Author Topic: Harvey Weinstein  (Read 20344 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20410
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2017, 11:14:27 PM »
Things like this (sex scandals and why do we not call these people out) remind me that Jimmy Page had a very public and controversial relationship with a 14 year old.    Today....any "rock god" would be called a pedophile.   For some reason, with Jimmy Page, it gets mentioned for a microsecond, and then forgotten again.   

This is just an example of how "normal" this is in the entire entertainment industry.  I honestly do believe that there is a culture where "normal" is completely re-classified.    Our version of normal doesnt even register to these people.
Normal evolves. The inability for some to understand that has bugged me quite a bit. The poor behavior of the past doesn't justify poor behavior today, that's not what I'm saying, but it does need to be viewed in the proper context. Yet today's generation has no desire whatsoever to consider anything other than their immediate feelings. I'll happily hold people accountable for their actions today in accordance with today's standards. What I won't do is retroactively judge people's prior behavior based on today's standards. Jimmy's behavior at the time was socially acceptable (mostly) when he did it. Nowadays it wouldn't be and he'd be held accountable.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2770
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2017, 11:17:48 PM »
Things like this (sex scandals and why do we not call these people out) remind me that Jimmy Page had a very public and controversial relationship with a 14 year old.    Today....any "rock god" would be called a pedophile.   For some reason, with Jimmy Page, it gets mentioned for a microsecond, and then forgotten again.   

This is just an example of how "normal" this is in the entire entertainment industry.  I honestly do believe that there is a culture where "normal" is completely re-classified.    Our version of normal doesnt even register to these people.
Normal evolves. The inability for some to understand that has bugged me quite a bit. The poor behavior of the past doesn't justify poor behavior today, that's not what I'm saying, but it does need to be viewed in the proper context. Yet today's generation has no desire whatsoever to consider anything other than their immediate feelings. I'll happily hold people accountable for their actions today in accordance with today's standards. What I won't do is retroactively judge people's prior behavior based on today's standards. Jimmy's behavior at the time was socially acceptable (mostly) when he did it. Nowadays it wouldn't be and he'd be held accountable.
I don't know how the post reporting structure on this forum works entirely, but just in case you didn't see it, look at my last post on the previous page. (I think we posted at about the same time).

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20410
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2017, 11:43:00 PM »
I'm a little puzzled as to how, "The hitler du jour", translating as, "The hitler of today", isn't a Hitler comparison. You know, literally mentioning Hitler and all.
Ah. After re-reading your post I see where the problem is. It's not "the Hitler of today." It's "Hitler of the day." As in, there's a different monster every day and today it seems to be Weinstein. If desired I'll elaborate on that tomorrow, but I saw this and wanted to clarify.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 682
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2017, 07:49:01 AM »
Things like this (sex scandals and why do we not call these people out) remind me that Jimmy Page had a very public and controversial relationship with a 14 year old.    Today....any "rock god" would be called a pedophile.   For some reason, with Jimmy Page, it gets mentioned for a microsecond, and then forgotten again.   

Yeah, that was Lori Mattix, and even before Jimmy Page she'd already been through David Bowie (to whom she claims to have lost her virginity) and Mick Jagger. Then you have the infamous Sable Starr, who was banging rock stars from the age of 12 and was referred to by Iggy Pop as "the best of the baby groupies". Just a very different social climate, and my general principle is that it isn't the job of the present to deliver a tutting rebuke to the past. Don't repeat the past's mistakes if that's what you think they are, but don't start moralizing. 


My main interest in this widening Hollywood scandal is connected with a guy who I frequently tirade against (because his story exposes at least part of the hypocrisy at play here), and I'll copy here what I wrote elsewhere:  Victor Salva. A name probably not familiar to many people here, but he's the pedo scum director who raped the 12-year-old star of his 80s horror film Clown House (a film which can no longer be bought, because the very disturbed and disturbing performance of the kid in the film turned out to be real terror of his director, and also because the sick bastard filmed long scenes of the 3 young boys butt naked. Basically, that film is Victor Salva filming his own pedo fantasy). Long story short, Salva received a negligible jail sentence for his crimes, and as soon as he got out, Hollywood Pictures and (the best part) Walt Disney Studios teamed up and had him making a nice family movie starring Jeff Goldblum called 'Powder'. He then went on to have huge success with the horror film Jeepers Creepers.

