Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, October 09, 2017

OTP 9 October 2017: Trump Tells Pence to Leave N.F.L. Game as Players Kneel During Anthem

Mr. Pence lavishly documented his early departure in a series of tweets and an official statement issued by his office. On Twitter, he declared, “I left today’s Colts game because @POTUS and I will not dignify any event that disrespects our soldiers, our Flag, or our National Anthem.”

While the vice president portrayed his decision as a gesture of patriotic principle, it had the distinct appearance of a well-planned, if costly, political stunt. He doubled back from a trip to the West Coast to take a seat in the stands in Indianapolis, where the 49ers — the team most associated with the N.F.L. protest movement against racial injustice — were suiting up to play the Colts.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 09, 2017 at 07:53 AM | 2170 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nfl, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 17 of 22 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›
   1601. Howie Menckel Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5551364)
I don't think Obama knew Weinstein was a full on rapist, "just" a casting couch sleazebag that would engage in quid pro quos with hot young starlets.

yes, and I would imagine Hillary thought the same. they knew he was sleazy, but they also knew Malia would have nothing to worry about. one can question why, per 1589, Obama let his daughter pick that one - while she wasn't at any risk, she could have interned absolutely anywhere.
   1602. The Good Face Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:30 PM (#5551365)
It doesn't matter if they're young enough to be called boys.


What about them Duke boys? They seemed to be able to take care of themselves...
   1603. PreservedFish Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:32 PM (#5551367)
Frankly I think it's likely that Harvey did rape Malia and that the coverup goes way beyond the Clintons and Obamas.
   1604. The Good Face Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:33 PM (#5551368)
yes, and I would imagine Hillary thought the same. they knew he was sleazy, but they also knew Malia would have nothing to worry about. one can question why, per 1589, Obama let his daughter pick that one - while she wasn't at any risk, she could have interned absolutely anywhere.


Well, Weinstein was, ahem, a big swinging dick in the film industry. I mean, Hollywood is kind of innately sleazy anyway, so why not go intern at one of the, if not the, most prestigious production companies?
   1605. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:33 PM (#5551369)
Nobody said Hillary knew him as a serial rapist either.


Then what's the point of blaming Hillary and other Democrats for this? If the claim is all they knew is that he was a typical sleazy Hollywood producer, why all the angst over her not saying anything? You can't have it both ways.
   1606. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5551371)
I don't know what HRC or Obama knew re: Weinstein, but regardless of what they knew, Malia Obama had and has Secret Service protection. If Weinstein laid even one finger on Malia, he'd get pounded into hamburger in seconds.


Again, with the not-a-father -- but my feelings on the matter would be that the repercussions I would have the power to deal in retribution are largely immaterial.

I.e., it's small potatoes that I could drone strike the guy IF... It's preventing the entirety of the "IF" that would be on my mind. Again, just to be clear - we're not talking about general protectiveness (or over-protectiveness) - we're talking about some manner, however hazy of "knew".
   1607. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5551372)
Donald Trump spoke at length about an executive order he was to sign, and then almost left the room before signing it.
Watch as VP Pence has to try to stop him from leaving.

That's twice, now.

And let's all watch Rand Paul's body language when the President enters the room.
   1608. BrianBrianson Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:38 PM (#5551378)
What about them Duke boys? They seemed to be able to take care of themselves...


When you're old enough to drive a Dodge Charger, you're a man.
   1609. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:39 PM (#5551380)
Untrue. Waylon didn't call them "just the good ol' men."
   1610. Lassus Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:39 PM (#5551381)
And let's all watch Rand Paul's body language when the President enters the room.

That. Is. Awesome.
   1611. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:41 PM (#5551382)
Well, Weinstein was, ahem, a big swinging dick in the film industry. I mean, Hollywood is kind of innately sleazy anyway, so why not go intern at one of the, if not the, most prestigious production companies?


If the whole "knew" question is being reduced to who "knew" Hollywood is kind of innately sleazy anyway, then about 75% of this week's OTP is entirely moot.

The list of people who didn't "know" that is probably about zero.

   1612. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:42 PM (#5551383)
It doesn't matter if they're young enough to be called boys.


High School senior and College Freshman. But they will always be my boys. Well a little longer anyway.
   1613. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:43 PM (#5551385)
And let's all watch Rand Paul's body language when the President enters the room.

That. Is. Awesome.


Caption contest...

####, I'm still not waking up. Maybe this IS real.
   1614. PreservedFish Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:43 PM (#5551386)
If the whole "knew" question is being reduced to who "knew" Hollywood is kind of innately sleazy anyway, then about 75% of this week's OTP is entirely moot.


Morty opted out of Hollywood in 1978, so he's off the hook.
   1615. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:44 PM (#5551388)
It's sort of interesting to me that while we're not supposed to call people fat and unattractive, that's exactly what several of Weinstein's accusers are doing. Because the social constraints have been lifted in this case, given that Weinstein is rapey scum and so his victims have earned the standing to speak their minds and thus they're just speaking freely and telling us exactly what's going through their heads.

For example:

Kate Beckinsale
Just like so many of Harvey Weinstein's accusers, Kate Beckinsale, who was just 17 at the time, says the disgraced producer called her to his hotel room for a meeting, where he offered her alcohol in just a bathrobe. "I was called to meet Harvey Weinstein at the Savoy Hotel when I was 17. I assumed it would be in a conference room which was very common. When I arrived, reception told me to go to his room. He opened the door in his bathrobe," she wrote. "I was incredibly naive and young and it did not cross my mind that this older, unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him. After declining alcohol and announcing that I had school in the morning I left, uneasy but unscathed." Beckinsale says Weinstein asked the actress whether anything had happened between the two of them during their first meeting. "I realized he couldn't remember if he had assaulted me or not," she wrote.


During the course of this dustup the pretense that everyone is just as physically attractive as everyone else no matter their weight/etc has been temporarily suspended.
   1616. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:47 PM (#5551390)
Look, I have no children... but I find this beyond incredible to buy into.

You really think ANY parent is going to just trust their daughter is going to be OK because power and stuff?

