Dylan Farrow on Her Father, Woody Allen: 'He's Lying and He's Been Lying for So Long'

[Bio]

Fuck this asshole and every Hollywood jagoff who defends him. I've never seen one of his movies, and I don't ever care to, but I don't give a shit if he's every bit as talented as critics say, the dude is a fucking monster. I don't know how completely fucked in the head you have to be to do something like this to your own child.

 

[uncelestial]

Lol I'm not actually confused at all. I was doing a wink and nod like you are with your defense of Allen. Just own what you are doing instead of using careful wording to appear less like you're defending him while defending him.

Click to shrink...

You are clearly confused and apparently unable to admit that you aren't actually talking to a defender of Woody Allen right now. Or is knowing what the other side of the story is and posting it with the comment "I don't know; I'm still creeped out by him" a defense in your mind?

 

[Lonewulfeus]

You are clearly confused and apparently unable to admit that you aren't actually talking to a defender of Woody Allen right now. Or is knowing what the other side of the story is and posting it with the comment "I don't know; I'm still creeped out by him" a defense in your mind?

Click to shrink...

When you use all the same words as people defending him and bring up that same defense in a thread about the victim coming forward yes, it is the same.

 

[uncelestial]

When you use all the same words as people defending him and bring up that same defense in a thread about the victim coming forward yes, it is the same.

Click to shrink...

Alright, well there it is. In this case, what you just said produces the result that a person who doesn't believe he is innocent (me) is morally the same as someone who does, so if that's where you're at I guess you've properly rationalized personally attacking me. Not much else to say.

 

[Lonewulfeus]

Alright, well there it is. In this case, what you just said produces the result that a person who doesn't believe he is innocent (me) is morally the same as someone who does, so if that's where you're at I guess you've properly rationalized personally attacking me. Not much else to say.

Click to shrink...

Since when is asking you about what you've posted attacking? Go read some of Metallics posts in this thread and compare them to your post I quoted and see if you can spot the similarities. The main difference is you tacked on a sentence at the end to say she's still a victim to deflect any criticism for the rest of your post where you cast doubt on what happened despite most of the daily beast article you linked to being debunked in this very thread.

Edit: actually you don't even admit she's a victim, you did thoughts and prayers

 

[uncelestial]

Since when is asking you about what you've posted attacking? Go read some of Metallics posts in this thread and compare them to your post I quoted and see if you can spot the similarities. The main difference is you tacked on a sentence at the end to say she's still a victim to deflect any criticism for the rest of your post where you cast doubt on what happened despite most of the daily beast article you linked to being debunked in this very thread.

Click to shrink...

I'm not doing this with you. If you're going to act like this wasn't a personal attack, we're done here.

 

[Lonewulfeus]

I'm not doing this with you. If you're going to act like this wasn't a personal attack, we're done here.

Click to shrink...

Well, it wasn't directed at you and it's exactly what he was saying if you read a little further instead of cherry picking a post out of context to prove a point. That user I responded to is banned for posting disengenuously so probably not the best evidence of my "hostility" toward you.

 

[Bio]

How many times do I need to say I am not and will not be doing that for you? Five? We're up to two.

Click to shrink...

Then, out of curiosity, could you please explain why you linked to a thread where you offered what could only be described as a "spirited defense of Woody Allen"? That you're not literally repeating it here verbatim, but asking people to go read it nonetheless, doesn't strike me personally as much of a distinction, but perhaps I am missing your point.

 

[uncelestial]

Then, out of curiosity, could you please explain why you linked to a thread where you offered what could only be described as a "spirited defense of Woody Allen"? That you're not literally repeating it here verbatim, but asking people to go read it nonetheless, doesn't strike me personally as much of a distinction, but perhaps I am missing your point.

Click to shrink...

I believe this is recapped here. And I strongly disagree that I'm offering anything close to a "spirited defense" of anyone or anything. Recapping the events and statements of people besides Dylan who were involved because I lived through it as a disappointed fan and came away with an unresolved feeling, and it didn't feel like he was open-and-shut guilty (per the legal outcome and all the he-said-she-said interviews, recanted testimony, and descriptions of behavior from people who were in the house) is not a "spirited defense." Saying "I don't want to watch Manhattan ever again because I think it's a gross fantasy he's acting out" is not a "spirited defense." Saying "Alec Baldwin doesn't have credibility here" isn't a "spirited defense." Saying "I deeply empathize with Dylan and the clear pain she is in and how brave it is to put herself out there" is not a "spirited defense." And most of all, declining to go through this litany of details even when being (I think) called out because I specifically didn't want to be mistaken as defending him and it didn't feel relevant is most definitely not a "spirited defense."

