Moses

As this looks like an ongoing concern, it looks like we need an all-encompassing thread to keep track. 

Here's the new one -- Nicole Eggert accuses Scott Baio of molesting her while she was a teenager on Charles in Charge.

 

 

Quote
Infinitus Corsair
We've hit a rich vein of "guys who were already terrible" that I hope runs for a while.
Quote
Paquito
I have an acquaintance that's on a tear about a multi-million dollar settlement casino mogul Steve Wynn paid out to an accuser.

He's treating it like it was a completely unfounded accusation until I called him out on it. Now he's retreated to a position where, if the accusations are true, Wynn should be held accountable, but the women he coerced should bear blame too, and shouldn't be suing him years after the fact.

He doth protest too much. His conduct here makes me assume he's coerced sexual favors from women that have worked under him.
Quote
Paquito

My stomach sank when I read Dan Harmon got accused. But when I finished listening/reading about it, I felt a little better about the world. And still feel good about Dan Harmon.

tl;dr; He had a crush on one of his staff writers on Community, made his feelings known to her, was rejected, and took it out on her in subtle ways that really fucked with her sense of self-worth. She's been carrying that for about 6 years. She subtly called him out a couple weeks ago, and then followed up with him over email, explaining exactly how and why she was hurt. Unprompted, he took the opportunity to hold himself to account on his podcast, and did so perfectly. Everyone should listen to it. He starts at the 17:04 mark:

http://www.harmontown.com/2018/01/episode-dont-let-him-wipe-or-flush/

He said exactly what he needed to say to actually atone for what he had done, and his apology was accepted.

Quote
Paquito
That apology also offers insight to why he was fired from Community. His self-loathing and self-pity made him an insufferable asshole to work with. He feels like he destroyed the show.
Quote
Meowzers
Paquito wrote:
I have an acquaintance that's on a tear about a multi-million dollar settlement casino mogul Steve Wynn paid out to an accuser.

He's treating it like it was a completely unfounded accusation until I called him out on it. Now he's retreated to a position where, if the accusations are true, Wynn should be held accountable, but the women he coerced should bear blame too, and shouldn't be suing him years after the fact.

He doth protest too much. His conduct here makes me assume he's coerced sexual favors from women that have worked under him.


I don't understand how you could have even a passing familiarity with these stories and not understand why women wait so long to come forward. I absolutely don't understand why anyone would think blame should be shared at all. Your acquaintance is gross.
With Love And Kisses!
Quote
Infinitus Corsair
Paquito wrote:

My stomach sank when I read Dan Harmon got accused. But when I finished listening/reading about it, I felt a little better about the world. And still feel good about Dan Harmon.

tl;dr; He had a crush on one of his staff writers on Community, made his feelings known to her, was rejected, and took it out on her in subtle ways that really fucked with her sense of self-worth. She's been carrying that for about 6 years. She subtly called him out a couple weeks ago, and then followed up with him over email, explaining exactly how and why she was hurt. Unprompted, he took the opportunity to hold himself to account on his podcast, and did so perfectly. Everyone should listen to it. He starts at the 17:04 mark:

http://www.harmontown.com/2018/01/episode-dont-let-him-wipe-or-flush/

He said exactly what he needed to say to actually atone for what he had done, and his apology was accepted.



I feel like being called out publicly by Megan Ganz probably qualifies as a prompt.

It's great that Harmon took the call-out seriously and responded with remorse and thoughtfulness but he's not the hero of the story. He didn't "atone" for the impact his self-centered recklessness had on Ganz; he just reckoned with it as best he could in the here and now.
Quote
Paquito

Infinitus Corsair wrote:


I feel like being called out publicly by Megan Ganz probably qualifies as a prompt.

It's great that Harmon took the call-out seriously and responded with remorse and thoughtfulness but he's not the hero of the story. He didn't "atone" for the impact his self-centered recklessness had on Ganz; he just reckoned with it as best he could in the here and now.


Ganz to the NYT:

Quote:

After our initial Twitter exchange, I sent Dan a lengthy email. He had referenced an earlier podcast where he talked about crossing the line with a female employee (me). I listened to it, and it was clear to me from that brief reference that he thought the harassment I was referring to was when he told me he had feelings for me.