That's silly.
I agree with this also. Yes, Weinstein would have had to have been insane to go after an Obama kid, plus she wouldn't fit his profile. But no way would Obama, as a father, have relied on that, if he had known anything.
   1617. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:48 PM (#5551391)
I still come back to the fact that Obamas allowed their 18 yo daughter do a summer internship at Weinstein's company. Unless you think they're total and complete monsters (and they would be), it strains the imagination to believe they'd have allowed that to occur if they "knew"...

Unlike all those Hollywood actresses, Obama's daughter had Secret Service protection, 24/7, which might have given the former President some reassurance. As others have noted, Obama likely knew about the casting couch & sexual harassment allegations, but presumed his daughter was immune. Weinstein's criminal behavior, while not surprising in retrospect, was probably not the same-level open secret.
   1618. GordonShumway Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:49 PM (#5551392)
Again, with the not-a-father -- but my feelings on the matter would be that the repercussions I would have the power to deal in retribution are largely immaterial.

I.e., it's small potatoes that I could drone strike the guy IF... It's preventing the entirety of the "IF" that would be on my mind. Again, just to be clear - we're not talking about general protectiveness (or over-protectiveness) - we're talking about some manner, however hazy of "knew".


That's my point though: the "IF" wasn't going to happen because Malia was protected by several large, well-armed men at all times.

Also, the Obamas live in an entirely different world than us. The Obamas' fame and political power have attracted a lot of haters, including many with violent intentions. The sad reality is that ever since their father ran for president, Malia and Sasha Obama at all times have faced a much greater risk than anonymous, middle class people do in attracting violence. But if you are their parents, you can't shut in your children behind the walls of the White House or some other fortress forever. At some point, you have to let your children live their lives and trust that the Secret Service will do their job.
   1619. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:50 PM (#5551393)
Morty opted out of Hollywood in 1978, so he's off the hook.

Whew (flinging sweat from brow with shaky index finger).
   1620. DavidFoss Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:52 PM (#5551394)
During the course of this dustup the pretense that everyone is just as physically attractive as everyone else no matter their weight/etc has been temporarily suspended.

This reminded me of this tweet by one of John Oliver's writers yesterday.
   1621. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:52 PM (#5551395)
Isn't anyone talking about if Weinstein has alcohol/drug problems? Some episodes certainly bring that to my mind. (And, no, that wouldn't excuse his behavior.)
   1622. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:56 PM (#5551397)
   1623. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:57 PM (#5551398)
During the course of this dustup the pretense that everyone is just as physically attractive as everyone else no matter their weight/etc has been temporarily suspended.


Just like no one thinks men and women are exactly the same, no one thinks everyone is equally attractive.
   1624. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:57 PM (#5551399)
Sometimes I see a clip and think, "This is destined to become an often-used .gif." That Rand Paul clip is one such instance.
   1625. PreservedFish Posted: October 12, 2017 at 02:58 PM (#5551400)
During the course of this dustup the pretense that everyone is just as physically attractive as everyone else no matter their weight/etc has been temporarily suspended.

You've mistaken politeness for this "pretense."
   1626. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:00 PM (#5551401)
It's sort of interesting to me that while we're not supposed to call people fat and unattractive, that's exactly what several of Weinstein's accusers are doing. Because the social constraints have been lifted in this case, given that Weinstein is rapey scum and so his victims have earned the standing to speak their minds and thus they're just speaking freely and telling us exactly what's going through their heads.

For example:

Kate Beckinsale
Just like so many of Harvey Weinstein's accusers, Kate Beckinsale, who was just 17 at the time, says the disgraced producer called her to his hotel room for a meeting, where he offered her alcohol in just a bathrobe. "I was called to meet Harvey Weinstein at the Savoy Hotel when I was 17. I assumed it would be in a conference room which was very common. When I arrived, reception told me to go to his room. He opened the door in his bathrobe," she wrote. "I was incredibly naive and young and it did not cross my mind that this older, unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him. After declining alcohol and announcing that I had school in the morning I left, uneasy but unscathed." Beckinsale says Weinstein asked the actress whether anything had happened between the two of them during their first meeting. "I realized he couldn't remember if he had assaulted me or not," she wrote.


I give 17 yo girls leave to use whatever language they wish to describe a 40/50/etc man attempting to do anything from assault to simply 'put the moves' on them.

YMMV.

If I'm doing the math right -- Weinstein was 48 at the time of this incident.

A 48 yo man attempting to seduce a 17 yo girl is inherently "unattractive".

I'm sure there do exist May-December romances that are real and especially now that I'm within hailing distance of 48 myself - I'm also not going to pretend that there aren't a lot of women half my age or less that I wouldn't personally say are quite attractive.

I am simply saying it is simply not possible to be "attractive" at 48, putting the moves (even in a non-criminal sense) on a 17 yo. It's a level of sleaziness that will transcend any level of fitness or physical form and inherently shine through as "unattractive".

   1627. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:01 PM (#5551404)
I do not mind being a discriminating consumer.

We all enjoy a finely cured and aged Snicker's bar, but let's not pretend it's a Julia Child confection.
   1628. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:02 PM (#5551406)
During the course of this dustup the pretense that everyone is just as physically attractive as everyone else no matter their weight/etc has been temporarily suspended.

Just like no one thinks men and women are exactly the same, no one thinks everyone is equally attractive.


I know they don't actually think that. That's why I said it's a pretense.

Reading remains... fundamental.
   1629. Lassus Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:02 PM (#5551408)
You've mistaken politeness for this "pretense."

Thank you.
   1630. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:03 PM (#5551409)
If SBB is not a troll, the word has no meaning.

By God, Pickering, I think she's got it!.

As the word is promiscuously bandy about on these boards, it's meaning is always in doubt.
   1631. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:10 PM (#5551417)
I know they don't actually think that. That's why I said it's a pretense.


Nobody even pretends it over-literal man. Everyone in the universe* thinks men and women are different. They people have different levels of attractiveness, fitness, height, weight and so on. Just because we want all people treated the same, you know with respect, doesn't mean we are all pretending they are the same.

