Author Topic: Harvey Weinstein  (Read 11699 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 402
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #70 on: October 16, 2017, 10:51:25 AM »

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.

I don't think it's beyond the pale that someone could be so conerned with the consequences of the Trump administration's policies without it being some kind of liberal conspiracy. 


edit: re-worded because as usual I don't think it through enough the first time  :loser:
« Last Edit: October 16, 2017, 10:59:03 AM by XeRocks81 »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10542
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #71 on: October 16, 2017, 10:57:29 AM »
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 switch back and forth throughout the day, and I'm not seeing any of that on Fox News.   It is, though, rightfully pointing out what I've been saying here, though, and that is, you lose credibility when you point out people as being "deplorable" for doing nothing more than calling you out on your own bullshit, but take money from and kiss the ass of people that are truly deplorable.

In other words, it's far less about "you're wrong about Trump!" than it is showing (rightfully) how out of touch and out of step the Democrat leadership really is.   Policy-wise, I'm probably closest to Hillary than any candidate in the election in 2016 (primaries) and yet I wouldn't vote for her, largely because of her epic failure to see herself as one of many and not above the "law".    "Law" in quotes, because it's not just legal law, but also moral law and social contract law.   She's put herself above legal sanctions, above moral responsibility and above general social decency.     

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10542
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #72 on: October 16, 2017, 11:04:42 AM »

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.

What's telling to me is that you can't possibly imagine that someone could be so conerned with the consequences of the Trump administration's policies without it being some kind of liberal conspiracy.

Not at all.  I'm saying that there are likely a number of people that are SO concerned, and legitimately so, but that the Democrat leadership - that which tacitly organized the "Resistance!"TM have co-opted those legitimate emotional reactions to their own, self-serving needs by codifying them and reducing them to a singular common denominator ("terror").   Look, I know the reaction; I wasn't 100% or even 50% comfortable with the Trump presidency.  I didn't vote for him (and wouldn't now) and don't at all feel that someone's first elected office EVER should be as President of the United States of America.    I had concerns.   But they were never neatly and conveniently ever so cogent as "terror", and it's suspicious that you had MILLIONS of people coalesce on that one phrase - in conjunction with an explicit call to "resist" - when you have had several far more egregious and poignant crises in our recent history - 9/11, Sandy Hook, Katrina, Las Vegas - that didn't result in anywhere near that level of consistency and uniformity.    (And no, don't even try to equate the election of Donald Trump as tragedy on the level of 9/11).   

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 402
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #73 on: October 16, 2017, 11:17:16 AM »

  Look, I know the reaction; I wasn't 100% or even 50% comfortable with the Trump presidency.  I didn't vote for him (and wouldn't now) and don't at all feel that someone's first elected office EVER should be as President of the United States of America.    I had concerns.   But they were never neatly and conveniently ever so cogent as "terror", ).

Why should your reaction be the universal one?

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 26443
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #74 on: October 16, 2017, 05:24:09 PM »

  Look, I know the reaction; I wasn't 100% or even 50% comfortable with the Trump presidency.  I didn't vote for him (and wouldn't now) and don't at all feel that someone's first elected office EVER should be as President of the United States of America.    I had concerns.   But they were never neatly and conveniently ever so cogent as "terror", ).

Why should your reaction be the universal one?

I think about 60% of the population, at bare minimum, should be asked that same question.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5427
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #75 on: October 16, 2017, 06:54:19 PM »
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/15/entertainment/james-corden-apology-harvey-weinstein/index.html

Maybe too soon, but I LOL'ed nonetheless. Does that make me a sexist pig?
Quote
For example, in his opening joke, Corden said the weather was "so beautiful, Harvey Weinstein has already asked tonight up to his hotel to give him a massage."

I see Al Michaels had to issue a quick apology for a Weinstein joke too on SNF.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7848
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #76 on: October 16, 2017, 07:44:28 PM »
Crazy they had to issue and apology. Must've gotten threatened by a big dildo.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5427
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #77 on: October 16, 2017, 08:30:28 PM »
It's not crazy at all, these days you can't fart crooked without having to issue an apology.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10542
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #78 on: October 17, 2017, 09:14:24 AM »

  Look, I know the reaction; I wasn't 100% or even 50% comfortable with the Trump presidency.  I didn't vote for him (and wouldn't now) and don't at all feel that someone's first elected office EVER should be as President of the United States of America.    I had concerns.   But they were never neatly and conveniently ever so cogent as "terror", ).

