump and aligns with the left on immigration and abortion. She's also close friends with Taylor Swift who, while also not super outspoken on political issues, became a very public enemy of Donald Trump by endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

Lively is also represented in the case by Mannatt Phelps. Mannatt is somewhat unusual among big law firms in having a decidedly liberal bent. The firm is best known for its work in the healthcare space, where its hybrid legal/consulting work crosses over into advocacy for Medicaid expansion. Many Manatt lawyers and consultants are outspoken in their political views in a way that is uncommon in corporate law.

As I have watched an army of people mobilizing online against Lively, seizing on both the standard online hate directed at women (also seen in the Heard case) but also more fully embracing alt-right advocates and conspiracy theorists, I have grown increasingly uneasy. I want this to be your standard Hollywood gossip -- juicy and interesting because it involves people who are rich and attractive. But I think it's more than that. I don't think Baldoni himself is actually conspiring with the right directly, but I think he's become a useful cause to advance the alt-right in a time when we are genuinely at a dangerous crossroads with regards to the direction of our country and democracy.

I am sure this comment will be attacked. I'm sure I'll be dismissed. But there is a subtext to this controversy that is easy to miss if you are someone who is quick to dismiss or roll your eyes at Hollywood gossip. I think Jeff is missing it and it's one reason he's not understood what is really happening in these threads. But I want to put it out there.

Be careful who you listen to and use critical thinking when you read, even about Hollywood gossip. These are dark times and the weapons being used by people who want to destroy this country might come in odd disguises.

I’m not attacking or dismissing you for weaving these things together because it’s often disturbing when the people we do not like or want to align ourselves with are the ones who end up uncovering truth or defending the correct party in a dispute.
Our politics are so divided right now that we desperately *want* the “bad people” on the other political spectrum to be wrong about everything and the “good people” on our side to be right.

But honestly this is a case that seems super clearly not about SH at all and entirely about money/business. From the massive amount of evidence (texts, timeline, interviews, even statements from Blake herself about her involvement with wardrobe, music, re-writes), it really looks as though this is a simple story of BL attempting to grow her actress role into a producer credit (which she appears to have done successfully via a combo of persuasion at the beginning and by leveraging the fact that she hadn’t signed her contract yet and then threatened not to promote the film if she didn’t get what she wanted re: editing the film and such). BL shamelessly spoke in an interview with the book author about how she would follow her anywhere—especially if she gets the movie rights to her book. But BL knew Colleen had already sold those rights to JB and she would NOT have the rights to the next movie unless JB sold them (which he refused to do) or unless his contract was voided. And is t it interesting that the contract allegedly had a morality clause in it that would nullify the contract in the case if SH allegations/entanglement?

This situation does not seem to be AT ALL about or women or SH or politics.
Instead, it’s about money and power.
BL/RR wanted this movie, and essentially got everything they wanted.
And then it seems that when they perceived that JB was orchestrating a smear campaign— (it doesn’t appear that he was…and even if his people were, that cant force people turn on you for being mean to people when videos resurface showing her being mean to people! That was just BL being BL on her own—and the public reacting to what they saw as her nastiness and/or out of touch flippant “wear your florals!” Promotion of a serious domestic violence film)—they decided to go on the attack with a SH claim to hurt his reputation.
She already humiliated him by taking his movie and making her own cut of it and insisting (allegedly—but also backed up by texts and also by what actually happened on premiere night) that JB and his family had to be seated in the basement of the theatre.
It’s just so much. And he clearly tried to just move on from it—even being very careful with how he spoke about Blake and the conflict they had which he seemed to think was about her wanting more creative control and him not giving in as much as she wanted (“I think she’s ready to direct—that’s what I think!”)
But there is only so much one can take and imo he had to fire back to salvage his career and reputation.

I know it’s not a great look to connect the dots and see conservatives or Trump-hires or mouthpieces all over this story, but the point is that sometimes “me too” gets it wrong. And I think this is one of those cases.

This is such a good and fair summary, and it aligns with separate timeline elements highlighted by a non-CO creator who determined that Reynolds invited Liz Plank and Brendan Sklennar to Welcome to Wrexham events after it would have been known that Johannsen was directing a film co-produced by Baldoni’s studio. ScarJo has repeatedly if in generalities described how Reynolds was controlling and envious during their marriage. I think RR and BL both have rotten character, and it makes them a perfect match.