So I sent him an email to clarify that the harassment was everything that happened after I said no. Then I detailed those events, and explained how they made me feel powerless and traumatized. And I told him that if he was serious about wanting to do better, he needed to face the reality of what he had done. But I also said I wouldn’t go public with any of that information, so to his credit, he could have just let it end there. What happened after was entirely his choice.



Also, maybe "atone" isn't the right word, but his public reckoning has healed the pain that Ganz has been carrying with her. 

Quote
Infinitus Corsair
Paquito wrote:

Ganz to the NYT:

Also, maybe "atone" isn't the right word, but his public reckoning has healed the pain that Ganz has been carrying with her. 



This is a silly semantic debate but it's a slow day.

No, he didn't "have" to raise it again publicly. But his addressing the situation on the podcast was obviously prompted by Ganz finally gathering the courage to confront him. I'm not sure what your bar for "prompted" would be. Ganz demanding that he specifically do what he did?

I also doubt that it healed the pain Ganz carried with her--pain that she has said adversely affected her professionally for six years. Sincere, thoughtful apologies can provide emotional resolution for someone who's been wronged but they don't, of themselves, heal or erase the pain caused.

Your whole post seems weirdly postured to praise Harmon for behaving like a decent person when confronted with his wrongdoing. He doesn't need to make Ganz whole (he cannot) for you to enjoy Community or Rick and Morty with a clean conscience or whatever is behind your weird Harmon-stanning.
Quote
Paquito
Infinitus Corsair wrote:

I also doubt that it healed the pain Ganz carried with her--pain that she has said adversely affected her professionally for six years. Sincere, thoughtful apologies can provide emotional resolution for someone who's been wronged but they don't, of themselves, heal or erase the pain caused.
.


As a nearly middle aged white male, you've been deeply skeptical of any impulse that could rationalize/trivialize/or otherwise deflect the full impact of #metoo accusations, and I think that's laudable. But when you find yourself projecting pain on to a victim who's explained, in detail, why she's been freed of it, you're probably taking this skepticism too far.
Quote
Paquito
Infinitus Corsair wrote:

Your whole post seems weirdly postured to praise Harmon for behaving like a decent person when confronted with his wrongdoing. He doesn't need to make Ganz whole (he cannot) for you to enjoy Community or Rick and Morty with a clean conscience or whatever is behind your weird Harmon-stanning.


In regards to this, if I've truly processed how horrible a particular person is, it can affect how I receive the work they're associated with. For instance, I don't think I'll ever be able to really enjoy the Cosby show again.

But never mind that. I've liked Dan Harmon, as a person. The way he's openly talked about his demons, and how he's struggled with them, has endeared me to him. When I first saw the headline that indicated he had a #metoo accusation against him, I was bummed. The prospect of finding out he was a monster felt like I was about to lose someone I admired.
Quote
Infinitus Corsair
Paquito wrote:


As a nearly middle aged white male, you've been deeply skeptical of any impulse that could rationalize/trivialize/or otherwise deflect the full impact of #metoo accusations, and I think that's laudable. But when you find yourself projecting pain on to a victim who's explained, in detail, why she's been freed of it, you're probably taking this skepticism too far.


What I initially pointed out was how sloppy your word choice is. And nothing I'm saying here has to do specifically with toxic masculinity. Accepted apologies don't free the wronged person from the effects of misconduct. They are attempts to achieve the best emotional resolution possible under the circumstances.

None of the words you're using to describe the interaction match the language used. Ganz accepted the apology because Harmon honestly confronted his behavior and because it "vindicated" her memory of the experience, something that she had been forced to live with alone ever since it happened.

What I'm pushing against is the idea that the way to deal with these transgressions is to "fix" them. Your posts suggested that you were troubled by the revelations (appropriately so) but that Harmon had fixed the problem and you were free to return to your proper fandom. That's just way too pat. He can't give back the years of self-doubt and the real professional consequences of his actions and Ganz doesn't say that he did. She just says that he did all he could do now which is admirable enough.
Quote
Meowzers
Paquito wrote:


As a nearly middle aged white male, you've been deeply skeptical of any impulse that could rationalize/trivialize/or otherwise deflect the full impact of #metoo accusations, and I think that's laudable. But when you find yourself projecting pain on to a victim who's explained, in detail, why she's been freed of it, you're probably taking this skepticism too far.


I fucking love woke IC, and it doesn't surprise me he's worked through this weird moment of American life and come through with some illuminating comments because IC is pretty great; but he's trying to center this narrative around the person who was wronged, not the person who wronged someone and then found the light. The center of gravity in these narratives should be the people fucked over.
With Love And Kisses!
Quote
Infinitus Corsair
Meowzers wrote:


I fucking love woke IC, and it doesn't surprise me he's worked through this weird moment of American life and come through with some illuminating comments because IC is pretty great; but he's trying to center this narrative around the person who was wronged, not the person who wronged someone and then found the light. The center of gravity in these narratives should be the people fucked over.


Yes, this is more succinct.
Quote
Moses
Rose McGowan's handler at Miramax Jill Messick killed herself. 
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Moses wrote:
Rose McGowan's handler at Miramax Jill Messick killed herself. 
Horrifying story if true.
Quote
Zuben
Moses wrote:
Rose McGowan's handler at Miramax Jill Messick killed herself. 


Uff. Rose McGowan is a complicated figure, and pointing that out is really, really loaded. She is clearly bat shit in some regard, but she is also pretty clearly a genuine victim. 
Quote
Meowzers
Zuben wrote:


Uff. Rose McGowan is a complicated figure, and pointing that out is really, really loaded. She is clearly bat shit in some regard, but she is also pretty clearly a genuine victim. 


It's also worth pointing out the MeToo movement has largely understood McGowan as the, uh, complicated person she is and it's at best disingenuous to blame this woman's death on it, Roiphe-style. It's also an issue of framing: in the triad of McGowan, Messick, and Weinstein, we have two mentally ill women whose lives were torn apart by one man.
With Love And Kisses!
Quote
Jinnistan
Zuben wrote:


Uff. Rose McGowan is a complicated figure, and pointing that out is really, really loaded. She is clearly bat shit in some regard, but she is also pretty clearly a genuine victim. 

The "bat shit" is also a pretty clear symptom of abuse, not just with Weinstein but her cult-upbringing and various other things.
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Bret Stephens, perhaps most famous for his climate denialism, wrote an op-ed in the NYT on the allegation that Woody Allen molested his then 7 year old daughter. He contends that there is an injustice in the metoo movement making him toxic for this when there really isn't sufficient evidence to believe the accusation as there is in many other cases the metoo movement is focused on. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/opinion/smearing-of-woody-allen.html

I largely agree with this op-ed. At the bottom, he includes the argument that Larry Nasser has 265 identified victims, whereas Allen has one accuser. So many people seem to have interpreted this to mean he is arguing that sexually assaulting only one child isn't that big of a deal, but what he really is arguing is that child molesters tend to have many victims, so the fact that he only has one accuser argues in favor of his innocence. This is a bad argument as child molesters sometimes only molest one person or only have one accuser actually come forward. In defense of Stephens, the idea that pedophiles are repeat offenders by nature underlies our entire justice systems treatment of and cultural attitudes towards sex offenders. It's literally the legal justification for things like sex offender registries and post-prison restrictions on those convicted of sex offenses. So while we should point out this is an obnoxiously wrong argument, I'm willing to forgive him for being wrong about something the entire system is wrong about. (Thanks Justice Kennedy.)

He also argues that people shouldn't make child molestation accusations without convincing evidence because it's so damaging to be accused. While I agree that we shouldn't believe accusations without convincing evidence, anyone who views themselves as a victim should come forward with what they have. It's a type of crime that doesn't necessarily provide much in the way of evidence. It is our responsibility to withhold judgment when there isn't a convincing case, not the accusers responsibility to come up with one. After all, sometimes what it takes for multiple people to come forward and corroborate each others stories is someone brave enough to say that an assault happened.

What really interests me is every single story I see on Woody Allen provokes a lynch mob filled with disturbingly wrong arguments that seem to represent a real movement of people. And disagreeing with them makes you guilty by proxy. It's like reading a story on a crime committed by a black person and invariably seeing a veritable white supremacist rally in the comments below. This story is no exception and there is white hot rage backed by white hot stupidity all over the interwebs about it. It bothers me because I see this as a witch-hunt in embryo.