Why should your reaction be the universal one?

That's my point (and I think Kev got it too); there ISN'T a universal reaction.  We have 125 million voters, plus or minus, and you're going to tell me that literally half of them had EXACTLY the same reaction?   Margot Robbie and Zak Efron don't even get those kind of numbers.   


As for the "apologies", I'd love for one of these spineless late night hosts to stand up and explicitly refuse to apologise.   They are, as a group, the most pandering group of half-talent celebrities I've ever seen.  I'm surprised Stephen Colbert didn't apologize on behalf of Corden!    You'd never catch Johnny Carson apologizing.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 402
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #79 on: October 17, 2017, 09:18:56 AM »
their reaction is not all exactly the same, youíre the one making that claim. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10542
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #80 on: October 17, 2017, 01:37:24 PM »
their reaction is not all exactly the same, youíre the one making that claim.

Then why use the same word?     When millions and millions of people all use the same exact WORD to define their reaction, it's safe to say that the idea is to present a uniform reaction, whether it is or not (and by the way, I agree with you; it's not possible that EVERY anti-Trump person resorts to the same exact word to describe their feelings.   I know people who were IN 9/11 and didn't use "terrified" to describe their experience.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 402
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #81 on: October 17, 2017, 02:32:14 PM »
If itís impossible then why do you contend it happened?  I donít know what there is to be gained in this. 

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 851
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #82 on: October 17, 2017, 05:02:25 PM »
their reaction is not all exactly the same, youíre the one making that claim.

Then why use the same word?     When millions and millions of people all use the same exact WORD to define their reaction, it's safe to say that the idea is to present a uniform reaction, whether it is or not (and by the way, I agree with you; it's not possible that EVERY anti-Trump person resorts to the same exact word to describe their feelings.   I know people who were IN 9/11 and didn't use "terrified" to describe their experience.



I don't follow the point you're getting at here. As of this writing Trump has a 55.8% disapproval rating. That is 55.8% of the 3rd largest country in the world. Why are you dismissing that because of the use of a very common word. At any time search google news for the word 'terrified' and look at the results.

Hell, here's one I just found now from the politician you were convinced was going to be the next POTUS (over Trump) and you wanted to vote for:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/marco-rubio-asks-university-of-florida-students-to-stay-away-from-event-with-white-nationalist-leader/article/2637187

Marco Rubio‏ @marcorubio  Oct 11
Richard Spencer craves publicity.Desperate to incite outrage b/c terrified of @UF speech no one shows up for.  #Sayfie #GatorNation 1/2
#GatorNation not asking u to ignore his racist message.I am suggesting you embarrass him by denying him the attention he craves #Sayfie 2/2



I guarantee you that 55.8% of the country is not just basing all political thought on one word repeated ad nauseam. Constantly portraying them as the lowest common denominator is not only incorrect but also inhibiting any potential discussion into the actual gripes, which are many. And easy to find, including this thread*.



*edit: err... this board. I forgot which thread we were in a for a moment there.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2017, 05:14:27 PM by portnoy311 »

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5427
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #83 on: October 17, 2017, 06:13:43 PM »
Not sure what direction this thread is taking... but.... now that more and more women are coming out and discussing their experiences with sexual harassment, I think we need to qualify things a big. Jennifer Lawrence was told she needed to lose weight. Is this really sexual harassment?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10721
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #84 on: October 17, 2017, 06:40:19 PM »
Not sure what direction this thread is taking... but.... now that more and more women are coming out and discussing their experiences with sexual harassment, I think we need to qualify things a big. Jennifer Lawrence was told she needed to lose weight. Is this really sexual harassment?

I think in the context that she was 'asked' to strip naked save a couple strips of tape to cover her nipples and vagina and stand naked side by side other actresses.....told she needed to lose 15 pounds until some douche bag Exec. said that no she didn't....she was "perfectly fuc%able". I think that is more than sexual harassment....it's dehumanizing, but it's not surprising coming from that industry.