This is one story of many concerning Hollywood's very loose attitude to sexual crimes. Mel Gibson got chased out of town because of his drunken anti-Semitic rant (and that's fair enough by the way, my point here is about Hollywood's arbitrary scale of values, I'm not saying Gibson shouldn't have been strongly condemned), but a child rapist gets welcomed back the moment he's out of jail...by fucking Disney, of all companies. The merest allusion to the most remotely racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic sentiment will see the wheels of ostracism kick into gear (and again I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't), yet the most extreme cases of sexual indiscretions get systematically swept under the carpet.

I mentioned Corey Feldman in the other thread, and yes, it's easy to dismiss him because of how strange he is these days, but nevertheless I believe him on this point. He has been claiming for years that he and other 80s child stars were sexually abused by Hollywood moguls, and has hinted that Weinstein was one of them. He's spoken and written of drug and alcohol fueled parties given with all the kids present (Corey Haim, River Phoenix, kids like that), where they were tanked up with alcohol and abused. Couple that with claims made by people who worked briefly in Hollywood as writers and/or directors and who left the town disgusted (Mario Puzo summed up his impression of the place in the pedophile character of Hollywood studio boss Jack Woltz, Clive Barker did it in his novel Coldheart Canyon, and Charles Bukowski's impressions of what he saw in Hollywood are disturbing even for him)...what you get is a picture of an enormous Roman orgy, where any and every sexual appetite is catered for. And if that's what they want to be, then fine, it's not my business, but we're talking here about a singularly irritating town and its singularly irritating inhabitants, who love nothing more than to lecture the world on its morals and codes of conduct. Which is one of the many reasons I'm looking forward to seeing that smug, condescending, self-satisfied prick Saint Benjamin of Affleck drown in the sea of his own hypocrisy, if and when more stories about him emerge (as rumours suggest they're about to).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2017, 08:08:09 AM »
Quote
the supposed bastion of "liberal egalitarianism" that is Hollywood
I mean, it's a heavily capitalist pocket of the US. How liberal is it really?
Well, conservatives love to rag on Hollywood for its perceived liberalism and many outspoken members of the community do love to "talk the talk" but I think you're right, it's really just a facade. I was more going with the "popular image" of Hollywood more than its reality. Plus, if you look at how the movies are actually made, Hollywood is very conservative nowadays and I don't mean politically so much as financially. Hollywood tends to chase trends, rarely pushes boundaries, and goes for the easy dollar over innovation. Hollywood is "liberal" not because it wants to take a strong stance for... something, but because their wallet benefits from doing so.

Well, here's the question:  is "hypocritical liberalism" still "Liberalism"?   We don't hesitate to call the Evangelical Christian Senator a hypocrite when he demands his mistress get an abortion.  But do we excuse their conservatism?   What's the difference?    My beef with all this is the sanctimony.  I don't mind if someone chooses to look the other way in their own circumstance - I'm referring to the Gwyneth's and Angelina's of the world here - that's their business, just as I chose to stay (for a while) with a wife that cheated on me.  My business.   

I think Hollywood is extremely liberal - they give MILLIONS of dollars to the political machine - and it makes a difference.   They didn't run Billy Bush out of town for completely non-political reasons.   My beef is the sanctimony and the self-interest by the non-Harvey actors.  You can't use the word "deplorable" to castigate the other side when you're asking 20-year-old starlets for a rub-and-a-tug in order to exchange the walk on part in the war for a lead role in the play.   You don't get to say you're "terrified" of a President for I don't even know what (a Wall?  Immigration?) when you're privy to (or even participating in) the kind of human psychological abuse that we're talking about here.   That these people can take moral stands for minimum wage, but turn the other cheek on Harvey Weinstein is what's REALLY "terrifying" (George Clooney comes to mind here.)     

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2017, 08:11:40 AM »
It wasn't a Hitler comparison, I never play the victim, and you've pretty much missed the entire point of everything I've said. You've also convinced me not to bother trying to elaborate.

 I don't know if I've, "Missed the point" of your post, as much as you've failed to properly communicate your message. If people can so easily misinterpret your intent, maybe you aren't as good a communicator as you see yourself as. I'm sorry you did such a poor point at communicating earlier that you aren't even going to try to redeem it.
I'm a little puzzled as to how, "The hitler du jour", translating as, "The hitler of today", isn't a Hitler comparison. You know, literally mentioning Hitler and all.

