http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-nate-parker-casey-affleck-scandals-20161215-story.html

Commentary Race, privilege and a bad attitude: Why are Nate Parker and Casey Affleck being treated differently?

Tre'vell Anderson Contact Reporter

On the night of the Golden Globes — as he had for many of the awards season trophy ceremonies — actor Casey Affleck bounded onto the stage to accept his award as best lead actor in a drama for his turn in “Manchester by the Sea.” Meanwhile, Nate Parker, the multi-hyphenate lead of the Nat Turner slave revolt flick, “The Birth of a Nation,” wasn’t anywhere to be seen on the show that, 12 months prior, he was considered all but a lock to be a fixture of.

The 2017 awards season was supposed to belong to both Parker and Affleck, as both of their films had stormed out of Sundance a year ago this week to positive reception with glory in their sights.

But the experiences of these two men have been vastly different. In the time since “Manchester” and “Birth’s” Sundance premieres, old cases involving both actors and histories with sexual impropriety came to light.

For Parker, a massive controversy arose surrounding rape allegations from when he was a student at Penn State, nailing his film, and perhaps his entire career, to the moral cross. Affleck, however, remains a projected front-runner for an Oscar nomination on the heels of his Globes win, despite the resurfacing of details of alleged sexual harassment on the set of his 2010 mockumentary, “I’m Still Here.”

In an age where sexual assault has received renewed attention, and the likes of Bill Cosby and Roger Ailes are being forced to face their own allegations of sexual misconduct, what has happened to Parker and what hasn’t happened to Affleck deserves interrogation, if only as a case study of how race, class, access and one’s attitude are inextricably linked. And indeed, the “wrong” combination of these things can spell career suicide.

It must be noted, though, a major difference between the two men’s alleged sexual history: The cases against Affleck were filed in civil court, while the accusations against Parker were filed in criminal court. Although both alleged instances of sexual misconduct might draw ire or concern, the degree of said allegations is legally more serious in Parker’s case. Additionally, the legal foundation of the allegations against Affleck were contractual, having to do with payment and film credit.

Affleck was accused of sexual misconduct and harassment by two women who worked on “I’m Still Here,” producer Amanda White and cinematographer Magdalena Gorka, who cited a number of sexually inappropriate occurrences, both physical and verbal, between them and Affleck. In one instance, Gorka alleged that while she was asleep in a private room Affleck “curled up next to her in the bed wearing only his underwear and a T-shirt. He had his arm around her, was caressing her back, his face was within inches of hers and his breath reeked of alcohol.” When she awoke, Gorka said she demanded he leave, which he did, after a slight protest. At another moment, White claimed Affleck instructed a crew member to take off his pants and show White his penis, despite her objections.

In the face of the sexual claims, which normally would result in a criminal case, each woman, represented by the same lawyer, filed a civil lawsuit to the tune more than $2 million, a week apart from each other. Their points of contention were that their employment contracts were not honored and payment was withheld, which they believed to be in retaliation for their rebuffs, complaints and eventual resignation.

Affleck, as reported by the Los Angeles Times and other outlets at the time, denied the claims. The motion submitted by his lawyers, before Gorka filed her complaint, called White’s allegations “fabricated” and in response to 15 months’ worth of failed attempts to “extort” a better production deal. Affleck, in the motion, doubled down on this assertion, noting that White had accepted the terms of agreement in her employment contract, that he and the production company had complied and, verbally and via email, she expressed “how happy she was to be a part of this project.”

Both suits were settled out of court — a move that is not an admission of guilt — with no details of the settlement, if they be financial or otherwise, made public. Each woman is listed in the film’s credits. A statement from both Affleck’s reps and the women, at the time, said the matter was “resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.”

As for Parker, the criminal case against him alleged rape of a female student while he was a wrestler at Penn State University. The 1999 suit, which did go to trial, resulted in his acquittal in 2001. Parker’s college roommate, Jean McGianni Celestin, who co-wrote “The Birth of a Nation,” was also accused in the assault. Though convicted, Celestin successfully appealed it.

Much ado — mainly in off-the-record industry conversations and the non-mainstream blogosphere — has been made about the reasons for each man’s current fortunes. While much blame has been placed at the foot of white male (and upper-class) privilege — with good reason — the issue is much more complicated than that. The media and Hollywood, and Parker himself, are in part to blame for why Parker may not ever work in movies again and Affleck will sail, seemingly unfazed, untouched and unfettered, into a more fruitful phase of his career.

It is no secret that Affleck knows privilege intimately, consciously or otherwise. The brother and family friend of two of the industry’s most bankable stars, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, Affleck can count those in his corner as more than “just a tight circle of people who have had some success,” as he told Variety. Invariably, they are part of the reason why, following the poor reception of “I’m Still Here,” his career can have a rebound moment. (The film pulled in a paltry $408,983.)

Moreover, he was only cast in “Manchester,” a role originally meant for Damon, after Damon convinced writer-director Kenneth Lonergan that Affleck was the best, and only, person he trusted to take his place. (Though, clearly Affleck’s Oscar nomination for his supporting role in 2007’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” didn’t hurt. Neither did his award-winning role as a morally challenged Boston detective in “Gone Baby Gone,” directed by his brother.)

