Victator Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 I was not aware of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Looks like the other shoe dropped on Bryan Singer - a new lawsuit alleges he raped a 17 year old in the early 2000s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Victator said: Joe Biden should have much higher odds. That dude loves to shoot his shot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Vin Scully would be perfect. Completely annihilate his image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig H Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 That Bryan Singer thing is old, isn't it? That's what was going around years ago when it was alleged that he ran a sex abuse ring or whatever the fuck/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Yeah, maybe, but a lawsuit was just filed concerning it, and places like NBC, Fox News and the LA Times have picked up the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 I may have said this before, but I wonder how far back some of these incidents/accusations will go. Not that there is a statute of limitations, but will behavior from the 2000s be viewed the same as the 1970s or 1960s or earlier? How far back does Franken stuff go? SNL years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 http://www.clickhole.com/article/john-oliver-just-won-internet-when-he-stopped-his--7117?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing#1, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikoBaltimore Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 10 hours ago, supremebve said: Joe Biden should have much higher odds. That dude loves to shoot his shot. I still remember a couple weeks ago somebody on Twitter had a thread full of videos of Joe being a creepy old man. Doesn't matter if it was little girls or older women, he doesn't discriminate. I'll need to pull it up but it was one MVP retweeted. While I feel bad for Joe's son dying in war it's amazing that nobody's looked into him yet. Looking at the above illustration I would have him at top of the list. Politics aside I love that the "silence breakers" are Time's Person of the Year. I can't imagine how difficult it is for somebody to step up and say "This popular/influential/etc. person did this to me" but I have a ton of respect for those that do it. And it's amusing thinking the orange goblin claimed he turned it down. Love that the real people chosen are the ones that speak out against people like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 16 hours ago, The Unholy Dragon said: Rowling actually just put out a statement saying she stands by the decision with some verbiage that sort of casually throws Amber Heard under the bus without actually saying her name or directly addressing things, in some real WASP power move shit. Horrible. Quote When Johnny Depp was cast as Grindelwald, I thought he’d be wonderful in the role. However, around the time of filming his cameo in the first movie, stories had appeared in the press that deeply concerned me and everyone most closely involved in the franchise. Harry Potter fans had legitimate questions and concerns about our choice to continue with Johnny Depp in the role. As David Yates, long-time Potter director, has already said, we naturally considered the possibility of recasting. I understand why some have been confused and angry about why that didn’t happen. The huge, mutually supportive community that has grown up around Harry Potter is one of the greatest joys of my life. For me personally, the inability to speak openly to fans about this issue has been difficult, frustrating and at times painful. However, the agreements that have been put in place to protect the privacy of two people, both of whom have expressed a desire to get on with their lives, must be respected. Based on our understanding of the circumstances, the filmmakers and I are not only comfortable sticking with our original casting, but genuinely happy to have Johnny playing a major character in the movies. I’ve loved writing the first two screenplays and I can’t wait for fans to see ‘The Crimes of Grindelwald’. I accept that there will be those who are not satisfied with our choice of actor in the title role. However, conscience isn’t governable by committee. Within the fictional world and outside it, we all have to do what we believe to be the right thing. Yup - its basically "We think Amber Heard is lying so y'all need to shut the fuck up" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Due Process Under Law is the baby thrown out with the bathwater, folks. I believe 99% of the women but statistically there could very well be a few Abigail Williamses out there. Is Amber really lying though? I hope this doesn't become a question of the person you believe the most is the one you dislike the least. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zimbra Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 1 minute ago, J.T. said: Due Process Under Law is the baby thrown out with the bathwater, folks. Did I miss all the dudes getting thrown in jail without a trial? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 14 minutes ago, Zimbra said: Did I miss all the dudes getting thrown in jail without a trial? No one is even going to jail, much less being able to face their accusers in a court of law. My skepticism about the legal system is well known, but my thoughts about the Court of the Internet's Most Popular Opinion are even worse. If Depp did what he did, he needs to do time for Assault & Battery. Cross examination in a proper court of law has been replaced by quid pro quo on Twitter. I'm thrilled to death that we're zero tolerance about these things now. If only this shit had been around to put my abusive uncle in jail for beating my aunt nearly to death back in the 90's but even so, revenge and shaming via internet is still not the same as justice because it does not always stick. Just ask Bill O'Reilly. That fucker should probably be in jail right now, but he weathered the storm and is still earning a paycheck. Play the media just right and you just might get away with your crime. Roy Moore may be elected to Congress. Where is the justice in that? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 The current zero tolerance climate is a double edged sword. Right now, houses are being cleaned and scumbags are being outed and held accountable, but keeping this solely in the Court of Social Media Opinion is treading a line of turning reporting Abuse into a Crucible situation where one only mentions a name and its over. And if just one accuser recants, then it's going to be a field day for the shitstains that have been abusing people. Getting these people blacklisted is great, but some of this needs to go to trial so we get some difinitive verdicts, or some talented spin doctors are going to turn this to their advantage. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Precisely. All it will take is for even one of these women to either be incorrect or (even worse) deliberately indicate someone falsely ala Abigail Williams and we're back to the bad old days of blaming the victims for being victims. Chauvinistic sexist douchebaggery isn't just going to roll over and die quietly and the men you most want to see get theirs may very well evade what should be coming to them. I am praying to God that I am not moved to start a dumpster fire following the elections in Alabama on Tuesday. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaedmc Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Didn't Depp's daughter defend him from these allegations? I got no horse in the race, but if police investigated and found no evidence of domestic abuse and his daughter says it's bogus, then it makes it harder for me to get my pitchfork out. I think the false accusations claim in classes of extreme wealth has more merit than it does for us everyday folk. There's just too much money. It's a tricky situation because people with money can get away with lots of shit, while at the same time people will do some heinous shit to get that money. I mean Kevin Hart was a total asshole for sleeping on his second wife. That woman he was sleeping with was totally doing it to extort him for a shit ton of money though. These people exist and they're more prevalent in Hollywood. And what's worse is that for some reason we apply Hollywood logic to normal lives logic. "Oh, well that one woman was sleeping with him just to get his money, maybe that's what's happening to this rapist in Bum Fuck Kentucky." No, no one is trying to extort Bowling Alley Jed with the Taurus, but people act like that's possible because a multi-millionaire in La La Land got played. We have to hear these people out, absolutely, but I don't like the idea of shoving people in a cell at the drop of a hat. It's a slippery slope. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brysynner Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 The thing that's infuriating with Johnny Depp is he basically admitted that everything Amber Heard said was true when the settlement was reached so it's weird to see people basically act like Amber is full of shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eivion Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 When did he admit it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Here's a question that lingers, for me, and Jae brought it back to the fore in my mind: Okay, say you have an actor who is accused of sexual impropriety by someone who, unbeknownst to us at the time, is a gold digger. But, in light of the accusation - and it stays at accusation, singular - a studio hedges its bets and the actor loses a role. Maybe even the actor is ostracized. An investigation is done, maybe even it goes to court, and, surprise, its discovered that the accusations were a ploy all alpng to separate the actor from some money. The actor is exhonerated. Can the actor then take legal action against whoever fired them from their job? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Probably not the the studio/director, depending on the contract (if it has a morality clause or something), but absolutly against the accuser. But I'm not a member of DVDVR Legal, so don't quote me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brysynner Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 13 minutes ago, Eivion said: When did he admit it? Quote "Our relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love. Neither party has made false accusations for financial gains. There was never an intent of physical or emotional harm. Amber wishes the best for Johnny in the future. Amber will be donating financial proceeds from the divorce to a charity." The joint statement seems to heavily imply that Amber was telling the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zimbra Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 1 hour ago, J.T. said: No one is even going to jail, much less being able to face their accusers in a court of law. My skepticism about the legal system is well known, but my thoughts about the Court of the Internet's Most Popular Opinion are even worse. If Depp did what he did, he needs to do time for Assault & Battery. Cross examination in a proper court of law has been replaced by quid pro quo on Twitter. I'm thrilled to death that we're zero tolerance about these things now. If only this shit had been around to put my abusive uncle in jail for beating my aunt nearly to death back in the 90's but even so, revenge and shaming via internet is still not the same as justice because it does not always stick. Just ask Bill O'Reilly. That fucker should probably be in jail right now, but he weathered the storm and is still earning a paycheck. Play the media just right and you just might get away with your crime. Roy Moore may be elected to Congress. Where is the justice in that? You're creating rights where none exist. Right to due process is not actually a thing outside of a courtroom; folks on the internet (and everywhere else) can make their opinions based on whatever evidence they choose. The only difference is that people stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrators and started giving it to the victims. 11 minutes ago, nate said: Here's a question that lingers, for me, and Jae brought it back to the fore in my mind: Okay, say you have an actor who is accused of sexual impropriety by someone who, unbeknownst to us at the time, is a gold digger. But, in light of the accusation - and it stays at accusation, singular - a studio hedges its bets and the actor loses a role. Maybe even the actor is ostracized. An investigation is done, maybe even it goes to court, and, surprise, its discovered that the accusations were a ploy all alpng to separate the actor from some money. The actor is exhonerated. Can the actor then take legal action against whoever fired them from their job? Absent a contract, the answer would be 'no'; you can fire someone for any reason except for their membership in a protected class. With a contract it's going to depend on the specific contractual language. The realistic answer is that if this scenario actually happened and the actor sued the studio would almost certainly settle to keep their business out of the street. In this case the actor's legal recourse would be against the person who made the false accusation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eivion Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, Brysynner said: The joint statement seems to heavily imply that Amber was telling the truth Isn't that the standard no says anything bad about the other statement? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, Brysynner said: The joint statement seems to heavily imply that Amber was telling the truth Seems a lot could be made of the purposeful "for financial gain" phrase, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts