|
Jim is literally the worst.
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
Jesus. Now Don is literally the worst. What kind of misogynistic crap did I just watch? It felt like Aaron Sorkin was telling the audience "social media and the internet ALSO sucks because rape victims are talking about their experiences when the law has failed them and omg privileged rich guys may not get into law school waaaaahhh." What the gently caress. gently caress YOU Aaron Sorkin.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Poetic Justice posted:The law exists in society for a reason. When you try to bypass laws because it didn't work out for you in a way that makes you happy or even didn't work properly at all, that is vigilantism. This episode was 100% on point. While she wanted to just talk about her experience, which is absolutely fine and within her rights, she was making a Name and Shame website without any oversite. That is not a moral gray area, that is repugnant. lol women lie about getting raped all of the time
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Poetic Justice posted:Women get raped more often then women lie about getting raped. That being said, there are women who lie about getting raped. It sucks, and it's terrible, but it does happen. Don stalking a rape victim to her dorm, then insulting her by expressing concern that she might accuse him of rape, and then telling her it's a shame she can't get justice but she and other victims should just shut the gently caress up and get off the internet was just plain misogynistic writing, especially in this highly charged climate where universities are increasingly failing to bring justice to rape victims on college campuses, where rapists are protected, and it has been women activists who have been bringing attention to this issue. Again, gently caress you Aaron Sorkin.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Poetic Justice posted:Yes, yes now you are getting it. Don is a stalker in this episode. Aaron works in layers. He was trying to, rather obviously I must say, convey this entire episode how easy it is for a vigilante to stalk down a person, either using the newest internet gadgets like facebook or ACN human flesh tracker, or the old school way, like being a true gumshoe working all the angles to find a person you are looking for. The whole point of this episode was about taking the law into your own hands, and the repercussions of that. It's easy enough to find somebody when you are willing to put in effort, let alone when you make a Name and Shame website with no oversite or vetting. There would be nothing to stop a guy who is mad in COD from making a rape post pretending to be a girl in the type of site she was going to make. That was the entire point of that episode. Except the law is failing rape victims. And he (Aaron Sorkin) seems to be content with that. But instead of having an honest conversation about how the law and society makes rape nearly impossible to be prosecuted, it becomes instead a fatuous discussion about lol women can be lying bitches on the internet amirite? Here's the message: Just shut up and wait for the law (not) to help you. Shut up and move on. SHUT UP. How better encapsulated was this message when Don made the decision for her when he told Charlie he couldn't find her, even though she wanted to go on the show? For victims, the internet can be a place in which they, WOMEN, can construct SAFE spaces for themselves and other WOMEN to talk honestly about their experiences. BECAUSE THE LAW HAS FAILED THEM. But this scares men. Privileged men. Like Aaron Sorkin. And please, don't talk down to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Poetic Justice posted:Actually, it's reality that makes rape claims nearly impossible to prosecute in a legal sense, not the law. It is almost always a his vs her word. There isn't a huge male conspiracy to rape women in society and keep it under wraps. No normal person would be ok with that. It's the fact that there are often times no way to prove it, and you should always presume innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, otherwise you are resorting to at least mental vigilantism where you automatically assume the male is a rapist and all women are perfect people without motivations to lie and are somehow perfect creatures that need to always be trusted. What separates this country from shithole countries is the presumption of innocence, and it's for a good reason. All the women coming forward and accusing Bill Cosby of drugging and raping them should just be quiet. He's never been convicted of a crime. We should presume he's innocent. Because the words of 19+ women are worth less than a man's. A woman's word is less than a man's. Even with hundreds of thousands of rape kits. It's still he said/she said. And guess what? That's an imperfect system. The law is not infallible. The legal system as it is structured does not allow for the adequate prosecution of rapists. And then there are social prejudices to deal with when the idea in finding the "right" victims of this crime and slut shaming the women who were "asking" for it is so loving pervasive. You seem very concerned with the destroyed lives of men who are falsely accused of rape 2% of the time, though strangely nonchalant about the fact that women live under the constant threat or danger of being assaulted, as women are raped every two minutes in this country. The chance of a woman being raped in college? 1 out of 4 or 5 This is a problem with the law and how the system fails the mostly female victims of this crime. "There isn't a huge male conspiracy to rape women in society and keep it under wraps." Jesus christ, I never said this. Though it is strange how women are predominantly victims. Probably has something to do with the fact that everything from their bodies to their own words are not seen as valuable as men's. Foo fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Poetic Justice posted:This isn't a war zone torn Bosnia. "constant threat and danger" lol jesus man, yes that's real life, hahah You do realize that you are trivializing women's experiences with sexual assault and the utter pervasiveness of rape in this country? That many of us are scared to walk down the street alone? That we buy mace, hold keys between our fingers, and have friends escort us to our car because who knows who might sexually attack you? That we're told to take care of our drinks