"Blake Lively WITHDRAWS emotional distress claim against Justin Baldoni"

[Nagini 1,840]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

This story just gets wilder and wilder. If her claims are true, there's no reason to back down. She started this whole thing and is backing out now after all this time? Was there bravado at the start because she assumed everyone would believe her but now that the court of public opinion is at an all-time low regarding her and her husband, she thinks it's better to retreat? This is one of the most swift turn-arounds in a celebrity's reputation I've ever seen. If she's just taken the negative reaction to all her interviews for It Ends With Us on the chin, she would still be known merely for being slightly shady. But she tried to mend the negative views of her by claiming that her co-star, who she'd had no issues with up until that point, treated her unreasonably behind the scenes. Coincidental that she only raised these issues after going through a bad patch with her image. But she couldn't deliver any proof yet choose to double down and try to rope in her friend Taylor Swift to help her even though she had nothing to do with the movie which really blew up in her face because no one wants Taylor as an enemy. 

Nothing she does is working out and the internet's been on a scavenger hunt to find any and all cases of Blake acting up over the years and her husband too and the stuff they've found in crazy. Ryan wrote and produced the Deadpool movies and made his daughter make a crude joke over and over for her brief cameo and a stunt actor lost her life because she had to do a stunt without a helmet. He also hit a kid actor on set of Amityville because he just thought it was something his character would do. Blake's lifestyle company, Preserve (which I'd never heard of until now) only lasted one year because it was so shoddy and the workers weren't getting paid and she also went off-script like Ryan did on A Simple Favour by hitting Anna Kendrick on the back of the legs and feeling Henry Golding's crotch because she thought it was something her character would do. That last part is extremely hypocritical considering that she's suing Justin for inappropriate behaviour on-set when she herself is guilty of that and it seems she and her husband are on the same page in that regard. There's rumours that Ryan cheated on his then-wife, Scarlett Johansson, when he worked with Blake on Green Lantern and they got together right after he split with Scarlett. They seem like two peas in a pod, honestly. It's a wonder that they had such a good, clean image all these years then Blake is a bit rude in an interview and boom, it all changes overnight. Fame is not for the faint-hearted. 

I love your posts - glad to see you're on here after all these years!

[ALGAYDO 31,999]

2 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

There's rumours that Ryan cheated on his then-wife, Scarlett Johansson, when he worked with Blake on Green Lantern and they got together right after he split with Scarlett.

Not this being how I find out that Ryan and ScarJo used to be married???? Was I living under a rock?? lol 

Edited Wednesday at 04:33 AM by ALGAYDO

[Bronco 9,793]

4 hours ago, OliviaRodrigoStan said:

He's not a political figure, and you trying to police comments about him, by branding any criticism towards him as "harmful to the left" is naive, in my opinion. 

I can, and I will, criticize him, as I would with any other content creator, discourse about him does not affect the left, or any other political party, in any capacity. I dislike his makeup too, if you want to add another offence to it as well .

That's simply not true. He's primarily known for his political activism. His posts are regularly shared across multiple social media sites. He advocates on numerous topics including Gaza and LGBTQ rights. 

I'm not even his biggest fan, but its total ignorance to say he's performative and that he primarily talks about pop culture. 

Just comes across as childish.

[OliviaRodrigoStan 6,336]

6 minutes ago, Bronco said:

That's simply not true. He's primarily known for his political activism. His posts are regularly shared across multiple social media sites. He advocates on numerous topics including Gaza and LGBTQ rights. 

I'm not even his biggest fan, but its total ignorance to say he's performative and that he primarily talks about pop culture. 

Just comes across as childish.

Not what I've seen him for on social media. I only ever saw him as a pop culture commentator, and I always found his speech to be performative. We might have different definitions of what a political activist is, or at the very least: what a political figure is. 

He's not a political figure to me, even if I wanted to stretch the definition, and include content creators within such definition, he is still not a part of the group that are commonly seen as "political commentators" (like Vaush, Kat Blaque, Hasan Piker or Contrapoints). I don't even consider those people to be political figures, they're entertainers, but those are the names associated with "the online left", not this guy. 