Quote
Digital Geist
I mean, part of the Woody Allen hate train is his super sketchy history with his wife, coupled with his comments on wanting young women around the time he was making Manhattan. It doesn’t necessarily follow that he is a child molester, but the rest of his past doesn’t lend itself to drumming up sympathy for his denial.
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Digital Geist wrote:
I mean, part of the Woody Allen hate train is his super sketchy history with his wife, coupled with his comments on wanting young women around the time he was making Manhattan. It doesn’t necessarily follow that he is a child molester, but the rest of his past doesn’t lend itself to drumming up sympathy for his denial.
Sure. Woody Allen seduced and latter married the much younger than him step-sister of his children. That's terrible. That's plenty to condemn his personal conduct. 

Invariably when this story comes up, people come out of the woodwork characterizing what happened with that, but it's hard to care about offering corrections when what actually occurred is so skeevy. Likewise, he has a history of attraction to women in their late teens. 

That people take this is as compelling context for him being wiling to molest his 7 year old daughter annoys me, though. It doesn't even begin to follow that if you find 17 year olds attractive you're more likely to molest young children. 


Quote
Meowzers
Esoteric Allusion wrote:
That people take this is as compelling context for him being wiling to molest his 7 year old daughter annoys me, though.


What about the evidence that Allen had an extremely inappropriate relationship with his 7 year old daughter that alarmed a number of people?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
With Love And Kisses!
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Meowzers wrote:


What about the evidence that Allen had an extremely inappropriate relationship with his 7 year old daughter that alarmed a number of people?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
The counter-argument to this piece out there is that Woody Allen received therapy for focusing too much on his daughter as compared to his son and nothing "inappropriate" was being addressed in therapy in a sexual or grooming sense. That is a plausible reason for therapy if someone is prone to using therapists as Allen was. Assuming those reports are true, the fact that this is used as evidence of untoward behavior in a misleading fashion would undercut the overall argument it is attempting to make. In any case, Maureen Orth, the author of this piece, consistently has mislead on other facts around the case to enhance the case for Allen's guilt, which makes it problematic when cited as a say-so authority. We simply aren't privy to the details of what the therapy was about and the claims from both sides have clear interest in giving the version they do. 

One of the things that most bothers me about Allen's case in particular is that so many people use arguments that directly or indirectly take the stance that the alleged victim ought to be believed as a matter of default. Outside of the unacceptable implications of that sentiment, Moses Farrow not only endorses the version of events that would make Allen likely innocent, he specifically claims that Mia Farrow was a profoundly abusive Mom who coached her children to tell falsehoods that conformed to what she wanted to hear. Setting aside whether that claim is credible or not, if we are supposed to just reflexively believe (alleged) survivors, then shouldn't Moses just be believed?  But in the rush to demand Dylan Farrow be believed because survivors deserve to be believed, false accusations are rare and therefore unlikely, etc., this is just completely ignored. 
Quote
Meowzers
Esoteric Allusion wrote:
The counter-argument to this piece out there is that Woody Allen received therapy for focusing too much on his daughter as compared to his son and nothing "inappropriate" was being addressed in therapy in a sexual or grooming sense. That is a plausible reason for therapy if someone is prone to using therapists as Allen was. Assuming those reports are true, the fact that this is used as evidence of untoward behavior in a misleading fashion would undercut the overall argument it is attempting to make. In any case, Maureen Orth, the author of this piece, consistently has mislead on other facts around the case to enhance the case for Allen's guilt, which makes it problematic when cited as a say-so authority. We simply aren't privy to the details of what the therapy was about and the claims from both sides have clear interest in giving the version they do. 

One of the things that most bothers me about Allen's case in particular is that so many people use arguments that directly or indirectly take the stance that the alleged victim ought to be believed as a matter of default. Outside of the unacceptable implications of that sentiment, Moses Farrow not only endorses the version of events that would make Allen likely innocent, he specifically claims that Mia Farrow was a profoundly abusive Mom who coached her children to tell falsehoods that conformed to what she wanted to hear. Setting aside whether that claim is credible or not, if we are supposed to just reflexively believe (alleged) survivors, then shouldn't Moses just be believed?  But in the rush to demand Dylan Farrow be believed because survivors deserve to be believed, false accusations are rare and therefore unlikely, etc., this is just completely ignored. 


