Author Topic: Harvey Weinstein  (Read 5059 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #385 on: November 14, 2017, 01:42:36 PM »
Let me be clear:  I am not "refusing other perspectives".   Not at all.   What I'm doing, though, is explaining that the other perspectives don't give the full gamut of possibilities.    I'm also explaining that "the other perspectives" are fine for each person, up to the point that it affects other people's lives.  You can think what you want, and no one is saying otherwise; but you - or ME, for that matter, it applies to both of us - are entitled to punish other people based on our own "other perspectives".   

I'm reluctant to "agree to disagree"; we can stop the argument/debate if you like, that's fine, but I find it very problematic to "agree to disagree" to just ignore the constitutional rights of people because the subject is highly personal and emotional. 
Completely random observation, but you put a lot of spaces in between your sentences. Three or even four spaces. Seems to be pretty inconsistent too.

Anyway... it doesn't matter at all, it was just bugging me for a completely unnecessary and useless reason. Carry on! :)

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16176
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #386 on: November 14, 2017, 01:45:13 PM »
Absolutely none of that is comparable. Being fired and being shot are not the same thing. You have to stop with the straw man arguments.

You calling it street justice is an example of your strict legal perspective. I call it social change. Hence the agree to disagree. We just are viewing this from very different perspectives.



Also being shot does violate a constitutional right to life. Being fired or having a deal collapse does not.


Also, does all of this apply to people saying that Obama was a foreign born Muslim? I don't recall you having such strong objections to how all of that went down.
Both are happening. Social change is the fact that we're all evaluating our actions under a more enlightened (if somewhat arbitrary) standard. This is good. Street justice is deciding that Kevin Spacey shouldn't be allowed to work anymore because of something he might have done and because we didn't like the way he apologized for it. This is bullshit.

Exactly.  The difference being, of course, that I have an obligation to self-evaluate, but if I don't choose to act differently, or if my definition of "different" isn't the same as yours, you shouldn't have the right to bully me into complying with YOUR chosen standard.

I think the mob mentality is worth pointing out.  The outcry from people forces companies to make these moves.  The pressure from the general public sort of forces the hands of companies who, if they don't listen, have a real threat of losing business.  It's not just the current sexual abuse that leads to this type of reaction.  However, the reason these sexual abuse cases haven't lead me to say "hey that's not fair" is due to the way people like Kevin Spacey, have handled the allegations.  No denial, just pretty much acceptance.  To me, I think that feels fair.  Maybe it isn't, but this doesn't bother me. 

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 99
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #387 on: November 14, 2017, 02:01:56 PM »
Just throwing this out there.  If Spacey or Louis C.K. are feeling they are being treated unfairly by the companies that hired them or the companies that promote their work, can't they afford to hire an attorney to fight for those rights?

If they feel their reputations are being unfairly ruined or they are being slandered (or libeled? I always get that confused) then couldn't they sue whomever they feel is treating them unfairly?

I know Roy Moore has threatened to sue the Washington Post.  I hope he does.  I'd love to see what the attorneys for the Post do with that; god only knows what they'd find under discovery!  Somehow, I doubt he will though.  Time will tell.

I know that I can appreciate the difference between legal standards used in legal proceedings and the standards in the court of public opinion, but these celebrities typically have clauses built into their contracts (don't they?) that speaks to conduct unbecoming?  I'm certainly no attorney, but it seems to me if these guys felt they were being unfairly treated they could easily launch a lawsuit to protect their rights and reputations.  My question is, why haven't they?

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2601
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #388 on: November 14, 2017, 02:21:09 PM »
Not really, no.  4 issues that I can see:

1.  "Unfair" does not necessarily mean "illegal."

2.  The problem Stadler is alluding to is basically the principle of mob justice.  You can't sue the mob. 

3.  They could potentially sue the persons making the allegations.  But (1) kind of similar to the scenario you posted about yourself, Harmony, there are proof issues, and as difficult as the proof issues were in your scenario, it is even harder to prove a negative (i.e., what the accusers are saying happened didn't happen; therefore, the accusation is false; therefore, defamation); (2) the standard for a public figure to prove defamation is incredibly high; (3) even if Louis C.K. or Kevin Spacey, or whoever could win a lawsuit, those individuals don't have deep enough pockets to compensate those guys for any damage they have suffered, so a lawsuit is pointless.  You don't generally sue someone when the best possible outcome is that you are in worse financial shape than when you started because you can't actually recover anything even if you win, plus you now owe attorneys' fees.

