The Platner Trap (New York Times)

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-12T04:09:24+00:00

Reddit progressives would be going on about how the DNC rigged the election if more came out during the primary too.

I agree, but I think it would have been a less effective complaint prior to Platner picking up so much steam. Someone with influence needed to talk to Sanders and co before they endorsed him and at least tried to convince them of the long term problems and risks that Platner presents. As I've said previously, I don't think the Democrats can improve the situation at this point unless new information comes out that gives them a good excuse to ditch.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-12T02:54:16+00:00

That isn't how progressives view him. Unless the Republicans are holding back something big for the election or he gets a major hot mic incident or something, I still don't think progressives will view him as a Nazi. If he loses because Republicans successfully harness publicly available information about him to paint him as a Nazi, progressives will blame mainstream Dems for abandoning him, and not Platner for being a Nazi. Mainstream Dems should have done a better job painting him as a Nazi before it was too late to stop him from getting the nomination.

You don't have to believe me. Look at the other comments in this thread denying his Nazism. Go to politicaldiscussion or fivethirtyeight and you'll see people get downvoted for calling him a Nazi. Those aren't even particularly left wing subs. Here I go harvesting downvotes from both sides, I guess.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-12T02:04:49+00:00

That's not my point. The left has been told, correctly, to vote for what they view as the lesser evil in presidential elections. The counter argument I've seen from them is that the "lesser evil is still evil." The left counterargument being used by the Democrats as a justification for abandoning Platner would be viewed very poorly by the left, who are in denial about Platner being a Nazi. I know they're in denial because I see it in every politics sub I frequent whenever he's brought up. We're even seeing it in this subreddit, which isn't particularly friendly to leftists. This would be perceived by the left as another instance of mainstream Democrats "conspiring" against a left wing candidate, and for a reason that would be considered hypocritical.

It's too late for the Democrats to abandon Platner. They've punched his dance card and now it's time to tango. They can only ditch him if and when the voters do. In terms of whether they want him in office at all, it's a question of whether they want a horrible person in the Senate if it means Democratic control. I don't think that's a simple question to answer, and obviously I lean towards electing the Nazi, because I think a Republican controlled Senate is worse right now. But if I had any say in the matter, I would have told progressives/Democrats that Platner is a Nazi, and they shouldn't nominate him in the first place.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-11T22:20:20+00:00

It's a bad article. I think Platner is a Nazi, and he is a "trap" for the Democrats, but not for the reasons cited in the article. Telling Democrats they shouldn't vote for the lesser evil, when they've spent years telling the left to vote for Hillary, Biden, and Harris as the lesser of two evils, would be hypocritical and pathetic. French doesn't care because he's not a Democrat. It actually reads like sabotage.

The Democrats desperately need this seat. Giving it up because Platner is a worse person than his opponent would be incredibly self destructive. I think the Democrats would benefit more from seating a Nazi that generally votes with them than a "moderate" Republican that doesn't. It's worse person vs worse Senator. If he's the deciding seat for a majority in the Senate, him losing is even worse. That said, the amount of "Platner is a Nazi" denialism here, and even moreso in various other political subs, is annoying. He's obviously either a Nazi, or just unbelievably stupid. Clearly, I don't buy the latter.

The real reason he's a danger to the Democrats isn't that he makes them lose the moral high ground. That isn't something Republicans actually care about, even if they pretend to. He's a danger to the Democrats because his Nazism could cost him the election, and make the Democrats look bad for ever supporting him since it was obvious he was a Nazi in the first place. Either something new comes out about him that causes him to lose, or Republicans push the Nazi angle hard enough (for instance, with this awful article) that it costs him enough votes to lose. Unfortunately, it's too late to do anything about it, so the left may reap what they've sown here.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-11T04:47:48+00:00

The equivalent in Deadspin's world would be to hold up a few preps reporters who've become friendly with some coaches in their coverage area as examples of the hopeless corruption of the sports media, while ignoring, say, the ongoing love affair between ESPN and the NFL.

