Glorifying a lying hypocrite and an extortionist... - Bombshell (2019) Discussion

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

They're not glorifying her. She's just an useful (and well rewarded) tool.

This is just a propaganda movie. Fox is the only mainstream media in US that goes against the flow. And there's elections soon, this is just part of the political campaign.

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4480) 5 years ago

They're not glorifying her. She's just an useful (and well rewarded) tool.

This is just a propaganda movie. Fox is the only mainstream media in US that goes against the flow. And there's elections soon, this is just part of the political campaign.

yeah there skewing the truth like Vice its liberal propaganda

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Carlson (who is ugly BTW) was getting fired and so extorted money by claiming (with no evidence) that Ailes sexually harassed her.

I'm not sure what this means. Are you suggesting Carlson should not be believed because you think she's ugly? Like who would sexually harass such an unattractive woman right? Well, even if we overlook the inherent misogyny in that suggestion, just look at who was accused. Not exactly the picture of virile handsome masculinity himself was he? In any case, anyone who knows anything about sexual harassment knows it has very little to do with attraction and everything to do with asserting power and dominance.

I don't know enough about the events to comment with any authority, but I do know if you throw Margot Robbie, Charlize Theron and Nicole Kidman in a film together I'm going to be watching that thing.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (25539) 5 years ago

Sexual harassment has nothing to do with sexual attraction? Only a Marxist would believe such bullshit!

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Are you suggesting Carlson should not be believed because you think she's ugly? Like who would sexually harass such an unattractive woman right? Well, even if we overlook the inherent misogyny in that suggestion, just look at who was accused

I means the whole scenario is less likely. And since there's zero evidence, what matters is how likely or unlikely is the scenario.

So, yes, being ugly makes her accusation less believable because it makes the scenario less likely.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It isn't that she is ugly that makes her accusation less credible, it is that compared to the other women within his circle she was the ugliest. If you are an ugly old fart that wants to harass women, and you aren't harassing all women... why would you harass the ugliest one?

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2478) 5 years ago

It's not that she's ugly. It's more that she's more prim and proper and not perceived as very sexy.
Megan Kelly, as some others, looked airbrushed and sexualized and perfect while Carlson seemed more like a PTA mom or an uptight evangelist's wife.

It seems that if all of this is factual (and I don't know for certain) than Carlson's lack of popularity, sex appeal and clout would make her more vulnerable and some might think easier to manipulate.
Or maybe he found the least bold a turn on.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

If she was the only one he harassed then there could be any number of reasonable explanation, hell he might have simply had a thing for the PTA mom look... but when someone is supposed to be a serial predator that predator will usually have a particular type they like to target. If she doesn't fit the look that the others do then it is more likely that she is making it up for attention than it is for the predator to suddenly decide to target someone outside his preferences.

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2478) 5 years ago

OK..what are his preferences?
I would think it would be someone with less status and less clout before all else.
If he is a predator than he'd go for the weakest prey most easily.... because it's easier..

Just because people don't like her doesn't mean she's lying just like just because she said so doesn't automatically mean she's telling the truth.
Personally I'll admit I don't know.
But she's not "ugly" enough for the doubt to be based on that and that alone.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17800) 5 years ago

Oh no, not the Miss America pageant!

reply

[–] Towelie_Towel (1773) 5 years ago

Nice one.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

You right wing incels are sooooo easily triggered

If it bothers you so much ... don't watch

reply

[–] tom8 (3119) 5 years ago

you left wing homos and feminists have been triggered for 3 straight years

couldn't handle your darling hillary lost

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Cancer is not an easy thing to cure for the less well-off.

reply

[–] tom8 (3119) 5 years ago

i am european... we pay super high taxes, so people that smoke and drink and don't give a fuck about themselves or anyone else.... can get treated for free.

that vs. the american model, where you keep most of your money and then have to pay for medical insurance.

none of them are very good.

reply

[–] hotjam2 (60) 5 years ago

lol, you haven't been in the US lately, more than half of Americans are over weight, & we have a serious mental health problem as well

reply

[–] Information-Police (4890) 5 years ago

Gretchen Carlson is not my type, but you do realize that she was Miss America in 1989, right?

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

Oh, I realize. I also realize that she aged terribly and she was ugly af during the period when she, without evidence, accuses Ailes of sexually harassing her. After she found out she was getting fired.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4890) 5 years ago

So, you are saying she was hired by an accused sexual predator when she was a beauty queen and when her looks faded she was fired.

That's a great defense, lol

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

She didn't start working for Fox until like the mid-2000s. After she had lost her looks. She was ugly af when she accuses him of harassing her.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4890) 5 years ago

Whereas, he was an Adonis, right?

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

Completely irrelevant. He was a rich and powerful man. She argument is that he was so taken with her that he sexually harassed her. It's bullshit. She's a liar.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You must be a teenage boy if you think looks are the only reason people are attracted to other people. Ugly people are more likely to be sexually harassed than pretty people since a fat ugly girl is more likely to put out and the rich powerful people know that.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Ugly people are more likely to be sexually harassed

That's just a trope in movies. It's not real.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 3 years ago

that Paula Jones sure was hot

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Pretty sure Carlson had audio tapes of Ailes and that's why they settled and ousted Roger.

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

But we never know exactly what was in them. Only her claims. She was recording him when? They weren't private office meeting. He was telling jokes at meetings with multiple people. He made sexist jokes? He used profanity? It's all speculation.

Fox also settled other lawsuits without any evidence.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4890) 5 years ago

why are you defending him?

reply

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

Why defend anyone targeted by the MeToo ilk without evidence? Because it can happen to anyone.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Pretty sure Carlson had audio tapes of Ailes and that's why they settled and ousted Roger.

Nope.

Nowadays, settling can be a smart choice even that never happened and there's zero evidence.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yup.

Just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean the lawyers at Fox didn't. Ailes was very powerful and ousting him wouldn't have been an easy decision or one made without something rather compelling (plus the media has well documented Carlson's ploy to get Ailes on tape).

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean the lawyers at Fox didn't.

That would mean that other parts would have too. Right now, deep state and big companies are mostly woke. They're modern day POWER, with capital letters. They would have offered a hell for those tapes.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Well people only settle if they are guilty and wont win in a court room.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Nope.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

yup

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Your career can be destroyed no matter you're innocent and there's zero evidence. Settling is a rational choice for an innocent person too.

reply

[–] Jehosaphet (1063) 5 years ago

Its not rational for the most watched news network in existence, with the means to slant the coverage, belittle the accusers all they wanted.
But instead they chose to fire the very man that built that empire for them, that brought in billions annually...that made them what they were.

No dude, there were 20+ women who all said the same thing about Ailes, and Murdoch's decision to oust him says a lot more about his guilt/innocence than most anything else, IMO.

But yeah, there's truth in your statement, too. Who was it..Matt Damon friggin OBLITERATED in the press for daring to say that there was a difference between the Weinsteins and the Al Frankens. Yeah, there's a lot of goofy in this situation, it doesn't all make sense.