Contrarily, to most people, Parker was simply a working actor, notable only for roles in 2007’s “The Great Debaters” or 2012’s “Red Tails.” Once word spread at Sundance that he had put his acting career on hold after 2014’s “Beyond the Lights” to raise the money to produce and direct the script he had been writing since 2009, Parker and his film were seen as an antidote to the then-fresh #OscarsSoWhite campaign.

But when renewed attention was paid to Parker’s past, he handled it poorly. While Affleck was in the financial position — through birth, circumstance and, yes, talent and hard work — to hire two of the most undaunted legal and public relations representatives in the business to settle his case, Parker did not initially have the same access. And though he had spoken about the allegations in the past, Parker was, perhaps understandably, angrily on the defense when asked to address them in multiple interviews and Q&As — events Parker, as the film’s sole auteur, couldn’t avoid.

That brings us to another major difference between Affleck and Parker. While the “Manchester” lead has been rather on-brand — a humble, attention-adverse family man — in the few times he’s directly (yet indirectly) addressed the allegations, Parker, on the other hand, has vehemently maintained his innocence, that a jury agreed and that his life was upended. In fact, he seemingly had no regard for the alleged victim until after news broke that she had committed suicide, a long-term result, her family said, of the alleged assault.

Perhaps if Parker had the same kind of powerhouse PR in his corner, as Affleck does, a better, more effective way of quelling the controversy might have worked. But if reports that Parker declined media assistance from the influential Oprah Winfrey are true, “Birth’s” demise might have been inevitable.

Additionally, according to the Hollywood Reporter, Fox Searchlight, the studio that purchased “Birth” for a record $17.5 million, even hired D.C.-based Glover Park Consulting and former NFL pro and anti-sexual violence activist Don McPherson to devise a plan to salvage the film, and Parker’s career. He ultimately refused: “They gave him talking points and he just didn't execute,” an industry veteran with knowledge of the events said.

If true, if Parker behaved like a drowning man who refused a life preserver, then the fate of “Birth of a Nation” rests on his shoulders. The picture has made only $15.9 million since its Oct. 7 opening, never getting a worldwide release. All major award season prospects — save six NAACP Image Award nominations and a DGA first filmmaker nod — have been shot.

Even though news of Affleck’s past surfaced months after Parker’s, critiques of him have largely not stuck. Save notable stories by Mashable, the Daily Beast and ThinkProgress, most mainstream outlets, including The Times, have consciously or unconsciously avoided raising the issue in their interviews with the star. As Buzzfeed’s Anne Helen Petersen proffered, some outlets might be concerned that addressing it will limit their access to those in Affleck’s orbit. When members of the press have inquired, as stated prior, Affleck smartly answered, ultimately deflecting.

Affleck has also benefited from a lack of community responsibility that undoubtedly contributed to the fall of “Birth.” Some within the black community — many who also lead in the fight against sexual violence — wanted to see, at minimum, an expression of remorse on Parker’s behalf. As the Black Youth Project’s Elizabeth Adetiba said, “‘community’ revolves around the belief that we are all responsible for one another, and can only be sustained through love, justice and respect, especially for those who are further marginalized due to gender, sexual orientation, ability and/or socioeconomic status.” And though Parker’s alleged victim was white, she noted, “black women experience sexual violence at disproportionate rates in comparison to women of other races. And yes, most of the perpetrators are in fact black men.

“So while the accusations against Affleck might be easily disregarded by non-black America, we cannot and have never been able to afford doing the same for Nate Parker,” she said.

Considering the complex conversation that is how Hollywood, and others, have responded to both Affleck and Parker, what holds true are the facts. The age-old idea of separating the artist from their art will continue be debated. But history tells us one thing: Affleck is the latest in a long line of wealthy, white Hollywood notables of direct or associated influence with questionable sex-related histories, including Mel Gibson, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen and countless others. When Parker is added to this list, suddenly one of these things is unlike the others.

Polanski won an Oscar while in exile. Gibson was in the crowd at this year’s Globes, himself a nominee, as Affleck delivered his acceptance speech. The career rebound is possible … for some.

Will Parker similarly have the chance, or is he forever a pariah? Only time will tell. In the meantime, he may want to, finally, check his attitude.

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

but I have bigger beef with his win. Ben Affleck must have major pull because that acting job was TERRIBLE.

dude shuffled, mumbled and barely spoke for 2 hours. Denzel outshined him in the first 10 minutes of Fences.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

best actor/actress too?

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

I didn't watch but once I read that I knew it was a wrap.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Or bc white ppl ain't shit if we wanna be harsh about it.

