Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

I don’t know that we all think he’s gonna win the New York Times. I think many of us are disturbed that they let that run as it did it cost him his podcast, and he was basically canceled for 10 days until his team could properly respond.

It seems unethical and it’s disappointing that the writer was one of the journalists who helped take down Harvey Weinstein.

Again, weinstein had decades of horrific and terrorizing and illlegal behavior from multiple women with an eerily similar story. While I don’t think the standard needs to be near that high, it needed to be higher than what it was.

+1 I said earlier that I don't think he will win but I am very disappointed by the NYT. There's a delta between what's respectable reporting and what's actually illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

lol, sure Jan. Come back to gloat when that case is decided by the Court in their favor, instead of by settlement. And stay off all social media because you'll find the same level of anti-Blake sentiment every where.

I'm not actually pro-Blake at all, but there is ZERO chance Baldoni wins his suit against the NYT. In fact, 100 pages ago, everyone agreed it was a strategy move on his part and not a serious suit. It is incredible to watch the thread morph and egg each other on.

I thought I read somewhere that they had no intention of winning, but they get more discovery that way or something? Not sure if I have that right, but it seemed like they had access to more documents by suing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

Well I’m a real person and I emotionally want him to be successful in it because it seems unfair that they can publish that based on what came out after, but I don’t know the law on it. Not an idiot or swayed by astroturfing though. Nice try!

Of course you're swayed by astroturfing. Pretty much everyone is. That's why it works.

Wouldn’t I have to be on social media for that? Also, can’t I have my own opinions, or have you decided I can’t?

Uhm, you're on DCUM. Possible that you don't know what astroturfing is...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the factual lies?

Did she or did she not feel uncomfortable with him nuzzling her neck and going in for kisses is opinion, not truth or lie

her subjective feeling of discomfort (if it’s true) was unreasonable and not the basis for a harassment claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

lol, sure Jan. Come back to gloat when that case is decided by the Court in their favor, instead of by settlement. And stay off all social media because you'll find the same level of anti-Blake sentiment every where.

I'm not actually pro-Blake at all, but there is ZERO chance Baldoni wins his suit against the NYT. In fact, 100 pages ago, everyone agreed it was a strategy move on his part and not a serious suit. It is incredible to watch the thread morph and egg each other on.

I thought I read somewhere that they had no intention of winning, but they get more discovery that way or something? Not sure if I have that right, but it seemed like they had access to more documents by suing.

They very well may have filed the suit for discovery purposes. I have no opinion on whether the suit is strategically valuable. However, this thread is now full of people explaining why he's going to win. From a lawyer's perspective, it's actually insane... but also fascinating insight into how public opinion forms/shifts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

No one said he would win his law suit, several have said that the case would settle, which would means he gets money. There is simple no reason for the NY Times to take on the reputational risk of litigation, they are going to look bad even if they win.

Blake may not settle even though she should make this go away as soon as possible. But she has a personal interest in it, and the New York Times does not. A simple cost benefit analysis favors settlement for them, especially if they could settle for les than their litigation costs, or if the settlement is covered by insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt Baldoni much cares whether he actually wins his lawsuits; he's just trying to get his version of events out in the open which it seems he is accomplishing. His career and livelihood is on the line in a way that Blake Lively's isn't. She'll be fine either way (even if she never gets another film role she's still married to a billionaire, besties with another billionaire, and has other ventures). He might never get work again if he didn't fight back.

I wonder if Blake’s marriage will be fine. I think it possible that much of what apppears to be ginned up in her complaint was likely present by her to Ryan as fact.

Didn’t you already try to take a poll on this? Stop obsessing.

We have Blake supporters literally posting the same thing dozens of times, we can certainly discuss this more than once. Someone said Blake would be fine. Maybe not so fine if her marriage collapses because of this. If she lied to Ryan about sexual harassment, might explain her irrational attachment to what is a clearly doomed lawsuit.

Aren't you worried about Baldonis marriage? Who wants to be married to a sexual harasser. Nobody ever talks about his poor wife.

+1 even if Baldoni is not found to have harassed Lively, the involves him talking on set about his sex life, his wife's birth experience, his porn addiction, and a situation when Baldoni passed off a woman he was dating to Jamey Heath. He may or may not have harassed Lively, I don't know, but there is a strong ick factor coming off that guy.

I also think it's fascinating that Baldoni has built his entire public persona around being a male feminist who is sensitive to women and their experience, but his his defense and especially his defense lawyer are sort of the opposite of that. I don't see how he reconciles it.

I think his career is toast and I wouldn't be surprised if his marriage is on the rocks.

He had a podcast where he already was talking about all this stuff. I think his wife is aware he’s a sharer.

You think Ryan doesn’t know and trust his wife? So many fantasies here.

I have no idea what you’re taking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

Well I’m a real person and I emotionally want him to be successful in it because it seems unfair that they can publish that based on what came out after, but I don’t know the law on it. Not an idiot or swayed by astroturfing though. Nice try!

Of course you're swayed by astroturfing. Pretty much everyone is. That's why it works.

Wouldn’t I have to be on social media for that? Also, can’t I have my own opinions, or have you decided I can’t?

And also, I haven’t said I think he’ll win. I have no idea either way because I don’t know what the law on this is. I just think the story the NYT presented is unfair, as others have also expressed. It doesn’t seem like many people here have said they think he will definitely win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

No one said he would win his law suit, several have said that the case would settle, which would means he gets money. There is simple no reason for the NY Times to take on the reputational risk of litigation, they are going to look bad even if they win.