* A slight exaggeration. Just to make sure you realize this, as part of understanding reading is picking up on the nuance of language.
   1632. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:10 PM (#5551418)
"From Dusk Til Dawn" is a shite film, but the quoted portion (delivered by Cheech Marin) is in fact pretty hysterical.

That's what I thought, but I could have sworn that ended with 'If you can find cheaper ##### anywhere #### IT!'

The movie is definitely in the so bad it's good bucket for me. Great movie to watch, if you are 15 with friends, and about half a bottle of vodka into the night. Especially if you don't know what to expect. When that switch gets flipped in the middle of the movie, it is just such a WTF moment, especially if you are wasted. It's hysterical.
   1633. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:10 PM (#5551419)
That's my point though: the "IF" wasn't going to happen because Malia was protected by several large, well-armed men at all times.

Also, the Obamas live in an entirely different world than us. The Obamas' fame and political power have attracted a lot of haters, including many with violent intentions. The sad reality is that ever since their father ran for president, Malia and Sasha Obama at all times have faced a much greater risk than anonymous, middle class people do in attracting violence. But if you are their parents, you can't shut in your children behind the walls of the White House or some other fortress forever. At some point, you have to let your children live their lives and trust that the Secret Service will do their job.


Sure - kids have to go out in the world themselves and the world isn't always a pretty place... I'm just saying that I'm not allowing at least some strain of "if" into the equation, as in, if I had specific rumors on Weinstein, my response would be something like "How about if I put a call into Steven Spielberg/Penny Marshall/whomever" instead.

I guess my point is that it would feel like a risk not worth taking - and even if I knew I could utterly destroy the perp (in whatever manner), I wouldn't even want to envision a scenario where my daughter tells me "he tried to kiss me but the secret service guy shot him". It's the "tried to" part that I'd be looking to avoid and the "he knows he'd be going down" part that simply would not constitute a strong enough guarantee.

That would especially be true if I were President - and let's be honest - I could get my daughter an internship with literally ANY film company. One way or another, if I decide to live with the "Hollywood is sleazy", I'm at least making sure it's a studio/company/etc that doesn't have the specific individual rumors attached to it.
   1634. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:13 PM (#5551420)
Matt Taibbi on the DA who decided a taped Harvey Weinstein confession was insufficient to proceed, but the article's not about Weinstein
Taibbi has a very un-nuanced take on Vance in his book "The Divide"- describes a court case that he prosecuted against a small Chinatown bank, in which he brought the defendants into the courtroom in chains (including several who had already been arraigned, and were asked to re-appear before the court for pure theatrical reasons). If it happened as he describes, it was an amazingly awful abuse of power.

Oh, that article talks about it too. Nevermind :)
   1635. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:15 PM (#5551421)
Supposedly, prosecutors in Europe -- London, at least -- are also looking into Weinstein.

At least it sounds like he may not get to pull a Polanski.
   1636. BDC Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:16 PM (#5551423)
Morty opted out of Hollywood in 1978, so he's off the hook

I don't know how we're going to break it to him that Barbara Stanwyck was on Dynasty and then on a spinoff from Dynasty.
   1637. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:18 PM (#5551424)
Corey Robin:
Of all the sentences I’ve read on the Harvey Weinstein story, this one, from the New York Times, was the most poignant:
More established actresses were fearful of speaking out because they had work; less established ones were scared because they did not.
In virtually every oppressive workplace regime—and other types of oppressive regimes—you see the same phenomenon. Outsiders, from the comfort and ease of their position, wonder why no one inside the regime speak ups and walks out; insiders know it’s not so easy. Everyone inside the regime—even its victims, especially its victims—has a very good reason to keep silent. Everyone has a very good reason to think that it’s the job of someone else to speak out.

Those at the bottom of the regime, these less established actresses who need the most, look up and wonder why those above them, those more established actresses who need less, don’t speak out against an injustice: The more established have power, why don’t they use it, what are they afraid of?

Those higher up the ladder, those more established actresses, look down on those at the very bottom and wonder why they don’t speak out against that injustice: They’ve got nothing to lose, what are they afraid of?

Neither is wrong; they’re both accurately reflecting and acting upon their objective situations and interests. This is one of the reasons why collective action against injustice and oppression is so difficult. It’s Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand at work (in both senses), without the happy ending: everyone pursues their individual interests as individuals; the result is a social catastrophe.
   1638. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:24 PM (#5551429)
Sounds increasingly like Ben Affleck is going to have more than just "knew" problems, too.
   1639. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:25 PM (#5551430)
Never really understood the thinking on that. If you're willing to do that you might as well drinking seawater. My only guess is that people so think their government is corrupt and evil that they are intentionally locking up safe drinking water from them.
Uh, seawater will kill you if you drink it in lieu of freshwater. Superfund water might give you cancer in 20 years if you drink too much of it. I think there's a pretty obvious distinction there.
   1640. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:25 PM (#5551431)
1636:
Morty opted out of Hollywood in 1978, so he's off the hook

I don't know how we're going to break it to him that Barbara Stanwyck was on Dynasty and then on a spinoff from Dynasty.



He don't have to watch "Dynasty" to have an attitude.
   1641. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:28 PM (#5551432)
It's sort of interesting to me that while we're not supposed to call people fat and unattractive, that's exactly what several of Weinstein's accusers are doing. Because the social constraints have been lifted in this case, given that Weinstein is rapey scum and so his victims have earned the standing to speak their minds and thus they're just speaking freely and telling us exactly what's going through their heads.


Another thing I've found fascinating is the description by one of them that Weinstein kept asking and asking and asking and eventually she just calculated that it would be easier to just let him #### her (*) rather than to continue to have to tell him no.

On the one hand, if you agree to let him #### you, you've consented to him ####### you. But that really isn't the whole story -- as it isn't in similar situations on college campuses. It's almost like there should be some type of permissible action by women based on "sexual grossness." (I'm sure there's a better term; it's just my first quick effort as I get ready to run to a meeting.) It's like they "consented" but under no circumstances did they really want to let the big, fat, ugly guy #### them.

Very challenging issue. As I said in the college campus context, I sympathize almost entirely with the woman's point of view, but I still don't know exactly what concrete forms or manifestations that should take.

