DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: cramx3 on October 11, 2017, 02:00:59 PM

Title: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 11, 2017, 02:00:59 PM
Since I saw talk in the political humor thread and PR side chat, figured maybe this should get a thread of it's own.

While sexual deeds for job advancement isn't anything new in the world we live in, I find it more interesting how this appears to be an open secret in Hollywood. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: lonestar on October 11, 2017, 02:12:21 PM
From Sean Astin's Facebook....


"HARVEY WEINSTEIN  - - My view

Beyond treating women in a vile, possibly criminal manner, I believe that Harvey Weinstein is a vicious bully who uses rage and the threat of rage to intimidate many many people. I’ve experienced some of his disrespectful (at best) behavior, with my own eyes and spoken to friends and colleagues who came into contact with the man. It is known that Harvey routinely eviscerates filmmakers, producers, agents and performers. Ranting and raving is the guy’s steady state. I think that he is a mean thug with a vindictive and menacing approach to anyone who gets in his way. Such is his reputation.

Rape and sexual perversion, sexual menacing, sexual intimidation are disgusting and where criminal, deserving of prosecution. The thought of Harvey Weinstein behind bars is deeply satisfying, if not fully enlightened.

Everyone is asking how it’s possible that his behavior was allowed to endure for so long. The suggestion is that somehow, women and girls who were subjected to Harvey’s grotesque behavior are in some way complicit. Low hanging media fruit is to attack politicians for accepting donations and other fundraising help from the legendary industry predator.

It’s a pervasive culture. That’s the cry. Everyone says, it’s time for the conversation to start. That ol’ chestnut. The basic themes and salacious reporting usually turn back in on itself and the so called conversation stalls. We all revere successful businessmen. So called “powerbrokers” are lifted up in many ways, financially, socially, politically, personally. All manner of bad behavior is tolerated as long as the hits keep coming, as long as business thrives.

The women who’ve been abused and the women who have spoken out should be celebrated for their courage. I also think that every single person who was bullied and abused in business by Harvey Weinstein should also speak out.

If the story starts and stops with Harvey’s sexual abuses and doesn’t expand to include the heinous behavior that he visited on women and men, in countless ways, throughout the entertainment industry, the full story will not have been told and the opportunity to change the culture will have been left wanting.

This is my hunch, my instinct and my intuition, informed by working for a few decades in the industry, a few direct experiences with him and many many more stories that were very close to me. Harvey was one of the Executive Producers of Lord of the Rings. A couple of years ago, Harvey behaved in an aggressive, insulting and basically rude manner with me on a call. He wanted something from me. I listened politely. I spoke respectfully. And I told him no.

Sincerely,
Sean"


Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 11, 2017, 05:07:14 PM
Yup. Yup. And now Ben Affleck

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/entertainment/ben-affleck-apology/index.html
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on October 11, 2017, 05:09:41 PM
Is anyone really surprised by this nonsense going on in Hollywood?  It's sad, but predictable.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 11, 2017, 05:14:05 PM
Is anyone really surprised by this nonsense going on in Hollywood?  It's sad, but predictable.

Thats not the point. Its the fact they covered it up.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on October 11, 2017, 05:16:52 PM
That's not surprising either.

People with money and power will always do whatever it takes to protect their interests.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 11, 2017, 05:23:44 PM
Did they actively cover it up or did they just look the other way? 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: The King in Crimson on October 11, 2017, 07:05:08 PM
That's not surprising either.

People with money and power will always do whatever it takes to protect their interests.
The fact that it happens anywhere, even the supposed bastion of "liberal egalitarianism" that is Hollywood, is not particularly surprising especially when you consider the large sums of money involved. Surprise! Hypocrisy and sleaze abound in Hollywood, news at ten.

Did they actively cover it up or did they just look the other way? 
Unknown, but at some point, does the distinction really matter? I mean, I'm not going to do something as gross as equating a person who remains silent on such an issue as being as bad as the actual perpetrator, but... I don't know, it seems to be such a gray area to me. Lots of those people might have well-thought-out reasons for not saying anything (I'm not going to say "good" reasons), they might not believe the rumors, might not have any evidence, they might be under an NDA or contract of some sort, but other people have taken larger steps to expose wrongdoing at greater personal risk before so these reasons might not seem defensible to some of us. I don't know, like I said, big gray area there.

That said, at least we can all agree that Weinstein is a piece of shit and hopefully his ouster is another crack in the old boy's club mentality that seems to pervade so many industries still to this day.

To inject a bit more levity into a largely depressing subject, giant colostomy bag covered in human skin, Tucker Carlson, is going whole-hog down the Weinstein rabbit hole and is (because of course he is...) bringing Hillary into it (https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/917908517016801284). In true Pavlovian fashion, he just can't resist fucking that chicken.

But where oh where was his indignant, moral outrage when similar facts came to light about Ailes and O'Reilly? Just like his journalistic integrity, it was nowhere to be seen, but hey, at least he did learn that maybe, just maybe there might be some truth to this whole "sexual harassment" thing, even if it was 'made up by Democrats (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/16205081/ns/msnbc-the_ed_show/t/tucker-dec/#.Wd6-oGhSyHt).'
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 11, 2017, 07:12:20 PM
Did they actively cover it up or did they just look the other way? 
Unknown, but at some point, does the distinction really matter?

I get what youre saying, but I do think it matters in terms of understanding the situation and how it came to be after all these years with so many people apparently knowing about it.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on October 11, 2017, 07:16:58 PM
Did they actively cover it up or did they just look the other way?

It's bad either way, in this case or Joe Paterno's.:P

That's not surprising either.

People with money and power will always do whatever it takes to protect their interests.
The fact that it happens anywhere, even the supposed bastion of "liberal egalitarianism" that is Hollywood, is not particularly surprising especially when you consider the large sums of money involved. Surprise! Hypocrisy and sleaze abound in Hollywood, news at ten.

So true.  I will chuckle a lot if that hypocritical sleaze Ben Affleck goes down in flames.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 11, 2017, 07:44:01 PM
Did they actively cover it up or did they just look the other way?

It's bad either way, in this case or Joe Paterno's.:P


It is bad either way, but this did leave me to think about the Sandusky/Paterno situation as well.  The idea of people looking the other way and why/how that happens. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: The King in Crimson on October 11, 2017, 07:54:51 PM
Did they actively cover it up or did they just look the other way? 
Unknown, but at some point, does the distinction really matter?

I get what youre saying, but I do think it matters in terms of understanding the situation and how it came to be after all these years with so many people apparently knowing about it.
Oh, I agree, there definitely needs to be some nuance in this. I mean everyone who turned a blind eye and "knew" about the offenses may not have truly known about them. They may have simply heard about it but not believed them or may have been coerced into silence with threats. Not all silence is equal in maliciousness, I think. But, someone who 100% knew about them and did nothing because Weinstein was a friend or some other reason, is that person really any better than the person who actively helps to cover it up? I mean, at that point, isn't the silence actively helping the cover-up?

I think when you get as many egos and as much power and money in one place as Hollywood (or any other place where the rich and powerful convene), it's no surprise when corruption, sleaze, and entitlement come to roost. Money talks, after all, many times much louder than anyone or anything else.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: TL on October 11, 2017, 10:20:12 PM
This is, very unfortunately, not surprising. The movie industry hides a lot of horrible secrets.
Obviously every bit of this is horrible and unacceptable. The man is a sack of shit. None of his accomplishments should shield him from that condemnation.
I also hope it comes to light anybody who helped him hide this kind of horrible behavior. We may lose a few actors we like in all of this, but if they shielded this kind of thing, they should fall with him.


Edit:

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?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 11, 2017, 10:25:20 PM
This is something to think about.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/22179/flashback-michelle-obama-praised-wonderful-human-ryan-saavedra

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: TL on October 11, 2017, 10:27:50 PM
This is something to think about.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/22179/flashback-michelle-obama-praised-wonderful-human-ryan-saavedra
Because all people know everything about every other human being from every point in their lives ever.

Come on dude. It's possible to like someone because you didn't know some fucked up thing about them they were hiding from the public. If we find out anyone was helping hide this knowingly, I will absolutely condemn them, but let's not expect people to be fucking psychic.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 11, 2017, 10:29:02 PM
This is something to think about.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/22179/flashback-michelle-obama-praised-wonderful-human-ryan-saavedra

Why does that matter? Do you know every secret of everyone you know?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on October 11, 2017, 10:30:10 PM
I agree, I doubt the Obamas knew what was going on with Weinstein. That was just your typical Hollywood/liberal politician love connection.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 11, 2017, 10:32:34 PM
I agree, I doubt the Obamas knew what was going on with Weinstein. That was just your typical Hollywood/liberal politician love connection.

You know, you've been on a very very strong anti-liberal thing lately. It doesn't seem necessary to make your points.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 11, 2017, 10:35:25 PM
Out of curiosity, just how far back do we go with our indignation? This has been going on and people have been looking the other way for nearly a century. Weinstein's the Hitler de jour, so be it. I'm fine with that. But to assume that singling him out makes us better overlooks scores of years of systematic abuse that we were all keen to not look at. Where was the castigation when one of those Corey's tried to go public? People ignored him. Latoya Jackson has some pretty good reasons for resenting the industry and trying to protect her niece. "Eh, she's just another crazy Jackson." How many actresses got pimped out back in the studio system, an aspect of film-making we try not to discuss? Does anybody really think the DeNiros, the Nicholsons, the Pacinos, haven't been up to some sordid shit in their careers? Yet they're heroes.

Again, this isn't defending Weinstein. I'm glad times have changed enough for this to be a thing. I just think the degree of outrage we're seeing now is masturbatory. It feels good to be outraged, but it's completely superficial.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on October 11, 2017, 10:37:21 PM
I agree, I doubt the Obamas knew what was going on with Weinstein. That was just your typical Hollywood/liberal politician love connection.

You know, you've been on a very very strong anti-liberal thing lately. It doesn't seem necessary to make your points.

 ???  I don't think it's anti-liberal to say that Hollywood and liberal politicians often come together in support of one another.  The outspoken Hollywood elite are very liberal, and the Democrats are always more than willing to embrace them as a result.  Not sure what the big deal is with pointing that out.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 11, 2017, 10:39:34 PM
Just my observation. Maybe I'm off.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 11, 2017, 10:40:05 PM
Out of curiosity, just how far back do we go with our indignation? This has been going on and people have been looking the other way for nearly a century. Weinstein's the Hitler de jour, so be it. I'm fine with that. But to assume that singling him out makes us better overlooks scores of years of systematic abuse that we were all keen to not look at. Where was the castigation when one of those Corey's tried to go public? People ignored him. Latoya Jackson has some pretty good reasons for resenting the industry and trying to protect her niece. "Eh, she's just another crazy Jackson." How many actresses got pimped out back in the studio system, an aspect of film-making we try not to discuss? Does anybody really think the DeNiros, the Nicholsons, the Pacinos, haven't been up to some sordid shit in their careers? Yet they're heroes.

Again, this isn't defending Weinstein. I'm glad times have changed enough for this to be a thing. I just think the degree of outrage we're seeing now is masturbatory. It feels good to be outraged, but it's completely superficial.

I'm sure there are other exectutives that have done this. Its abuse of power. The power to say. Do this or else you'll lose your job or worse. They have that control over these people. And now hes been exposed. Its like they feel relieved and can finally say something about it all. Not just Weinstein.. Who knows? Will others be outed? We'll see...

I'm not saying I know but its odd how people turned a blind eye to it. And now are treating it like its no big deal, we know its going on.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: The King in Crimson on October 11, 2017, 10:40:42 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on October 11, 2017, 10:42:22 PM
Just my observation. Maybe I'm off.

Your observation is noted.  I tend to be very much of a centrist, and I know I can occasionally come off as anti-liberal or anti-conservative, depending on the topic.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: TL on October 11, 2017, 10:43:19 PM
Out of curiosity, just how far back do we go with our indignation? This has been going on and people have been looking the other way for nearly a century. Weinstein's the Hitler de jour, so be it. I'm fine with that. But to assume that singling him out makes us better overlooks scores of years of systematic abuse that we were all keen to not look at. Where was the castigation when one of those Corey's tried to go public? People ignored him. Latoya Jackson has some pretty good reasons for resenting the industry and trying to protect her niece. "Eh, she's just another crazy Jackson." How many actresses got pimped out back in the studio system, an aspect of film-making we try not to discuss? Does anybody really think the DeNiros, the Nicholsons, the Pacinos, haven't been up to some sordid shit in their careers? Yet they're heroes.

Again, this isn't defending Weinstein. I'm glad times have changed enough for this to be a thing. I just think the degree of outrage we're seeing now is masturbatory. It feels good to be outraged, but it's completely superficial.
First, no, Weinstein isn't a scapegoat of sorts for sexual harassment and assault. Anyone else who has been engaging in this sort of heinous activity should be exposed and held to account. It's awful that reports have been ignored in the past. They shouldn't have. Hopefully this brings more things to light, since there is unfortunately almost definitely a lot more of this kind of thing out there. I honestly don't know what the hell your attempted point is.

Also, as awful as Weinstein's discretions were (and they were completely abhorrent), " Weinstein's the Hitler de jour "? Fuck off dude. Seriously.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 11, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
Uh, well that was unexpected.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: TL on October 11, 2017, 10:46:44 PM
Uh, well that was unexpected.
You brought out a Hitler comparison. You don't get to play the victim here.

Edit: Weinstein's behavior is horrible, but not grounds for diminishing the horrific deaths of millions of innocent people.

Edit edit: I apologize for getting so belligerent. Me telling you to fuck off was unwarranted. I'm sorry. Maybe though, let's keep the references to genocidal madmen to a minimum for now?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 11, 2017, 10:55:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 11, 2017, 10:57:46 PM
I think instead of worrying about making sure all people in the history of the Hollywood get theirs, we should focus on change moving forward. Creating an environment where this isn't tolerated and people are outed for it. If we can change things piece by piece moving forward, I think that's good, even if all the rest of the guys from the past don't get their comeuppance.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 11, 2017, 10:58:55 PM
Just my observation. Maybe I'm off.

Your observation is noted.  I tend to be very much of a centrist, and I know I can occasionally come off as anti-liberal or anti-conservative, depending on the topic.

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

Either way, based off your icon, I can assume you are least pro ditch-diggers.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: TL on October 11, 2017, 11:01:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: jammindude on October 11, 2017, 11:03:16 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 11, 2017, 11:03:31 PM
Out of curiosity, just how far back do we go with our indignation? This has been going on and people have been looking the other way for nearly a century. Weinstein's the Hitler de jour, so be it. I'm fine with that. But to assume that singling him out makes us better overlooks scores of years of systematic abuse that we were all keen to not look at. Where was the castigation when one of those Corey's tried to go public? People ignored him. Latoya Jackson has some pretty good reasons for resenting the industry and trying to protect her niece. "Eh, she's just another crazy Jackson." How many actresses got pimped out back in the studio system, an aspect of film-making we try not to discuss? Does anybody really think the DeNiros, the Nicholsons, the Pacinos, haven't been up to some sordid shit in their careers? Yet they're heroes.

Again, this isn't defending Weinstein. I'm glad times have changed enough for this to be a thing. I just think the degree of outrage we're seeing now is masturbatory. It feels good to be outraged, but it's completely superficial.

I'm sure there are other exectutives that have done this. Its abuse of power. The power to say. Do this or else you'll lose your job or worse. They have that control over these people. And now hes been exposed. Its like they feel relieved and can finally say something about it all. Not just Weinstein.. Who knows? Will others be outed? We'll see...

I'm not saying I know but its odd how people turned a blind eye to it. And now are treating it like its no big deal, we know its going on.
I just think the scope is bigger than what people realize. You say there were probably other executives doing this, but it's been the nature of the entire industry. I'd be more inclined to say "I'm sure there are other executives who weren't pulling this sort of thing." It just surprises me that this surprises anybody. Does the mainstream public think the casting couch wasn't really a thing? Or that it disappeared in the 70's? It's been more of a joke than anything for the public to get upset about. Now people have suddenly gone from intentionally unaware to sharpening their pitchforks on a moment's notice.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: TL on October 11, 2017, 11:05:25 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.
This is a good point, and a good case for re-examining a lot of things from the entertainment history's past. People shouldn't be exempt from norms or laws just because they made an entertaining thing in the past. There are definitely cases of messed up things that happened in the past that were simply overlooked at the time for reasons of fame, that should be re-examined now.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: TL on October 11, 2017, 11:13:12 PM
Out of curiosity, just how far back do we go with our indignation? This has been going on and people have been looking the other way for nearly a century. Weinstein's the Hitler de jour, so be it. I'm fine with that. But to assume that singling him out makes us better overlooks scores of years of systematic abuse that we were all keen to not look at. Where was the castigation when one of those Corey's tried to go public? People ignored him. Latoya Jackson has some pretty good reasons for resenting the industry and trying to protect her niece. "Eh, she's just another crazy Jackson." How many actresses got pimped out back in the studio system, an aspect of film-making we try not to discuss? Does anybody really think the DeNiros, the Nicholsons, the Pacinos, haven't been up to some sordid shit in their careers? Yet they're heroes.

Again, this isn't defending Weinstein. I'm glad times have changed enough for this to be a thing. I just think the degree of outrage we're seeing now is masturbatory. It feels good to be outraged, but it's completely superficial.

I'm sure there are other exectutives that have done this. Its abuse of power. The power to say. Do this or else you'll lose your job or worse. They have that control over these people. And now hes been exposed. Its like they feel relieved and can finally say something about it all. Not just Weinstein.. Who knows? Will others be outed? We'll see...

I'm not saying I know but its odd how people turned a blind eye to it. And now are treating it like its no big deal, we know its going on.
I just think the scope is bigger than what people realize. You say there were probably other executives doing this, but it's been the nature of the entire industry. I'd be more inclined to say "I'm sure there are other executives who weren't pulling this sort of thing." It just surprises me that this surprises anybody. Does the mainstream public think the casting couch wasn't really a thing? Or that it disappeared in the 70's? It's been more of a joke than anything for the public to get upset about. Now people have suddenly gone from intentionally unaware to sharpening their pitchforks on a moment's notice.
Literally the first thing I said about this here is that, unfortunately, it didn't surprise me.
This is horrible. Any such incidents like this should come to light. This is absolutely a massive problem. I feel like we're talking past each other, and I'm willing to pull back my personal attacks to take that into account. Yes. the entertainment industry is severely corrupted. I'm not sure how to deal with this, but it can't be allowed to continue just because it's been happening for a while.

I think a lot of people were aware that "some bad things" were going on, but that they thought it was the exception, even though it was probably the rule. Personally, I'm more than willing to tear down most or even all of the current system to get rid of that kind of bullshit.

It's a system that has been allowed to persist for far too long. People should absolutely be upset. People should absolutely be raising their pitchforks. If need-be, people should be rushing the gates and tearing it all down to build anew.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: TL 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).
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester 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).
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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.)     
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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?   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami 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?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 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
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: The King in Crimson 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev 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
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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). 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 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 (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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev 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
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev 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
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Progmetty 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
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 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:
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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.     
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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).   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 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?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on October 16, 2017, 06:54:19 PM
https://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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 16, 2017, 07:44:28 PM
Crazy they had to issue and apology. Must've gotten threatened by a big dildo.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 17, 2017, 09:18:56 AM
their reaction is not all exactly the same, you’re the one making that claim. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 17, 2017, 01:37:24 PM
their reaction is not all exactly the same, you’re 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 17, 2017, 02:32:14 PM
If it’s impossible then why do you contend it happened?  I don’t know what there is to be gained in this. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: portnoy311 on October 17, 2017, 05:02:25 PM
their reaction is not all exactly the same, you’re 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:

https://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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris 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?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: gmillerdrake 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: portnoy311 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.)
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 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."
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 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:  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1437506.html
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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".   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 18, 2017, 09:16:59 AM
their reaction is not all exactly the same, you’re 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:

https://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?  :)   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 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.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami 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, it’s demonstrating the flaws in the system. I don’t think the casting agent or whatever is facing any legal action or other ramifications. So I don’t 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 shouldn’t be tolerated.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris 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?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 18, 2017, 03:31:33 PM
The psychology of this kind of thing interests me. Weinstein is rich enough to be able to pay any number of willing professionals (hookers that is) to give him all the 'massages' he wants, yet he seems to get off on the control/manipulation/intimidation aspect of it. I know it's a fool's errand to try to imagine the appeal of a perversion you don't have, but I still find it such an odd way to get your sexual kicks. Endless stories are now coming out of him becoming enraged when he got knocked back...why would you bother with so much useless energy (I mean easily avoidable anger) and the very real potential of being looked upon as a pathetic fat ugly loser? What's the appeal here, why expose (!) yourself to that? Does the thrill of the occasional 'victory' really outweigh the humiliation and rage of all the 'failures'? These are questions I'd love to ask the guy if I ever had the chance.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on October 18, 2017, 03:50:24 PM
expose (!)

:lol
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: portnoy311 on October 18, 2017, 04:38:00 PM
The psychology of this kind of thing interests me. Weinstein is rich enough to be able to pay any number of willing professionals (hookers that is) to give him all the 'massages' he wants, yet he seems to get off on the control/manipulation/intimidation aspect of it. I know it's a fool's errand to try to imagine the appeal of a perversion you don't have, but I still find it such an odd way to get your sexual kicks. Endless stories are now coming out of him becoming enraged when he got knocked back...why would you bother with so much useless energy (I mean easily avoidable anger) and the very real potential of being looked upon as a pathetic fat ugly loser? What's the appeal here, why expose (!) yourself to that? Does the thrill of the occasional 'victory' really outweigh the humiliation and rage of all the 'failures'? These are questions I'd love to ask the guy if I ever had the chance.

One of the actresses claims he made them watch him take a shower. Not the other way around. He got naked and showered while forcing some young starlet to watch him. I'm no Lothario, but I can't wrap my head around the move of washing one's own fat folds as a sexual powerplay. I'm in decent enough shape and next to Harvey I'd look like a full blown athlete, and I would never put myself in that vulnerable situation with a beautiful woman I didn't know, much less get off on it. Dude's definitely twisted.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 18, 2017, 04:48:47 PM
The psychology of this kind of thing interests me. Weinstein is rich enough to be able to pay any number of willing professionals (hookers that is) to give him all the 'massages' he wants, yet he seems to get off on the control/manipulation/intimidation aspect of it. I know it's a fool's errand to try to imagine the appeal of a perversion you don't have, but I still find it such an odd way to get your sexual kicks. Endless stories are now coming out of him becoming enraged when he got knocked back...why would you bother with so much useless energy (I mean easily avoidable anger) and the very real potential of being looked upon as a pathetic fat ugly loser? What's the appeal here, why expose (!) yourself to that? Does the thrill of the occasional 'victory' really outweigh the humiliation and rage of all the 'failures'? These are questions I'd love to ask the guy if I ever had the chance.

One of the actresses claims he made them watch him take a shower. Not the other way around. He got naked and showered while forcing some young starlet to watch him. I'm no Lothario, but I can't wrap my head around the move of washing one's own fat folds as a sexual powerplay. I'm in decent enough shape and next to Harvey I'd look like a full blown athlete, and I would never put myself in that vulnerable situation with a beautiful woman I didn't know, much less get off on it. Dude's definitely twisted.

I read somewhere he made a female watch him beat off onto a plant in a hotel room  :lol  It's definitely a power move IMO
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 18, 2017, 04:51:48 PM
The psychology of this kind of thing interests me. Weinstein is rich enough to be able to pay any number of willing professionals (hookers that is) to give him all the 'massages' he wants, yet he seems to get off on the control/manipulation/intimidation aspect of it. I know it's a fool's errand to try to imagine the appeal of a perversion you don't have, but I still find it such an odd way to get your sexual kicks. Endless stories are now coming out of him becoming enraged when he got knocked back...why would you bother with so much useless energy (I mean easily avoidable anger) and the very real potential of being looked upon as a pathetic fat ugly loser? What's the appeal here, why expose (!) yourself to that? Does the thrill of the occasional 'victory' really outweigh the humiliation and rage of all the 'failures'? These are questions I'd love to ask the guy if I ever had the chance.
I had the same bewilderment with Tiger Woods. With Weinstein you can imagine that it was the power and control. Tiger was banging IHOP hostesses, FFS. Just random, ordinary women. Maybe it was the stepping down that he got off on. Dunno. As best I can figure the idea of simply buying some discretion in your sex life never occurs to these people, or they find it repugnant. In Weinstein's case that's even more interesting.

As for the exposure aspect, that's also a weird one. After a widely publicized incident a couple of years ago I spent a couple of hours reading the forum at a site dedicated to that sort of thing. Pretty amusing, I must say. Suffice it to say they're some weird fucks. But in the end, we all have our interests and peculiarities, and I generally don't want to know about them nor judge them based upon my own.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: portnoy311 on October 18, 2017, 05:08:47 PM
I'm obviously not condoning his actions, but Tiger banging waitresses (I thought it was Perkins? Although probably hit all the chains) I can understand. Someone once said the coolest thing about being Batman would be that in any room he walks into (as Bruce Wayne) he can be confident he can kick everyone's ass. With a Tiger like situation it's probably the same thing, but instead of kicking asses he was getting inside that ass. No matter what room he walked into he probably knew in the back of his mind he could tap the hottest piece of ass.

Until his wife brained him with a 7 iron.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: pogoowner on October 18, 2017, 05:10:30 PM
I read somewhere he made a female watch him beat off onto a plant in a hotel room  :lol  It's definitely a power move IMO
Sounds very similar to the sort of thing Louis C.K. supposedly has done (another guy whose harassment of women is apparently an open secret, but nothing has been done).
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on October 18, 2017, 05:16:23 PM
With a Tiger like situation it's probably the same thing, but instead of kicking asses he was getting inside that ass. No matter what room he walked into he probably knew in the back of his mind he could tap the hottest piece of ass.

Except Tiger was very, very insecure with women. The story goes (if I am remembering right) he was hanging out with Jeter and Jordan and casually asked "So, how do you talk to women?" They were all "You go up to them, and say 'Hi, I am Tiger Woods."
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: portnoy311 on October 18, 2017, 05:22:52 PM
When is that story from?

I'm pretty sure he wasn't always a deviant, he just went completely beserk. He's definitely a flawed person (obviously) and I could see him realizing he enjoyed his new found 'getting girls' ability as intoxicating, and going completely overboard.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on October 18, 2017, 05:34:59 PM
Probably early on, I do not recall honestly. I hesitate to call his behavior "deviant." That is a bit if a spectrum with me, and being a world-traveling rich athlete having affairs is pretty low on my scale of deviancy.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 18, 2017, 05:37:35 PM
I think Tiger probably missed out on a conventional youth because he was walloping golf balls all the livelong day, so I can definitely imagine him having issues with 'normal' relations. Plus, not to psychoanalyze the guy from the comfort of my armchair, but it seems that his dad was the one thing that gave his life stability, and when he died, Tiger kind of spiraled off into a very odd and immature 'fantasy' world.

With Weinstein (and perhaps Bill Cosby, though there's an important difference between the two), I think the thrill was in demonstrating to himself his power and control. Which fascinates me, because he was already an enormously powerful man who had control over so much, and so many people. A British woman gave an interview a few days ago on the BBC in which she recounted her own story of working for him in London back in the 90s. It was skin-crawling, but as I was reading her story, I tried to put myself in Harvey's position, being knocked back with utter revulsion and disgust by female after female. Clearly his ego is a very fragile thing if he's exploding with rage after every rejection, so why on earth did he constantly subject himself to that humiliation?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 18, 2017, 06:34:02 PM
Wasn't he actually minimizing the amount of rejection by focusing on women less inclined to spurn him? Seems to me that if you're so ego fragile that you can't handle rejection then starting from a position of power would be self-preservation.

And I don't think Cosby was into the power trip thing. He was just lazy. He learned back in the early 70s that stuperous women are a lot easier to get along with than the sharp and focused variety.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 19, 2017, 08:42:07 AM
I read somewhere he made a female watch him beat off onto a plant in a hotel room  :lol  It's definitely a power move IMO
Sounds very similar to the sort of thing Louis C.K. supposedly has done (another guy whose harassment of women is apparently an open secret, but nothing has been done).

Really????   Really???? (I say that in disbelief that I haven't heard that, not to imply that you are wrong).   I like - not love - Louis C.K., but there was always something that rubbed me the wrong way about him and I couldn't (still can't, really) place it.  But that would start to explain things.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 19, 2017, 08:54:11 AM
To me, the flaws of Tiger Woods are not comparable to Harvey in any way.   

Tiger, to my knowledge, didn't do anything that wasn't between consenting adults, and while it's not my way of going about things, I certainly get it (as does, it appears, el Barto).   I know for me, I'm neither Tiger Woods nor one of the Jonas Brothers (purity rings?  Get it?) but for me - scared of rejection, not that confident - the idea of "paying for it" was a hurdle I could never (and have never) gotten past.    I'm a different person now, but when in high school and college and shortly thereafter, I would never, ever walk up to the hottest girl in the room and start a conversation.  I could do that now (when it's clearly a different dynamic) but then?   I would - subconsciously, and I know this only in hindsight - opt for the "friend" of the hot girl, or the girl that was alone (that sounds creepier than it really was).  It didn't guarantee that I was getting laid, but it certainly lessened the odds of the spectacle happening at my expense.   The point being, I can understand the idea of improving your odds.   

That's not Weinstein.    I don't get the sense that it is "sex" in the common definition of the word.   I also don't get the sense that there would be a thrill if there was consent, nor that there would be a thrill if there wasn't that awkwardness.    Look, he knew his foibles; I draft contracts for a living, and my biggest asset to my company is that I think of things before they happen, before they are "needed".  It's the most common mistake in contract law; "the contract is silent on that".  And yet, Harvey had a clause that basically said - and I'm paraphrasing as I understand it; any mistakes are mine and based on expediency - as long as he agreed to pay out and settle any sexual/harassment claim, he couldn't be fired or otherwise be considered in breach of his employment deal.   You DO NOT, in my experience, put that in there as a "safety net" or "just because".   That has to be a carefully drafted, deeply negotiated clause, and you do not do that for something that "is never going to happen".     
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 19, 2017, 07:31:02 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/19/quentin-tarantino-on-weinstein-allegations-knew-enough-to-do-more-than-did.html (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/19/quentin-tarantino-on-weinstein-allegations-knew-enough-to-do-more-than-did.html)

Kind of nice to actually see someone admit they knew and didn't do something regretfully. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: kaos2900 on October 20, 2017, 08:05:36 AM
I'm curious to see how much legs this story has. Remember, the mainstream media did everything they could for about a week to keep this from blowing up to protect his Democratic politician friends. It wasn't until you had the A list celebs start talking that our celebrity obsessed culture start caring. It's obviously no surprise that stuff like this happens and I'm hoping that some culture change actually comes of this. I have two young daughters and I hope they never have to encounter an asshole like Weinstein.

On another note, can society worship pop stars who prance around half naked and still have an equitable view of women? Sex sells, but who is selling. Some scuzzy fat dude or are these women selling it themselves?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 20, 2017, 08:56:02 AM
Kaos, in that context, what do you think of the Al Michaels episode?   For those that don't know, on Monday Night Football, Al said - and this is a paraphrase, not a direct quote because I'm going from memory; you can Google it - "The Giants had a tougher week than Harvey Weinstein, and yet, they're up 14-0".    IMMEDIATELY following the next commercial, Al issued an apology that, to my ears, seemed rote, forced and half-assed.

In my view, that is indicative of what you're saying here.   

One of the things that struck me on this story was the degree to which it resembles a grenade, or a car going through a mud puddle.   The "spray" on stories like this is so wide.   Ben Affleck.  Matt Damon.   Not saying whether any of it is justified or not, but it does have "reach", and as we watch the dust settle, it's fascinating to me to watch the same celebrities that kept their mouths shut when it was their precious careers on the line are now - with their careers again on the line - distancing themselves from Weinstein faster than they can type their rote and systematic tweets about how "disgusting" Weinstein's behavior was and is.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 20, 2017, 08:59:46 AM
Why is disgusting in quotes?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 20, 2017, 09:02:37 AM
One of the things that struck me on this story was the degree to which it resembles a grenade, or a car going through a mud puddle.   The "spray" on stories like this is so wide.   Ben Affleck.  Matt Damon.   Not saying whether any of it is justified or not, but it does have "reach", and as we watch the dust settle, it's fascinating to me to watch the same celebrities that kept their mouths shut when it was their precious careers on the line are now - with their careers again on the line - distancing themselves from Weinstein faster than they can type their rote and systematic tweets about how "disgusting" Weinstein's behavior was and is.   

That's kind of why I appreciate Tarantino's admission.  There's nothing to gain by saying that, but we all know it's there and it's better for the cause to come out and say the truth than to hide and pretend it doesn't exist or to product your own brand because you looked the other way. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on October 20, 2017, 09:09:14 AM
IMMEDIATELY following the next commercial, Al issued an apology that, to my ears, seemed rote, forced and half-assed.

Because it was. Al has been the top guy in the business for decades, and probably didn't need or want some studio exec shouting in his headphones to apologize for his joke.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 20, 2017, 09:53:18 AM
Why is disgusting in quotes?

To symbolize the buzzword nature of the responses.  They are all so similar as to be scripted (the exact word I want) by the same person or group.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 20, 2017, 09:59:11 AM
IMMEDIATELY following the next commercial, Al issued an apology that, to my ears, seemed rote, forced and half-assed.

Because it was. Al has been the top guy in the business for decades, and probably didn't need or want some studio exec shouting in his headphones to apologize for his joke.

The funny thing?  In his real life, Al Michaels is one of the "cleanest" guys out there.   Married to the same woman for over 50 years (literally, he was already married when I was born) and with almost no scandal (one DWI which he plead no contest to a reduced charge).   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 20, 2017, 10:03:47 AM
Why is disgusting in quotes?

To symbolize the buzzword nature of the responses.  They are all so similar as to be scripted (the exact word I want) by the same person or group.

People can't use similar words? I'm not sure why you want everyone to use very diverse and different language.

Is "genocide" scripted buzzword response to the holocaust? Things can simply be what they are. What he did was disgusting, not sure why that word is a problem.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 20, 2017, 10:06:36 AM
Stadler don’t tell me you’re going to start this shit up with the word disgusting now?  You’re pushing this too far, please, you have to see that!?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on October 20, 2017, 05:03:33 PM
This is all Bill Clinton's fault, for starting the debate over what the word "is" meant.  :lol :lol
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 20, 2017, 05:19:31 PM
This is all Bill Clinton's fault, for starting the debate over what the word "is" meant.  :lol :lol

One of the greatest politically-expedient retorts of my lifetime. I work now in politics, and that comment of his (complete with that confident smirk) is actually taught in universities as an example of how to obfuscate and ultimately annihilate the very sense of language when under pressure. No other profession (lawyers come close) can transform sense into nonsense as masterfully as a politician, and Bill gave an exemplary illustration of it here. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp3TQf2xDc8
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: kingshmegland on October 20, 2017, 05:42:58 PM
This is all Bill Clinton's fault, for starting the debate over what the word "is" meant.  :lol :lol

I told my wife (newly married at the time) that the President said Oral was not Sex.  Man did I have fun with that line.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: TAC on October 21, 2017, 07:29:29 PM
IMMEDIATELY following the next commercial, Al issued an apology that, to my ears, seemed rote, forced and half-assed.

Because it was. Al has been the top guy in the business for decades, and probably didn't need or want some studio exec shouting in his headphones to apologize for his joke.

The joke was beneath him, though.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on October 21, 2017, 08:12:05 PM
Maybe, but it was a harmless joke. Not a big deal. Sad that he had to apologize for it, but that's life in the 21st century where somebody is offended by everything.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 21, 2017, 08:30:08 PM
Maybe, but it was a harmless joke. Not a big deal. Sad that he had to apologize for it, but that's life in the 21st century where somebody is offended by everything.

So true man....heres a story of being offended and trying to change things.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/vivid-halloween-decorations-at-county-clerks-office-makes-visitor-uneasy/4638383/
Quote
The office was decorated by county clerk employees, who spent their own time and money on fixing up the place for October...

And heres another news station of the same story but with funnier quotes...

https://krqe.com/2017/10/17/spooky-decor-draws-unlikely-reaction-at-government-office/
Quote
The County Clerk says employees used their own money to decorate the office. They say they get a lot of compliments and this is the first complaint.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 22, 2017, 11:44:52 PM
https://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1221-I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me-wikileaks?showall=&start=2
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on October 23, 2017, 10:51:55 AM
https://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1221-I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me-wikileaks?showall=&start=2

I'm still reading lol. That's A LOT of material. These are the things I would normally dismiss on the internet, but I'm less inclined to consider something "impossible" or "laughably far fetched" after the last year or so. I guess the only thing that matters is the supposed missing link of the next WikiLeaks dump. Otherwise, it's just wild speculation that makes an entertaining read  :corn
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 23, 2017, 10:55:45 AM
https://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1221-I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me-wikileaks?showall=&start=2

I'm still reading lol. That's A LOT of material. These are the things I would normally dismiss on the internet, but I'm less inclined to consider something "impossible" or "laughably far fetched" after the last year or so. I guess the only thing that matters is the supposed missing link of the next WikiLeaks dump. Otherwise, it's just wild speculation that makes an entertaining read  :corn

Yeah, its why I like his articles. Most of it has been proven true.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: portnoy311 on October 23, 2017, 05:27:16 PM
That URL?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 23, 2017, 05:50:44 PM
That URL?

