Jump to content

Smad

Member
  • Content count

    587
  • Joined

Community Likes

1,862 Excellent

About Smad

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

793 profile views
  1. Isn't it really ironic then that those who come out in defense of the accused (especially women) are smeared by everyone because they are lying to protect him? These people are only speaking from their personal experience with the accused but of course, they are lying. In the case of Hardwick it was his exes and actors he was friends with but they lied, lied, lied.
  2. But no one here called her that. Did people do that elsewhere on the internet? Yes. But the thing is that in this climate of #metoo there will be just as many false accusations as there will be true ones. Because the court of public opinion matters more than actual law. It's not 'innocent until proven guilty' anymore. It's 'big social media buzz' has become the law. For the record, I would have been just as skeptical if Chris was a woman and Chloe a man. Because things just don't add up in her account. All 'evidence' that has been presented so far is just Chloe's say so. I would love to believe her just like any other woman or man who was wronged by their partner. But her story just doesn't add up. The first big, red flag for me was her not even naming him in the accusations. She did it in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge way. If he is 100% guilty of any of the crimes she accused him of (abuse, blacklisting etc.) and she has the proof to back it up (as she says), there is absolutely no reason not to drop his name. The only reason that I can see is that she is protecting herself from defamation charges. And that she would only do if she didn't actually have any proof. Hell she made it a point to threaten him with proof if HE got the authorities involved. How in the world does that make sense? Because following her public accusations, the authorities would have to get anyway to investigate him and she would have to hand over the proof anyway. And lets not forget that if she has proof, it's her obligation to prevent future victims. If he is such an abuser, then give the evidence to the police so he can be charged and convicted. If that doesn't work due to the power Hardwick is married into, you can still make it public that he was found guilty but old money saved him. Get the media involved. Something. Instead it's all a lot of blah-blah-blah on social media. And it should be mentioned that Chloe has refused to aid in the investigation.
  3. That was...nice. Almost felt old school, especially when she called him Pookie. And they really did sound like normal people for a change. I don't trust it though. It could very well be that it all starts well and then goes horribly wrong. Season 6 anyone? And while having the characters be like human beings again would certainly be nice, it still doesn't say anything about storytelling, structure, plot etc. I still have no plans to watch again but I will follow the live chat and episode discussion. If anyone is left who watches so they actually write in those threads.
  4. As has been mentioned by some people, they weren't on a break, they were actually broken up. Rachel herself made that clear 3 times. 'Break from US.', 'we broke up instead' and 'don't want to get back together like that'. All of those are clear cut references of Rachel's as to a break up.
  5. Hell Jamie Alexander (aka Lady Sif from the MCU) came out in defense of Hardwick and she is getting torn apart by SJW and #metoo. This is really getting stupid.
  6. Who said I blame Xander? I said that Xander causes conflicts by dragging third parties into the mix who don't know they are being used that way. And you and me already agreed to disagree on the slayer darkness.
  7. Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

    You apply Earth standards and Earth's understanding (in some religions) of the concept of a soul. And your Earth-y understanding of sacrifice etc. But we are talking about a universe full of sentient beings from a billion different species. IMO one has to look at that with a wider horizon than just what we Earthlings define as life, soul, sentient, sacrifice etc.. Hence there is nothing to say that animals and plants aren't also included in the snap. And often those are resources. I mean Groot dusted too, right? He's predominantly a tree, plant life. Whether he has a soul or not, in the traditional sense, is sure up for debate. But no one can debate that he's alive (since he dusted as part of 'half of all life'), arguably intelligent life. And to most he's a resource because trees sure are useful source material. And this completely ignores how eco-systems work. Will biological resources also replenish? Of course. But as we see on our planet, there are plenty eco-systems that are extremely vulnerable even to the slightest changes done to them. So with the snap follows the possible collapse of a huge amount of those systems.
  8. Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

    Who says animals don't have souls? And even if Earth animals don't, nothing says animals (or even plants) on other planets don't have souls.
  9. Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