>http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-nate-parker-casey-affleck-scandals-20161215-story.html
>
>Commentary Race, privilege and a bad attitude: Why are Nate
>Parker and Casey Affleck being treated differently?
>
>Tre'vell Anderson Contact Reporter
>
>On the night of the Golden Globes — as he had for many of
>the awards season trophy ceremonies — actor Casey Affleck
>bounded onto the stage to accept his award as best lead actor
>in a drama for his turn in “Manchester by the Sea.”
>Meanwhile, Nate Parker, the multi-hyphenate lead of the Nat
>Turner slave revolt flick, “The Birth of a Nation,”
>wasn’t anywhere to be seen on the show that, 12 months
>prior, he was considered all but a lock to be a fixture of.
>
>The 2017 awards season was supposed to belong to both Parker
>and Affleck, as both of their films had stormed out of
>Sundance a year ago this week to positive reception with glory
>in their sights.
>
>But the experiences of these two men have been vastly
>different. In the time since “Manchester” and
>“Birth’s” Sundance premieres, old cases involving both
>actors and histories with sexual impropriety came to light.
>
>For Parker, a massive controversy arose surrounding rape
>allegations from when he was a student at Penn State, nailing
>his film, and perhaps his entire career, to the moral cross.
>Affleck, however, remains a projected front-runner for an
>Oscar nomination on the heels of his Globes win, despite the
>resurfacing of details of alleged sexual harassment on the
>set of his 2010 mockumentary, “I’m Still Here.”
>
>In an age where sexual assault has received renewed attention,
>and the likes of Bill Cosby and Roger Ailes are being forced
>to face their own allegations of sexual misconduct, what has
>happened to Parker and what hasn’t happened to Affleck
>deserves interrogation, if only as a case study of how race,
>class, access and one’s attitude are inextricably linked.
>And indeed, the “wrong” combination of these things can
>spell career suicide.
>
>It must be noted, though, a major difference between the two
>men’s alleged sexual history: The cases against Affleck were
>filed in civil court, while the accusations against Parker
>were filed in criminal court. Although both alleged instances
>of sexual misconduct might draw ire or concern, the degree of
>said allegations is legally more serious in Parker’s case.
>Additionally, the legal foundation of the allegations against
>Affleck were contractual, having to do with payment and film
>credit.
>
>Affleck was accused of sexual misconduct and harassment by two
>women who worked on “I’m Still Here,” producer Amanda
>White and cinematographer Magdalena Gorka, who cited a number
>of sexually inappropriate occurrences, both physical and
>verbal, between them and Affleck. In one instance, Gorka
>alleged that while she was asleep in a private room Affleck
>“curled up next to her in the bed wearing only his underwear
>and a T-shirt. He had his arm around her, was caressing her
>back, his face was within inches of hers and his breath reeked
>of alcohol.” When she awoke, Gorka said she demanded he
>leave, which he did, after a slight protest. At another
>moment, White claimed Affleck instructed a crew member to take
>off his pants and show White his penis, despite her
>objections.
>
>In the face of the sexual claims, which normally would result
>in a criminal case, each woman, represented by the same
>lawyer, filed a civil lawsuit to the tune more than $2
>million, a week apart from each other. Their points of
>contention were that their employment contracts were not
>honored and payment was withheld, which they believed to be in
>retaliation for their rebuffs, complaints and eventual
>resignation.
>
>Affleck, as reported by the Los Angeles Times and other
>outlets at the time, denied the claims. The motion submitted
>by his lawyers, before Gorka filed her complaint, called
>White’s allegations “fabricated” and in response to 15
>months’ worth of failed attempts to “extort” a better
>production deal. Affleck, in the motion, doubled down on this
>assertion, noting that White had accepted the terms of
>agreement in her employment contract, that he and the
>production company had complied and, verbally and via email,
>she expressed “how happy she was to be a part of this
>project.”
>
>Both suits were settled out of court — a move that is not an
>admission of guilt — with no details of the settlement, if
>they be financial or otherwise, made public. Each woman is
>listed in the film’s credits. A statement from both
>Affleck’s reps and the women, at the time, said the matter
>was “resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.”
>
>As for Parker, the criminal case against him alleged rape of a
>female student while he was a wrestler at Penn State
>University. The 1999 suit, which did go to trial, resulted in
>his acquittal in 2001. Parker’s college roommate, Jean
>McGianni Celestin, who co-wrote “The Birth of a Nation,”
>was also accused in the assault. Though convicted, Celestin
>successfully appealed it.
>
>Much ado — mainly in off-the-record industry conversations
>and the non-mainstream blogosphere — has been made about the
>reasons for each man’s current fortunes. While much blame
>has been placed at the foot of white male (and upper-class)
>privilege — with good reason — the issue is much more
>complicated than that. The media and Hollywood, and Parker
>himself, are in part to blame for why Parker may not ever work
>in movies again and Affleck will sail, seemingly unfazed,
>untouched and unfettered, into a more fruitful phase of his
>career.
>
>It is no secret that Affleck knows privilege intimately,
>consciously or otherwise. The brother and family friend of two
>of the industry’s most bankable stars, Ben Affleck and Matt
>Damon, Affleck can count those in his corner as more than
>“just a tight circle of people who have had some success,”
