The Blake Lively/Justin Baldoni thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

Kate Middleton, Megan Markle, Angelina Jolie, Hilaria, Danni Starr back in the Kane Show drama, etc etc. This happens over and over and over and over again.

I understand the entertainment forum is fluff that you aren't generally interested in, but trolls take advantage of that to post absolutely obscene content there. I don't know what the solution is but I might suggest that any thread that is about a woman gets a limit on pages.

I spent time arguing on that stupid thread today because I am a woman and directly effected by all this hateful sh*t going on in the world and just literally could not stand by and watch someone spew sexist s**t into the air without being called out AGAIN. I feel like a blanket policy would help but this happens over and over and over and over again and it's effed up. I know its not your fault, but I just feel like you should have some kind of policy about it because it happens a LOT.

This issue is her and not the threads. This is ridiculous. Once you let her close down one thread, she is just going to keep going with others in that forum.

Just standing up for the PP you are insulting, MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE in the thread asked folks to stay on topic and not reflexively insult the people involved or the people posting, which only seemed to make certain posters do it more. This is why we can't have nice things. Why did you all double down like that, except to be hateful? The thread closing is your own fault because you can't behave like normal human beings who don't say whatever crazy, sexist thing first comes into their heads. You. The blame lies with you.

no, the blame lies with the git that purposefully got the thread closed by constantly complaining and accusing anyone who criticized Lively of being a misogynist or a Baldoni PR agent. I don’t blame Jeff but let’s be honest about what happened.

- signed female, feminist lawyer who was interested in the legal discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am also a nerdy female lawyer! All you had to do is stop saying that Lively slept with Harvey Weinstein or had a personality disorder or [insert random slur here] and yet people somehow could not do that -- that's not the fault of the people who are complaining about it, it's the fault of the people who are posting that BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am also a nerdy female lawyer! All you had to do is stop saying that Lively slept with Harvey Weinstein or had a personality disorder or [insert random slur here] and yet people somehow could not do that -- that's not the fault of the people who are complaining about it, it's the fault of the people who are posting that BS.

People did stop saying that you liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am also a nerdy female lawyer! All you had to do is stop saying that Lively slept with Harvey Weinstein or had a personality disorder or [insert random slur here] and yet people somehow could not do that -- that's not the fault of the people who are complaining about it, it's the fault of the people who are posting that BS.

There was ONE troll saying that (maybe even a troll with the intention of getting the thread closed). That troll could have been flagged and banned, and done. instead you equated all criticism of Lively or even neutral critique of the case as the same as the troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am also a nerdy female lawyer! All you had to do is stop saying that Lively slept with Harvey Weinstein or had a personality disorder or [insert random slur here] and yet people somehow could not do that -- that's not the fault of the people who are complaining about it, it's the fault of the people who are posting that BS.

Oh please, that was obviously a troll. The standard is not to close down every thread with a troll or there would be literally no threads on dcum. Ignore and move on, not bother Jeff a thousand times a day about trivial things. The only reason op wants this particular thread shut down is because the majority of posters have a different opinion on which party has a stronger case than she does. Again, if someone can’t participate in this thread, which really is about legal filings, without being triggered, they shouldn’t participate. Easy solution that lets everyone else continue an interesting discussion.

[jsteele]

This is an excerpt from one of the last posts before I locked the thread (and also from one of the posters arguing with me in this thread):

My point is that the case can be argued WITHOUT body shaming her or using overtly sexist tropes or equating her to a p*rn star (which I hesitate to include because I ALSO think it is inherently sexist to the p*rn stars to be acting like THEY don't also have rights they are entitled to). Since you keep reverting to disgusting sexist tropes that have been used to discredit women for most of human history instead of focusing on dispassionate facts, then I will continue to think you are sexist jerks.

For reasons that I assume are obvious, I don't want to be refereeing what is or is not misogyny. But, I think what this poster points out should be fairly non-controversial. If posters don't body shame, don't use obvious sexist tropes, don't suggest that Lively slept with Harry Weinstein or anyone's husband (or wife for that matter), if you can just stick to facts, I'll unlock the thread. Those of you who want the thread to remain unlocked will have to report posts that cross those lines. Also, report them early, not after 20 pages.

