The Blake Lively/Justin Baldoni thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please!!!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

Okay, I can see what you mean about it not being clear sexism or whatever, but I thought we were going to stick to facts and not overblown rhetoric about the people involved? But the first thing that’s posted is “This is a story about a truly evil couple who used their access to wealth and power and the #metoo movement to destroy a man who had never once offended them and never once defended himself … all because Ryan Reynolds was jealous, friends with Taylor Swift and he could.”

This is not factual. I don’t think it’s based in reality, even. I’m the PP nerdy female lawyer who was in favor of reopening the thread and it seems like folks posted that as a taunt? I get it though, I guess it’s mostly hateful rhetoric about Ryan Reynolds so I guess folks think that’s better.

I’m sorry if I’m being annoying. But, the solution isn’t to just say the same ridiculous untrue BS about the dude. I thought sticking to facts and legal arguments was the whole point. But I’m sorry if I misunderstood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please!!!

Agree, it’s too much!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Okay, I can see what you mean about it not being clear sexism or whatever, but I thought we were going to stick to facts and not overblown rhetoric about the people involved? But the first thing that’s posted is “This is a story about a truly evil couple who used their access to wealth and power and the #metoo movement to destroy a man who had never once offended them and never once defended himself … all because Ryan Reynolds was jealous, friends with Taylor Swift and he could.”

This is not factual. I don’t think it’s based in reality, even. I’m the PP nerdy female lawyer who was in favor of reopening the thread and it seems like folks posted that as a taunt? I get it though, I guess it’s mostly hateful rhetoric about Ryan Reynolds so I guess folks think that’s better.

I’m sorry if I’m being annoying. But, the solution isn’t to just say the same ridiculous untrue BS about the dude. I thought sticking to facts and legal arguments was the whole point. But I’m sorry if I misunderstood.

I don't know anything about this case and I don't want to know. But from that point of ignorance, Owens' version of events seems as believable as any other. She says that she has read the court documents and drawn her conclusions from them. From Owens' point of view, she is sticking to the facts.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Okay, I can see what you mean about it not being clear sexism or whatever, but I thought we were going to stick to facts and not overblown rhetoric about the people involved? But the first thing that’s posted is “This is a story about a truly evil couple who used their access to wealth and power and the #metoo movement to destroy a man who had never once offended them and never once defended himself … all because Ryan Reynolds was jealous, friends with Taylor Swift and he could.”

This is not factual. I don’t think it’s based in reality, even. I’m the PP nerdy female lawyer who was in favor of reopening the thread and it seems like folks posted that as a taunt? I get it though, I guess it’s mostly hateful rhetoric about Ryan Reynolds so I guess folks think that’s better.

I’m sorry if I’m being annoying. But, the solution isn’t to just say the same ridiculous untrue BS about the dude. I thought sticking to facts and legal arguments was the whole point. But I’m sorry if I misunderstood.

I don't know anything about this case and I don't want to know. But from that point of ignorance, Owens' version of events seems as believable as any other. She says that she has read the court documents and drawn her conclusions from them. From Owens' point of view, she is sticking to the facts.

+1 If we're going to police statements like that we go down a slippery slope where any opinion, period, will get banned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

His point is that women care about female celebrities, so of course that will be the subject of most threads. Do you think any of us here have that much to say about Austin Butler or Anthony Mackie? lol

Hundreds of pages of sexist drivel shouldn’t be allowed to happen over and over and over again IMO. He would never allow it for other marginalized groups, I admire how often and thoroughly he shuts down racist/anti lgbt threads.

NP. Just stop with the "women are marginalized groups." Stop always playing the victim. You are indeed part of the problem.
- a woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Okay, I can see what you mean about it not being clear sexism or whatever, but I thought we were going to stick to facts and not overblown rhetoric about the people involved? But the first thing that’s posted is “This is a story about a truly evil couple who used their access to wealth and power and the #metoo movement to destroy a man who had never once offended them and never once defended himself … all because Ryan Reynolds was jealous, friends with Taylor Swift and he could.”

This is not factual. I don’t think it’s based in reality, even. I’m the PP nerdy female lawyer who was in favor of reopening the thread and it seems like folks posted that as a taunt? I get it though, I guess it’s mostly hateful rhetoric about Ryan Reynolds so I guess folks think that’s better.

I’m sorry if I’m being annoying. But, the solution isn’t to just say the same ridiculous untrue BS about the dude. I thought sticking to facts and legal arguments was the whole point. But I’m sorry if I misunderstood.

No OP. start your own web forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please!!!

Seconding tbe please!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please!!!

+1000

[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?

Huh? No. I’m the dorky lawyer who is trying to discuss legal issues. But I am not so damned precious that I can’t handle someone saying ‘porn star’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you! You should see just how many threads there are on Reddit on this topic. The people want a chance to discuss this.

Why is that PP so afraid of people airing critiques of Blake Lively?

[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.

Exactly. There is no place to discuss these issues which are really really interesting legal issues, especially bc this board seems to have many lawyers and journalists. Again, I’m op of the thread and I started it to discuss the NYT piece. I’m a female and definitely not mysoginistic, but I’m also not so fragile that I can’t handle a little snark here and there about a celebrity. It’s insulting to women to assume we can’t handle this. Have you seen message boards with mostly men? They’re throwing barbs back and forth. NBD. But we are delicate flowers?

Jeff is letting one person hijack the board for the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Oops, I didn’t get the memo…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please!!!

+1000

She's back again. It's basically gaslighting/trolling at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'll stay out of the thread.

However.

I am disappointed in this response because I think if you took the time to read the thread and see what was happening, you would see that this is a bunch of internet trolls pushing a very specific, misogynist agenda. I know I am not the only poster who feels this way, as I've seen a number of posts to this effect in the thread.

I am not even a fan of Blake Lively. I have been following this case and the thread because I care about the issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault. This is frustrating because I think by leaving the thread alone, I think it perpetuates attitudes about sexual violence that are harmful and allows lies to spread about not only this case (where Lively's actual allegations are constantly misrepresented) but also about what it means to be sexually harassed, what rights people (of any gender) have in a workplace, how people are treated when they come forward with allegations of harassment or assault, etc.

Most survivors of sexual violence are imperfect victims. They face these same attitudes every day and most of them don't have the resources or support than an actress like Lively has. Many survivors can't even gain the support of their family and friends because of the kinds of attitudes on display in that thread. It is heartbreaking to me.

+1 It's like we've learned absolutely nothing from the Depp/Heard case. Given everything we're dealing with lately that's just blatantly anti-woman, I find this disheartening.

Doubling down on me too and misogyny. You PR bozos actually get paid for this crap I mean “strategy”? You’re just stealing money.