Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

She was an actress filming a romantic scene. He did nothing inappropriate in that scene. If she was uncomfortable with the behavior we witnessed, she should consider not acting in movies with any physical contact.

[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 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 …

You already said that, but I disagree. Their reporting was piss poor here and I don't think they want to expose that. I assume that they usually are defending a more thoroughly vetted story. We'll see.

[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!

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 …

You already said that, but I disagree. Their reporting was piss poor here and I don't think they want to expose that. I assume that they usually are defending a more thoroughly vetted story. We'll see.

Meh not any more “piss poor” than any number of bad NYTimes takes over the past few years … I truly do not think they are trembling in their boots over a celebrity gossip suit (no matter how right I think Baldoni is, which I do).

[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 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 …

I agree. Their reporting was sloppy, and even unethical, but likely not defamatory. Lively's complaint appears dishonest in light of the video, but they were mostly reporting that "her complaint alleged..." and "the texts said..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

She was an actress filming a romantic scene. He did nothing inappropriate in that scene. If she was uncomfortable with the behavior we witnessed, she should consider not acting in movies with any physical contact.

It’s also insane that we are debating her comfort in this scene when she is literally acting. We can’t tell what is acting and what is not. If they weren’t acting, why would she be dancing with him? It makes no sense. If she thought that they were merely just having a conversation, or even debating about how to do a scene, she would’ve put her hands down, stopped dancing, faced him and talked about the scene. Made the argument that she thinks it would be more romantic if they were talking because that’s what she and her husband did, but she didn’t do that. They stayed dancing and swaying and gazing, because they were being filmed and there was footage being collected to make a scene. Absolute bat shit insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

Well that part is fair! I meant other than DCUM. I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume astroturfing is way worse elsewhere…

[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!

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 …

You already said that, but I disagree. Their reporting was piss poor here and I don't think they want to expose that. I assume that they usually are defending a more thoroughly vetted story. We'll see.

You're talking to multiple people who think the NYT definitely won't settle a meritless defamation suit.

[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.

Same.

A huge problem for Baldoni here is that he absolutely hired that PR firm and those texts are real. He's arguing libel. What is the defamation. That the texts look slightly less cruel if you put them in broader context? That's not a case.

I think a lot of people on this thread don't understand that the burden for a public person to prove against a newspaper are incredibly high. The law requires him to prove they published lies or intentionally mislead readers with malice (meaning on purpose with intent to harm). It's a high bar. Public people have to clear a higher hurdle than someone who is not famous because otherwise there would be a chilling effect on the press and they'd be afraid to publish anything about any notable person. Well that's most news.

He will not win. The paper will not settle. This is an easy one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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 …

You already said that, but I disagree. Their reporting was piss poor here and I don't think they want to expose that. I assume that they usually are defending a more thoroughly vetted story. We'll see.

You're talking to multiple people who think the NYT definitely won't settle a meritless defamation suit.

We'll see. The vast majority of cases do settle, even when the defendant believes they will likely prevail at trial. And here, The NY Times would be taking on significantly more bad press than they would in a case where the reporting is up to their normal standards.

I also can tell how many people are posting. Number of posts don't correlate to number of posters, especially when one of them is known for sockpuppeting. I'll can see more than one poster though.

[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!

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.

Same.

A huge problem for Baldoni here is that he absolutely hired that PR firm and those texts are real. He's arguing libel. What is the defamation. That the texts look slightly less cruel if you put them in broader context? That's not a case.

I think a lot of people on this thread don't understand that the burden for a public person to prove against a newspaper are incredibly high. The law requires him to prove they published lies or intentionally mislead readers with malice (meaning on purpose with intent to harm). It's a high bar. Public people have to clear a higher hurdle than someone who is not famous because otherwise there would be a chilling effect on the press and they'd be afraid to publish anything about any notable person. Well that's most news.

He will not win. The paper will not settle. This is an easy one.

The texts were manipulated to completely change their meaning. That's not typical. Nor is publishing without speaking to both sides.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think Blake was arguing that each occurrence on it’s on by itself was harassment. Harassment is usually a pattern and isolated incidents are not the problem but when there is repeated behaviour. Just like someone stopping by your house once isn’t a threat oblem but if they stop by 10 times making you very uncomfortable, you are still going to mention the first time. And even if they say their intention wasn’t to stalk you, he behaviour can still be a problem.

A toxic work environment isn’t one occurrence. It can be the cumulative effect of multiple things.

And just because this is a film set and they are acting doesn’t mean there are no rules or limits or expectations. It isn’t an anything goes work environment either.

[Anonymous]

Here's two examples where media companies settled defamation cases in the plaintiff's favor. The first is the Fox-Dominion case in which Fox Trump supporters to claim that Dominion voting machines were rigged for Biden. Another was the Rolling Stone-UVA case where Rolling Stone published false allegations of a gang rape at a UVA fraternity. I can see similarities between the second case, and this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's two examples where media companies settled defamation cases in the plaintiff's favor. The first is the Fox-Dominion case in which Fox Trump supporters to claim that Dominion voting machines were rigged for Biden. Another was the Rolling Stone-UVA case where Rolling Stone published false allegations of a gang rape at a UVA fraternity. I can see similarities between the second case, and this one.

Typed too fast, where Fox allowed Trump supporters. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Blake was arguing that each occurrence on it’s on by itself was harassment. Harassment is usually a pattern and isolated incidents are not the problem but when there is repeated behaviour. Just like someone stopping by your house once isn’t a threat oblem but if they stop by 10 times making you very uncomfortable, you are still going to mention the first time. And even if they say their intention wasn’t to stalk you, he behaviour can still be a problem.

A toxic work environment isn’t one occurrence. It can be the cumulative effect of multiple things.

And just because this is a film set and they are acting doesn’t mean there are no rules or limits or expectations. It isn’t an anything goes work environment either.

But she is claiming sexual harassment. Not a toxic work environment or general harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Blake was arguing that each occurrence on it’s on by itself was harassment. Harassment is usually a pattern and isolated incidents are not the problem but when there is repeated behaviour. Just like someone stopping by your house once isn’t a threat oblem but if they stop by 10 times making you very uncomfortable, you are still going to mention the first time. And even if they say their intention wasn’t to stalk you, he behaviour can still be a problem.

A toxic work environment isn’t one occurrence. It can be the cumulative effect of multiple things.

And just because this is a film set and they are acting doesn’t mean there are no rules or limits or expectations. It isn’t an anything goes work environment either.

She is an actress filming intimate scenes. That by its nature is going to require physical touching. If he touched her over her objection that would be problematic. That also clearly did not happen. The scene could not have been any more professional.