>as he told Variety. Invariably, they are part of the reason
>why, following the poor reception of “I’m Still Here,”
>his career can have a rebound moment. (The film pulled in a
>paltry $408,983.)
>
>Moreover, he was only cast in “Manchester,” a role
>originally meant for Damon, after Damon convinced
>writer-director Kenneth Lonergan that Affleck was the best,
>and only, person he trusted to take his place. (Though,
>clearly Affleck’s Oscar nomination for his supporting role
>in 2007’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward
>Robert Ford” didn’t hurt. Neither did his award-winning
>role as a morally challenged Boston detective in “Gone Baby
>Gone,” directed by his brother.)
>
>Contrarily, to most people, Parker was simply a working actor,
>notable only for roles in 2007’s “The Great Debaters” or
>2012’s “Red Tails.” Once word spread at Sundance that he
>had put his acting career on hold after 2014’s “Beyond the
>Lights” to raise the money to produce and direct the script
>he had been writing since 2009, Parker and his film were seen
>as an antidote to the then-fresh #OscarsSoWhite campaign.
>
>But when renewed attention was paid to Parker’s past, he
>handled it poorly. While Affleck was in the financial position
>— through birth, circumstance and, yes, talent and hard work
>— to hire two of the most undaunted legal and public
>relations representatives in the business to settle his case,
>Parker did not initially have the same access. And though he
>had spoken about the allegations in the past, Parker was,
>perhaps understandably, angrily on the defense when asked to
>address them in multiple interviews and Q&As — events
>Parker, as the film’s sole auteur, couldn’t avoid.
>
>That brings us to another major difference between Affleck and
>Parker. While the “Manchester” lead has been rather
>on-brand — a humble, attention-adverse family man — in the
>few times he’s directly (yet indirectly) addressed the
>allegations, Parker, on the other hand, has vehemently
>maintained his innocence, that a jury agreed and that his life
>was upended. In fact, he seemingly had no regard for the
>alleged victim until after news broke that she had committed
>suicide, a long-term result, her family said, of the alleged
>assault.
>
>Perhaps if Parker had the same kind of powerhouse PR in his
>corner, as Affleck does, a better, more effective way of
>quelling the controversy might have worked. But if reports
>that Parker declined media assistance from the influential
>Oprah Winfrey are true, “Birth’s” demise might have been
>inevitable.
>
>Additionally, according to the Hollywood Reporter, Fox
>Searchlight, the studio that purchased “Birth” for a
>record $17.5 million, even hired D.C.-based Glover Park
>Consulting and former NFL pro and anti-sexual violence
>activist Don McPherson to devise a plan to salvage the film,
>and Parker’s career. He ultimately refused: “They gave him
>talking points and he just didn't execute,” an industry
>veteran with knowledge of the events said.
>
>If true, if Parker behaved like a drowning man who refused a
>life preserver, then the fate of “Birth of a Nation” rests
>on his shoulders. The picture has made only $15.9 million
>since its Oct. 7 opening, never getting a worldwide release.
>All major award season prospects — save six NAACP Image
>Award nominations and a DGA first filmmaker nod — have been
>shot.
>
>Even though news of Affleck’s past surfaced months after
>Parker’s, critiques of him have largely not stuck. Save
>notable stories by Mashable, the Daily Beast and
>ThinkProgress, most mainstream outlets, including The Times,
>have consciously or unconsciously avoided raising the issue in
>their interviews with the star. As Buzzfeed’s Anne Helen
>Petersen proffered, some outlets might be concerned that
>addressing it will limit their access to those in Affleck’s
>orbit. When members of the press have inquired, as stated
>prior, Affleck smartly answered, ultimately deflecting.
>
>Affleck has also benefited from a lack of community
>responsibility that undoubtedly contributed to the fall of
>“Birth.” Some within the black community — many who also
>lead in the fight against sexual violence — wanted to see,
>at minimum, an expression of remorse on Parker’s behalf. As
>the Black Youth Project’s Elizabeth Adetiba said,
>“‘community’ revolves around the belief that we are all
>responsible for one another, and can only be sustained through
>love, justice and respect, especially for those who are
>further marginalized due to gender, sexual orientation,
>ability and/or socioeconomic status.” And though Parker’s
>alleged victim was white, she noted, “black women experience
>sexual violence at disproportionate rates in comparison to
>women of other races. And yes, most of the perpetrators are in
>fact black men.
>
>“So while the accusations against Affleck might be easily
>disregarded by non-black America, we cannot and have never
>been able to afford doing the same for Nate Parker,” she
>said.
>
>Considering the complex conversation that is how Hollywood,
>and others, have responded to both Affleck and Parker, what
>holds true are the facts. The age-old idea of separating the
>artist from their art will continue be debated. But history
>tells us one thing: Affleck is the latest in a long line of
>wealthy, white Hollywood notables of direct or associated
>influence with questionable sex-related histories, including
>Mel Gibson, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen and countless others.
>When Parker is added to this list, suddenly one of these
>things is unlike the others.
>
>Polanski won an Oscar while in exile. Gibson was in the crowd
>at this year’s Globes, himself a nominee, as Affleck
>delivered his acceptance speech. The career rebound is
>possible … for some.
>
>Will Parker similarly have the chance, or is he forever a
>pariah? Only time will tell. In the meantime, he may want to,
>finally, check his attitude.