(*) Or maybe it was give her oral sex, I don't remember. Not important.
   1642. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:28 PM (#5551433)
You want Stanwyck? I got your Stanwyck right here...
   1643. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:32 PM (#5551439)
In virtually every oppressive workplace regime—and other types of oppressive regimes—you see the same phenomenon. Outsiders, from the comfort and ease of their position, wonder why no one inside the regime speak ups and walks out; insiders know it’s not so easy. Everyone inside the regime—even its victims, especially its victims—has a very good reason to keep silent. Everyone has a very good reason to think that it’s the job of someone else to speak out.


This may well be the case. The problem for Hollywood, however, is that they come down on EVERY group they perceive as perpetrating or allowing injustices on society or on groups or on individuals. There's no pause, no reflection, no nuance, no "Well, it's actually more complicated than you think." To them, it's just all judging and condemning when they perceive an injustice committed by others.

So for this excuse to now be floated for them is rich indeed.
   1644. Lassus Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:33 PM (#5551441)
Very challenging issue.

Not for most of us.
   1645. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:38 PM (#5551444)
Darel said at the time, Weinstein’s first wife, Eve Chilton, was in the room next door.

The actress bolted, telling him, “I’m sorry, I have to leave.”

“I was in shock. I was in shock,” Darel, now 49, told People. “I was astonished. When you have someone so physically disgusting in front of you, continuing and continuing as though this was all perfectly normal … What happened to me may not be illegal but it was inappropriate. Very inappropriate.”

She said she only told her agent and boyfriend about the alleged incident.

“What could I do? Could I go to the police and say, ‘This disgusting man made me an indecent proposal in his hotel room at The Ritz’?” she said.
   1646. PepTech Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:40 PM (#5551447)
No, I in fact have never made a statement that purports to be an authoritative statement of the law. Every statement I've made about the law has been my best interpretation of it.
And would you stand by your legal interpretation of Trump's "when you're a star, they let you do it" on the Access Hollywood tape as compelling evidence he is *not* a sexual predator, because his use of "let" implies the other party's "consent"? In court?
   1647. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:42 PM (#5551451)
London into the act....

Scotland Yard is investigating Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein over alleged sexual abuse in the UK, it emerged this afternoon.

The Metropolitan Police is reviewing an allegation against the movie mogul dating back to the 1980s after Merseyside Police received a tip-off and referred it to them.

A Met Police spokesman said this afternoon: 'We can confirm the Metropolitan Police Service was passed an allegation of sexual assault by Merseyside Police on Wednesday, 11 October.

'The allegation will be assessed by officers from the Child Abuse and Sexual Offences Command.'

There is no suggestion the allegation relates to child abuse.

A spokesman for police in Liverpool said: 'Merseyside Police can confirm a report was received at 8.40am on Wednesday of an alleged sexual assault in the London area in the 1980s. The report has been referred to the Metropolitan Police.'
   1648. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5551452)
To them, it's just all judging and condemning when they perceive an injustice committed by others.



Everyone does this. Every. Single. Person.

To suggest Hollywood is different is kind of silly.

The only reason you know about it is because (before the explosion of social media) they were the go-to choice for interviews by TV/news shows for EVERYTHING that happened in the world.

Disaster in China? Let's ask Will Smith his feelings on this while he's doing a movie promo tour.
Upheaval in South America? Maybe Sarah Jessica Parker will says some words about it while walking the red carpet at the latest fashion show.
Bad behaviour in an(other) industry? Surely some words of condemnation from Clint Eastwood during his book tour will make for a good 15 second visual.

The fact that they also make movies that expose/shine a brighter light on injustices (like "Spotlight") while others in their industry commit similar acts doesn't make them hypocrites. It means some people are good and some people are bad...just like in every industry.

   1649. The Good Face Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:44 PM (#5551454)
This may well be the case. The problem for Hollywood, however, is that they come down on EVERY group they perceive as perpetrating or allowing injustices on society or on groups or on individuals. There's no pause, no reflection, no nuance, no "Well, it's actually more complicated than you think." To them, it's just all judging and condemning when they perceive an injustice committed by others.

So for this excuse to now be floated for them is rich indeed.


When they're held to judgment, it suddenly becomes time for exquisite nuance and contextual parsing. It's all so complicated you see.

When other people are held to judgment, they're haters waging a WAR ON WOMEN.

Who is doing what to whom.
   1650. PreservedFish Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:45 PM (#5551456)
I do not mind being a discriminating consumer.

We all enjoy a finely cured and aged Snicker's bar, but let's not pretend it's a Julia Child confection.


Sorry Morty, your 40-year hard-on for screwball comedies does not make you my superior.
   1651. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:45 PM (#5551457)
Upheaval in South America? Maybe Sarah Jessica Parker will says some words about it while walking the red carpet at the latest fashion show.

Neigh.
   1652. Lassus Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:50 PM (#5551461)
Who is doing what to whom.

Taking #1648 into account, this is more shrill than usual.
   1653. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:51 PM (#5551464)
Ray, #1643, responding to the text in #1637:
This may well be the case. The problem for Hollywood, however, is that they come down on EVERY group they perceive as perpetrating or allowing injustices on society or on groups or on individuals. There's no pause, no reflection, no nuance, no "Well, it's actually more complicated than you think." To them, it's just all judging and condemning when they perceive an injustice committed by others.

So for this excuse to now be floated for them is rich indeed.



Corey Robin has no connection to the entertainment industry.

He is not defining an "excuse," let alone floating one.

You reflexively crap on his nuance while accusing a monolithic "Hollywood" of doing the same.
   1654. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:54 PM (#5551465)
Actors BITD did not have to deal with green screens and motion-capture and the other accoutrements of CGI, and I would say there's a different skill involved there. OTOH movie actors since at least fairly early talkies, if not the dawn of cinema, have had to deal with re-playing the same scene over and over in single-camera setups, sometimes playing their halves of scenes against a double or against nobody at all. You can often tell that some scene was filmed on two different occasions with only one actor present each time. That skill is pretty constant down the years.