If you're just being a dick and telling your GF or Wife she needs to lose 15lbs it's not sexual harassment....you're just a tool and most likely 30 lbs overweight yourself.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 851
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #85 on: October 17, 2017, 06:47:38 PM »
Lena Headey's account of her encounter was pretty chilling. (She's Cersei from GoT, on top of many other roles, not Lena Dunham from Lena Dunham fame, it took me a while to realize who she was.)

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19434
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #86 on: October 17, 2017, 07:36:52 PM »
Not sure what direction this thread is taking... but.... now that more and more women are coming out and discussing their experiences with sexual harassment, I think we need to qualify things a big. Jennifer Lawrence was told she needed to lose weight. Is this really sexual harassment?

I think in the context that she was 'asked' to strip naked save a couple strips of tape to cover her nipples and vagina and stand naked side by side other actresses.....told she needed to lose 15 pounds until some douche bag Exec. said that no she didn't....she was "perfectly fuc%able". I think that is more than sexual harassment....it's dehumanizing, but it's not surprising coming from that industry.

If you're just being a dick and telling your GF or Wife she needs to lose 15lbs it's not sexual harassment....you're just a tool and most likely 30 lbs overweight yourself.
I don't disagree at all that it's dehumanizing and inappropriate. Since we're talking about context, though, it should be pointed out that it was a female casting agent who had her do it with other actresses auditioning for the role. Still wrong, but not some skeevy dude doing it for jollies. I'd also suggest that what she went through is not limited to that industry.
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 bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #87 on: October 18, 2017, 07:48:57 AM »
Not sure what direction this thread is taking... but.... now that more and more women are coming out and discussing their experiences with sexual harassment, I think we need to qualify things a big. Jennifer Lawrence was told she needed to lose weight. Is this really sexual harassment?

I think in the context that she was 'asked' to strip naked save a couple strips of tape to cover her nipples and vagina and stand naked side by side other actresses.....told she needed to lose 15 pounds until some douche bag Exec. said that no she didn't....she was "perfectly fuc%able". I think that is more than sexual harassment....it's dehumanizing, but it's not surprising coming from that industry.

If you're just being a dick and telling your GF or Wife she needs to lose 15lbs it's not sexual harassment....you're just a tool and most likely 30 lbs overweight yourself.
I don't disagree at all that it's dehumanizing and inappropriate. Since we're talking about context, though, it should be pointed out that it was a female casting agent who had her do it with other actresses auditioning for the role. Still wrong, but not some skeevy dude doing it for jollies. I'd also suggest that what she went through is not limited to that industry.

That all may be true.  But even so, that doesn't push it anywhere close to the line of "acceptable" or "not sexual harassment."
"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."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19434
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #88 on: October 18, 2017, 08:40:36 AM »
Not sure what direction this thread is taking... but.... now that more and more women are coming out and discussing their experiences with sexual harassment, I think we need to qualify things a big. Jennifer Lawrence was told she needed to lose weight. Is this really sexual harassment?

I think in the context that she was 'asked' to strip naked save a couple strips of tape to cover her nipples and vagina and stand naked side by side other actresses.....told she needed to lose 15 pounds until some douche bag Exec. said that no she didn't....she was "perfectly fuc%able". I think that is more than sexual harassment....it's dehumanizing, but it's not surprising coming from that industry.

If you're just being a dick and telling your GF or Wife she needs to lose 15lbs it's not sexual harassment....you're just a tool and most likely 30 lbs overweight yourself.
I don't disagree at all that it's dehumanizing and inappropriate. Since we're talking about context, though, it should be pointed out that it was a female casting agent who had her do it with other actresses auditioning for the role. Still wrong, but not some skeevy dude doing it for jollies. I'd also suggest that what she went through is not limited to that industry.

That all may be true.  But even so, that doesn't push it anywhere close to the line of "acceptable" or "not sexual harassment."
Sure. I was mostly just providing context. Although I will posit that, outside of the legal context, it's odd to have sexual harassment without any sexual element.

And just to play devil's advocate, would it have been acceptable if she were wearing a bikini? If you're casting for a role that involves sex appeal, and presumably something more revealing than a burlap sack, doesn't the studio have a right to know (not sure how else to put this) what they're getting?
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 bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #89 on: October 18, 2017, 09:00:55 AM »
Not sure what direction this thread is taking... but.... now that more and more women are coming out and discussing their experiences with sexual harassment, I think we need to qualify things a big. Jennifer Lawrence was told she needed to lose weight. Is this really sexual harassment?

