Ah, Woody Allen again. It's tragic all around if you want to believe the victims. Dylan Farrow claiming abuse by Allen. Moses Farrow and Soon-Yi claiming years of abuse by Mia Farrow.

This isn't about believing victims—it's about choosing *which* victims to believe.

Are some /1
alleged victims more credible than others? I don't think any are lying—I think they're all sincere about what they believe.

When you watch the HBO doc, you believe Woody's guilty—for all his artistic genius, the guy's creepy. But when you read Moses Farrow's and Soon-Yi's /2
articles and interviews, you believe Mia Farrow was the abuser. All of the people in this tragic saga have been interviewed only by advocates of their side. There has never been any "cross examination" of either Woody Allen or Mia Farrow.

The only solution to all of this is /3
to go to civil court and sue the man. That's infinitely more preferable to presenting just one side of the case in yet another documentary or article, whether it's Mia's or Woody's. I love the man's movies, but I really don't want to defend his actions. Neither do I want to be /4
selective about which of these three victims to believe when their stories directly contradict each other.

The takeaway: Two dysfunctional narcissists can create incredible art, but should never, ever have children. What a mess for these poor kids. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Ali A. Rizvi

Ali A. Rizvi Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @aliamjadrizvi

4 Nov 20
Learnings from last night:

1. Biden likely wins. He's got AZ and NE-2 and WI, is holding NV, and if he wins MI (he's leading there with over 90% of the vote in), he's already at 270. He won't need GA or PA then, but could win at least one of those too.
2. Bernie would NOT have won this. Big lesson: The socialist/communist tag Trump pinned on Biden/Dems worked. Cuban Latinos likely cost him Florida. This could've been a wider effect if Bernie was the nominee. Far-right candidates can win in America but far-left candidates can't.
3. Fox News has a fantastic team of statisticians who probably pissed off Trump more than the other networks by calling Arizona for Biden earlier and sticking by it. They consistently had a higher electoral count for Biden vs Trump than the other networks, and they were right.
Read 10 tweets
23 Sep 20
This must be said:

Democrats need to go and VOTE IN PERSON.

Put on your masks and sanitizer, keep your physical distance, and VOTE. IN. PERSON.

Do not vote by mail-in ballot, unless absolutely necessary.

There are now two huge reasons why this is necessary:
1. Mail-in ballots are rejected at much, much higher rates than in-person ballots.

Missing or mismatched signatures, envelope problems, missed deadlines, and other issues resulted in **OVER 500,000** mail-in ballots being rejected in the primaries.

Considering the razor-thin margins many battleground state elections come down to, it's obvious that this is not a risk Democrats can afford.

Worse, the mail-in ballots most likely to be rejected are from minority, first-time, and younger voters.
Read 8 tweets
22 Sep 20
I don’t understand this naïveté around hoping that some Republicans will “do the right thing” and vote against moving ahead with filling RBG’s seat. Even the Republicans who hate Trump are with him when it comes to the Supreme Court. It was a major motivating factor for them back
in 2016. Now they’re looking at a 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court. So WHY WOULDN’T THEY DO IT?

If the situation was reversed and Clarence Thomas had just croaked and Democrats had a chance to have a liberal majority SCOTUS just before an election where Republicans were
looking certain to win and the filibuster wasn’t a barrier, OF COURSE the Democrats would push through a nominee. They would flip flop, they would rationalize, they would do whatever they need to do to ensure it.

It is completely legal and constitutionally permissible for a lame
Read 16 tweets
28 Aug 20
What do the rise of the far right, the far left "woke" movement, cancel culture, recent spikes in racial tensions, violence and vandalism have in common?

They all happened during the Trump presidency.

And now Trump is asking you to re-elect him for four more years.
Okay, fine, here's some context (thread):

What I'm getting at here is the rise of these previously fringe ideologies into the mainstream. The far-right is in the White House, and the far-left is heavily influencing mainstream Democrats — though the far left still hasn't fully
overrun liberals the way the far right has fully overrun conservatives.

What made the far left move from the fringe to the mainstream? Well, extreme governments legitimize extreme oppositions. This is why I think it's important to have mainstream liberals like Biden in office...
Read 5 tweets
25 Aug 20
This may well be one of the most important video clips about Islam ever, and it comes not from any secular activist, but Islamic scholar @YasirQadhi himself. The printing press was indeed declared haram by the Ottoman Empire, and the use of it was punished with death.

So while Christian Europe underwent an Enlightenment that skewered Christian theocracy and propelled it out of the Dark Ages into the enduring and prosperous time of secular liberalism we have today, the Muslim world stayed where it was—a place where

any and all innovation and free thought was considered heresy, blasphemy, or apostasy.

If this hadn't happened, would we have a diluted, reformed, or "protestantized" Islam today, separate from the state, as we see with Christianity?

Read 5 tweets
31 Jul 20

A lot of these culture wars are just the same age-old generation-gap “Ah, kids these days...” conflicts. The difference is, everyone has a Twitter platform to vent their recreational outrage.
There are bigger battles to fight than getting triggered over “individuals with a cervix.” Who cares? Trans men have cervices, and millions of women who’ve had hysterectomies don’t. What difference does it really make to your life if... Image
...your children are destined for a future that makes a distinction between biological sex (natal male, natal female) and gender identity (man, woman, boy, girl)?

Of course biological sex is real. You wouldn’t need terms like cis or trans if it wasn’t. You wouldn’t have...
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!