This reminds me of a great comment made by George C. Scott (everyone know who he is?) about James Stewart (not "Jimmy" Stewart), my favorite actor/star of Hollywood's golden age. Scott said he was flabbergasted when on the set of Anatomy of a Murder big star Stewart would not only actually play the scenes opposite him in person when he wouldn't be seen, he would even dress in character. Scott said it was courtesy Stewart conferred on his co-actors. Scott said he never forgot that, and thereafter he did the same thing for his fellow actors on the set.
   1655. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2017 at 03:59 PM (#5551468)
I don't know how we're going to break it to him that Barbara Stanwyck was on Dynasty and then on a spinoff from Dynasty.

Bette Davis took out an ad in her old age begging for work

When the legs start to go, you do a lot of things you wouldn't have when you were young beautiful (ask Mickey Mantle?).
   1656. Omineca Greg Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:02 PM (#5551471)
Sorry Morty, your 40-year hard-on for screwball comedies does not make you my superior.

If he's had a 40 year hard-on, he's definitely my superior.
   1657. The Good Face Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:04 PM (#5551476)
Who is doing what to whom.

Taking #1648 into account, this is more shrill than usual.


Won't somebody think of the rich and famous of Hollywood? Lest they be subjected to "shrill" attacks on the intarwebs!

Sorry buddy, no sale. After decades of shrill attacks coming from them, they can eat a buffet of dicks. Old, fat, ugly, Weinstein-style dicks no less.
   1658. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:04 PM (#5551477)
Who is doing what to whom.

Taking #1648 into account, this is more shrill than usual.


Yeah, whatever. They #### on everyone else when they perceive a problem. They don't pause for reflection on how complex anything is, they just come charging right in with the rebuking. But now we're being asked to consider the complexities and realities of the situation before we condemn them as an industry.

As Bivens said the other day, ffuuuuccckkkk ttthhhhaaaatttt.
   1659. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:05 PM (#5551479)
Sorry Morty, your 40-year hard-on for screwball comedies does not make you my superior.

Alas, we may not always have Paris, but we'll always have Little Big Man.
   1660. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:06 PM (#5551481)
Not for most of us.


I meant for non-fanatics.
   1661. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:07 PM (#5551482)
“I was in shock. I was in shock,” Darel, now 49, told People. “I was astonished. When you have someone so physically disgusting in front of you, continuing and continuing as though this was all perfectly normal … What happened to me may not be illegal but it was inappropriate. Very inappropriate.”


Yes, exactly.

Sexual grossness.
   1662. PreservedFish Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:07 PM (#5551483)
Reading this page, one might get the impression that "Hollywood" is a small and close-knit organization that releases regular self-consistent policy statements.
   1663. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:08 PM (#5551484)
They don't pause for reflection on how complex anything is, they just come charging right in with the rebuking. But now we're being asked to consider the complexities and realities of the situation before we condemn them.


Just using this quote alone, I could apply it to any number of groups and topics.

   1664. Swoboda is freedom Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:11 PM (#5551486)
Going back to Kars for Kids (it is an ear worm after all)

A couple of years ago, my daughter used to request that I play that song. She was about 5 or 6 at the time. She didn't understand that a) it was a commercial and b) as it was a radio station I couldn't make it come up at will.

She still has problems with the second issue as they are so used to TIVO and VOD that there is no such thing as live programming. You watch it when you want to watch it.
   1665. PreservedFish Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:11 PM (#5551488)
we'll always have Little Big Man.


That's right, I owe you more courtesy for that nice recommendation.

When you say that "one who does not know Barbara Stanwyck cannot truly appreciate film" it sounds like to me like "you can't truly enjoy music if you don't know about rap (or progressive rock, or jazz, or whatever)." It's a measure of elitism that just sounds silly to an outsider.
   1666. PreservedFish Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:12 PM (#5551489)
Just using this quote alone, I could apply it to any number of groups and topics.


And they'd probably all be as lazy and fallacious as Ray's application.
   1667. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:15 PM (#5551492)
Old, fat, ugly, Weinstein-style dicks no less.


Yeah, the "he's a rapist, he's a lecher, he's a pervert ... and he's old, fat, ugly, and gross, too!!!" is almost too delicious for words. My grin has now passed "Cheshire cat" and moved into "Alabama losing in its bowl game" territory.
   1668. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:17 PM (#5551494)
Reading this page, one might get the impression that "Hollywood" is a small and close-knit organization that releases regular self-consistent policy statements.


Yeah, they like to pretend it's a monolithic hierarchical tower of clandestine malfeasance, like Popery. It ain't.
   1669. Lassus Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:17 PM (#5551495)
Won't somebody think of the rich and famous of Hollywood? Lest they be subjected to "shrill" attacks on the intarwebs!
Sorry buddy, no sale. After decades of shrill attacks coming from them


I will admit I'm truly incapable of parsing the oddness of the sentiments expressed here.


Yeah, the "he's a rapist, he's a lecher, he's a pervert ... and he's old, fat, ugly, and gross, too!!!" is almost too delicious for words. My grin has now passed "Cheshire cat" and moved into "Alabama losing in its bowl game" territory.

This one, too.
   1670. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:18 PM (#5551498)
When you say that "one who does not know Barbara Stanwyck cannot truly appreciate film" it sounds like to me like "you can't truly enjoy music if you don't know about rap (or progressive rock, or jazz, or whatever)." It's a measure of elitism that just sounds silly to an outsider.


It's absurd. She's not attractive, and Double Indemnity is probably the most overrated film in film history.

She's a niche taste. Trying to universalize that taste is preposterous.
   1671. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:19 PM (#5551499)
When you say that "one who does not know Barbara Stanwyck cannot truly appreciate film" it sounds like to me like "you can't truly enjoy music if you don't know about rap (or progressive rock, or jazz, or whatever)." It's a measure of elitism that just sounds silly to an outsider.

I agree. It would be silly elitism if I had been so serious that I couldn't see that there was a sense, real and big, in which it was eminently silly. If you think that of me, it hurts. But, my advice to all of us here, per a very recent movie, "Lighten up, Francis."
   1672. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:19 PM (#5551500)
Another thing I've found fascinating is the description by one of them that Weinstein kept asking and asking and asking and eventually she just calculated that it would be easier to just let him #### her (*) rather than to continue to have to tell him no.

