The Blake Lively/Justin Baldoni thread

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff I was in that thread today (and for the record have no problem with you locking it). And while yes, the world is on fire, I think it is long overdue to point out a pattern that occurs in the entertainment forum. A pattern not entirely divorced from the world being on fire.

Look up the top 20 threads with the most comments here on DCUM. How many of them are about a woman?

How many threads in entertainment have to be closed down due to rampant sexism that goes on for sometimes hundreds of pages before its locked.

It is my perception that 90% or so of the participants in the entertainment forum are women. Do you agree with that assessment?

Jeff I have respected you and appreciated your evenhandedness for the almost decade I have been on this site. But are you implying that women cannot be sexist towards women? Because I thought better of you than that.

I was asking the previous poster whether or not she agreed with my perception. I was not implying anything.

I am the previous poster. That was my response. Yes I agree most posters are female. I’m not sure why that fact would make it ok that this happens over and over again.

It is frequently accepted, though I can't say that I entirely accept it, that members of a group being marginalized are better able to detect prejudice than those who are not members of the group. So, for instance, a Jewish person might detect antisemitism where I might not. In the case of these celebrity threads that almost always, in my opinion, turn sexist, half or more of the participants are members of the presumptively marginalized group. So there are posters like you saying that the thread is sexist and I should do something about it and there are other women saying that the thread is not sexist and I should stay out of it. I normally might concede to members of the marginalized group, but in this case that's impossible. So what am i supposed to do?

This thread has infuriated me today which I’m sure is compounded by my general fury at the world. I’m a federal employee, went in there to take my mind off things ironically!

I understand this question and while I don’t fully agree with the premise I do understand why you use it. I will think about it a little bit when less fired up and perhaps come back with some suggestions if you’d be open to them.

Thanks, I can’t imagine having to moderate this forum over the last 2/3 weeks

[Anonymous]

What the heck? I started that thread to discuss the legal issues and there was some interesting info being discussed. Jeff, this is not a silly thread at all.

It seems to me that there are primarily one or maybe two overly fragile posters who clutch pearls and get the offended when anyone discusses anything they view as ‘sexist’. And then they run to Jeff to tattle over and over. Talk about degrading to women. We can’t handle lively debate about a random celebrity?

Please explain to me… Why can’t this poster just NOT read the thread if it is so upsetting to them? Why can’t they be banned from the thread and the rest of us can keep chatting?

This is ridiculous.

- sighed woman lawyer and feminist

[Anonymous]

Signed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the heck? I started that thread to discuss the legal issues and there was some interesting info being discussed. Jeff, this is not a silly thread at all.

It seems to me that there are primarily one or maybe two overly fragile posters who clutch pearls and get the offended when anyone discusses anything they view as ‘sexist’. And then they run to Jeff to tattle over and over. Talk about degrading to women. We can’t handle lively debate about a random celebrity?

Please explain to me… Why can’t this poster just NOT read the thread if it is so upsetting to them? Why can’t they be banned from the thread and the rest of us can keep chatting?

This is ridiculous.

- sighed woman lawyer and feminist

Were you the one equating her to a p*rn star who asked for any mistreatment if it existed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the heck? I started that thread to discuss the legal issues and there was some interesting info being discussed. Jeff, this is not a silly thread at all.

It seems to me that there are primarily one or maybe two overly fragile posters who clutch pearls and get the offended when anyone discusses anything they view as ‘sexist’. And then they run to Jeff to tattle over and over. Talk about degrading to women. We can’t handle lively debate about a random celebrity?

Please explain to me… Why can’t this poster just NOT read the thread if it is so upsetting to them? Why can’t they be banned from the thread and the rest of us can keep chatting?

This is ridiculous.

- sighed woman lawyer and feminist

Were you the one equating her to a p*rn star who asked for any mistreatment if it existed?

I think you can see from this short exchange which posters are attempting to have a good faith discussion and which are attempting to bait, and derail what has been a civilized discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the heck? I started that thread to discuss the legal issues and there was some interesting info being discussed. Jeff, this is not a silly thread at all.

It seems to me that there are primarily one or maybe two overly fragile posters who clutch pearls and get the offended when anyone discusses anything they view as ‘sexist’. And then they run to Jeff to tattle over and over. Talk about degrading to women. We can’t handle lively debate about a random celebrity?

Please explain to me… Why can’t this poster just NOT read the thread if it is so upsetting to them? Why can’t they be banned from the thread and the rest of us can keep chatting?

This is ridiculous.

- sighed woman lawyer and feminist

+1000

I hope Jeff reconsiders. Let us make one more thread about this issue and completely ignore all complaints about it. If someone finds it misogynistic, that’s their problem. They can leave.

[Anonymous]

DP but was the "one or two overly fragile posters who clutch pearls" part of your good faith civilized discussion lol?

I don't go into a lot of the other entertainment threads besides the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp one (where I saw this same dynamic) so I don't know what the solution is generally or in this specific case. I would also go crazy if I had Jeff's job and I'm not sure this is solveable right now.

omg what is this suggestion: "one more thread about this issue and completely ignore all complaints about it."

That sounds horrible. Please don't do that.

[Anonymous]

I don't usually read any of the entertainment forum threads about this sort of thing because I was already pretty sure that they'd turn into a misogynist free-for-all in the same way the political forum can when topics of sexual harassment and sexual assault come up. The same sexist sh*t that happened to Clinton or Harris will be visited also on Markle and Lively because this culture cannot help itself. That it is mostly "women" talking about "women's issues" with "other women" doesn't downplay the toxic misogyny that comes to those threads.