fuck you.

=======================================
Coolin...

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

from the time the story popped up and on.

had he responded differently, it never would've gone the way it did

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

of it. There had been a reference to it on his Wikipedia for years but he probably thought his increasing profile would bring more scrutiny.

I get his logic, but he seriously miscalculated that the most heated vitriol would come from black women, not from outside the community. I wouldn't have guessed that, either.

>from the time the story popped up and on.
>
>had he responded differently, it never would've gone the way
>it did
>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

He wasn't ready for prime time.

His initial message wasn't too bad (saying he was a different person now which goes a ways to acknowledge he was a dickhead without implicating himself) , but he fell apart and acted like he was in front of the judge again proving his innocence in "A Few Good Men'. Surprised he ain't beat boxing to 'Bitches Ain't Shit'. He didn't have the fortitude to go on the PR tour like he thought he did, he just couldn't come off as contrite. He had a healthy dose of Christian arrogance about it all, on some, "I know in my soul God knows I aint do nothing like they said, so fuck y'all"

While Nate intentionally wanted to tackle the issue head on which eventually became his downfall, it is peculiar that Casey's basically skated on top of all those questions. But alas, Casey has more of a PR machine, and hollywood nepotism, behind him.



>from the time the story popped up and on.
>
>had he responded differently, it never would've gone the way
>it did
>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

If he had just been convicted he could have fallen back on having paid his debt to society, or whatever. But having been acquitted put him in an impossible position of either defending his innocence outright, or renouncing his acquittal, which he'd be crazy to do. His critics wanted him to do the latter, but he tried to do some weird in between thing and it didn't work.

Plus, forgot to mention, I suspect the acquittal helped him rationalize whatever happened, and since so much time had passed, he came to really believe in his heart he was innocent. That's how having skeletons in your closet can work sometimes. Like Don Draper telling Peggy if she worked hard enough to move past her skeletons, she'd really believe her own story, the way he did with his identity.

So when people read the transcripts of the accuser's account fresh, Nate was forced to wake up out of his self-constructed fantasy, but he couldn't.

and that's what people were mad about

They wanted him to apologize and he was always like "Apologize for what?"

He had one instance where he said something like he was morally wrong. But that was more on how he was living back in those days compared to his current perspective on life

_______________________________________

renouncing your own acquittal? You have to choose one or the other.

In college white girl across from my dorm room got mollywopped badly by her pops (hospitalization) and blamed the generic black dudes. Cops even asked about me. When the news came out a week later I ain't run up and down the halls saying for em all to suck my dick, I was like, "Damn, that's fucked up, I hope she recovers"

Why?

1)It was a fucked up situation at its core

2)Knowing what I was dealing with in that weird semi-adult microcosm of white society I know that I had to be hyper empathetic and I know by me saying my real opinion would come off dickish and possibly guilty even tho I aint do shit, lol.

It's not like they were gonna re-open the case and put him back in jail. All he had to do was focus on that initial statement where he was like he wasn't moral and having young girls himself now he knows even tho it wasn't rape, shitty behavior is shitty behavior.

THEN say that he hopes the girl is doing well.

In the back of his head he still didn't resolve his feelings of, 'That bitch fucking lied on me and almost ruined me and my boys life!!!' and that's what doomed him.

fact, right?), not you. You could easily show empathy because you were essentially able to "prove" your innocence. Nate was admittedly there. He's always claimed there was consent and he has been falling back on the fact that the jury bought his story. He didn't have proof of innocence so much as a better lawyer/story for those 12 people in 1999.

Your situation would be a better analogy for a situation if Nate Parker had been accused of a rape in State College, PA while he was home in Norfolk visiting family, i.e. a clear, unquestionable alibi and the ability to prove his innocence.

>In the back of his head he still didn't resolve his feelings
>of, 'That bitch fucking lied on me and almost ruined me and my
>boys life!!!' and that's what doomed him.

Deep down he felt exactly like you described which was 'That bitch fucking lied on me and almost ruined me and my boys life!!!'

and when he was pressed about it that's what came out.

But like you point out, Black man can't really express that and the "right thing" for him to do was to somehow apologize to his accuser.

Now I do think he was a bit unlucky in not knowing that the girl eventually killed herself and he probably would have said somethings differently if he knew that before he spoke on it. That fact being revealed was the KO punch.


But yeah, I think you would have been completely within your right to say fcuk that chick who put your life in jeopoardy instead of you having to feel sorry for her.


You a bigger man for having done it, but it would have made you no less of a good person if you didn't do it.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

way different.

She killed herself too so there is no way to hear the other side.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

His initial statement was gold!

His subsequent interviews even before it came out she killed herself?

*shakes head*

>She killed herself too so there is no way to hear the other
>side.

Like there wasn't going to be closure even if she was alive because what's the odds of her recanting? All he could do was keep on saying he was a dickhead, like he did initially, and knows better now with daughters and god on his side. He was defensive but its like

1)You're a relative unknown promoting a movie, can't mad at answering that question 10 times a day because that's the game

2)Even IF he was 110% innocent, alibi and all, there's still some that are gonna give him a side eye based on their own biases.

He was never contrite. Dude answered factually but it came off horribly in the court of public opinion.

The transcripts fucked his shit up because he came off like a garden variety asshole jock that reminded alot of women of guys who've raped them. And he sort of acknowledged that he was that asshole jock, but not a rapist, which is a hard pill to swallow (no pun intended) for alot of triggered women going through 20 pages of a pdf with a fine toothed comb.

>The transcripts fucked his shit up because he came off like a
>garden variety asshole jock that reminded alot of women of
>guys who've raped them. And he sort of acknowledged that he
>was that asshole jock, but not a rapist, which is a hard pill
>to swallow (no pun intended) for alot of triggered women going
>through 20 pages of a pdf with a fine toothed comb.

