Why SRK WHY? Disgusting if true. - Page 9

Originally posted by: NathuPyare

Achha ek batao. Ye OP ka full form kya hai. Mai har baar ye padh ke samajh to jaata hoon ki TM (thread maker) ko hi OP bulate hain but full form nahi maloom 😳

Opening Post/Poster.

Originally posted by: NathuPyare

So going by this logic the next time someone accuses Akki of having an affair with them it would be more believable because Akki has been a known flirt. And for similar reasons if PC were to accuse SRK of inappropriate conduct during their relationship then it would be more believable because there have always been rumors abt PC and SrK? Also it should be more believable about SRK being anti-India because he is known to have professional and personal relations with Tony Ashai, widely believed to be ISI agent?

Again what is good for gander is good for goose.

Being a flirt and harasser are two different things. You are getting confused.

Hello to SRK stans jo aa gaye hai baaki members ko mock karne by "Haha"ing on their posts...

@ bold - I agree with this. There needs to be some social responsibility on part of the celebs too. I love SRK, but he  and Ajay Devgan are wrong by advocating paan masala for a massive lower income population that worships him. These people aren’t educated enough to understand the harmful effects of such substances, and are vulnerable to celeb manipulation.

He also used to endorse fairness creams, which is such a shitty thing to do in a country where there are a lot more brown skinned people than fair ones. This propagates the idea that only the fair are worthy and as a well read celeb, he should have known better.

At SRK’s level of stardom, money shouldn’t be the only factor in deciding endorsements. He needs to start accepting the social responsibility that comes with the tag, especially if his endorsements affect the mindset of a vulnerable set of the population.

Also, I personally don’t see anything wrong in endorsing a gaming application. People who play addictive games are educated enough to know whether or not to gamble. Could he avoid it and put his name towards better products? Yes, most definitely.

Originally posted by: TheMinion

He has also been endorsing gaming application which are akin to gambling… not to forget the bolo zubaan kesri thing…

Accused doesn’t mean guilty as charged. While people in power do frequently use their clout for unlawful purposes, they are also vulnerable to slander and defamation by disgruntled parties.

Courts are usually the decision making authority in such cases, but even they aren’t perfect and do make questionable judgements from time to time.

So, in this kind of ambiguity, personal bias and understanding plays a great role in deciding whether to work with an “accused” or not. If you know and like a person for years, there is a great likelihood of you being biased towards that person and disbelieving of any accusations against them, unless proven in court.

It is a moral predicament for SRK, but without official court judgement, not significant enough to justify letting go of the monetary and societal benefits that come with working with an acclaimed Director like Raju Hirani 🤷‍♀️

Originally posted by: NathuPyare

https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/celebrities/story/rajkumar-hirani-accused-of-sexual-assault-by-assistant-sanju-director-denies-allegations-1429974-2019-01-13

I've stumbled upon an old bit of news which I had almost forgotten but it reminded me of the thread on Me Too allegations of Tanu shri dutta and Vivek Agnihotri which surfaced again after the success of the Kashmir Files.

So I was wondering what is the take of people on SRK working with a Me Too accused Raju Hirani on his new film... Does that bother their conscience too? Or everything is hunky dory since it's SRK and Raju Hirani instead of Vivek Agnihotri?

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

Being a flirt and harasser are two different things. You are getting confused.

There are 2 other points also for ur consideration in my post u r replying to.

Besides, are u saying a flirt CANNOT be a harasser?  Many times harassment starts with flirting. It is a known fact. Maybe it's you who is getting confused.

Edited by NathuPyare - 2 years ago

Originally posted by: BlackWitch

Accused doesn’t mean guilty as charged. While people in power do frequently use their clout for unlawful purposes, they are also vulnerable to slander and defamation by disgruntled parties.

Courts are usually the decision making authority in such cases, but even they aren’t perfect and do make questionable judgements from time to time.

So, in this kind of ambiguity, personal bias and understanding plays a great role in deciding whether to work with an “accused” or not. If you know and like a person for years, there is a great likelihood of you being biased towards that person and disbelieving of any accusations against them, unless proven in court.

It is a moral predicament for SRK, but without official court judgement, not significant enough to justify letting go of the monetary and societal benefits that come with working with an acclaimed Director like Raju Hirani 🤷‍♀️

Then the same should apply on vivek and the viewers watching TKF too. The movie and its viewers should not be looked down upon because it is made by a MeToo accused director since the accusations are NOT proved in vivek's case too. 

However that has not been the case.

I'm ok with criticism of movie in other aspects like technical, acting or script etc but if someone is casting aspersions on it based on its director's meToo accusations then they should cast the same aspersions on the film made by Hirani too and the people associated with it too, since even the viewers of TKF were made to feel guilty for supporting & watching a movie from vivek. 

At least be consistent in what is ok and what is not ok for u. One cant blame others for doing a certain thing and then go on to do the same thing themselves. It's hypocrisy.

Edited by NathuPyare - 2 years ago

I'm very far from being a SRK hater, but the question Nathu raised here is valid. Deepika was called out for collaborating with Luv Ranjan. The makers of Fantastic Beasts were called out for taking Johny Depp when he was still believed to be an abuser. So why shouldn't the same logic be applied here, or even for Anupam Kher etc. if Vivek is an accused? 

It's something to think about. 

Yes, that should be the case with Vivek Agnihotri too. I don’t know more on this as neither have I read up on VA and nor have I seen TKF (theatres are far in South Goa and I am avoiding all disturbing movies for my mental peace). 

In any case, I don’t think viewers need to feel guilty for just watching a movie. Whether or not they resonate with the whole movie, individuals have the right to decide which film deserves their money.

I understand it becomes more of a moral question, especially if the allegations against a Director are proven in the court of law. But expecting an individual with his/her own complex life to feel this strongly about every cause they come across in life is unrealistic. Some feel strongly about one thing, others about another thing. Otherwise, it can be exhausting for a common man to live their regular life.

Also, a movie is not the work of just one person. It’s a collective effort by lots of hardworking people. The least we can do is judge the creative work on its merit, rather than whichever way the political tide flows.

Originally posted by: NathuPyare

Then the same should apply on vivek and the viewers watching TKF too. The movie and its viewers should not be looked down upon because it is made by a MeToo accused director since the accusations are NOT proved in vivek's case too. 

However that has not been the case.

I'm ok with criticism of movie in other aspects like technical, acting or script etc but if someone is casting aspersions on it based on its director's meToo accusations then they should cast the same aspersions on the film made by Hirani too and the people associated with it too, since even the viewers of TKF were made to feel guilty for supporting & watching a movie from vivek. 

At least be consistent in what is ok and what is not ok for u. One cant blame others for doing a certain thing and then go on to do the same thing themselves. It's hypocrisy.

Originally posted by: NathuPyare

There are 2 other points also for ur consideration in my post u r replying to.

Besides, are u saying a flirt CANNOT be a harasser?  Many times harassment starts with flirting. It is a known fact. Maybe it's you who is getting confused.

Baat ko ghuma rahe ho faaltu main. I went through other posts and realised Vivek uncle is the entire point of your thread. Not the discussion. Really low man, using victims to just prove your point. No better than Vivek himself..