I don't think the solution is to limit the page counts on threads about women, but perhaps if people started reporting toxicity before threads get to 90 pages, something could be done about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP but was the "one or two overly fragile posters who clutch pearls" part of your good faith civilized discussion lol?

I don't go into a lot of the other entertainment threads besides the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp one (where I saw this same dynamic) so I don't know what the solution is generally or in this specific case. I would also go crazy if I had Jeff's job and I'm not sure this is solveable right now.

omg what is this suggestion: "one more thread about this issue and completely ignore all complaints about it."

That sounds horrible. Please don't do that.

You can so easily stay away from the thread! Why not allow others the freedom to speak?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP but was the "one or two overly fragile posters who clutch pearls" part of your good faith civilized discussion lol?

I don't go into a lot of the other entertainment threads besides the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp one (where I saw this same dynamic) so I don't know what the solution is generally or in this specific case. I would also go crazy if I had Jeff's job and I'm not sure this is solveable right now.

omg what is this suggestion: "one more thread about this issue and completely ignore all complaints about it."

That sounds horrible. Please don't do that.

You can just not read it, you already said you avoided most of the entertainment threads. However, right now, those of us who want to discuss the litigation, including a novel defamation case involving The NY Times, have nowhere to do so on the board. I’ll add that most of the participants are nerdy female lawyers and journalists, not the Proud Boys.

[Anonymous]

We are allowing one lunatic hold this topic of discussion hostage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP but was the "one or two overly fragile posters who clutch pearls" part of your good faith civilized discussion lol?

I don't go into a lot of the other entertainment threads besides the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp one (where I saw this same dynamic) so I don't know what the solution is generally or in this specific case. I would also go crazy if I had Jeff's job and I'm not sure this is solveable right now.

omg what is this suggestion: "one more thread about this issue and completely ignore all complaints about it."

That sounds horrible. Please don't do that.

It actually sounds great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the heck? I started that thread to discuss the legal issues and there was some interesting info being discussed. Jeff, this is not a silly thread at all.

It seems to me that there are primarily one or maybe two overly fragile posters who clutch pearls and get the offended when anyone discusses anything they view as ‘sexist’. And then they run to Jeff to tattle over and over. Talk about degrading to women. We can’t handle lively debate about a random celebrity?

Please explain to me… Why can’t this poster just NOT read the thread if it is so upsetting to them? Why can’t they be banned from the thread and the rest of us can keep chatting?

This is ridiculous.

- sighed woman lawyer and feminist

Jeff is too busy and people constantly flagging comments for deletion effectively ended the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how else to handle this. Sorry.

The thread (https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1335/1253236.page) is being overrun by trolls posting misogynist, sexist comments that amount to "she asked for it." I had previously been reporting specific posts that crossed a line but it's too much now and a lot of them you have to read in context to understand how offensive they are.

Here is an example of a back and forth exchange so you can get a sense of what is happening. I've tried to identify poster to the best of my ability:

Poster 1: If this was real life harassment I would be more sympathetic. This was perceived harassment within a film, these were actors. Lively was acting a part, Baldino was acting a part. This is SH within a fantasy.

Poster 2 (this is me): This does not make sense. A film set is a real place. Most of the alleged harassment happened outside of scenes they were filming together. You sound like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Lively is alleging "real life harassment."

Poster 3: +1000. What is your answer for them talking to her about their p*rn consumption habits and the guy barging into her trailer demanding to talk to her when she was topless?
She asked for it? That's what acting is?

Poster 1 or new poster: Her door locked, no?

Poster 2 (me again): Heath walked in on her in the makeup trailer having body makeup removed. It wasn't even her trailer and she was topless because the makeup people were working on her. She asked him to leave and he wouldn't, so she asked him to turn around and then caught him looking at her bare breasts.

Poster 1 or new poster: Ok so what. This is like a porn star complaining that a male actor saw her naked.

Poster 2 (me again): It is not like that at all. It's like an actress in a makeup trailer having body makeup removed asked for privacy from the film's producer and he refused to give it to her.
This wasn't a porno.

Poster 1 or new poster: She agreed to have body paint, so was she topless in the movie? She agreed to this.[/I]

So it's either one or more posters who are just responding to every single post with some variation on "she asked for it." Comparing this movie (which is not a pornography and doesn't even feature and full nudity in the film) to a porno. Blaming her for failing to lock her door. Ignoring facts that posters are sharing that contradict this narrative, not even acknowledging or engaging with them, to continue to push this narrative of "she asked for it."

I don't know what else to do at this point. I know I should leave the thread altogether for my own sanity but also others should not have to see this kind of blatant trolling, it's deeply offensive and hurtful to survivors of sexual violence regardless of whether they happen to agree with Blake Lively's pending sexual harassment lawsuit.

I'm a survivor of both sexual harassment and rape and I think you're the most problematic person on that thread.

+100. truly obnoxious, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we should give Jeff a bit of a break because the world is kind Having a Moment right now and he may not really be able to give this full consideration tbh. That was kind of the point of closing the thread I think. But maybe it's an issue to consider for Future Times when everything isn't on fire in a dumpster, imho.

Thank you for your service, PP and also Jeff.

The thread was closed because the same poster spams him with post reports and then comes here to demand the thread be closed. She has done it multiple times with the Blake Lively threads and likely will continue to do so on other threads. The problem is that person and no the threads.

spoiler: it’s Blake.