"Euphemism".   I got el Barto's point clear as day. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2017, 08:22:27 AM »
I mentioned Corey Feldman in the other thread, and yes, it's easy to dismiss him because of how strange he is these days, but nevertheless I believe him on this point. He has been claiming for years that he and other 80s child stars were sexually abused by Hollywood moguls, and has hinted that Weinstein was one of them. He's spoken and written of drug and alcohol fueled parties given with all the kids present (Corey Haim, River Phoenix, kids like that), where they were tanked up with alcohol and abused. Couple that with claims made by people who worked briefly in Hollywood as writers and/or directors and who left the town disgusted (Mario Puzo summed up his impression of the place in the pedophile character of Hollywood studio boss Jack Woltz, Clive Barker did it in his novel Coldheart Canyon, and Charles Bukowski's impressions of what he saw in Hollywood are disturbing even for him)...what you get is a picture of an enormous Roman orgy, where any and every sexual appetite is catered for. And if that's what they want to be, then fine, it's not my business, but we're talking here about a singularly irritating town and its singularly irritating inhabitants, who love nothing more than to lecture the world on its morals and codes of conduct. Which is one of the many reasons I'm looking forward to seeing that smug, condescending, self-satisfied prick Saint Benjamin of Affleck drown in the sea of his own hypocrisy, if and when more stories about him emerge (as rumours suggest they're about to).

Not a minor point that Corey Feldman is fucked up, Corey Haim is dead, and River Phoenix is dead. 

I think you've nailed it correctly; it's never right to force someone to do something they don't want to do, but it does beg the question that people DID know, they DID talk about it, and yet people went back to Harvey for more.   I get it, I rail against baseless speculation, and so I say this carefully, but I would like to know more and have more conclusive proof that George Clooney knew NOTHING of this (he even admits he "heard rumors") when his best friend Brad was engaged or married to TWO women that were directly the brunt of Weinstein's bullshit.    Yet, he took the job (directing Confessions of a Dangerous Mind).  That's HIS conscience.  I get it; sometimes we have to get in bed with snakes to achieve our larger mission.   But you forfeit the right to judge me - to call me "deplorable" - for the choices I make, or more correctly, for the choices I make that are different than yours.   

Trump talked smack about hypotheticals to Billy Bush, and you'd think he led the Huns on a raid of Eurasia.   Weinstein DOES it, multiple times, and there's dead silence up to the point where people's images start to look bad.  I like (should I say, liked?) Ben Affleck (he's now my favorite Batman) but I have a problem with him here.   Why now? Where the fuck were you ten years ago when your co-stars needed you?   

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2017, 08:38:21 AM »
TL, while I appreciate the fact that you've dialed it back, you had a series of posts that were CLEARLY personal attacks.  Whether you agree with, respect, or understand what Barto was saying, you cannot continue to do that or you will be banned.  It doesn't matter that you may feel personal attacks may somehow be justified.  They aren't allowed, period.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20410
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2017, 08:41:54 AM »
Christ, if they were to ever "open the books" on how Disney has operated over the years TL's fantasy will come true and the mob will run amok all over So-Cal, burning the studios to the ground.

Or, maybe they'll choose to ignore it if the next Pirates of the Caribbean flick is good. 

Part of what I think is going on is that a lot of the "victims" have benefited in other ways. I'd bet my life's savings that Miley Cyrus didn't get her start in Hollywood because of her immense talent. I know nothing, but I think it's a very easy and reasonable assumption to make. She's currently worth ~200 million dollars. Moreover, she's the type of gal that might not really have a problem with the way her youth transpired. I don't see her rushing out to write a tell-all about the behind the scenes affairs of her childhood. I don't mean this as a form of victim bashing, nor do I want to suggest that she's a whore. She seems to me surprisingly well adjusted and sensible. Music and bad tats aside I really like the girl. I just doubt she'd see herself as a victim.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 481
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #44 on: October 12, 2017, 09:12:12 AM »
OH great,  Trump can use Twitter to basically threaten anyone(or nation) wtih it,  meanwhile Rose McGowan's account gets suspended. 

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26468
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #45 on: October 12, 2017, 09:15:43 AM »
I have to say, all of this news has really shocked me. I thought this guy was hilarious in Mrs. Doubtfire and Independence Day.

Who knew, right?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 481
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #46 on: October 12, 2017, 09:24:41 AM »
I have to say, all of this news has really shocked me. I thought this guy was hilarious in Mrs. Doubtfire and Independence Day.

Who knew, right?

 :lol  :rollin

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17883
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #47 on: October 12, 2017, 09:51:18 AM »
Christ, if they were to ever "open the books" on how Disney has operated over the years TL's fantasy will come true and the mob will run amok all over So-Cal, burning the studios to the ground.

I don't doubt this, but maybe that's the only way we change this is to expose them for what they are.  I understand your bigger point being made, but that doesn't mean these people haven't earned their hatred for what they did.  I'm not ready to say these people were/are the devil, they may very well be products of their environments, but we should still burn it to the ground when we find out about it.  And of course, everyone needs to look in the mirror before they start taking shots at others.  No ones perfect.

