Ipso Registered User
#2,806

meeeeh said:
What victimhood. I'm just saying that the opinion is discredited with completely unconnected to the subject or unproven slur.

Btw can I ask why was Oprah speech so objectionable? What did she say that was so wrong?


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.

9 people have thanked this post
meeeeh Registered User
#2,807

Ipso said:
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.

3 people have thanked this post
Sand Registered User
#2,808

meeeeh said:
Me too did something good. It told people that is ok not to just a good sport when someone in position of power riches you inappropriately just for a bit of craic. And it's ok not to be embarrassed about being attacked in the dark alley like it's your fault. Very often victims are not heroes and going to authorities actually makes very little difference. Sexual assaults are very hard to prosecute so it's naive to expect miniscule amount if convictions will change things. It's a bit pointless to be a hero in private when cultural shift is needed.


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.

8 people have thanked this post
bnt Registered User
#2,809

More on Paul Haggis: his ex-wife Deborah Rennard has gone public with a strongly-worded statement supporting Paul.

Paul and I had our troubles. If we didn’t we wouldn’t have separated in late 2009, and we wouldn’t have divorced after that. He has flaws, as do we all, he is by no stretch of the imagination a perfect man. But I know Paul better than just about anyone on the planet. I have seen him in the best and worst of times, I know who he is inside and out, and I know he would never use coercion, threats, or violence to have sex with a woman.

4 people have thanked this post
mad muffin Registered User
#2,810

Liam Neeson is going to get it in the neck…

3 people have thanked this post
RabbleRouser2k Registered User
#2,811

ceadaoin. said:
Wahlberg and Williams are represented by the same agency, which makes it even worse


Yeah, the same agency who's founder groped Terry Crews.

rusty cole said:
I remember years ago she had he "experts" on the show Wowing the crowd as to how her fat body was down to "THE CARBBBS ladiieeeessssss"

What's the difference between this and a shoddy evangelist?? the crowd even buys into the whole agenda and narrative!! Fakery of the highest order. sure is that any different than how trump won his election??


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.

meeeeh said:
I'm no fan of Oprah's programs but if there is a person who can talk about abuse with authority it's her. That doesn't mean I want her to be American president but don't discredit her valid points with discussion about crabs just because you don't want to hear what she is saying or because you don't like where she is politically. This thread long ago became an opportunity to throw mud at mostly liberal women and nothing else.


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.

2 people have thanked this post
Ash.J.Williams Registered User
#2,812

Ipso said:
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.


That sums it all up exactly

6 people have thanked this post
RabbleRouser2k Registered User
#2,813

rusty cole said:
you also know that victims of abuse have been known to go on and abuse people themselves?? being that you seem to be "assuming" she knows more about abuse, why cant any one of us keyboard warriors assume she's also complicit as per the research to hand!! since you're assuming!!!


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.

meeeeh Registered User
#2,814

RabbleRouser2k said:
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.


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.)

RabbleRouser2k Registered User
#2,815

meeeeh said:
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.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/liam-neeson-criticised-over-hollywood-sexual-harassment-scandal-comments-on-late-late-show-822560.html

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.

6 people have thanked this post
Wibbs Je suis un Rock star
#2,816

RabbleRouser2k said:

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.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/liam-neeson-criticised-over-hollywood-sexual-harassment-scandal-comments-on-late-late-show-822560.html

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.
There is a large bunch of childish mouthy hysterics out there and social media encourages this and gives them a platform beyond what they should have and a power they most certainly should not have.

Fig. 1

Average Twitter reaction.

A backlash and some semblance of a return to measured consideration is in dire need of happening.

5 people have thanked this post
Sad Professor Information Retrieval
#2,817

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.

https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/qa-with-dylan-farrow/

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.

6 people have thanked this post
Wibbs Je suis un Rock star
#2,818

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.

1 person has thanked this post
twill Registered User
#2,819

Sad Professor said:
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.

https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/qa-with-dylan-farrow/

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.


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.

Sad Professor Information Retrieval
#2,820

twill said:
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.


I didn't call anyone liar. I clearly said I don't know what to believe and that the case is complex. Allen's innocence hasn't been proved, nor does it have to be, only his guilt.

8 people have thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!