    I still don't get how the dusting works and why this in any way makes sense. Half of all life in the universe but it has to be balanced, so logically that means the snap kills half of any race. And it doesn't matter whether it's animals, plants or humanoids etc.. Life is life. So the snap should logically kill huge parts of the resources that are so precious to Thanos. Because there is no way half of all life doesn't include plants and animals, they are alive and therefor life after all. But how does it work for mixed races for example? Why did someone like Quill dust? A human/celestial mixed race is probably among the rarest race there is. Does that mean there is at least one other human/celestial somewhere? Or do the stones randomly chose to which race someone belongs, in this case ignoring Peter's celestial heritage and counting him as fully human or vice versa? What would happen for example to a kid of Quill/Gamora which would be human, celestial and zehoberei. Technically it's a one of a kind but if it dusts...which race is chosen then as grounds for dusting?
  10. So, he and a friend made calls, and had her blacklisted, and there are six other women who had the same thing happen to them with this female "friend". Her lawyer apparently wrote a letter, to stop him from badmouthing her in front of audiences, speculating that she was cheating on him. She wrote her piece, to encourage other girls and women, to not stay in relationships like that, but the women who are involved in them, most won't listen, which is a shame. But from what I understand, Hardwick was a douché about her leaving him. Basically, he was an ass after she left him. According to her, he used business as a way to vent. That's not on the up and up and it's a dick move but it's a business move. And something that if she can prove it, she should take to court. But that's not really what the #metoo movement is about and not what people are focused on in regards to her and Hardwick. It's all about how the relationship was and not what came after. Since the conduct of him during that relationship seems to be the basis for why he got fired/companies are distancing themselves. And that conduct so far is only based on he said-she said without any proof. If anything, according to the woman herself, he informed her right at the beginning what he expected of her...and she chose to be together with him and stay with him. And while it's not exactly considerate of one's partner to still want sex when the other isn't in the mood, the partner can exercise the right to say no. When that doesn't happen and the partner does it anyway (fear of losing said partner or whatever the reason), then consent was given. So really, I still see nothing in terms of proof as to the reasons why his career is being destroyed because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with his behavior after the break up (aka the black listing if it's true).
  11. And who here said that exactly? Now people, even women, asking for PROOF of illegal behavior on the part of a man before he goes through the Salem Witch Trials, means that people say all accusations of all victims are false? I'm sorry but that makes the kind of sense that doesn't. I get it's personal to you and I'm sorry for what happened. But not all men are evil and not all women are good. And I don't see what's good about a man losing his career without even being charged or convicted for/of anything, for what so far amounts to a screwed up, dysfunctional relationship but no evidence except he said-she said as to any illegal (abusive) behavior on the man's end. This is not me defending him (I really don't care), this me simply wanting FACTS and PROOF in order for me to make up my own mind about the situation. And that's how it should be.
  12. I'm not defending him because frankly in the end, I don't care. I don't know him. I reserve my care for friends and family. And if I happen to see a person in need...or an animal. The problem I have is how someone, or lets limit it to any MAN, can lose their reputation, job or even freedom (because that will be the next step) without any proof. Simply based on he said-she said. Guilty until proven innocent. Without this woman actually naming him outright. And without her presenting any proof. Hell in her initial blog post, she pretty much threatened him not to get authorities involved because she 'has proof'. What screwed up mental gymnastics is she attempting or simply blackmailing? If she has proof of illegal conduct on his end, she has to hand it over to authorities anyway so they can investigate in order to validate her claims. Hello! There is still the law in place and that one states 'innocent until proven guilty'. He's not been charged with anything, he has not been convicted of anything...yet his career is effectively over even if he is found innocent. If she is a victim, fine. But I want to see some proof first. Because wrongful accusations also won't help women. If the climate is that any woman can claim this stuff, even outside of Hollywood, by simply making a big social media fuss about it, and ruin any man's life/career...who is going to hire women for jobs? If guilt doesn't need to be proven anymore, as a boss I'd rather avoid all the bad publicity (for allegedly allowing misconduct to happen), the possible lawsuit for wrongful termination of a job (if man is found innocent) and so forth. I wouldn't hire a woman in the current climate. If all it takes now is for a woman to say so, this will not help help women, actual victims or otherwise.
  13. First of all, I don't know this guy from Adam. We don't get Talking Dead here and I only heard about this guy doing Comic Con panels or what not. And I'm not familiar with US laws but...since when is it 'guilty until proven innocent'? In most laws of the Western World it's 'innocent until proven guilty'. From what I understand, she didn't even name drop this guy. Everyone just assumes. But suddenly his career is in shambles even though nothing is officially proven? How the heck did it come to this? Now every woman in the business or married into it or whose boyfriend is in it comes out with allegations even if it was a decade or longer ago? And they are all believed to be telling the truth why exactly? Just because of the lack of a penis? Because women never ever lie for any reason? I'm sorry but wth? Some of them are not doing ACTUAL victims any favors. Quite the opposite actually. Actual victims who couldn't get out of things like abuse or who were harassed or sexually assaulted with no way to prevent it...this will just ensure in the long run that we are back to 'no one believes them'. And really, especially in all these Hollywood cases, a lot of these women had choices. And most of them chose to keep their mouths shut for years, didn't come forward, chose to stay in the business and often chose to work repeatedly with the people who have harmed them. They also chose to put their safety and health at risk for some fame and said to hell with my dignity. And they sure as hell ensured there will be more victims when they kept quiet. In terms of this woman, from what I have read she exercised her free will in this relationship at every step. She chose to be with him despite knowing his relationship expectations which she herself stated she knew like 2 weeks into the relationship. “To be fair, I did go along with it out of fear of losing him.” is her reason for staying with him. Well honey, you said yes. Does yes suddenly mean no? And what's with the rest of her excuses? 'I quietly posted...'. Right because the internet is so quiet when it comes to #metoo. She didn't want to name him because she didn't want the Nerdist people to suffer. Erm, the guy has other projects going where people are also employed. And they probably will suffer from this. So this excuse doesn't make a lick of sense, unless her goal is protecting herself from defamation charges. And her threatening to release evidence should he get law enforcement involved. Aren't black mail and extortion illegal? This sounds like a highly dysfunctional relationship between two people (probably due to age difference) where one chose to get a little publicity (doesn't she have her first high profile movie coming out?) out of it, probably also expecting some nice cash and it's made easy for her thanks to the current #metoo climate.
  14. S02.E13: Surprise

    Then why could he burn Dalton? The yardstick used on Dalton for humanity was READING. Just that, and the Judge was able to burn him. So if things like that count as a symbol for humanity, then Angelus sure as hell should have lit up like a match. I'm sorry but there is no other way around the fact that it doesn't make sense that Angelus doesn't burn. As he has feelings that humans feel and just like Dalton, a love for human entertainment. He's no different than other vampires since all vampires are reflections of humanity by their very nature (demons formed out of the former human).
  15. S02.E13: Surprise

    So what if the Judge can't burn Angelus? His fixation on Buffy...very human and for that he should have been able to be burned. His fixation on Dru and need to make Spike feel inferior all the time, again human enough. Him leaving well drawn pictures behind for people, showing his artistic nature, also should have made him Judge material (if reading is enough, drawing definitely is). If the Judge sets the bar for humanity as low as being a book worm is enough, Angelus more than qualifies, via all the things I've listed.