Moses' allegation that Mia was abusive does not refute Dylan's allegation that Woody molested her. I have no problem believing this family had a profoundly fucked up dynamic just looking at the facts that what we, the public, know. If Mia is abusive, her bad behavior doesn't invalidate her daughter's allegation. Dylan is now 32 and an adult and her story has not changed.
With Love And Kisses!
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Meowzers wrote:


Moses' allegation that Mia was abusive does not refute Dylan's allegation that Woody molested her. I have no problem believing this family had a profoundly fucked up dynamic just looking at the facts that what we, the public, know. If Mia is abusive, her bad behavior doesn't invalidate her daughter's allegation. Dylan is now 32 and an adult and her story has not changed.
Moses's allegation that Mia abused him specifically by coercing and manipulating him to say false things, when coupled with his separate testimony contradicting substantive facts in the allegation and implying Dylan likewise was coached would very much make it unlikely the molestation allegation is true. It's not a generic claim of abuse. It's a claim about being psychologically abused and witnessing abuse in the specific way that would make the other allegation probably untrue. If he deserves to be believed because he is a survivor, that necessarily casts the other allegation in a dubious light.

If Dylan wasn't molested, she likely nonetheless believes what she says. We know that memories are prone to fallible reconstruction in instances like this and there was a whole moral panic in the 80's and early 90's that revolved around children being coached into genuinely believing that molestations occurred when they had not. Her consistency is not a strong basis to believe her, but if we are to believe her because she is sticking with her story, then Moses ought to be believed just the same.
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Dylan Farrow, for her part, says Moses is dead to her and is not telling the truth about his stories of abuse. While he claims an atmosphere of physical abuse (as does Soon Yi if you want another complicated witness), Dylan says they were only sent to their rooms sometimes. If what she's saying is true, it's understandable why she'd write him off. It does, however, put a giant hole in the "survivors deserve to be believed" logic. Either accusations are given presumption of truth or they aren't. If Moses didn't exist, I'd still be opposed to logic that swirls around cases like this where allegation is tantamount to guilt, but his existence screams bad faith reasoning on the part of people who draw from that well.
Quote
Zuben
Esoteric Allusion wrote:
Sure. Woody Allen seduced and latter married the much younger than him step-sister of his children. That's terrible. That's plenty to condemn his personal conduct. 

Invariably when this story comes up, people come out of the woodwork characterizing what happened with that, but it's hard to care about offering corrections when what actually occurred is so skeevy. Likewise, he has a history of attraction to women in their late teens. 

That people take this is as compelling context for him being wiling to molest his 7 year old daughter annoys me, though. It doesn't even begin to follow that if you find 17 year olds attractive you're more likely to molest young children. 




It could very well indicate that he likes the idea of having sexual power over someone that is like a daughter to him. I think it does. 
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Zuben wrote:


It could very well indicate that he likes the idea of having sexual power over someone that is like a daughter to him. I think it does. 
There isn't any empirical evidence that people who find old teenagers sexually attractive, which is a lot of people, are more likely to molest children. There isn't even good evidence that the desire to have power over children is a significant component of pedophilia, common assumptions about pedophiles aside. 

Woody Allen very well might like (or liked) to be in relationships where he is dominant by virtue of being much older and in a father-figure like role, but this doesn't tell us anything about the likelihood that he molested his 7 year old daughter one day in the middle of a custody dispute. That just makes him an asshole.
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
This is only very tangentially related, but did you know that alleged victims McMartin preschool case stand by the fact that they were molested now that they are adults? Perhaps they have false memories, but imagine how compelling those memories must be to them not be able to overcome that given the external evidence and how bizarre the allegations are. It's really a testimony the horrors of the mind.
Quote
Zuben
Esoteric Allusion wrote:
There isn't any empirical evidence that people who find old teenagers sexually attractive, which is a lot of people, are more likely to molest children. There isn't even good evidence that the desire to have power over children is a significant component of pedophilia, common assumptions about pedophiles aside. 

Woody Allen very well might like (or liked) to be in relationships where he is dominant by virtue of being much older and in a father-figure like role, but this doesn't tell us anything about the likelihood that he molested his 7 year old daughter one day in the middle of a custody dispute. That just makes him an asshole.