Well, it wasn't directed at you and it's exactly what he was saying if you read a little further instead of cherry picking a post out of context to prove a point. That user I responded to is banned for posting disengenuously so probably not the best evidence of my "hostility" toward you.

Click to shrink...

Hey, speaking of disingenuous posting, you are now saying that the post I linked to, which was a literal direct reply to me, and also your first interaction with me, is now being "cherry picked" out of context and you were directing it at someone else? Okay. I mean look, if that was your intent, I'm sorry -- we could've had a lot more cordial of a conversation, but.

 

[Lonewulfeus]

I believe this is recapped here. And I strongly disagree that I'm offering anything close to a "spirited defense" of anyone or anything. Recapping the events and statements of people besides Dylan who were involved because I lived through it as a disappointed fan and came away with an unresolved feeling, and it didn't feel like he was open-and-shut guilty (per the legal outcome and all the he-said-she-said interviews, recanted testimony, and descriptions of behavior from people who were in the house) is not a "spirited defense." Saying "I don't want to watch Manhattan ever again because I think it's a gross fantasy he's acting out" is not a "spirited defense." Saying "Alec Baldwin doesn't have credibility here" isn't a "spirited defense." Saying "I deeply empathize with Dylan and the clear pain she is in and how brave it is to put herself out there" is not a "spirited defense." And most of all, declining to go through this litany of details even when being (I think) called out because I specifically didn't want to be mistaken as defending him and it didn't feel relevant is most definitely not a "spirited defense."

Hey, speaking of disingenuous posting, you are now saying that the post I linked to, which was a literal direct reply to me, and also your first interaction with me, is now being "cherry picked" out of context and you were directing it at someone else? Okay. I mean look, if that was your intent, I'm sorry -- we could've had a lot more cordial of a conversation, but.

Click to shrink...

That post was a direct response to metallix or whatever his username is. How was it directed at you in any way?

Edit: double and triple checked, not one post on that entire page is by you and my responses were all to metallix, so unless you are an alt account of metallix I fail to see how that's a personal attack towards you

 

[uncelestial]

That post was a direct response to metallix or whatever his username is. How was it directed at you in any way?

Edit: double and triple checked, not one post on that entire page is by you and my responses were all to metallix, so unless you are an alt account of metallix I fail to see how that's a personal attack towards you

Click to shrink...

This is getting awkward, dude. Can we just move on? Our little thing has derailed the thread enough.

 

[Lonewulfeus]

This is getting awkward, dude. Can we just move on? Our little thing has derailed the thread enough.

Click to shrink...

That's great, but that's not what you linked to originally. And isn't as of right now either. If you view that as a personal attack report it, only thing I can say

 

[uncelestial]

That's great, but that's not what you linked to

Click to shrink...

It is, and also it seems like the kinda thing that would come up when you "triple checked," but again, let's move on.

 

[Lurkyseas]

And the funny thing, wrong or rite, I bet the VAST majority of men (including some in this thread that say its disgusting), if they were in the same situation where they clicked with a 19/20 year old when they were 50 that was attractive, and had a genuine connection with, would have done the same thing.

Click to shrink...

I think most of us are more upset at what Woody has done to his daughter more so than him dating a woman much younger than him.

Age has nothing to do with dating (unless someone is underage, of course, in which that becomes a problem).

 

[Green Yoshi]

All the evidence points to Woody's innocence and Dylan as the victim of brainwashing. Her story has changed so many times, has been filled with inconsistencies, holes, and contradictions, it is impossible to believe her. Even Dylan's own pediatrician said he found no evidence of abuse. Four separate investigative agencies concluded her allegations are unfounded --- and that's all without even bringing in Moses testimony.

I still find it interesting that Woody's accusers seem to have nothing to say about Mia's continued friendship with Roman Polanski, a man who has admitted to drugging and then raping a 13 year old girl.

Also, many seem to look past the fact that pedophiles are repeat offenders. One accusation 25 years ago with zero prior or after is a pretty good indicator that this accusation was bogus to begin with.

 

[adamsappel]

...Uh...this is a weird post. I get you're having a "separate the artist from their work" thing here, which even then is debatable to many, but I dunno. Seems to be going more into the movies then the actions of the man, y'know?

Click to shrink...

There's a plethora of either "His movies suck!" or "I've never even seen one of his movies!" opinions, which tends to happen when creators turn out to be awful people. Woody Allen has directed 54 movies, usually with a yearly release, and they seem to get positive reviews and awards. I do believe that most people here haven't actually seen a Woody Allen movie (I haven't watched one in over 2 decades), so I wanted to hear from the other camp, that thinks his movies are poorly made. I'm inclined to think it's just a reflexive dismissal of a terrible person's creative work.