4.  The damage is already done in terms of the loss suffered by the time it takes the legal system to work this out.  And, as pointed out above, there likely isn't any payout at the end of the day to compensate them even if they win.

I'm not defending these guys at all.  But just addressing your questions and saying that there isn't really a legal remedy in this situation. 
"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 Harmony

  • Posts: 99
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #389 on: November 14, 2017, 02:24:14 PM »
Wait a minute though.  I'm not necessarily talking about the victims being sued.  The companies who are pulling the films or refusing to distribute completed work.  Surely, they are fair game if these entertainers feel they are being treated unfairly.  No?

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #390 on: November 14, 2017, 02:31:17 PM »
The people who came forward,  Anthony Rapp for example,  holds no responsibility for what happened afterwards between Netflix and Kevin Spacey.   Could Spacey sue Netflix? I don'T know, maybe. 

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 99
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #391 on: November 14, 2017, 02:34:08 PM »
I assume Spacey had a contract with Netflix (House of Cards) and Sony (All the Money in the World).  That these companies are choosing to part ways with him, further damaging his reputation and income.  Why doesn't he have a case?

Louis C.K., same with distribution of "I Love You Daddy".

These companies have deep pockets.  They'd probably even settle to avoid a long drawn out lawsuit.  I get these are early days but I have a hard time believing these men don't have legal counsel advising them at this point.  If I were them, and I truly felt I was being hung out to dry without evidence, I'd certainly be paying legal fees to protect myself.  Maybe they are?  Again, I guess time will tell.  These are powerful men who have a lot of money.  If anyone has the ability to protect their interests, it's them.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2601
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #392 on: November 14, 2017, 02:40:03 PM »
But the companies didn't do anything illegal.  That's what I was getting at in points 1 and 2.  If anyone did anything illegal in these scenarios (and that is a BIG "if," but we're speaking hypothetically here), it isn't the ones who could actually afford to pay.
"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: 19073
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #393 on: November 14, 2017, 03:48:03 PM »
It's also the case that the mob never thinks rationally. It behaves emotionally, and the idea of Spacey filing a lawsuit would only piss it off much more than it already is, thus increasing the damage he faces. Whether or not Spacey is or feels like he's being treated unfairly doesn't matter. His only move is to play the badguy and beg forgiveness. If he really didn't do anything wrong, make something up to apologize for. That's what the mob needs.
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 Harmony

  • Posts: 99
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #394 on: November 14, 2017, 04:19:27 PM »
But the companies didn't do anything illegal.  That's what I was getting at in points 1 and 2.  If anyone did anything illegal in these scenarios (and that is a BIG "if," but we're speaking hypothetically here), it isn't the ones who could actually afford to pay.

Breaking a contract wouldn't be illegal?  Even if it isn't criminal, isn't it something that can be litigated for damages?  If these companies are breaking contracts because of mere accusations or speculations, then I would think they have a case for defamation at the very least.

Look, I'm not trying to defend anyone here.  But I'm FAR away from seeing these guys as victims - even from "mob mentality".  These guys are not new to the court of public opinion.  These 2 specifically have made careers out of molding public opinion.  I'd be willing to bet hard earned money they understand PR better than anyone else on this thread, that's for sure.  They can spin it any way they want.  Nobody loves a comeback story more than the American public.  IF these guys are innocent.....IF these guys are being shafted unfairly and their livelihoods threatened in the fall out, they ought to stand up for themselves.  They can afford legal counsel.  They are powerful men in the industry.  Again, why wouldn't they wish to clear their good names???

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 623
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #395 on: November 14, 2017, 05:01:36 PM »
Looks like Spacey is gonna sue Netflix...

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9329
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #396 on: November 14, 2017, 05:20:00 PM »
And I agree, though the people didn't decide Kevin Spacey will never work again. The companies did. It was made under social pressure which can easily just be ignored, but that would be bad business.