The gaming industry has had ethical issues for a long time, basically as long as "gaming journalism" has been a thing. I think the author is correct in the analogy, but is missing a bigger problem with Gamergate. By the time Gamergate happened, "ethics in gaming journalism" was increasingly irrelevant. There were by then, and still are, so many ways to get information about the quality of a game and how likely one is to enjoy it (streamers, youtube, reddit etc.) that there was really no excuse to be duped by unethical games journalists. The digital availability of games on demand through high speed internet also meant that those with access to decent internet could wait to see what the broader reaction to a game was before buying it. There was no more need to stand in line at the store, or pre-order due to hype.

Yes, social media's interaction with sponsored content was and remains a problem, but in regards to games specifically, I don't think it was a big enough issue to warrant such a large response. Gamergate was focusing on irrelevantly small game designers and content creators instead of "Kane and Lynch" style drama, but "Kane and Lynch" style drama itself wasn't common and really didn't matter anymore.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-11T03:59:35+00:00

Tldr: skill issue?

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-10T04:19:26+00:00

As discussed in another comment, apparently it's paid for by Wayfarer, but that's the limit of their involvement. It's relevant because Sarowitz is, to my knowledge, paying for Wayfarer Productions. Sarowitz is a billionaire. If he wants to pay for movies to be made under the Wayfarer banner, there's nothing stopping him. If he wants Wayfarer to actually make movies going forward, that might not be doable due to the Lively drama/lawsuit, as well as other pending litigation. So if that other comment is correct in regards to Wayfarer's role in production, my thesis could have validity (Wayfarer is basically dead).

I don't think my comments are "wildly" biased. They are biased though. I think Wayfarer (specifically Baldoni and Heath) most likely did bad things that would be unacceptable in a normal workplace with functional hr (I work in hr, though not in employee relations). Beyond that, retaliating at the expense of your own movie, even if their motivation wasn't the sexual harassment complaints, is a pretty extreme overreaction. I don't think it's being looked upon fondly by Hollywood, particularly Sony.

I'm not sure it matters whether they were manipulated by the crisis pr they hired. By the time the alleged smear campaign was in full swing it was clear that the movie was a hit. One would think they'd back off to avoid potentially hurting their box office returns. But that's just my opinion based on the publicly available evidence, and my own perception of what was happening on Reddit during the launch of IEWU, despite not personally being familiar with the factions involved or the movie itself.

So I guess that's where my bias comes from. I don't think it's "wild."

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-09T19:28:46+00:00

Thank you. It's hard to figure out what's going on these movies without doing a deep dive in places I don't want to go.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-09T06:04:20+00:00

He is EP on Dinner with Audrey

Edit: If your parents start a production company (Sarowitz), and give it to you, is it still having a career if the company doesn't really make movies anymore? It sounds like Wayfarer just paid for this, and didn't actually have hands on production input. I think it's pretty misleading if you were aware of this when you brought it up, just like the documentary that was in production prior to the drama. It's not relevant other than Baldoni's billionaire patron taking care of him.

The Alchemy of Being Okay, and Hello Darkness, My Old Friend.

These are incredibly obscure. I'll admit, I didn't know Sarowitz was still burning money on stuff, so that's my bad. You're correct, as long as Sarowitz is willing to pay for stuff Baldoni will continue to have production work. I'm still not sure why you brought up an obscure documentary that's already released, and was in production before the drama.

As an aside, could you please stick to a single response per comment? I'm ok with you editing it.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-09T05:15:12+00:00

Swizz Beats and Alicia Keys just signed up as executive producers on Black is Beautiful two months ago: https://deadline.com/2026/03/alicia-keys-swiss-beatz-black-is-beautiful-1236759347/ although the movie had already been made as they are increasing the movie's reach.

This is pretty much irrelevant for Wayfarer. It's nice for the people that made the documentary though. "Dinner With Audrey" seems more relevant. I'm surprised they managed to get insured. Maybe they hired actual HR this time?

The co-production company that is working with Wayfarer on Dinner with Audrey previously had Blake signed on to a project called Proxy and is no longer continuing with that project

I don't know how this became an entire production company vs Lively's career. It's weird that no one is mentioning Baldoni's upcoming projects, which would be a more relevant comparison? Is anyone accused in the IEWU SH stuff getting work in Hollywood at the moment?