What about?

You can take it however you want. Theirs some interesting links in that article related to Weinstein that I find interesting.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 23, 2017, 05:52:09 PM
I think he wants you to take a closer look at the link as posted in this thread.




Also....what?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: antigoon on October 23, 2017, 06:03:13 PM
the crack team at divine cosmos dot com has it all figured out, don't worry.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 23, 2017, 06:19:58 PM
Eh. I knew id get that type of response. But I look at a lot of these things. And of course its all speculative. Take it as you will type stuff.

Its really sad though about Barbara Walters straight out shutting down Corey Feldmen when he was on the view.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 23, 2017, 07:02:01 PM
Its really sad though about Barbara Walters straight out shutting down Corey Feldmen when he was on the view.

This I can agree with. I think. I didn't see it, but a ton of people have been shut down in the past, and it's all horrible.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 23, 2017, 07:36:36 PM
Its really sad though about Barbara Walters straight out shutting down Corey Feldmen when he was on the view.

This I can agree with. I think. I didn't see it, but a ton of people have been shut down in the past, and it's all horrible.

Yup and its like they want to say the truth, but are holding back our of fear. Fear for what may occur if they do.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on October 24, 2017, 06:45:30 AM
the crack team at divine cosmos dot com has it all figured out, don't worry.

I feel like this mentality sits right next to Barbara Walters, and all the others over the years that dismissed either Corey's claims because they were "ludicrous", "unbelievable", or were coming from a "questionable" source.

But hey, the crack team at (Fox news, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, The Washington Post, The NY Post, etc.) has it all figured out :mehlin
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 24, 2017, 01:22:09 PM
Why is disgusting in quotes?

To symbolize the buzzword nature of the responses.  They are all so similar as to be scripted (the exact word I want) by the same person or group.

People can't use similar words? I'm not sure why you want everyone to use very diverse and different language.

Is "genocide" scripted buzzword response to the holocaust? Things can simply be what they are. What he did was disgusting, not sure why that word is a problem.

Stadler don’t tell me you’re going to start this shit up with the word disgusting now?  You’re pushing this too far, please, you have to see that!?

Actually, I wasn't.  This isn't the same as "terrified".   If you don't think that in times like these Ben Affleck, et al, do not have PR people scripting (you saw how I said "the exact word I want", right?) these responses, you are not paying attention.  It's not about emotion, it's about "getting in front of it" and managing the blowback.  This is PR crisis management 101.   Not a bad thing, necessarily, but it does render the evidenciary benefit of such statements suspect.   

"Genocide", 75 years later, is an apt, and accepted, and factually correct description of the Holocaust.   I think it's fair to question why several people, who all knew or should have known about it 15 years ago kept silent, only break their silence, in unison, and only when their reputations are called on the carpet, and use the same words and emotions to describe what they saw.  Again, it's not about the word, but the word choice indicates to me that it's more about ass-covering than it is honest empathy.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 24, 2017, 01:22:59 PM
This is all Bill Clinton's fault, for starting the debate over what the word "is" meant.  :lol :lol

One of the greatest politically-expedient retorts of my lifetime. I work now in politics, and that comment of his (complete with that confident smirk) is actually taught in universities as an example of how to obfuscate and ultimately annihilate the very sense of language when under pressure. No other profession (lawyers come close) can transform sense into nonsense as masterfully as a politician, and Bill gave an exemplary illustration of it here. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp3TQf2xDc8

And he is, or was, both. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 24, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
the crack team at divine cosmos dot com has it all figured out, don't worry.

I feel like this mentality sits right next to Barbara Walters, and all the others over the years that dismissed either Corey's claims because they were "ludicrous", "unbelievable", or were coming from a "questionable" source.

But hey, the crack team at (Fox news, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, The Washington Post, The NY Post, etc.) has it all figured out :mehlin

But come on; there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between Corey Feldman saying "I had someone touch my genitals and I didn't want that to happen" and someone saying "Well... Mandalay Casino is 18 minutes from Nellis AFB, and three hours from Area 51, therefore Stephen Paddock was clearly NOT the lone gunman!"   Even if Corey Feldman is wrong, it's his right to make that assertion and to then prove it (or not).

I read for about five minutes on that site, and I didn't click off because it was "ludicrous" or "unbelievable".   I clicked off because it was all circumstantial and unsubstantiated.   Don't say "numerous people have said there are tunnels to Area 51 from each of the casinos".   Okay, "numerous people" have said that "Lines In The Sand" is a great song.  That doesn't, in and of itself, make it so. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 24, 2017, 01:47:15 PM
Not directly related, but more of the idea of people high in power in the entertainment business potentially being degrading towards women. I'm thinking the Harvey awakening may be making people come out more about this type of treatment.

https://nypost.com/2017/10/24/jenn-sterger-rips-just-as-bad-espn-for-strip-club-job-interview/ (https://nypost.com/2017/10/24/jenn-sterger-rips-just-as-bad-espn-for-strip-club-job-interview/)
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 24, 2017, 01:50:48 PM
Not directly related, but more of the idea of people high in power in the entertainment business potentially being degrading towards women. I'm thinking the Harvey awakening may be making people come out more about this type of treatment.

https://nypost.com/2017/10/24/jenn-sterger-rips-just-as-bad-espn-for-strip-club-job-interview/ (https://nypost.com/2017/10/24/jenn-sterger-rips-just-as-bad-espn-for-strip-club-job-interview/)

Maybe it's because I don't know what "Barstool Sports" is, or was, but that story was sort of hard to follow.   Horrible reporting. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on October 24, 2017, 04:35:38 PM
the crack team at divine cosmos dot com has it all figured out, don't worry.

I feel like this mentality sits right next to Barbara Walters, and all the others over the years that dismissed either Corey's claims because they were "ludicrous", "unbelievable", or were coming from a "questionable" source.

But hey, the crack team at (Fox news, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, The Washington Post, The NY Post, etc.) has it all figured out :mehlin

But come on; there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between Corey Feldman saying "I had someone touch my genitals and I didn't want that to happen" and someone saying "Well... Mandalay Casino is 18 minutes from Nellis AFB, and three hours from Area 51, therefore Stephen Paddock was clearly NOT the lone gunman!"   Even if Corey Feldman is wrong, it's his right to make that assertion and to then prove it (or not).

I read for about five minutes on that site, and I didn't click off because it was "ludicrous" or "unbelievable".   I clicked off because it was all circumstantial and unsubstantiated.   Don't say "numerous people have said there are tunnels to Area 51 from each of the casinos".   Okay, "numerous people" have said that "Lines In The Sand" is a great song.  That doesn't, in and of itself, make it so.

Oh absolutely. There was a lot of dumb shit in there. I certainly don't BELIEVE it, even just the info coming from the inside source. The links the Alex Jones don't help. But the last page with the "leaker" (whistleblower?) is simply intriguing given the current climate. At the least, it's an entertaining short story imo. Yes... evidence.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on October 24, 2017, 04:49:22 PM
Yup. Most of the stuff is, "well, we'll just have to wait and see." Their is some interesting things within it though ever since like 2 years ago. Plus, other things he talks about besides these things, but thats another story.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 26, 2017, 08:10:45 AM
More on Harvery

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/actress-accuses-harvey-weinstein-rape-194359135.html (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/actress-accuses-harvey-weinstein-rape-194359135.html)

This ones interesting because he apparently rapes her and she gets the script under her door the next morning.  And she then goes to his hotel again and watches him get a blow job?  I am so confused, like I don't condone the raping by any means but it's almost like she was complicit for a bit of it because it got her the script and she went back.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 26, 2017, 09:04:22 AM
More on Harvery

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/actress-accuses-harvey-weinstein-rape-194359135.html (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/actress-accuses-harvey-weinstein-rape-194359135.html)

This ones interesting because he apparently rapes her and she gets the script under her door the next morning.  And she then goes to his hotel again and watches him get a blow job?  I am so confused, like I don't condone the raping by any means but it's almost like she was complicit for a bit of it because it got her the script and she went back.

That is not what being complicit is. In fact, this attitude is very dangerous for other women.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 26, 2017, 09:22:53 AM
I know I am on the border of what is considered right and wrong here, just thinking that accepting the offer of sex for a script is also accepting that type of behavior.  Makes me feel like it wasn't actually rape even though she didn't want to do it, but did it because it allowed her to get ahead and only calls it rape now.  I don't condone his offerings at all here but she didn't reject him from the sounds of it and in fact came back.  I am not sure how that attitude is dangerous, these are grown people making these choices to benefit themselves (I'm talking both parties here).
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 26, 2017, 09:36:59 AM
I know I am on the border of what is considered right and wrong here, just thinking that accepting the offer of sex for a script is also accepting that type of behavior.  Makes me feel like it wasn't actually rape even though she didn't want to do it, but did it because it allowed her to get ahead and only calls it rape now.  I don't condone his offerings at all here but she didn't reject him from the sounds of it and in fact came back.  I am not sure how that attitude is dangerous, these are grown people making these choices to benefit themselves (I'm talking both parties here).
Rape has become a very nebulous concept. As a rule I appreciate nuance and complexity, so as a mental exercise I'm fine with that. However, at a practical level we're diminishing what is generally considered one of the most horrific acts humanity has come up with. That's troubling. More troubling, though, is that we really can't discuss any of the nuance and subtlety unless it's done from the pro-victim standpoint. Inevitably it gets dismissed as blaming the victim or propagating the rape culture. This further diminishes rape by dumbing down the discussion and abandoning objectivity.

As I've said in the past Weinstein is a scumbag. Let's sanction him for what he's actually done wrong. Let's not create new crimes or tailor others to jibe with our outrage. In this case, if he physically forced himself on the woman, and we don't know one way or the other, then string him up for rape. What came after it seems to be irrelevant, outside of piling on in our thirst for indignation.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on October 26, 2017, 09:39:12 AM
I think it's a strange dynamic. Weinstein is looked at as morally/ethically WRONG, and it's just assumed that the victims are morally/ethically RIGHT, or at the very least their motivations are not questioned so as to not "victim shame". Its not unfair to ask, "If he raped you, why go back for a script so you can work with him?" It's not implying that there's not a legitimate response, but that doesn't mean that we should take these one directional allegations without trying to understand the situation, and how all party's were involved.

COMPLICIT - involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing. Where on the spectrum is the scenario of knowingly benefitting from wrongdoing, doing nothing to stop wrongdoing, while also being the victim of said wrongdoing? In NO WAY am I implying that these people are even remotely responsible for what happened to them in those moments. But I do think it's important to discuss what happened AFTER those moments. In the end, being a victim is not an excuse for a lack of integrity.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 26, 2017, 10:03:59 AM
I know I am on the border of what is considered right and wrong here, just thinking that accepting the offer of sex for a script is also accepting that type of behavior.  Makes me feel like it wasn't actually rape even though she didn't want to do it, but did it because it allowed her to get ahead and only calls it rape now.  I don't condone his offerings at all here but she didn't reject him from the sounds of it and in fact came back.  I am not sure how that attitude is dangerous, these are grown people making these choices to benefit themselves (I'm talking both parties here).

She didn't accept sex for a script. She was raped and then he gave her a script. The attitude of "well she got something out of it, so therefore she was okay with it" is very dangerous.


Also this is how power dynamics work, especially in a system that is in favor of the aggressor. It's like asking why an abused woman stays with her husband. It's not as simple as "Well....she stayed, so it's partially her fault". I think we use words like nuance to try to simply try to challenge the narrative, but the actual nuances of the real dynamic are being ignored.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 26, 2017, 10:06:19 AM
Her integrity is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 26, 2017, 10:11:09 AM
I know I am on the border of what is considered right and wrong here, just thinking that accepting the offer of sex for a script is also accepting that type of behavior.  Makes me feel like it wasn't actually rape even though she didn't want to do it, but did it because it allowed her to get ahead and only calls it rape now.  I don't condone his offerings at all here but she didn't reject him from the sounds of it and in fact came back.  I am not sure how that attitude is dangerous, these are grown people making these choices to benefit themselves (I'm talking both parties here).

She didn't accept sex for a script. She was raped and then he gave her a script. The attitude of "well she got something out of it, so therefore she was okay with it" is very dangerous.

She didn't just get a script, she went back to work with him and met him in a hotel again.  I think that shows she "may" have been OK with it at that time.  I am trying to understand why someone would do that given her statements of rape today.  It's clearly part of a culture in Hollywood and I don't think that makes it OK but we have to understand why people kept going back to him and yet today say it was rape.  Clearly no one should have ever been put in that position.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 26, 2017, 10:17:58 AM
Because he had an intense amount of power over their careers. Because the trauma of rape is not one dimensional, and people usually don't completely turn against the aggressor immediately because of the psychological impact. Many times the victim will try to rationalize it to some degree to make sense of it and keep their worlds intact. "Oh he was just drunk....I'm sure it won't happen again". etc. etc.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 26, 2017, 10:20:43 AM
I think the part that Cram is getting at is, it didn't end with the script being unilaterally shoved under her door.  She continued to pursue the part.  She took the meeting (albeit with what could be construed as false pretenses).  Then, after further sexual humiliation, she "decided to give up the possibility of being in the film."

At what point does her behavior border on blackmail and/or extortion?  "I won't call you on the rape shit, if I get the part" but once the part goes away, and the stigma is removed, all bets are off? 

Now, this is in keeping with el Barto's point; I get that LEGALLY, all this is going the way it should.  Provided the statute of limitations hasn't expired, she can bring her accusations to light at any time and for any reason.  But I think at some point the totality of the situation should be considered without it being knee-jerk, reactively dismissed as "victim shaming" or something equally as PC and base.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 26, 2017, 10:26:28 AM
Because he had an intense amount of power over their careers. Because the trauma of rape is not one dimensional, and people usually don't completely turn against the aggressor immediately because of the psychological impact. Many times the victim will try to rationalize it to some degree to make sense of it and keep their worlds intact. "Oh he was just drunk....I'm sure it won't happen again". etc. etc.

Look, I understand this.  BOTH of my wives have had extremely traumatic, sexual abuses in their lives.  I get how it scars, and how the wounds take time to understand how deep they are.  But "culture" isn't "one person", and to change a culture takes more than "one person".   Putting Harvey Weinstein in jail will NOT change the Hollywood culture if there are moguls willing to trade parts for sex, AND if there are starlets (or stars) that are willing to make that trade.   

Interesting to me how we pre-judge these situations, and how subjective and moral those judgments are.   Harvey Weinstein is the bad guy here (and he is; he's repugnant.  I can't even get it up with my wife if I feel like she's taking one for the team, let alone walk into a strange woman's hotel room, start masturbating, and rape her) and we bend over backward protecting anyone in his path, but when it is not as self-serving, or the agendas aren't as clear, we're more than willing to absolve people of their responsibility (guns come to mind; drugs; there are others). 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on October 26, 2017, 11:02:06 AM
Her integrity is irrelevant.

Why?

Look at Rose McGowan for instance. Breaking a 20 year old NDA to say that Weinstein raped her. She's being applauded for essentially starting this whole thing, bravely coming out against her assaulter. Any positive credit she's getting for starting this "movement" is well deserved, as I have no problem with the initial release of information, or the subsequent flood there after. But, SHE chose to sign a NDA instead of pressing charges (big difference between NOT pressing charges and singing a NDA), SHE chose to accept $100,000 to do so, and then 20 years later come out with the information. There is no consistent Integrity there, and I certainly don't see it as IRRELEVANT.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 26, 2017, 11:05:16 AM
Interestingly, should Harvey be able to go back and recoup the monies paid out and protected under NDAs if those NDAs were broken?   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on October 26, 2017, 11:08:55 AM
I dunno.  Some really good points on both sides, honestly.  I'm having a really tough time figuring out both how I should feel and how I do feel.  Not with regard to Weinstein's conduct, obviously.  But with regard to the other aspects of all of this. 

Let's all remember to please keep it civil.  Not that anyone here hasn't, but just a reminder because this is obviously an emotionally-charged topic that could easily get quite impassioned.  Please keep in mind that even if someone holds a position you firmly belief is objectively wrong, they still need to be treated with respect here.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 26, 2017, 11:12:47 AM
I dunno.  Some really good points on both sides, honestly.  I'm having a really tough time figuring out both how I should feel and how I do feel.  Not with regard to Weinstein's conduct, obviously.  But with regard to the other aspects of all of this. 

Let's all remember to please keep it civil.  Not that anyone here hasn't, but just a reminder because this is obviously an emotionally-charged topic that could easily get quite impassioned.  Please keep in mind that even if someone holds a position you firmly belief is objectively wrong, they still need to be treated with respect here.  Thanks.

Yea, I think while other people might be able to detach from all of this and treat it like a good debate/thought exercise, it's a bit more emotional for me, so it's best I bow out for the time being. I would rather my arguments be logical and less based on frustration, and I am not 100% sure I'm there at the moment. So hopefully I'll be back, but for now, I'm out.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 26, 2017, 11:23:22 AM
Sorry you feel that way, you're opposing thoughts were driving the discussion I thought.

And while I pretty much agree with everything you have been saying, I only thought we should take into account more than just the single story of a rape, but the whole picture including what's happening this very moment with lawyers seeing dollar signs.  I don't think we can so easily discount the motives of other parties involved.

but regardless, the discussion is difficult.  No one is on Harvey's side, but there's much complication in what happened that I also don't think it's such a simple situation that we can easily lump everything into "Harvey's the villain" (I do think he is, but I think there's more to the story is my point).

I still want to know who slept with him, got career advancement, and was cool with it.  Don't think that anyones going to come forth with that, but I really feel like these people exist.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on October 26, 2017, 11:42:59 AM
I dunno.  Some really good points on both sides, honestly.  I'm having a really tough time figuring out both how I should feel and how I do feel.  Not with regard to Weinstein's conduct, obviously.  But with regard to the other aspects of all of this. 

Let's all remember to please keep it civil.  Not that anyone here hasn't, but just a reminder because this is obviously an emotionally-charged topic that could easily get quite impassioned.  Please keep in mind that even if someone holds a position you firmly belief is objectively wrong, they still need to be treated with respect here.  Thanks.

I'm torn honestly. I understand this is sexual assault, but it's a different kind of sexual assault (I admittedly haven't been following this all that closely). I'm not excusing Weinstein of his behavior, but part of me feels like many of these women accepted his behavior and to a degree voluntarily put themselves in these positions. This guy had a history and the women knew it. It's not like he was drugging them unexpectedly and dragging them back to his rooms. They were going in knowing he was a piece of shit. It seems like many of them put this notion aside, or at least decided to put up with it for their own advancement. The game sucks (again, I don't like it), but they chose to play in order to achieve fame and the riches that came with it.

So many people kept this on the downlow for their own gain, men and women both. They've said, or have have least inferred, that they stayed quiet out of fear of the industry. I'm not sure how much I buy into that. They feared losing their millions. Them as human beings would have been fine. They were being selfish in my eyes.

It's been used as a running joke. Courtney love was asked to give advice to people looking to get into hollywood, and out of everything she could have said, this was the first thing to come to her mind.
https://i.imgur.com/ZuDNVSQ.gifv

As for the subject of rape, this is a difficult one to talk about with people. While I agree that all rape is terrible, are their different degrees and severities? It sounds like Weinstein used/abused his power in an industry to get women to spread her legs even though they might not have wanted to. If they got up and walked away would he have been violent about it? I was friends with a kid growing up whose mother was brutally raped. Her husband would repeatedly beat her, knocking her unconscious before having sex with her. Sometime he'd let her stay conscious but he'd hold a knife to her throat. He's in jail now, but that wasn't until after he impregnated her three times. This may be controversial, but that to me is true rape. What Weinstein did is something else, IMO, and needs to be looked at differently. Weinstein is getting a lot of shit for this, and rightfully so, but I'm having a really hard time feeling bad for the women.

It might not be a fair analogy, but this is analogous to my girlfriend's current work situation. She got a promotion a few months back and has not not gotten a day off in 31 days. She's worked 75 hours already this week and it's not even Friday yet. She's tired, has been unhealthy, and is absolutely miserable, all so she could earn another $5k a year (money we don't really need). It's easy to tear into her employer, but at the same time, she could walk and it would all go away.

I feel like I'm just starting to ramble (I'm sick of working today), but in a nutshell, unless there's something really terrible this guy did to all these women that I've missed, I think they along with the rest of Hollywood share a near equal portion of the blame.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 26, 2017, 11:47:43 AM
Interestingly, should Harvey be able to go back and recoup the monies paid out and protected under NDAs if those NDAs were broken?
I would think that has long been decided. Shirley there's precedent about violating NDAs, right? Or were you asking should, like from an ethical standpoint. I'd think he's well beyond that point now.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cable on October 26, 2017, 01:35:52 PM
Just to drop this here, as I think it is kind of being alluded to. This was the best & solid info I could find at this time; 5% of rape allegations that are investigated are unfounded. This does not account for allegations never made, plus this study notes the changing definitions of rape;

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-prevalence-of-false-allegations-of-rape-in-the-united-states-from-20062010-2475-319X-1000119.php?aid=86695&view=mobile


Because he had an intense amount of power over their careers. Because the trauma of rape is not one dimensional, and people usually don't completely turn against the aggressor immediately because of the psychological impact. Many times the victim will try to rationalize it to some degree to make sense of it and keep their worlds intact. "Oh he was just drunk....I'm sure it won't happen again". etc. etc.

Look, I understand this.  BOTH of my wives have had extremely traumatic, sexual abuses in their lives.  I get how it scars, and how the wounds take time to understand how deep they are.  But "culture" isn't "one person", and to change a culture takes more than "one person".   Putting Harvey Weinstein in jail will NOT change the Hollywood culture if there are moguls willing to trade parts for sex, AND if there are starlets (or stars) that are willing to make that trade.   




And I'm not sure why Adami's comments are being taken here regarding culture of the casting couch, lynching Weinstein or the people that go along with it. I get it in the context of Cram's comments, but Adami is speaking from the victim's perspective and things relating to that. Jumping in with Adami as the other open Mental health worker here, Adami is noting the valid perspectives of victims. The non-speaking, a lot due to shame and guilt, and how the aggressor has all types of power. Some might feel this is how things are done to succeed, or including and outside of this context that it is their fault. Only to realize at some point this isn't how it goes. To add further; that machismo and man as the head still being a prevalent concept complicates female victims further.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 27, 2017, 12:24:54 PM
Interestingly, should Harvey be able to go back and recoup the monies paid out and protected under NDAs if those NDAs were broken?
I would think that has long been decided. Shirley there's precedent about violating NDAs, right? Or were you asking should, like from an ethical standpoint. I'd think he's well beyond that point now.

Well, I know where I stand on this, but I was hoping to start a conversation.  Most NDAs have language that allow for disclosure when there is a crime or as part of a required reporting to government agencies, but not all of the cases I read about fall into that category. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 27, 2017, 12:28:50 PM
Just to drop this here, as I think it is kind of being alluded to. This was the best & solid info I could find at this time; 5% of rape allegations that are investigated are unfounded. This does not account for allegations never made, plus this study notes the changing definitions of rape;

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-prevalence-of-false-allegations-of-rape-in-the-united-states-from-20062010-2475-319X-1000119.php?aid=86695&view=mobile


Because he had an intense amount of power over their careers. Because the trauma of rape is not one dimensional, and people usually don't completely turn against the aggressor immediately because of the psychological impact. Many times the victim will try to rationalize it to some degree to make sense of it and keep their worlds intact. "Oh he was just drunk....I'm sure it won't happen again". etc. etc.

Look, I understand this.  BOTH of my wives have had extremely traumatic, sexual abuses in their lives.  I get how it scars, and how the wounds take time to understand how deep they are.  But "culture" isn't "one person", and to change a culture takes more than "one person".   Putting Harvey Weinstein in jail will NOT change the Hollywood culture if there are moguls willing to trade parts for sex, AND if there are starlets (or stars) that are willing to make that trade.   




And I'm not sure why Adami's comments are being taken here regarding culture of the casting couch, lynching Weinstein or the people that go along with it. I get it in the context of Cram's comments, but Adami is speaking from the victim's perspective and things relating to that. Jumping in with Adami as the other open Mental health worker here, Adami is noting the valid perspectives of victims. The non-speaking, a lot due to shame and guilt, and how the aggressor has all types of power. Some might feel this is how things are done to succeed, or including and outside of this context that it is their fault. Only to realize at some point this isn't how it goes. To add further; that machismo and man as the head still being a prevalent concept complicates female victims further.

I was less targeting Adami's comments specifically - and for the record, I hope he comes back; he brings a lot to the table on a regular basis - but rather to where Adami's concepts sometimes inevitably lead.    I get the male power structure and how it feeds into this, but it can't - and shouldn't - be said that ipso facto the male power structure is explicitly bad.   

I think the notion of the "aggressor having all types of power" is independent of gender.  It's a vehicle here.  I'm sure there are cases (Corey Feldman alluded to this) of moguls exerting their power over male stars.   I can't trade sex for roles from someone I'm not interested in having sex with.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on October 27, 2017, 02:29:49 PM
The non-speaking, a lot due to shame and guilt, and how the aggressor has all types of power. Some might feel this is how things are done to succeed, or including and outside of this context that it is their fault. Only to realize at some point this isn't how it goes. To add further; that machismo and man as the head still being a prevalent concept complicates female victims further.

So here's where my head goes with that information. This #MeToo momentum came from the CALL to women to make their voices heard and speak up for what's right. The idea that if women don't speak up for themselves, nobody else will and this will never change. There's also the element of CALLING on men that do this to know that it's not okay, and for men and women that know about it and keep silent to no longer be a part of the problem. BUT, the idea that women first and foremost speak up in their own interest is the foundation of the movement that is #MeToo.

So when it comes down to it, regardless of the laundry list of "legitimate" reasons for each individual to not speak up when they are harassed/assaulted, they still said NOTHING (maybe some did, but this is more of a theoretical idea). There's the addition to the discussion that this person or that person knew this was happening, and how should we treat these people in the grand scheme of things. Well, in the end, all the victims knew too. And I think that if we could get an anonymous poll from Hollywood, we would find that both sides likely kept quiet for the same reason.

It just seems like a lot of people knew what game they were playing, and chose to play anyways...
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on October 27, 2017, 02:43:22 PM
Interestingly, should Harvey be able to go back and recoup the monies paid out and protected under NDAs if those NDAs were broken?
I would think that has long been decided. Shirley there's precedent about violating NDAs, right? Or were you asking should, like from an ethical standpoint. I'd think he's well beyond that point now.

Well, I know where I stand on this, but I was hoping to start a conversation.  Most NDAs have language that allow for disclosure when there is a crime or as part of a required reporting to government agencies, but not all of the cases I read about fall into that category.

Again, let's look at Rose McGowan's case. She claims Harvey raped her. I'm not sure what the NDA says, or if it specifies some sort of harassment/assault, but not rape, if that changes the legality of the NDA. Let's assume that her NDA is binding and that she is opening herself up to litigation by breaking it, like potentially giving back the $100k, or maybe even additional penalties. She still made the decision that it's better to get this information out rather than protect herself legally. Good for her...

Now look at Corey Feldman. The statute of limitations is up on his alleged abuses, so he hasn't named any names yet because of the legal trouble he would be in (which I'm assuming is not criminal, but civil litigation). What if Feldman decided to make the same decision as McGowan, and put the interest of the greater good ahead of himself? What if he sat in front of a camera and said, "The list of names I'm about to read you is everyone that I know for a FACT, UNEQUIVOCALLY, WITHOUT DOUBT, molested or abused child stars in Hollywood. I know that these things can't be proven and that I am forever changing the lives of those listed, and anyone affiliated with these individuals. Therefore, the only names I will read are ones that I KNOW TO BE TRUE. I've been trying to tell people for 25 years... Listen up fuck faces, cuz shit's about to get real."
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 27, 2017, 03:43:10 PM
This is perhaps the only subject I tiptoe around and generally just keep my thoughts to myself (I'm temporarily breaking that rule now), because it's obviously an extremely sensitive issue, sexual assault is among the most serious crimes a person can commit, it's not for me to define it, and it's certainly not my place to say what kind of behaviour should and shouldn't make somebody uncomfortable, and how and when victims of it should speak out.

But with that said, I really can't help thinking certain arms of the media need to be more responsible when they report on these scandals. Take the BBC (a liberal organization which has never forgiven John Major for his friendship with Bush Snr). They have been reveling the last few days in reporting on George H. W. Bush's "sexual assault" (their phrase) of Heather Lind, trying desperately to connect him in the readers' minds with Weinstein's actions. They have absolutely loved this story. And while Heather Lind should of course speak out about how she felt, we're talking here about an addled 89-year-old codger touching her backside and making an off-colour joke. This is "sexual assault"? Ok, if so, then fine, I'm not qualified to argue with the definition, but I can't help thinking of Bill Burr's routine about old people and racism here, about how you can find yourself getting a moral caning just for living too long and being from a different era. Is Harvey Weinstein a scumbag who should be buried underneath the prison? It certainly seems so. But George H.W.Bush?? You're really going to lump him in with Weinstein, BBC, based only on Heather's story*?

Christmas has come early for the media right now. There is nothing they love more than a wide-ranging sex scandal or sex crime (Kelvin Mackenzie, scumbag former editor of The Sun newspaper and Murdoch lackey once said that the worst days in his job were when a missing child was returned safely to her parents unraped and unmurdered), and I can't help thinking they contribute to the trivializing of the crime when they gleefully hurl around labels like 'rape' and 'sexual assault' and 'pedophile' (look up the case of the English soccer player Adam Johnson, currently serving 6 years for basically kissing a 15 year old, and whom the English tabloids never miss a chance to call a "pedophile"). There are a set of questions which, at least where I'm from, are still taboo to ask, and among them is "Was it actually rape, as I used to understand that term?" Rose McGowan is putting together an uprising as I type this, and although the way I've written that sounds dismissive and condescending, I don't mean it to. Good luck to her, she's brave to be doing what she's doing. But I don't want this issue to go only one way. I want to be able to learn from it too, I want to be able to ask questions, and if I were one of the talk show hosts she's scheduled to speak to, one of the questions I'd ask Rose (and Asia Argento, and the others), is "You say he raped you. Can you describe exactly what he did, just so I can understand the terms we're using now?" But I don't feel I can ask that question, and the media sure as shit are steering well clear of it. Yet that ought to be the place we begin, since understanding the language being used is the starting point to beginning the conversation. 


* A couple more women have since come forward about Bush Snr, but it doesn't alter my point. The BBC were running with the Weinstein-like "sexual assault" angle when they only had Heather Lind's account of his touching her backside and telling a "dirty joke".
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on October 27, 2017, 03:49:18 PM
I'm not excusing anything or anyone here.  But to further elaborate on your point, Dave, I heard a commentator this morning make a point that I thought was well taken.  The gist of it is that we are doing a service to pretty much everyone involved in both sets of situations by using the same term, "sexual assault," to describe the entire range of conduct from Weinstein to Bush Sr.  Raping kids and women like Weinstein and his ilk should not be considered conduct of the same quality and character as what Bush Sr. did, and by doing so, we not only eliminate the ability to have constructive dialog, but also end up minimizing conduct at one of the spectrum or the other by lumping it all together.  I dunno.  I'm probably not articulating this very well, but I'm basically agreeing with you, Dave.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 27, 2017, 03:57:41 PM
Sounds like Bush Sr. is the stereotypical dirty old man. Unfortunately for him that's no longer tolerable. For people of his generation it was written off as harmless. Now there's just no telling what constitutes harm, and if there's indignation to be thrown about then it becomes all the more variable. I'm clearly destined to become a dirty old man, myself, but by the time I get there I'm afraid simply eyeing a girl walking down the street will be considered harmfully objectifying them.

I was unaware there were more allegations, but when I looked this came up. Good description of his ill-behavior.
(https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/users/user20/groping_screenshot_0.jpg)
She's absolutely correct that she shouldn't shrug it off because he's president. Perhaps she should if she figures it to be the harmless behavior of an old man making a silly joke, though.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 27, 2017, 04:05:55 PM
I was unaware there were more allegations

3 so far, all corroborating his apparent penchant for ass-squeezing and literary jokes ("Do you know what my favourite book is? David Cop-A-Feel!" I won't lie, I laughed):

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41771986
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 27, 2017, 04:41:09 PM
I think it's not so much a changing of definitions but a broader understanding of how it happens.  At least that's been my awakening in the last few years, that a lot more rape or sexual assault happens with someone close to the victim than with the hypothetical stranger in a dark alleyway. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 27, 2017, 04:48:16 PM
Dave, good post.  I think you hit on some topics that are hard to discuss because you don't want to come off as insensitive nor do you want to come off as defending people like Harvey.  I was trying to make similar points yesterday while doing the same.  It's really a hard topic to discuss and I agree that the media lumping all these stories together doesn't do the situation justice in terms of understanding what's really going on here.  I do think it's great that people are coming out and #MeToo is opening up woman to speak about their sexual abuses, but that doesn't mean Bush/Harvery/Halperin are all the same story nor should they all be treated the same.  BUT we do need to look into these and understand why and how they have happened and had gotten away with that behavior for so long and we don't get that understanding by lumping everything as Rape and closing discussions because they are tough.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 27, 2017, 05:11:38 PM
I think it's not so much a changing of definitions but a broader understanding of how it happens.  At least that's been my awakening in the last few years, that a lot more rape or sexual assault happens with someone close to the victim than with the hypothetical stranger in a dark alleyway.
While the latter might be true, the definitions are absolutely changing. I've provided several examples, but I just read this in the National Harlot Review and it's another good one.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/27/married-substitute-teacher-26-accused-bathrobe-man-cave-sex-with-her-teen-boy-student.html
While NHR will only say "teenager," he's a 17 year old who got it on with a hot substitute teacher, and understandably went back for more a few days later. In 2017 we're calling this a sexual assault. Presumably on the basis that this particular consensual act was non-consensual and he just didn't know it. Is that what you thought of as sexual assault 15 years ago?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 27, 2017, 09:01:05 PM

Is that what you thought of as sexual assault 15 years ago?

I didn’t think about it to be honest and that’s the point, I didn’t have to.  Plus there was a lot of shit I didnt know as a dumb 21 year old :loser:
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 30, 2017, 09:00:05 AM
Next at bat, Kevin Spacey
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 30, 2017, 09:13:52 AM
Next at bat, Kevin Spacey

People are apparently NOT happy with how he handled that. Especially the LGBT community.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 30, 2017, 09:16:25 AM
Next at bat, Kevin Spacey

People are apparently NOT happy with how he handled that. Especially the LGBT community.

And they shouldn't be.  I just had read one article before making that post here so I may not know all the details, but it comes off as deflection.  Honestly, people should be mad at the media as well for running with the wrong story. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 30, 2017, 09:18:34 AM
Yea, I read somewhere someone made a good point about it.

"I was informed that I may have robbed a bank in the past. If I did that, which I don't remember, I'm sorry. Also I wanted to let everyone know that I'm Jewish"
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on October 30, 2017, 09:45:22 AM
Next at bat, Kevin Spacey

People are apparently NOT happy with how he handled that. Especially the LGBT community.

And they shouldn't be.  I just had read one article before making that post here so I may not know all the details, but it comes off as deflection.  Honestly, people should be mad at the media as well for running with the wrong story.

This. The headlines are reading "Kevin Spacey Comes Out as Gay" instead of "Kevin Spacey Attempted to Have Sex With Minor"
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 30, 2017, 09:59:15 AM
Kevin Spacey should have fully owned up to doing that.  At the very least it would have  been only fair to Anthony Rapp who's had to live with the memory of that experience for years.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on October 30, 2017, 10:00:21 AM
IF his apology is true, and I have no reason to doubt it,* what is Spacey supposed to do? Make something up? What's the good move here? Seems he's supposed to proffer up a sincere apology whether he knows what it's for or not.

*Do we all remember drunken shit we did 30 years go?

Something else I find amusing as hell is that nine times out of ten when you're reading about something like this from a castigating source, along the right side of the page is a never ending stream about what some hot chick wore to the beach or whose what busted out their clothes walking a red carpet somewhere. "Rose McGowan goes after Kevin Spacey."  "Charlotte McKinney suffers wardrobe malfunction!" Bunch of bleeding hypocrites. FOX is particularly bad about this when reporting on their daily harlot.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on October 30, 2017, 10:09:13 AM
I mean, if the dude doesn't remember it, then that's fine. As you said, we're all human.

But his apology was mostly focused on coming out as gay, which people are seeing as a huge deflection. Don't apologize "if" you did something. Apologize that you did something. If he doubts he did it, then say that. But don't deny it but then not own it. He can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on October 30, 2017, 11:00:04 AM
And here I thought that was a well-reasoned response. Shows you what I know.

And if every guy had to tweet out an apology for every time he tried to get someone to hook up with him (in whatever form that may have taken) the internet would literally blow up. 

Quote
Rapp is publicly alleging for the first time that in 1986, Spacey befriended Rapp while they both performed on Broadway shows, invited Rapp over to his apartment for a party, and, at the end of the night, picked Rapp up, placed him on his bed, and climbed on top of him, making a sexual advance.