I think in the context that she was 'asked' to strip naked save a couple strips of tape to cover her nipples and vagina and stand naked side by side other actresses.....told she needed to lose 15 pounds until some douche bag Exec. said that no she didn't....she was "perfectly fuc%able". I think that is more than sexual harassment....it's dehumanizing, but it's not surprising coming from that industry.

If you're just being a dick and telling your GF or Wife she needs to lose 15lbs it's not sexual harassment....you're just a tool and most likely 30 lbs overweight yourself.
I don't disagree at all that it's dehumanizing and inappropriate. Since we're talking about context, though, it should be pointed out that it was a female casting agent who had her do it with other actresses auditioning for the role. Still wrong, but not some skeevy dude doing it for jollies. I'd also suggest that what she went through is not limited to that industry.

That all may be true.  But even so, that doesn't push it anywhere close to the line of "acceptable" or "not sexual harassment."
Sure. I was mostly just providing context. Although I will posit that, outside of the legal context, it's odd to have sexual harassment without any sexual element.

And just to play devil's advocate, would it have been acceptable if she were wearing a bikini? If you're casting for a role that involves sex appeal, and presumably something more revealing than a burlap sack, doesn't the studio have a right to know (not sure how else to put this) what they're getting?

Well, admittedly, I think it gets a bit fuzzy.  And I think there's a LOT of context that is important.  Let's even take it a step further and say it is a role that requires a nude sex scene.  Would a nude lineup be appropriate in that case?  Speaking strictly legally and not necessarily morally, I think there are definitely ways to make it "okay" in the eyes of the law.  For example, if it were advertised beforehand that that was the case, and if there wasn't an explicit or implicit threat that she would be blacklisted or denied roles in the future if she didn't "play ball," and if there weren't comments along the lines of the comments supposedly made to Jennifer Lawrence, I think the studio would be on fairly solid legal footing. 

Not sure if you are familiar, but the California case of Lyle v. Warner Brothers has some good discussion on that sort of issue.  That case was about a staffer who worked on Friends, and claimed that it was a very sexually charged environment where inappropriate speech and conduct went on all the time.  The studio argued that, basically, since the show was all about sexually active young people and contained sexual innuendo, that was part of the creative process, and it was well-known to all that that was an expectation of working on that particular show.  The court basically said that that was fine and that what was being alleged was not sexual harassment in that context (even though it very well could be in plenty of other contexts).  You can read it here if you care to:  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1437506.html
"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."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10542
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #90 on: October 18, 2017, 09:14:54 AM »
I kind of lean to el Barto on this.  Because it's a woman on the short end of the stick, I don't think that automatically qualifies it for "sexual harassment".   I think it can be inappropriate, tasteless, and even illegal, without being "sexual harassment".   

I do think, though, that "artistic vision" is often a euphemism for "being a dick".   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10542
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #91 on: October 18, 2017, 09:16:59 AM »
their reaction is not all exactly the same, youíre the one making that claim.

Then why use the same word?     When millions and millions of people all use the same exact WORD to define their reaction, it's safe to say that the idea is to present a uniform reaction, whether it is or not (and by the way, I agree with you; it's not possible that EVERY anti-Trump person resorts to the same exact word to describe their feelings.   I know people who were IN 9/11 and didn't use "terrified" to describe their experience.



I don't follow the point you're getting at here. As of this writing Trump has a 55.8% disapproval rating. That is 55.8% of the 3rd largest country in the world. Why are you dismissing that because of the use of a very common word. At any time search google news for the word 'terrified' and look at the results.

Hell, here's one I just found now from the politician you were convinced was going to be the next POTUS (over Trump) and you wanted to vote for:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/marco-rubio-asks-university-of-florida-students-to-stay-away-from-event-with-white-nationalist-leader/article/2637187

Marco Rubio‏ @marcorubio  Oct 11
Richard Spencer craves publicity.Desperate to incite outrage b/c terrified of @UF speech no one shows up for.  #Sayfie #GatorNation 1/2
#GatorNation not asking u to ignore his racist message.I am suggesting you embarrass him by denying him the attention he craves #Sayfie 2/2



I guarantee you that 55.8% of the country is not just basing all political thought on one word repeated ad nauseam. Constantly portraying them as the lowest common denominator is not only incorrect but also inhibiting any potential discussion into the actual gripes, which are many. And easy to find, including this thread*.