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3999
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #48 on: October 12, 2017, 10:24:20 AM »
Quote
the supposed bastion of "liberal egalitarianism" that is Hollywood
I mean, it's a heavily capitalist pocket of the US. How liberal is it really?
Well, conservatives love to rag on Hollywood for its perceived liberalism and many outspoken members of the community do love to "talk the talk" but I think you're right, it's really just a facade. I was more going with the "popular image" of Hollywood more than its reality. Plus, if you look at how the movies are actually made, Hollywood is very conservative nowadays and I don't mean politically so much as financially. Hollywood tends to chase trends, rarely pushes boundaries, and goes for the easy dollar over innovation. Hollywood is "liberal" not because it wants to take a strong stance for... something, but because their wallet benefits from doing so.

Well, here's the question:  is "hypocritical liberalism" still "Liberalism"?   We don't hesitate to call the Evangelical Christian Senator a hypocrite when he demands his mistress get an abortion.  But do we excuse their conservatism?   What's the difference?    My beef with all this is the sanctimony.  I don't mind if someone chooses to look the other way in their own circumstance - I'm referring to the Gwyneth's and Angelina's of the world here - that's their business, just as I chose to stay (for a while) with a wife that cheated on me.  My business.   

I think Hollywood is extremely liberal - they give MILLIONS of dollars to the political machine - and it makes a difference.   They didn't run Billy Bush out of town for completely non-political reasons.   My beef is the sanctimony and the self-interest by the non-Harvey actors.  You can't use the word "deplorable" to castigate the other side when you're asking 20-year-old starlets for a rub-and-a-tug in order to exchange the walk on part in the war for a lead role in the play.   You don't get to say you're "terrified" of a President for I don't even know what (a Wall?  Immigration?) when you're privy to (or even participating in) the kind of human psychological abuse that we're talking about here.   That these people can take moral stands for minimum wage, but turn the other cheek on Harvey Weinstein is what's REALLY "terrifying" (George Clooney comes to mind here.)   
You're going to find this sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude on both sides of the aisle and unsurprisingly you'll find your fair share of greedy hypocrites equally distributed amongst the groups, no matter how much you may want to make this an issue specific to liberalism.

Also I have no doubt that many members of Hollywood do skew Democrat and liberal but I think that the machines behind them (the companies themselves) are largely neutral or, at the very least, not as left leaning as many would believe.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26468
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #49 on: October 12, 2017, 10:29:59 AM »
I don't see how liberalism plays into this at all any more than conservatism playing into when conservative political or religious figures are found to have committed other similar acts and were covered up. It happens all over the political spectrum.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17883
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #50 on: October 12, 2017, 10:52:15 AM »
I don't see how liberalism plays into this at all any more than conservatism playing into when conservative political or religious figures are found to have committed other similar acts and were covered up. It happens all over the political spectrum.

I don't think this is a liberal issue either, but I understand why people are looking at the hollywood liberals based on their reactions to "Grabby".  However, I just find this to be an example and a similar situation can be compared to conservatives as well. 

Also, about being part of a cover up / looking the other way.  I saw on the TV news last night they reported how Harvey's assistants would arrange these "business meetings" to make sure Harvey and whoever would be alone in his hotel.  Makes me feel like people were actively helping him do what he did.  I'd say it's possible they were naive, but I'm finding that hard to believe personally.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2017, 11:04:40 AM »
You're going to find this sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude on both sides of the aisle and unsurprisingly you'll find your fair share of greedy hypocrites equally distributed amongst the groups...

For the record, I think that is 100% accurate.  But I think you wanting to take Stadler to task on that point is a bit misplaced, because I'm pretty sure he agrees with you. 

I don't see how liberalism plays into this at all any more than conservatism playing into when conservative political or religious figures are found to have committed other similar acts and were covered up. It happens all over the political spectrum.

I don't think it does "play into it."  I think Kev already explained that he was merely observing the correlation between the two.  He was not arguing any sort of causation.  That is not the issue, and he was not pushing that point.  I don't think anyone in the thread is.  Kev could have left "liberal" out of his post, and his point would not have changed at all.  I think he said as much.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20410
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #52 on: October 12, 2017, 11:52:36 AM »
Weinstein scandal update: Harvey sleeps nude in an oxygen tent which he says gives him sexual powers.

Kate Beckinsale is the latest to come forward.:
Quote
saying she had an encounter with him aged 17, at the Savoy Hotel in London.

The Underworld star said on Instagram she was told to go to his room, where he "opened the door in his bathrobe".

"After declining alcohol and announcing that I had school in the morning I left, uneasy but unscathed.

