I think it'll go straight to YT, but I would expect a bit more production value when it comes to acting since they obviously have the budget. & true, that's every teen movie, but these girls look 25+ to me, and if you can't scrounge up some young-looking 18-21 year olds to play teens, it just makes you look even more low-budget. It's makes the whole thing look very try-hard and tacky so far.
Too many people have this love affair with Tati and I don't really get it. She sells overpriced, snake oil vitamins. She keeps abhorrent behavior under wraps UNTIL IT AFFECTS HER. She definitely acts holier than thou in any situation that involves drama, even if she's fanning the flames.
I think that she is just back-pedaling at this point. She's getting heat for her language and possible intentions, so instead of taking a hard stance, she's trying to come off as the loving, no-drama mom as always. If James did really sexually harass those men like she's saying, she should have completely done things differently. To say 'oh it's ok bb' after admitting he has predatory tendencies he has done nothing to correct, it sure rings as hollow and petty all around. You can't both be a moral crusader and a shoulder to cry on for the perpetrator at the same time. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation.
Ooh, okay. Thank you! It's a federal law, so I assumed it was applicable lol. Since it was regarding possible sexual harassment, it may be exempt? I have no idea. Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation. (https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030)
It's been updated pretty constantly in the Little Snowflakes section. Also, Tati should've thought about her immensely inflammatory #metoo framing if she knew at some point she wanted to back-track and pretend she didn't mean it to spark a crusade.
I don't think that's what people are saying. From the article they link at Buzzfeed: Um. Did Westbrook just suggest that Charles is sexually harassing and assaulting people, Harvey Weinstein-style? It would appear so. And if that's the case, what exactly is the point of the other 42 minutes of this video? If she is correct in her assertions, those incidents need to be documented, reported and investigated immediately. Unfortunately, as with the rest of this video, instead of focusing on the most serious and pressing issues at hand, Westbrook instead focuses on the fact that some of the people she alleges were targeted by Charles might have been heterosexual. There is a suggestion throughout this clip that gay people crossing lines with straight people is somehow worse than gay people crossing lines with gay people. It isn't. It's exactly the same thing.
But Westbrook isn’t the hero in this story, either. By accusing Charles of trying to “turn” straight men, she’s branded herself as a moral crusader — rather than a businesswoman who’s upset that a much younger (queer) upstart undercut her by making his own business deals, and by doing so, refused to kowtow and just play the gay best friend. Vitally, Tati didn't begin with the whole sexual threat. She began with: He shilled for SugarBearHair gummies, a product in direct competition with Westbrook’s Halo brand. Feeling betrayed, Westbrook posted her first teary (and strategically barefaced) Instagram video, in which she laments the way her naive trust has been shattered. “Welcome to show business,” says the 37-year old. I feel like people ignore that a lot...it was never not about her business -- she was only backtracking after she realized she had bigger fish to fry. It was the breaking point, not only because of a personal betrayal, but more essentially, it was a business move.