*edit: err... this board. I forgot which thread we were in a for a moment there.

Part of the problem is my other big beef:  trying to have an indepth political conversation on twitter.  I can barely understand those two lines.   That, in any other context, would be borderline illiteracy.   That's not discourse.  That's... I don't know what that is.   #embarrassing?  :)   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19434
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #92 on: October 18, 2017, 09:21:06 AM »
I kind of lean to el Barto on this.  Because it's a woman on the short end of the stick, I don't think that automatically qualifies it for "sexual harassment".   I think it can be inappropriate, tasteless, and even illegal, without being "sexual harassment".   
Well, the gender thing certainly plays into it. However, I don't think that's the defining factor. I think it comes down to whether or not a person considers himself to have been harassed. In some ways this is problematic, one law for all, and whatnot. In another way it's a very legitimate thing. I believe "unwanted" is a key component.

I'll read the Friends case during lunch. Seems interesting and I'm weird that way.
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 bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #93 on: October 18, 2017, 09:26:38 AM »
I kind of lean to el Barto on this.  Because it's a woman on the short end of the stick, I don't think that automatically qualifies it for "sexual harassment".   I think it can be inappropriate, tasteless, and even illegal, without being "sexual harassment".

Yes, of course it can be inappropriate, tasteless, and even illegal, without being "sexual harassment."  But you're sort of right and sort of wrong when you say "because it's a woman on the short end of the stick..."  Sexual harassment doesn't require that the harassment have a "sexual" component to it, although that certainly helps make the case.  It is harassment that is objectively offensive that is "because of the woman's/man's sex."  "Because of sex" is the legal standard.  According to the cases, doing a nude or semi-nude lineup and being referred to as "f@*$able" will ALWAYS meet that standard.  No question.  It's just a matter of whether the behavior is (1) objectively offensive, and (2) severe or pervasive enough to be considered "harassment."  Incidentally, requirement #2 would also likely ALWAYS be met with the type of conduct we are talking about here.  Where the context matters the most is the element of "objectively offensive."  That is a context-specific analysis, which is what the Friends case points out.  A sexually-charged environment where the vast majority of things discussed during the entire workday isn't going to be appropriate working in the stock room at Walmart.  It probably is appropriate (and, thus, NOT offensive to the reasonable person working in that environment) if your job is working on the script for Friends and the banter at issue is job-related.   
"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."

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #94 on: October 18, 2017, 11:26:53 AM »
I think the part about Jennifer Lawrance is that she was 15 when that happened.  Something about telling a 15 year she is fuckable and making her stand almost completely naked seems wrong to me.  I think we can name some real scenarios like Bosk did, but I find it hard to apply that to minors since even if they are engaged in a sex scene, they are not going to be shown naked.  Plus you don't need to see someone naked to know they are fuckable. 

I think the whole "what is sexual harassment" is actually a good discussion to have.  We do training at work and it's always a joke because it's almost always some ridiculous scenario.  But the real life scenarios are often not so black and white.  There's always a lot of grey area and context matters greatly. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19434
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #95 on: October 18, 2017, 11:41:13 AM »
I think the part about Jennifer Lawrance is that she was 15 when that happened.  Something about telling a 15 year she is fuckable and making her stand almost completely naked seems wrong to me.  I think we can name some real scenarios like Bosk did, but I find it hard to apply that to minors since even if they are engaged in a sex scene, they are not going to be shown naked.  Plus you don't need to see someone naked to know they are fuckable. 

I think the whole "what is sexual harassment" is actually a good discussion to have.  We do training at work and it's always a joke because it's almost always some ridiculous scenario.  But the real life scenarios are often not so black and white.  There's always a lot of grey area and context matters greatly.
Don't you remember Thora Birch's asymmetric knockers in American Beauty? She was a minor at the time. In fact, the knockers in question were an important component of her character and the movie. I'll also point out that the producer didn't tell J Lawrence that she was fuckable. He told the casting person that in JL's defense, presumably to put the matter to rest.