This is not a MeToo case. This is an IP case, a bullying case, and an excellent litmus for whether an observer has any principles. The shrieker who thinks she can determine anyone else’s principles here is that kind of dullard, who sees but does not observe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to not some of the politics going on in this controversy, which I think might be flying below the radar for some people.

Baldoni has hired numerous professionals who are aligned with the right or Donald Trump. His attorney, Bryan Freedman, has ties to a lot of journalists on the right -- Megyn Kelly is a former client and has spoken out a lot on this case, seizing on the "she lied" aspect of Baldoni's argument. Freedman has also previously represented Perez Hilton, whose website has a spotty record, at best, with its treatment of women. Perez Hilton has recently been discussing the case on Ben Shapiro's podcast. Meanwhile, well known alt-right Nazi Candace Owens has been posting constantly about the case and become a darling of pro-Baldoni support. When her disturbing views (she's a Holocaust denier and has engaged in danger conspiracy theorizing about everything from Jews in Hollywood to mass shooting events), they often reply with comments like "Sure, I don't agree with all her views, but..."

Meanwhile, Melissa Nathan, the crisis manager Baldoni hired to help him with his conflict with Lively not only famously worked for Johnny Depp in his takedown of Amber Heard, she also worked for Donald Trump during the "Russiagate" controversy and associated impeachment proceedings.

Meanwhile, Blake Lively is a fairly standard Hollywood liberal. Not super outspoken but has spoken out against Trump and aligns with the left on immigration and abortion. She's also close friends with Taylor Swift who, while also not super outspoken on political issues, became a very public enemy of Donald Trump by endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

Lively is also represented in the case by Mannatt Phelps. Mannatt is somewhat unusual among big law firms in having a decidedly liberal bent. The firm is best known for its work in the healthcare space, where its hybrid legal/consulting work crosses over into advocacy for Medicaid expansion. Many Manatt lawyers and consultants are outspoken in their political views in a way that is uncommon in corporate law.

As I have watched an army of people mobilizing online against Lively, seizing on both the standard online hate directed at women (also seen in the Heard case) but also more fully embracing alt-right advocates and conspiracy theorists, I have grown increasingly uneasy. I want this to be your standard Hollywood gossip -- juicy and interesting because it involves people who are rich and attractive. But I think it's more than that. I don't think Baldoni himself is actually conspiring with the right directly, but I think he's become a useful cause to advance the alt-right in a time when we are genuinely at a dangerous crossroads with regards to the direction of our country and democracy.

I am sure this comment will be attacked. I'm sure I'll be dismissed. But there is a subtext to this controversy that is easy to miss if you are someone who is quick to dismiss or roll your eyes at Hollywood gossip. I think Jeff is missing it and it's one reason he's not understood what is really happening in these threads. But I want to put it out there.

Be careful who you listen to and use critical thinking when you read, even about Hollywood gossip. These are dark times and the weapons being used by people who want to destroy this country might come in odd disguises.

I’m not attacking or dismissing you for weaving these things together because it’s often disturbing when the people we do not like or want to align ourselves with are the ones who end up uncovering truth or defending the correct party in a dispute.
Our politics are so divided right now that we desperately *want* the “bad people” on the other political spectrum to be wrong about everything and the “good people” on our side to be right.

But honestly this is a case that seems super clearly not about SH at all and entirely about money/business. From the massive amount of evidence (texts, timeline, interviews, even statements from Blake herself about her involvement with wardrobe, music, re-writes), it really looks as though this is a simple story of BL attempting to grow her actress role into a producer credit (which she appears to have done successfully via a combo of persuasion at the beginning and by leveraging the fact that she hadn’t signed her contract yet and then threatened not to promote the film if she didn’t get what she wanted re: editing the film and such). BL shamelessly spoke in an interview with the book author about how she would follow her anywhere—especially if she gets the movie rights to her book. But BL knew Colleen had already sold those rights to JB and she would NOT have the rights to the next movie unless JB sold them (which he refused to do) or unless his contract was voided. And is t it interesting that the contract allegedly had a morality clause in it that would nullify the contract in the case if SH allegations/entanglement?