because we might get roofied and raped (and hence it will be all our fault)? That no one will believe us if we're raped by a date or someone we know because we flirted, showed interest, or have a sexual history with that person? Or how aggressive some men can be when simply walking down the street and that this makes us feel unsafe? And the fact that rape happens too often, and usually with no consequences for the rapist? I would say try to live in a woman's shoes for a little while, but it seems like you're utterly devoid of any empathy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:You do know that other than insane right-wingers, no one's saying that we should presume Bill Cosby is innocent because he says he is, right? No, but Don Keefer says we should because no jury has convicted him. Just like we should presume the guys who gang raped the woman in tonight's episode are innocent. The law has not convicted them! But what I found disturbing was that, according to the message that Sorkin was (inadvertently?) conveying, victims should just shut the hell up then if the law doesn't come to their rescue or bring them justice. Because they might be liars. Because women lie. Sometimes. For revenge. Or something. drat INTERNETS.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
Poetic Justice posted:Is that what I'm doing, Foo? Am I trivializing women's experiences with sexual assault and the utter pervasiveness of rape in this country? I didn't realize that, no. Thank you for letting me know that you buy mace, hold keys between your fingers, and have friends escort you to your car because who knows who might sexually attack you? That you're told to take care of your drinks because you might get roofied and raped (and hence it will be all your fault)? That no one will believe you if you're raped by a date or someone you know because you flirted, showed interest, or have a sexual history with that person? Or how aggressive some men can be when simply walking down the street and that this makes you feel unsafe? No, Foo, I didn't realize that, thank you for telling me here, in this thread about Newsroom, on the internet. I've a lot to think about now, Foo. In this thread about the tv show Newsroom. In all seriousness, I'm glad you saw an opposing viewpoint in your sheltered little life. If not here, then where else? Topic? The Newsroom sucks. And not just because of the awful rape storyline. I usually find Luddites amusing, but Sorkin's distaste for social media (which I don't necessarily love) and citizen journalism is making his writing stink, to the point that the characters don't even sound fake-witty anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
Poetic Justice posted:See, I disagree, because he made some great points about the flaws of the current way of internet journalism, and I don't think any other show would have the balls to criticize twitter in any sense. Other shows would know that it would piss their viewers off and wouldn't allow it to happen. This show is good because it pisses people off Except for the rape stuff, it doesn't piss me off in the least. It just seems like he's out of touch. A man railing against the wind. I think there's definitely something to be said about the flaws of internet journalism, though I question how much balls it takes to criticize twitter (even though I have an account, I personally hate it, so I'm biased). It's mostly a problem of tone. He doesn't seem to ever consider when internet journalism is or could be useful, or even surpasses traditional journalism. His exploration of the flaws of citizen/internet journalism doesn't seem to include any intelligent dialogue about its positives. It's all vitriol. And many major news stories break first on blogs and/or twitter. The horror. He could have explored this theme a bit more with the Jim and Haille (was that her name?) fight last week, but we were "supposed" to see Jim's point and Haille's as vacuous nonsense. Except, because of his problems with tone and characterization, we mostly saw Jim as being literally the worst, and needlessly self-righteous. I think this is a horrible show, but it's horrible because it had so much potential. Like The Walking Dead, I keep coming back to it, and always leave disappointed. If anything, the Newsroom has been pretty revealing of Sorkin's strengths and weaknesses as a writer more than anything else he's ever done. Great premise, snappy dialogue, even great moments at times, but awful characterization and follow-through and plot devices and JIM MAGGIE AND POOR OVERACTING AND DEAD SAM WATERSTON seriously wtf was THAT? Since I liked the Social Network quite a bit, I agree with Sorkin's decision to focus on features rather than TV. It's a medium that's a bit too sophisticated for him now. It's outgrown him in a weird way. The 2-hour run time of feature films, especially helmed by auteurs like David Fincher, probably will prevent him from producing another Newsroom (one hopes).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
am0kgonzo posted:you're really dumb Yeah, us dumb bitches can't help but think of dumb rear end poo poo when we see borderline rape apology poo poo in lovely poo poo episodes of the Newsroom.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
slorb posted:Sorkin has teetered on the edge of being human garbage for so long I'm sort of relieved he's finally gone redpill so I can write him off forever. Yeah, who knew the MRA force was so strong with that one? One of cornerstones of MRA ideology is that women always lie about rape. But then again, MRAs really hate women, so... I always flash back to the season 1 promos of the show, where all the actresses were talking about how great it was to work with a show runner who wrote women so well. Except for Olivia Munn (Sloan Sabbith), who I liked in this last episode even though her storyline was garbage, I was wondering what they were on or if they were merely being polite and wanted to keep working in Hollywood.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:"You're paid $55,000/year. That's almost twice the national average for a family of 4." It was apparently revealed (though I wasn't paying attention at the time because I was too distracted by how awful the scene was). He was being a lapdog to save all of them from being canned. I think?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 11:34
|
|
No, median household income is is $52,000. What the gently caress?