Ok, so sounds worse that I initially interpreted it. Disregard my earlier comment.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 30, 2017, 11:05:40 AM
I think it's not so much a changing of definitions but a broader understanding of how it happens.  At least that's been my awakening in the last few years, that a lot more rape or sexual assault happens with someone close to the victim than with the hypothetical stranger in a dark alleyway.

Actually, the list of women that I know that have stated they feel they've been raped is shockingly long, and yet, NOT ONE OF THEM was from a stranger, and most are from family members or acquaintances.    That sickens me.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: kaos2900 on October 30, 2017, 11:21:30 AM
I guess I don't see the issue with Spacey's comments. People are assuming his mention of being gay was used to deflect but do we know that for sure? Also, what is the point of this guy bringing this up now? Why do it in public? I'm having a hard time with this one. Maybe it's a double standard or maybe I'm choosing to give him the benefit of doubt since he seems to be decent dude.

Now there is a story about Adam Sandler touching some gals knee. I'm sure he'll apologize for hit and was just making a joke.

The media is flooding the airwaves with story after story of this with quotes of social media outrage from xyz celebrity. They better be careful how they handle these stories because eventually people are going to start tuning this out and the real issues and need for change will be missed (See Trump, See Kaepernick, etc).
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 30, 2017, 11:23:39 AM
And here I thought that was a well-reasoned response. Shows you what I know.

And if every guy had to tweet out an apology for every time he tried to get someone to hook up with him (in whatever form that may have taken) the internet would literally blow up. 

Quote
Rapp is publicly alleging for the first time that in 1986, Spacey befriended Rapp while they both performed on Broadway shows, invited Rapp over to his apartment for a party, and, at the end of the night, picked Rapp up, placed him on his bed, and climbed on top of him, making a sexual advance.

Ok, so sounds worse that I initially interpreted it. Disregard my earlier comment.

I haven't read anything about Spacey yet, but given JUST the above, what about that is "sexual assault"?     We just weathered six years of horribly written sexual fantasy (50 Shades of Grey, 2011) about doing just what Kevin allegedly did to that guy.   This is increasingly seeming like an outcome based standard, and that's a problem for me.   it's also increasingly becoming a THIRD PARTY standard, which - especially when you are talking about the mindset of the participants - is EXCEEDINGLY problematic for me.   

I seriously question ANY crime where the "victim" gets to just later decide how they feel and can then act accordingly.   I was watching "He Said She Said" recently (don't judge me!) and there's a scene where Kevin Bacon and Elizabeth Perkins are talking, and he leans in and just kisses her, uninvited.   She laughs (which turns into a plot point) but technically speaking, that's sexual assault on today's terms.   Given that, basically every date that I've ever been on since high school that ended in a kiss has the potential to be a "sexual assault" claim against me. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 30, 2017, 11:26:53 AM
I guess I don't see the issue with Spacey's comments. People are assuming his mention of being gay was used to deflect but do we know that for sure? Also, what is the point of this guy bringing this up now? Why do it in public? I'm having a hard time with this one. Maybe it's a double standard or maybe I'm choosing to give him the benefit of doubt since he seems to be decent dude.

Now there is a story about Adam Sandler touching some gals knee. I'm sure he'll apologize for hit and was just making a joke.

The media is flooding the airwaves with story after story of this with quotes of social media outrage from xyz celebrity. They better be careful how they handle these stories because eventually people are going to start tuning this out and the real issues and need for change will be missed (See Trump, See Kaepernick, etc).

Except the media doesn't care; they're on to the next thing (Hillary, Manafort, uranium).   Who should be worried are those unfortunate women that were undeniably, without interpretation raped by scumbags like Weinstein.   Lind is not helping her case, enpowered though she may feel.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: kaos2900 on October 30, 2017, 11:29:10 AM
And here I thought that was a well-reasoned response. Shows you what I know.

And if every guy had to tweet out an apology for every time he tried to get someone to hook up with him (in whatever form that may have taken) the internet would literally blow up. 

Quote
Rapp is publicly alleging for the first time that in 1986, Spacey befriended Rapp while they both performed on Broadway shows, invited Rapp over to his apartment for a party, and, at the end of the night, picked Rapp up, placed him on his bed, and climbed on top of him, making a sexual advance.

Ok, so sounds worse that I initially interpreted it. Disregard my earlier comment.

I haven't read anything about Spacey yet, but given JUST the above, what about that is "sexual assault"?     We just weathered six years of horribly written sexual fantasy (50 Shades of Grey, 2011) about doing just what Kevin allegedly did to that guy.   This is increasingly seeming like an outcome based standard, and that's a problem for me.   it's also increasingly becoming a THIRD PARTY standard, which - especially when you are talking about the mindset of the participants - is EXCEEDINGLY problematic for me.   

I seriously question ANY crime where the "victim" gets to just later decide how they feel and can then act accordingly.   I was watching "He Said She Said" recently (don't judge me!) and there's a scene where Kevin Bacon and Elizabeth Perkins are talking, and he leans in and just kisses her, uninvited.   She laughs (which turns into a plot point) but technically speaking, that's sexual assault on today's terms.   Given that, basically every date that I've ever been on since high school that ended in a kiss has the potential to be a "sexual assault" claim against me.

Agreed Stads, that's I where I struggle with how I feel about a lot of this. Luckily I'm married and don't have to worry about dating. Also, I have two young daughters and if this truly results in positive change for women and it reduces the likely hood of facing something like this then I'm happy.

Honest question, if this guy was hit on by a woman at 14 would he be complaining today?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 30, 2017, 11:35:31 AM
Kevin Spacey didn't commit sexual assault as far as I know.  That's not what Anthony Rapp said either.  He made sexual advances on a minor.    And maybe making it about ourselves and a "fear" of potentially being accused(what?)  is really not the point, just saying. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on October 30, 2017, 11:35:59 AM
And here I thought that was a well-reasoned response. Shows you what I know.

And if every guy had to tweet out an apology for every time he tried to get someone to hook up with him (in whatever form that may have taken) the internet would literally blow up. 

Quote
Rapp is publicly alleging for the first time that in 1986, Spacey befriended Rapp while they both performed on Broadway shows, invited Rapp over to his apartment for a party, and, at the end of the night, picked Rapp up, placed him on his bed, and climbed on top of him, making a sexual advance.

Ok, so sounds worse that I initially interpreted it. Disregard my earlier comment.

I haven't read anything about Spacey yet, but given JUST the above, what about that is "sexual assault"? 

Spacey was 26 and Rapp was 14 when this happened.  I think that is the part that is raising eyebrows, more so than just a sexual advance.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on October 30, 2017, 11:44:25 AM
Here's an example of something that happened last year  https://variety.com/2016/film/news/devin-faraci-birth-movies-death-sexual-assault-1201885262/

birth.movies.death is website I still read and comment on almost everyday and I had been following Devin Faraci's writing for years.   A woman reminded him that ten years prior he had basically assaulted her in a bar and made fun of her to his friends. Initially he said he didn't remember, he was drunk etc but he owned to up to his actions and faced the consequences.   

edit:  I'm not saying Kevin Spacey should be run out of town and never work again or anything like that. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on October 30, 2017, 12:02:35 PM
I think it's not so much a changing of definitions but a broader understanding of how it happens.  At least that's been my awakening in the last few years, that a lot more rape or sexual assault happens with someone close to the victim than with the hypothetical stranger in a dark alleyway.

Actually, the list of women that I know that have stated they feel they've been raped is shockingly long, and yet, NOT ONE OF THEM was from a stranger, and most are from family members or acquaintances.    That sickens me.

I am happy to say that the list I am aware of from my own list of acquaintances is VERY short, and that only one was NOT from a family member or acquaintance.  Gotta give props for self control, moral living, and not engaging in sex outside of marriage.  That alone drastically reduces the odds of something like that happening.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 30, 2017, 12:14:52 PM
Kevin Spacey didn't commit sexual assault as far as I know.  That's not what Anthony Rapp said either.  He made sexual advances on a minor.    And maybe making it about ourselves and a "fear" of potentially being accused(what?)  is really not the point, just saying.

If I was really scared of being accused I would have used "terrified", but I didn't.  :) :) :)

No, seriously, I'm not at all making it "about ourselves".  I'm pointing out, in real terms (since I feel like there's at least someone here that can sympathize with what I'm saying) that the standard is not at all conducive to stopping the behavior we are castigating, but rather promoting a witch hunt, which can only backfire.   It's the equivalent of telling kids NOT to listen to that "evil rock music".
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 30, 2017, 12:21:51 PM
Here's an example of something that happened last year  https://variety.com/2016/film/news/devin-faraci-birth-movies-death-sexual-assault-1201885262/

birth.movies.death is website I still read and comment on almost everyday and I had been following Devin Faraci's writing for years.   A woman reminded him that ten years prior he had basically assaulted her in a bar and made fun of her to his friends. Initially he said he didn't remember, he was drunk etc but he owned to up to his actions and faced the consequences.   

edit:  I'm not saying Kevin Spacey should be run out of town and never work again or anything like that.

Sure that's the article you want to use to make your point?   Your source, not mine, but I was interested to read about Devin's reaction to Trump.  :)  :) :)

More to the point, though, Devin DIDN'T really "own it".  He didn't admit to it, only said that "I believe you" and that he would step down to make himself a better man.    I can only assume that he's done this before, it wasn't a surprise and that he was getting out of the kitchen before the fire got too hot, but - again - I have real problems with ACCUSATIONS being the catalyst for this.  What about "innocent until proven guilty"?   What about the right to face your accuser (which, at this point we only know as "spacecrone")?

We've talked about the rules a lot here - with the tacit understanding that there are no "rules" - but we're using some really bad examples by which to set parameters.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on October 30, 2017, 07:12:15 PM
It won't surprise me at all if this is true and the stories about Spacey being a piece of shit are true, but it's amazing how many just automatically believe any allegation nowadays. 

This truly has become a world of "guilty until proven innocent" world when it comes to the court of public opinion.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on October 30, 2017, 07:35:28 PM
I've never heard any bad stories about Spacey, but I am not a frequent reader the Hollywood rags. Not having been there, picking someone up, putting them on a bed, and climbing on top of them can run a pretty broad spectrum between drunken playfulness to aggressive assault.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: lordxizor on October 31, 2017, 06:09:54 AM
While sexual assault is a horrible crime, I have a hard time with people coming out with these stories years or decades after they happen and telling the media about it instead of the proper authorities. I get we're in a cycle of empowering people to tell their stories, but it just seems wrong to me to do it in this way. Though if the statute of limitations is up on the crime, I guess there's no point in going to the police about it. It just doesn't seem right to me to throw these people to the whims of public damnation instead of going through proper channels where there is an investigation and all parties get to tell their stories. That being said, I tend to give the victims the benefit of the doubt when they tell their stories.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on October 31, 2017, 07:33:19 AM
While sexual assault is a horrible crime, I have a hard time with people coming out with these stories years or decades after they happen and telling the media about it instead of the proper authorities.

More annoying to me are the usual rabble of d-list celebs now coming out of the woodwork to claim they "always knew" about this stuff. Last night Rosie O'Donnell (never more than 5 yards away from a righteous cause) got into a lengthy Twitter exchange about Kevin Spacey. Long story short, she posted on his account "Fuck you Kevin, we always knew about you". Several people then quite reasonably asked her why this "we" she speaks of never did anything about it at the time, when it would have made a difference to the people being abused. Her response? She was "afraid" to speak out because the "white men" (she specified the skin colour for some reason) who were doing it were so powerful.

Let that sink in a moment. Rosie O'Donnell (as only one example, there are many others coming out now) was "afraid" to speak out about the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey because of their "power", yet she has no issue hurling any and every insult and accusation, no matter how baseless, at the most powerful man in America, the President. She and others have no "fear" when it comes to speaking out against whatever opportunistic cause they've decided to care about that day (the NRA, Vladimir Putin, the fur and meat trade, Wall Street, globalisation, you name it), regardless of whether they actually have the first clue what they're talking about, but on the issue of rape and child molestation (which they claim to "know" about) they are "afraid" to speak out? Ashley Judd is another one. She says she didn't speak out earlier on behalf of others because she was "in fear" of Weinstein. This is a woman who a few months back stood on a stage and read a poem about that "Cheeto-dust skin", daughter-lusting, racist, sexist, woman-abusing, homophobic "pig" of a President, Donald Trump. No "fear" of the "white men in power" then?

I'm not diminishing the effect of being abused and how it can force a person into silence. That is a separate issue. The issue here for me is that you can't claim it was the "power" of the man which made you keep your silence while also throwing around accusations against world leaders. That's not bravery, that's cowardice and hypocrisy. Rosie O'Donnell is the first to ignorantly whine about Russia's "LGBT rights abuses", yet she keeps quiet about child molestation going on under her nose? Go fuck yourself, Rosie, you fear only for your career and nothing else. If you "knew all along", why didn't you do something about it when it would have mattered? You and your buddies were happy to use your platform to push your own various interests and beliefs and agendas when it suited you, but not when it came to standing up for molested children and raped women? 

On the one hand I don't care about any of this, Hollywood will hopefully die away soon and that whole cesspit of a town can fade away into oblivion. But on the other hand, I'm happy to see these "I was afraid to defend them" hypocrites being called out, even if it is only on their social media pages. This won't be forgotten. The next time one of them stands on a stage and loudly proclaims "we need to resist the President!" (as is their right by the way, I'm not saying they shouldn't do that), I hope someone will say "It's a shame you weren't so vocal in resisting the rape and child abuse of your colleagues which you claim you knew about".
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 31, 2017, 08:17:24 AM
I've never heard any bad stories about Spacey, but I am not a frequent reader the Hollywood rags. Not having been there, picking someone up, putting them on a bed, and climbing on top of them can run a pretty broad spectrum between drunken playfulness to aggressive assault.

Yeah, me too.  He's been, heretofore, a pretty stand up guy, and frankly, the more I read about this the more I think Kevin is getting a raw deal.   I'm aware of the law - statutory rape, etc. - but I'm hard pressed to see the ILLEGALITY of what Kevin did.  And regardless, if we're talking about "legality" and "the law", let's let Kevin exercise his Constitutional rights to have a jury of his peers and to face his accuser.   As for him coming out, I thought the LGBT community was the community of tolerance.  I would think that how I come out is the same as how I conduct myself in the privacy of my bedroom, i.e. MY OWN BUSINESS.   

This just stinks.  And as I said to my wife (an abuse survivor), this kind of "accusation" has a detrimental impact for the women that were well and truly and provably raped by pieces of shit like Weinstein. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on October 31, 2017, 08:21:48 AM
Let that sink in a moment. Rosie O'Donnell (as only one example, there are many others coming out now) was "afraid" to speak out about the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey because of their "power", yet she has no issue hurling any and every insult and accusation, no matter how baseless, at the most powerful man in America, the President. She and others have no "fear" when it comes to speaking out against whatever opportunistic cause they've decided to care about that day (the NRA, Vladimir Putin, the fur and meat trade, Wall Street, globalism, you name it), regardless of whether they actually have the first clue what they're talking about, but on the issue of rape and child molestation (which they claim to "know" about) they are "afraid" to speak out? Ashley Judd is another one. She says she didn't speak out earlier on behalf of others because she was "in fear" of Weinstein. This is a woman who a few months back stood on a stage and read a poem about that "Cheeto-dust skin", daughter-lusting, racist, sexist, woman-abusing, homophobic "pig" of a President, Donald Trump. No "fear" of the "white men in power" then?

I'm not diminishing the effect of being abused and how it can force a person into silence. That is a separate issue. The issue here for me is that you can't claim it was the "power" of the man which made you keep your silence while also throwing around accusations against world leaders. That's not bravery, that's cowardice and hypocrisy. Rosie O'Donnell is the first to ignorantly whine about Russia's "LGBT rights abuses", yet she keeps quiet about child molestation going on under her nose? Go fuck yourself, Rosie, you fear only for your career and nothing else. If you "knew all along", why didn't you do something about it when it would have mattered? You and your buddies were happy to use your platform to push your own various interests and beliefs and agendas when it suited you, but not when it came to standing up for molested children and raped women? 

On the one hand I don't care about any of this, Hollywood will hopefully die away soon and that whole cesspit of a town can fade away into oblivion. But on the other hand, I'm happy to see these "I was afraid to defend them" hypocrites being called out, even if it is only on their social media pages. This won't be forgotten. The next time one of them stands on a stage and loudly proclaims "we need to resist the President!" (as is their right by the way, I'm not saying they shouldn't do that), I hope someone will say "It's a shame you weren't so vocal in resisting the rape and child abuse of your colleagues which you claim you knew about".

If we were drunk at a party, I'd throw you on the bed...  I'm kidding.    Well said.   There's a very fine line between "empowering" and emboldening the "mob mentality" and I think we're starting to veer into that territory.   I'm also asking explicitly for permission to take that idea - not your words, but the idea.   I think it's a fair question to ask of some of these people (on both sides of the argument).  You can't make the argument that is convenient, you have to make the argument that is RIGHT, and regardless of the emotion of that argument, it has to sustain itself in the face of inquiry.   Increasingly, some of this is not withstanding the review, and as such I feel badly for those who were truly and provably abused by these pieces of shit. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 01, 2017, 08:08:53 AM
It won't surprise me at all if this is true and the stories about Spacey being a piece of shit are true, but it's amazing how many just automatically believe any allegation nowadays. 

This truly has become a world of "guilty until proven innocent" world when it comes to the court of public opinion.

Well no one is denying these allegations so it makes it much easier to believe.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 01, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
It won't surprise me at all if this is true and the stories about Spacey being a piece of shit are true, but it's amazing how many just automatically believe any allegation nowadays. 

This truly has become a world of "guilty until proven innocent" world when it comes to the court of public opinion.

Well no one is denying these allegations so it makes it much easier to believe.
Nope. But no one is trying to see these allegations from any standpoint other than fulfilling the "he's a piece of shit" preconception, either.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 01, 2017, 08:31:47 AM
It won't surprise me at all if this is true and the stories about Spacey being a piece of shit are true, but it's amazing how many just automatically believe any allegation nowadays. 

This truly has become a world of "guilty until proven innocent" world when it comes to the court of public opinion.

Well no one is denying these allegations so it makes it much easier to believe.
Nope. But no one is trying to see these allegations from any standpoint other than fulfilling the "he's a piece of shit" preconception, either.

That's true as well.  I see Jeremy Piven has been added to the list and he is denying. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 01, 2017, 08:47:33 AM
Look, I'm arguing this - to no avail, it seems - in the Sons of Apollo thread.   "Silence" is very dangerous to interpret.   Does it mean "yeah, they're right!"?   Or does it mean "I'm not going to dignify that nonsense with an answer"?   And for my money, the choice is usually down to what the viewer has as a preconceived notion.   I find it hard to believe - nay, impossible - that there are people that were like "Well, I think Kevin Spacey is innocent of all... wait, what?  He denied it? What? That fucking dirty pedophile!"   In that SoA thread, Mike is silent, and he's guilty for not shutting Derek down, but Jordan is silent and he's the mature hero for not engaging.   Same with Trump.  He didn't disavow the Nazi's in less than the allotted time?   Friggin' racist!

I'd really like to reserve judgment on these things until we're in a court of law (or at least in the judicial system), and for once I'd love to see a celebrity that is accused say "Wow, okay, while I respect the accuser, and I have only the deepest sympathy for the emotions that they must be feeling to make this a public spectacle, we are both American citizens, and so we both have our right to due process.   Respecting their authority, I will abide by any decision handed down by a court of competent jurisdiction."    I think I have a better chance of Gene Simmons watching the Super Bowl with me in my living room.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 01, 2017, 08:54:21 AM
I don't think you are wrong by any means and part of the problem is all of this stuff is old news really.  It's coming out now, but not happening now.  I'm guessing all of these aren't able to go to court now so that may be why people aren't saying things like that.  But sure, there needs to be more to it than just an accusation and your career ends.  I also think it needs to be more than "I always knew Spacey was an asshole"  That doesn't add much to the conversation IMO.  Everyone is an asshole and that's not illegal. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 01, 2017, 08:58:57 AM
In that SoA thread, Mike is silent, and he's guilty for not shutting Derek down, but Jordan is silent and he's the mature hero for not engaging.   

While your overall point is correct and is a good one, you are again completely mischaracterizing what is going on in the SoA thread.  Stop lying about what other people are saying.  Nobody said that. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 01, 2017, 10:15:09 AM
In that SoA thread, Mike is silent, and he's guilty for not shutting Derek down, but Jordan is silent and he's the mature hero for not engaging.   

While your overall point is correct and is a good one, you are again completely mischaracterizing what is going on in the SoA thread.  Stop lying about what other people are saying.  Nobody said that.

Look, I really want to stay here.  I like it here, and I have friends here.  But I'm going to respectfully ask you to stop accusing me of lying.  You've done it now a couple times, and it almost seems to be a personal attack.  I may be wrong - never said I wasn't human - but I can assure you I am not "lying" - that is, knowingly stating something I know to be wrong.

You keep citing a Blabbermouth article, and saying that I'm purposefully asserting that James said something he didn't by using the headline.   I am not.   I am using an Ultimate Guitar article - here:  https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/interviews/dream_theater_singer_not_sad_at_all_following_portnoys_departure.html - and I am using JAMES' WORDS IN THE ARTICLE (First two sentences of James' second response).  And my point IS NOT what James was feeling, but only that it is open to interpretation, and it was.  It wasn't just Mike that took James' words (not the headline) that way and James acknowledged that later.  JAMES SAID - these are his words, not a headline - "When I said I was not sad with Mike's departure, it, unfortunately, leaves plenty of room to misconstrue such words." https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/portnoy-accuses-labrie-of-being-insensitive-singer-claims-his-words-were-misconstrued/

That's all I'm saying.  Is that all of this has or can have multiple interpretations.  I don't think I'm "bizarre" or "lying" to accept that others might have a different interpretation than I do.   

As for the "silence" issue, that's how I'm interpreting things like posts 256 and 257, where TWO people said that he should be stepping in and controlling Derek.   Compare that with posts (in the other SoA thread) 355, 325 (which quotes scripture, no less!) complimenting JR/DT on their taking the high road by not engaging.   

You don't have to agree with this, you don't have to agree with ME, but there is some basis for thinking it's a different standard. It's certainly not a "lie".   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: kaos2900 on November 01, 2017, 11:17:18 AM
So, Kevin Spacey could sue that guy for slander right?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 01, 2017, 11:42:46 AM
The dude said that it happened while they were both doing Broadway shows. I'm pretty sure NY has no statute of limitations on sex crimes. I guess he could sue him for slander, or whatevs, but it wouldn't be in his best interest. The dude could just press charges, which I imagine Spacey would like to avoid if possible. Better to just say he doesn't remember, but sorry if it happened.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 01, 2017, 11:51:30 AM
So, Kevin Spacey could sue that guy for slander right?

Truth wins; if Spacey can show that the guy was false in his accusation, and he can show a damage to reputation (and I understand that House Of Cards is now cancelled at least in part because of this accusation) he can certainly bring a suit if he so chooses.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 01, 2017, 12:15:27 PM
So, Kevin Spacey could sue that guy for slander right?

Truth wins; if Spacey can show that the guy was false in his accusation, and he can show a damage to reputation (and I understand that House Of Cards is now cancelled at least in part because of this accusation) he can certainly bring a suit if he so chooses.

I kind of think both sides would be hard to prove from what we know
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 01, 2017, 12:30:11 PM
So, Kevin Spacey could sue that guy for slander right?

Truth wins; if Spacey can show that the guy was false in his accusation, and he can show a damage to reputation (and I understand that House Of Cards is now cancelled at least in part because of this accusation) he can certainly bring a suit if he so chooses.

I kind of think both sides would be hard to prove from what we know

Well, I don't at all disagree, and not to be a cold bastard, but that's part of the process for both sides.  Because it's "hard to prove" doesn't give license to street justice.   Why does the guy making the accusation get to torpedo Kevin's career because he finally got nerve (for whatever reason) 30 years later?   It's not "innocent until proven guilty, unless you wait 30 years and use Twitter".   If anything, the standard ought to be higher.   Would we be saying the same things if the guy didn't post that statement, but rather walked up to Kevin and sliced his face?   Or torched his house?   Of course not. 

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 01, 2017, 12:36:58 PM
Yea I agree with that.  From my understanding, to get the evidence needed to convict someone on sexual crimes, it needs to be done immediately to get that forensic evidence needed to prove things.  Waiting 30 years kind of leaves things to he said she said.  The reason why I am personally not giving people like Spacey and Harvey the benefit of the doubt is due to their own responses and the multiple similar accounts.  Just read there are more reports of Spacey going after younger guys.  There are patterns with these guys.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 01, 2017, 12:44:55 PM
I heard that too.  Still not convinced that what Spacey is doing is ILLEGAL though.  It might be dickish, it might be the kind of thing that gets your ass beat on the sidewalk, but is it ILLEGAL?   (Honest question).
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 01, 2017, 12:57:58 PM
I heard that too.  Still not convinced that what Spacey is doing is ILLEGAL though.  It might be dickish, it might be the kind of thing that gets your ass beat on the sidewalk, but is it ILLEGAL?   (Honest question).

People said the same thing about Sandusky showering with boys.  That act alone is not illegal, but it's not normal and eventually people discovered he was doing more than just showering.  I do kind of think a sexual advance on a minor is illegal, maybe I am wrong, but I am not sure how you prove what an advance actually is because those can often be explained away (like showering was).  The guy who is coming out today about Spacey said he knew other minors who did perform sexual acts with Spacey.  Once again, a he said she said thing, but all this leads us further down the Spacey rabbit hole and so far it's not looking good for him.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 01, 2017, 01:29:44 PM
I heard that too.  Still not convinced that what Spacey is doing is ILLEGAL though.  It might be dickish, it might be the kind of thing that gets your ass beat on the sidewalk, but is it ILLEGAL?   (Honest question).
Seems to me that the only thing you could conjure up would be attempted statutory rape, which might or might not be an actual thing. I have no idea if "attempted" is always applicable or if there has to be a specific law making the attempt a crime. Would this be any different than attempted speeding? Attempted possession? I do know that intent has nothing to do with statutory rape in NY, and mistake of age is not a defense, so he was definitely trying to commit what would have been a criminal act. Whether or not that's an actual crime is an interesting question, though.


edit: I turned this up, but can't say that I understand its application.
Quote
Equally unimportant is the state of mind of the offender. It does not matter if he maliciously, knowingly, or intentionally committed the act. However the so-called "inchoate crimes," attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation, all require a mens rea. For example, there can be no "attempted" or "conspiracy to commit" statutory rape.

Seems to me that in Spacie's case, he did intend to fuck an underage boy, which is a crime in that state. I can see how proving it would be impossible, but I don't get how that translates to "there can be no "attempted". . . statutory rape."
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 01, 2017, 02:25:35 PM
I heard that too.  Still not convinced that what Spacey is doing is ILLEGAL though.  It might be dickish, it might be the kind of thing that gets your ass beat on the sidewalk, but is it ILLEGAL?   (Honest question).
Seems to me that the only thing you could conjure up would be attempted statutory rape, which might or might not be an actual thing. I have no idea if "attempted" is always applicable or if there has to be a specific law making the attempt a crime. Would this be any different than attempted speeding? Attempted possession? I do know that intent has nothing to do with statutory rape in NY, and mistake of age is not a defense, so he was definitely trying to commit what would have been a criminal act. Whether or not that's an actual crime is an interesting question, though.


edit: I turned this up, but can't say that I understand its application.
Quote
Equally unimportant is the state of mind of the offender. It does not matter if he maliciously, knowingly, or intentionally committed the act. However the so-called "inchoate crimes," attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation, all require a mens rea. For example, there can be no "attempted" or "conspiracy to commit" statutory rape.

Seems to me that in Spacie's case, he did intend to fuck an underage boy, which is a crime in that state. I can see how proving it would be impossible, but I don't get how that translates to "there can be no "attempted". . . statutory rape."

Well, with the proviso that these laws are very much specific to each state, both in terms of what constitutes a minor and what constitutes "sex" (sorry, Bill), but if Kevin climbed on him and simply said "I'd love to f*** the gay right out of you!", the most that I'm seeing is a sexual assault, that is, touching of another with sexual intent without consent.   And that's assuming that that was the law on the books at the time.   
 
"Mens rea" is, simply put, "a guilty mind".  The intention of committing that crime.  The definition of "attempt" for a crime is this intent - you need to want to commit a crime - and you have to do something to further that.   The difference here is that "statutory rape" is a strict liability crime - meaning, it doesn't matter what the person intended to do. 

I'm having a hard time concisely putting into words why there is no "attempted statutory rape".  Let's try this:

Let's say two scenarios:
 - I walk up to a girl who is 19.  She says "let's fuck".   I say "Are you 21?"  She says "Yes".  We fuck, I'm going to jail. 
 - I walk up to a girl who is 19.  She says "let's fuck".   I say "Are you 21?"  She says "No".  We fuck, I'm going to jail.
Same outcome either way;  remember, my intent doesn't matter.     

But two more scenarios:
 - I walk up to a girl who is 21.  She says "let's fuck".   I say "Are you 21?"  She says "Yes".  We fuck, I'm not going to jail. 
 - I walk up to a girl who is 21.  She says "let's fuck".   I say "Are you 21?"  She says "No".  We fuck, I'm still not going to jail, because my intent doesn't matter, only what her ACTUAL age is.   So there can't be an attempt at something that isn't ultimately a crime.


Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 01, 2017, 02:53:26 PM
I know what mens rea is and I understand the strict liability aspect of this. What I don't understand is how Kevin Spacey can make an attempt to screw the kid and it not constitute having a guilty mind. For the sake of this discussion we're saying that his intent was to bang this kid, which would have been a crime. It might not have registered with him "hey, I want to commit a crime," but who frames anything that way (Monty Python excepted)?

And on a side note, I agree with it not being a crime for a couple of reasons. First and foremost being a person should have the opportunity to change his mind. I'm not wanting to put the guy away. I just find this a fascinating topic.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 01, 2017, 03:22:52 PM
But I'm going to respectfully ask you to stop accusing me of lying. 

Then I'm going to respectfully ask that you stop intentionally misrepresenting the facts.  I'm not going to respond point by point to what you posted because (1) it is off topic and (2) you have already specifically been corrected as to the facts several times in that other thread (and therefore you know what the actual facts are).  There's no reason to derail this thread by misrepresenting that one.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 01, 2017, 03:24:40 PM
But two more scenarios:
 - I walk up to a girl who is 21.  She says "let's fuck".   I say "Are you 21?"  She says "Yes".  We fuck, I'm not going to jail. 
 - I walk up to a girl who is 21.  She says "let's fuck".   I say "Are you 21?"  She says "No".  We fuck, I'm still not going to jail, because my intent doesn't matter, only what her ACTUAL age is.   So there can't be an attempt at something that isn't ultimately a crime.

Wait, isn't that last scenario rape and you are going to jail?  :lol  I know that's not your point though
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 01, 2017, 03:28:14 PM
But two more scenarios:
 - I walk up to a girl who is 21.  She says "let's fuck".   I say "Are you 21?"  She says "Yes".  We fuck, I'm not going to jail. 
 - I walk up to a girl who is 21.  She says "let's fuck".   I say "Are you 21?"  She says "No".  We fuck, I'm still not going to jail, because my intent doesn't matter, only what her ACTUAL age is.   So there can't be an attempt at something that isn't ultimately a crime.

Wait, isn't that last scenario rape and you are going to jail?  :lol 

???  How?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 01, 2017, 03:29:15 PM
I read the question wrong, my bad thought it was "do you want to fuck?"
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 01, 2017, 03:35:28 PM
I'm more curious why he's using Bahrain in his hypothetical example. Even the Koreans will allow you to bang a twenty year old.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 02, 2017, 09:19:34 AM
I know what mens rea is and I understand the strict liability aspect of this. What I don't understand is how Kevin Spacey can make an attempt to screw the kid and it not constitute having a guilty mind. For the sake of this discussion we're saying that his intent was to bang this kid, which would have been a crime. It might not have registered with him "hey, I want to commit a crime," but who frames anything that way (Monty Python excepted)?

And on a side note, I agree with it not being a crime for a couple of reasons. First and foremost being a person should have the opportunity to change his mind. I'm not wanting to put the guy away. I just find this a fascinating topic.

I understand your dilemma, and it's not one that is easily solved by logic.   But the point is still that the law has decided that if the underlying crime doesn't require a guilty mind, then you can't penalize someone for that guilty mind if they don't commit the crime itself.   

You also have to remember that here, the essence of the crime isn't that 'banging underage girls is evil'.  It's that, under the law, the underage girl is incapable of giving consent.   We often talk about this in moral or ethical terms, and certainly there are those that believe the law is there to preserve the moral fortitude of this great nation, but that's not why the law ultimately exists. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 02, 2017, 09:21:19 AM
I'm more curious why he's using Bahrain in his hypothetical example. Even the Koreans will allow you to bang a twenty year old.

HAHA, you're on fire with reading my mind.  I debated that as well.   I originally had "16" in there, but was waiting for the "well, in my state I can bang a 15 year old".  I wanted to avoid the whole issue of the state-by-state age of consent.   

You are technically right; the "21" in real life should be replaced by whatever the specific state age of consent is.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 03, 2017, 08:55:24 AM
Hyde accused of rape by 4 women, allegedly covered up by Scientology... :(
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/danny-masterson-rape-accusations_us_59fa8410e4b01b474048242a (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/danny-masterson-rape-accusations_us_59fa8410e4b01b474048242a)

Quote
In April 2017, police referred the case to the district attorney. Since then, the district attorney’s office has examined the evidence turned over by LAPD and conducted its own investigation. Despite compelling ― what one law enforcement source described as “overwhelming” — evidence, the charges have not been approved for filing. The evidence includes audiotapes, emails sent to and from Scientology officers at the time the alleged rapes happened, forensic computer evidence and a threatening handwritten letter Masterson sent to one of the alleged victims, according to two people with knowledge of the evidence in the district attorney’s possession.

Mueller is a highly respected prosecutor in the district attorney’s office who is known for his thoroughness and objectivity, which is why two sources in the office are confused that the case, in one source’s words, has been “slow rolled.”
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 03, 2017, 09:19:08 AM
That's actually pretty bad since it was Fez that was well known as the skeeviest of the lot.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: pogoowner on November 09, 2017, 05:17:57 PM
Quote
Now, after years of unsubstantiated rumors about Louis C.K. masturbating in front of associates, women are coming forward to describe what they experienced. Even amid the current burst of sexual misconduct accusations against powerful men, the stories about Louis C.K. stand out because he has so few equals in comedy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

Well, Louis C.K. has finally been outed.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 09, 2017, 06:33:50 PM
First off, I honestly had no idea so many guys get their jollies having women watch them beat off. This is fascinating to me. I really figured it was the other way around. Maybe I'm just an old fashioned guy, but I'd rather watch the girl do it.

In any case, three allegations against Lewis CK. Not sure why the article refers to 5 women, as I only see 4.

1. He asks two ladies if he can beat off in front of them. They laugh. Presumably he infers that absent objection it's alright and goes to town. Don't whip it out unless you know damn well that it's cool. This one's on him and deserves the flack he's getting for it.

2. Some woman calls him and hears him jacking it. I'd probably stop and wait until I was off the phone, myself, but if he wasn't obvious or obnoxious about it I'm calling no foul on this one.

3. He asks some woman if he can beat off in front of her. She says no. End of story. Rude and obnoxious, but not much beyond that.

Again with the piling on. He's a sleazy, low brow guy, apparently. Don't work with if you don't want to. I'd advise against going to his hotel room for a while. But driving the guy into the ground seems a little unnecessary for the allegations he's accused of, beyond our current addiction to castigation.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on November 10, 2017, 04:06:16 AM
The media is having a hard time defining the line between creepy and legit sexual assault. Asking a woman if you can masturbate in front. of her isn't even in the same galaxy as forcefully touching a woman inappropriately, and it's not even in the same universe as rape.

There are thousands romantic movies where the guy initiates a kiss with a girl. Sometimes she's into it, and sometimes the girl pulls back. I've had it go both ways for me on a number of occasions. Can the girls that pulled their head away, which signaled to me to abort mission, technically say I sexually assaulted them? I technically made an unwanted advance. I also don't understand this fascination with jerking off in front of women.

Also, with this Roy Moore thing, I've now seen it all with republican hypocrisy and a new level of low in order to defend one of their own. Between Hannity saying the 14 year old girl consented and Jim Ziegler using the fucking Bible and Mary only being 14 to justify it (Mary was a virgin btw, member?), I've now seen it all. They crucified Weinstein because he donated to the DNC, but they're playing the Jesus card to justify trying to have sex with a 14 year old.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 07:55:29 AM
I was more afraid that the NYT would reveal worse stuff about Louis CK but in the end it was the exact same stories that have been floating around for 3 years except with names attached on the record.    If he had just owned it then, he could have avoided a lot of grief now the climate is too frantic.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 07:55:44 AM
The media is having a hard time defining the line between creepy and legit sexual assault. Asking a woman if you can masturbate in front. of her isn't even in the same galaxy as forcefully touching a woman inappropriately, and it's not even in the same universe as rape.