So he offered her a drink, which she declined, and then she left? I might give this "pervy," but probably not creepy, and certainly not predatory. There's enough out there for me accept that he's a scumbag, but do we need to divulge every single encounter to make him look slimy? I'm really curious if he can expect fair treatment in this country given our newfound love of outrage, but I suspect not. When it was suggested that he might have skipped town in another thread, I figured that might well be his best move, and I haven't' seen anything to change that.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27493
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #53 on: October 12, 2017, 12:01:07 PM »

I think most people tend to think of themselves as centrists, whether or not they are.


I don't know, man. It seems like most people I know in real life are more than happy to admit to being staunch conservatives/Republicans or liberals/Democrats.


Either way, based off your icon, I can assume you are least pro ditch-diggers.

Well, the world needs them! :tup :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #54 on: October 12, 2017, 12:14:56 PM »
Quote
the supposed bastion of "liberal egalitarianism" that is Hollywood
I mean, it's a heavily capitalist pocket of the US. How liberal is it really?
Well, conservatives love to rag on Hollywood for its perceived liberalism and many outspoken members of the community do love to "talk the talk" but I think you're right, it's really just a facade. I was more going with the "popular image" of Hollywood more than its reality. Plus, if you look at how the movies are actually made, Hollywood is very conservative nowadays and I don't mean politically so much as financially. Hollywood tends to chase trends, rarely pushes boundaries, and goes for the easy dollar over innovation. Hollywood is "liberal" not because it wants to take a strong stance for... something, but because their wallet benefits from doing so.

Well, here's the question:  is "hypocritical liberalism" still "Liberalism"?   We don't hesitate to call the Evangelical Christian Senator a hypocrite when he demands his mistress get an abortion.  But do we excuse their conservatism?   What's the difference?    My beef with all this is the sanctimony.  I don't mind if someone chooses to look the other way in their own circumstance - I'm referring to the Gwyneth's and Angelina's of the world here - that's their business, just as I chose to stay (for a while) with a wife that cheated on me.  My business.   

I think Hollywood is extremely liberal - they give MILLIONS of dollars to the political machine - and it makes a difference.   They didn't run Billy Bush out of town for completely non-political reasons.   My beef is the sanctimony and the self-interest by the non-Harvey actors.  You can't use the word "deplorable" to castigate the other side when you're asking 20-year-old starlets for a rub-and-a-tug in order to exchange the walk on part in the war for a lead role in the play.   You don't get to say you're "terrified" of a President for I don't even know what (a Wall?  Immigration?) when you're privy to (or even participating in) the kind of human psychological abuse that we're talking about here.   That these people can take moral stands for minimum wage, but turn the other cheek on Harvey Weinstein is what's REALLY "terrifying" (George Clooney comes to mind here.)   
You're going to find this sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude on both sides of the aisle and unsurprisingly you'll find your fair share of greedy hypocrites equally distributed amongst the groups, no matter how much you may want to make this an issue specific to liberalism.

No, no, I get that.  I totally get that.   I would be saying the same thing if this was a thread about that Senator (that reference is a real one from a couple weeks ago, if memory serves.  Drafts several anti-abortion bills, and when HIS mistress gets knocked up and it's going to topple his little ivory tower, he pressures her to abort).  It's just as bad, I get it.   I'm making the point that the problem with both cases though isn't the political persuasion of the actors, but the sanctimony.  We have had almost a year of rhetoric and framing about how "evil" trump is, and how misogynist he is and this and that, but when the misogyny gets you an Oscar (Paltrow) or a director's gig (Clooney), apparently it's ok, at least until the backlash gets too great. 

And it's relevant here, because much has been made over the last year about the moral implications of various political actors, and yet the judgment seems to be misguided.   

Quote
Also I have no doubt that many members of Hollywood do skew Democrat and liberal but I think that the machines behind them (the companies themselves) are largely neutral or, at the very least, not as left leaning as many would believe.

Weinstein was VERY active politically.  He was on a first name basis with Bill, Hillary, Michelle and Barack.   I understand that the corporations are neutral (and the argument goes both ways; if Disney et al get a pass here, so must Wells Fargo et al there; it's either the people or the corporation, and you can't decide that based on whether it's your pet issue or not).   I think with Hollywood, though, there's a different level; Disney and Sony and MGM are corporations, but when you get down to the production companies, it's basically a legal front for the individual.  Harvey Weinstein WAS Miramax, in the same way that Jobs and Gates WERE Apple and Microsoft in the early days of the computing revolution (not so now). 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #55 on: October 12, 2017, 12:23:27 PM »
I don't see how liberalism plays into this at all any more than conservatism playing into when conservative political or religious figures are found to have committed other similar acts and were covered up. It happens all over the political spectrum.