But the problem is that during the apology tour he still let that jock come out; like reading all those transcripts/articles back in the day I feel he was innocent...but I don't feel sorry for him, lol.

That's the problem...he keeps on falling back on that concrete "I aint rape her" fact which doesn't explain his behavior; him knowing this woman liked him on a romantic, not jumpoff, level but standing her up for hours at a time, trying to get broker other dudes into sleep with her, being dismissive after the fact and blaming it on the alcohol, possibly getting his homies to harass her out of campus, etc.

was actually his first mistake in the initial interview.

needing proximity to women to treat them humanely isn't the strong defense he thought it was, and it's why the whole thing took off.



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

presented to them. However, I understand that I am culpable in ways no trial could handle. And for that I will forever be sorry. I have done what I can to make amends and I need to do more. I'm also focused on handling this in a away that respects *whatsherface*. I will not relitigate the matter in the media out of respect for her, her family and for my family.'

Of course, this assumes he has reached to the survivor before issuing the statement - if he had he'd have known she died by suicide.

fuck you.

When you say you're culpable in ways no trial could handle, what do you mean, or what are you referring to?

Nate: *blank stare/irritation/confusion/agitation*

That line of response is really hollow and would certainly be drilled down to him either admitting he raped her or continuing to deny that he raped her. There was no escaping his having to make a choice.

their sons.

Just because a woman is willing doesn't mean you should do it.

It's what the third dude in the room knew.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

"that girl might lie on you and you won't be able to prove your innocence".

Any root explanation along those lines from NP would have made this even worse than it turned out.

The root question for Nate with this was ALWAYS did you rape her or didn't you (in light of the transcript of her accusations), an dif not, what's your proof of your innocence?".

>When you say you're culpable in ways no trial could handle,
>what do you mean, or what are you referring to?
>
>Nate: *blank stare/irritation/confusion/agitation*

he would have been prepared for that follow up question.

'Bad decision making on my part. Not doing what I could to care for a fellow student who I should have known was in trouble. And that's a key part of the message I deliver when I work w/*insert name of some charitable org w/whom he works*.'

^ PIVOT.

if there's another follow up question about the rape - go back to respect for the family...the trial was ugly i don't want to dig up those facts again. rape trials tend to be ugly and mine was. i'm focused on making it better.

>That line of response is really hollow and would certainly be
>drilled down to him either admitting he raped her or
>continuing to deny that he raped her. There was no escaping
>his having to make a choice.

fuck you.

But as we've established in this thread, Nate seems to have an inner asshole jock thing that probably would have made that super hard to pull off well.

Or, the reason he got into that mess originally is the same reason why he wouldn't have been able to pull that strategy off well.

it allowed him to skate legally at the time, but now, "I had sex with her previously"

isn't the case he could stand on publicly.

so....

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

He didnt respond well to it at all.

http://soundcloud.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
https://twitter.com/RareFormNYC
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c)T510

Look... white men, particularly those with a little power and/or money will always be given more latitude for shitty behavior. That isn't apt to change.

That said, fuck Nate Parker.

leaving out inconvenient details, again, because both things being true is inconvenient to their personal agenda

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

argument.

Does it really comedown to who can afford the better PR team and stay on message in the aftermath?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

what in life isn't about how you present your story?

also -- what if, just what if, there' actually something wrong with parker's interpretation of what happened.

you won't mention that.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It's another variation of the perfect victim argument.

NP didn't present himself perfectly or show enough compassion towards the person who accused him of a crime, so he must have done something wrong.


The NP threads are deep so I won't spend too much time revisiting, but if NP is indeed innocent as he has been proclaiming all this time, then he has been treated terribly and I can understand his frustration.

If he is guilty, then fcuk him. He deserves everything that happen to him.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I said what if he's wrong and his outlook is wrong

you've decided I said he must've done something wrong

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Like I said before. If he raped her then he deserves all of this and more. He should be in jail.

If he interpreted the situation wrong, that's still rape.

I don't think this was ever described as some sort of ambiguous sexual situation.

The two accounts directly contradict each other. Someone has to be lying and someone has to be telling the truth.

I can say for certain NP is telling the truth, but I also know that most of the people commenting on the case can't be certain that he is lying...which has been happening.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

most of the people who are classified "against" nate parker (not all of them, but most of the ones I've seen)

have not been assessing his guilt, innocence or anywhere in between.

the primary thing is that it appears he could not, and perhaps still cannot, view the situation and consent in a way that anyone can reliably he understands or cares deeply enough that HE can reliably say if what he did was wrong (this is slightly different than whether or not he did anything illegal) and what he can or would do differently or advise others to do differently.

because his responses and comments on it just haven't added up.


it's not only a matter of PR

once it comes out, people have to decide if they stand with him or not.

I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to say "I'd like to believe that he thinks sexual assault of women is wrong because they're people, not just because of how it might affect their husband or father" which is what the "I'm a husband and a dad of a daughter now" implies.


there's a whole other part to it.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>most of the people who are classified "against" nate parker
>(not all of them, but most of the ones I've seen)
>
>have not been assessing his guilt, innocence or anywhere in
>between.