I would like to add that with some extreme exceptions, I think we really should be moving toward social change with an emphasis on forgiveness and change. Change is the key word. We're laying out new standards, let's let some of these people change. I don't feel about getting rid of Weinstein. But Louis CK? Kevin Spacey? Let them adapt and change. Let's try to make things better, not just try to hurt those who have hurt us.

Though I also view the criminal justice similarly. I want change for the better, not just hurting bad people.

Well said,   and I can recognize that the current climate is bordering on hysteria and un-receptive to second chances or possibility of redemption.

It all sort of feeds into the schadenfreude the court of public opinion has in terms of seeing a high profile person fall from grace that I doubt most people actually want to see any redemption.

It also seems to be getting to the point where your average person doesn't even need to see an article but just see a passing Facebook post or tweet announcing some new accusation and, without even bothering to verify it, just assumes it's true and joins the mob. I'm not trying to say that to defend anyone being accused or discredit any accuser but it's sort of disturbing how little it takes to change someone's mindset and that person doesn't do the intelligent thing and maybe do a little digging to see what's actually going on.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 99
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #397 on: November 14, 2017, 05:21:38 PM »
I don't know who any of these people are, but apparently, it can be done.  http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/gaslamp-killer-sues-rape-accusers-for-defamation-w511699

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 26076
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #398 on: November 14, 2017, 07:33:18 PM »
Looks like Spacey is gonna sue Netflix...

This is no way a defense of Kevin Spacey and his actions, but I suspect he has a case.  Netflix basically fired him because of unproven allegations and likely to avoid a public backlash.  The fact that the allegations are likely true won't matter in court. I doubt they can just break his contract just like that.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25293
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #399 on: November 14, 2017, 07:47:09 PM »
Totally cool with him suing Netflix.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2601
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #400 on: November 14, 2017, 07:58:32 PM »
I don't know who any of these people are, but apparently, it can be done.  http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/gaslamp-killer-sues-rape-accusers-for-defamation-w511699

Yes, legally, they can.  But whether there is any practical reason to or actual probability of success is another matter entirely, which is what I was getting at.
"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 sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 623
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #401 on: November 15, 2017, 06:19:13 AM »
Looks like Spacey is gonna sue Netflix...

This is no way a defense of Kevin Spacey and his actions, but I suspect he has a case.  Netflix basically fired him because of unproven allegations and likely to avoid a public backlash.  The fact that the allegations are likely true won't matter in court. I doubt they can just break his contract just like that.

"Sources close to the situation tell us the actor does not have a morality clause in his contract that would trigger a suspension or termination from the production based upon personal actions.

We're told Spacey's contract states the only way he can be suspended or fired from the show would be if he becomes "unavailable" or "incapacitated" to fulfill his obligations with production."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19073
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #402 on: November 15, 2017, 08:14:25 AM »
This is interesting. The Studio has a very reasonable and valid reason to want to sack him. "We got together with our accountants and crunched some numbers. We determined that it was in the studio's best interest to pull the plug now rather than to wait around for a possible backlash. There's no scenario where the show's viewership improves because of this, with tremendous potential for boycott. This is strictly a financial decision" Except that Spacey's contract probably precludes them from making this quite reasonable move. Therefore they switch to plan B: "We won't continue to employ this degenerate, wannabe child rapist. He's not our kind of people." This viewpoint is bullshit, but one that's potentially viable for them.
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: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #403 on: November 15, 2017, 08:15:01 PM »
But the companies didn't do anything illegal.  That's what I was getting at in points 1 and 2.  If anyone did anything illegal in these scenarios (and that is a BIG "if," but we're speaking hypothetically here), it isn't the ones who could actually afford to pay.

Breaking a contract wouldn't be illegal?  Even if it isn't criminal, isn't it something that can be litigated for damages?  If these companies are breaking contracts because of mere accusations or speculations, then I would think they have a case for defamation at the very least.

Look, I'm not trying to defend anyone here.  But I'm FAR away from seeing these guys as victims - even from "mob mentality".  These guys are not new to the court of public opinion.  These 2 specifically have made careers out of molding public opinion.  I'd be willing to bet hard earned money they understand PR better than anyone else on this thread, that's for sure.  They can spin it any way they want.  Nobody loves a comeback story more than the American public.  IF these guys are innocent.....IF these guys are being shafted unfairly and their livelihoods threatened in the fall out, they ought to stand up for themselves.  They can afford legal counsel.  They are powerful men in the industry.  Again, why wouldn't they wish to clear their good names???