There are thousands romantic movies where the guy initiates a kiss with a girl. Sometimes she's into it, and sometimes the girl pulls back. I've had it go both ways for me on a number of occasions. Can the girls that pulled their head away, which signaled to me to abort mission, technically say I sexually assaulted them? I technically made an unwanted advance. I also don't understand this fascination with jerking off in front of women.

I was having this conversation with my wife last night.    I don't at all consider myself a sexual predator - I thank god for this every day, but I was born with the gene that gets turned on when a woman is actually INTO what we're doing - but based on some of these accusations, it'd be pretty easy to rack up four or five accusations against me, especially during college, where you're young and dumb and maybe a little more brash or bold.  I don't mean touching, I mean maybe less smooth or coy as you might be later in life. 

Quote
Also, with this Roy Moore thing, I've now seen it all with republican hypocrisy and a new level of low in order to defend one of their own. Between Hannity saying the 14 year old girl consented and Jim Ziegler using the fucking Bible and Mary only being 14 to justify it (Mary was a virgin btw, member?), I've now seen it all. They crucified Weinstein because he donated to the DNC, but they're playing the Jesus card to justify trying to have sex with a 14 year old.

Hannity is an ass.   He really is.  (Though I have to say, the law is the law.  If the state legislature says the age of consent is 14, the problem isn't with Roy Moore, it's with the legislature.   Though at least currently, the age of consent in the U.S. is not lower than 16 as far as I know). 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 08:01:42 AM

I was having this conversation with my wife last night.    I don't at all consider myself a sexual predator - I thank god for this every day, but I was born with the gene that gets turned on when a woman is actually INTO what we're doing - but based on some of these accusations, it'd be pretty easy to rack up four or five accusations against me, especially during college, where you're young and dumb and maybe a little more brash or bold.  I don't mean touching, I mean maybe less smooth or coy as you might be later in life. 

This is good,  part of the goal here is for us as men to look back on our behavious and think about it.   We're the ones who have solve this problem.   I know that's probably not what you meant and you're about smother me in rethoric so I'll let you know right now I probably won't respond.  ;) 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on November 10, 2017, 08:10:46 AM

I was having this conversation with my wife last night.    I don't at all consider myself a sexual predator - I thank god for this every day, but I was born with the gene that gets turned on when a woman is actually INTO what we're doing - but based on some of these accusations, it'd be pretty easy to rack up four or five accusations against me, especially during college, where you're young and dumb and maybe a little more brash or bold.  I don't mean touching, I mean maybe less smooth or coy as you might be later in life. 

This is good,  part of the goal here is for us as men to look back on our behavious and think about it.   We're the ones who have solve this problem.   I know that's probably not what you meant and you're about smother me in rethoric so I'll let you know right now I probably won't respond.  ;)

I've reflected on it a lot recently and still don't think there was anything wrong with my behavior, and like Stadler said, this applies strongly to the college years. We were drunk often (not an excuse for the behavior, but maybe the mindset), horny as hell, and had next to no supervision. I see nothing wrong with making a move (within reason). It's what's done when the person on the receiving end responds. Flirting with a girl all night, getting your arm around her (advance), slowly moving your hand down to her ass (advance), and then asking her if she wants to go somewhere else (advance), is not sexual assault in my book. You're testing the waters with respect and within reason. If at any time the girl moved your arm, or asked you to stop and you continued anyway, then it's sexual assault. At least in my book. I had instances at clubs with a girl grinding on me only to move my hands back toward her waist if they started creeping. I don't think I'm a predator, harasser, or assaulter for any of those actions, and I think most women would agree.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 10, 2017, 08:23:51 AM

I was having this conversation with my wife last night.    I don't at all consider myself a sexual predator - I thank god for this every day, but I was born with the gene that gets turned on when a woman is actually INTO what we're doing - but based on some of these accusations, it'd be pretty easy to rack up four or five accusations against me, especially during college, where you're young and dumb and maybe a little more brash or bold.  I don't mean touching, I mean maybe less smooth or coy as you might be later in life. 

This is good,  part of the goal here is for us as men to look back on our behavious and think about it.   We're the ones who have solve this problem.   I know that's probably not what you meant and you're about smother me in rethoric so I'll let you know right now I probably won't respond.  ;)

I've reflected on it a lot recently and still don't think there was anything wrong with my behavior, and like Stadler said, this applies strongly to the college years. We were drunk often (not an excuse for the behavior, but maybe the mindset), horny as hell, and had next to no supervision. I see nothing wrong with making a move (within reason). It's what's done when the person on the receiving end responds. Flirting with a girl all night, getting your arm around her (advance), slowly moving your hand down to her ass (advance), and then asking her if she wants to go somewhere else (advance), is not sexual assault in my book. You're testing the waters with respect and within reason. If at any time the girl moved your arm, or asked you to stop and you continued anyway, then it's sexual assault. At least in my book. I had instances at clubs with a girl grinding on me only to move my hands back toward her waist if they started creeping. I don't think I'm a predator, harasser, or assaulter for any of those actions, and I think most women would agree.

I dont see anything wrong with this behavior either.  You said the key work respect.  Sexual advancements with respect to the individual are OK to me.  That's life of being a human IMO. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox on November 10, 2017, 08:27:19 AM
Also, with this Roy Moore thing, I've now seen it all with republican hypocrisy and a new level of low in order to defend one of their own. Between Hannity saying the 14 year old girl consented and Jim Ziegler using the fucking Bible and Mary only being 14 to justify it (Mary was a virgin btw, member?), I've now seen it all. They crucified Weinstein because he donated to the DNC, but they're playing the Jesus card to justify trying to have sex with a 14 year old.

Hannity is an ass.   He really is.  (Though I have to say, the law is the law.  If the state legislature says the age of consent is 14, the problem isn't with Roy Moore, it's with the legislature.   Though at least currently, the age of consent in the U.S. is not lower than 16 as far as I know).

I think the problem *is* with Roy Moore if he is that old and getting it on with a 14 year old. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it isn't sketch. Imagine if it was your daughter. It's not like he was also a dumb teen around her age when that went down.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on November 10, 2017, 08:50:22 AM

I was having this conversation with my wife last night.    I don't at all consider myself a sexual predator - I thank god for this every day, but I was born with the gene that gets turned on when a woman is actually INTO what we're doing - but based on some of these accusations, it'd be pretty easy to rack up four or five accusations against me, especially during college, where you're young and dumb and maybe a little more brash or bold.  I don't mean touching, I mean maybe less smooth or coy as you might be later in life. 

This is good,  part of the goal here is for us as men to look back on our behavious and think about it.   We're the ones who have solve this problem.   I know that's probably not what you meant and you're about smother me in rethoric so I'll let you know right now I probably won't respond.  ;)

I've reflected on it a lot recently and still don't think there was anything wrong with my behavior, and like Stadler said, this applies strongly to the college years. We were drunk often (not an excuse for the behavior, but maybe the mindset), horny as hell, and had next to no supervision. I see nothing wrong with making a move (within reason). It's what's done when the person on the receiving end responds. Flirting with a girl all night, getting your arm around her (advance), slowly moving your hand down to her ass (advance), and then asking her if she wants to go somewhere else (advance), is not sexual assault in my book. You're testing the waters with respect and within reason. If at any time the girl moved your arm, or asked you to stop and you continued anyway, then it's sexual assault. At least in my book. I had instances at clubs with a girl grinding on me only to move my hands back toward her waist if they started creeping. I don't think I'm a predator, harasser, or assaulter for any of those actions, and I think most women would agree.

I dont see anything wrong with this behavior either.  You said the key work respect.  Sexual advancements with respect to the individual are OK to me.  That's life of being a human IMO.

I want to preface this... I'm not saying this simply because I've been a longtime fan of Louis CK, and don't read into this like a defense/justification. As weird as this may sound, I'm asking this with a hefty amount of seriousness because I think it's important.

Can you respectfully ask a woman/women you don't know well if you can masturbate in front of them? I was hitting it off with a girl years ago at a party (college). We were flirting for the majority of the evening and won a few games of beer pong.  While we're between our dorm building smoking a cig, she asked me something like "sooo, what do you want to do?". My response was bluntly something along the lines of "find out what your insides feel like". A little forward, yes, but that's neither here nor there. I told her truthfully what I wanted (also thought she was looking for a dirty reply), and I used words not actions. Is that being respectful? What if my answer to her question was "Masturbate while you and maybe a friend watch"? Where's the line? Both would have been words only, and both are nothing more than a form of a sexual act.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 10, 2017, 09:00:39 AM
Well there's a time and place for certain things and I think your example is fine IMO.  Sometimes with these news stories there isn't much context.  I personally am very unlikely to ask a girl I just met if I could masturbate in front of her, but then again, maybe the situation leads itself that way.  I would guess it could be respectful, and it could not be as well depending on the situation. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 09:07:59 AM
In the NYT article the women clearly say they were at the very least uncomfortable and there’s the power dynamic, in some cases he was a superior in a work environment.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 09:09:47 AM
But here's the thing:   Think about the first Kevin Spacey revelation.  Party, drunk, and he makes a move.  What, really, is that different between what Chino said and what Kevin Spacey did.   The age?   Do we know Kevin knew the age at the time?   The point is, there is "the moment" and then there is the "30 years in between for that other person to revise the moment and reevaluate".

Listen, any half-assed lawyer can and will tell you that "eyewitness testimony" - while granted almost sacred deference by juries - is perhaps the LEAST credible testimony from a scientific and veracity standpoint.   Last weekend, I was invited to a quasi- reunion get together with about 30 people from my high school - coincidentally I graduated 32 years ago.   I was blown away by just how selective our collective memories were.  From what happened to with whom... even things like "height". I had two separate conversations with people: "I don't remember you being so tall?"; "I don't remember you being so short?" 

One girl - I wasn't really friends with her, and nothing ever happened between us, but her best friend was my first kiss ever - was recounting an incident with said girl and I, and I honestly didn't remember ANY of it.  Not "I was drunk" not remember, but legit, I don't even remember being in the scenario, I don't remember.    Of the 30, I had to introduce myself to at least seven or eight people there, people I was FRIENDS with.   I don't really think it's fair that MY CAREER is arbitrarily subject to the whims and fantasies of memory 30 years later.   Who's to say that one of those girls isn't just pissed because Louis CK didn't want to masturbate with JUST HER?   Or that he later called the other one?  Or didn't call at all?   

"The victorious will write history" is not a bumpersticker saying.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 09:13:29 AM
reading Bruce Dickinson's book, and he was recounting getting introduced to Julian Doyle, a filmmaker associated with Monty Python, and working with Maiden. 

He says, and I quote:  "Julian regaled me with tales of "Time Bandits", Harvey Weinstein and errant Beatles."

Now, me being a huge Beatles fan, I'm interested in the latter, but as this was likely written before the Weinstein scandal, my only response is "do tell!"
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 09:58:20 AM

   Who's to say that one of those girls isn't just pissed because Louis CK didn't want to masturbate with JUST HER?   Or that he later called the other one?  Or didn't call at all?   

"The victorious will write history" is not a bumpersticker saying.

What you just wrote is exactly why a lot of sexual assault is not reported.  I would not want to be in the position of being a woman, coming forward  and being subjected to that.  You are outright accusing them of lying.   It's bad enough in court (though necessary I sort of get it) 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 10, 2017, 10:05:27 AM

   Who's to say that one of those girls isn't just pissed because Louis CK didn't want to masturbate with JUST HER?   Or that he later called the other one?  Or didn't call at all?   

"The victorious will write history" is not a bumpersticker saying.

What you just wrote is exactly why a lot of sexual assault is not reported.  I would not want to be in the position of being a woman, coming forward  and being subjected to that.  You are outright accusing them of lying.   It's bad enough in court (though necessary I sort of get it)
He was suggesting that they might be lying. Big difference. And unfortunately, some women do lie about such things.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on November 10, 2017, 10:06:05 AM

   Who's to say that one of those girls isn't just pissed because Louis CK didn't want to masturbate with JUST HER?   Or that he later called the other one?  Or didn't call at all?   

"The victorious will write history" is not a bumpersticker saying.

What you just wrote is exactly why a lot of sexual assault is not reported.  I would not want to be in the position of being a woman, coming forward  and being subjected to that.  You are outright accusing them of lying.   It's bad enough in court (though necessary I sort of get it)

Who's fault is that though? There's a reason for the skepticism.



Woman jailed for 10 years for making series of false rape claims
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/24/woman-jailed-10-years-false-rape-claims-jemma-beale

White Woman Who Lied About Being Kidnapped, Raped by 3 Black Men Indicted on Felony Charges
https://www.theroot.com/white-woman-who-lied-about-being-kidnapped-raped-by-3-1797302783

Texas Teen Charged After Lying About Rape
https://blackamericaweb.com/2017/07/31/texas-teen-charged-after-lying-about-rape/

State police say woman lied about rape at Lake Nockamixon
https://www.philly.com/philly/news/crime/state-police-say-woman-lied-about-rape-at-lake-nockamixon-20171005.html

Woman accused of lying about rape claims psychiatric illness
https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/15/woman-accused-lying-about-rape-claims-psychiatric-illness.html

12 Women Who Lied About Being Raped And Why They Did It
https://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/12/13-women-who-lied-about-being-raped-and-why-they-did-it/

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox on November 10, 2017, 10:14:14 AM
I'm with Stadler on this. A girl I was involved with last year straight-up lied about being raped by Blind Guardian's guitarist, and I believed it for 8 months until I found out a few months ago (with proof) that she was lying. I have a relative who claimed to be sexually assaulted, until proof came out that she was in fact lying, too.

It is not fair to immediately side with the accuser 'just because,' or even demonize the accused, without proof, or a fair trial. It simply isn't. I've read a lot of blog comments today that declare they're forever siding with the accuser from now on simply because of the amount of accusations coming out lately. That isn't how justice works, and people should know better. Even if 90% of these are true, it is still not fair to the other 10% that may be falsely accused to try to rip away their livelihood and taint their reputation for the rest of their lives.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 10:18:29 AM
You guys want to focus on that? Fine whatever makes you feel better.  Believing the victims doesn’t mean I think the accused have to be convicted.  The Law is whole different kettle of fish. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox on November 10, 2017, 10:20:02 AM
You guys want to focus on that? Fine whatever makes you feel better.  Believing the victims doesn’t mean I think the accused have to be convicted.  The Law is whole different kettle of fish.

But, Xe, respectfully, why are you siding with the accuser right away, when there HAVE been incidents of women lying about it? The way justice - and the law - works is that you're innocent until proven guilty. It's not about what 'makes us feel better.' It's about what is fair and right. You say you believe the victims - why? Just because? I'm sure many of the accusers are telling the truth, but there are always exceptions, and any smart person will tell you the same (edit: not that you aren't smart, my friend - just making a point :) ).
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 10:22:24 AM
You guys want to focus on that? Fine whatever makes you feel better.  Believing the victims doesn’t mean I think the accused have to be convicted.  The Law is whole different kettle of fish.

But, Xe, respectfully, why are you siding with the accuser right away, when there HAVE been incidents of women lying about it? The way justice - and the law - works is that you're innocent until proven guilty. It's not about what 'makes us feel better.' It's about what is fair and right. You say you believe the victims - why? Just because? I'm sure many of the accusers are telling the truth, but there are always exceptions, and any smart person will tell you the same.

Like I said, the justice system is a different issue than believing and supporting people willing to come forward.   I have no reason not to believe the women in the NYT piece about Louis CK for example.  Wether that should be enough to accuse or let alone convict him of any crime in court is not the same thing
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 10, 2017, 10:36:45 AM
You guys want to focus on that? Fine whatever makes you feel better.  Believing the victims doesn’t mean I think the accused have to be convicted.  The Law is whole different kettle of fish.

But, Xe, respectfully, why are you siding with the accuser right away, when there HAVE been incidents of women lying about it? The way justice - and the law - works is that you're innocent until proven guilty. It's not about what 'makes us feel better.' It's about what is fair and right. You say you believe the victims - why? Just because? I'm sure many of the accusers are telling the truth, but there are always exceptions, and any smart person will tell you the same.

Like I said, the justice system is a different issue than believing and supporting people willing to come forward.   I have no reason not to believe the women in the NYT piece about Louis CK for example.  Wether that should be enough to accuse or let alone convict him of any crime in court is not the same thing
I get you're point, and I'm not too terribly bent out of shape by it. I think the problem is that in the modern climate we're looking to nail people to crosses over this sort of thing. No, it's not sending them to prison, but it is tanking their careers and turning them into social outcasts. I'm seeing to things that concern me. One is the automatic assumption that the accuser is correct, though I think the vast majority of them probably are, and the lumping together of every single sordid complaint we can collect with all other accusations. I don't honestly doubt any of the women accusing LCK were put out. I think it was at worst sleazy, and have to consider the possibility that even then they're not reporting it entirely accurately, though. You now have numerous pieces of shady behavior that people are conflating into a long history of sexual assault. This isn't right. Based on what we've seen, is LCK honestly a sexual predator, as plenty of editorials are claiming?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on November 10, 2017, 10:40:53 AM
You guys want to focus on that? Fine whatever makes you feel better.  Believing the victims doesn’t mean I think the accused have to be convicted.  The Law is whole different kettle of fish.

But, Xe, respectfully, why are you siding with the accuser right away, when there HAVE been incidents of women lying about it? The way justice - and the law - works is that you're innocent until proven guilty. It's not about what 'makes us feel better.' It's about what is fair and right. You say you believe the victims - why? Just because? I'm sure many of the accusers are telling the truth, but there are always exceptions, and any smart person will tell you the same.

Like I said, the justice system is a different issue than believing and supporting people willing to come forward.   I have no reason not to believe the women in the NYT piece about Louis CK for example.  Wether that should be enough to accuse or let alone convict him of any crime in court is not the same thing
I get you're point, and I'm not too terribly bent out of shape by it. I think the problem is that in the modern climate we're looking to nail people to crosses over this sort of thing. No, it's not sending them to prison, but it is tanking their careers and turning them into social outcasts. I'm seeing to things that concern me. One is the automatic assumption that the accuser is correct, though I think the vast majority of them probably are, and the lumping together of every single sordid complaint we can collect with all other accusations. I don't honestly doubt any of the women accusing LCK were put out. I think it was at worst sleazy, and have to consider the possibility that even then they're not reporting it entirely accurately, though. You now have numerous pieces of shady behavior that people are conflating into a long history of sexual assault. This isn't right. Based on what we've seen, is LCK honestly a sexual predator, as plenty of editorials are claiming?

Not only that, but it's damaging the companies that work with these people. HBO spent money producing Louis CK standups that they are now going to be pulling out of their catalog.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox on November 10, 2017, 10:42:30 AM
Speaking of that, are there are figures on how much money that studio is dumping into replacing Spacey in the movie (and marketing materials, etc.)?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 10, 2017, 10:45:14 AM
I'm curious what happens to American Beauty. The thing won 5 academy awards and it might well be unmovied now. Does Spacey lose his oscar now?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Podaar on November 10, 2017, 10:46:55 AM
I'm with Xe here.

And if I'm completely honest with myself, it's because I'm intimate with someone who has been sexually assaulted and she (and by extension, I) lives with the aftermath year after year. My guess is that's where some of the division between those who hold the different opinions on what the priority is. Innocent until proven guilty or believing the reports? It's tough to emotionally separate yourself from empathy for the those who give the report if you knowingly know someone who was victimized. I say knowingly know because, according to much that I've read you are much more likely to know someone who's been assaulted than you are not.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 10, 2017, 10:56:00 AM
I'm with Xe here.

And if I'm completely honest with myself, it's because I'm intimate with someone who has been sexually assaulted and she (and by extension, I) lives with the aftermath year after year. My guess is that's where some of the division between those who hold the different opinions on what the priority is. Innocent until proven guilty or believing the reports? It's tough to emotionally separate yourself from empathy for the those who give the report if you knowingly know someone who was victimized. I say knowingly know because, according to much that I've read you are much more likely to know someone who's been assaulted than you are not.
Just out of curiosity, does that sympathy extend to somebody who called a guy and heard him beating off on the phone? Or somebody who was merely asked if she would watch him whack off?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 10:57:05 AM

   Who's to say that one of those girls isn't just pissed because Louis CK didn't want to masturbate with JUST HER?   Or that he later called the other one?  Or didn't call at all?   

"The victorious will write history" is not a bumpersticker saying.

What you just wrote is exactly why a lot of sexual assault is not reported.  I would not want to be in the position of being a woman, coming forward  and being subjected to that.  You are outright accusing them of lying.   It's bad enough in court (though necessary I sort of get it)

I did not accuse the women of anything, least of all "lying".   What I'm talking about is how their opinion now gets more weight than it even would have had back had they been fearless and reported it at the time.   You can pooh pooh the justice system all you want, but it is a CORNERSTONE of our rule of law society.   We do not live in a lawless, anything goes, "the loudest voice wins" society.  If someone rear ends me on the highway, I DO NOT get to beat them to a pulp.   If someone calls me a name in the mall I DO NOT get to stab them with a spork.   If my wife - now ex-wife wrongs me, I do not get to slice her face with a razor.   

Louis CK's professional life is, effectively, over.  This isn't Springsteen, with more money than God.   He was on Stern about a year ago, and says he has some money saved, but not nearly enough to retire on, and certainly not to live on even with his relatively modest indulgences (I think he said a boat was his only real luxury).  Why do those women get to do that without ANY - I don't mean "some", or "minimal" or any of that; I mean NONE - proof or evidence or backup, no matter how much "truth" they may wield?     
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 10, 2017, 10:57:35 AM
You guys want to focus on that? Fine whatever makes you feel better.  Believing the victims doesn’t mean I think the accused have to be convicted.  The Law is whole different kettle of fish.

It's this mentality that I'm curious about these days. I have to ask (respectfully)... If you're essentially saying that whether or not the accusations are true is irrelevant to your belief... What's the point of having the belief? What purpose does it serve? Is it the idea of simply being supportive of the cause? Is there a fear of being portrayed as part of the problem, a victim-shamer if you will?  I understand that not all of these things can be prosecuted due to time, and that shouldn't stop a legitimate accusation. BUT...

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
-William Blackstone

One of the most famous "legal" quotes you'll ever find, it's not really a legal idea. It's a MORAL/ETHICAL idea that is used to shape the system of legal justice.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 10:58:46 AM

Why do those women get to do that without ANY - I don't mean "some", or "minimal" or any of that; I mean NONE - proof or evidence or backup, no matter how much "truth" they may wield?     

That is NOT on them, in any way shape or form.   NO fucking way.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 10:59:55 AM
You guys want to focus on that? Fine whatever makes you feel better.  Believing the victims doesn’t mean I think the accused have to be convicted.  The Law is whole different kettle of fish.

But, Xe, respectfully, why are you siding with the accuser right away, when there HAVE been incidents of women lying about it? The way justice - and the law - works is that you're innocent until proven guilty. It's not about what 'makes us feel better.' It's about what is fair and right. You say you believe the victims - why? Just because? I'm sure many of the accusers are telling the truth, but there are always exceptions, and any smart person will tell you the same.

Like I said, the justice system is a different issue than believing and supporting people willing to come forward.   I have no reason not to believe the women in the NYT piece about Louis CK for example.  Wether that should be enough to accuse or let alone convict him of any crime in court is not the same thing

But we're seeing "punishments" levied anyway.   Louis CK is NOT a "top marquee" star, and this is, as far as I know, his first headline movie, and yet it's at least delayed if not cancelled now, because of these unproven, unverified, unvetted (did not say "untrue") accusations.  That's not how it works.   If it was, OJ would still be in jail. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 11:01:24 AM

 because of these unproven, unverified, unvetted (did not say "untrue") accusations.

You might  hate the NYT times(I don't know)  but they did actual JOURNALISM.    Meaning it was vetted and verified.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 10, 2017, 11:04:46 AM
Hello everyone.  It has been a long time since I've posted in this sub-forum.  This thread has been an interesting read, to say the least.  I wanted to post a link to a website that carries statistics on sex abuse, assault, and rape.  https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

As you can see, 2 out of 3 sexual assaults go unreported.  There is also a list of reasons why they are commonly not reported.

As an aside, I am choosing to tell one of my experiences with sexual assault that I never reported and why I didn't report it.   It won't surprise me if some people here choose not to believe me.  Or who will argue that my experience is considered "sexual assault."  I have run into this before.  But this story is the least offensive sexual abuse experience I've had, so please keep that in mind.

I was 19 and got a job working at a region semi-large hotel chain as a desk clerk.  It was my first 40 hour a week job, and it allowed me to move out of my parents' home and into a small apartment.  I got to work swing shift.  This left me time to hang out with my friends.  I thought it was a pretty awesome time to be alive.

My boss, Herb, lived at the hotel with his wife.  They were in their 60s.  Normally I wouldn't care about their religious beliefs, but they were very "born again" Christian and often prosthelytized to me while I was working.  Herb and his wife worked the day shift, I came on at 3 pm.  Around the time Herb's wife made dinner, he would come out to the front desk and hover around, often finding things for me to do while people weren't checking in.  After a few months, he started to invade my personal space more.  It took me some time to notice and pay attention to my inner voice (I was 19).  Then one day he full on pressed his entire body into my backside and reached around to grab my breasts.  I shook him off, told him to leave me alone, and he quickly retreated as I got pretty loud.  Of course, he had made sure no one was around.

I started to think back on all the times he'd made me feel uncomfortable.  He was one of those guys who talked to your tits, or tried to look down your dress if you were seated.  He'd find ways to brush up against you.  He'd tell off color jokes.  He'd talk about things the maids found in the rooms.  If a very beautiful woman walked in to get a room, he'd often move ahead of me to help her - even when it was his off duty hours.

I probably worked there for a year or so after he groped me.  I needed the job.  I didn't know the hotel chain had an HR department that I could report it to.  I just thought he was a "dirty old man" and vowed to keep my distance from him and stick it out.  I was never one to make waves, especially when I was young and naďve.  And honestly, stories my mom had told me about things like this happening to her at work, I thought it was to be expected.  Even accepted, sadly.

Would I handle it differently today?  You bet your fucking ass, I would.  Ah, the benefit of 30+ years of hindsight.

Do I believe the vast majority of women coming forward now?  Oh yes.  They are just the minority.  Every woman I know has stories like these, in varying shades of disgusting behavior up to PIV rape.  Every one.

In my experience, most men do not behave this way.  Most men are decent human beings who don't believe women are put on this earth to be their playthings and conquests.  Most men would not want the women in their lives subjected to this type of degrading abuse.  But like in many things, the few bad apples spoil the bushel.  I guess the same sentiment could be applied to women who do not tell the truth or who make up stories for their own twisted reasons.  Hopefully we are smart enough to delineate between them.

One final thought:  I am happy that the conversation is happening.  Happy beyond belief.  It is about time.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 11:07:45 AM
And before I come off and completely unreasonable (it might be too late  ;) )  I don't think what Louis CK did is beyond the threshold of any forgiveness if he would come out and own it.   There needs to be space for second chances and I am aware that the current climate is bordering on hysteria and there's little place for that right now, it's a shame.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 11:09:19 AM


Thank you Harmony. It can't be easy to share that.  :)
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 10, 2017, 11:11:11 AM
Thanks for sharing Harmony, I believe you and I don't agree with what he did to you.  I would label it sexual assault personally.  I mentioned earlier today that there's a time and place for making a sexual advance, at work with your employee is not one for sure.  Must be terrible to feel powerless since you need the job.  Hopefully all the stuff coming out now will lead to less of that in the future.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 10, 2017, 11:36:40 AM
Louis admitted to everything:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/louis-c-k-issues-apology-182731068.html (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/louis-c-k-issues-apology-182731068.html)

Quote
These stories are true.  At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them.   The power I had over these women is that they admired me.  And I wielded that power irresponsibly.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 10, 2017, 11:51:09 AM
Good on him for owning up to this.


While I hate the idea of going to "these women may be lying, so let's assume the men aren't doing any of this stuff", I do agree with the idea that we can move toward forgiveness.

I think the hard part for a lot of people is the overlapping between legal issues and social change. Some of this stuff is a legal issue, but most of it is the start of a social change and has nothing to do with pressing charges or breaking laws. People are coming out (both men and women, victims and not) and saying that this attitude and behavior is no longer acceptable. This doesn't mean everyone who did these kinds of things needs to run out, but they need to be outed and shown that this is no longer tolerated.

And hitting on a girl at a party and hitting on someone over whom you have power are very different things. A girl at a party can just say no. Someone who you have power over might not feel she has that much freedom without facing consequences.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 11:54:48 AM
I'm with Xe here.

And if I'm completely honest with myself, it's because I'm intimate with someone who has been sexually assaulted and she (and by extension, I) lives with the aftermath year after year. My guess is that's where some of the division between those who hold the different opinions on what the priority is. Innocent until proven guilty or believing the reports? It's tough to emotionally separate yourself from empathy for the those who give the report if you knowingly know someone who was victimized. I say knowingly know because, according to much that I've read you are much more likely to know someone who's been assaulted than you are not.

That matters not; both of my wives have been the victims of this kind of crap (NOT from me).   I get it.  The victims are scarred and will carry those scars for the rest of their lives.  They need compassion.  No argument.   But for me, I can't help but feeling that if this was about their mental well-being, they would go to a source they trust - a doctor, a therapist, a police officer - and tell their story.  NOT release a statement on Twitter where there's little if any opportunity for reasonable, mutual debate.   Where the accused have an opportunity to do something other than to simply react. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 10, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
I have never found anything to like about the man or his act, and I still don't.  But that's a cool admission in that he seems to have grasped something important about the power relationship that a lot of his peers haven't, and he seems to be as contrite as you could reasonably expect.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 11:56:34 AM

Why do those women get to do that without ANY - I don't mean "some", or "minimal" or any of that; I mean NONE - proof or evidence or backup, no matter how much "truth" they may wield?     

That is NOT on them, in any way shape or form.   NO fucking way.

Of course it is.  Regardless of what has happened to them, they still have an obligation - to, if not anyone else, themselves - to be authentic, honest, and accurate.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 11:59:15 AM

Why do those women get to do that without ANY - I don't mean "some", or "minimal" or any of that; I mean NONE - proof or evidence or backup, no matter how much "truth" they may wield?     

That is NOT on them, in any way shape or form.   NO fucking way.



Of course it is.  Regardless of what has happened to them, they still have an obligation - to, if not anyone else, themselves - to be authentic, honest, and accurate.

Why do you think they’re not?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Podaar on November 10, 2017, 12:02:51 PM

That matters not;

To you.

There are many who may hold quite a difference of opinion on what does and does not matter. I was simply pointing out my opinion on why someone else may have different priorities.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 12:03:07 PM
Since I'm one of those that seems to be more willing to see two sides of these things, and wait until there is more than just "words", it's important to say that I absolutely do believe you, Harmony, and do unequivocally consider what he did to be sexual assault.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 10, 2017, 12:05:07 PM

Why do those women get to do that without ANY - I don't mean "some", or "minimal" or any of that; I mean NONE - proof or evidence or backup, no matter how much "truth" they may wield?     

That is NOT on them, in any way shape or form.   NO fucking way.



Of course it is.  Regardless of what has happened to them, they still have an obligation - to, if not anyone else, themselves - to be authentic, honest, and accurate.

Why do you think they’re not?

Why do you automatically assume they are?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 10, 2017, 12:06:42 PM
And hitting on a girl at a party and hitting on someone over whom you have power are very different things. A girl at a party can just say no. Someone who you have power over might not feel she has that much freedom without facing consequences.
I'd never debate this point as I agree with it completely. But we're now to consider being admired a position of power? What does that leave?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 12:09:51 PM
And hitting on a girl at a party and hitting on someone over whom you have power are very different things. A girl at a party can just say no. Someone who you have power over might not feel she has that much freedom without facing consequences.
I'd never debate this point as I agree with it completely. But we're now to consider being admired a position of power? What does that leave?

In one instance  he was a head writer on the Chris Rock show and the girl was a staffer.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 12:10:34 PM

Why do those women get to do that without ANY - I don't mean "some", or "minimal" or any of that; I mean NONE - proof or evidence or backup, no matter how much "truth" they may wield?     

That is NOT on them, in any way shape or form.   NO fucking way.



Of course it is.  Regardless of what has happened to them, they still have an obligation - to, if not anyone else, themselves - to be authentic, honest, and accurate.

Why do you think they’re not?

Why do you automatically assume they are?

Well I read it and made that decision for myself.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 10, 2017, 12:10:57 PM
Good on him for owning up to this.

Agreed.  I applaud people for owning their mistakes.  Doesn't make it OK, but it's a start to making things better.  It's also a fresh response to the typically lawyer up and shut up.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 10, 2017, 12:17:13 PM
And hitting on a girl at a party and hitting on someone over whom you have power are very different things. A girl at a party can just say no. Someone who you have power over might not feel she has that much freedom without facing consequences.
I'd never debate this point as I agree with it completely. But we're now to consider being admired a position of power? What does that leave?

In one instance  he was a head writer on the Chris Rock show and the girl was a staffer.
That's professional leverage and the first thing I said was that it's very definitely wrong. I'm working on his apology that people seem to be appreciating. I said it was admiration that gave him power. That's a problem, IMO.

And as I think about it, I suspect his apology was bullshit. I've never seen his act, but I suspect he's a bright guy. Were I in his shoes I'd never try to share my actual thoughts. I'd give the apology people wanted to hear. I said of the Kevin Spacey thing: what was he supposed to do if he really was hammered and didn't remember the incident, bluff his way through the details? At this point that's exactly what I'd do. I'd have thrown out two more "instances" of showing my tool to unsuspecting women and apologize to them, as well, even if there were no such events. Honestly will get you pummeled at this point.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 12:26:06 PM

Why do those women get to do that without ANY - I don't mean "some", or "minimal" or any of that; I mean NONE - proof or evidence or backup, no matter how much "truth" they may wield?     

That is NOT on them, in any way shape or form.   NO fucking way.



Of course it is.  Regardless of what has happened to them, they still have an obligation - to, if not anyone else, themselves - to be authentic, honest, and accurate.

Why do you think they’re not?

I'm not saying they're not.  But - as Podaar helpfully (and rightfully) pointed out - what I think doesn't matter.   Just "because they said so" isn't enough to levy punishment.   Just "because Stadler agrees with them" isn't enough to levy punishment.   You seem to think I'm attacking the accusers; I am not.  I want an environment where accusers can be heard.   I have (as I have noted) two wives that didn't feel able to come forward.  I find that disturbing.  I have a daughter that - as sad as it is to say - is more likely than not to find herself in a situation where these issues will rear their ugly head, and I want her to feel strong and proud to stand up for herself.    Much like the men we're talking about, though, with great power comes great responsibility.   "Being heard" is not at all the same thing - and shouldn't be - as being judge, jury and executioner.   Thankfully, Louis addressed this stuff head on.  Thankfully, it looks as though there WILL be charges against Harvey Weinstein, at least in NY. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 12:29:35 PM
And hitting on a girl at a party and hitting on someone over whom you have power are very different things. A girl at a party can just say no. Someone who you have power over might not feel she has that much freedom without facing consequences.
I'd never debate this point as I agree with it completely. But we're now to consider being admired a position of power? What does that leave?

In one instance  he was a head writer on the Chris Rock show and the girl was a staffer.
That's professional leverage and the first thing I said was that it's very definitely wrong. I'm working on his apology that people seem to be appreciating. I said it was admiration that gave him power. That's a problem, IMO.

And as I think about it, I suspect his apology was bullshit. I've never seen his act, but I suspect he's a bright guy. Were I in his shoes I'd never try to share my actual thoughts. I'd give the apology people wanted to hear. I said of the Kevin Spacey thing: what was he supposed to do if he really was hammered and didn't remember the incident, bluff his way through the details? At this point that's exactly what I'd do. I'd have thrown out two more "instances" of showing my tool to unsuspecting women and apologize to them, as well, even if there were no such events. Honestly will get you pummeled at this point.

Actually, it should be pointed out that he never actually apologized.  He just admitted to the behavior and acknowledged the power differential.

It should be noted that I share el Barto's reluctance to concede that "being admired by someone" is the same as being "in power over someone".   It's one thing to be in a boss-subordinate relationship; that's a relationship determined by the structure of the entity in which you work.   It's another to talk of "admiration"; at what point are we responsible for the positions we put ourselves in? 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 10, 2017, 12:31:03 PM
I'm with Xe here.

And if I'm completely honest with myself, it's because I'm intimate with someone who has been sexually assaulted and she (and by extension, I) lives with the aftermath year after year. My guess is that's where some of the division between those who hold the different opinions on what the priority is. Innocent until proven guilty or believing the reports? It's tough to emotionally separate yourself from empathy for the those who give the report if you knowingly know someone who was victimized. I say knowingly know because, according to much that I've read you are much more likely to know someone who's been assaulted than you are not.

That matters not; both of my wives have been the victims of this kind of crap (NOT from me).   I get it.  The victims are scarred and will carry those scars for the rest of their lives.  They need compassion.  No argument.   But for me, I can't help but feeling that if this was about their mental well-being, they would go to a source they trust - a doctor, a therapist, a police officer - and tell their story.  NOT release a statement on Twitter where there's little if any opportunity for reasonable, mutual debate.   Where the accused have an opportunity to do something other than to simply react.