Is this acceptable?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:This is an excerpt from one of the last posts before I locked the thread (and also from one of the posters arguing with me in this thread):

My point is that the case can be argued WITHOUT body shaming her or using overtly sexist tropes or equating her to a p*rn star (which I hesitate to include because I ALSO think it is inherently sexist to the p*rn stars to be acting like THEY don't also have rights they are entitled to). Since you keep reverting to disgusting sexist tropes that have been used to discredit women for most of human history instead of focusing on dispassionate facts, then I will continue to think you are sexist jerks.

For reasons that I assume are obvious, I don't want to be refereeing what is or is not misogyny. But, I think what this poster points out should be fairly non-controversial. If posters don't body shame, don't use obvious sexist tropes, don't suggest that Lively slept with Harry Weinstein or anyone's husband (or wife for that matter), if you can just stick to facts, I'll unlock the thread. Those of you who want the thread to remain unlocked will have to report posts that cross those lines. Also, report them early, not after 20 pages.

Is this acceptable?

I am the "I am also a nerdy female lawyer" PP above (though not the PP who posted this thread) and that would work for me, fwiw. I would just like to try to get folks to stick to the actual facts.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:This is an excerpt from one of the last posts before I locked the thread (and also from one of the posters arguing with me in this thread):

My point is that the case can be argued WITHOUT body shaming her or using overtly sexist tropes or equating her to a p*rn star (which I hesitate to include because I ALSO think it is inherently sexist to the p*rn stars to be acting like THEY don't also have rights they are entitled to). Since you keep reverting to disgusting sexist tropes that have been used to discredit women for most of human history instead of focusing on dispassionate facts, then I will continue to think you are sexist jerks.

For reasons that I assume are obvious, I don't want to be refereeing what is or is not misogyny. But, I think what this poster points out should be fairly non-controversial. If posters don't body shame, don't use obvious sexist tropes, don't suggest that Lively slept with Harry Weinstein or anyone's husband (or wife for that matter), if you can just stick to facts, I'll unlock the thread. Those of you who want the thread to remain unlocked will have to report posts that cross those lines. Also, report them early, not after 20 pages.

Is this acceptable?

Yes, Jeff 🤗

[Anonymous]

Yes, of course

[jsteele]

Okay, I've unlocked it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:This is an excerpt from one of the last posts before I locked the thread (and also from one of the posters arguing with me in this thread):

My point is that the case can be argued WITHOUT body shaming her or using overtly sexist tropes or equating her to a p*rn star (which I hesitate to include because I ALSO think it is inherently sexist to the p*rn stars to be acting like THEY don't also have rights they are entitled to). Since you keep reverting to disgusting sexist tropes that have been used to discredit women for most of human history instead of focusing on dispassionate facts, then I will continue to think you are sexist jerks.

For reasons that I assume are obvious, I don't want to be refereeing what is or is not misogyny. But, I think what this poster points out should be fairly non-controversial. If posters don't body shame, don't use obvious sexist tropes, don't suggest that Lively slept with Harry Weinstein or anyone's husband (or wife for that matter), if you can just stick to facts, I'll unlock the thread. Those of you who want the thread to remain unlocked will have to report posts that cross those lines. Also, report them early, not after 20 pages.

Is this acceptable?

Thanks for giving the thread a chance but I do believe that PP will claim ANY criticism of Lively is a “sexist trope”. I guess we’ll see?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Okay, I've unlocked it.

Thank you, Jeff! Sorry you have to deal with this nonsense now of all times. I will report any obvious troll posts with extreme language and Harvey Weinstein stuff.

[Anonymous]

So the good faith opening volley of the “sure we’ll stop posting sexist bs” contingent is a Candace Owen’s diatribe? Are you serious??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the good faith opening volley of the “sure we’ll stop posting sexist bs” contingent is a Candace Owen’s diatribe? Are you serious??

Drop it. Please stop. I hate Candace Owens but you cannot be policing every single post you do not like. If this doesn't stop, I wish Jeff would just IP ban you.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So the good faith opening volley of the “sure we’ll stop posting sexist bs” contingent is a Candace Owen’s diatribe? Are you serious??

I don't like Candace Owens either, but I don't understand what is sexist about her tweet. She is blaming Reynolds and much as Lively.