For the record, I'm not losing any sleep specifically over Kevin Spacey or Louis CK, but the law and it's protections work for all of us.   There are certain bells that simply cannot be unrung, and this is one of them.

I would also point us back to when the few smatterings of accusations came out against Trump claiming he was a sexual predator, after the infamous Billy Bush tapes, and he immediately said he'd sue.   Two things happened:   one, he took a RASH of shit from SJWs about the audacity of attacking a victim (such shit obviously assuming, as a matter of course, that they were legit claims and he was already guilty), and two, the accusations largely dried up.  I think both of those things are telling in their own way.

I can recount a personal story here.   I told some of you that a couple weeks ago, a friend of mine - who owned and operated a day care center, one that my daughter would go to on odd occasions - was arrested for allegedly having unlawful sexual intercourse with a five year old boy and a five year old girl in his care.    Even if he is acquitted of all charges, I can tell you that just out of precaution, my daughter would never be alone with that guy ever again, under any circumstances.   The stink of these types of accusations linger. 

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 99
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #404 on: November 16, 2017, 09:08:01 AM »
This story just broke.  I was just going to post the photo without commentary, but I guess I don't know how to do that, so I'll post the link.

http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/


Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #405 on: November 16, 2017, 09:16:47 AM »
This story just broke.  I was just going to post the photo without commentary, but I guess I don't know how to do that, so I'll post the link.

http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/

That'S pretty shitty, he's got some real explaining to do.  If he admits it, owns it and apoligizes he might have a chance to save his immediate political career, i.e. finish out his term but even then he should probably forget any other ambitions he may have had for the moment.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19299
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #406 on: November 16, 2017, 09:24:41 AM »
This story just broke.  I was just going to post the photo without commentary, but I guess I don't know how to do that, so I'll post the link.

http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/


Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19299
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #407 on: November 16, 2017, 09:25:35 AM »
The flood gates have been opened. This is isn't going to stop anytime soon. I just hope this comes to an end without Tom Hanks or Betty White being outed.

Offline Kattelox

  • Child of the Wild
  • Posts: 796
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #408 on: November 16, 2017, 09:28:07 AM »
If Tim Honks gets outed, it's game over, there's no more good in the world.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 99
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #409 on: November 16, 2017, 09:34:16 AM »
Franken has issued an apology.  “I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann. As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn't. I shouldn't have done it.”

I'd like to say that I have no desire to 'slut shame' every guy who's ever been inappropriate with a woman.  My desire is purely to move the societal "norm" of it being acceptable, even encouraged!, toward it being wholly unacceptable and an aberration.

Once again, I'm glad the issue is being talked about.

And leave Tom Hanks out of it.   ;)

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19073
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #410 on: November 16, 2017, 09:55:23 AM »
Not defending Franken here, but since we're discussing appropriate norms and whatnot, I'm curious about something. Does the photo represent anything sexual? Seems to me to be high jinks related. More importantly, does that matter? To be honest I think it should. We're compiling quite a roster of sexual predators and deviants this month. I'm not sympathetic to any of them, but I do think we should consider why we slap the label on them.
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 lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #411 on: November 16, 2017, 10:02:49 AM »
I also think that acting, particularly comedy or improvisation, can be difficult as well. When playing a character, there may be certain actions that seem appropriate that normally wouldn't be. Now obviously, the ground rules should be set before starting to ensure everyone's on the same page and no lines are crossed. I can understand why a person who otherwise wouldn't dream of doing anything questionable would maybe get carried away when in character. None of this is necessarily saying what Franken did is OK, I don't know the details.