It plays in when your brand of liberalism (or conservatism) is to decide what is moral and just for someone else.    And that's the nature of Liberal politics today, and the beauty (if you want to call it that) of the Trump phenomenon.    Far right (NOT ALT-RIGHT!) Republicans USED to be the "Moral Majority" that were just as wrong, calling "being gay" a "sin" and what not.  I don't think anyone is going to make an argument that Trump's platform is predicated on morals; he's done what he's done remarkably free of the "Moral Majority" (now the kids call it the "Establishment") influence.   In today's PC age, that's what the left is doing.   You're DEPLORABLE if you don't follow the social agenda of the Left.   It's TERRIFYING if you aren't open to understanding that "tolerance" doesn't mean "tolerance" anymore, it means "full on acceptance".   Much of the liberal argument today IS moral in nature, and it IS judgmental in nature.  Most issues - from the left - are cast in moral terms, and in emotional ones, not factual.  Being "terrified" of Trump isn't a factual argument, it's an emotional one.    Gun control; the numbers do not tell the story that the gun control advocates need, so they resort to "common sense" (read: emotional and moral) arguments.   Immigration; we even call those on the fringe "Dreamers" because it is so evocative - emotionally - of the moral argument that is the "American Dream".       

I don't have the hang-up that some do with "hypocrisy"; as several have said, it is part and parcel with politics.   Times change, circumstances change, and it's too easy to find people seemingly on both sides of the line.   I do have a problem with SHAMING ME with that hypocrisy.  There's a difference.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26468
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #56 on: October 12, 2017, 12:28:09 PM »
But that's just as much conservative as it is anything else.

How many conservative people of various positions have been found guilty of committing crimes or engaging in the behavior they're telling everyone else to never do?

It's just human. Politics doesn't play a role in it. We're all equally human.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #57 on: October 12, 2017, 12:36:19 PM »
But that's just as much conservative as it is anything else.

How many conservative people of various positions have been found guilty of committing crimes or engaging in the behavior they're telling everyone else to never do?

It's just human. Politics doesn't play a role in it. We're all equally human.

I respectfully think you're missing my point.  I understand that we "all do it".   I'm not talking about at an individual level.  I'm talking about a systemic level of hypocrisy.   This isn't about any one politician, nor is it about the "public position" versus the "private position".   It's about the very essence of the argument.    The argument against Trump is a MORAL one, not a political one, or a factual one.  You don't "do the math" and decide you are "terrified".  That's an inherently moral and emotional argument.   And for me, if you're going to MAKE an emotional argument, and it turns out the underpinnings of that emotional or moral argument are flawed or nonexistent, it renders the argument itself flawed or nonexistent. 

Like him or not, Trump's position is not a "DO THIS" moral position.  The left's IS.   You're morally obligated to accommodate that persons bathroom choice. You're morally obligated to pay for that healthcare plan.  You're morally obligated to overlook the legality of that person's immigration.    In fact, Trump's is the opposite (and that's what got him a number of votes, to the chagrin of liberals everywhere).  The essence of the "deplorable" comment is that "I'm better than you".   And here, we're seeing, "you're" not.   

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26468
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #58 on: October 12, 2017, 12:41:48 PM »
I wasn't talking about Trump, but I see your point.

However, even the most flawed people can point out problems. If a murderer says that murder is wrong, should we not still believe that message? I don't need people to be saints to make a moral argument.

People will always defend their base. Some liberals will defend other liberals who do terrible things, just as they call out conservatives for the same thing.

Just like conservatives will defend their base while going off on liberals for doing the same thing.

I know you don't like people's general arguments against Trump, but it doesn't always have to come back to that. You seem fine lumping Liberals all together, yet look for the fine details distinguishing similar acts in conservatives.

We're all human. We all have hypocritical elements, even as large groups.

Israelis gladly tell the world how immoral Palestinian terror is, while having no problem terrorizing them. It's all over the board. Pointing out that Liberals are somehow special just seems agenda driven.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 481
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #59 on: October 12, 2017, 01:08:07 PM »
Stadler this "social agenda of the left"  as you call it is just being a decent human being.   I'm not talking about any specifec policies or platforms here,  I'm referring to "PC-nonsense" or whatever people call it now.    It's just trying to be decent to people who need it.   "morally obligated to accomodate that persons bathroom choice"     what a dehumanizing thing to say.   It just means be nice. 

