Why does everyone believe Rajeev Masand's blinds were false? - Page 12

Originally posted by: Terenaina

I dealt with coworkers running smear campaigns against me to the point people dislike me based on what one coworker decided to spread about. But she was jealous because she was getting paid less money than me but I worked hard that’s why I was getting rewards. That’s why I understand sushant’s pain on a personal level. You fight the battle, you fight the system and if all failed than quit. I quit the company but he should chosen to just stop working with certain people. I know it’s difficult. Only jealous and envy people will try to bring you down but you have to get back up with success. I wish he did a movie on his life and literally exposed all true details of how they tried to bring him, movie would’ve been blockbuster hit and success is the biggest revenge.

Have you heard about Nykaa controversy on Diet Sabya page on instagram ? Many ladies face similar harassment at work. Senior staff made nasty comments on someone's miscarriage and hospitalized family members. They actually look down upon staff who does not drinks and uses public transport.

Originally posted by: Cool_N_Cold

Masand must be interrogated . laws must be there reg.dis blinds n must made accountable . cbi enquiry .

There are very strict laws in this country regarding smear campaign under Defamation law under sections of IPC 499 and 500. Media houses can be fined heavily, lose their license to publish and the company can be winded up under Companies act.

To do all this you need to have a clear idea of Indian Penal code, Constitution of India and Companies Act. The best way is to get a lawyer to help you.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

My question was to OP. It sounded like she was asking what makes anyone think the blinds weren't true and therefore not okay. IMO, they're not okay, true or false. It can only be true if the reporter had evidence it's true. Then, he/she should publish the story, names included, and stand by it. If there is no evidence, then he/she doesn't know it's true. So don't publish. Publishing without evidence is simply mudslinging. It's done as blinds to escape legal repercussions.

Bold 200% agreed

This is only my point that we don't know whether these blinds are true or false not. But nonetheless they are wrong as blinds are vicious in nature. I 100% agree on this if this opinion is universally applied on all blinds irrespective of the person in question.

But if blinds not being ok is selective for example if tomorrow there is blind about Rhea having an affair with Mahesh Bhatt and people jump into believing it then my question will be how do we decide which blinds are false and which are true?

See there was a time everyone believed in the blinds for SSR and now they don't believe it in between we have lost SSR. Factually not much has happened to make people disbelieve these blinds are false but yes losing SSR has made people realise we shouldn't believe them. This is most likely the case and i understand and hopefully this feeling is extended to other actors as in either blinds at made illegal or no one really believes them.

But if this is just a selective thing as in we don't believe blinds about SSR but believe other blinds then in that case my question is what has really happened to prove any blind as true or false?

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

100% agreed

Bold 200% agreed

This is only my point that we don't know whether these blinds are true or false not. But nonetheless they are wrong as blinds are vicious in nature. I 100% agree on this if this opinion is universally applied on all blinds irrespective of the person in question.

But if blinds not being ok is selective for example if tomorrow there is blind about Rhea having an affair with Mahesh Bhatt and people jump into believing it then my question will be how do we decide which blinds are false and which are true?

See there was a time everyone believed in the blinds for SSR and now they don't believe it in between we have lost SSR. Factually not much has happened to make people disbelieve these blinds are false but yes losing SSR has made people realise we shouldn't believe them. This is most likely the case and i understand and hopefully this feeling is extended to other actors as in either blinds at made illegal or no one really believes them.

But if this is just a selective thing as in we don't believe blinds about SSR but believe other blinds then in that case my question is what has really happened to prove any blind as true or false?

We shouldn't HAVE blinds. It's impossible to tell people not to believe.

Re: Rhea. When names are involved, how is it called a blind?😕 Didn't MB himself post that yucky pic? Why are we conflating named news, though very trivial, with blinds which are a legal runaround?

If you're saying no one should draw conclusions from evidence, then you're asking for the death of human capacity to think (the process by which we see, analyse, and draw conclusions is the same regardless of how worthless the subject of thought).

Blinds on the other hand are only insinuation without any evidence, whatsoever.

OTOH, if someone writes: a certain scion of a well known film family has been seen canoodling with another A-lister with a sullied last name, THAT'S a blind.