It makes me think of the US version of The Office. There's an episode where a character comes out as gay and Michael Scott kisses him to show he's comfortable with him being gay. It was completely unscripted and the actor did not know it was coming. It was a funny moment and the actor obviously didn't mind so it made it into the episode, but it easily could be one of these instances we're now hearing about where an actor kissed and touches someone in an unwanted way.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 99
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #412 on: November 16, 2017, 10:14:09 AM »
Not defending Franken here, but since we're discussing appropriate norms and whatnot, I'm curious about something. Does the photo represent anything sexual? Seems to me to be high jinks related. More importantly, does that matter? To be honest I think it should. We're compiling quite a roster of sexual predators and deviants this month. I'm not sympathetic to any of them, but I do think we should consider why we slap the label on them.

It's a good question [about the photo].  It isn't clear if he is touching her at all, more like posing as if he was going to touch her.

To me, the story she tells is worse than the photo.  Forced kissing in rehearsal where tongue is used?  What is the point of that?  And then her obviously feeling he targeted her in anger - which is her feeling obviously.  I don't know if that is true or not, but a lot women feel targeted after they stand up for themselves as she said she did.

As for slapping a label on these men, I don't think for the victims it is about that.  It may be for the media.  But for the victims it is about telling their story, getting it off their chest.  Some of these women, like me and my story, have held onto these feelings and memories for years.  They felt shamed, disgusted, unsupported, belittled, maligned FOR YEARS.  Now we are in an environment where the stories are allowed to be shared, allowed to be told.  There is some healing going on.  Maybe for some, a sense of these guys getting their comeuppance finally.

It's like the guy in Network.  "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"  At least to take it to the extreme.  Personally, I'm not "mad as hell" but I do feel like yes, the floodgates are opened.  And it won't ever go back to the way it was.  And I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19073
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #413 on: November 16, 2017, 10:57:03 AM »
Not defending Franken here, but since we're discussing appropriate norms and whatnot, I'm curious about something. Does the photo represent anything sexual? Seems to me to be high jinks related. More importantly, does that matter? To be honest I think it should. We're compiling quite a roster of sexual predators and deviants this month. I'm not sympathetic to any of them, but I do think we should consider why we slap the label on them.

It's a good question [about the photo].  It isn't clear if he is touching her at all, more like posing as if he was going to touch her.

To me, the story she tells is worse than the photo.  Forced kissing in rehearsal where tongue is used?  What is the point of that?  And then her obviously feeling he targeted her in anger - which is her feeling obviously.  I don't know if that is true or not, but a lot women feel targeted after they stand up for themselves as she said she did.

As for slapping a label on these men, I don't think for the victims it is about that.  It may be for the media.  But for the victims it is about telling their story, getting it off their chest.  Some of these women, like me and my story, have held onto these feelings and memories for years.  They felt shamed, disgusted, unsupported, belittled, maligned FOR YEARS.  Now we are in an environment where the stories are allowed to be shared, allowed to be told.  There is some healing going on.  Maybe for some, a sense of these guys getting their comeuppance finally.


It's like the guy in Network.  "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"  At least to take it to the extreme.  Personally, I'm not "mad as hell" but I do feel like yes, the floodgates are opened.  And it won't ever go back to the way it was.  And I don't think that's a bad thing at all.
I agree with both parts. I'm sure "labeling" him wasn't her intention at all and I'm fine with her speaking out about it. However the mob certainly does care about labeling, and it doesn't care about facts or nuance. That's why I'm concerned about the picture. People getting bent out of shape on facebook and twitter aren't going to raise the point I did about its nature, sexual or not, and the few who do will get shouted down. From her standpoint it's all about The Bigger Picture, so I understand her throwing the photo into the mix. I just don't think we're really capable of separating these things out right now, which is a legitimate problem.

BTW, your presence in this thread has been quite beneficial. Glad you're participating.
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 Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25293
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #414 on: November 16, 2017, 11:01:27 AM »
Al Franken needs to be fired. Hell, he needs all of his back pay removed. I say we repossess his belongings as well, maybe invalidate his marriage. Ah screw it, let's just burn him alive.

I wonder if that would help.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 362
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #415 on: November 16, 2017, 11:06:09 AM »
Al Franken needs to be fired. Hell, he needs all of his back pay removed. I say we repossess his belongings as well, maybe invalidate his marriage. Ah screw it, let's just burn him alive.

I wonder if that would help.