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20410
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #60 on: October 12, 2017, 01:37:32 PM »
Stadler this "social agenda of the left"  as you call it is just being a decent human being.   I'm not talking about any specifec policies or platforms here,  I'm referring to "PC-nonsense" or whatever people call it now.    It's just trying to be decent to people who need it.   "morally obligated to accomodate that persons bathroom choice"     what a dehumanizing thing to say.   It just means be nice.
A: You can't legislate or force decency. I'm a surprisingly polite and respectful person IRL. Makes me feel good to be kind and courteous. If I'm coereced to be such a person it's going to piss me off and show in my dealings with others.

B: As we've gone over time and time again, none of us will ever agree on what constitutes decency.

C: In light of B, upon who does the onus fall? Following your off-topic example, I'm quite happy to let people use whatever can they choose. I don't want others to be put out. Shouldn't people who make a non-standard bathroom choice be considerate of the feelings of others, though? If I were a cross-dresser, or whatever the appropriate expression is this week, I'd feel really bad about making somebody uncomfortable with my bathroom choice. That'd be more important than my own comfort. But then that's just me being a decent human being.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 481
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #61 on: October 12, 2017, 02:46:35 PM »
Stadler this "social agenda of the left"  as you call it is just being a decent human being.   I'm not talking about any specifec policies or platforms here,  I'm referring to "PC-nonsense" or whatever people call it now.    It's just trying to be decent to people who need it.   "morally obligated to accomodate that persons bathroom choice"     what a dehumanizing thing to say.   It just means be nice.
A: You can't legislate or force decency. I'm a surprisingly polite and respectful person IRL. Makes me feel good to be kind and courteous. If I'm coereced to be such a person it's going to piss me off and show in my dealings with others.

B: As we've gone over time and time again, none of us will ever agree on what constitutes decency.

C: In light of B, upon who does the onus fall? Following your off-topic example, I'm quite happy to let people use whatever can they choose. I don't want others to be put out. Shouldn't people who make a non-standard bathroom choice be considerate of the feelings of others, though? If I were a cross-dresser, or whatever the appropriate expression is this week, I'd feel really bad about making somebody uncomfortable with my bathroom choice. That'd be more important than my own comfort. But then that's just me being a decent human being.

I don't see why they would need to.   "Non-standard" should not even  be a thing here. 

edit: you're right this is way off topic, sorry everyone.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17883
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #62 on: October 12, 2017, 05:28:56 PM »
I see James Van Der Beek speaking out on being sexually assulted when he was younger https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/james-van-der-beek-reveals-063703723.html

I wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes with this.  He didn't accuse Harvey in this, just saying high up male hollywood executives. 

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27493
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #63 on: October 12, 2017, 06:27:43 PM »
Stadler this "social agenda of the left"  as you call it is just being a decent human being.   I'm not talking about any specifec policies or platforms here,  I'm referring to "PC-nonsense" or whatever people call it now.    It's just trying to be decent to people who need it.   "morally obligated to accomodate that persons bathroom choice"     what a dehumanizing thing to say.   It just means be nice.
A: You can't legislate or force decency. I'm a surprisingly polite and respectful person IRL. Makes me feel good to be kind and courteous. If I'm coereced to be such a person it's going to piss me off and show in my dealings with others.

B: As we've gone over time and time again, none of us will ever agree on what constitutes decency.

C: In light of B, upon who does the onus fall? Following your off-topic example, I'm quite happy to let people use whatever can they choose. I don't want others to be put out. Shouldn't people who make a non-standard bathroom choice be considerate of the feelings of others, though? If I were a cross-dresser, or whatever the appropriate expression is this week, I'd feel really bad about making somebody uncomfortable with my bathroom choice. That'd be more important than my own comfort. But then that's just me being a decent human being.

Excellent post, sir.  :tup :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2017, 12:44:10 PM »
I know you don't like people's general arguments against Trump, but it doesn't always have to come back to that. You seem fine lumping Liberals all together, yet look for the fine details distinguishing similar acts in conservatives.

I don't think that's necessarily true.  We're in an interesting context.  The left has - and this is a compliment - morphed from a loose conglomeration of special interests to a unified cohesive party, and in large part due to effective framing.   It's not coincidence, nor is it "indicative fact", that almost every negative reference to Trump includes the SPECIFIC word, "terrified".  Headlines, questions, quotes, references, all use the SPECIFIC word "terrified".    Contrast that with the live interviews after Vegas, where the emptions, and the words used, were all over the map. 

Contrast that with the current state of the GOP, which is a holy fucking mess.   THEY are now the party of loosely affiliated special interests.   I'd point out the common responses, if there were any (of substance).  The one I can think of - "anti-Establishment" - I've already commented on.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 481
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2017, 01:08:17 PM »
I know you don't like people's general arguments against Trump, but it doesn't always have to come back to that. You seem fine lumping Liberals all together, yet look for the fine details distinguishing similar acts in conservatives.

