Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

+1 I was genuinely stressed reading about the gross things he said and did. Blake's female co-stars agreed. I don't think Jenny Slate is undiscerning, at all.

They would be distressing if they were true

So all three women lied about their experiences and observations? Umkay.

Yes we know from the vast amount of evidence that she lied and coerced her coworkers

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

You know one thing about Blake I have noticed is she seems to be equally disliked by both liberals and magas!

No, not remotely. But we all know you vehemently dislike her. What's your political affiliation?

Dp, but I am a liberal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

You know one thing about Blake I have noticed is she seems to be equally disliked by both liberals and magas!

No, not remotely. But we all know you vehemently dislike her. What's your political affiliation?

Democrat

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

+1 I was genuinely stressed reading about the gross things he said and did. Blake's female co-stars agreed. I don't think Jenny Slate is undiscerning, at all.

They would be distressing if they were true

So all three women lied about their experiences and observations? Umkay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

+1 I was genuinely stressed reading about the gross things he said and did. Blake's female co-stars agreed. I don't think Jenny Slate is undiscerning, at all.

Anyone who thinks Justin Baldoni is unproblematic is...interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

+1 I was genuinely stressed reading about the gross things he said and did. Blake's female co-stars agreed. I don't think Jenny Slate is undiscerning, at all.

They would be distressing if they were true

Anonymous wrote:What kind of penalties do you all think there are for breaching the NDA if they are leaking to TMZ? Obviously there's no proof of anyone leaking right now but surely the agreement must contemplate that someone could turn around the next day and anonymously spill stuff. Usually in these cases they do keep a pretty tight lid on details.

I think WF was allowed to make the statement about damages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

You know one thing about Blake I have noticed is she seems to be equally disliked by both liberals and magas!

Two ends of the spectrum, but not everyone else in the middle. Those tail ends often have a lot more in common than they think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

You know one thing about Blake I have noticed is she seems to be equally disliked by both liberals and magas!

No, not remotely. But we all know you vehemently dislike her. What's your political affiliation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

Same, and I did work in celebrity PR. This read is completely delusional. She tried to take down #MeToo for her own vanity. Baldoni will be fine and behind the scenes. She's a toxic ticking time bomb I can't imagine anyone will touch. I do think it is interesting that the pro Blake people have been basically dismissing PR concerns as irrelevant for months wanting to focus on the case and now they're taking this totally milquetoast legal and PR statement as some kind of big win lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

It's called internalized misogyny. Enjoy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

You know one thing about Blake I have noticed is she seems to be equally disliked by both liberals and magas!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

+1 I was genuinely stressed reading about the gross things he said and did. Blake's female co-stars agreed. I don't think Jenny Slate is undiscerning, at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”

But the manosphere does support him even if you don't claim to be a part of that group. Separate things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

I was harassed at work and vehemently disagree.

That’s fine, you can certainly disagree. But women are allowed to have their opinions and dislike another woman without being part of the “manosphere”