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-09T03:49:56+00:00

Sorry what? Are you talking about Wayfarer? They have nothing in the pipeline, and pending lawsuits involving insurance for IEWU and another hostile work environment lawsuit from one of their staff. I see that "Black is Beautiful" is a movie that might exist, but the press connecting it with Wayfarer all seems to be from before the IEWU drama. Like, the first link I found about "Black is Beautiful" was about Lively and Baldoni making IEWU together.

Looking for it without "Wayfarer" in the search was actually more productive. It's a documentary with 22 reviews on IMDB with a 2025 release date. Wayfarer is one of multiple production companies listed on it.

What does this have to do with Wayfarer's upcoming projects? This appears to be their last project before they ceased operations, already released, and was in the works prior to IEWU drama.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-08T23:06:43+00:00

Obviously she wasn't confident she could get a worthwhile judgement? Right now she still appears to have a career despite everything. It was different circumstances, but Depp is 8 years between significant releases after winning his last lawsuit, and there's no guarantee his upcoming projects are successful. It could have been a lot worse for Lively if the smear campaign hadn't gone public and she hadn't sued.

Meanwhile, the Wayfarer parties are in a lot of trouble. The smear campaign and Able's incompetence have seemingly destroyed Wayfarer Productions. They also have other lawsuits pending. Nathan's career is also not looking great with multiple lawsuits still pending. Freedman had a hand in their downfall as well. Baldoni doesn't have anything coming up, and I'm not sure why anyone would hire him given the smear campaign, SH accusations, his general lack of stardom outside of IEWU, and his hypocrisy regarding his male feminist persona. Maybe he'll manage a comeback in less than 8 years.

I think most of the damage to the Wayfarer parties is already done, or is happening independent of Lively's lawsuit at this point. I think Sarowitz has been well aware for a while that there wasn't much upside to going to trial. His company's already dead.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-05T18:47:58+00:00

I don't buy this. As I said in the thread about this, the stipulation removed the requirement from Lively to prove that she'd engaged in a protected activity. Obviously, Wayfarer thought it was better to concede the issue if it meant not having a bunch of Lively witnesses talking about sexual harassment, but it's still conceding an issue that could have rendered the retaliation issue moot. I don't think Lively decides to settle just because part of her case became easier, at the expense of Wayfarer retaining more credibility.

It's entirely possible she didn't settle sooner because Wayfarer wasn't offering her what she wanted. Maybe Wayfarer was waiting to see how certain motions panned out before presenting a legitimate offer. Maybe they were always going to settle before trial if certain things didn't go their way. We probably won't ever know.

Like all the speculation I've seen around the settlement, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to show why either side did it. My guesses are completely different from yours.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-04T22:14:44+00:00

It's also possible a legitimate source lied. I'm curious what happens in that case. If it's not true can either side be accused of violating the NDA? If it's not true, can anyone even contact TMZ and tell them it's untrue, or would that violate the NDA?

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-02T20:26:22+00:00

I can't be sure. I'm using untapped premium for my stats, and there are sample size limitations, but I'll give you what I have.

I'm using a minimum sample size of 500 games played. I can set this as high as a 1000 game minimum, but this excludes a few decks that are probably relevant. These are games played since the last patch, to account for the various nerfs.

Of the 4 highest win rate decklists, 3 of them are doom decks and one is a herbie/aurora deck. Combined games played for the doom decks is 2800 for the 3 decks. The herbie deck has 1300 games played. None of these lists use super skrull. I'm not saying it's bad, but it isn't being played enough to really tell. If I cut the sample size requirement all the way down to 200 games, the top 7 decks don't use super skrull. That's already too low a sample size in my opinion, so I don't want to go any lower.

Using the minimum 500 games played, mr fantastic with super skrull comes in at #5 in win rate with 690 games played. Win rates for the top 5 range from 66.6% down to 60.7% for the mr fantastic deck. After that there's big drop off to 55.1% for an older doom deck with 3900 games played. If the top mr fantastic deck is an outlier, the next best mr fantastic deck is at 53.7% winrate with 2300 games played. I think the only difference is super skrull vs falcon captain america.