I don't think that's necessarily true.  We're in an interesting context.  The left has - and this is a compliment - morphed from a loose conglomeration of special interests to a unified cohesive party, and in large part due to effective framing.   It's not coincidence, nor is it "indicative fact", that almost every negative reference to Trump includes the SPECIFIC word, "terrified".  Headlines, questions, quotes, references, all use the SPECIFIC word "terrified".    Contrast that with the live interviews after Vegas, where the emptions, and the words used, were all over the map. 

Contrast that with the current state of the GOP, which is a holy fucking mess.   THEY are now the party of loosely affiliated special interests.   I'd point out the common responses, if there were any (of substance).  The one I can think of - "anti-Establishment" - I've already commented on.

I don't know, right after the election didn't everybody say the Dems were a mess?    I mean, I get what you're saying but maybe it's an overstatement.    Or was it a back handed compliment,  meaning they're a cohesive party but unsuccessful in elections?    Oh and stop trying to make your "terrified" thing happen,   I know Bruce Springsteen said it and you've been kocked off your rocker ever since but please it's getting old and you're seeing something that's not there.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27493
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #66 on: October 13, 2017, 05:11:31 PM »
I mean to quote this yesterday...

  my general principle is that it isn't the job of the present to deliver a tutting rebuke to the past. Don't repeat the past's mistakes if that's what you think they are, but don't start moralizing. 


I love this quote. Well said!! :tup :tup

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #67 on: October 15, 2017, 01:07:23 PM »
I'm glad this piece of shit is exposed but I don't get all the "shock". Isn't it a well-established thing in Hollywood since the 50's that producers fuck actresses for work? It's "put out or no job" kinda thing that is shitty but usually consensual.
I'm currently working somewhere Fox is always on and I can see they're having a blast with this one hehe, oh Harvey Weinstein harassed women so you know what that means don't you? All celebrities opinions are wrong about Trump, is what that means heh
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #68 on: October 16, 2017, 10:41:05 AM »
Stadler this "social agenda of the left"  as you call it is just being a decent human being.   I'm not talking about any specifec policies or platforms here,  I'm referring to "PC-nonsense" or whatever people call it now.    It's just trying to be decent to people who need it.   "morally obligated to accomodate that persons bathroom choice"     what a dehumanizing thing to say.   It just means be nice.


el Barto covered my response perfectly.  It's not about "being a decent human being".  It's about telling OTHERS what YOU feel it means to be a decent human being.    Like el Barto, I am EXCEEDINGLY polite and respectful person in IRL - not being a hero, it's actually a fault with me - but also like el Barto, I don't do it because I am told to, and reject it impulsively when some asshole tries to tell me what the standard is.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12572
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #69 on: October 16, 2017, 10:44:03 AM »
I know you don't like people's general arguments against Trump, but it doesn't always have to come back to that. You seem fine lumping Liberals all together, yet look for the fine details distinguishing similar acts in conservatives.

I don't think that's necessarily true.  We're in an interesting context.  The left has - and this is a compliment - morphed from a loose conglomeration of special interests to a unified cohesive party, and in large part due to effective framing.   It's not coincidence, nor is it "indicative fact", that almost every negative reference to Trump includes the SPECIFIC word, "terrified".  Headlines, questions, quotes, references, all use the SPECIFIC word "terrified".    Contrast that with the live interviews after Vegas, where the emptions, and the words used, were all over the map. 

Contrast that with the current state of the GOP, which is a holy fucking mess.   THEY are now the party of loosely affiliated special interests.   I'd point out the common responses, if there were any (of substance).  The one I can think of - "anti-Establishment" - I've already commented on.

I don't know, right after the election didn't everybody say the Dems were a mess?    I mean, I get what you're saying but maybe it's an overstatement.    Or was it a back handed compliment,  meaning they're a cohesive party but unsuccessful in elections?    Oh and stop trying to make your "terrified" thing happen,   I know Bruce Springsteen said it and you've been kocked off your rocker ever since but please it's getting old and you're seeing something that's not there.

Well, they were, but for different reasons.  They were unified, they were cohesive, they just misread what the pulse of the American people was telling them.  That's easily fixed.   Change the message.   You can't fake unification (just see Congress in the months since November). 

And no, sport, I'm not "getting off" the "terrified" thing.   It's there, it's bigger than "Bruce", and it's real.   If you want, I can start showing the proof (start with any issue of Rolling Stone, for one).   You will be inundated by sources.