This situation does not seem to be AT ALL about or women or SH or politics.
Instead, it’s about money and power.
BL/RR wanted this movie, and essentially got everything they wanted.
And then it seems that when they perceived that JB was orchestrating a smear campaign— (it doesn’t appear that he was…and even if his people were, that cant force people turn on you for being mean to people when videos resurface showing her being mean to people! That was just BL being BL on her own—and the public reacting to what they saw as her nastiness and/or out of touch flippant “wear your florals!” Promotion of a serious domestic violence film)—they decided to go on the attack with a SH claim to hurt his reputation.
She already humiliated him by taking his movie and making her own cut of it and insisting (allegedly—but also backed up by texts and also by what actually happened on premiere night) that JB and his family had to be seated in the basement of the theatre.
It’s just so much. And he clearly tried to just move on from it—even being very careful with how he spoke about Blake and the conflict they had which he seemed to think was about her wanting more creative control and him not giving in as much as she wanted (“I think she’s ready to direct—that’s what I think!”)
But there is only so much one can take and imo he had to fire back to salvage his career and reputation.

I know it’s not a great look to connect the dots and see conservatives or Trump-hires or mouthpieces all over this story, but the point is that sometimes “me too” gets it wrong. And I think this is one of those cases.

This is such a good and fair summary, and it aligns with separate timeline elements highlighted by a non-CO creator who determined that Reynolds invited Liz Plank and Brendan Sklennar to Welcome to Wrexham events after it would have been known that Johannsen was directing a film co-produced by Baldoni’s studio. ScarJo has repeatedly if in generalities described how Reynolds was controlling and envious during their marriage. I think RR and BL both have rotten character, and it makes them a perfect match.

This is not a MeToo case. This is an IP case, a bullying case, and an excellent litmus for whether an observer has any principles. The shrieker who thinks she can determine anyone else’s principles here is that kind of dullard, who sees but does not observe.

Omg I didn’t know this ScarJo angle. This is making so much sense.

[Anonymous]

Fake Lively and her megalomaniac husband can't come to grips with the general public organically sussing out they're compulsive lying scam artists who used and exploited their celebrity friends. The peasants can think critically!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

I saw the signs, yeah I opened up my eyes and saw the signs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to just say I don’t believe a lot of you reporting about your own liberal views. Or at least you’re nothing like my circles. Because you’re not even blinking at the Candace Owens thing. The very act of Candace Owens saying something I agreed with beyond like, opinions on Taco Bell spicy ranch sauce, would cause me to question my beliefs. She is a MAGA grifter shill, and everything she says is imo part of the grift.

Some of us have brains that can hold two seemingly opposing ideas at the same time.

Like “I generally believe that the world is still full of sexism” and “Lively tried to railroad Baldoni with a false or exaggerated sexual harassment claim.”

Again if I found out I agreed with Candace Owens about something I would go back and question why I think it. I do agree with the orange one about plastic straws, so I agree you can agree with the other side, but I hold everything I agree with them about in a suspension of examination to ensure I’m not being manipulated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m going to just say I don’t believe a lot of you reporting about your own liberal views. Or at least you’re nothing like my circles. Because you’re not even blinking at the Candace Owens thing. The very act of Candace Owens saying something I agreed with beyond like, opinions on Taco Bell spicy ranch sauce, would cause me to question my beliefs. She is a MAGA grifter shill, and everything she says is imo part of the grift.

Some of us have brains that can hold two seemingly opposing ideas at the same time.

Like “I generally believe that the world is still full of sexism” and “Lively tried to railroad Baldoni with a false or exaggerated sexual harassment claim.”

Again if I found out I agreed with Candace Owens about something I would go back and question why I think it. I do agree with the orange one about plastic straws, so I agree you can agree with the other side, but I hold everything I agree with them about in a suspension of examination to ensure I’m not being manipulated

I guess I just have better critical thinking skills than you 🤷

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to talk about the consensual workplace flirting between Blake and Justin.

Most of Lively-s accusations do not fall within the "flirting" definition, and certainly non consensual:

- Was Jamey Heath "flirting" with Lively when he refused to leave the makeup trailer when she was topless, and refused to look away? If so, it was clearly unwanted.

- Were Heath and Baldoni "flirting" when pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude, and trying to show her video of Heath's wife giving birth nude? If so, it was not consensual.

- Were Heath and Baldoni "flirting" when they told Lively, on the first day of shooting, how early in their friendship they would "pass" women to one another when they were done dating her? Or joked in front of cast and crew about Lively's assertion that she's never seen porn? If so, it was not consensual.

