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]This set of circumstances have absolutely nothing to do with the DV in a marriage between Amber Heard and Depp. The power difference between Reynolds/Lively makes them the Depp, not the Heard, and best I know, there was no documentary evidence like screenshots of uncut and unedited text comms backing up either of those parties.  So no, sorry, I don’t see any commonalities between these things, nor between Lively’s acts and those of any MeToo claimant in Hollywood or otherwise.

We have to wait and see but I think she ended her career with going to the NYT. Baldoni and his production company likely had the ultimate prize of establishing a working relationship with Sony for additional future projects, which is why he bent over backwards to accommodate the impossible. (That is it seems the “he’s a jerk too” “he is a grifter” stuff - it makes no sense). I find Lively’s actions outrageous and dishonest and the only way to see otherwise is to decide against reason that she is telling the truth as an act of will, because it isn’t backed up with any publicly available information.[/quote]

I'm the PP you are referring to and I specifically said I think the underlying situations are different and I agree that Lively has much more power than Heard ever had.

My point was that the online pile on against Lively resembles the one against Heard very strongly, and that the way Baldoni's PR team (who also worked for Depp against Heard) and his lawyer have approached the situation really capitalizes on how so many people online are eager to pillory a woman, call her a liar, call her crazy.

[b]I know people will say "But but but THIS time she really is a crazy liar!" Well that would be very convenient because what a nice gift for all the people whose favorite pastime is calling women crazy liars.[/b]

That dynamic gives me pause and is enough for me to step back, let the courts handle it, and reserve judgment. I don't get on here defending Lively specifically or claiming she's a great person, but I am not ready to try and convict her in the court of public opinion because there are way too many similarities in the vibe to what happened with Heard. Even if the underlying facts are different. It might be worth it to just cool off the rhetoric.

If Lively's case is crap I'm actually very comfortable that the courts will take care of it, and if Baldoni sincerely has a defamation case, I think he'll get money. Even with the power imbalance, because no matter how rich or famous a woman is, women do NOT get away with things. See, e.g., Martha Stewart. If Lively is at fault here, she'll get pinned for it. If she were a man... not so much.[/quote]

Immaterial. Anyone accusing someone of uncivil behavior leading to potential damages can have their claim assessed, especially when they do everything possible to publicize and amplify their claims. I’m not ever going to stop calling the bolded irrational and accusatory because it is. Her case has to be assessed as her case, not as the runoff of the campaign against any prior accuser.

There have been DV advocates posting here saying Lively is an outlier for them. Are they liars? It’s clearly what you’re suggesting. I have supported and believed quite literally every accuser of SH I have ever read about and used to work for a civil rights group on EEO matters. I do not think this has a thing to do with “who is a great person.”

Does “cool off the rhetoric” go in all directions? Right back atcha.[/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