 :rollin

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1441
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #416 on: November 16, 2017, 11:06:56 AM »
Franken releases new statement, calls for ethics investigation of himself

Quote
“The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women. There's more I want to say, but the first and most important thing—and if it's the only thing you care to hear, that's fine—is: I'm sorry.
“I respect women. I don't respect men who don't. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.
“But I want to say something else, too. Over the last few months, all of us—including and especially men who respect women—have been forced to take a good, hard look at our own actions and think (perhaps, shamefully, for the first time) about how those actions have affected women.
“For instance, that picture. I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn't matter. There's no excuse. I look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn't funny. It's completely inappropriate. It's obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what's more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me.
“Coming from the world of comedy, I've told and written a lot of jokes that I once thought were funny but later came to realize were just plain offensive. But the intentions behind my actions aren't the point at all. It's the impact these jokes had on others that matters. And I'm sorry it's taken me so long to come to terms with that.
“While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.
“I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.
“And the truth is, what people think of me in light of this is far less important than what people think of women who continue to come forward to tell their stories. They deserve to be heard, and believed. And they deserve to know that I am their ally and supporter. I have let them down and am committed to making it up to them.”

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19073
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #417 on: November 16, 2017, 11:09:37 AM »
That's why the man's a senator.
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 Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19299
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #418 on: November 16, 2017, 11:14:03 AM »
“I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate. And the truth is, what people think of me in light of this is far less important than what people think of women who continue to come forward"

That could just be the politician in him talking, but I really hope (I think he is) he's sincere with those words. You really can't ask for anything more. Good on him for saying that.

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1441
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #419 on: November 16, 2017, 11:39:32 AM »
Quote
“But I want to say something else, too. Over the last few months, all of us—including and especially men who respect women—have been forced to take a good, hard look at our own actions and think (perhaps, shamefully, for the first time) about how those actions have affected women.

Of course Franken's apology is meant to try to do damage control and put himself in the best light possible - that's pretty much expected from anyone if something like this appears, and to be honest is pretty much right.

But I think he also addresses the issue well, and it's good that he touches on this, which I've been thinking myself following the discussion in this thread, in particular about what exactly we actually want to achieve in the midst of this. For the most clear cut and heinous cases, it really should be a chance to open up the potential for prosecution. If someone committed rape, that should be prosecuted. If someone committed sexual assault, then that should be prosecuted. If someone engaged in sexual harassment in their job, they should lose their job.

But there's a wide range of... misconduct, for a lack of a better word, that can occur, and I think to lump all of it under the same terminology can be damaging. Inappropriate remarks aren't the same as sexual assault. Creepily touching someone isn't the same as rape. All of them might be wrong, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend we can't see the difference between them. And not making the distinction encourages all or nothing thinking that can prevent any actual progress.

There's a lot of media coverage of these issues right now, which is good because it means there is more attention being paid and hopefully people can speak out more. But when it comes to, what I would categorise as the less extreme cases of sexual misconduct, my personal feeling is it's more important that we can change attitudes moving forward than directing the outrage at particular individuals for past actions. Especially as, potentially, that could just be a way for people to scapegoat the issue onto those individuals "See? We got ___, ___, ___,  everyone got out their outrage at them on the internet, we fixed the problem"

I can't help but think there's something in there about believing accusers as well. There were discussions here about how it can be dangerous to simply "100% believe the victim", even though it's not in a legal sense, because an accusation can have devastating consequences even if it never reaches a court. I don't know if that's a problem that will ever be resolved, but maybe one adjustment that can be made is not the idea of "how much we believe the victim", but in terms of "how quickly and intensely we respond to an accusation, even if we believe it".

I would hope that the extreme cases that have gone unreported can have the opportunity to have the light shone on them, and for people that deserve it to face consequences - whether they are legal or just in terms of reputation and career. But I would also hope that when it comes to the less obvious examples of "misconduct", what can happen is that people start to realise things that were perhaps brushed off before actually are inappropriate. And that includes the individuals that are made a public example for it - if they actually want to adjust and learn from it and more forward in a way that is helpful on the issue, I would hope they have the opportunity to do so.

Edit: I know this post is a bit of unfocused rambling, I just wanted to write something about some of the thoughts I've had following this discussion but not really had a clear enough point in mind to want to post anything  :lol
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 11:46:10 AM by RuRoRul »