No, I'm saying some people might get off on fucking their kids and that a guy who does what Allen did with his adopted step-daughter seems like he might be one of those people. 
Quote
booze
I'm not in any way sticking myself on the other side of this argument, solely spurring discussion on this abandoned outpost, but Woody Allen has been married to Soon-Yi Previn for 31 years now. She's 47, older than I am, and at what point can you no longer say she's a victim? According to Wiki, she was a street kid who ate garbage, had had her head slammed in previously, and knew no spoken language at the age of 8 when she was rescued. 
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Zuben wrote:


No, I'm saying some people might get off on fucking their kids and that a guy who does what Allen did with his adopted step-daughter seems like he might be one of those people. 
She wasn't his adopted step-daughter. She was adopted by Mia Farrow, not Allen. While she was the step-sister of Allen's kids, he had relatively minimal contact with her. He did have some contact however, and the role of "Mom's boyfriend from a young age" carries enough emotional complexity that it is the sort of boundary you don't violate. It doesn't suggest he's a child molester, though.
Quote
Moses
booze wrote:
I'm not in any way sticking myself on the other side of this argument, solely spurring discussion on this abandoned outpost, but Woody Allen has been married to Soon-Yi Previn for 31 years now. She's 47, older than I am, and at what point can you no longer say she's a victim? According to Wiki, she was a street kid who ate garbage, had had her head slammed in previously, and knew no spoken language at the age of 8 when she was rescued. 

You are shit at math.
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Esoteric Allusion wrote:
The counter-argument to this piece out there is that Woody Allen received therapy for focusing too much on his daughter as compared to his son and nothing "inappropriate" was being addressed in therapy in a sexual or grooming sense. That is a plausible reason for therapy if someone is prone to using therapists as Allen was. Assuming those reports are true, the fact that this is used as evidence of untoward behavior in a misleading fashion would undercut the overall argument it is attempting to make. In any case, Maureen Orth, the author of this piece, consistently has mislead on other facts around the case to enhance the case for Allen's guilt, which makes it problematic when cited as a say-so authority. We simply aren't privy to the details of what the therapy was about and the claims from both sides have clear interest in giving the version they do. 


I feel like I should clarify this. The Farrow family doctor who recommended the therapy in the first place is the one who claimed there was nothing sexual about his "inappropriate" contact. That's where the counter-claim comes from. This was something added to his ongoing therapy rather than a reason to get a therapist. That part is clear enough. If you believe the doctor rather than Farrow, then the whole claim looks deceptive. The implication were led to think, repeated all over the place including by Meow here, is that Allen had to see a therapist because he was creepin' on his daughter. At a minimum, we really don't have a strong basis to think that's true.

The Vanity Fair article doesn't tell this side of the story at all and really is misleading on a number of accounts in its selective presentation of facts. The lie detector part is almost obnoxious in how misleading it is, but it's not really relevant as polygraph tests aren't reliable.
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Cathy Young, predictably if you know who Cathy Young is, writes critically about the mob of people pressuring denouncements of Allen as a molester. 

https://forward.com/opinion/393663/i-dont-believe-dylan-farrow/?attribution=author-article-listing-1-headline

It's generally a good article. It avoids the weeds of the case details while accurately giving a broad outline of what's going on in the he-said, she-said of it all. At the end, she says she thinks Allen is innocent. While her reasoning isn't bad, I still think it makes sense to withhold judgment. In her reasoning, she makes a point that Bret Stephens should've made instead of the one he did. It is the case that Allen has only one allegation of molestation against him. So what, though? Molesters don't always have multiple victims or multiple victims willing to come forward. Her argument is that Allen also is only alleged to have offended one time. It's hard not to concede that the one time he supposedly molested her makes absolutely no sense given the circumstances (days away form a custody agreement being hammered out, being watched by a crowd of angry eyes, etc.). That's a strong point in his favor, but we should also be aware that molesters sometimes make strange decisions. What she points out, accurately, is that molesters of family members tend to molest them a lot. The one time only offense is rare. I suppose, yeah, that's a small point in Allen's favor. It'd be odd if that was the first time Allen embarked on his molesting. Bret Stephens could've argued that and not have been as much of a douchebag. That's hardly rock-solid exculpatory evidence though.
Quote
booze
Moses wrote:

You are shit at math.


