This is the first I’ve heard of it, but here’s one of his infamous quotes:
"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews.
I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”
His other quotes tend to be condemnation about specifically Israeli zionism and barbaric murder, but i don’t have context as to whether he’s referring to palestine or not. Some people might have more sympathy for these statements these days, but a lot of his other quotes have to do with Jews controlling money and media, less defensible prejudice.
Like I said, I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy.
Good grief, no. Take victims seriously, give them support, get their story, investigate, absolutely. Believe everything everybody says who identifies as a victim? That’s asinine.
Scroll up, you didn’t answer my question. You’re choosing to believe something based on what evidence? Please explain why you’re certain when the people who actually investigated these allegations are not.
That is not an answer. What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7? Because, believe it or not, people remember traumatic things that happen to them at that age quite well. They spend years in therapy because of it.
There’s a difference between remembering something traumatic and remembering what happened at your birthday party.
Also, let’s say she isn’t “100% confident.” Let’s say she’s “70% confident.” Maybe still believe her.
The man literally made a movie, at age 44, where he’s fucking a high schooler.
Again, maybe believe her.
“On August 17, 1992, the Connecticut State Police announced that they were investigating the molestation allegation. In September the police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale New Haven Hospital. The main questions were whether Dylan was telling the truth and whether she was sexually abused. Frank Maco, State’s Attorney for the Litchfield district, declared in 1997 that he asked the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic to evaluate whether Dylan would make a viable witness. The clinic’s professionals met with the police and Maco for preliminary information. Between September 18 and November 13 they conducted nine separate interviews with Dylan and her mother. On October 14 they interviewed Groteke, and between November 17 and January 7 they had three interviews with Allen. Finally, they met with Farrow to review the recording she had made of Dylan between August 5 and 6. Berge, the other nanny present on August 4, was also interviewed, as were the two psychotherapists treating the children, Coates and Nancy Schultz. The Child Sexual Abuse Clinic medical director, Dr. John M. Leventhal, signed the team’s report while Dylan was interviewed by the social workers. Completed in March 1993, the report concluded: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen.””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_allegation
You’re still refusing to answer a simple question. More to the point, what on earth gives you the confidence to pass judgement from a distance when your judgement is 100% at odds with experts who were directly involved in the case?
You piss off the wrong person, they go to the police with a story that you committed a violent sexual assault against them. You didn’t.
By your logic, you’re a rapist.
See how stupid that is?
The only question I can see that I haven’t answered is the one you asked after I asked you what sort of thing on that level of trauma happened when you were seven.
I’m not sure why you expect me to answer any of your questions when you have refused to answer the one I asked you twice.
I answered as best as I could. What do you want me to say?
Notice I’ve supplied you with plenty of information from people who are far, far more familiar with this matter than you or I.
It speaks volumes that you’re completely unwilling to engage with it.
You could have given three possible answers:
And if it was 2 or 3, good for you. Plenty of people who suffered sexual abuse at that age remember it very, very well. I know more than one of them.
But you haven’t answered with any of those. All you said was, “like I said, I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy.” That is not an answer. Because that could mean anything.
No, it’s an honest answer, you just don’t like it.
It isn’t an honest answer. It could mean “I have 99% confidence something traumatic did happen to me.” It also could mean “I have 1% confidence something traumatic did happen to me.”
This is the level you’re stooping to? I think you need to reevaluate your approach to this.
It could mean that, as I originally said, “I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy.”
That’s the truth. You may not like it but that’s not my problem.
Anyway, I sense you’re pulling on this thread for all it’s worth to avoid discussing literally everything else I’ve brought up. Let’s leave it there. It’s like talking to a brick wall.
You would make a great witness to the a crime…I would love you if I was defending.
I don’t follow?
Because you testifying would be great for the defense.
How so? If you have a point to make here, please go right ahead.
Because a good defense attorney could take you right out. Do I need to ELI5 for you?
Yes please. Spell it out, why would I be a witness and why would an incomplete recollection of me being seven years old, several decades ago result in me being called to testify?
You aren’t making sense.