On the one hand, if you agree to let him #### you, you've consented to him ####### you. But that really isn't the whole story -- as it isn't in similar situations on college campuses. It's almost like there should be some type of permissible action by women based on "sexual grossness." (I'm sure there's a better term; it's just my first quick effort as I get ready to run to a meeting.) It's like they "consented" but under no circumstances did they really want to let the big, fat, ugly guy #### them.

Very challenging issue. As I said in the college campus context, I sympathize almost entirely with the woman's point of view, but I still don't know exactly what concrete forms or manifestations that should take.

(*) Or maybe it was give her oral sex, I don't remember. Not important.


Meh - I don't even know that it's strictly a 'women' thing... I far from have a list of one-stands of any length -- but I've had a couple of situations where I wasn't particularly attracted/interested but over the course of events, let's just say that the path of least resistance was the one I chose*.

I think the first thing one has to consider is power -- i.e., in the case of someone like Weinstein, I guess I'd say you just can't escape the power angle. Outside of the Weinsteins - I think it would be fair to say that sure, the line can get blurry (goes without saying - if we're just talking two people at college, the guy is likely physically more powerful than the woman). No idea how one codifies it -- you probably can't, at least easily -- but the highly subjective/requires absolute honesty part is probably "did you feel in any way threatened" - physically, career, etc.

*In one case - it was at a cousin's wedding. At the time, I was just beyond college - but rather cash poor. As such, I didn't get a hotel room - spent the weekend at my parents, went to the wedding with them, etc. It was in a smallish burg - where taxis barely even exist, and also some time ago where cellphones -- much things like Uber -- weren't ubiquitous. In any case, my dad and stepmom left the reception before it was over-- and I insisted I'd just catch a ride with someone else, one way or another. The bride marrying into the family had a fair number of friends up for the wedding - and yes, being single at the time, I was certainly looking for a connection that most single 20somethings do at weddings. In any case, as the reception ends and a fair number of the people my age/etc have post-reception drinks at the hotel bar -- the crowd obviously starts thinning out. I had secured a ride of last resort with another cousin (to this day, we argue about culpability... he insists that I made it clear I was 'good'. I insist that I never verbalized any such thing) -- but as the evening progressed, I was being hit on by one of the bride's friends in whom I was not interested. Partly out of just not being especially blunt and partly because, of course, you almost never put yourself in a good situation by being crystal clear rude (and in the mind of a stupid 23 yo, it's totes easy to just change such a dynamic and better... ummm... get to know someone else).

Anyway, by the time the hotel bar reaches the "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here" -- I'm now more or less ride-less.... except for my would-be paramour who has promised a ride in the morning. Welp... my choices were to either call my folks - and deal with the harangue over my insistence that I'd secure my own ride... call another friend/family member friend - keeping in mind that no cellphone at the time meant I was limited to numbers I could remember - plus figuring out a phone (I could have used the front desk, I guess). I also quite briefly considered how awful it would be to ask the bride/groom for assistance (they were in the hotel, too, of course... like I said - smallish burg). Or...

I quite un-enthusiastically chose the path of least resistance option, which meant literally laying in the bed that a series of bad decisions had made for myself. Let's just say it's one of those moments that causes one to begin making better decisions in life.
   1673. BrianBrianson Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:24 PM (#5551504)
I don't even know that it's strictly a 'women' thing


Basically nothing is, except for a couple of biology things.

And in a lot of cases, casting it as a "men vs. women" thing is extremely unhelpful, because you end up implicitly or explicitly suggesting men should take the reactionary side, as much as you suggest women should take the progressive side. And really, the difference of opinion is actually pretty small. And in cases like this, were one abuser/harasser/rapist can have a lot of victims, it's typically the case that any individual man is more likely to be a victim than he is to be an abuser/harasser/rapist/whatnot. But some people can't bring themselves to think that different men are different people with different characteristics and histories and interests. (And of course, the same argument applies in reverse for women).
   1674. Spahn Insane, stimulus-funded BurlyMan™ Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:25 PM (#5551505)
The movie is definitely in the so bad it's good bucket for me. Great movie to watch, if you are 15 with friends, and about half a bottle of vodka into the night. Especially if you don't know what to expect. When that switch gets flipped in the middle of the movie, it is just such a WTF moment, especially if you are wasted. It's hysterical.

Oh, sure--it's definitely more entertaining than your standard bad film, and if I re-watched it, I might even get on the "so bad it's good" train. While I remember it as an incoherent stupid mess generally, the specific things I remember (Cheech's aforementioned omnipussy carnival barking, Tarantino duct-taping a bullet wound through his hand after his and Clooney's botched stickup, Keitel (1) playing an old preacher at all, and (2) delivering lines like "come dawn, I'll be a lapdog of Satan" (or something close to that) ) are indeed terrible to the point of being hilarious. The proper chemical enhancement would probably do wonders for my enjoyment of it.
   1675. The Good Face Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:26 PM (#5551507)
I will admit I'm truly incapable of parsing


We know. We've long since made our peace with it. It wouldn't be OTP without Lassus valiantly failing to understand virtually everything.
   1676. PreservedFish Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:29 PM (#5551509)
I agree. It would be silly elitism if I had been so serious that I couldn't see that there was a sense, real and big, in which it was eminently silly. If you think that of me, it hurts.


I read it that way the first time. The Snickers joke seemed like you were doubling down on your condescension.
   1677. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:29 PM (#5551510)
The problem for Hollywood, however, is that they come down on EVERY group they perceive as perpetrating or allowing injustices on society or on groups or on individuals. There's no pause, no reflection, no nuance, no "Well, it's actually more complicated than you think." To them, it's just all judging and condemning when they perceive an injustice committed by others.
Are you quoting someone here? Or are you just kind of making stuff up?
   1678. Lassus Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:33 PM (#5551512)
We know. We've long since made our peace with it. It wouldn't be OTP without Lassus valiantly failing to understand virtually everything.