Where is math, or my math, failing me?

ED: They maybe took the girl in at 8 or whenever she was available for adoption, gave her a home, Woody got creepy when she was 13 or something, and married her at 16. How is my math off? 
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
booze wrote:


Where is math, or my math, failing me?

ED: They maybe took the girl in at 8 or whenever she was available for adoption, gave her a home, Woody got creepy when she was 13 or something, and married her at 16. How is my math off? 
Her age is formally known, but she was probably between 18-20 (officially 20) when Woody Allen started a relationship with her.  They married when she was 27 in 1997. That was 20 years ago, not 31.

She was adopted in 1978 when she was believed to be 8.

ETA: There's a huge fucking difference between having a relationship at 20 and marrying at 27 than there is at 13 and marrying at 16.
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
True sleeze factors with Soon-Yi:

1) She was the adopted step-sister of Allen's children.
2) She knew Woody Allen as her mother's boyfriend starting around when she was a preteen. 
3) There is was a very large age gap between Allen (55) and Soon-Yi (20) when they became romantically involved.
4) Allen described himself as a paternal figure in their romantic relationship. 


Common false claims about Soon-Yi all over the internet every time this story comes up:

1) She was Allen's adopted daughter - No
2) Allen was a father to her - No. 
2) She was/is of borderline intellectual functioning - No. She has a masters degree from Columbia, you assholes.
3) She started dating Allen when she was a child - No.
Quote
Esoteric Allusion
Esoteric Allusion wrote:
Dylan Farrow, for her part, says Moses is dead to her and is not telling the truth about his stories of abuse. While he claims an atmosphere of physical abuse (as does Soon Yi if you want another complicated witness), Dylan says they were only sent to their rooms sometimes.
For what it is worth, if you are ever interested in a deep dive on the old materials about this, you do find references by others to his claims. For example, from this 1993 article on information from affidavits from a one of the nannys that strongly imply Farrow fabricated the allegation there is a reference to a young Moses Farrow claiming that he believed Mia Farrow was making up the allegation and the nanny claiming to have witnessed him being physically abused by her:

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-02/news/mn-952_1_woody-allen

 

The rest of the testimony referred to in that piece quite strongly argues in favor of Allen's innocence, and is frequently referred to in contemporary defenses of Allen, but the counter-claim is that the nanny was financially dependent on Allen and therefore biased (i.e. lying) because of pecuniary motive. In any case, it's bullshit to dismiss Moses but believe Dylan because "survivors deserve to be believed" or "she's an adult and she's stood by her story." One of the two is flat wrong about what they say they saw.

Quote
wirthling
Luc Besson accused of rape.
"I am very poorly today and very stupid and hate everybody and everything." - Charles Darwin
Quote
Rooby
wirthling wrote:
Luc Besson accused of rape.
Considering the subject matter and his choice of muses in his many movies, this feels like it's coming out a bit late.
Torrible. Absotively, posilutely herrible.
Quote
Rooby
Wait, the incident just happened? How colossally stupid does one have to be to do that NOW?
Torrible. Absotively, posilutely herrible.
Quote
Rooby
I'm sure he is guilty of some shit, but I'm not necessarily gonna believe this one. That is just too stupid.
Torrible. Absotively, posilutely herrible.
Quote
neumdaddy
Oh shit, Morgan Freeman?
Quote
Rooby
neumdaddy wrote:
Oh shit, Morgan Freeman?
I guess he only opted in for the passive Wise Old Sage roles so he could conserve his energy for the fuckin'.
Torrible. Absotively, posilutely herrible.
Quote
Dyne
neumdaddy wrote:
Oh shit, Morgan Freeman?

Oh, god damn it. 
Quote
EJ
Rooby wrote:
I guess he only opted in for the passive Wise Old Sage roles so he could conserve his energy for the fuckin'.


That and Through the Wormhole.

HEY-OH ROOBY ROOBS AND THAT'S THE WAAAAYYY THE NEWS GOES!!!!!!!
Quote
Isaac
Moses Farrow defends Woody Allen
Quote
kgaard
neumdaddy wrote:
Oh shit, Morgan Freeman?


finalbingosorry-723x1024.jpg 
Quote