Baldoni and his lawyer have successfully convinced people that Lively's lone accusation of harassment is the dance scene, where yes, it is debatable whether Baldoni crossed a line there. But even with that scene, no one addresses the fact that when Lively complained about Baldoni's behavior on camera, he told her the he "doesn't even find [Lively] attractive" in his defense. Which is (1) a classic neg to assert dominance, and (2) beside the point because you don't have to be attracted to someone to make them feel uncomfortable.

But sure, let's defer to the "legal experts" at the NY Post, that bastion if journalistic integrity, who have not actually read the complaints and don't even understand what Lively is alleging.

BL strikes me as that girl who walks by a table of co-workers, flashes her breasts as she walks by, teases them about how they prob “all have little boners now,” singles one of them out randomly and makes a crack about “and yours is probably the smallest!” ….but then when the guy fires back to tell her it’s bigger than the soda can she’s holding, she goes straight to HR about how uncomfortable it made her feel.

She sets the stage with unprofessional, spicy, crass banter and then uses it to turn the tables when it will benefit her.

Heath and Baldoni may have been naively lured into thinking that she was perfectly open to discussing scene nudity but I don’t think they weren’t reading the room. I think she just changed the rules whenever it no longer suited her.

Your last sentence is exactly how I felt about that bar scene. Blake had talked about wanting her character to be more sexy in text messages and then went to the bar scene with an overcoat on. When her producer Justin asked her to take it off because it would be sexy she feigned being so upset by the comment so that her cast mates would see her as a victim. I bet she continued to do this in more ways than one after she realized that she wasn’t getting her way. Playing the victim and angel while others are around but being the real devil behind the scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to talk about the consensual workplace flirting between Blake and Justin.

Most of Lively-s accusations do not fall within the "flirting" definition, and certainly non consensual:

- Was Jamey Heath "flirting" with Lively when he refused to leave the makeup trailer when she was topless, and refused to look away? If so, it was clearly unwanted.

- Were Heath and Baldoni "flirting" when pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude, and trying to show her video of Heath's wife giving birth nude? If so, it was not consensual.

- Were Heath and Baldoni "flirting" when they told Lively, on the first day of shooting, how early in their friendship they would "pass" women to one another when they were done dating her? Or joked in front of cast and crew about Lively's assertion that she's never seen porn? If so, it was not consensual.

Baldoni and his lawyer have successfully convinced people that Lively's lone accusation of harassment is the dance scene, where yes, it is debatable whether Baldoni crossed a line there. But even with that scene, no one addresses the fact that when Lively complained about Baldoni's behavior on camera, he told her the he "doesn't even find [Lively] attractive" in his defense. Which is (1) a classic neg to assert dominance, and (2) beside the point because you don't have to be attracted to someone to make them feel uncomfortable.

But sure, let's defer to the "legal experts" at the NY Post, that bastion if journalistic integrity, who have not actually read the complaints and don't even understand what Lively is alleging.

BL strikes me as that girl who walks by a table of co-workers, flashes her breasts as she walks by, teases them about how they prob “all have little boners now,” singles one of them out randomly and makes a crack about “and yours is probably the smallest!” ….but then when the guy fires back to tell her it’s bigger than the soda can she’s holding, she goes straight to HR about how uncomfortable it made her feel.

She sets the stage with unprofessional, spicy, crass banter and then uses it to turn the tables when it will benefit her.

Heath and Baldoni may have been naively lured into thinking that she was perfectly open to discussing scene nudity but I don’t think they weren’t reading the room. I think she just changed the rules whenever it no longer suited her.

Your last sentence is exactly how I felt about that bar scene. Blake had talked about wanting her character to be more sexy in text messages and then went to the bar scene with an overcoat on. When her producer Justin asked her to take it off because it would be sexy she feigned being so upset by the comment so that her cast mates would see her as a victim. I bet she continued to do this in more ways than one after she realized that she wasn’t getting her way. Playing the victim and angel while others are around but being the real devil behind the scene.

Yes all at Ryan Reynolds direction probably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

I saw the signs, yeah I opened up my eyes and saw the signs

DP, but yeah, you really did.

[Anonymous]

An incredible summary. Focus is on BL and RR following Reynolds’s strategies to get production and backend profits for Deadpool to do the same for her. It tracks.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7qeV56Mo7vs