Attending a protest =/= being a political figure. So to me, the idea of having to measure my words when adressing an online entertainer, because "it divides the left" is laughable, I'm sorry. I don't agree that me disliking him "divides the left" because I think he's a non-factor when it comes to discussing the left. Communism is a subject that divides the left, not some US content creator, I'm sorry but that's an insanely delusional take . 

Nor do I think it's childish of me to see him primarily as an entertainer, because that's literally what he is. If your definition of "political activist" is wider, and includes any individual with a platform, that adresses political matters in any capacity at all, fine, but I do not share it. 

I don't even think he's influential enough to argue that, while not being a politician, his reach and influence are so large, he became a political figure by actively impacting culture, like let's say... Andrew Tate. So no, I just disagree with both of you: I don't think criticizing some random dude that makes videos "divides the left" (💀), nor I think I'm being "childish" by not recognizing that guy as a relevant political figure of any kind, important enough so that my hot takes on him would bring conflict into progressive spaces . I can't even type it with a straight face, cause it's such a chronically online take, so far dettached from reality . I think there's far more pressing matters for the left to adress on the rise of actual fascism globally, than me not liking the content of some influencer on YouTube, but what do I know .

If you think he's some kind of relevant name on the left, that should never be criticized for the sake of political stability, fine. I don't, and that's that on that 

[StarstruckIllusion 52,315]

On 6/2/2025 at 11:21 PM, OliviaRodrigoStan said:

You won't get the full fantasy if you were not in it from the beginning. An objective run down would be: 

🖤 Blake Lively is Ryan Reynolds wife, she starred in a film directed by Justin Baldoni, an indie director, that involved themes of domestic violence. In the months prior to the film's release, Blake was the center of negative backlash on social media, with thousands of comments criticizing her fashion, her brand promotions, and her tone during the press tour. 

After the film's release, with the negative press against her piling up, Blake released a hit piece on The New York Times, alleging that Justin Baldoni, her co-star and director, sexually harrassed her, and the entirety of the negative press she received, was nothing but a dedicated smear campaign against her, conducted by him. In response, he sued her for defamation, and that's where we're at . 

That's the shortest, most unbiased version of this drama I can give you. What this specific chapter means is: Blake Lively alleged emotional distress during their conflict, and Baldoni's teams demands evidence to back this claim. Lively does not want to provide medical records or evidence of any kind to support her statement, so she withdraws it "without prejudice"; meaning: she wants to withdraw the claim FOR NOW, to avoid providing any medical records, but she'll be able to bring it up later on in the trial, if she so feels. 

What Baldoni's team demands, is that her withdrawal is made "with prejudice", meaning she won't be able to make that claim again later on. It's all legal chess strategy: Blake does not want to provide her medical records to prove she legitimately experienced emotional distress during the film's shooting; but she still wants to be able to claim emotional distress later on . 

A mess. 

(not you but) lmao I just know there’s someone who has made this mess their entire personality  Gross..

[salty like sodium 1,574]

@OliviaRodrigoStan fact check: the judge did not dismiss her request with prejudice. He said she had to either align with Baldoni's team on whether she was waiving those claims with or without prejudice, and that if they failed to meet an arrangement she had to resubmit her request formally to the judge for the court to decide. But he also added that if she changes her mind and does not go through with the withdrawal of the claims, she will still not be allowed to present evidence regarding emotional distress. So basically now her options are either to voluntarily waive her rights to bring these claims back in the future (prejudice), or to hope the court will give her a without prejudice ruling so she can then try to bring these claim back later. But it seems that the latter is unlikely imo. What she cannot do is backtrack on her desire to waive those claims at this current stage, so the judge is forcing her to waive the claims now that she has made that intent clear.

@StrawberryBlond just to clarify, she is not waiving the entire complaint, just 2 claims of emotional distress. everything else is still going forward.