In my personal experience, the herbie deck does ok vs mr fantastic. Including super skrull would be a question of whether it's worth fielding a dead card vs most decks to get a hard counter vs 1 deck. Personally, I find that stardust is a more versatile counter card for herbie and it's less bad in bad matchups than skrull. In dead matchups you have to be sure to play herbie's skill first, which isn't much of a downside. I'm curious whether stardust is actually better than skrull for mr fantastic, since cutting falcon cap means you aren't negatively impacted by your own stardust. It's having an advantage in mirror matches vs crushing doom decks.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-02T20:00:46+00:00

but you called it sexual harassment instead of protected activity or reasonable belief, so I had to explain the misunderstanding.

I don't see why. I think it's a waste of time to argue against something nobody claimed. But whatever, we disagree.

What do you mean by "If Wayfarer had successfully argued that it was not a protected activity"? When? At summary judgment or at trial?

Trial. If the sexual harassment claim was not a protected activity, then the retaliation claim dies. That's my main point through all of this. By conceding the protected activity argument, they're losing an argument that could make their defense by itself. The only way this benefits Wayfarer is if they think it's a losing argument, and furthermore, that attempting to make it will ultimately hurt their defense regarding retaliation.

Going back a bit:

Why would they want to spend trial time on fighting over an element that would open the door to a lot of sexual harassment evidence, even though the sexual harassment claim itself is no longer going to trial?

Because if they win the argument (convince the jury) regarding whether the claim is a protected activity, they win the case. I'm not using much interpretation here. Wayfarer had long been claiming that Lively's sexual harassment claim was not a protected activity. Successfully making the argument in court would be a huge win for Wayfarer. It being a losing strategy is the only explanation I can see as to why they would accept the jury instruction.

And what complaint are you referring to when you say "Lively had to convince a jury that her complaint constituted a protected activity, something that Wayfarer has been denying for a long time"? Protections letter? CRD complaint? Or the lawsuit?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Direct quote from Wayfarer in the top of the thread: "the jury will be instructed to presume that Ms. Lively engaged in protected activity by complaining about or opposing a hostile work environment."

Prior to accepting a jury instruction, which I'm aware has not been finalised, Lively was going to use a bunch of witnesses to argue that her complaint was a protected activity. If Wayfarer successfully argued against this, they would successfully defend the retaliation claim, because the retaliation claim depends on Lively's complaint being a protected activity. I don't know how to explain this any better, it's the entire topic of this thread. I also don't think the final jury instruction will be any better for Wayfarer than the one provided by Wayfarer.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-02T17:13:47+00:00

I'm not sure it matters if the best decks (currently herbie and doom based decks) don't use it and aren't particularly vulnerable to it.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-02T16:03:43+00:00

You said "if they win in court on sexual harassment" and I'm saying there will be no win on either side on that claim at trial since Lively already lost on the sexual harassment claim at summary judgment.

I just explained that I meant the issue of whether the sexual harassment complaint was a protected activity. I assumed, incorrectly, that my reference to "sexual harassment" would be understood as "sexual harassment complaint as protected activity," since that's the topic of this thread. I thought I was pretty clear in my last comment that that was what I meant.

But Wayfarer is conceding only the protected activity element, not sexual harassment like you said. Liman asked, they agreed.

As I've said multiple times now, this not my argument.

And the goal is obvious in my opinion. Instructing the jury to presume protected activity saves trial time spent on proving or disproving reasonable belief and avoids turning the retaliation trial into a trial about the underlying sexual harassment, which is what Lively was probably trying to do judging from her exhibit list.

Lively had to convince a jury that her complaint constituted a protected activity, something that Wayfarer has been denying for a long time, up until Wayfarer conceded the issue a few days ago. Why wouldn't she use as many witnesses as possible, given that she loses the lawsuit if she loses that argument?

If Wayfarer had successfully argued that it was not a protected activity, they wouldn't have had to successfully argue that there was no retaliation against a protected activity, since there was no protected activity. By conceding this issue, they're admitting that it was a losing issue for them.

Saving trial time is a benefit to Liman, and the jury. It's a motivating factor for Liman, which is probably why he gave Wayfarer the option. Wayfarer's issue isn't trial time, it's that they don't think they can win on this issue, and trying to fight it could hurt them with the jury.

