Nothing. It just doesn't qualify her to be president. The reaction is everything that is wrong with the modern liberal movement. A complete and utter circle wank in an echo chamber surrounded with a warm glow of smugness.
It's this kind of nonsense that leads to people like trump getting elected.
Oh it most definitely doesn't qualify her for a job of president and that idea is complete nonsense. I think it more lack of imagination. She is considered opposite to Trump because she is a black woman but she is not opposite to Trump. It would be replacing bilionare media personality with no political experience or serious program with another bilionare media personality without any political experience or serious program. It would be more of the same but her speech was still good.
The thing is, I don't think these are new insights. Sexual assault and generally sleazy behaviour in any context has not been 'okay' for decades. Using a mass media example, the whole draw of a show like 'Mad Men' was its opening up a window on an office culture that was so alien to the modern world it might as well have been science fiction.
That Hollywood still operates on the basis that trading (or expecting) sexual favours for professional advancement and promotion is normal doesn't tell us anything about the wider world. It just informs us about the champions of progressive morality. If a cultural shift is needed, its with Hollywood and its Weinstein liberalism catching up with the rest of the world rather than lecturing to it.
More on Paul Haggis: his ex-wife Deborah Rennard has gone public with a strongly-worded statement supporting Paul.
Liam Neeson is going to get it in the neck…
Yeah, the same agency who's founder groped Terry Crews.
Yep, the Church of Oprah-where to criticize it is to be denounced as a Heathen.
Kathleen Madigan had a great joke about Oprah, tbh. One week Oprah will come out and be like 'Jimmy Choo shoes, ladies-you have to have them! Go out and buy them!' (The shoes cost $1000 a pair, minimum).
Next week: 'Oprah helps you balance your spending!' and Oprah walks out, looking in 'pity' at all the now angry, poor women who went broke buying shoes. 'Well, ladies, overdid it with the spending? Made the mistake of spending beyond your means?'
And you know the audience are sitting there like 'well you f**king told us to buy shoes!!!'
The carbs are the least worst thing she did. Besides the anti-vaxx thing, she helped sell the Iraq Invasion to the American people. Dedicated three shows to it.
She can talk about her experiences, but she can't speak for everyone. Anyone who believes they can is delusional. I have Mental Health issues, I can only speak for myself with regards to this. Even an expert psychologist cannot speak for every person.
(Btw, nobody mentioned crabs). And claiming we're just attacking 'liberal' women is ridiculous. You're only selecting what you want to believe.
Also, according to studies, if a male is abused by a female, it's more likely he will become an abuser.
Which is interesting, I feel, in how little of sexual abuse crimes, committed by women, are reported.
You are way too invested into Oprah. I know she had a talk show I didn't watch. However you are wrong about Jimmy Shoos, plenty are under 1000 dollars (about half) non sale price. And it's a little bit silly to blame Oprah for people spending money they don't have, there is a thing called personal responsibility. She made women buy shoes, oh the horror!!! Did she marched them to the shop? Anyway she could pick worse brand.
(Crabs/carbs was spelling mistake.)
That story was a paraphrasing of a Kathleen Madigan joke, she's a comic. If it did or didn't happen, I dunno. It's a good example of the stuff she does.
Encourage spending beyond their means.
Anyways, did anyone see the Late Late show tonight? Liam Neeson did an interview, as did Sean Spicer (surprising guest list tonight) and Neeson's comments on the metoo movement, describing it as a 'witch hunt' were met with 'revulsion' from twitter.
Liam Neeson was on the Late Late Show, was asked about MeToo...and suddenly twitter think's he's condoning rape.
The only thing they have to judge it on is a clip from the late late show. He clarified his statements later on in the interview, but twitter went insane. It's like those mad countries who think someone said something nasty because someone told them, and they can't read the truth.
Average Twitter reaction.
A backlash and some semblance of a return to measured consideration is in dire need of happening.
For anyone convinced of Woody Allen's guilt on the basis of the word of some of the Farrows, I'd strongly recommend reading this piece. There were two formal investigations into Allen, both found no evidence of child abuse. And Moses Farrow (Mia's other adopted child) disputes the allegations, accusing Mia Farrow of brainwashing and emotional abuse.
I don't know what to believe personally, but this is a complex case and Allen's guilt should not be assumed.
I think Gerwig, Rebecca Hall et al are well intentioned, but I don't think they have done their research and are being pressured by the media and the Farrows into blacklisting Allen.
Interesting read SP. Beyond all the "interesting" narrative changes by his ex wife, he makes the point that in all his decades of making on average one film per year, not a single cast or crew member has had anything but praise for him and his treatment of people. Within the biz he's famously easy to work with since day one. Yeah, though the whole marrying the adopted daughter bit I find "icky", there's more than a hint of another story behind the received one.
It's not "the Farrows" who allege child abuse, it's Dylan Farrow. If you are calling anyone a liar, it has to be her. Woody Allen's P.R. team has led a vicious campaign against her, go out of their way to avoid actually stating that she is lying, though they strongly insinuate it. Their main method of attack is to pretend that there were investigations that proved Allen's innocence, which is untrue, and accuse Mia Farrow of coaching Dylan.