It was really more of an observation. Years of intensive therapy isn't my responsibility or job.
   1679. The Good Face Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:33 PM (#5551513)
Oh, sure--it's definitely more entertaining than your standard bad film, and if I re-watched it, I might even get on the "so bad it's good" train. While I remember it mostly as being kind of an incoherent stupid mess generally, the specific things I remember (Cheech's aforementioned omnipussy carnival barking, Tarantino duct-taping a bullet wound through his hand after his and Clooney's botched stickup, Keitel (1) playing an old preacher at all, and (2) delivering lines like "come dawn, I'll be a lapdog of Satan" (or something close to that) ) are indeed terrible to the point of being hilarious. The proper chemical enhancement would probably do wonders for my enjoyment of it.


It's simply a ridiculous film on almost every level, but populated with actual A-list talent. I guess I have a soft spot for watching really good actors in ridiculous movies, if only to see how they deal with it. Some just mail it in, some go for the full ham & cheese, and others strap on their big boy pants and do their damndest.
   1680. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:34 PM (#5551514)
Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly, making a surprise appearance to "rebut" the numerous eye-popping reports of Trumpian dysfunction and strife inside the White House:
“I am not so frustrated in this job that I’m thinking of leaving. Unless things change, I’m not quitting, I’m not getting fired, and I don’t think I’ll fire anyone tomorrow.”
   1681. Satan Says Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:36 PM (#5551516)
Another thing I've found fascinating is the description by one of them that Weinstein kept asking and asking and asking and eventually she just calculated that it would be easier to just let him #### her (*) rather than to continue to have to tell him no.

This is the "go-to" technique from time immemorial. She only has to say yes once, and you're in.

Basically nothing is, except for a couple of biology things.

Trivia. Amirite?
   1682. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:40 PM (#5551519)
A couple of years ago, my daughter used to request that I play that song. She was about 5 or 6 at the time. She didn't understand that a) it was a commercial and b) as it was a radio station I couldn't make it come up at will.
Yeah, my five-year old son used to identify that as his "favorite song" for a several month period. Kept trying to explain it was a jingle rather than a song, but... five years old.
She still has problems with the second issue as they are so used to TIVO and VOD that there is no such thing as live programming. You watch it when you want to watch it.
My kids have learned the difference, but they don't seem to understand why there would be such a thing as live tv. (And yes, I explain to them that when I was a kid, that's all there was.)
   1683. Omineca Greg Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:41 PM (#5551520)
Reading this page, one might get the impression that "Hollywood" is a small and close-knit organization that releases regular self-consistent policy statements.


My wife and I were discussing this last night. I see Hollywood as being fairly monolithic politically, she doesn't. Really didn't get to the bottom of anything, it's something that's hard to prove from a distance.

I watch a lot less television and movies than anybody here (or my wife), maybe that makes me less informed.

I think Country Music is pretty monolithic too. Do you think I'm wrong about that one as well?
   1684. Traderdave Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:41 PM (#5551521)
Another thing I've found fascinating is the description by one of them that Weinstein kept asking and asking and asking and eventually she just calculated that it would be easier to just let him #### her (*) rather than to continue to have to tell him no.


Isn't that what marriage is all about?
   1685. Spahn Insane, stimulus-funded BurlyMan™ Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:42 PM (#5551522)
I guess I have a soft spot for watching really good actors in ridiculous movies, if only to see how they deal with it.

This certainly applies to FDtD. Like I said, Harvey Keitel as a preacher is hilarious miscasting to start with, as is any role in which Quentin Tarantino is called upon to "act."

And of course, the entire premise--biker/strip bar infested with vampires that ends up serving as a refuge to preacher + daughter and two hoods--is sublimely, yet certainly originally, stupid.
   1686. PepTech Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:44 PM (#5551524)
Here's that car-sale update you've all been breathlessly waiting for: He hasn't called back.

He drove off around 8PM, had a 45 minute trip home. His call went to my voicemail after 10PM. I texted this morning (we had texted all throughout the previous day), told him I couldn't take calls at work, but please let me know what "the issue" was. So far today, crickets.

I don't think it's incumbent on me to keep calling the guy. If he calls, I'll deal with it. But I'm going to a Blade Runner doublefeature in a couple hours, so he's going to get VM again if he calls tonight...
   1687. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:46 PM (#5551526)
“I was in shock. I was in shock,” Darel, now 49, told People. “I was astonished. When you have someone so physically disgusting in front of you, continuing and continuing as though this was all perfectly normal … What happened to me may not be illegal but it was inappropriate. Very inappropriate.”


Yes, exactly.

Sexual grossness.


I'll repeat again --

I think you (Ray) is pretending that 'attractiveness' is solely and always being measured in purely objective, detached ways as if you're browsing a catalog.

It's not - either for men OR women. I think I would say that women do generally/are generally more prone (or frankly, better able) towards applying a sort of subjective "what's the person like" quality onto people than men, but if you're not considering that someones' actions/attitudes/mannerisms/etc doesn't play a role in subsequent physical description -- then I would say that you're missing an awfully big boat.

To wit - not being a sleazy jerkwad colors perception and can override the pure, picture-in-a-book objective perception. I'm not saying that women possess entirely unique/special skills to see "inner beauty" (or inner ugliness), but I will say that my experience has generally been that women are far more likely to use 'physically gross' as description towards men who are, frankly, gross/sleazy/whatever regardless of what they look like if pictured in a whatever. As I said earlier -- it simply not possible to hit on a 17 as a 48 yo without being gross. The sleaze is inevitably going to shine through, regardless of purely detached fitness/etc.

I've just been a part of too many conversations where female descriptions of another male's attractiveness (or grossness) doesn't jibe with what my perception would be -- guys that I'd objectively say look fat/splotchy/whatever that I've heard women describe as cuddly/cute/whatever and conversely, guys that I'd say look fit/well-groomed/'attractive' that I've heard described as ugly/gross/etc.

Like I said, at least to some extent - I would say that I've also voiced/been involved in strictly male conversations where the same applies... women who, wholly if you didn't know them and just saw a picture, might be described as attractive... but have some manner of ugliness that inevitably colors the perception when you know her (or the inverse).
   1688. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:49 PM (#5551528)
I read it that way the first time. The Snickers joke seemed like you were doubling down on your condescension.