I've mostly seen the assumption that he is guilty. With that assumption in place, everything he said afterward would sound horrible and that's how people heard it.


>the primary thing is that it appears he could not, and perhaps
>still cannot, view the situation and consent in a way that
>anyone can reliably he understands or cares deeply enough that
>HE can reliably say if what he did was wrong (this is slightly
>different than whether or not he did anything illegal) and
>what he can or would do differently or advise others to do
>differently.


I do think he addressed it. He tried to express empathy but people took that as an admission of guilt. So then he reacted by distancing himself from his empathetic statements.



>
>because his responses and comments on it just haven't added
>up.
>

I think they do. He started with "I didn't do anything wrong and a court agreed. End of subject". That didn't work and people criticized him for lack of empathy. Especially when we all learned the girl killed herself. He next tried to express empathy but that backfired and many people took it as an admission of guilt. So then he went back to "fuck it, I didn't do anything wrong."

Throughout all that time he has maintained his innocence.


>
>it's not only a matter of PR
>
>once it comes out, people have to decide if they stand with
>him or not.
>
>I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to say "I'd like to
>believe that he thinks sexual assault of women is wrong
>because they're people, not just because of how it might
>affect their husband or father" which is what the "I'm a
>husband and a dad of a daughter now" implies.

I don't think that's the implication at all. The reasonable interpretation of his actual statement is that he is older and wiser and more empathetic now.

>
>
>there's a whole other part to it.
>
>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

you don't turn that shit down

-------------------------------
If life is stupendous one cannot also demand that it should be easy. - Robert Musil

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

No matter how beaten down you feel when Oprah calls, you go.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Turning to Oprah to help calm it down would feel like "cheating". He wanted to make it go away on his own, or at least, without the aid of a media titan like Oprah.

That's evidence of how out of touch he was with how this was being received by black women.

who would challenge his narrative later

so that he could understand there are other viewpoints of the stuff he's saying.

from my view, I felt like he thought his version of the story as he told it would be enough, but it's not and he never figured out why.

it's not about relitigating the case, it's about understand why people won't see it the way he did.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>it's not about relitigating the case, it's about understand
>why people won't see it the way he did.

He was completely tone deaf to what was going on around him. I started flipping through old articles in the post and I realized from August to OCTOBER he was dealing with that shit and it seemed all he did was dig himself a deeper grave during all that time.

he needed to speak w/the survivor('s family) first - upon doing so he'd have found out she committed suicide.

that right there should have been a wake up call for him.

after that, meet w/rape survivor advocacy groups. listen to stories from survivors.

hearing that info should have given him insight.

of course, along the way he needed a trusted PR expert to help him. and he needed to LISTEN to that expert.

after that...if he still wants to address this publicly to get ahead of the story i guess he could. but he'd have been better prepared for the response, i assume.

the example i gave above assumed he would've already done this ^.

fuck you.

there was no good outcome for him once the wolves were set loose.

<--- Big Baller World Order

but you wouldn't be able to blame women unless you say it.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

like, she had mark fuhrman on... twice.

Affleck got the last name and the pass. Nate Parker will be back,tell you something if he does a Hood film I bet he gets nominated.

double edge politics as it seems

mistermaxxx R.Kelly, Michael Jackson,Stevie wonder,Rick James,Marvin Gaye,El Debarge, Barry WHite Lionel RIchie,Isleys EWF,Lady T.,Kid creole and coconuts,the crusaders,kc sunshine band,bee gees,jW,sd,NE,JB

Miami Heat, New York Yankees,buffalo bills

63% of white women voted for Trump...

clearly, they are capable of overlooking some extreme creeperism and sexual assault

hell, the women involved never accused him of "rape"

that R word is close to murder whereas non-violent sexual assault gets treated with slightly less apathy then garden variety assault

1.) severity
2.) lack of white women outrage
3.) extreme PR fumbles by Nate

Let me sport my Air Hyperbole 2010s in peace. (c) ansomble

Building repetoires (c) spm since 1983

By ex-wife and 13 year old.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/all-the-women-accusing-trump-of-rape-sexual-assault.html

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://2e31c6ce92745830410f-2a288a7a916836054a29c43306f07189.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/QXP3N7z2j2_1407264172755.jpg

birth was a bomb at the box office and critically (I didn't enjoy it), Parker's performance wasn't impressive....

and yes there's also his relationships with the power brokers (either indirectly through his brother and friends or directly) or race

I'm going to take all of the former and push the latter off the side of the table. this is not the hill I will choose to fight this battle on and die

happiness is a mediocre standard for a middle class existence - S. Williams

I don't not like you because you have dumb ideas about the world, I don't like you because you have other people's dumb ideas about the world. - Rjcc

<--- Big Baller World Order

black folk gender war. I didn't see alot of white folks really discussing this much at all. They seemed to just sort of shrug the whole thing off.

from day black folks just took the bait

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

It was something known prior to that. Dude had been working in Hollywood for years. They dug in and made it a national story. Deadline to NP was Hannibal Buress to Bill Cosby.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

like a certain contingent has always done on some
"Massa said we ain't s'pose to 'sociate witchu!"