[Bronco 9,793]

21 minutes ago, OliviaRodrigoStan said:

Not what I've seen him for on social media. I only ever saw him as a pop culture commentator, and I always found his speech to be performative. We might have different definitions of what a political activist is, or at the very least: what a political figure is. 

He's not a political figure to me, even if I wanted to stretch the definition, and include content creators within such definition, he is still not a part of the group that are commonly seen as "political commentators" (like Vaush, Kat Blaque, Hasan Piker or Contrapoints). I don't even consider those people to be political figures, they're entertainers, but those are the names associated with "the online left", not this guy. 

Attending a protest =/= being a political figure. So to me, the idea of having to measure my words when adressing an online entertainer, because "it divides the left" is laughable, I'm sorry. I don't agree that me disliking him "divides the left" because I think he's a non-factor when it comes to discussing the left. Communism is a subject that divides the left, not some US content creator, I'm sorry but that's an insanely delusional take . 

Nor do I think it's childish of me to see him primarily as an entertainer, because that's literally what he is. If your definition of "political activist" is wider, and includes any individual with a platform, that adresses political matters in any capacity at all, fine, but I do not share it. 

I don't even think he's influential enough to argue that, while not being a politician, his reach and influence are so large, he became a political figure by actively impacting culture, like let's say... Andrew Tate. So no, I just disagree with both of you: I don't think criticizing some random dude that makes videos "divides the left" (💀), nor I think I'm being "childish" by not recognizing that guy as a relevant political figure of any kind, important enough so that my hot takes on him would bring conflict into progressive spaces . I can't even type it with a straight face, cause it's such a chronically online take, so far dettached from reality . I think there's far more pressing matters for the left to adress on the rise of actual fascism globally, than me not liking the content of some influencer on YouTube, but what do I know .

If you think he's some kind of relevant name on the left, that should never be criticized for the sake of political stability, fine. I don't, and that's that on that 

There is so much wrong with this.

A simple glance at any of his social media will show a grid dominated exclusively by posts on political subjects. 

His youtube & podcast are dominated by political discussion. 

A political activist is anyone who advocates for or against policy using the power and platform available to them. 

You are conflating activism with commentary which is fundamentally wrong. Political commentators are not activists, they are grifters who do nothing for the stance they take except proceed to profit from it. 

Attending a political protest is activism. Protest is irredeemably activist. 

Reach & influence are irrelevant to someone being an activist. And subscribing to the idea that only social media reach & influence dictate someone's political value and relevance is a fundamentally dangerous approach to politics. It is warped and heavily right wing. 

No one is demanding you like him or his content. No one is saying he is beyond reproach. 

I've already said I'm not the biggest fan of them. 

People, like me and others, are criticising your ignorance, arrogance and childish dismissal of someone based on a view of them that has no basis in reality. We are criticising your deeply unhealthy and unhelpful arguments of what constitutes political activism. We are criticising you claiming our language and ideologies as your own while not holding to them in the slightest.

[dynamite 57,156]

You guys are still talking about this

[OliviaRodrigoStan 6,336]

4 hours ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

(not you but) lmao I just know there’s someone who has made this mess their entire personality  Gross..

It has turned into that kind of case, yes. There's an "anti Blake Lively" sub-reddit with daily posts analysing her every move, YouTube channels entirely dedicated to this case with a cult following, etc. 

Blake has become a "lolcow" for a lot of people, and negative news about her is their source of entertainment. I do find all of this to be amusing, in the same way the James Charles / Tati Westbrook drama was back in the day, but I don't take JOY in her distress. I just enjoy the tea . 

If I was in her shoes, I would just claim dementia . "Your honor, a gworl can have temporary loss of sanity, gworls will be gworls", I would give everyone some coin, retract the statements I cannot prove, and just move on with my life . If I was her advisor, this would've been over long ago 

[IllusionLover 6,638]

On 6/2/2025 at 10:49 PM, salty like sodium said:

no those are T.V. (Taylor's Version). The T.V. of this case is likely more entertaining than the actual case though.  (Swifties don't hit me this was a joke)

There's rumors that ms. Swift is no longer friends with Blake, so go for it girl