Maybe they did all of those things? As a therapist, most of the women I see have been sexually assaulted. They all talk to me about it. They have all tried to do something about it and were shut down by the system.

A friend of mine had an ex-boyfriend who was actively stalking her (sending her creepy notes, photos of her, etc). Police just said that this is what happens when you're a pretty girl and totally dismissed it. The system generally fails these women.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 10, 2017, 12:35:19 PM
You guys want to focus on that? Fine whatever makes you feel better.  Believing the victims doesn’t mean I think the accused have to be convicted.  The Law is whole different kettle of fish.

Here, it kinda seems like you're implying that you just inherently believe the "victims" (as you used victim as opposed to accuser)...

Well I read it and made that decision for myself.

But here, it kinda seems like you're implying that you've read all the details about each individual instance and still come to the conclusion that each and every accuser is being completely honest.

The media has fucked this all up for their benefit. They are acting as the judge and jury and they punishments are being doled out. And people are just eating it up. It's been proven time and again that people will lie for a number of reasons. If people aren't willing to acknowledge, especially now that this MOVEMENT has picked up so much steam, that some people will ty to make a point by "any means necessary", then all were doing is swapping out one problem for another. People feel so passionately about a cause they think it's a good idea to pile on, even if it's not true. Look at the recent Naval Academy racial incident. The media used it to push he idea that racism is rampant EVERYWHERE, but in actuality is was a hoax, or more accurately, FRAUD.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 01:04:20 PM
I'm with Xe here.

And if I'm completely honest with myself, it's because I'm intimate with someone who has been sexually assaulted and she (and by extension, I) lives with the aftermath year after year. My guess is that's where some of the division between those who hold the different opinions on what the priority is. Innocent until proven guilty or believing the reports? It's tough to emotionally separate yourself from empathy for the those who give the report if you knowingly know someone who was victimized. I say knowingly know because, according to much that I've read you are much more likely to know someone who's been assaulted than you are not.

That matters not; both of my wives have been the victims of this kind of crap (NOT from me).   I get it.  The victims are scarred and will carry those scars for the rest of their lives.  They need compassion.  No argument.   But for me, I can't help but feeling that if this was about their mental well-being, they would go to a source they trust - a doctor, a therapist, a police officer - and tell their story.  NOT release a statement on Twitter where there's little if any opportunity for reasonable, mutual debate.   Where the accused have an opportunity to do something other than to simply react.

Maybe they did all of those things? As a therapist, most of the women I see have been sexually assaulted. They all talk to me about it. They have all tried to do something about it and were shut down by the system.

A friend of mine had an ex-boyfriend who was actively stalking her (sending her creepy notes, photos of her, etc). Police just said that this is what happens when you're a pretty girl and totally dismissed it. The system generally fails these women.

Maybe they did; but if the purpose is to give voice to those that are still scared, if the purpose is to rise up against the power elite, why aren't those therapists/cops/confidantes also being named as part of the axis of evil?   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 01:13:01 PM
You guys want to focus on that? Fine whatever makes you feel better.  Believing the victims doesn’t mean I think the accused have to be convicted.  The Law is whole different kettle of fish.

Here, it kinda seems like you're implying that you just inherently believe the "victims" (as you used victim as opposed to accuser)...

Well I read it and made that decision for myself.

But here, it kinda seems like you're implying that you've read all the details about each individual instance and still come to the conclusion that each and every accuser is being completely honest.

The media has fucked this all up for their benefit. They are acting as the judge and jury and they punishments are being doled out. And people are just eating it up. It's been proven time and again that people will lie for a number of reasons. If people aren't willing to acknowledge, especially now that this MOVEMENT has picked up so much steam, that some people will ty to make a point by "any means necessary", then all were doing is swapping out one problem for another. People feel so passionately about a cause they think it's a good idea to pile on, even if it's not true. Look at the recent Naval Academy racial incident. The media used it to push he idea that racism is rampant EVERYWHERE, but in actuality is was a hoax, or more accurately, FRAUD.

InB4 the "victim blaming" accusations.  I don't at all think that it necessarily means the victim is "lying".  I'm not at all going that far.  I'm settled on the reality of being, in some cases, 30 years removed from an alcohol-fueled event.  It's not just the judgment of the predator that may - or may not - be in question.  These are the kinds of facts that are (hopefully) settled in the back-and-forth of a court of law, or at least in the comprehensive investigation that might entail a more judicious reporting of the events.

OJ walked out of a court room a free man, despite some pretty overwhelming evidence.   I was a juror on a case where a five time felon was caught, in a car, with $4000 in cash, two handguns, and two bricks of crack, and walked out the door a free man.   Part of that case was a woman who testified to seeing the defendant putting the children's backpack - where the goodies were found - in the car.    Defense attorney produced ONE PHOTO in rebuttal; it was a photo taken from where the witness was standing, and showing that there was a brick wall in between her and the car and that it was impossible for the events as she portrayed them to have occurred.   NOTE: that's not to say the witness was lying, but merely that she was mistaken enough over the facts that it obscured her recollection of the events.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 10, 2017, 01:22:21 PM
InB4 the "victim blaming" accusations.  I don't at all think that it necessarily means the victim is "lying".  I'm not at all going that far. 

That was kinda the point of my post. I should hope that someone wouldn't read that and somehow assume that I default believe them to be lying. And I kinda thought that you of all people would appreciate the idea that ANY default assumption is dangerous. I don't AUTOMATICALLY believe them to be lying, in the good faith (that the system depends upon) that others aren't AUTOMATICALLY believing them to be completely honest.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 10, 2017, 01:27:15 PM
InB4 the "victim blaming" accusations.  I don't at all think that it necessarily means the victim is "lying".  I'm not at all going that far. 

That was kinda the point of my post. I should hope that someone wouldn't read that and somehow assume that I default believe them to be lying. And I kinda thought that you of all people would appreciate the idea that ANY default assumption is dangerous. I don't AUTOMATICALLY believe them to be lying, in the good faith (that the system depends upon) that others aren't AUTOMATICALLY believing them to be completely honest.

No, we're in agreement.  I do appreciate it.  I just wanted to be clear that this isn't a case of "you're either with us or against us".  It's not really about the veracity of any one person, but the process in general. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 01:34:28 PM
InB4 the "victim blaming" accusations.  I don't at all think that it necessarily means the victim is "lying".  I'm not at all going that far. 

That was kinda the point of my post. I should hope that someone wouldn't read that and somehow assume that I default believe them to be lying. And I kinda thought that you of all people would appreciate the idea that ANY default assumption is dangerous. I don't AUTOMATICALLY believe them to be lying, in the good faith (that the system depends upon) that others aren't AUTOMATICALLY believing them to be completely honest.

No, we're in agreement.  I do appreciate it.  I just wanted to be clear that this isn't a case of "you're either with us or against us".  It's not really about the veracity of any one person, but the process in general.

What process are you talking about?  Adami mentioned it there are societal changes happening that have nothing to do with the legal system(at least for now)
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 10, 2017, 01:42:40 PM
I'm with Xe here.

And if I'm completely honest with myself, it's because I'm intimate with someone who has been sexually assaulted and she (and by extension, I) lives with the aftermath year after year. My guess is that's where some of the division between those who hold the different opinions on what the priority is. Innocent until proven guilty or believing the reports? It's tough to emotionally separate yourself from empathy for the those who give the report if you knowingly know someone who was victimized. I say knowingly know because, according to much that I've read you are much more likely to know someone who's been assaulted than you are not.


That matters not; both of my wives have been the victims of this kind of crap (NOT from me).   I get it.  The victims are scarred and will carry those scars for the rest of their lives.  They need compassion.  No argument.   But for me, I can't help but feeling that if this was about their mental well-being, they would go to a source they trust - a doctor, a therapist, a police officer - and tell their story.  NOT release a statement on Twitter where there's little if any opportunity for reasonable, mutual debate.   Where the accused have an opportunity to do something other than to simply react.

Maybe they did all of those things? As a therapist, most of the women I see have been sexually assaulted. They all talk to me about it. They have all tried to do something about it and were shut down by the system.

A friend of mine had an ex-boyfriend who was actively stalking her (sending her creepy notes, photos of her, etc). Police just said that this is what happens when you're a pretty girl and totally dismissed it. The system generally fails these women.

Maybe they did; but if the purpose is to give voice to those that are still scared, if the purpose is to rise up against the power elite, why aren't those therapists/cops/confidantes also being named as part of the axis of evil?

I totally agree on the cops (though I doubt people remember their names), but why therapists? We're literally not allowed to say anything unless it's a child or elder person. Unless our clients feel their lives are at risk, we're legally prohibited from doing anything.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 10, 2017, 02:01:47 PM
InB4 the "victim blaming" accusations.  I don't at all think that it necessarily means the victim is "lying".  I'm not at all going that far. 

That was kinda the point of my post. I should hope that someone wouldn't read that and somehow assume that I default believe them to be lying. And I kinda thought that you of all people would appreciate the idea that ANY default assumption is dangerous. I don't AUTOMATICALLY believe them to be lying, in the good faith (that the system depends upon) that others aren't AUTOMATICALLY believing them to be completely honest.

No, we're in agreement.  I do appreciate it.  I just wanted to be clear that this isn't a case of "you're either with us or against us".  It's not really about the veracity of any one person, but the process in general.

What process are you talking about?  Adami mentioned it there are societal changes happening that have nothing to do with the legal system(at least for now)

You keep referring to the legality of it, as if outside of the legal system, people can do as they wish with zero regard for the truth or the consequences. Accepting that would require a logical individual to disregard any of the "questionable", but not illegal, acts of all of these people we're discussing.

Just because there are no legal consequences for some of these accusations doesn't mean that there are NO consequences, very real and long lasting ones.

So what about this Charlie Sheen situation. Another former child actor claims that Haim said that Sheen had sex with him multiple times, as early as 13. Haim's mother, who claims that her son told her everything, says that Sheen didn't have sex with Haim. Sheen denies unequivocally. So... Is it OKAY for people to form opinions off of assumptions (not inherently dangerous) and further act accordingly based on those assumptions (very dangerous)?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 02:08:43 PM
InB4 the "victim blaming" accusations.  I don't at all think that it necessarily means the victim is "lying".  I'm not at all going that far. 

That was kinda the point of my post. I should hope that someone wouldn't read that and somehow assume that I default believe them to be lying. And I kinda thought that you of all people would appreciate the idea that ANY default assumption is dangerous. I don't AUTOMATICALLY believe them to be lying, in the good faith (that the system depends upon) that others aren't AUTOMATICALLY believing them to be completely honest.

No, we're in agreement.  I do appreciate it.  I just wanted to be clear that this isn't a case of "you're either with us or against us".  It's not really about the veracity of any one person, but the process in general.

What process are you talking about?  Adami mentioned it there are societal changes happening that have nothing to do with the legal system(at least for now)

You keep referring to the legality of it, as if outside of the legal system, people can do as they wish with zero regard for the truth or the consequences. Accepting that would require a logical individual to disregard any of the "questionable", but not illegal, acts of all of these people we're discussing.

Just because there are no legal consequences for some of these accusations doesn't mean that there are NO consequences, very real and long lasting ones.

So what about this Charlie Sheen situation. Another former child actor claims that Haim said that Sheen had sex with him multiple times, as early as 13. Haim's mother, who claims that her son told her everything, says that Sheen didn't have sex with Haim. Sheen denies unequivocally. So... Is it OKAY for people to form opinions off of assumptions (not inherently dangerous) and further act accordingly based on those assumptions (very dangerous)?

I don't have an opinion on that one to be honest. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 10, 2017, 02:27:12 PM
I don't have an opinion on that one to be honest.

I hope you don't feel like I've been disrespectful in challenging your position. In fact, I mostly believe these stories and accusations. BUT, it's more so the responses from the accused that push me one direction or another. When I see a lot of these guys offering bullshit "apologies", claiming to not remember the events "but if they happened I'm sorry", or even remaining silent, I tend not to question those accusations that hard. But when that's the standard response in this tidal wave of shittiness, I'm more inclined to at least withhold judgement when I see someone file a lawsuit in response to one of these allegations. That guy in the Canadian pop band would be a good example of that.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 02:40:57 PM
I don't have an opinion on that one to be honest.

I hope you don't feel like I've been disrespectful in challenging your position. In fact, I mostly believe these stories and accusations. BUT, it's more so the responses from the accused that push me one direction or another. When I see a lot of these guys offering bullshit "apologies", claiming to not remember the events "but if they happened I'm sorry", or even remaining silent, I tend not to question those accusations that hard. But when that's the standard response in this tidal wave of shittiness, I'm more inclined to at least withhold judgement when I see someone file a lawsuit in response to one of these allegations. That guy in the Canadian pop band would be a good example of that.

It's all good.  I don't have a  proverbial "dog" in this fight  but I'm determined as a man to do the best I can so that the world is a better place for women (like Harmony in this thread for example)  in that regard.  I'm sure we can all share that sentiment.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 10, 2017, 02:41:53 PM
That guy in the Canadian pop band would be a good example of that.


WHAT DID ALEX LIFESON DO THIS TIME?!?!
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on November 10, 2017, 05:22:08 PM
WHAT DID ALEX LIFESON DO THIS TIME?!?!

As a member of Rush, probably nothing sexual involving a person of the opposite sex.

This is a good discussion here. Is there a specific reason it is in P/R? It isn't particularly political, or religious. Is it just due to the sensitive nature of the topic?

I will pile on here to comment on all the sexually inappropriate things I have done in my youth, one of which did involve criminal proceedings. None of them involved me being in any position of power, but they certainly ran the full range of creepiness. I am glad that I am older and wiser(?) now, and that my behavior has changed over the years.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on November 10, 2017, 06:33:21 PM
I don't have an opinion on that one to be honest.

I hope you don't feel like I've been disrespectful in challenging your position. In fact, I mostly believe these stories and accusations. BUT, it's more so the responses from the accused that push me one direction or another. When I see a lot of these guys offering bullshit "apologies", claiming to not remember the events "but if they happened I'm sorry", or even remaining silent, I tend not to question those accusations that hard. But when that's the standard response in this tidal wave of shittiness, I'm more inclined to at least withhold judgement when I see someone file a lawsuit in response to one of these allegations. That guy in the Canadian pop band would be a good example of that.

It's all good.  I don't have a  proverbial "dog" in this fight  but I'm determined as a man to do the best I can so that the world is a better place for women (like Harmony in this thread for example)  in that regard.  I'm sure we can all share that sentiment.

Absolutely, but I think the issue here is that you seem to be taking the "if a woman accuses a man of harassment/rape/etc., they should be believed without question until it is proven otherwise" stance.   I know you didn't say that exact sentence, but that is what your sentiment appears to be, to me at least.

I'm curious what happens to American Beauty. The thing won 5 academy awards and it might well be unmovied now. Does Spacey lose his oscar now?

I doubt the Academy is like the NCAA.  In other words, they aren't going to vacate or strip Spacey of the Oscar over an accusation (regardless of how truthful it clearly appears to be).
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 07:01:01 PM

Absolutely, but I think the issue here is that you seem to be taking the "if a woman accuses a man of harassment/rape/etc., they should be believed without question until it is proven otherwise" stance.   I know you didn't say that exact sentence, but that is what your sentiment appears to be, to me at least.

I don't deny that.  I understand it might be controversial to some of you but it's not in the circles I run in usually.   But I'm not a cop, a judge, a lawyer or anything like that and I'm not out there taking justice into my own hands against anyone, be it online or in real life.  I just want to be supportive.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 10, 2017, 07:09:38 PM
I'm curious.  Say in my situation, I had the where-with-all to report my grope to the company's HR department way back in 1985.  Herb says it never happened, and I'm lying.  How do I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was assaulted?  There were no lobby cameras, no witnesses, no bodily fluids obtained in a rape kit.  It is a he said/she said.  A mid-60 year old "devout" Christian who has worked for the company for over a decade, vs. a 19 year old working her first job for a few months.  Who is going to believe me?  Who can better afford a lawyer?

Do I get to keep my job?

If I get to keep my job, how will my boss now treat me?

How do I get a good reference for when I do want to find a new job?

Will my boss retaliate in some way?

Will my own reputation be besmirched?  Was I dressing inappropriately and somehow invite his advances?

If I had felt uncomfortable before, why didn't I speak out immediately?

Wash/rinse/repeat.

Gee, I wonder why so many people don't speak out?  /sarcasm
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 10, 2017, 07:12:33 PM
Great posts Harmony. Thank you so much for contributing to this thread, I feel like a bunch of men discussing this would always be missing something important.


Oddly enough, like at the same time the whole Weinstein thing went down, one of the main guys at my favorite youtube channel got fired for very similar stuff. The people who reported him went to H/R who basically ignored her for months. Nothing happened till they went to twitter and then the fan outrage got H/R to act. They had e-mails, texts, and other evidence that was literally just ignored because she was just a nobody and he was in charge.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 07:21:50 PM
Great posts Harmony. Thank you so much for contributing to this thread, I feel like a bunch of men discussing this would always be missing something important.


Fucking +1 to the power of infinity

Quote
Oddly enough, like at the same time the whole Weinstein thing went down, one of the main guys at my favorite youtube channel got fired for very similar stuff. The people who reported him went to H/R who basically ignored her for months. Nothing happened till they went to twitter and then the fan outrage got H/R to act. They had e-mails, texts, and other evidence that was literally just ignored because she was just a nobody and he was in charge.

was it the screenjunkies thing?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 10, 2017, 07:22:46 PM
That it was! I spent like 4 days wondering why they had vanished before checking their twitter. I was totally shocked.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 10, 2017, 07:27:32 PM
That it was! I spent like 4 days wondering why they had vanished before checking their twitter. I was totally shocked.

It's crazy how these "revelations" for lack of a better word, have been happening all over the place at every level.   In that corner of the world, the online movie geek world, there's been a whole bunch of stuff involving not just SCreenjunkies but companies like Alamo Drafthouse and Cinefamily that nobody outside that circle will ever care about.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: SystematicThought on November 10, 2017, 08:35:38 PM
Now George Takei is being accused of sexually assaulting a model in 1981.

And I just heard about Richard Dreyfus today as well. Honestly, who is next?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 10, 2017, 10:53:34 PM
Harmony, I read your last post as if the questions were rhetorical and that you are not actually asking for answers.  But using your case as a hypothetical to give real answers to those who may find themselves in that situation and may want to know the answers, I will answer.

I'm curious.  Say in my situation, I had the where-with-all to report my grope to the company's HR department way back in 1985.  Herb says it never happened, and I'm lying.  How do I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was assaulted?  There were no lobby cameras, no witnesses, no bodily fluids obtained in a rape kit.  It is a he said/she said.  A mid-60 year old "devout" Christian who has worked for the company for over a decade, vs. a 19 year old working her first job for a few months.  Who is going to believe me? 

Well, it isn't about proving "beyond a reasonable doubt."  But you are right that it is difficult--actually, impossible to substantiate either story as more likely being true than the other based on these facts.  There are two places this comes up:  The company should investigate immediately if this is reported.  They have a duty to do their own investigation.  Based on the situation you described, they likely conclude at the end of it that they cannot substantiate your story for the reasons you mentioned.  It is simply one person's word versus another's.  And what SHOULD then happen is that he gets an informal warning that, although they aren't going to take formal action against him in connection with this incident, he needs to understand what is and isn't appropriate in the workplace, and ANY inappropriate activity going forward will incur SERIOUS consequences.  Reasonably, that's all they can (and arguably should) do.  It sucks when there is a situation like this.  But there really isn't too much they can do to him.  But there are other steps companies can and do take in these circumstance short of discipline as well, which include making sure everyone is trained and understands that inappropriate behaviors will not be tolerated, arranging the work schedules/locations of the parties involved so they don't have to work together (if possible), and other things.

Now, if you are talking about burden of proof in a lawsuit, that's a different (but related) story.  Same issues of proof apply.  Except that a jury will ultimately weigh credibility and make a decision, right or wrong.  But honestly, there really isn't a need for a lawsuit based on what was described.  And if it was really just a one-time incident, although it was inappropriate, it doesn't rise to the level of illegal sexual harassment.  Inappropriate and worthy of discipline?  Absolutely.  Illegal?  No, it wouldn't rise to that level.

Who is going to believe me?  Who can better afford a lawyer?

As the potential plaintiff, YOU can better afford a lawyer.  Plaintiff's attorneys in these types of cases take the case on a contingency.  That means they only take a fee if you recover something.  And since most cases settle, that is how they get paid.  Defense attorneys, on other hand, usually charge by the hour because that is the only way they can get paid.  Much harder for him to get a lawyer than you, financially speaking.

Do I get to keep my job?

Of course.  No question.  ANY prudent employer would make that crystal clear upon you reporting the incident, and would make it crystal clear that you cannot be retaliated against in any way, shape, or form for coming forward.

If I get to keep my job, how will my boss now treat me?

Your bosses should treat you exactly the same as before you came forward.  That is the law, and there are severe penalties for retaliating.  That doesn't mean someone who complains is untouchable (that is, you can be disciplined for the same reasons you could be disciplined before, like if you got caught robbing the till or something).  But they cannot have any action taken against them because they complained.  And in my vast experience in handling these types of cases, although retaliation sometimes does happen, it is extremely rare because most people understand that retaliation is a big no-no, and most companies will bend over backwards (as they should) to reiterate that to everyone when these types of things come out. 

How do I get a good reference for when I do want to find a new job?

That's tricky, if he is the guy who would be in a position to be your main reference.  You probably want to talk to someone you can trust before leaving and have the reference check go through someone else.

Will my boss retaliate in some way?

Already addressed.

Was I dressing inappropriately and somehow invite his advances?

I know this goes without saying, but:  Of course not.  A woman's manner of dress is not an invitation for that sort of thing, and anyone who thinks otherwise is the problem. 

Gee, I wonder why so many people don't speak out?  /sarcasm

In all seriousness, many people DO speak out.  And our society and legal system have gone through great pains to incentivize and provide protections for doing so.  It isn't a perfect system by any means.  But we do what we can.  There will always be people who do wrong by others.  But I think we address it as well as can be expected, as a society.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyhow, again, this is meant to be helpful to anyone who legitimately has these questions and wonders what they should do if they find themselves in a similar situation.  I hope it actually is helpful to someone out there.  Harmony, so sorry you went through that.  Thanks for sharing your experience.  Forcing ourselves to see something like that through someone else's eyes can be a great benefit, IMO.  I think it helps us all to put in into proper perspective.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on November 10, 2017, 11:54:56 PM
Bosk, I think the crux of her point (and I apologize if I protest too much) is that this took place in 1985, when many businesses would not have necessarily handled a situation like that in the manner you spelled out. Companies now are hyper-sensitive (and maybe rightfully so) and thus have anti-retaliation policies, anonymous hotlines, sensitivity training, and such in place that wouldn't have existed 30 years ago.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 11, 2017, 07:13:56 PM
Perfectly valid.  If that was part of her point, I missed that.  But to be clear, my post wasn't meant to refute or put down anything she was saying anyway.  It was, basically, meant to be along the lines of:  If it is happening to you, speak up, because you have a lot of rights and protections.  You don't have to hold it in. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on November 11, 2017, 08:45:18 PM
We have a guy at work who would absolutely be fired if the woman he makes comments to ever reported him to HR.  Long story short, he wanted to date, she did not (despite leading him on big time), and he is a little bitter about it.  If I ever hear him say anything, I will usually tell him to simmer down or knock it off (we are friendly, but he is a very socially awkward guy who complains all the time about everything), and he just laughs it off and says that he is sure a day will come when he gets fired.  She usually tells him to shut the hell up and then 10 minutes they are talking and laughing (they sit 15 feet from each other, backs to each other).  For example, she usually comes to work in jeans and a hoodie (we are business casual, but they don't really enforce it as long as you do a good job; I dress up every day except on Casual Friday because I like dressing nice. but that is another story :lol), but on her kid's first day of preschool, she came in wearing a sun dress and he apparently made the comment to her that he wanted her to sit on his face.  No one else heard it - she told someone about it and I heard about it eventually - but that is so inappropriate and just plain disrespectful. 

My boss is aware of the bitterness on his part and all of that nonsense, but I doubt he is aware of the comments he makes, and I am not about to be the one to report him to HR; that is not my place.  Maybe I am wrong for thinking that way, but I am not about to go get someone fired.  I think some would throw this under the "he knows about it and does nothing" banner, but I do not think it is that black and white.  Anyone disagree?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: portnoy311 on November 11, 2017, 09:33:51 PM
The key variable you're missing in your story is what also gets a lot of guys in trouble, but is the most important. Does it make her uncomfortable? If she actually finds it funny, then it might not actually be harassment. That may sound like I'm victim blaming, but far from it. Some times people actually find crass humor funny. Obviously it's inappropriate and I would never do it myself in the workplace, but they could just have a very twisted friendly relationship. The problem obviously becomes that if she does ever complain that his defense that she went along with it wouldn't be worth a damn. It's a dangerous game for him to be playing, but I agree with your assessment that it's basically not your role to do anything unless she explicitly tells you it makes her uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on November 11, 2017, 09:46:15 PM
I honestly do not know if it makes her uncomfortable.  They have a hot and cold "friendship."  She is very bipolar, and if she is being nice to him, they get along great, but if she is not, he gets all upset and literally won't talk to anyone. It's pretty messed up, really.  She told him she would go out with him last winter if he bought her an Apple Watch for V-Day, so he did :facepalm:, and of course she didn't go out with him.  Then, right before her birthday this summer, she really hooked him in again, and boom, he bought her a Coach purse, and again, no date.  We are now prepping for her to reel him again just long enough for Christmas. :lol :lol  She is basically a terrible person.  Not that she deserves to be sexually harassed (no one does!!), but just giving more insight as to why he probably says the shit he does.  He is a big fan of the South Park style of humor, so he is basically firing that kind of humor at her to take shots as payback for continuously jerking him around.  Like I said, it really is messed up. 

If/when the day comes that he gets the axe for sexual harassment, he will absolutely deserve it.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: portnoy311 on November 11, 2017, 10:11:15 PM
He might also have a sexual harassment case against her.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 11, 2017, 10:17:09 PM
yeah her accepting those gifts is little messed up,  though no one is ever owed a relationship just for buying an expensive gift. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Podaar on November 12, 2017, 06:01:02 AM
The only way it's harassment by her is if she is his supervisor. Otherwise, dude is up a creek.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 12, 2017, 10:53:04 AM
If she's aware that he could be fired for his behavior if she pressed the matter then I'd stay the hell out of it. If she isn't I'd probably point it out to her just to clear my conscience. I'd also tell the dude to stop being such a fucking loser. Making flirty comments doesn't bug me so much, but spending lots of money on a tease just makes you look like a tool.

Either way, I'd be documenting everything just in case one of them decides to go scorched Earth.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 12, 2017, 11:41:06 AM
yeah her accepting those gifts is little messed up,  though no one is ever owed a relationship just for buying an expensive gift.

While your idea is certainly true, that doesn't seem to be the case here. While it's not a legally binding contract, and not even a solid social one, if you're telling someone that you'll go ON A DATE (not FUCK) with them if they buy you something expensive, and then don't do it after they actually spend those hundreds of dollars... that makes you an AWFUL PIECE OF SHIT of a human being.

Making flirty comments doesn't bug me so much, but spending lots of money on a tease just makes you look like a tool.

Fucking A! Fool me once, shame on you...
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: pogoowner on November 12, 2017, 11:44:33 AM
While it's not a legally binding contract, and not even a solid social one, if you're telling someone that you'll go ON A DATE (not FUCK) with them if they buy you something expensive, and then don't do it after they actually spend those hundreds of dollars... that makes you an AWFUL PIECE OF SHIT of a human being.
I guess my question to this would be, what is her perspective on it? Did she actually make any such statement? Or has this guy just convinced himself of it based on a bunch of perceived innuendo? Or does he just think it's something he is owed based on these gifts? Because in my experience, each party tends to tell a very different story in these sorts of circumstances.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 12, 2017, 12:07:45 PM
yeah her accepting those gifts is little messed up,  though no one is ever owed a relationship just for buying an expensive gift.

While your idea is certainly true, that doesn't seem to be the case here. While it's not a legally binding contract, and not even a solid social one, if you're telling someone that you'll go ON A DATE (not FUCK) with them if they buy you something expensive, and then don't do it after they actually spend those hundreds of dollars... that makes you an AWFUL PIECE OF SHIT of a human being.

I don't know, at the very least that guy was in dire need of a good friend to tell him not buy to expensive shit for this girl.  For fucks's sake whatever happened to flowers and chocolate  :lol

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on November 12, 2017, 01:02:51 PM
To explain it a little more, I mentioned he is socially awkward. That is putting it mildly.  He is a 29-year old man who has never so much as had a date. He doesn't have friends and has ZERO social life.  He pretty much has no clue what he is doing.  Everyone at work has told him how dumb he was to buy the apple watch (no one thought he would actually do it when she threw out the "buy it and I will go on a date with you" line) and then double down on it by buying the purse, but he doesn't care. I think he is so smitten that he can't see straight, and when she is nice to him, that is something he has never had a before (a girl paying attention to him).

As for her, she is 22 and attractive in a white trash sorta way (if you get my drift), but is a total mess with major daddy AND mommy issues.  To say she is starved for attention would be a gross understatement.  That is why she sucks him in, because he gives her all of the attention she needs if she is having a bad day or just needs attention. There was a day like a month ago where she came in feeling sick, so he went somewhere and bought her lunch to try and make her feel better.  And she just eats it up, so he will keep buying her little things like that and giving her attention.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 12, 2017, 03:18:03 PM
yeah her accepting those gifts is little messed up,  though no one is ever owed a relationship just for buying an expensive gift.

While your idea is certainly true, that doesn't seem to be the case here. While it's not a legally binding contract, and not even a solid social one, if you're telling someone that you'll go ON A DATE (not FUCK) with them if they buy you something expensive, and then don't do it after they actually spend those hundreds of dollars... that makes you an AWFUL PIECE OF SHIT of a human being.

I don't know, at the very least that guy was in dire need of a good friend to tell him not buy to expensive shit for this girl.  For fucks's sake whatever happened to flowers and chocolate  :lol

No shit! Kev needs to step in and tell him he's doing it wrong lol.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on November 12, 2017, 03:22:12 PM
I have told him.

So have others.

He doesn't listen.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 12, 2017, 03:46:12 PM
I have told him.

So have others.

He doesn't listen.

Oh I don't blame you.  From what you've described this guy sounds like a textbook case of a "fake nice guy",  meaning he was never nice to her just to be her friend, ony to get something in return and now feels entitled.  And hey I've been there, most guys can relate to that to a degree or another but then we learn from those experiences.   To be fair it also sounds like she didn't help matters much.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: axeman90210 on November 12, 2017, 05:14:33 PM
I find it seriously disturbing that more evangelicals are more likely to vote for Roy Moore than less likely to after the allegations from this week. I mean, it's not like this is one woman coming out on her own in a simple he said-she said scenario. This is four different women (who don't know each other) agreeing to come on the record, with a number of additional people confirming that these four women had mentioned these incidents with Roy Moore privately in the past. Meanwhile Breitbart is trying to paint the fact that WaPo reporters had to convince these women to come on the record as "activism" rather than... ya know, reporting.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 12, 2017, 06:20:17 PM
I find it seriously disturbing that more evangelicals are more likely to vote for Roy Moore than less likely to after the allegations from this week. I mean, it's not like this is one woman coming out on her own in a simple he said-she said scenario. This is four different women (who don't know each other) agreeing to come on the record, with a number of additional people confirming that these four women had mentioned these incidents with Roy Moore privately in the past. Meanwhile Breitbart is trying to paint the fact that WaPo reporters had to convince these women to come on the record as "activism" rather than... ya know, reporting.

It's funny that Hannity asked him on his radio show about dating high school girls (while in his 30s), and his response was along the lines of, "I don't remember anything like that, but if it happened, I'm not gonna dispute it." It's not the "I'm not gonna dispute it" part that gets me, which is basically accepting the account as credible. It's the "I don't remember" part that I find HILARIOUS! How can even Hannity hear something like that and not laugh the guy right off his show? How is the State legislature not setting aside time to laugh and ridicule him as a group?

"Uh, hey guys, IF I was dating high school girls while I was in my 30s, allegedly hanging around high school gatherings and high school football games (as someone dating a high school girl would do :loser:), I TOTALLY don't remember!"
 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev on November 12, 2017, 07:30:51 PM
I have told him.

So have others.

He doesn't listen.

Oh I don't blame you.  From what you've described this guy sounds like a textbook case of a "fake nice guy", meaning he was never nice to her just to be her friend, ony to get something in return and now feels entitled.  And hey I've been there, most guys can relate to that to a degree or another but then we learn from those experiences.   To be fair it also sounds like she didn't help matters much.

I don't think that is the case at all with this guy.  I think he was just overtaken by the fact that a woman paid this much attention to him (we moved offices in January 2016 where they went from not working close to each other to working 15 feet from each other).  And like I said earlier, he has never dated or had any social life EVER, so a woman paying attention to him is new (even when it is simple work chatter), and he simply doesn't know how to handle it.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Grappler on November 13, 2017, 07:43:34 AM
And hitting on a girl at a party and hitting on someone over whom you have power are very different things. A girl at a party can just say no. Someone who you have power over might not feel she has that much freedom without facing consequences.

I think a lot of people are missing this point. 

Many of these celebrity/Hollywood sexual assault and improper behavior stories involve people who have professional or working relationships together, and that's the key.  Even Louis CK - a headlining comedian can help make or break an opening act,  So yes, those women went to his room.  But just because they did doesn't mean it's a free invite for him to be a creep - there is a clear power structure in that relationship just like there was with Harvey Weinstein (someone who can help or hurt your career).  Treat people in your "workplace" respectfully.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 13, 2017, 01:09:44 PM

Absolutely, but I think the issue here is that you seem to be taking the "if a woman accuses a man of harassment/rape/etc., they should be believed without question until it is proven otherwise" stance.   I know you didn't say that exact sentence, but that is what your sentiment appears to be, to me at least.

I don't deny that.  I understand it might be controversial to some of you but it's not in the circles I run in usually.   But I'm not a cop, a judge, a lawyer or anything like that and I'm not out there taking justice into my own hands against anyone, be it online or in real life.  I just want to be supportive.

Except that's what much of this amounts to.    Why are Kevin Spacey, Charlie Sheen, et al, on the defensive now?   When you say things that result in detrimental actions against someone, you'd best be right, and you'd best have proof.   Otherwise it very much is "taking justice into [your] own hands".   

I support that desire to be, well, supportive, and I have that cojnversation with my two daughters almost daily (one is at a private school that just issued a report that, well, let's just say that some of Weinstein's relatives may have been working at her school...) about this.  One can be supportive without being blind to the realities and the context of the situation. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 13, 2017, 01:21:17 PM
I have told him.

So have others.

He doesn't listen.

Oh I don't blame you.  From what you've described this guy sounds like a textbook case of a "fake nice guy", meaning he was never nice to her just to be her friend, ony to get something in return and now feels entitled.  And hey I've been there, most guys can relate to that to a degree or another but then we learn from those experiences.   To be fair it also sounds like she didn't help matters much.

I don't think that is the case at all with this guy.  I think he was just overtaken by the fact that a woman paid this much attention to him (we moved offices in January 2016 where they went from not working close to each other to working 15 feet from each other).  And like I said earlier, he has never dated or had any social life EVER, so a woman paying attention to him is new (even when it is simple work chatter), and he simply doesn't know how to handle it.

There is so much wrong in this scenario, and "sexual harassment" isn't even in the top five, in my opinion.   I have a step-nephew (is that right?) that is in a quasi-similar relationship.   He's 23, gets state assistance (his IQ is less than 70) and is basically just happy for the attention from a girl that we found out - after about a 12 minute Google session - is married with child in Texas.   He's going to get fucked over, not "if" but "when".    Dad won't do anything about it (and since he has some guardianship rights because of the kids' mental state, he's the only one that can) so what do you do? 

I think that woman in Kev's scenario is exactly why we should have more than just "Twitter" to tell us who's bad and who's not.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 13, 2017, 01:24:42 PM
I find it seriously disturbing that more evangelicals are more likely to vote for Roy Moore than less likely to after the allegations from this week. I mean, it's not like this is one woman coming out on her own in a simple he said-she said scenario. This is four different women (who don't know each other) agreeing to come on the record, with a number of additional people confirming that these four women had mentioned these incidents with Roy Moore privately in the past. Meanwhile Breitbart is trying to paint the fact that WaPo reporters had to convince these women to come on the record as "activism" rather than... ya know, reporting.

It's funny that Hannity asked him on his radio show about dating high school girls (while in his 30s), and his response was along the lines of, "I don't remember anything like that, but if it happened, I'm not gonna dispute it." It's not the "I'm not gonna dispute it" part that gets me, which is basically accepting the account as credible. It's the "I don't remember" part that I find HILARIOUS! How can even Hannity hear something like that and not laugh the guy right off his show? How is the State legislature not setting aside time to laugh and ridicule him as a group?

