Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The retaliation claim is weak because Justin’s defense is that he was not acting in retaliation for sexual harassment, but because of Blake’s campaign against him.  It’s a question for the jury and that is bad for Blake.  Her lack of likability will hurt her just as much as the actual facts.[/quote]

This. And countering PR with PR is unlikely to be retaliation in any kind of EEO context. The PR was to support It Ends With Us as much as Baldoni. The troll who was all caps shrieking accusations at how horrible everyone here is - and yes I am getting to a germane point -  also claimed to be living on TikTok and “seeing” this campaign develop. She came to this late. That ignores essential realities about Lively’s press for years and years and years. I’m the woman who wanted to talk intersectional issues and who has known and seen for years that Lively attracts bad press not because of her reproductive system but because she is an unusually aggressive, unusually tone-deaf interviewee for someone in her position. Leighton Meester played the spicy character in Gossip Girl and has opposite press. The cast of Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants largely does not have her press problems.

Her likability was the goddamned ground floor for her spurious claims. And large swaths of the population do not like her and are absolutely entitled to feel that way and to vote with their wallets against supporting her hair and drink brands.[/quote]

Hi, thanks for referencing me. I did not say I 'lived' on tiktok, I thought lawyers were supposed to be precise? I said I was on tiktok at the time witnessed what appeared to be in an inorganic smear campaign develop. And saw the internet turn its woman hating gaze on its next victim.

I didn't come that late I just took a break, I'm the poster who said on page 14 this would turn into a sh*tshow. I also haven't reporting a single GD one of your crappy posts. I just respond to you calling you sexist to your (digital) face. I'm not a troll, and I never called you a troll. Sorry my opinion is inconvenient for you.

I don't think a woman's prior behavior dictates whether she can or cannot be SA/Hed. Because that is misogyny to believe that. I said I didn't particularly like her. I even said I liked Leighton Meester better! It doesn't mean I think she is then asking to be SH-ed. I don't believe her being annoying entitles men to treat her poorly or for her to be subjected to poor working conditions. No one is saying you have to buy her hair and drink brands. What I'm saying is you are misogynistic and sexist if you decide that it is specifically her likeability that causes you to disbelieve her. Because that is not factual and its not evidentiary. And if you claim to be lawyer and pitch this well I hope I never hire you that's for sure. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics