[Nevyn]

 QuickTidal, on 06 February 2018 - 08:29 PM, said:

 Nevyn, on 06 February 2018 - 08:04 PM, said:

Who?

For enabling and defending abusers?

You can start with anyone still defending Woody Allen, I guess. The odds that Diane Keaton and Alec Baldwin won't have careers affected by their defense of the man, slim. I expect Keaton to get more of a pass than Baldwin (who gets into hot water over other shit he says/does)...but I'm fairly sure that it's going to affect them.

So Diane Keaton and Alec Baldwin have "gone down"?

Have Ben Affleck and Matt Damon "gone down"?



You said people have gone down for less. So who did less than Tarantino who you can say today has had a tangible impact on their career?

[QuickTidal]

 Nevyn, on 06 February 2018 - 10:15 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 06 February 2018 - 08:29 PM, said:

 Nevyn, on 06 February 2018 - 08:04 PM, said:

Who?

For enabling and defending abusers?

You can start with anyone still defending Woody Allen, I guess. The odds that Diane Keaton and Alec Baldwin won't have careers affected by their defense of the man, slim. I expect Keaton to get more of a pass than Baldwin (who gets into hot water over other shit he says/does)...but I'm fairly sure that it's going to affect them.

So Diane Keaton and Alec Baldwin have "gone down"?

Have Ben Affleck and Matt Damon "gone down"?



You said people have gone down for less. So who did less than Tarantino who you can say today has had a tangible impact on their career?

You think that alc Baldwin defending a guy who is accused of abuse is NOT less than almost killing your actress, watching as she is abused by your producer and not saying anything, and then also defnding a wanted criminal in a rape case as having done nothing wrong?

Okay man. Enjoy your moral high ground nitpicking my statements apart in here consistently instead of having the actual conversation about it. Sure.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 06 February 2018 - 10:39 PM

[Nevyn]

 QuickTidal, on 06 February 2018 - 10:38 PM, said:

You think that alc Baldwin defending a guy who is accused of abuse is NOT less than almost killing your actress, watching as she is abused by your producer and not saying anything, and then also defnding a wanted criminal in a rape case as having done nothing wrong?

Okay man. Enjoy your moral high ground nitpicking my statements apart in here consistently instead of having the actual conversation about it. Sure.

What?

I did not dispute that Baldwin had done less. You said someone had done less and gone down. But the only person you have given a concrete example of 'going down' was Kevin Spacey losing a role, and he did not do less. Baldwin's IMDB sure suggests he still has work lined up. All you offered was "I bet they had their careers affected". I mean, while we're at it, Whoopi Goldberg has both defended Bill Cosby, and once said that what Polanski did was "not rape-rape", and still seems to have projects on the go.


And give me a break on "almost killing your actress". He asked her to drive a car down a road. He had test driven it and thought it was safe. He was wrong. There is nothing malicious in that, and it really doesn't belong in the conversation at all.

And give me a break on "watching as she is abused by your producer and not saying anything". She wasn't abused on set. She was abused at another time (after having known Weinstein for some time), and told Tarantino about it later, and he did say something.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 06 February 2018 - 10:57 PM

[QuickTidal]

Okay man, like I said, enjoy that opinion. This is the second time we've come to loggerheads on this thread, and I think we are not going to agree about this entire topic. Let's not engage about it any longer. It will serve neither of us.

[Nevyn]

 QuickTidal, on 06 February 2018 - 10:59 PM, said:

Okay man, like I said, enjoy that opinion. This is the second time we've come to loggerheads on this thread, and I think we are not going to agree about this entire topic. Let's not engage about it any longer. It will serve neither of us.

I don't necessarily think only engaging with people who already agree with your opinion is really the best approach, but have it your way.

Since in this case the debate is about predicting consequences, I guess time will settle the matter anyway.

[Malankazooie]

Consey is on the edge of his seat, waiting for a rebuttal. uhhh huh uh huh huh uh huh, I said butt.

[Gorefest]

 QuickTidal, on 06 February 2018 - 08:00 PM, said:

I think you're underestimating the global resolve in this movement to not forgive enablers.

You mean the movement that includes a number of actors and actresses who until recently happily defended Roman Polanski's (mind you, a man who is actually a proven child abuser as opposed to a lot of current dead pool names who are still 'just' accused but mercilessly witch-hunted nevertheless) actions and even featured in his films? All that is happening now is that people in the public eye are rolling over each other in their haste to distance themselves from the smoke. It is often not because they morally disagree, it's because they worry about the effect on their career. As long as that is the dominating mentality in Holywood, true change is still a long way away.

[Tsundoku]

Michael Fassbender? Did not see that one.

[Primateus]

 Tsundoku, on 15 February 2018 - 10:11 AM, said:

Michael Fassbender? Did not see that one.

That's the terrifying part about this. It could be anyone.

[Aptorian]

It would be great if we posted sources along with our consternation.

[Macros]

What's the story with fassbender?

[QuickTidal]

 Macros, on 15 February 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

What's the story with fassbender?

It sounds like back before his big break (around 2009-2010) in X-Men: FC....he was dating a woman, got into a fight with her at a restaurant with friends (an ex came up to their table to chat with her, which pissed Fassbender off) as he was drinking...he drove home and was being erratic, and she threw the car into park to stop it, got out, and went around to the drivers side, tried to take the keys out and Fassbender allegedly gunned it, and dragged her...injuring her enough for a hospital visit. Then at a film festival in Italy, he got hammered and came in at like 5 aM trying to get into bed with her with a friend in tow...and she bailed to another room to get some sleep away from them...and then went to wake him for a 10AM appointment he had...she found him in his own urine, and he was enraged when she woke him, and she says he threw her over a chair and broke her nose.

The one sticking point seems to be that with the first incident she said it occurred on Nov. 18th in the police report...but the hospital report sys she came in on Nov. 29th...so either her memory of the incident date it messed up, or she only went to the hospital 11 days after the dragging. Either of which could be true.

Fassbender's parents have chimed in to say it's all lies, that he's the sweetest man...but Fassbender himself has not said anything yet.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 15 February 2018 - 02:51 PM

[Abyss]

 Macros, on 15 February 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

What's the story with fassbender?

It was alleged that in 2010 he beat a girlfriend.
The allegations have 'resurfaced' because a scandal rag found an old Court filing and did a piece on it.
Don't think he was ever charged or anything was proven, but that's all based on sixty googleskimsecs.

[D'rek]

 QuickTidal, on 25 January 2018 - 02:02 PM, said:

Not famous to anyone not Canadian....but Patrick Brown, leader of the Progressive Conservative party of Canada (think: our milk toast version of "family values" style Republicans who are anything BUT that...) has been accused by two women of assault, and I think at least one of them was underage.

He has stepped down from leadership of the party, but is staying as an MPP (I don't think that will last long either to be honest).

It's weird, but every time I saw a campaign commercial for this guy, he SCREAMED "slimy" to me.

There's been some recent updates on this one:

https://globalnews.c...-assassination/


Some holes pointed out in the original accusations/descriptions and other witnesses interviewed who have added refuting evidence. CTV admitting they got some things wrong (shouldn't the age of a person have been easily checkable?), but accusers are standing by their stories. Brown is now outright calling it a deliberate fabrication for political purposes.

Thoughts?

I'd say nothing is really proven or unproven, yet. But regardless of the veracity of the accusations, CTV definitely could have done a better job fact-checking and doing more interviews before they released the initial story, and that's going to undermine everything now.

[QuickTidal]

 D, on 15 February 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 25 January 2018 - 02:02 PM, said:

Not famous to anyone not Canadian....but Patrick Brown, leader of the Progressive Conservative party of Canada (think: our milk toast version of "family values" style Republicans who are anything BUT that...) has been accused by two women of assault, and I think at least one of them was underage.

He has stepped down from leadership of the party, but is staying as an MPP (I don't think that will last long either to be honest).

It's weird, but every time I saw a campaign commercial for this guy, he SCREAMED "slimy" to me.

There's been some recent updates on this one:

https://globalnews.c...-assassination/


Some holes pointed out in the original accusations/descriptions and other witnesses interviewed who have added refuting evidence. CTV admitting they got some things wrong (shouldn't the age of a person have been easily checkable?), but accusers are standing by their stories. Brown is now outright calling it a deliberate fabrication for political purposes.

Thoughts?

I'd say nothing is really proven or unproven, yet. But regardless of the veracity of the accusations, CTV definitely could have done a better job fact-checking and doing more interviews before they released the initial story, and that's going to undermine everything now.

It's interesting because literally the only thing in the whole story that is incorrect/fabricated was that the one accuser was underage at the time of the incident, the rest of it she says still happened (and is still assault/abuse), and the other accuser (a staffer) hasn't wavered and is sticking by her story entirely.

But Brown acts like because the one element was wrong (the girls age) in one accusation, the entire thing is made up to slander him...and that's what he's selling...and I'm like "Nope. Not buying it." Literally the entirety of Barrie, Ont came out with a collective "This is an open secret" sigh after it was initially reported by the two women.

But yeah, the one staffer who accused him hasn't recanted anything. But he's acting like she's lying too.

Could CTV have done a better job? Eh, maybe. I don't think the one element being wrong undermines the story ESPECIALLY because the one woman has not recanted her story.

In the grand scheme I think the PC Party knew they screwed up by putting him up as leader to begin with, and breathed a collective sigh of relief when this happened so they could oust him.

[Nevyn]

 QuickTidal, on 15 February 2018 - 04:46 PM, said:

 D, on 15 February 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 25 January 2018 - 02:02 PM, said:

Not famous to anyone not Canadian....but Patrick Brown, leader of the Progressive Conservative party of Canada (think: our milk toast version of "family values" style Republicans who are anything BUT that...) has been accused by two women of assault, and I think at least one of them was underage.

He has stepped down from leadership of the party, but is staying as an MPP (I don't think that will last long either to be honest).

It's weird, but every time I saw a campaign commercial for this guy, he SCREAMED "slimy" to me.