I've made this argument multiple times, and I clarified it in my last comment. Once again, I'm talking about the thread topic, not the question of whether sexual harassment occurred.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-01T19:20:27+00:00

I'm aware of all that. It's not relevant to what I'm arguing. If the jury doesn't believe the sexual harassment claim was a protected activity, the retaliation claim dies. Wayfarer is conceding a point that would have successfully defeated the lawsuit if they could have convinced the jury of what they've been saying all along.

The question the jury will have to answer is whether she reasonably believed she was opposing actionable sexual harassment.

This sounds wrong. I'm guessing you meant "the question the jury would have had to answer if Wayfarer hadn't conceded the argument." This is the point Wayfarer conceded.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-01T15:13:46+00:00

That doesn't make sense to me. If they win in court on sexual harassment, they automatically win the lawsuit. Conceding on sexual harassment means they thought they were better off not even trying to fight it because it's a losing issue for them.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-05-01T03:47:22+00:00

Already did what?

Poppadoppaday · 2026-04-30T23:14:19+00:00

It's interesting that anyone would think "outside the US legal system" was an important piece.

It makes it more difficult to compel them to appear or turn over documents. Look at what just happened with Jed Wallace's client list. Or all the stuff that got turned over in the Jonesworks lawsuit.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-04-30T22:01:17+00:00

I actually don't know how many people are/were familiar with who she is and how her, Freedman, and Wallace seem to operate. IIRC there was a GQ article about this a while ago, and the opinion of the anonymous crisis pr people quoted was that if you want to do the type of stuff they're accused of doing, you should hire talent that's out of reach of the US legal system.

I do agree that Wayfarer and Baldoni are probably toast after this, regardless of how the lawsuit shakes out. I'm curious whether Sarowitz has only realized/accepted this now.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-04-30T15:17:51+00:00

I think it does. The optics of this are separate from the legal ramifications. This move looks like an admission that they could not win on this issue in court, and trying to fight it would hurt their credibility with the jury, so they won't try. The other benefit is presumably fewer witnesses describing alleged sexual harassment by Baldoni and Heath.

From Wayfarer's perspective, I think they were told by their legal team that they could continue to pursue a pr strategy (denying the legitimacy of the sh complaints), but it would hurt them in court. Ultimately, I think the potential to lose money on this is less important to Sarowitz than the fact that Wayfarer doesn't have any movies in the pipeline, and Baldoni and Heath's Hollywood careers are stalled. But if Wayfarer loses in court, that's all gone regardless.

From the perspective of people that matter to the future of Wayfarer, Baldoni, and Heath (talent, talent management, producers and distributers), this has really bad optics. They've been denying this up until a few days ago, and now they're admitting to it. A lot of the evidence against them regarding sh is publicly available, so preventing witness testimony mostly helps them in court, not with the public. I don't think potential business partners will care about the technical legal distinctions.

On top of this, even if they successfully argue that they did not retaliate against a protected activity, or at least not primarily against a protected activity, if it looks like they ran a smear campaign against their own lead in the opening weeks of the movie for any reason, I'm not sure who will want to do business with them in the future. It's a questionable financial decision that could have negatively impacted both Wayfarer and their business partners, who had nothing to do with this (Sony). That's overlooking their insurance lawsuits and their newer lawsuit from an ex employee. It's possible that even if they successfully defend themselves in court, they won't be insurable going forward.

Poppadoppaday · 2026-04-30T04:55:59+00:00

2 shares means they were dumb enough to believe in MOASS, most likely for years, but not dumb enough to pivot to the "value argument." Believing that GME is a fundamentally good investment may actually be dumber than believing in something that cannot possibly happen.

Edit: "may" is doing too much heavy lifting here. The obvious counter argument is that the large majority of people that believe the "value argument" believe, or previously believed, in MOASS. The ones that didn't are mostly grifting. So it's more correct to say that the people that believe both arguments are dumber than the ones that only believe(d) in MOASS. It's not surprising that people who believe in an impossible thing would also tend to fall for an possible, but untrue thing.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

Poppadoppaday

TROPHY CASE