It's double reverse condescension. Eating one's cake and having it, too. Of course, I feel a little superior, just as most of you feel superior because of your allegiance to modernity. Let's try to carry this with some lightness.

Look, I've always been open about my love for old movies and the fact that I don't do current movies and haven't done them in ages. I don't pretend to know much about contemporary films, or films of the last, oh, 35 years. And I don't render opinions on them, except maybe in the Gabby Hayes sense of "consarn those young whippersnappers, Roy." Of course, I'm going to try to justify this, just as your high school English teacher justified why you had to read stories and poems you would have rather skipped in favor of the latest Batman comic. And as you justify your tastes. Hey, maybe we can learn something from each other. Who knows? It's possible.

   1689. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:49 PM (#5551529)
Won't somebody think of the rich and famous of Hollywood? Lest they be subjected to "shrill" attacks on the intarwebs!
Sorry buddy, no sale. After decades of shrill attacks coming from them


I will admit I'm truly incapable of parsing the oddness of the sentiments expressed here.


I know, I know, it's all just so complicated.

Let me spell it out for you:

They're part of a rape culture. The epitome of it, in fact. This hits all the markers. I can see why they don't want to acknowledge that, but I'm afraid I don't give a rat's ass what they want to acknowledge.

   1690. Satan Says Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:49 PM (#5551530)

Everyone does this. Every. Single. Person.

To suggest Hollywood is different is kind of silly.

The only reason you know about it is because (before the explosion of social media) they were the go-to choice for interviews by TV/news shows for EVERYTHING that happened in the world.

While nobody will deny the good that can come from mass communication and mediated experience, social media has added yet another remove from reality, to where people don't doubt they KNOW when they don't have the foggiest.

Weinstein's a scumbag, but nothing changed with these revelations, really. It's just that people are now at liberty to cast stones both up close and from Mars.
   1691. Satan Says Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:51 PM (#5551531)
They're part of a rape culture. The epitome of it, in fact. This hits all the markers. I can see why they don't want to acknowledge that, but I'm afraid I don't give a rat's ass what they want to acknowledge.

Thank you Alex Jones.
   1692. Morty Causa Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:52 PM (#5551534)

It's absurd. She's not attractive, and Double Indemnity is probably the most overrated film in film history.

She's a niche taste. Trying to universalize that taste is preposterous.


Quick, what movie is "Rocky Dies Yellow" from? No fair looking it up.
   1693. Hot Wheeling American Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:52 PM (#5551535)
but I'm afraid I don't give a rat's ass what they want to acknowledge.

You sure about that? Some might say it's not a good look, obsessing over Harvey Weinstein's body and use of same, on a baseball message board.
   1694. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:53 PM (#5551537)
SBB Rockwell, #1670:
It's absurd. [Barbara Stanwyck]'s not attractive, and Double Indemnity is probably the most overrated film in film history.
She's a niche taste. Trying to universalize that taste is preposterous.



Indeed, Barbara Stanwyck is one of those niche tastes who successfully appeared in melodramas, screwball comedies, westerns, slice-of-life stories, thrillers, "weepies," film noir, pre-code sexploitation romps, historical dramas, ripped-from-the-headlines dramas, romantic comedies, and more. And then transitioned to television in matriarch roles. I hate that niche.

As for your unexpectedly contrarian view of Double Indemnity, that's enough out of you, Rockwell. Now get outta here before I throw my desk at you.
   1695. Satan Says Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:54 PM (#5551538)
I think Country Music is pretty monolithic too. Do you think I'm wrong about that one as well?

Let me count the ways...
   1696. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:56 PM (#5551541)
   1697. PreservedFish Posted: October 12, 2017 at 04:59 PM (#5551545)
I think Country Music is pretty monolithic too. Do you think I'm wrong about that one as well?


Politically? I have no idea.
   1698. Satan Says Posted: October 12, 2017 at 05:00 PM (#5551547)
Stanwyck kicked ass. My favorite may be The Furies.
   1699. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 05:02 PM (#5551548)
I don't even know that it's strictly a 'women' thing

Basically nothing is, except for a couple of biology things.


That must be why women cry 12 times a week, while men... don't.

Have you actually been around women? You think there are basically no differences other than biology?
   1700. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 12, 2017 at 05:03 PM (#5551549)
Monkey flip!
Page 17 of 22 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 16 October 2017: Sorry, Yankee fans: Trump’s claim that he can ensure victory simply isn’t true
(1846 - 9:08pm, Oct 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogALCS Game 7 OMNICHATTER, for October 21, 2017
(38 - 9:08pm, Oct 21)
Last: Satan Says

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(437 - 8:20pm, Oct 21)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-19-2017
(17 - 8:18pm, Oct 21)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogDeadspin: Please Enjoy(?) 21 Years Of Joe Buck Hyping Forgotten Fox Shows
(19 - 8:15pm, Oct 21)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogOT - October 2017 College Football thread
(81 - 8:02pm, Oct 21)
Last: greenback is not cosmopolitan

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(10 - 7:58pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogDusty Baker Will Not Be Back as Manager
(70 - 7:57pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogTheo Epstein: Joe Maddon has taken enough heat, don’t blame NLCS on Cubs manager | NBC Sports Chicago
(28 - 7:38pm, Oct 21)
Last: Andere Richtingen

NewsblogAstros beat Yankees to force Game 7 in ALCS | MLB.com
(20 - 7:32pm, Oct 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Gonfalon CubsFive minute Los Angeles Dodgers Preview
(95 - 7:31pm, Oct 21)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogAngell: Bringing the Yankees Home?
(4 - 7:11pm, Oct 21)
Last: You're a clown, RMc! I'm tired of it!

Sox TherapyQuestioning the Winter
(16 - 6:15pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogOT: New Season August 2017 Soccer Thread
(1189 - 2:43pm, Oct 21)
Last: Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB)

NewsblogHeyman | Tigers To Hire Ron Gardenhire
(32 - 1:30pm, Oct 21)
Last: Greg Pope

Page rendered in 0.9348 seconds
49 querie(s) executed