"Uh, hey guys, IF I was dating high school girls while I was in my 30s, allegedly hanging around high school gatherings and high school football games (as someone dating a high school girl would do :loser:), I TOTALLY don't remember!"
 :facepalm:

There was another line that struck me; Hannity asked him if he ever dated someone aged 17, and he also said "I don't remember" but helpfully added that it was "not generally the case".   "Not generally the case"?   So it was an option?    "Do I remember eating my own feces?  No, but it was not generally the case.".     "Do I remember sleeping with a goat?   No, but it was not generally the case."   Mofo, please.   I'm the first to say nothing is "black and white", but there are always lines, and when you cross them, certainly you would remember with more certainty than "it was not generally the case". 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 13, 2017, 01:27:59 PM
Isn’t 17 the most common age of consent in America?

I mean I wouldn’t date anyone younger than like 25, but we like what we like I guess.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: antigoon on November 13, 2017, 01:32:46 PM
i'm not even 30 and the idea of dating someone who hasn't finished college let alone high school repulses me to my core
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 13, 2017, 01:36:06 PM
And hitting on a girl at a party and hitting on someone over whom you have power are very different things. A girl at a party can just say no. Someone who you have power over might not feel she has that much freedom without facing consequences.

I think a lot of people are missing this point. 

Many of these celebrity/Hollywood sexual assault and improper behavior stories involve people who have professional or working relationships together, and that's the key.  Even Louis CK - a headlining comedian can help make or break an opening act,  So yes, those women went to his room.  But just because they did doesn't mean it's a free invite for him to be a creep - there is a clear power structure in that relationship just like there was with Harvey Weinstein (someone who can help or hurt your career).  Treat people in your "workplace" respectfully.

With deep respect to Harmony, and those women that have been in that situation before, it's not just the power differential between the man and the woman here.  It's the power structure of the whole scenario.   Yeah, the concerns that Harmony set forth are real and should be addressed.  But that doesn't mean "anything goes", and that doesn't mean we have to accept an alternate power structure that overcompensates.   Everything that Harmony said could equally be said for a man who is falsely accused of some allegation.  Just look at Louis CK: they cancelled his movie BEFORE he confessed, because they just didn't want the mud on their slacks.  Kevin Spacey; there still hasn't been a lick of proof against him, and he has lost a very lucrative professional gig. On SPECULATION.  That should worry some of you.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 13, 2017, 01:38:24 PM
i'm not even 30 and the idea of dating someone who hasn't finished college let alone high school repulses me to my core

I was in the dating scene for a while a couple years ago; at that time I was about 46 or so, and to be honest, I had a hard time with under 30.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 13, 2017, 01:44:51 PM
And hitting on a girl at a party and hitting on someone over whom you have power are very different things. A girl at a party can just say no. Someone who you have power over might not feel she has that much freedom without facing consequences.

I think a lot of people are missing this point. 

Many of these celebrity/Hollywood sexual assault and improper behavior stories involve people who have professional or working relationships together, and that's the key.  Even Louis CK - a headlining comedian can help make or break an opening act,  So yes, those women went to his room.  But just because they did doesn't mean it's a free invite for him to be a creep - there is a clear power structure in that relationship just like there was with Harvey Weinstein (someone who can help or hurt your career).  Treat people in your "workplace" respectfully.

With deep respect to Harmony, and those women that have been in that situation before, it's not just the power differential between the man and the woman here.  It's the power structure of the whole scenario.   Yeah, the concerns that Harmony set forth are real and should be addressed.  But that doesn't mean "anything goes", and that doesn't mean we have to accept an alternate power structure that overcompensates.   Everything that Harmony said could equally be said for a man who is falsely accused of some allegation.  Just look at Louis CK: they cancelled his movie BEFORE he confessed, because they just didn't want the mud on their slacks.  Kevin Spacey; there still hasn't been a lick of proof against him, and he has lost a very lucrative professional gig. On SPECULATION.  That should worry some of you.

He is not facing any legal consequences (to my knowledge). He does not have a right to work with any production companies or whatever, so those companies are choosing not to work with him.

If they said he was facing jail time or huge fines with no proof, then we'd have a different story, but legal standards don't apply everywhere, also a ton of crimes/actions don't leave evidence.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 13, 2017, 02:06:26 PM
And hitting on a girl at a party and hitting on someone over whom you have power are very different things. A girl at a party can just say no. Someone who you have power over might not feel she has that much freedom without facing consequences.

I think a lot of people are missing this point. 

Many of these celebrity/Hollywood sexual assault and improper behavior stories involve people who have professional or working relationships together, and that's the key.  Even Louis CK - a headlining comedian can help make or break an opening act,  So yes, those women went to his room.  But just because they did doesn't mean it's a free invite for him to be a creep - there is a clear power structure in that relationship just like there was with Harvey Weinstein (someone who can help or hurt your career).  Treat people in your "workplace" respectfully.

With deep respect to Harmony, and those women that have been in that situation before, it's not just the power differential between the man and the woman here.  It's the power structure of the whole scenario.   Yeah, the concerns that Harmony set forth are real and should be addressed.  But that doesn't mean "anything goes", and that doesn't mean we have to accept an alternate power structure that overcompensates.   Everything that Harmony said could equally be said for a man who is falsely accused of some allegation.  Just look at Louis CK: they cancelled his movie BEFORE he confessed, because they just didn't want the mud on their slacks.  Kevin Spacey; there still hasn't been a lick of proof against him, and he has lost a very lucrative professional gig. On SPECULATION.  That should worry some of you.

He is not facing any legal consequences (to my knowledge). He does not have a right to work with any production companies or whatever, so those companies are choosing not to work with him.

If they said he was facing jail time or huge fines with no proof, then we'd have a different story, but legal standards don't apply everywhere, also a ton of crimes/actions don't leave evidence.

I get that. 

A letter came to my house a couple months ago, addressed to my wife.   I didn't think anything of it.   I later found out it was from a girl I had never met.   Wouldn't know this girl if she was standing on my foot.   She was dating a guy - who she felt cheated on her - and sent the letter to my wife - who had dated before I met her - telling her he was not faithful.   Why would you do that?   Why would you send that?   To hurt the guy.   But there are consequences.  He actually didn't give a shit about the letter, but now my wife and I have to deal with that.  Why now?   How did that girl get my wife's address?   Why would she think my wife cared?   Is cheating illegal?  No, and they're not even married (to my knowledge).   Who knows what their deal is/was.    But in her need for vengeance, in her need to "get back", here we are.   

We have a rash of men - almost all men - who are so frustrated with their lives and their situations and their lack of whatever that they feel like they have to shoot up schools and churches and concerts.   Is it so outlandish that a woman would put her story on Twitter to "change the game" or "turn the tables"?    Of course not.  So while we have to care for and support and love the women in our lives and make them feel strong and give them a platform, we also have to make sure that we're not inadvertently swinging the pendulum the other way simply because we're on the other side. 

I'm fascinated by a Courtney Love.   She's NOT naďve; she's got the balls to make snide comments about Harvey to the press, she's savvy enough to say "well, I'll get libeled if I say it...", but she's not somehow capable of doing this under the right channels?   And she's certainly not scared to claim that she's been blackballed?     I want justice, I want these people to pay for any crimes they've committed, but like it or not, there's a process to be followed.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 13, 2017, 02:22:32 PM
Once again, youre looking at this from an almost entirely legal perspective. And as many of us have been trying to say, this is not a purely legal matter. The legal parts are, and the rest is about social change there is no legal process to follow there.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 13, 2017, 03:05:15 PM
Once again, youre looking at this from an almost entirely legal perspective. And as many of us have been trying to say, this is not a purely legal matter. The legal parts are, and the rest is about social change there is no legal process to follow there.

Ask one of these potentially innocent individuals if they choose to be one of the martyrs for "social change". Ask any of the white students at the Air Force Academy who were grilled about the KKK CON (it wasn't a hoax, it was a CON) by the black student trying to bolster the argument for "social change" if they appreciate their names and reputations be questioned or potentially tarnished.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 13, 2017, 03:20:34 PM
I’ll try. Not sure how easy it will be to talk to any of them.


Also, asking the people who need to change for permission will likely result in stagnation.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 13, 2017, 03:33:56 PM
i'm not even 30 and the idea of dating someone who hasn't finished college let alone high school repulses me to my core
I don't think the dude was looking to "date" the girl.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 13, 2017, 03:40:46 PM
I’ll try. Not sure how easy it will be to talk to any of them.


Also, asking the people who need to change for permission will likely result in stagnation.

There you go, ASSUMING that they need to change...

I get multiple accusations being very telling, regardless of whether each individual accusation is entirely true. But I am ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDED at people's apparent complete and utter apathy for truth. It's one thing to not require the levels of evidence required by the legal system, and it's quite another to not care about the truth just because it's not a legal matter.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 13, 2017, 03:45:56 PM
Hey man, if you think there is no problem, then that's cool for you. But the rest of us are going to act on the very obvious problem here.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 13, 2017, 03:56:03 PM
Hey man, if you think there is no problem, then that's cool for you. But the rest of us are going to act on the very obvious problem here.

Dang dude, you seem intent on disregarding my point, and my actual words, just as much as the idea of some sort of fairness. Congratulations to all of "you" that are willing to champion for social change at all costs. But I'm kinda curious what cost is too high for you. How dead set are the rest of you acting on this "very obvious problem"? If a woman joins us tomorrow and declares that Adami sexually assaulted her (for argument's sake, you unequivocally did NOT), do you stand up for yourself as an innocent individual, or do you accept the accusations in "support of the cause," in hopes that you don't make women feel silenced?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 13, 2017, 04:00:25 PM
If someone is innocent, let them declare it. Happened to George Takei. One dude claimed George molested him like 40 years ago. George denied the claim.

Last I checked, George's career hasn't been totally destroyed by that claim.


Also this isn't the case of one person making a claim. The people who are facing real consequences have TONS of people making independent claims. Could it be a massive conspiracy to destroy Kevin Spacey of all people or Brett Ratner? Meh, I guess theoretically? But insanely unlikely.


But to your very odd hypothetical question, if me demanding my innocence meant that women were no longer safer in the work place? I'll go down for the cause. In the end though, that doesn't matter. It's been a well established fact how Hollywood operates and now people are trying to change it.

And once again, last I checked there isn't anyone having their career ruined by a single claim.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 13, 2017, 04:14:56 PM
If someone is innocent, let them declare it.

But to your very odd hypothetical question, if me demanding my innocence meant that women were no longer safer in the work place? I'll go down for the cause.

I've clipped these sentences, but I don't think I've altered the gist of your post by doing that (if I have, I'm sorry, and please tell me). I just want to ask you about something I haven't caught: you work as a psycho-therapist, as I understand. You are in a position of power with very vulnerable and troubled people. And yet, if a woman falsely accused you of molesting her, you would "go down for the cause" rather than "demand my innocence"? What "cause" is being served by doing that (assuming you know the accusation to be false)?

I know you can't have meant what I've taken you to have meant, so I ask only for clarification. It was odd to me that you of all people would say you'd "go down for the cause", when you likely see the consequences of falsity and denial of the truth every day in your job.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 13, 2017, 04:17:17 PM
I literally said that if they were innocent, let them declare it.


Obviously I would declare my innocence if I was. What I said was that, if I knew that my demanding my innocence would cause thousands of other people to suffer, then I'll take the bullet for that one. In my case, however, that wouldn't be the case. I said the hypothetical question was odd because it has no real relevance to what was being discussed. I just answered it anyway.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 13, 2017, 04:23:31 PM
What I said was that, if I knew that my demanding my innocence would cause thousands of other people to suffer, then I'll take the bullet for that one.

Fair enough. I still don't understand the philosophy of it, but it's probably not a discussion for this thread. Any social system which engenders the suffering of thousands if one person tells the truth isn't worth trying to uphold. The problem lies elsewhere, the fight is something other. This "sacrificing myself to prevent the suffering of thousands" is so tediously theatrical. But I'm as uneasy with hypotheticals as you apparently are, so I'll leave this until a better time and place comes up.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 13, 2017, 04:32:12 PM
I literally said that if they were innocent, let them declare it.


Obviously I would declare my innocence if I was. What I said was that, if I knew that my demanding my innocence would cause thousands of other people to suffer, then I'll take the bullet for that one. In my case, however, that wouldn't be the case. I said the hypothetical question was odd because it has no real relevance to what was being discussed. I just answered it anyway.

That's the point man. If they're innocent, they can stand on the mountaintops and shout it to the world... but if everyone thinks like you and Xe, it won't make one bit of difference. People keep referencing "legal process" in defense whatever mob mentality wants to rule the day. The only problem is that people are focusing on the Legal, and not the PROCESS. It's not about what rules are enforceable by law, it's about how we implement those ideas is some sort of fair way. When people disregard the reasons for the process just because there's no legal ramification, where does the line get drawn? Who gets to draw it? Who else becomes an innocent victim?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 13, 2017, 04:34:20 PM
What process would you require and what is the justification?

Assuming you want proof, does that mean that all offenses that did not leave evidence should be ignored and not discussed?

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 13, 2017, 05:18:50 PM
Bosk, I think the crux of her point (and I apologize if I protest too much) is that this took place in 1985, when many businesses would not have necessarily handled a situation like that in the manner you spelled out. Companies now are hyper-sensitive (and maybe rightfully so) and thus have anti-retaliation policies, anonymous hotlines, sensitivity training, and such in place that wouldn't have existed 30 years ago.

Yes, thank you Chris. Context matters.  As does introspection and a whole lot of growing up.  As I said in my first post, I'd handle almost everything differently were this to happen to me today.  No doubt about it.

I'd like to encourage people to check out comedian Marc Maron's comments on his good friend Louis C.K.  He talks about it for about 20 minutes.  I like Maron, I'm a fan, but not a hardcore listener.  He seems to be doing what I hope everyone else is doing...what I believe some of you here are doing too.  He's thinking about it as it pertains to his own life, his own behaviors.  He's using this horrible thing that his very good friend is going through and trying to LEARN from it and do better going forward.

My friends - not all women, mind - who have experienced sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault.  We aren't looking for 5 minutes of fame.  We aren't looking to be seen as victims.  We aren't trying to rub men's faces in that steaming pile of shit (if I were, I'd have named my boss who is now deceased anyway - I looked him up after I posted my story).  I don't need to burden his family with my experiences.  All I want from what I can tell is to get the word out that this shit happens day in and day out.  All the fucking time.  It has to stop.  It has to be called out when it happens.  By me and by you.  Each and every time.  Even if it is your friend doing it.  Even if it is your brother, your co-worker, your pastor, your boss, your therapist, your bartender, your favorite entertainer, your politician.  Even if.

Anyway, I hope you will check out the clip.  I hope his introspection becomes contagious. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0okENtx4RaY
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 13, 2017, 05:27:07 PM
What process would you require and what is the justification?

Assuming you want proof, does that mean that all offenses that did not leave evidence should be ignored and not discussed?

I don't know I guess. I suppose I would have expected it to fall somewhere in the Grand Canyon of a grey area that's been created between legal level burden of proof and automatically believing any and every sexual assault allegation. Wow... justification? I don't know. Maybe look up the thoughts of the individuals that thought out our legal system about their justifications for a process that doesn't allow for mob rule to dole out "justice" as it sees fit.

And quite the contrary. EXACTLY what I'm saying is that those instances, and every instance, should NOT be ignored, and also discussed. BUT, default belief doesn't allow for much discussion. In fact it's just the opposite. Then comes accusations of "victim shaming", and my white male privelage not allowing me the perspective to "get it." (not accusing anyone here of that) Listen, my default is somewhere on the BELIEF side of the line, every time. Unfortunately, the current social climate doesn't really allow for any questioning beyond that. It's just another topic that, outside of rational groups like we pretend to be  :biggrin:, doesn't get the full spotlight to illuminate all aspects of the problem in favor of not hurting some people's feelings.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 13, 2017, 05:48:39 PM
And on the other hand, I don't know what it's like to be in Harmony's position, with a story to tell and hoping people will believe you. I don't know... I guess I just think it's a dangerous mindset to ignore an entire aspect of the situation. This is why I'm not running for office, I don't have an answer for a lot of this shit lol.

You're right Harmony, CONTEXT is important. It's hard to not appreciate someone's emotions during and after an event like that. It may not be evidence, but it's compelling none the less. And YES, it's become very clear that this "shit happens day in and day out." A lot of windows with really shitty vistas have opened over the last several years...
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 13, 2017, 06:17:49 PM
And on the other hand, I don't know what it's like to be in Harmony's position, with a story to tell and hoping people will believe you. I don't know... I guess I just think it's a dangerous mindset to ignore an entire aspect of the situation. This is why I'm not running for office, I don't have an answer for a lot of this shit lol.

You're right Harmony, CONTEXT is important. It's hard to not appreciate someone's emotions during and after an event like that. It may not be evidence, but it's compelling none the less. And YES, it's become very clear that this "shit happens day in and day out." A lot of windows with really shitty vistas have opened over the last several years...

We'll get you on our side in the end Sylvan  :lol one of us, one of us... (I'm just kidding about sides of course, it's not about that, not really)   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 10:27:38 AM
Once again, youre looking at this from an almost entirely legal perspective. And as many of us have been trying to say, this is not a purely legal matter. The legal parts are, and the rest is about social change there is no legal process to follow there.

OF COURSE IT IS.   The rule of law is the common standard for all of us. That's what we - through our legislators - have agreed on as part of what one might call the "social contract" (that's not specifically what the social contract is, but it's the right idea).   

You may not like what I do, as a general proposition.  But your recourse is to choose to not engage with me, up until the point that I break the law.  You don't get to ruin my life, tell fabrications, half-truths, or unproven innuendo, just because you don't like what I do.   The law is the standard at which these accusers get to assert their vengeance, revenge, power, whatever you want to call it.   I keep referring to the law because it's the line at which we objectively have an obligation to act (or not act, as the case may be).  Up until then it is purely subjective, and purely the whim of the individual actor. 

I don't care what I do that offends you, you don't get to ruin my career, my relationships, my LIFE, until I act in clear - proven - defiance of the standards we all have agreed on prior to my acting.   That, as we have it, is the law.   What some of this is - not all of it, but some of it - is basically going back, retroactively and rescoring every football game played prior to this season, and counting every time the offense gets within the five yard line as a touchdown.  Or retroactively counting field goals as five points.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 14, 2017, 10:44:01 AM
Once again, youre looking at this from an almost entirely legal perspective. And as many of us have been trying to say, this is not a purely legal matter. The legal parts are, and the rest is about social change there is no legal process to follow there.

OF COURSE IT IS.   The rule of law is the common standard for all of us. That's what we - through our legislators - have agreed on as part of what one might call the "social contract" (that's not specifically what the social contract is, but it's the right idea).   

You may not like what I do, as a general proposition.  But your recourse is to choose to not engage with me, up until the point that I break the law.  You don't get to ruin my life, tell fabrications, half-truths, or unproven innuendo, just because you don't like what I do.   The law is the standard at which these accusers get to assert their vengeance, revenge, power, whatever you want to call it.   I keep referring to the law because it's the line at which we objectively have an obligation to act (or not act, as the case may be).  Up until then it is purely subjective, and purely the whim of the individual actor. 

I don't care what I do that offends you, you don't get to ruin my career, my relationships, my LIFE, until I act in clear - proven - defiance of the standards we all have agreed on prior to my acting.   That, as we have it, is the law.   What some of this is - not all of it, but some of it - is basically going back, retroactively and rescoring every football game played prior to this season, and counting every time the offense gets within the five yard line as a touchdown.  Or retroactively counting field goals as five points.

So because we don't have proof we should dismiss everything?  That's how you wind up with a Harvey Weinstein or a Bill Cosby in the first place.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 10:44:34 AM
If someone is innocent, let them declare it. Happened to George Takei. One dude claimed George molested him like 40 years ago. George denied the claim.

Last I checked, George's career hasn't been totally destroyed by that claim.


Also this isn't the case of one person making a claim. The people who are facing real consequences have TONS of people making independent claims. Could it be a massive conspiracy to destroy Kevin Spacey of all people or Brett Ratner? Meh, I guess theoretically? But insanely unlikely.


But to your very odd hypothetical question, if me demanding my innocence meant that women were no longer safer in the work place? I'll go down for the cause. In the end though, that doesn't matter. It's been a well established fact how Hollywood operates and now people are trying to change it.

And once again, last I checked there isn't anyone having their career ruined by a single claim.


When was the vote to decide that we're going to scrap "innocent until proven guilty"?   Why should someone unilaterally be put in the position of having to "assert their innocence"?   And why, for example, don't we worry about this when we stop and frisk someone?   If they didn't do anything wrong, why are we worried about how many black people are pulled over?   Let them assert their innocence.   Sounds fair.  :)

We can go one step further; we can count the stops.   And let the cops know before hand.  "Hey, that guy was stopped five times before, so there's CLEARLY a problem.  Smoke, fire, all that jazz.  But if they're innocent, let them assert it."    Oh, here's another one:  terrorists.  Fuck them and the horse they rode in on; put them in Guantanamo and let them assert their innocence.  If they're innocent, let them prove it and then we can let them go.   

This is yet ANOTHER reason I keep going back to the law.  We have 240 years, plus or minus, of dealing with these issues.  While my heart bleeds (it does, I assure you) for some of these women, no matter how heinous the crime, we don't get to usurp the standards of due process and rule of law.   

NONE OF THIS is to say that I deny there is a problem or that I think the women are lying.  They can be telling the truth, and there can be a rampant problem in Hollywood and I would STILL say... due process, rule of law, and the right to defend one's honor in a court of law before any vengeance is wreaked. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 14, 2017, 10:46:10 AM

we don't get to usurp the standards of due process and rule of law.

NO ONE IS DOING THAT.  That is a strawman argument
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 10:50:49 AM
I literally said that if they were innocent, let them declare it.


Obviously I would declare my innocence if I was. What I said was that, if I knew that my demanding my innocence would cause thousands of other people to suffer, then I'll take the bullet for that one. In my case, however, that wouldn't be the case. I said the hypothetical question was odd because it has no real relevance to what was being discussed. I just answered it anyway.

I think I understand where you are coming from, but you have to explain to me how usurping the rule of law and the power of truth is helping anyone.   Why would we encourage people to take matters into their own hands?  And where do we stop?  If we get to have someone fired and ruin their careers over an allegation and accusation, what about a marriage or family?   My stepson - diagnosed as being "on the spectrum" - is, by at least two accounts, determined to be harmed by his biological father.  Not physically, but certainly emotionally and psychologically.   So it's okay that I take matters into my own hands?   Why not?  Isn't that for the "greater good"?   What if I take one for the team and put a bullet in him?   Is that the right answer?    We have a process for a REASON.  Maybe the information we're getting from the 10 year old isn't accurate.   Maybe it's not causing the harm we think, but it just looks that way.     
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 10:54:48 AM
Once again, youre looking at this from an almost entirely legal perspective. And as many of us have been trying to say, this is not a purely legal matter. The legal parts are, and the rest is about social change there is no legal process to follow there.

OF COURSE IT IS.   The rule of law is the common standard for all of us. That's what we - through our legislators - have agreed on as part of what one might call the "social contract" (that's not specifically what the social contract is, but it's the right idea).   

You may not like what I do, as a general proposition.  But your recourse is to choose to not engage with me, up until the point that I break the law.  You don't get to ruin my life, tell fabrications, half-truths, or unproven innuendo, just because you don't like what I do.   The law is the standard at which these accusers get to assert their vengeance, revenge, power, whatever you want to call it.   I keep referring to the law because it's the line at which we objectively have an obligation to act (or not act, as the case may be).  Up until then it is purely subjective, and purely the whim of the individual actor. 

I don't care what I do that offends you, you don't get to ruin my career, my relationships, my LIFE, until I act in clear - proven - defiance of the standards we all have agreed on prior to my acting.   That, as we have it, is the law.   What some of this is - not all of it, but some of it - is basically going back, retroactively and rescoring every football game played prior to this season, and counting every time the offense gets within the five yard line as a touchdown.  Or retroactively counting field goals as five points.

So because we don't have proof we should dismiss everything?  That's how you wind up with a Harvey Weinstein or a Bill Cosby in the first place.

Not suggesting that at all.    Stop swinging the pendulum so far.   NUANCE, mein fronde.  NUANCE.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 14, 2017, 10:56:36 AM
Stads, I think we just view all of this differently. You view it all from a legal perspective and seem to refuse other perspectives. I can’t see it from a legal perspective. Let’s just agree to disagree here.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 10:58:19 AM

we don't get to usurp the standards of due process and rule of law.

NO ONE IS DOING THAT.  That is a strawman argument

You absolutely are, and it's not a strawman.   Has Louis CK endured any punishment, any harm?   He has; his movie was delayed/cancelled.    Have we determined that he did anything illegal yet?   No, we have not.  He admitted to certain actions, but he never apologized for those actions and he clearly said that he never did any of that without asking first.  It's not up to us to decide if that consent was 'coerced' or 'under false pretense'.   Kevin Spacey; likely what was described was 'sexual assault', but we don't know that for fact, yet.  But he's already been fired from one movie, and his showpiece role/show has been cancelled.   As of this moment, we do not at all know that he committed any crime.   

So we absolutely are usurping the rule of law. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 14, 2017, 11:00:09 AM

we don't get to usurp the standards of due process and rule of law.

NO ONE IS DOING THAT.  That is a strawman argument

You absolutely are, and it's not a strawman.   Has Louis CK endured any punishment, any harm?   He has; his movie was delayed/cancelled.    Have we determined that he did anything illegal yet?   No, we have not.  He admitted to certain actions, but he never apologized for those actions and he clearly said that he never did any of that without asking first.  It's not up to us to decide if that consent was 'coerced' or 'under false pretense'.   Kevin Spacey; likely what was described was 'sexual assault', but we don't know that for fact, yet.  But he's already been fired from one movie, and his showpiece role/show has been cancelled.   As of this moment, we do not at all know that he committed any crime.   

So we absolutely are usurping the rule of law.

None of these things have anything to do with the rule of law
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 14, 2017, 11:01:02 AM
Being fired is not a legal punishment. Anyone can be fired.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 11:02:08 AM
Stads, I think we just view all of this differently. You view it all from a legal perspective and seem to refuse other perspectives. I can’t see it from a legal perspective. Let’s just agree to disagree here.

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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 14, 2017, 11:04:59 AM
No one's constitutional rights are being infringed.

Unless there is an amendment that states that we have a right to a Netflix deal or something.



Also I'm not ignoring anything because something is emotional. I just do not view this as a legal matter. I'm not being emotional. So please don't assume you know why I (or others) are arguing the way we are.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 11:08:59 AM
Being fired is not a legal punishment. Anyone can be fired.

It's not a legal punishment; but it is a punishment, a harm, and all the claims of "innocence" don't seem to work to prevent it or reverse it.   When it's based on claims that haven't been substantiated or confirmed, it is just as much an abuse of power as the SOME of the original acts.

The point is, all this is street justice.  That's my only point here.   If you choose to agree that this is right and just, that's your prerogative, but at least acknowledge that it is street justice.   And so next time some girl cheats on a guy and he slices her face open, we have to accept that as "street justice".   The next time someone rear ends someone and the victim gets out and shoots the other driver, we have to accept that as "street justice".   Or any other case where there MIGHT be behavior we don't like and we decide that we don't have to have a third party arbiter to determine what is appropriate consequences. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 14, 2017, 11:12:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 14, 2017, 11:12:43 AM
Being fired is not a legal punishment. Anyone can be fired.

It's not a legal punishment; but it is a punishment, a harm, and all the claims of "innocence" don't seem to work to prevent it or reverse it.   When it's based on claims that haven't been substantiated or confirmed, it is just as much an abuse of power as the SOME of the original acts.

The point is, all this is street justice.  That's my only point here.   If you choose to agree that this is right and just, that's your prerogative, but at least acknowledge that it is street justice.   And so next time some girl cheats on a guy and he slices her face open, we have to accept that as "street justice".   The next time someone rear ends someone and the victim gets out and shoots the other driver, we have to accept that as "street justice".   Or any other case where there MIGHT be behavior we don't like and we decide that we don't have to have a third party arbiter to determine what is appropriate consequences.

Oh of course,  just because I believe the accusations against Harvey Weinstein I'm going out right now and killing people.   Definitely.  be right back.    :rollin
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 14, 2017, 11:20:15 AM
MY last post was unfair to your comment Stadler, let me give this another shot.   Of course we shouldn't condone "street justice".  For example If someone were to send death threats to Louis CK or Kevin Spacey I don't think that's ok and it is against the law.  However,  big studios and distributors distancing themselves from Louis CK and KEvin Spacey is NOT "street justice",  it is companies reacting to bad publicity, it is a PR move. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 11:20:33 AM
No one's constitutional rights are being infringed.

Unless there is an amendment that states that we have a right to a Netflix deal or something.

You may be right, but we haven't even gotten to the point of determining that.   By using press conferences and Twitter and whatnot to make these allegations is very problematic, and we should be more worried about it than it seems we are.   There's an adage in law school:   "good cases make bad law" and this is that.  None of this is to say the women are wrong, none of this is to say they have to have photos and DNA to make any claim.   It is only to say that the idea of "#MeToo" is probably psychologically attractive to the victim, but has it's own set of consequences, and we seem to be patently ignoring them at a minimum, or outright explicitly rejecting them at worst.

To your edit, if it's not "legal", then what is it?   And why would you choose to reject the very framework that has been carefully and meticulously constructed to handle issues exactly like this?   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 14, 2017, 11:22:29 AM
No one's constitutional rights are being infringed.

Unless there is an amendment that states that we have a right to a Netflix deal or something.

You may be right, but we haven't even gotten to the point of determining that.   

We haven't determined that losing a Netflix deal or being fired isn't a constitutional right? I'm pretty sure that has been determined.

These are privileges. They can be taken away. Just like being served a wedding cake.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 11:35:17 AM
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.

To you and Xe:  they are not strawmen arguments.   That's the very point.  I don't know how else to say it, but even if you feel like it might be a "just" thing, the underlying principle IS the same.  This isn't my "opinion", this is why the law is what the law is.  It's why we have Presidents like Obama (rightfully) decrying other countries for ignoring the rule of law.  We can't have people asserting and effecting consequences without there being a process for determining all sides of that disagreement. 

We all agree that there is a problem in Hollywood.  That doesn't mean that every possible action is a justifiable response to that problem.   That's all I'm saying.   One way of characterizing the problem in Hollywood is "abuse of power".   Letting the victims abuse their own new-found power isn't a solution to that.   You made the claim earlier that "anyone can fire anyone", and you're right, but that's just as much a strawman.  Kevin Spacey and Louis CK are most certainly NOT "employees at will".  They have contracts.   Look at the details here:  why should Louis CK's movie company bear the risk and the brunt of whether Louis CK is actually guilty of a crime or not?  It's not like we're letting the market decide; we're not even getting a chance to vote with our wallets, because his movie has been cancelled.  I can't support (or not; I didn't watch it before and I'm certainly not watching it now) Kevin Spacey, because his show has been unilaterally cancelled. 

You keep mentioning the "legal" thing; yet a third reason is that there are mechanisms to resolve the very thing we're talking about here.  There are mechanisms for dealing with guilt, innocence, and all points in between.   There are mechanisms for making sure that the punishment fits the crime.  There are mechanisms for increasing the odds of the veracity of the people involved.   Twitter has none of that.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 11:43:30 AM
MY last post was unfair to your comment Stadler, let me give this another shot.   Of course we shouldn't condone "street justice".  For example If someone were to send death threats to Louis CK or Kevin Spacey I don't think that's ok and it is against the law.  However,  big studios and distributors distancing themselves from Louis CK and KEvin Spacey is NOT "street justice",  it is companies reacting to bad publicity, it is a PR move.

And thus the disconnect:  I don't see any fundamental difference between you shooting me or you - by your direct and purposeful actions - causing me to (unjustly) lose my job.   Maybe it's not a purely "constitutional issue" or even a legal one, but I feel strongly that the actions of the accusers are forcing the hand of those companies, and "wielding" the company and their reaction is every bit the same as wielding a weapon.   TRUST ME, after a few cocktails*, Gloria Allred - who to my knowledge has never tried a case to completion - would tell you the same thing.   She doesn't hold press conferences for her health. 

*  Actually, I don't at all think that she would need even ONE cocktail; it's her business model, and as I understand it, she's rather proud of it.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 14, 2017, 11:46:23 AM
Yeah, those are not strawman arguments at all.  Just because you feel the perspective and assumptions underlying Stadler's position aren't the right way to look at the issue doesn't mean the arguments are strawman arguments.  (and, of course, the reverse is true as well) 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 11:53:13 AM
No one's constitutional rights are being infringed.

Unless there is an amendment that states that we have a right to a Netflix deal or something.

You may be right, but we haven't even gotten to the point of determining that.   

We haven't determined that losing a Netflix deal or being fired isn't a constitutional right? I'm pretty sure that has been determined.

These are privileges. They can be taken away. Just like being served a wedding cake.

Correct, but when you get into areas where a Kevin Spacey decides the merits outweigh the debits and sues the company for breach of contract, the game changes.   The veracity of the underlying claims might then be at issue, and the victims are now on trial for contributory liability for making false claims, and you have first, fifth and fourteenth Amendment claims.   How, you may ask?  Aren't movie companies private actors?   Sure, but these claims "follow the money".   I work for a private company (selling trains) and often sell to other "private companies", but almost every sale I do is a "government contract", because ultimately the projects we sell to are funded, either in whole or in part, by government money.   Almost every large city has some mechanism for making sure that productions are done in their community, be it grants, funding, tax benefits or otherwise.   I guarantee you it wouldn't take a partner to make a credible case that these issues are in play.

Do you really want the pendulum to swing back the other way?   Because before it was "he said, she said".   Now, that victim could  LITERALLY be fighting City Hall.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 14, 2017, 12:17:23 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 14, 2017, 12:24:57 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 14, 2017, 12:29:27 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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 12:47:27 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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 14, 2017, 01:08:37 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.

Which is the point; it's not about the actual issue, but business. 

Quote
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.

But I don't disagree with you on much of that.  Where we differ is how that happens.  You say "let them adapt and change"; I take that literally.  "Let" them.  Facilitate it, encourage it, but we don't get to FORCE them to change (unless and until they break the law).  Your position has to come with the understanding that if someone opts to NOT adapt the way YOU think they should, they are entitled to that position, up to the line of the law.   That's why I keep going back to the law.  It's the line at which we don't have a choice any longer.  You and I might agree that we're generally better the less we act like a 'dick'.  I know I try to adhere to that as much as I can in my personal relationships.  But I'm not - nor should I be - obligated to.   IF Louis CK did ask, and IF those women did give consent, then we can decry that kind of behavior all we want, but it's not illegal, and we shouldn't bully him into acting any differently.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: lordxizor 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! :)
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony 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?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony 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?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony 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???
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 14, 2017, 05:01:36 PM
Looks like Spacey is gonna sue Netflix...
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: orcus116 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 14, 2017, 05:21:38 PM
I don't know who any of these people are, but apparently, it can be done.  https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/gaslamp-killer-sues-rape-accusers-for-defamation-w511699
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: KevShmev 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 14, 2017, 07:47:09 PM
Totally cool with him suing Netflix.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 14, 2017, 07:58:32 PM
I don't know who any of these people are, but apparently, it can be done.  https://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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan 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."
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler 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. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony 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.

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

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 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.

https://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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino 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.

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

(https://images.tritondigitalcms.com/6616/sites/320/2017/11/15155723/leeann-airplane-pic.jpg)
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony 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.   ;)
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: lordxizor 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 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
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: RuRoRul on November 16, 2017, 11:06:56 AM
Franken releases new statement, calls for ethics investigation of himself (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/360697-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.”
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 16, 2017, 11:09:37 AM
That's why the man's a senator.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino 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.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: RuRoRul 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
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 16, 2017, 11:45:40 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.

But can the one happen without the other?   Is having that guy's name out there really the only/best way to heal?   I don't know if it's the Y chromosome, or the lawyer, or what but I'm struggling with how the 'naming of names' ISN'T a defacto labeling, and therefore, if that labeling ISN'T the point for some.   I'm not saying I'm right and anyone else is wrong, I'm just saying that that is one of the two struggles for me at this point (the other being the inherent difficulty of changing the standard, then actively going back and retroactively applying that standard).

I'm no Al Franken fan - and for me, personally, I'll cop to a modicum of schadenfreude here - but I can't help but think that a sitting Senator - who's himself been an active part of several witch hunts over the past 12 months or so - calling for an ethics investigation on himself, and the shitstorm that that entails, has to know going in that he will be exonerated by said investigation. Which tells me that he's saying all the right things and for all the right reasons.

Finally, let me reiterate what el Barto has said; I think Harmony's four or five posts on this issue have caused me to think harder about this than all the other posts combined.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 16, 2017, 12:56:32 PM
This amnesia epidemic is starting to annoy me though, almost every single one of these rushed confessionals seems to begin with "I don't remember doing that, but..." followed by some rambling ode to the value of respecting people. Franken "doesn't remember" the kissing incident. Spacey "doesn't remember" the Anthony Rapp incident (he can remember all of Hamlet's 1480 lines but the time he tried to get it on with a 14 year old boy escapes him?) It's not just on this current theme either, it's all over the various political scandals too. Jeff "I don't recall that" Sessions doesn't remember ever meeting Papadopoulos, yet when prompted displays remarkable memory of what was discussed at the meeting. Donald "I have one of the great memories" Trump doesn't remember ever meeting with various people he's been proven to have met with in the last few years. Over in England, Conservative trade minister Mark Garnier "doesn't remember" if he used tax payers' money to buy sex toys for himself, his wife and his mistress in 2010, but ask him about some minor scandal of the Labour Party back in 1976 and he'll blow your mind with his memory.

