Actors are lining up to condemn Woody Allen. Why now? https://t.co/mjE2wPWHCA— The Guardian (@guardian) February 3, 2018
- summary: "he was never convicted! this is too complex and not for the public to decide!! his fascination with young women does not equal pedophilia!!!"
- says moderation isn't cool nowadays, both political (lmao, i guess she must be a friend of JK "terrorists on the right & left" Rowling) and moral
- mentions the "shape-shifting quality of the Woody Allen saga", says it's bizarre that Colin Firth had a change of heart now bc he was 32 in 1992 and able to read newspapers, but "understandable" in Chalamet's case bc he was only born in 95 (i feel like there's a condescending 'young & impressionable' subtext here, but maybe that's me)
- selectively "re-establishes some truths about the original case"; again, it's all very complex!!!
- says Manhattan is eyeroll-worthy but come on you guys, that's hardly pedophilia!!!
- makes the disingenous, emotionally manipulative argument that #MeToo emerged bc women had lost faith in the justice system & too many victims had been silenced, and then implying that we're not exactly being just now either since "condemnation needs to have real value"
- "Justice is not 'Believe all women', as I’ve seen many people claim; it is 'Listen to all women'"