Again, it's creepy and should have been handled very differently. I'd just prefer that we treat this fairly. In the case of Weinstein it's pretty clear that he's a degenerate. I don't see the need to exaggerate or look for questionable examples to pile on.
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 cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #96 on: October 18, 2017, 11:46:39 AM »
I think the part about Jennifer Lawrance is that she was 15 when that happened.  Something about telling a 15 year she is fuckable and making her stand almost completely naked seems wrong to me.  I think we can name some real scenarios like Bosk did, but I find it hard to apply that to minors since even if they are engaged in a sex scene, they are not going to be shown naked.  Plus you don't need to see someone naked to know they are fuckable. 

I think the whole "what is sexual harassment" is actually a good discussion to have.  We do training at work and it's always a joke because it's almost always some ridiculous scenario.  But the real life scenarios are often not so black and white.  There's always a lot of grey area and context matters greatly.
Don't you remember Thora Birch's asymmetric knockers in American Beauty? She was a minor at the time. In fact, the knockers in question were an important component of her character and the movie. I'll also point out that the producer didn't tell J Lawrence that she was fuckable. He told the casting person that in JL's defense, presumably to put the matter to rest.

Again, it's creepy and should have been handled very differently. I'd just prefer that we treat this fairly. In the case of Weinstein it's pretty clear that he's a degenerate. I don't see the need to exaggerate or look for questionable examples to pile on.

I never saw that movie so I can't comment.  While you may not see a need to pile on, and I'm sure there is no "need" to do so, I think we are going to continue to see the pile on because it seems everyone now wants to get their story out.  I'm OK with it though, let's be open and fix the issues of the past.  I don't think someone's life should be ruined for calling someone fuckable, but it's the endless examples of a person doing similar (and for Harvery, much worse) actions that make me feel something needs to happen.

There's a few claims of actual rape from Harvey, I think that's important to get out and fix in the business.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25681
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #97 on: October 18, 2017, 11:51:54 AM »
I think the part about Jennifer Lawrance is that she was 15 when that happened.  Something about telling a 15 year she is fuckable and making her stand almost completely naked seems wrong to me.  I think we can name some real scenarios like Bosk did, but I find it hard to apply that to minors since even if they are engaged in a sex scene, they are not going to be shown naked.  Plus you don't need to see someone naked to know they are fuckable. 

I think the whole "what is sexual harassment" is actually a good discussion to have.  We do training at work and it's always a joke because it's almost always some ridiculous scenario.  But the real life scenarios are often not so black and white.  There's always a lot of grey area and context matters greatly.
Don't you remember Thora Birch's asymmetric knockers in American Beauty? She was a minor at the time. In fact, the knockers in question were an important component of her character and the movie. I'll also point out that the producer didn't tell J Lawrence that she was fuckable. He told the casting person that in JL's defense, presumably to put the matter to rest.

Again, it's creepy and should have been handled very differently. I'd just prefer that we treat this fairly. In the case of Weinstein it's pretty clear that he's a degenerate. I don't see the need to exaggerate or look for questionable examples to pile on.

In a lot of these cases, itís demonstrating the flaws in the system. I donít think the casting agent or whatever is facing any legal action or other ramifications. So I donít see this as a problem at all. Show how bad things are so they can be changed. Let people who seriously crossed the line face the consequences. Let everyone else be used as an example of what shouldnít be tolerated.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19434
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #98 on: October 18, 2017, 11:53:39 AM »
I think the part about Jennifer Lawrance is that she was 15 when that happened.  Something about telling a 15 year she is fuckable and making her stand almost completely naked seems wrong to me.  I think we can name some real scenarios like Bosk did, but I find it hard to apply that to minors since even if they are engaged in a sex scene, they are not going to be shown naked.  Plus you don't need to see someone naked to know they are fuckable. 

I think the whole "what is sexual harassment" is actually a good discussion to have.  We do training at work and it's always a joke because it's almost always some ridiculous scenario.  But the real life scenarios are often not so black and white.  There's always a lot of grey area and context matters greatly.
Don't you remember Thora Birch's asymmetric knockers in American Beauty? She was a minor at the time. In fact, the knockers in question were an important component of her character and the movie. I'll also point out that the producer didn't tell J Lawrence that she was fuckable. He told the casting person that in JL's defense, presumably to put the matter to rest.

Again, it's creepy and should have been handled very differently. I'd just prefer that we treat this fairly. In the case of Weinstein it's pretty clear that he's a degenerate. I don't see the need to exaggerate or look for questionable examples to pile on.