This "I don't remember, but..." shtick needs to be challenged, I'm sick of it. I personally don't care much about the morality of most of this, but the smarmy apologies and convenient bouts of selective amnesia are getting to be a bit much. Someone needs to ask them: how can you not remember any of these things? Actors, lawyers, cabinet ministers, presidents - professions which rely on having extraordinary memories, yet they don't recall whether some pretty serious allegations actually happened? I don't buy it. And it's why I've liked Louis CK's apology/apologia more than anyone else's so far. That's the way to do it. "Yeah, I remember all that. I did it all. And not that it matters, but here's what else I have to say..." I can respect that. The rest though? It's completely redundant to wheel out an apology if you've prefaced it with "I don't remember doing that, but..." It isn't impressive to write some patronising sentimental horseshit about respect and soul-searching when you've played the coward's trick of saying you don't remember the worst of it. Don't get me wrong, if they genuinely don't remember it, then fine. But I personally don't believe that all these people don't remember the stuff that's being alleged. You simply can't do those kinds of jobs and have such terrible memories.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 16, 2017, 01:05:42 PM
I would have appreciated Al Franken's statement  a little bit more if he had also said yes I tried to use subterfuge to force her to make out with me, while being married to another woman.  I'm sure he does remember it differently, but that's why we all need to re-examine our behaviours.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on November 16, 2017, 01:13:29 PM
Franken at no time played the "I don't remember card". He said "While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does". He's remembers things happening differently. He isn't denying the interaction never took place.

I lost my virginity at 11 years ago when I was 17 to a girl who was 25. She was experienced, I had my hand. I thought things went decent all things considered, but if you asked both of us to describe the events that took place in that 4 minute window, I guarantee you we'd have two very different recollections.

All I'm saying is that it's entirely possible Franken went straight for a regular french session (still unwarranted), and this lady is recalling it as "mashing" and "aggressively" because of the negative feelings it brings up. I've described cops as "flying by me in the fast lane" or "hauling ass on the highway" when in reality they were doing like 6mph more than me and I'm just pissed because they're abusing their power. Decades old recollection and emotion can muddy the memory.

And again, I think that's why it's equally important to hear Al's version of what happened.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 16, 2017, 01:57:02 PM
And the Rapp incident happened over 30 years ago at a party where he was drinking. Looking back when I was a drunken 17 year old, I remember some things but I have no doubts that I don't remember a great deal of it. Based on both of their accounts, it sounds like a botched, ham-fisted attempt to bang the kid that didn't work out. I suspect there were a few of those for me back in 1987 that I don't recall.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 16, 2017, 02:00:34 PM
It just keeps going... join the club Sylvester Stallone
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: RuRoRul on November 16, 2017, 02:02:44 PM
This amnesia epidemic is starting to annoy me though, almost every single one of these rushed confessionals seems to begin with "I don't remember doing that, but..." followed by some rambling ode to the value of respecting people. Franken "doesn't remember" the kissing incident. Spacey "doesn't remember" the Anthony Rapp incident (he can remember all of Hamlet's 1480 lines but the time he tried to get it on with a 14 year old boy escapes him?) It's not just on this current theme either, it's all over the various political scandals too. Jeff "I don't recall that" Sessions doesn't remember ever meeting Papadopoulos, yet when prompted displays remarkable memory of what was discussed at the meeting. Donald "I have one of the great memories" Trump doesn't remember ever meeting with various people he's been proven to have met with in the last year. Over in England, Conservative trade minister Mark Garnier "doesn't remember" if he used tax payers' money to buy sex toys for himself, his wife and his mistress in 2010, but ask him about some minor scandal of the Labour Party back in 1976 and he'll blow your mind with his memory.

This "I don't remember, but..." shtick needs to be challenged, I'm sick of it. I personally don't care much about the morality of most of this, but the smarmy apologies and convenient bouts of selective amnesia are getting to be a bit much. Someone needs to ask them: how can you not remember any of these things? Actors, lawyers, cabinet ministers, presidents - professions which rely on having extraordinary memories, yet they don't recall whether some pretty serious allegations actually happened? I don't buy it. And it's why I've liked Louis CK's apology/apologia more than anyone else's so far. That's the way to do it. "Yeah, I remember all that. I did it all. And not that it matters, but here's what else I have to say..." I can respect that. The rest though? It's completely redundant to wheel out an apology if you've prefaced it with "I don't remember doing that, but..." It isn't impressive to write some patronising sentimental horseshit about respect and soul-searching when you've played the coward's trick of saying you don't remember the worst of it. Don't get me wrong, if they genuinely don't remember it, then fine. But I personally don't believe that all these people don't remember the stuff that's being alleged. You simply can't do those kinds of jobs and have such terrible memories.
A question about this though - what if he actually doesn't remember that? What if someone hits you with an accusation that doesn't line up with what you would say happened at all? Then either you lie and say "Yes, I remember that" (which might actually end up having legal implications depending on the situation), or you have to deny the accusation and not apologies. "No, I don't remember that", or "No, it didn't happen that way." Then what happens? She says he did this, he says he didn't, she says yes you did, he says "prove it". And you're back to the problem of not believing the accuser. The way you put it, you make it sound as though the only thing someone can do is accept someone's account as the only version of the truth even if you dispute it. And if you do put it like that, then there will be more pushback to the idea of prioritising believing victims who come forward, because what you suggest sounds unreasonable.

I'd be surprised if people never had an interaction with someone where both parties would describe it in very different ways. There is an objective truth to exactly what happened, the physical actions people took and the words they spoke, but when it comes to people's feelings there can be two very different experiences. You can acknowledge that someone's experience is valid without necessarily agreeing that it matches with your memory of the experience.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 16, 2017, 02:31:03 PM
My issue is not so much with the 'not remembering' part as with the condescending bullshit that comes after the "but...". If somebody doesn't remember the allegations, or if somebody remembers the events but has a different perception of them, then fine, no problem. Simply say that. Or say nothing, whichever suits them better. My annoyance is with the cautiously written, self-conscious shit that comes after the "I don't remember that, but" part. Save that garbage for the inevitable Oprah appearance. If anything positive is to come from all this it's an intolerance for stupid flowery bullshit from people whose very professions deal in it. Maybe my view is coloured by a bone-deep hatred of both the Hollywood glitterati and American politicians, but I think a lot of these people are using one pile of horseshit to distract from another. Say only what you know and remember, if you have any interest in truth, and save the cloying 3rd-grade lectures in civil responsibilities for the talk show crowd. There is an enormous amount of utter bullshit in these apologies and explanations, and that is the only point I was trying to make. Actors and politicians are continuing to be actors and politicians in their statements. I don't think Anthony Rapp feels much better knowing that the guy who tried to fuck him as a child has so little regard for the event that it doesn't even register in his memory. And if Spacey doesn't recall it, then I say again: no problem at all. Say that, then. Be truthful finally, why drag obfuscatory nonsense about your sexuality into it, why apologise for something you're not even sure happened?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 16, 2017, 02:38:45 PM
It just keeps going... join the club Sylvester Stallone
And this is a surprise to who now?

Seriously, his situation seems like a case of consensual sex that went further than she was interested in. She absolutely had the right to stop things whenever she felt like it, and if that wasn't possible under the circumstances I'm completely on her side here. However, it muddies the waters with regards to what actually went down and complicates the situation beyond what most people will be willing to consider.

I sense a recurring theme here.

And for fuck's sake, this is what we need?
Quote
If you have any information regarding Sylvester Stallone please contact alan.butterfield @dailymail.com

Dear Mr. Butterfield.

I once had the opportunity to use the stall in a strip club men's room next to Mr. Stalone, and while I can't be sure, I think he might have shaken more than 3 times.

Sincerely,
El Barto
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 16, 2017, 02:42:54 PM
My issue is not so much with the 'not remembering' part as with the condescending bullshit that comes after the "but...". If somebody doesn't remember the allegations, or if somebody remembers the events but has a different perception of them, then fine, no problem. Simply say that. Or say nothing, whichever suits them better. My annoyance is with the cautiously written, self-conscious shit that comes after the "I don't remember that, but" part. Save that garbage for the inevitable Oprah appearance. If anything positive is to come from all this it's an intolerance for stupid flowery bullshit from people whose very professions deal in it. Maybe my view is coloured by a bone-deep hatred of both the Hollywood glitterati and American politicians, but I think a lot of these people are using one pile of horseshit to distract from another. Say only what you know and remember, if you have any interest in truth, and save the cloying 3rd-grade lectures in civil responsibilities for the talk show crowd. There is an enormous amount of utter bullshit in these apologies and explanations, and that is the only point I was trying to make. Actors and politicians are continuing to be actors and politicians in their statements. I don't think Anthony Rapp feels much better knowing that the guy who tried to fuck him as a child has so little regard for the event that it doesn't even register in his memory. And if Spacey doesn't recall it, then I say again: no problem at all. Say that, then. Be truthful finally, why drag obfuscatory nonsense about your sexuality into it, why apologise for something you're not even sure happened?
This is the only thing you can do. While you and I would appreciate some direct honesty, it's not the way things can work now. As I originally suggested with Spacey, if he really didn't remember the encounter he should have made something up. This goes to all of them, and we're only breaching the surface.

In his case it no longer matters, though. He's done for. Time to take his millions and settle on a nice beach in Thailand.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 16, 2017, 03:00:33 PM
Barto, as a thought experiment, ask yourself this: imagine these two very different possible responses of someone facing Spacey's allegations -

1) "Yeah, I remember that. I did it. I'm sorry to the guy, I was drunk and he became an object I wanted to fuck, as happens. But quite honestly I've had blue balls over that incident for 30 years. I really wish I'd been able to bone that dude and I still occasionally tease one out over the memory"

2) "I don't recall that event, but if it happened I want to say that I am deeply, truly, unfathomably sorry for the hurt I have caused, and I see now that I have a very long and difficult journey of self-analysis and contrition to undertake. I have been reading my Bible and with God's help I will conquer these lustful demons. You see, I have learnt now that every human is...(continued for 27 ghost-written paragraphs).


Which approach would you respect more? And to the issue, which do you think would tank his career more? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe my finger isn't as close to the American pulse as I sometimes like to imagine it is, but I think he'd stand just as good a chance of salavaging his career if he simply told the truth here. And there would be an added benefit of having told the truth.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 16, 2017, 03:20:48 PM
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Personally, I'd respect him if he was truthful about it and accepted the demise of his career. But I'm also a pragmatist, and I appreciate when somebody is smart enough to learn the game. Your second option, though not how it should be framed, is what could have salvaged his career.

And there's still the problem of what if he honestly didn't remember the event. Bluff your way through he details?

By way of comparison, I read Lewis CK's apology with similar distrust. I suspect the dude's smart enough to realize that being honest would have been the end of it all, and fabricated a nice sounding statement telling people what they want to hear. So how do you think the truth might have played out for him?

Hey, I asked the girl if I could jerk off in front of her. She said no so I didn't. What's the fucking problem here?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 16, 2017, 04:59:21 PM
Finally, let me reiterate what el Barto has said; I think Harmony's four or five posts on this issue have caused me to think harder about this than all the other posts combined.

My work here is done.

Haha, no seriously. Thanks to all of you guys who have welcomed me into the thread.  I get this is a - pardon the pun - hard topic.  Hard to think about, hard to talk about, hard to find any easy answers.  I think I've given up even looking for easy answers.  Every situation is unique.  Not every person involved in each and every story is going to have altruistic motives or even perfect memories.

I think Chino had it right by talking about his first sexual experience.  Thinking back on mine, I certainly do not recall every moment, every movement, every caress, every word of what was said.  When blood is flowing below the waist, it is certainly not flowing to above the neck.

I hear Dave's point about the apologies though.  Some of them do seem so insincere, so route, almost as though they were pre-planned.  Like going through the motions.  I wonder how many men out there in high places are just waiting for that shoe to drop.  Maybe some of them ARE preparing in advance?  I don't know.

Many victims after the event can recall details down to the lint on their perp's jacket and what song was playing on the radio.  Someone who is engaging in what they see as harmless fun or an attempt to get someone into the sack isn't likely to recall explicit details as clearly.  Add alcohol or drugs on top of that, it is even more hazy.  So what can be said?  I watched Leeann Tweeden's interview on her acceptance of Franken's apology.  She seems sincere but she also seems damaged, done, disgusted.  I don't blame her.  While cathartic, speaking out is also exhausting.  Add media and celebrity into the mix and I can only imagine it to be 1000 times worse.

Something that is really bothering me about all of this is how the issue is being turned into the game of politics and this silly little habit people seem to have called "Whataboutism."  It is infuriating to me and a slap in the face to victims.  If you are doing it, please stop now.  That Al Franken is a democrat doesn't matter.  That Roy Moore is a republican again, doesn't matter.

Sean Hannity has been trotting out the exploits of Bill Clinton as a means to justify Roy Moore.  WTF does one have to do with the other?  Liberals are falling all over themselves today - "Yes, investigate Al Franken, but WHADDABOUT Trump???"  What about it?  Can we all just agree that this behavior does not belong to one party over the other?  Can we all just agree that the behavior is WRONG no matter WHO is doing it?

Harvey Weinstein being a Hollywood bigwig doesn't mean Hollywood is the only cesspool of predators.  A bunch of pedophile priests doesn't mean all religious leaders are guilty of diddling kids.  This blanket of blame being thrown upon entire groups of people isn't helping.  It is detracting.  It is like watching people trotting out the worst defense mechanism humanly possible:  "See if your guy is an asshole then my guy is better."  Fuck that shit.  This isn't ABOUT that.  And I hate the fact that this is what it is turning into.  And then it just becomes about using the real pain of victims merely to score political points.  And that's like victimizing them (us) all over again.

Sorry for the rant.  I've obviously had more caffeine today than I should've. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 20, 2017, 05:15:36 PM
Literally just this morning, a co-worker was lamenting the 2nd woman coming forward about Al Franken.  I told her, "There will be more.  Men you admire and trust in.  Men you'd never suspect.  Just be ready, because this is only the beginning."

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/charlie-rose-sexual-harassment-accusations-at-cbs
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 21, 2017, 11:12:16 AM
Literally just this morning, a co-worker was lamenting the 2nd woman coming forward about Al Franken.  I told her, "There will be more.  Men you admire and trust in.  Men you'd never suspect.  Just be ready, because this is only the beginning."

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/charlie-rose-sexual-harassment-accusations-at-cbs

Not to side track, but why lament?  Because you like him politically?  A pig is a pig, in my view.   My political worldview is not such that I share any affinity with others that happen to seem to think like I do (other than that affinity).  That I'm "for this" or "against that" doesn't make me any more or less likely to be a shithead.   

Having said that, how come none of these guys are classically good looking? 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox on November 21, 2017, 11:19:43 AM
Disclaimer: I know nothing about Charlie Rose.

But I just saw he's been fired 'amid accusations.' Is there any proof? Any at all? How many people have accused him, are these credible stories?

I feel like we're going wild with these accusations and firings lately. Not saying they aren't happening or truthful, but holy shit.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 21, 2017, 11:21:46 AM
Literally just this morning, a co-worker was lamenting the 2nd woman coming forward about Al Franken.  I told her, "There will be more.  Men you admire and trust in.  Men you'd never suspect.  Just be ready, because this is only the beginning."

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/charlie-rose-sexual-harassment-accusations-at-cbs

Not to side track, but why lament?  Because you like him politically?  A pig is a pig, in my view.   My political worldview is not such that I share any affinity with others that happen to seem to think like I do (other than that affinity).  That I'm "for this" or "against that" doesn't make me any more or less likely to be a shithead.   

Having said that, how come none of these guys are classically good looking?

I mean, isn't it always sadder when someone you like does bad stuff? Wouldn't it hurt you more if your dad turned out to be a bad person than some stranger? It's perfectly normal.

I mean, I think we all agree that if Betty White or Tom Hanks turned out to be a sexual abuser, it'd feel worse than if like Newt Gingrich did.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 21, 2017, 11:51:00 AM
Disclaimer: I know nothing about Charlie Rose.

But I just saw he's been fired 'amid accusations.' Is there any proof? Any at all? How many people have accused him, are these credible stories?

I feel like we're going wild with these accusations and firings lately. Not saying they aren't happening or truthful, but holy shit.
For years I've been warning you guys at MP.com about the consequences of mob rule. All I ever heard in reply was that what we're seeing is good because it's a just cause, and that Stadler and I were too wrapped up in the process. Well, this is a just cause and all we're seeing is the public showing disapproval. Isn't this the process we all want?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox on November 21, 2017, 12:16:49 PM
Disclaimer: I know nothing about Charlie Rose.

But I just saw he's been fired 'amid accusations.' Is there any proof? Any at all? How many people have accused him, are these credible stories?

I feel like we're going wild with these accusations and firings lately. Not saying they aren't happening or truthful, but holy shit.
For years I've been warning you guys at MP.com about the consequences of mob rule. All I ever heard in reply was that what we're seeing is good because it's a just cause, and that Stadler and I were too wrapped up in the process. Well, this is a just cause and all we're seeing is the public showing disapproval. Isn't this the process we all want?

I don't think I ever affiliated myself with that mentality, but I guess I could understand if some would think that, maybe. I think each case needs to be looked at on its own, these are very serious matters and like anything else every situation is different and of varying severity. I also believe it's unfair to fire someone in this instance based on a report and not hearing from the person in question first. So, I've never disagreed with your or Stadler's perspective on this. I think it sets a frightening precedent when you start figuratively asking for one's head at the drop of a hat.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 21, 2017, 12:44:58 PM
Charlie Rose confirmed it did he not? At least that was my understanding of his statement yesterday.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 21, 2017, 01:19:07 PM
Literally just this morning, a co-worker was lamenting the 2nd woman coming forward about Al Franken.  I told her, "There will be more.  Men you admire and trust in.  Men you'd never suspect.  Just be ready, because this is only the beginning."

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/charlie-rose-sexual-harassment-accusations-at-cbs

Not to side track, but why lament? 

I didn't ask my co-worker.  I assume it is as Adami stated.

As to Charlie Rose, it was reported as far back as the mid-2000s by women and the concerns were brushed aside.  His executive producer was quoted as saying at the time, "That's just Charlie being Charlie."  Subsequently this female producer now states, "“I should have stood up for them. I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”

This firing of Rose isn't mob rule.  These are companies attempting to cover their asses with regard to known sexual harassment being ignored for years.  Likely against company policy.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 21, 2017, 01:53:43 PM
Literally just this morning, a co-worker was lamenting the 2nd woman coming forward about Al Franken.  I told her, "There will be more.  Men you admire and trust in.  Men you'd never suspect.  Just be ready, because this is only the beginning."

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/charlie-rose-sexual-harassment-accusations-at-cbs

Not to side track, but why lament? 

I didn't ask my co-worker.  I assume it is as Adami stated.

As to Charlie Rose, it was reported as far back as the mid-2000s by women and the concerns were brushed aside.  His executive producer was quoted as saying at the time, "That's just Charlie being Charlie."  Subsequently this female producer now states, "“I should have stood up for them. I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”

This firing of Rose isn't mob rule.  These are companies attempting to cover their asses with regard to known sexual harassment being ignored for years.  Likely against company policy.

I don't doubt that the company has gone to CYA mode, but I'd suggest that mob rule could still apply. If the company's threshold for what is or isn't actionable is significantly changed at the whim of the masses, I still call it mob rule. The rightness or wrongness of the change doesn't effect that.

For the record I know absolutely nothing about Charlie Rose or the allegations towards him. What I do know is that we're seeing a great deal of movement with regards to this sort of behavior, a good thing IMO, but much of it is based on the emotion of the day. I'm not disparaging the shift in culture if it's for the better. I suggesting that we ought to be far more cautious than we Americans are wont to be.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 21, 2017, 04:17:49 PM
John Lasseter, Chief Creative Officer at Disney Animation and of course co-founder of Pixar.  it appears he took awkard hugging to another level https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/business/media/john-lasseter-pixar-disney-leave.html
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 21, 2017, 05:06:28 PM
I don't doubt that the company has gone to CYA mode, but I'd suggest that mob rule could still apply. If the company's threshold for what is or isn't actionable is significantly changed at the whim of the masses, I still call it mob rule. The rightness or wrongness of the change doesn't effect that.

For the record I know absolutely nothing about Charlie Rose or the allegations towards him. What I do know is that we're seeing a great deal of movement with regards to this sort of behavior, a good thing IMO, but much of it is based on the emotion of the day. I'm not disparaging the shift in culture if it's for the better. I suggesting that we ought to be far more cautious than we Americans are wont to be.

I hear you.  I don't disagree.  I haven't been on social media today, so there could've been some threats of boycotting but I haven't seen that with regard to Rose.  His suspension and then firing seemed to happen pretty quickly.  But I do see the mob mentality in other cases for sure.  I don't condone witch hunts.

That said, it is difficult.  Especially with regard to political figures.  Constituents are supposed to make their voices heard, and Senators are powerful people impacting not just those constituents in their relative states.  I absolutely loathe the political hypocrisy.  I can see differences between Franken and Moore's cases for example.  But I can also think that congress is no place for pedophiles and sexual harassers.  Sadly, I fear it has been all along and we are only just finding out about it now.

See John Conyers
See Ralph Shortey

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: orcus116 on November 21, 2017, 06:25:05 PM
Disclaimer: I know nothing about Charlie Rose.

But I just saw he's been fired 'amid accusations.' Is there any proof? Any at all? How many people have accused him, are these credible stories?

I feel like we're going wild with these accusations and firings lately. Not saying they aren't happening or truthful, but holy shit.

I'm going to walk the tightrope and say that at this point it doesn't matter because an accusation is as good as guilty in the current public landscape and any major association is going to cut bait purely because of the potential PR backlash. Currently, the second an accuser comes out against you your reputation is as good as gone because of the way things spread like wildfire through the fucked up game of digital telephone we call social media and the reluctance of people actually reading articles and researching things they're suddenly emotionally attaching themselves to to see if something is true or not.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 21, 2017, 07:34:31 PM
Disclaimer: I know nothing about Charlie Rose.

But I just saw he's been fired 'amid accusations.' Is there any proof? Any at all? How many people have accused him, are these credible stories?

I feel like we're going wild with these accusations and firings lately. Not saying they aren't happening or truthful, but holy shit.

I'm going to walk the tightrope and say that at this point it doesn't matter because an accusation is as good as guilty in the current public landscape and any major association is going to cut bait purely because of the potential PR backlash. Currently, the second an accuser comes out against you your reputation is as good as gone because of the way things spread like wildfire through the fucked up game of digital telephone we call social media and the reluctance of people actually reading articles and researching things they're suddenly emotionally attaching themselves to to see if something is true or not.

Or maybe a lot of women got messed with in this way and felt powerless about it for years and now finally things are changing.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 21, 2017, 07:44:20 PM
Or maybe not.  We don't know.  And, unfortunately, as Orcus rightly points out, there is so much emotion tied to the subject matter that discerning truth becomes incredibly difficult.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 21, 2017, 08:09:58 PM
Or maybe not.  We don't know.  And, unfortunately, as Orcus rightly points out, there is so much emotion tied to the subject matter that discerning truth becomes incredibly difficult.

See I have a hard time getting on board with that because it assumes people are just throwing out accusations for fun.

I mean, we can't deny the number of women (and men or LGBTQ) who never told anyone their experiences with sexual misconduct/harassment/assault becaues they feared the consequences.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: orcus116 on November 21, 2017, 08:33:28 PM
Disclaimer: I know nothing about Charlie Rose.

But I just saw he's been fired 'amid accusations.' Is there any proof? Any at all? How many people have accused him, are these credible stories?

I feel like we're going wild with these accusations and firings lately. Not saying they aren't happening or truthful, but holy shit.

I'm going to walk the tightrope and say that at this point it doesn't matter because an accusation is as good as guilty in the current public landscape and any major association is going to cut bait purely because of the potential PR backlash. Currently, the second an accuser comes out against you your reputation is as good as gone because of the way things spread like wildfire through the fucked up game of digital telephone we call social media and the reluctance of people actually reading articles and researching things they're suddenly emotionally attaching themselves to to see if something is true or not.

Or maybe a lot of women got messed with in this way and felt powerless about it for years and now finally things are changing.

Which could be absolutely true and it's great their stories are getting heard but the pendulum has rocketshipped so hard to one side that it's now almost 100% "the person being accused is a fucking slimeball/pervert" and nothing said to the contrary can be absorbed because we as a society have this sick fascinating of watching people taken down not one peg but to the very bottom of a pit of spikes. It creates this terrible muddled mess where you have actual victims finally getting their chance to speak up and get this weight off their shoulders and while they're being championed it's more because society loves a morbid "fall from grace" storyline of celebrities more than actual support for the victims.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 21, 2017, 08:38:04 PM
Or maybe not.  We don't know.  And, unfortunately, as Orcus rightly points out, there is so much emotion tied to the subject matter that discerning truth becomes incredibly difficult.

See I have a hard time getting on board with that because it assumes people are just throwing out accusations for fun.

It assumes nothing of the kind.  It waits for "facts" rather than allegations before drawing conclusions.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 21, 2017, 08:40:32 PM
Or maybe not.  We don't know.  And, unfortunately, as Orcus rightly points out, there is so much emotion tied to the subject matter that discerning truth becomes incredibly difficult.

See I have a hard time getting on board with that because it assumes people are just throwing out accusations for fun.

It assumes nothing of the kind.  It waits for "facts" rather than allegations before drawing conclusions.

In most of the recent cases that have made headlines starting with Harvey Weinstein the accused have basically confirmed the allegations.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 21, 2017, 08:41:17 PM
Ugh, now it seems beloved townsman John Proctor is being accused as well. Several women have come forth with stories about him.


So sad.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 21, 2017, 08:43:39 PM
Ugh, now it seems beloved townsman John Proctor is being accused as well. Several women have come forth with stories about him.


So sad.

I googled that and now I feel like an idiot  :lol
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: kaos2900 on November 22, 2017, 08:05:11 AM
I was told once by some colleagues that an ex-employee almost reported me to HR because she thought I was eyeballing her which never happened. She was a little crazy and from another country so there was some cultural differences. My fellow female colleagues told her not to because they knew she was wrong and didn't want that to go on my record. I always wondered what would have happened if she went to HR. I share this story not to discount what's happening. I think it's wonderful that these scum bags are being brought down and that there seems to be a real culture shift in how women are treated. That being said, it's important to judge these accusations based on facts not by mob rule.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 22, 2017, 09:10:24 AM
Disclaimer: I know nothing about Charlie Rose.

But I just saw he's been fired 'amid accusations.' Is there any proof? Any at all? How many people have accused him, are these credible stories?

I feel like we're going wild with these accusations and firings lately. Not saying they aren't happening or truthful, but holy shit.

I'm going to walk the tightrope and say that at this point it doesn't matter because an accusation is as good as guilty in the current public landscape and any major association is going to cut bait purely because of the potential PR backlash. Currently, the second an accuser comes out against you your reputation is as good as gone because of the way things spread like wildfire through the fucked up game of digital telephone we call social media and the reluctance of people actually reading articles and researching things they're suddenly emotionally attaching themselves to to see if something is true or not.

Or maybe a lot of women got messed with in this way and felt powerless about it for years and now finally things are changing.

Which could be absolutely true and it's great their stories are getting heard but the pendulum has rocketshipped so hard to one side that it's now almost 100% "the person being accused is a fucking slimeball/pervert" and nothing said to the contrary can be absorbed because we as a society have this sick fascinating of watching people taken down not one peg but to the very bottom of a pit of spikes. It creates this terrible muddled mess where you have actual victims finally getting their chance to speak up and get this weight off their shoulders and while they're being championed it's more because society loves a morbid "fall from grace" storyline of celebrities more than actual support for the victims.

I love that you said this.  And not to put you on the spot but what would 'actual support for the victims' look like? 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 22, 2017, 09:47:43 AM
Grooming kids in order to sexually abuse them is nothing new, but this guy - a "doctor" - allegedly abused 130 girls for 17 YEARS.  He pled guilty to abusing only 7.

People wonder why victims don't come forward.  Some of these victims became Olympic stars; all of them athletes full of determination and strength and courage.  I'm sure all of them have very personal and unique reasons why they didn't come forward sooner and all of them would be perfectly legitimate.  I would wager that many of them felt simply they wouldn't be believed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-olympics-doctor-larry-nassar-pleads-guilty-sex-charges-n823276?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 22, 2017, 11:27:11 AM
I was told once by some colleagues that an ex-employee almost reported me to HR because she thought I was eyeballing her which never happened. She was a little crazy and from another country so there was some cultural differences. My fellow female colleagues told her not to because they knew she was wrong and didn't want that to go on my record. I always wondered what would have happened if she went to HR. I share this story not to discount what's happening. I think it's wonderful that these scum bags are being brought down and that there seems to be a real culture shift in how women are treated. That being said, it's important to judge these accusations based on facts not by mob rule.

What if she really had a massive booger hanging or some weird ass hairdo and you were oggling the oddness of it? Haha, you have some good female colleagues at work.

 Those types are the ones making it harder for the victims to be taken seriously. Obviously, oggling shouldn't even be considered sexual harassment. Its the same reasoning behind a wife being mad a her husband all day, for him doing something in her dream.

But I would help defend a women in the work place that I know has been harassed, or feels uncomfortable, because some men are nasty and pervs.

I see theses floodgates being open as a good thing, its helping all women to not live in fear anymore, to speak out and fight. Not in a feminist way, but what they should be entitiled to.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 22, 2017, 02:39:16 PM
Joe Barton should NOT be sending dick picks to anybody. If any woman finds him attractive it's because he's rich and powerful. Maybe, perhaps because he's a really cool guy. Absolutely not because he looks good naked. There was just no upside.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 22, 2017, 02:51:15 PM
Joe Barton should NOT be sending dick picks to anybody. If any woman finds him attractive it's because he's rich and powerful. Maybe, perhaps because he's a really cool guy. Absolutely not because he looks good naked. There was just no upside.

Why does any guy take a picture of his penis anyway, let alone send it to someone.  It boggles my mind every time yet it keeps. happening.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 22, 2017, 02:58:35 PM
Have you ever considered that the reason you don't get it is simply that you have not tried it?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on November 22, 2017, 03:04:03 PM
Joe Barton should NOT be sending dick picks to anybody. If any woman finds him attractive it's because he's rich and powerful. Maybe, perhaps because he's a really cool guy. Absolutely not because he looks good naked. There was just no upside.

Why does any guy take a picture of his penis anyway, let alone send it to someone.  It boggles my mind every time yet it keeps. happening.

Same here. It's interesting reading about various fetishes and perversions, but this is one I really struggle to understand the appeal of. Maaaaaaaybe, at a stretch, I could understand it if you're hung like a Kentucky Derby winner and want someone to know, but when you're some pasty-arsed sack of jiggly flab with the last turkey in the shop dangling between your legs, why would you want to show it to someone?

But, as I wrote earlier in this thread, it's a fool's errand to try to understand what floats someone else's boat. Hell I saw a documentary once where one dude got off on being repeatedly kicked in the spuds by a woman in a nun outfit. Only that, no climax, no sexual touching, just half an hour of being walloped in the swingers. Fascinating stuff.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 22, 2017, 03:14:09 PM

Why does any guy take a picture of his penis anyway, let alone send it to someone.

Documenting greatness.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 22, 2017, 03:20:35 PM
Literally just this morning, a co-worker was lamenting the 2nd woman coming forward about Al Franken.  I told her, "There will be more.  Men you admire and trust in.  Men you'd never suspect.  Just be ready, because this is only the beginning."

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/charlie-rose-sexual-harassment-accusations-at-cbs

Not to side track, but why lament?  Because you like him politically?  A pig is a pig, in my view.   My political worldview is not such that I share any affinity with others that happen to seem to think like I do (other than that affinity).  That I'm "for this" or "against that" doesn't make me any more or less likely to be a shithead.   

Having said that, how come none of these guys are classically good looking?

I mean, isn't it always sadder when someone you like does bad stuff? Wouldn't it hurt you more if your dad turned out to be a bad person than some stranger? It's perfectly normal.

I mean, I think we all agree that if Betty White or Tom Hanks turned out to be a sexual abuser, it'd feel worse than if like Newt Gingrich did.

Honestly, I don't think that way.   Maybe it's because I don't idolize people like that.  My favorite musician of all time is Ritchie Blackmore.  He's a miserable fuck, I know it, you know it, we all know it.   I like his music.  It's also why I don't get my panties in a wad over the Sons of Apollo PR nightmare.  I don't care about anything except the drums and keyboards that are being played. 

I think this is a big part of the problem of our divisiveness.  We put these people on pedestals that they don't deserve.  That's on us, not the people.    I don't expect that Tom Hanks is less of a shithead than Newt Gingrich. I don't assume that Tom is a "better" human, I just think it's a matter of context.    Tom is paid to be a "nice guy", and Newt is paid to be "controversial".   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 22, 2017, 03:24:27 PM
Literally just this morning, a co-worker was lamenting the 2nd woman coming forward about Al Franken.  I told her, "There will be more.  Men you admire and trust in.  Men you'd never suspect.  Just be ready, because this is only the beginning."

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/charlie-rose-sexual-harassment-accusations-at-cbs

Not to side track, but why lament? 

I didn't ask my co-worker.  I assume it is as Adami stated.

As to Charlie Rose, it was reported as far back as the mid-2000s by women and the concerns were brushed aside.  His executive producer was quoted as saying at the time, "That's just Charlie being Charlie."  Subsequently this female producer now states, "“I should have stood up for them. I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”

This firing of Rose isn't mob rule.  These are companies attempting to cover their asses with regard to known sexual harassment being ignored for years.  Likely against company policy.

It IS mob rule, because they didn't do it - the right thing to do - at the time, but they are doing it now that it's public and ratings are at stake - not the right thing to do.   Harmony, don't take offense at this, because I'm with you on 99% of the things you've written here about this, and I wasn't kidding that you've really made me think.   But I strongly believe that most of the repercussions of these allegations - on the personal level and the corporate level - are about damage control, and not the underlying moral issue.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 22, 2017, 03:29:49 PM
Honestly, I don't think that way.   Maybe it's because I don't idolize people like that.  My favorite musician of all time is Ritchie Blackmore.  He's a miserable fuck, I know it, you know it, we all know it.   I like his music.  It's also why I don't get my panties in a wad over the Sons of Apollo PR nightmare.  I don't care about anything except the drums and keyboards that are being played. 

I think this is a big part of the problem of our divisiveness.  We put these people on pedestals that they don't deserve. 

Well, I think that's part of it.  But part of it is even more basic than that.  When people present themselves to the public as nice people, I think we mostly want to believe they actually ARE nice people.  When Bush Sr. was accused, I was disappointed because he appeared to be a nice man who came from a principled and "proper" background.  He's the kind of guy I want to root for.  So when it turns out that he may have done something contrary to that, I am disappointed.  To flip it around, it isn't any different than if I found out my kid did something morally reprehensible.  I would be infinitely more disappointed than if I found out, say, LeBron James did the same thing.  I know LeBron is slime.  I don't want my kid being slime.  Hence the disappointment.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 22, 2017, 03:32:34 PM
Literally just this morning, a co-worker was lamenting the 2nd woman coming forward about Al Franken.  I told her, "There will be more.  Men you admire and trust in.  Men you'd never suspect.  Just be ready, because this is only the beginning."

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/charlie-rose-sexual-harassment-accusations-at-cbs

Not to side track, but why lament?  Because you like him politically?  A pig is a pig, in my view.   My political worldview is not such that I share any affinity with others that happen to seem to think like I do (other than that affinity).  That I'm "for this" or "against that" doesn't make me any more or less likely to be a shithead.   

Having said that, how come none of these guys are classically good looking?

I mean, isn't it always sadder when someone you like does bad stuff? Wouldn't it hurt you more if your dad turned out to be a bad person than some stranger? It's perfectly normal.

I mean, I think we all agree that if Betty White or Tom Hanks turned out to be a sexual abuser, it'd feel worse than if like Newt Gingrich did.

Honestly, I don't think that way.   Maybe it's because I don't idolize people like that.  My favorite musician of all time is Ritchie Blackmore.  He's a miserable fuck, I know it, you know it, we all know it.   I like his music.  It's also why I don't get my panties in a wad over the Sons of Apollo PR nightmare.  I don't care about anything except the drums and keyboards that are being played. 

I think this is a big part of the problem of our divisiveness.  We put these people on pedestals that they don't deserve.  That's on us, not the people.    I don't expect that Tom Hanks is less of a shithead than Newt Gingrich. I don't assume that Tom is a "better" human, I just think it's a matter of context.    Tom is paid to be a "nice guy", and Newt is paid to be "controversial".