There's been some recent updates on this one:

https://globalnews.c...-assassination/


Some holes pointed out in the original accusations/descriptions and other witnesses interviewed who have added refuting evidence. CTV admitting they got some things wrong (shouldn't the age of a person have been easily checkable?), but accusers are standing by their stories. Brown is now outright calling it a deliberate fabrication for political purposes.

Thoughts?

I'd say nothing is really proven or unproven, yet. But regardless of the veracity of the accusations, CTV definitely could have done a better job fact-checking and doing more interviews before they released the initial story, and that's going to undermine everything now.

It's interesting because literally the only thing in the whole story that is incorrect/fabricated was that the one accuser was underage at the time of the incident, the rest of it she says still happened (and is still assault/abuse), and the other accuser (a staffer) hasn't wavered and is sticking by her story entirely.

But Brown acts like because the one element was wrong (the girls age) in one accusation, the entire thing is made up to slander him...and that's what he's selling...and I'm like "Nope. Not buying it." Literally the entirety of Barrie, Ont came out with a collective "This is an open secret" sigh after it was initially reported by the two women.

But yeah, the one staffer who accused him hasn't recanted anything. But he's acting like she's lying too.

Could CTV have done a better job? Eh, maybe. I don't think the one element being wrong undermines the story ESPECIALLY because the one woman has not recanted her story.

In the grand scheme I think the PC Party knew they screwed up by putting him up as leader to begin with, and breathed a collective sigh of relief when this happened so they could oust him.

I don't know how much more CTV could potentially do while still protecting anonymous sources.

But on the other side, this is more than just a dispute about someone's age.

Brown's rebuttal to these accusations was that for the first accuser, he did not live in a place like she described when she said it happened. So the age correction was her saying "it happened the next year then". Perfectly plausible detail for her to get wrong. But the point being it only got corrected because he was trying to prove it didn't happen.

With the second accuser, they have statements from a bartender, from the alleged third person who went upstairs, and from the person who was dating Brown at the time contradicting parts of her account.

Now both allegations could absolutely still be true. And we could hear a bunch of other allegations before this story is done. But there is more to this than just Brown saying it is a lie because CTV got the age wrong.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 15 February 2018 - 05:24 PM

[D'rek]

 QuickTidal, on 15 February 2018 - 04:46 PM, said:

Could CTV have done a better job? Eh, maybe. I don't think the one element being wrong undermines the story ESPECIALLY because the one woman has not recanted her story.

CTV having to issue a retraction to part of the story, and then other news companies reporting on *that* does take away from the actual accusation, I think. Not only because some people are going to latch onto that one correction as a starting point for arguing that the whole thing is false, but also because now the news is talking about CTV's retraction instead of just talking about the accusation and rebuttal. It's a distraction from the main story that didn't need to happen... and especially when it was something so easy for CTV to check - the journalist(s) working on this story before it first aired should have easily been able to compare her age, her (at the time) account of when this occurred, and a tiny bit of research into Brown's residence at that supposed time and quickly seen these details didn't match before publishing.

[Nevyn]

As for how the PC's felt, I think that started with sheer panic and horror, and has temporarily calmed with recent polling to be relief.

But all that could go away based on who wins the leadership. The Ford threat is real.

And Brown fighting back so publicly (and getting some backbench support) on the accusations has to have them worried, too. Just when they were getting optimistic that Elliott or Mulroney might actually energize the voters for the spring election comes the risk that the election will be a big news cycle of Brown fighting for his seat and calling out accusers.

[QuickTidal]

 Nevyn, on 15 February 2018 - 05:45 PM, said:

As for how the PC's felt, I think that started with sheer panic and horror, and has temporarily calmed with recent polling to be relief.

But all that could go away based on who wins the leadership. The Ford threat is real.

And Brown fighting back so publicly (and getting some backbench support) on the accusations has to have them worried, too. Just when they were getting optimistic that Elliott or Mulroney might actually energize the voters for the spring election comes the risk that the election will be a big news cycle of Brown fighting for his seat and calling out accusers.

I don't think the Ford threat is real. If Brown has a few skeletons in his closet....Ford has a metric shit-tonne.

I feel like it's probably going to be Mulroney, which is fine.

[Nevyn]

 QuickTidal, on 15 February 2018 - 05:55 PM, said:

I don't think the Ford threat is real. If Brown has a few skeletons in his closet....Ford has a metric shit-tonne.

I feel like it's probably going to be Mulroney, which is fine.

It is likely the republican primary vs general problem, though.

Ford (hopefully) would not win premier.

But the leadership? It could happen. Modern leadership races up here have basically been races to sign up supporters (how Brown got it in the first place).

And Radwanski has a thing on the Globe and Mail today mentioning that the stupid "don't teach my kids sex" lady who joined the race is most likely a stalking horse who will sign up a lot of her social conservative coalition, and then end up throwing that support at someone. And Rob is the most happy of the 3 major candidates to throw red meat at social conservatives.

I've learned the lesson of Trump. I'm going to be worried about Ford until the process is finished.