I never saw that movie so I can't comment.  While you may not see a need to pile on, and I'm sure there is no "need" to do so, I think we are going to continue to see the pile on because it seems everyone now wants to get their story out.  I'm OK with it though, let's be open and fix the issues of the past.  I don't think someone's life should be ruined for calling someone fuckable, but it's the endless examples of a person doing similar (and for Harvery, much worse) actions that make me feel something needs to happen.

There's a few claims of actual rape from Harvey, I think that's important to get out and fix in the business.
Fair enough. I'm good with that.

I think there should be some care with Weinstein, though, since to an objective observer questionable claims only weaken the case against him. While there are some actual rape allegations against him, those need to be considered at a different level. Dumping every pathetic, botched pickup attempt that he made into the fire doesn't help matters.


edit: This applies to Adami's point, as well, which I agree with.

edit2: And watch American Beauty, FFS. Fantastic film.
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 cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #99 on: October 18, 2017, 12:03:11 PM »
lol add it to my list

But I agree too that a rape story is not the same as telling someone they are fuckable and those allegations shouldn't just be lumped together.  As for Harvery's failed attempts at getting some of these girls, I think the part that is important about his attempts are wether the person was able to succeed working with him afterwards.  Some have claimed Miramax wouldn't work with them after they rejected Harvey.  I think that's pretty important and maybe more so than the actual attempt at having sexual conduct.  Someone being rejected isn't a news story, but the rejecting hurting someone's career is important, especially for Hollywood where that seems to have been the case for some people (and apparently goes beyond just a single Harvey). 

I'm also really curious in who actually accepted Harvey's sexual advances and what that may have gotten them in return.  I have to believe these actresses exist who benefitted from those hotel room experiences.  I haven't seen any come out about this though.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19434
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #100 on: October 18, 2017, 12:07:55 PM »
Seems to me that a lot of the allegations are coming from people who've had very successful films. It's impossible to say whether or not their career was better or worse as a result, but we can look and see that Kate Beckinsale and Rosanna Arquette are both successful despite telling him to fuck off.
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 Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10542
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #101 on: October 18, 2017, 12:48:24 PM »
Seems to me that a lot of the allegations are coming from people who've had very successful films. It's impossible to say whether or not their career was better or worse as a result, but we can look and see that Kate Beckinsale and Rosanna Arquette are both successful despite telling him to fuck off.

But not as successful as Gwyneth Paltrow, who perhaps didn't give him everything he wanted, but didn't blow the whistle on him either.   She has a golden statue because of her work with Weinstein and Miramax.   

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #102 on: October 18, 2017, 02:51:57 PM »
I'll also point out that the producer didn't tell J Lawrence that she was fuckable. He told the casting person that in JL's defense, presumably to put the matter to rest.

I get that that might arguably have been the context.  Let's assume for argument's sake that it was said with "good" intentions.  It's still a problem, and here's why: There was a potential for it to get back to her (which it did), and if it did, there's a reasonable probability that from her perspective, when she takes the entire series of events as a whole (i.e., the nude lineup, etc.), a reasonable person in her shoes could feel even more objectified and offended (which she apparently did).  In the eyes of the law, that is a problem.  And I subjectively think it should be a problem.


Oh, and I agree with Adami's post as well, and that's kind of where I thought we were going to begin with in discussing these other examples.  Yeah, I also think "piling on" is a problem.  But if there are widespread, systemic issues in the industry, and Weinstein's issues become the vehicle for shining a light on that to fix the whole batch, I think that's a good thing.
"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."

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5427
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #103 on: October 18, 2017, 03:01:55 PM »
.... a reasonable person in her shoes could feel even more objectified and offended (which she apparently did).  In the eyes of the law, that is a problem.  And I subjectively think it should be a problem.

It's against the law to "offend" someone?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #104 on: October 18, 2017, 03:16:04 PM »
.... a reasonable person in her shoes could feel even more objectified and offended (which she apparently did).  In the eyes of the law, that is a problem.  And I subjectively think it should be a problem.

It's against the law to "offend" someone?

If that offense is severe or pervasive enough that it rises to the level of creating a hostile work environment "because of sex," then yes.  Just being offended in general?  No.  Obviously.
"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."