~
~
~
~
~
Days like this I miss Sha Mecca

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

Nate Parker and Nat Turner present no challenge to whitey. Recall - they executed Turner and hundreds of slaves many of whom weren't involved in the failed uprising. And his story is taught in schools - that's where I learned about it. And Parker himself ain't a revolutionary. No need to put the movie down like that. Besides if whitey wanted him or the story silenced it wouldnt have screened at SUNDANCE (an incredibly white film festival). Hell, it wouldn't have been MADE (at least not in mainstream Hollywood) bc whitey financed the movie. Whitey has many other ways to silence revolutionaries. Letting make Hollywood movies and get press after winning awards at SUNDANCE and then spending millions of $ buying the rights ain't one of them.

fuck you.

>Recall - they executed Turner and hundreds of slaves many of
>whom weren't involved in the failed uprising.

Whites have executed many a man/woman who did
something significant which ultimately brought
about some sort of reform. Nat Turner is one
of those people. Referring to it as a "failed
uprising" is inaccurate. Resistance is just
that... you're either resistance or not. They
successfully resisted being enslaved.


>And his story is
>taught in schools - that's where I learned about it.


Consider yourself lucky, because most of us heard
nothing of it in school. What all did they tell
you about it?



>Parker himself ain't a revolutionary.


Are you sure about that? Tell us what you know about
the groups he's involved with and any programs he might
have spearheaded or be working with.


>Besides if whitey wanted him or the story
>silenced it wouldnt have screened at SUNDANCE (an incredibly
>white film festival). Hell, it wouldn't have been MADE (at
>least not in mainstream Hollywood) bc whitey financed the
>movie. Whitey has many other ways to silence revolutionaries.
>Letting make Hollywood movies and get press after winning
>awards at SUNDANCE and then spending millions of $ buying the
>rights ain't one of them.


I'll assume by "whitey" you mean Fox Searchlight.
If they really wanted to push the movie, it wouldn't
have been excluded from so many theaters (in the South,
no less). The best way to control the movie was to
buy it. That was a small price to pay in order to
protect the legacy of their beloved movie of the
same name from 1915... first major motion picture
in American cinema. Fox is owned by the same Rupert
Murdoch who gives shitstains like Bill O'Reilly
and Megyn Kelly a platform to spew their anti-Black
rhetoric, but you're having trouble making that
connection?

~
~
~
~
~
Days like this I miss Sha Mecca

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

White folks don't care about Nate Parker. Good grief.

and which ones they don't

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

heterosexuality.

of course.

they like Fences b/c...uh...oh, b/c they want to return us to the time when all we could be is trash collectors and Negro League ball players.

they like Hidden Figures b/c...umm...hmmm...b/c. well, uh...b/c. oh it's...b/c the Black man's role in that is on the sideline. it's mostly about Black women being smarter than them. but...uh...i guess they still had that Jim Crow shit.

let's see...what other Black movies do they like? or did they like this year?

oh that's right...they liked that Nat Turner movie. the one they spent millions of dollars producing, and then they spent millions buying the distribution rights @ Sundance. and then they spent millions promoting it. but somehow they're skurred of it b/c Nat Turner's revolt was unsuccessful in that he and the others were captured and killed and many others were also killed. so scary for them. so they spent all that money on it. that totes makes sense. all of this makes good barbershop sense in a barbershop full of idiots.

fuck you.

>they spent millions promoting it. but somehow they're skurred
>of it b/c Nat Turner's revolt was unsuccessful in that he and
>the others were captured and killed and many others were also
>killed. so scary for them. so they spent all that money on
>it. that totes makes sense. all of this makes good
>barbershop sense in a barbershop full of idiots.

Good movie+well acted but that Hallmark Oprah movie sheen was through and through. For a slave uprising they killed like one white person on camera, lol.

as i said before - when whitey wants a movie squashed it gets SQUASHED. it doesn't premiere at Sundance and then win awards there and get praised in mainstream press. it doesn't get Hollywood distribution. it doesn't get FINANCED BY WHITEY. if anything it gets financed on a shoestring budget maybe using credit cards. if it shows at a festival it's one we don't know unless we're deep into Black film. it is not screened at mainstream multiplexes. those movies exist - you have to be a film buff to know them. THIS. AIN'T. THAT.

fuck you.

No.
Django is a closeted white man's fantasy about Shaft In Slavery, with a White Savior.

Ain't shit subversive about that flick

LOL

you do know the hero, a Black slave, kills all the white ppl and burns down massa's house at the end, right? AND HE GETS AWAY WITH IT. and saves his woman in the process.

THAT is more subversive than Birth of a Nation. the most subversive thing about the BOAN was the title.

fuck you.

yes I've seen it.

That flick manages to be bad and offensive

The only black person in the film who wasn't a slack-jawed darkie, a big black buck, or a sex slave was the dude in a purple suit, with a monster penis and a moon walking horse.

Django is in NO WAY subversive. QT just needs to get banged out by a big black buck and get it over with


MEANWHILE BOAN shows how chattel slavery affected black families day to day existence, showed elements of African cultural retention and kind of slyly dealt with the origins of Black Christian revolutionary theology. Against the backdrop of an historical figure that most Americans know nothing about

fuck you.