Blake may not settle even though she should make this go away as soon as possible. But she has a personal interest in it, and the New York Times does not. A simple cost benefit analysis favors settlement for them, especially if they could settle for les than their litigation costs, or if the settlement is covered by insurance.

I actually think it's inconceivable that the NYT settles this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

No one said he would win his law suit, several have said that the case would settle, which would means he gets money. There is simple no reason for the NY Times to take on the reputational risk of litigation, they are going to look bad even if they win.

Blake may not settle even though she should make this go away as soon as possible. But she has a personal interest in it, and the New York Times does not. A simple cost benefit analysis favors settlement for them, especially if they could settle for les than their litigation costs, or if the settlement is covered by insurance.

I actually think it's inconceivable that the NYT settles this.

That we disagree. Inconceivable is a strong word given how bad their reporting was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

No one said he would win his law suit, several have said that the case would settle, which would means he gets money. There is simple no reason for the NY Times to take on the reputational risk of litigation, they are going to look bad even if they win.

Blake may not settle even though she should make this go away as soon as possible. But she has a personal interest in it, and the New York Times does not. A simple cost benefit analysis favors settlement for them, especially if they could settle for les than their litigation costs, or if the settlement is covered by insurance.

Actually, lots of posts in this thread explain how he will or could win. Go back 3 pages. "No one" is definitely inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

No one said he would win his law suit, several have said that the case would settle, which would means he gets money. There is simple no reason for the NY Times to take on the reputational risk of litigation, they are going to look bad even if they win.

Blake may not settle even though she should make this go away as soon as possible. But she has a personal interest in it, and the New York Times does not. A simple cost benefit analysis favors settlement for them, especially if they could settle for les than their litigation costs, or if the settlement is covered by insurance.

Thanks, this is a helpful take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the factual lies?

Did she or did she not feel uncomfortable with him nuzzling her neck and going in for kisses is opinion, not truth or lie

But they were acting in a scene together. Doesn’t really matter if she felt comfortable or not. They were both in character during that scene. Even when they were talking, they were being filmed to get footage for the movie. Even when they’re talking they are trying to create a vibe so they kept it low and kind of casual like their characters would’ve. Yes, they were talking about the real lives, but there is no question they were in character. They were literally filming a scene for a movie and if they had been having that conversation out of character, they would not be dancing together, holding each other.

Serious question, if a woman is uncomfortable or doesn’t like being around a man because of a pattern of
behavior that he has, maybe he is dismissive, maybe he sighs too much, maybe he says he’s going to incorporate our ideas and he doesn’t , is it always sexual harassment? I’m not trying to be sarcastic. I’m truly asking.

Is it just because the power balance of a man and a woman is such that if he creates a hostile environment, it is automatically sexual harassment? Because I think if the set was not well run, and they weren’t getting along great, she might very well be uncomfortable. But I don’t think it means he has made a series of sexual overtures toward her.

There are some acts that are so outrageous that they are considered per se sexual harassment and that only needs to happen once. Say, an actual sexual assault on an employee. For hostile work environment, you need a pattern of unwelcome behavior. In some workplaces people make crude sex jokes and no one cares. If someone cares and speaks up letting it be known this conduct is unwelcome, and the behavior continues, now there is potential harassment. But the employer is generally not expected to read your bond and notice you grimacing or getting quiet when these jokes occur. So in Lively's case, to me, it is not at all obvious that she is feeling harassed in this scene, even though she may feel that way internally. We can read her body language for clues, but it is not reasonable to expect Baldoni to have understood for her language and tone in this scene that she was feeling uncomfortable and that he should stop what he's doing. To a reasonable observer, she was offering an interpretation that it would be more romantic to have them talking and the audience guessing at what they were saying. If she was really uncomfortable because there was no intimacy coordinator, she could have stopped and aid "the touching in this scene is going further than what was in the script and I want to consult with the intimacy coordinator."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

No one said he would win his law suit, several have said that the case would settle, which would means he gets money. There is simple no reason for the NY Times to take on the reputational risk of litigation, they are going to look bad even if they win.

Blake may not settle even though she should make this go away as soon as possible. But she has a personal interest in it, and the New York Times does not. A simple cost benefit analysis favors settlement for them, especially if they could settle for les than their litigation costs, or if the settlement is covered by insurance.

Actually, lots of posts in this thread explain how he will or could win. Go back 3 pages. "No one" is definitely inaccurate.

I don't think so. Several posters talked about The NY Times fears of losing the Sullivan precedent on appeal. Is that what you mean? That was said in support of the belief that the paper would settle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the majority of folks in this thread now appear convinced that Baldoni is going to be successful in his NYT suit is basically proof positive of bots, astroturfing or idiocy; I'm just not sure which one!

No one said he would win his law suit, several have said that the case would settle, which would means he gets money. There is simple no reason for the NY Times to take on the reputational risk of litigation, they are going to look bad even if they win.

Blake may not settle even though she should make this go away as soon as possible. But she has a personal interest in it, and the New York Times does not. A simple cost benefit analysis favors settlement for them, especially if they could settle for les than their litigation costs, or if the settlement is covered by insurance.

I think you’re wrong there - the NYT doesn’t need to settle bad defamation suits. they have plenty of legal budget and experience to fight them. 1A kind of a big deal to them …