I guess I'm just not that cynical.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 22, 2017, 03:34:28 PM

It IS mob rule, because they didn't do it - the right thing to do - at the time, but they are doing it now that it's public and ratings are at stake - not the right thing to do.   

Because they didn't take action years ago(do we even know if it was ever reported internally?), it's somehow bad that they fire him now?  How does that work?   

edit: Stadler I would think you'd be the first to say corporations don't do things because they're "right" or "wrong"
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 22, 2017, 03:36:06 PM
Literally just this morning, a co-worker was lamenting the 2nd woman coming forward about Al Franken.  I told her, "There will be more.  Men you admire and trust in.  Men you'd never suspect.  Just be ready, because this is only the beginning."

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/charlie-rose-sexual-harassment-accusations-at-cbs

Not to side track, but why lament?  Because you like him politically?  A pig is a pig, in my view.   My political worldview is not such that I share any affinity with others that happen to seem to think like I do (other than that affinity).  That I'm "for this" or "against that" doesn't make me any more or less likely to be a shithead.   

Having said that, how come none of these guys are classically good looking?

I mean, isn't it always sadder when someone you like does bad stuff? Wouldn't it hurt you more if your dad turned out to be a bad person than some stranger? It's perfectly normal.

I mean, I think we all agree that if Betty White or Tom Hanks turned out to be a sexual abuser, it'd feel worse than if like Newt Gingrich did.

Honestly, I don't think that way.   Maybe it's because I don't idolize people like that.  My favorite musician of all time is Ritchie Blackmore.  He's a miserable fuck, I know it, you know it, we all know it.   I like his music.  It's also why I don't get my panties in a wad over the Sons of Apollo PR nightmare.  I don't care about anything except the drums and keyboards that are being played. 

I think this is a big part of the problem of our divisiveness.  We put these people on pedestals that they don't deserve.  That's on us, not the people.    I don't expect that Tom Hanks is less of a shithead than Newt Gingrich. I don't assume that Tom is a "better" human, I just think it's a matter of context.    Tom is paid to be a "nice guy", and Newt is paid to be "controversial".

I guess I'm just not that cynical.

Me neither,  I have still have faith in people... sometimes.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 22, 2017, 03:39:52 PM
Literally just this morning, a co-worker was lamenting the 2nd woman coming forward about Al Franken.  I told her, "There will be more.  Men you admire and trust in.  Men you'd never suspect.  Just be ready, because this is only the beginning."

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/charlie-rose-sexual-harassment-accusations-at-cbs

Not to side track, but why lament?  Because you like him politically?  A pig is a pig, in my view.   My political worldview is not such that I share any affinity with others that happen to seem to think like I do (other than that affinity).  That I'm "for this" or "against that" doesn't make me any more or less likely to be a shithead.   

Having said that, how come none of these guys are classically good looking?

I mean, isn't it always sadder when someone you like does bad stuff? Wouldn't it hurt you more if your dad turned out to be a bad person than some stranger? It's perfectly normal.

I mean, I think we all agree that if Betty White or Tom Hanks turned out to be a sexual abuser, it'd feel worse than if like Newt Gingrich did.

Honestly, I don't think that way.   Maybe it's because I don't idolize people like that.  My favorite musician of all time is Ritchie Blackmore.  He's a miserable fuck, I know it, you know it, we all know it.   I like his music.  It's also why I don't get my panties in a wad over the Sons of Apollo PR nightmare.  I don't care about anything except the drums and keyboards that are being played. 

I think this is a big part of the problem of our divisiveness.  We put these people on pedestals that they don't deserve.  That's on us, not the people.    I don't expect that Tom Hanks is less of a shithead than Newt Gingrich. I don't assume that Tom is a "better" human, I just think it's a matter of context.    Tom is paid to be a "nice guy", and Newt is paid to be "controversial".

I guess I'm just not that cynical.

It's not at all cynicism.  I would call it realism or pragmatism.   I am by nature not at all a cynical person; quite the opposite.   In my daily interactions, I almost always ASSUME people are good people - because more often than not I think people are - but I'm not surprised if they're not.  I know people make mistakes (and no, I'm not at all suggesting that these abuse cases are simply "mistakes") and know that people aren't perfect and have their issues. 

It's old news now, so you know this already, but a friend was accused of molesting two five year olds.  I wasn't surprised in the sense that "oh my god, a good man!".  I was surprised because I was personally involved and didn't see it.  I was surprised because I saw him interact with parents and children - including my own - and didn't get even a whiff of this level of behavior.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 22, 2017, 03:41:00 PM

It IS mob rule, because they didn't do it - the right thing to do - at the time, but they are doing it now that it's public and ratings are at stake - not the right thing to do.   

Because they didn't take action years ago(do we even know if it was ever reported internally?), it's somehow bad that they fire him now?  How does that work?   

edit: Stadler I would think you'd be the first to say corporations don't do things because they're "right" or ""wrong"

I am.  They don't.  That's why it's mob rule.  They're only doing it because the crowd yelled loudly enough and they feared their metrics, whatever they may be. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 22, 2017, 03:45:02 PM
Isn't that capitalism?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on November 22, 2017, 04:07:29 PM

It IS mob rule, because they didn't do it - the right thing to do - at the time, but they are doing it now that it's public and ratings are at stake - not the right thing to do.   

Because they didn't take action years ago(do we even know if it was ever reported internally?), it's somehow bad that they fire him now?  How does that work?   

edit: Stadler I would think you'd be the first to say corporations don't do things because they're "right" or ""wrong"

I am.  They don't.  That's why it's mob rule.  They're only doing it because the crowd yelled loudly enough and they feared their metrics, whatever they may be.

Then mob rule or not it doesn’t matter, it was never in the corporation’s interest to fire him until it became public. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 27, 2017, 08:34:55 AM
Isn't that capitalism?

I don't think so.   I mean, it's "capitalism" as a tool, but like many things - a screw driver used to poke a hole in something, or a shoe used as a hammer - tools get misused. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: The King in Crimson on November 28, 2017, 10:16:40 PM
Isn't that capitalism?
Pretty much.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: AngelBack on November 29, 2017, 06:34:05 AM
And the chips keep falling,  Matt Lauer fired from NBC for allegedly raping an NBC staffer at the Rio Olympics. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox on November 29, 2017, 06:38:58 AM
And although there is no actual proof and they've never had complaints before, they outright fire him. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but isn't that jumping the gun?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on November 29, 2017, 06:39:39 AM
And the chips keep falling,  Matt Lauer fired from NBC for allegedly raping an NBC staffer at the Rio Olympics.

That's the first I've heard of a rape. I figured it had to be something semi-serious since the firing was so swift, but damn.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: AngelBack on November 29, 2017, 06:47:54 AM
I think no one is willing to give much of a benefit of the doubt to the accused right now.  But the pendulum NEEDED to swing the other way and I'm sure there may be occasional injustices to the accused.  Remodeling is messy.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: kaos2900 on November 29, 2017, 07:22:04 AM
And although there is no actual proof and they've never had complaints before, they outright fire him. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but isn't that jumping the gun?

This was my first thought too. Not saying it didn't happen, but what if it didn't? What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty? Don't get me wrong, as I've mentioned before I'm glad that the culture seems to be changing but I'd hate to see innocent people get their lives ruined if a false accusation is made.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on November 29, 2017, 07:26:19 AM
And although there is no actual proof and they've never had complaints before, they outright fire him. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but isn't that jumping the gun?

This was my first thought too. Not saying it didn't happen, but what if it didn't? What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty? Don't get me wrong, as I've mentioned before I'm glad that the culture seems to be changing but I'd hate to see innocent people get their lives ruined if a false accusation is made.

We know next to nothing so far. For all we know Lauer admitted guilt to this as soon as he was confronted about it.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Grappler on November 29, 2017, 07:27:20 AM
And although there is no actual proof and they've never had complaints before, they outright fire him. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but isn't that jumping the gun?

This was my first thought too. Not saying it didn't happen, but what if it didn't? What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty? Don't get me wrong, as I've mentioned before I'm glad that the culture seems to be changing but I'd hate to see innocent people get their lives ruined if a false accusation is made.

These are decisions being made by corporations, not criminal investigations.  Different rules apply and companies have every right to terminate employees if their behavior crosses the line.

It's really not that hard to go to work and not hit on your coworkers.  For those that do, they risk losing their jobs - it can happen at any company.  That old saying comes to mind - don't shit where you eat. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 29, 2017, 08:10:16 AM
Hopefully the pendulum will come back when companies start getting sued by the people they sack. We're already seeing lawsuits against universities from students expelled on the basis of simple allegations. I still support a company's right to fire anybody they want for any reason, but there's a stigma associated with being fired for rape, particularly in a case like Lauer's, that shouldn't be dumped upon someone simply as a CYA.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Grappler on November 29, 2017, 08:30:05 AM
Hopefully the pendulum will come back when companies start getting sued by the people they sack. We're already seeing lawsuits against universities from students expelled on the basis of simple allegations. I still support a company's right to fire anybody they want for any reason, but there's a stigma associated with being fired for rape, particularly in a case like Lauer's, that shouldn't be dumped upon someone simply as a CYA.

He put himself in that situation though.  I've been employed for 22 years, going back to my first retail job in high school. Not once have I ever been accused of harassing a coworker, because I don't participate in behaviors that could jeopardize my job.

Everyone in this thread that complains about how unfair these accusations are needs to realize that the people who are being accused of such behaviors are the ones that have allowed themselves to be put in that position in the first place.  This is all about workplace behavior between colleagues, and nothing more.  None of these accusations come from a celebrity being out at a nightclub, meeting a random stranger, and then being accused of sexual impropriety the morning after.

Sometimes you have business trips, sometimes industries require meetings in hotels, but office etiquette and the need to treat people respectfully still applies.  If someone chooses to cross that line with a colleague, they then open themselves up to facing an accusation of improper behavior down the line.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 29, 2017, 08:35:01 AM
Do we know if Lauer put himself into any such situation?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox on November 29, 2017, 08:35:53 AM
Maybe it is different when it's just a corporation/company and a job, but, from what I read, it was simply "Lauer gets accused -> executives hear about it -> firing" - I could be wrong, maybe Lauer did admit somewhere in there, but those were the steps that I gathered from reading about it. I'm not cutting him any slack, I'm just saying (and I admit I could be wrong on this, but I'm willing to bet) at some point someone is gonna get accused, they're gonna get fired, and it'll turn out it wasn't true, and then we're going to have a day-long discussion about why we need to be more careful with how we handle these things.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: portnoy311 on November 29, 2017, 08:42:09 AM
Both sides of the coin apply - we shouldn't jump to conclusions about what Lauer's employers do or don't know either.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 29, 2017, 08:50:01 AM
Maybe it is different when it's just a corporation/company and a job, but, from what I read, it was simply "Lauer gets accused -> executives hear about it -> firing" - I could be wrong, maybe Lauer did admit somewhere in there, but those were the steps that I gathered from reading about it. I'm not cutting him any slack, I'm just saying (and I admit I could be wrong on this, but I'm willing to bet) at some point someone is gonna get accused, they're gonna get fired, and it'll turn out it wasn't true, and then we're going to have a day-long discussion about why we need to be more careful with how we handle these things.
The sad truth is that right now taking from the Ford playbook is probably the most cost effective option. Paying the guy off when he goes up in flames will be cheaper and easier than dealing with the public backlash.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2017, 09:01:45 AM
I think no one is willing to give much of a benefit of the doubt to the accused right now.  But the pendulum NEEDED to swing the other way and I'm sure there may be occasional injustices to the accused.  Remodeling is messy.

Except not all injustices are equal.  Let's hope it's not YOUR life that is ruined, your marriage that is over, your career that is torpedoed while we "remodel".   It'd be one thing if there weren't tools and procedures in place - and have been for 240 some odd years - to handle this sort of thing.    This is just mob rule.

Having said that, as for Matt Lauer, I used to work for GE who owned NBC at the time, and there was scuttle butt.  Not "Hey, Matt Lauer is a rapist!" but more along the lines of "the public persona and the private person are not the same thing".   I've heard rumblings before.  As I also understand it, this wasn't "Hey, accusation!  Fire him!"    There was a lengthy meeting, including lawyers for all three sides, after which Lauer was terminated.  As I understand it, this isn't as kneejerk as some of the others.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2017, 09:04:12 AM
Hopefully the pendulum will come back when companies start getting sued by the people they sack. We're already seeing lawsuits against universities from students expelled on the basis of simple allegations. I still support a company's right to fire anybody they want for any reason, but there's a stigma associated with being fired for rape, particularly in a case like Lauer's, that shouldn't be dumped upon someone simply as a CYA.

He put himself in that situation though.  I've been employed for 22 years, going back to my first retail job in high school. Not once have I ever been accused of harassing a coworker, because I don't participate in behaviors that could jeopardize my job.

Everyone in this thread that complains about how unfair these accusations are needs to realize that the people who are being accused of such behaviors are the ones that have allowed themselves to be put in that position in the first place.  This is all about workplace behavior between colleagues, and nothing more.  None of these accusations come from a celebrity being out at a nightclub, meeting a random stranger, and then being accused of sexual impropriety the morning after.

Sometimes you have business trips, sometimes industries require meetings in hotels, but office etiquette and the need to treat people respectfully still applies.  If someone chooses to cross that line with a colleague, they then open themselves up to facing an accusation of improper behavior down the line.

What about when it's just a case of you and her up for the same job and she goes dirty?   Some of these are pretty sketch.   You've never looked at the same computer screen?   She could easily say you copped a feel while doing so, or were "uncomfortably close".    I think you're overestimating the degree of "the facts will out".   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: AngelBack on November 29, 2017, 09:25:50 AM
I think no one is willing to give much of a benefit of the doubt to the accused right now.  But the pendulum NEEDED to swing the other way and I'm sure there may be occasional injustices to the accused.  Remodeling is messy.

Except not all injustices are equal.  Let's hope it's not YOUR life that is ruined, your marriage that is over, your career that is torpedoed while we "remodel".   It'd be one thing if there weren't tools and procedures in place - and have been for 240 some odd years - to handle this sort of thing.    This is just mob rule.

Having said that, as for Matt Lauer, I used to work for GE who owned NBC at the time, and there was scuttle butt.  Not "Hey, Matt Lauer is a rapist!" but more along the lines of "the public persona and the private person are not the same thing".   I've heard rumblings before.  As I also understand it, this wasn't "Hey, accusation!  Fire him!"    There was a lengthy meeting, including lawyers for all three sides, after which Lauer was terminated.  As I understand it, this isn't as kneejerk as some of the others.

Oh I'm not saying this is a perfectly acceptable outcome to ensure women are protected.  But do you not feel this is at least a move in the right direction?  Perfect can be the enemy of good.  And for every man falsely accused there will be 100 women who might not otherwise come forward because (broad generalization coming) men are pigs. 

The ends do not justify the means and I would hope no one's life gets ruined falsely.  But this is hopefully going to precipitate a paradigm shift that should in the long run make our girls safer (and my teenage daughter has been a victim). 

When I was a teenager I had my hand moved numerous times during heavy make out sessions.  I didn't ask if I good steal a base or two but it was understood when she moves your hand, you're out.  But I will teach my boys that in today's world even the clumsy grope for boob in a dark theater can be (rightly) considered assault.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Ben_Jamin on November 29, 2017, 09:31:43 AM
And although there is no actual proof and they've never had complaints before, they outright fire him. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but isn't that jumping the gun?

This was my first thought too. Not saying it didn't happen, but what if it didn't? What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty? Don't get me wrong, as I've mentioned before I'm glad that the culture seems to be changing but I'd hate to see innocent people get their lives ruined if a false accusation is made.

These are decisions being made by corporations, not criminal investigations.  Different rules apply and companies have every right to terminate employees if their behavior crosses the line.

It's really not that hard to go to work and not hit on your coworkers.  For those that do, they risk losing their jobs - it can happen at any company.  That old saying comes to mind - don't shit where you eat.

Exactly, came in here to post this same thing. The companies have a family image to uphold and its upheld to everyone (when its shining diamonds in the sun). Also, they could have a Zero Tolerance policy in place.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 29, 2017, 09:51:04 AM
When I was a teenager I had my hand moved numerous times during heavy make out sessions.  I didn't ask if I good steal a base or two but it was understood when she moves your hand, you're out.  But I will teach my boys that in today's world even the clumsy grope for boob in a dark theater can be (rightly) considered assault.
Since it's good that we're having this conversation, I have to ask: is it "rightly" considered assault? Why? Are we supposed to ask for permission for every possible advance at this point? "Pardon me, is it alright with you if I move my left hand two inches further up your thigh?" Would the attorneys in this thread recommend getting that acceptance in writing?

The girl in AB's example moved his hand away. Sounds about right. If he persisted then there would be a problem and I'm on the girl's side. Seems to me that we're not allowed to shoot trespassers on sight. Warning has to be provided or a clear threat to life has to exist. I'm not sure this should be any different.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 29, 2017, 09:52:24 AM
And although there is no actual proof and they've never had complaints before, they outright fire him. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but isn't that jumping the gun?

This was my first thought too. Not saying it didn't happen, but what if it didn't? What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty? Don't get me wrong, as I've mentioned before I'm glad that the culture seems to be changing but I'd hate to see innocent people get their lives ruined if a false accusation is made.

These are decisions being made by corporations, not criminal investigations.  Different rules apply and companies have every right to terminate employees if their behavior crosses the line.

It's really not that hard to go to work and not hit on your coworkers.  For those that do, they risk losing their jobs - it can happen at any company.  That old saying comes to mind - don't shit where you eat.

Exactly, came in here to post this same thing. The companies have a family image to uphold and its upheld to everyone (when its shining diamonds in the sun). Also, they could have a Zero Tolerance policy in place.

But it's based on the question,"What if he didn't?" Well, if he didn't, then what "family image" has been broken? If he didn't, then what can the company have "zero tolerance" for?

El Barto nailed it. The more the pendulum swings with the momentum of the masses not really caring for the authenticity of accusations, it becomes inevitable that lawsuits will follow.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on November 29, 2017, 10:12:20 AM
Having said that, as for Matt Lauer, I used to work for GE who owned NBC at the time, and there was scuttle butt.  Not "Hey, Matt Lauer is a rapist!" but more along the lines of "the public persona and the private person are not the same thing".   I've heard rumblings before.  As I also understand it, this wasn't "Hey, accusation!  Fire him!"    There was a lengthy meeting, including lawyers for all three sides, after which Lauer was terminated.  As I understand it, this isn't as kneejerk as some of the others.

I'm guessing here, but I'd guess almost all of the firings are similar to this.  There's been enough smoke around them for awhile and now that it's open, they get the lawyers together and they do the firing.  I don't think Lauer is any different. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 29, 2017, 10:37:35 AM
Having said that, as for Matt Lauer, I used to work for GE who owned NBC at the time, and there was scuttle butt.  Not "Hey, Matt Lauer is a rapist!" but more along the lines of "the public persona and the private person are not the same thing".   I've heard rumblings before.  As I also understand it, this wasn't "Hey, accusation!  Fire him!"    There was a lengthy meeting, including lawyers for all three sides, after which Lauer was terminated.  As I understand it, this isn't as kneejerk as some of the others.

I'm guessing here, but I'd guess almost all of the firings are similar to this.  There's been enough smoke around them for awhile and now that it's open, they get the lawyers together and they do the firing.  I don't think Lauer is any different.

I agree. And I also think the reactions by most of these people are indicative of that. This isn't a case like people wanting Trump to vocally denounce every little bad thing there is so as to not seem as condoning it. If someone is accused of something significant they didn't do, I expect them to say so. I'm not rushing to defend people that don't seem interested in defending themselves.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2017, 11:02:18 AM
I think no one is willing to give much of a benefit of the doubt to the accused right now.  But the pendulum NEEDED to swing the other way and I'm sure there may be occasional injustices to the accused.  Remodeling is messy.

Except not all injustices are equal.  Let's hope it's not YOUR life that is ruined, your marriage that is over, your career that is torpedoed while we "remodel".   It'd be one thing if there weren't tools and procedures in place - and have been for 240 some odd years - to handle this sort of thing.    This is just mob rule.

Having said that, as for Matt Lauer, I used to work for GE who owned NBC at the time, and there was scuttle butt.  Not "Hey, Matt Lauer is a rapist!" but more along the lines of "the public persona and the private person are not the same thing".   I've heard rumblings before.  As I also understand it, this wasn't "Hey, accusation!  Fire him!"    There was a lengthy meeting, including lawyers for all three sides, after which Lauer was terminated.  As I understand it, this isn't as kneejerk as some of the others.

Oh I'm not saying this is a perfectly acceptable outcome to ensure women are protected.  But do you not feel this is at least a move in the right direction?  Perfect can be the enemy of good.  And for every man falsely accused there will be 100 women who might not otherwise come forward because (broad generalization coming) men are pigs. 

I think it's more complicated than that.   I think it's neutral right now.   It's good for some women, not all women.  It's bad for some men, not all men.   Look, this is very hard to write about because of the level of nuance.   Do I want people - men or women - to be empowered to the point that they feel comfortable in expressing their experiences?   Of course, without question.   Do I feel it should be so easy that there isn't that moment of "do I REALLY want to do this?"  No, I really don't.   I'm not overly sympathetic to the notion of completely removing the idea of "I'm scared".   You find a way if it's that important.   You just do.   Therapists.  Police.  Lawyers.   Now, don't misunderstand; if you do choose that route, you need to get the full support that your story demands, so I understand that we have to minimize the bureaucratic inertia.   But this is the problem with the "metoo" mentality in ANY context.  If you're only doing it because others are, it's problematic for me.   To me, reporting a rape because "the others did it" isn't that different than doing that line of blow because "everyone else did and they were all looking at me".   

Quote
The ends do not justify the means and I would hope no one's life gets ruined falsely.  But this is hopefully going to precipitate a paradigm shift that should in the long run make our girls safer (and my teenage daughter has been a victim). 

When I was a teenager I had my hand moved numerous times during heavy make out sessions.  I didn't ask if I good steal a base or two but it was understood when she moves your hand, you're out.  But I will teach my boys that in today's world even the clumsy grope for boob in a dark theater can be (rightly) considered assault.

But is that a good thing?  Seriously.   I'm asking the question.   Some of the lessons we learn in life (men and women) are about the "hot stove", and you can tell people "Don't touch the hot stove!" all day long but there comes a time that we have to touch the hot stove to know what that uncomfortable feeling is.   You can be told all day long what a broken heart feels like, but until you've loved and lost, it's all speculation.   

Look, I have said this before: both my wives have stories of serious sexual abuse.  Not "grab ass at the family picture" level stuff, but things that would land the perp in jail with significant time for even a first offense (well, at least one of them).   I have two daughters - 16 and 19 - that are trying to make their way in this world.    One has had an event that falls into the category we're talking about; it was "consensual" at the time, but in hindsight smells an awful lot like coerced sexual assault, to the point that my wife made sure I didn't come in contact with that kid at her graduation.   She told us; we supported her in making a decision whether to pursue action, and we supported her implementation of that decision.   I get that she is perhaps lucky in that regard.    But to me, the answer isn't "the power of twitter accusations!"; it's far more subtle than that.   And I am really skeptical that some of these claims - the Kevin Spacey ones come to mind - really do anything to accomplish that.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2017, 11:09:34 AM
Having said that, as for Matt Lauer, I used to work for GE who owned NBC at the time, and there was scuttle butt.  Not "Hey, Matt Lauer is a rapist!" but more along the lines of "the public persona and the private person are not the same thing".   I've heard rumblings before.  As I also understand it, this wasn't "Hey, accusation!  Fire him!"    There was a lengthy meeting, including lawyers for all three sides, after which Lauer was terminated.  As I understand it, this isn't as kneejerk as some of the others.

I'm guessing here, but I'd guess almost all of the firings are similar to this.  There's been enough smoke around them for awhile and now that it's open, they get the lawyers together and they do the firing.  I don't think Lauer is any different.

I agree. And I also think the reactions by most of these people are indicative of that. This isn't a case like people wanting Trump to vocally denounce every little bad thing there is so as to not seem as condoning it. If someone is accused of something significant they didn't do, I expect them to say so. I'm not rushing to defend people that don't seem interested in defending themselves.

But it's sticky; you'll note that most of the responses are of a similar style:  "I don't remember this, I don't recall being callous to another person's feelings, but in any event I harshly condemn any behavior of this kind and I deeply apologize for any discomfort I may have, inadvertently or otherwise, caused anyone".   If I said that to my dad when I broke the window with my baseball, he would have whacked me on the side of the head and said "stop being a p****, and man up."   Right now, with the way things are playing out, these accusations are NOT going to court.  That's telling for me.   VERY telling.  If you have the courage to play this out on multiple media platforms, then it's not "courage" that is keeping these accusers from putting this into a courtroom.   It's not, in my opinion, even proof.  We're talking about a jury of one's peers, and while there are some celebrities that can shit on the red carpet and still be peachy clean, there's still the notion of a sympathetic victim.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 29, 2017, 11:15:41 AM
Right now, with the way things are playing out, these accusations are NOT going to court.  That's telling for me.   VERY telling.  If you have the courage to play this out on multiple media platforms, then it's not "courage" that is keeping these accusers from putting this into a courtroom.   It's not, in my opinion, even proof.  We're talking about a jury of one's peers, and while there are some celebrities that can shit on the red carpet and still be peachy clean, there's still the notion of a sympathetic victim.

I don't know that it is telling, even though it may seem that way.  For a lot of these cases, the events happened quite some time ago, and there were no eyewitnesses.  Just the victim and the accused.  There's no realistic way to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" and get a conviction in most of those.  So there is no incentive for a criminal trial to go forward.

As to civil, you have a lower burden of proof.  But with the passage of time, you have statute of limitations issues that are going to bar most of these cases before we even get to issues of proof.  What lawyer is going to bring those cases when they are going to get tossed as a clear matter of procedure?  And for the few that survive, you still have major proof issues.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox on November 29, 2017, 11:34:02 AM
Again, I feel the need to ask (I asked Stadler this elsewhere, but will ask again here): if Weinstein, Spacey, Lauer, etc. can be fired and taken down and publicly shamed for 'accusations' then WHY have we let Donald Trump get away with the same? He's had even more accusers than those guys, and settled privately with at least one of them. There is this double standard, apparently, that I just cannot wrap my head around.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: kaos2900 on November 29, 2017, 11:38:44 AM
Again, I feel the need to ask (I asked Stadler this elsewhere, but will ask again here): if Weinstein, Spacey, Lauer, etc. can be fired and taken down and publicly shamed for 'accusations' then WHY have we let Donald Trump get away with the same? He's had even more accusers than those guys, and settled privately with at least one of them. There is this double standard, apparently, that I just cannot wrap my head around.

Just wait.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 29, 2017, 11:55:59 AM
There is this double standard, apparently, that I just cannot wrap my head around.

Maybe.  But then again, maybe not.  You may very well be right that it is simply a double standard.  But there are any number of reasons why different reactions that I wouldn't want to speculate.  But if I can be permitted to paint with an admittedly VERY broad brush, the sense I get is that there is nothing much to the Trump allegations other than he was incredibly boorish and inappropriate, but that his conduct wouldn't likely rise to the level of being unlawful.  I think the difference is that with a lot of these other cases, there is enough to believe the conduct occurred that actually would be unlawful.  And another key difference is that, in all those other cases, you have employers reacting and taking action on the accusations.  There is no entity that stands in that capacity with regard to Trump.  Yeah, the U.S. government is technically his "employer."  But he can only be removed through a specific process that is very rigorous.  It's just...it's apples and oranges, really.  So, again, I wouldn't necessarily infer a double standard.  It's just different practical realities.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 29, 2017, 12:50:07 PM
Latest head to roll is Garrison Keillor. He allegedly put his hand on a woman's back. Note that I didn't say backside.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2017/11/29/garrison-keillor-fired-alleged-improper-behavior-minnesota-public-radio/905491001/
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on November 29, 2017, 01:09:38 PM
Latest head to roll is Garrison Keillor. He allegedly put his hand on a woman's back. Note that I didn't say backside.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2017/11/29/garrison-keillor-fired-alleged-improper-behavior-minnesota-public-radio/905491001/

Keillor, 75, went into more detail Wednesday in an email to his hometown newspaper, telling The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, “I put my hand on a woman’s bare back. I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”

Man. That's the shittiest one yet (for the accused).
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Adami on November 29, 2017, 01:21:45 PM
Hopefully accusations like that don’t end up doing much.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 29, 2017, 01:29:43 PM
Well, there is a second allegation, so it's certainly possible he tied the woman up for six days and burned her with a crack pipe, but I'm not sure it even matters anymore.

And then there's also this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVbofyP8mJI
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sylvan on November 29, 2017, 01:39:00 PM
Latest head to roll is Garrison Keillor. He allegedly put his hand on a woman's back. Note that I didn't say backside.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2017/11/29/garrison-keillor-fired-alleged-improper-behavior-minnesota-public-radio/905491001/

Keillor, 75, went into more detail Wednesday in an email to his hometown newspaper, telling The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, “I put my hand on a woman’s bare back. I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”

Man. That's the shittiest one yet (for the accused).

Do we finally have a case where the "harassment" CAN be blamed on what the woman was wearing?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Kattelox on November 29, 2017, 01:41:56 PM
So wait, he apologized, the lady said not to worry about it, and he STILL got fired? What?!
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on November 29, 2017, 02:00:14 PM
Latest head to roll is Garrison Keillor. He allegedly put his hand on a woman's back. Note that I didn't say backside.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2017/11/29/garrison-keillor-fired-alleged-improper-behavior-minnesota-public-radio/905491001/

Keillor, 75, went into more detail Wednesday in an email to his hometown newspaper, telling The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, “I put my hand on a woman’s bare back. I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”

Man. That's the shittiest one yet (for the accused).

Do we finally have a case where the "harassment" CAN be blamed on what the woman was wearing?

No, because if that's what actually happened, that wasn't harassment.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 29, 2017, 02:06:31 PM
Again, I feel the need to ask (I asked Stadler this elsewhere, but will ask again here): if Weinstein, Spacey, Lauer, etc. can be fired and taken down and publicly shamed for 'accusations' then WHY have we let Donald Trump get away with the same? He's had even more accusers than those guys, and settled privately with at least one of them. There is this double standard, apparently, that I just cannot wrap my head around.

I think Bosk has a great answer to this, but I also think the facts are different.   I think that we have a tape that doesn't amount to an admission of ANYTHING, and in the immediate aftermath - right in the middle of a heated and controversial presidential campaign - you had a modicum of accusations.    There was a lot "well, a, and b, so there must be c!" kind of logic.    And now, not so much.   I think there was a political aspect to the Trump accusations that isn't there with the other ones.   As to the settlement, means nothing.    If the amount the other side is asking is less than the amount to defend the "truth", it will often be paid.  It's just dollars and cents at that point; there's even a name for it (the "nuisance suit").   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 29, 2017, 04:31:18 PM
Hopefully the pendulum will come back when companies start getting sued by the people they sack. We're already seeing lawsuits against universities from students expelled on the basis of simple allegations. I still support a company's right to fire anybody they want for any reason, but there's a stigma associated with being fired for rape, particularly in a case like Lauer's, that shouldn't be dumped upon someone simply as a CYA.

I'm pulling out your quote, EB, for a couple of reasons.  First, I haven't heard Lauer is accused of rape.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  But thus far, it appears it is your run-of-the-mill sexual harassment.  Second, it appears - if this source is to be believed - it is EXACTLY because of a CYA situation for NBC.

https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/matt-lauer-accused-sexual-harassment-multiple-women-1202625959/

As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.

On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.

He would sometimes quiz female producers about who they’d slept with, offering to trade names. And he loved to engage in a crass quiz game with men and women in the office: “f—, marry, or kill,” in which he would identify the female co-hosts that he’d most like to sleep with.

These accounts of Lauer’s behavior at NBC are the result of a two-month investigation by Variety, with dozens of interviews with current and former staffers. Variety has talked to three women who identified themselves as victims of sexual harassment by Lauer, and their stories have been corroborated by friends or colleagues that they told at the time. They have asked for now to remain unnamed, fearing professional repercussions.

On Wednesday, NBC announced that Lauer was fired from “Today.” It was a stunning move for a co-host who was widely considered the crown jewel of the network’s news division, with a $25 million annual salary. The cause of his dismissal, according to sources, was a detailed complaint from another current NBC employee about inappropriate sexual conduct from Lauer that started on a trip at the Sochi Olympics in 2014 and continued for several months.

The employee met with human resources at NBC on Monday night. In a statement, NBC News Chairman Andy Lack called this the first complaint about his behavior in over 20 years and acknowledged that it may not be the last: “We were also presented with reason to believe that this may not have been an isolated incident,” Lack said.

Several women told Variety they complained to executives at the network about Lauer’s behavior, which fell on deaf ears given the lucrative advertising surrounding “Today.” NBC declined to comment. For most of Lauer’s tenure at “Today,” the morning news show was No. 1 in the ratings, and executives were eager to keep him happy.

It’s not clear if NBC is paying Lauer through the end of his contract, which expires in 2018. Lauer couldn’t be reached for comment.

Insiders say that NBC was forced to act quickly after this week’s complaint, given the severity of the accusations and the national dialogue around sexual harassment that has ended the careers of Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K. and other prominent men. Now, against a series of questions about the future of “Today,” a troubling portrait has emerged of Lauer. In front of the camera, for more than two decades, Lauer had positioned himself as America’s squeaky-clean dad. But behind the scenes, Lauer was a different person.

Despite being married, Lauer was fixated on women, especially their bodies and looks, according to more than 10 accounts from current and former employees. He was known for making lewd comments verbally or over text messages. He once made a suggestive reference to a colleague’s performance in bed and compared it to how she was able to complete her job, according to witnesses to the exchange. For Lauer, work and sex were intertwined.

“There were a lot of consensual relationships, but that’s still a problem because of the power he held,” says a former producer who knew first-hand of these encounters. “He couldn’t sleep around town with celebrities or on the road with random people, because he’s Matt Lauer and he’s married. So he’d have to do it within his stable, where he exerted power, and he knew people wouldn’t ever complain.”

Lauer, who was paranoid about being followed by tabloid reporters, grew more emboldened at 30 Rockefeller Center as his profile rose following Katie Couric’s departure from “Today” in 2006. His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer.

According to sources, the sexual harassment extended to when Lauer traveled on assignment for NBC. Several employees recall how he paid intense attention to a young woman on his staff that he found attractive, focusing intently on her career ambitions. And he asked the same producer to his hotel room to deliver him a pillow, according to sources with knowledge of the interaction.

This was part of a pattern. According to multiple accounts, independently corroborated by Variety, Lauer would invite women employed by NBC late at night to his hotel room while covering the Olympics in various cities over the years. He later told colleagues how his wife had accompanied him to the London Olympics because she didn’t trust him to travel alone.

The spotlight on Lauer intensified earlier this month, when his longtime booker Matt Zimmerman was fired over sexual harassment complaints. The two were very close, and Lauer had promoted Zimmerman to a high executive position and offered him a powerful perch.
Lauer’s conduct was not a secret among other employees at “Today,” numerous sources say. At least one of the anchors would gossip about stories she had heard, spreading them among the staff. “Management sucks there,” says a former reporter, who asked not to be identified, speaking about executives who previously worked at the show. “They protected the s— out of Matt Lauer.”

Some producers told Variety they were conflicted about what to do around Lauer. They worried that their careers would be sidelined if they didn’t return his advances. “There is such shame with Matt Lauer not liking you,” the former employee added. “I did this special with him and we are traveling and I had a cold sore on my lip and I heard him say to Bryant Gumbel, ‘She has this really ugly cold sore on her lip,’ like that was something to be ashamed of. He was just really cruel.”

According to producers, Lauer — who had considerable editorial clout over which stories would ultimately air on “Today” — would frequently dismiss stories about cheating husbands. However, in the wake of Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein, Lauer had to keep up with a national conversation about sexual harassment. It often made for awkward moments on TV for staff members who knew about Lauer’s private interactions.

In September, Lauer asked Fox News star anchor Bill O’Reilly if he’d ever sent lewd text messages to colleagues. “Think about those … women and what they did,” Lauer said. “They came forward and filed complaints against the biggest star at the network they worked at. Think about how intimidating that must have been. Doesn’t that tell you how strongly they felt about you?”




Bold emphasis mine - My hunch is that a woman came forward to HR at NBC and said they either address this situation with Lauer once and for all, or they would go public with the fact that NBC was aware of the behavior for years and did nothing.  The current climate being such that it is, they caved and tried to get ahead of the story, "While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over twenty years he's been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident."

If anything is BS about this story, it is that part of NBC's statement.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 29, 2017, 04:53:56 PM
At the point I made that post all we knew was that he was accused of rape, and the discussion was about whether or not it was based on anything other than allegations. This thing happened very late and very quickly. Having heard some of the allegations I'm fine with him being sacked.

Moreover, I was making the point because there are now lawsuits coming about with regards to discipline based solely on unsubstantiated allegations. The college student I referred to was expelled because a girl claimed that he grabbed her ass while they were drunkenly dancing, despite the evidence suggesting that he probably did not. It's easier for the university to cut him loose and pay him off than to deal with the backlash associated with simply not being on the "victim's" side.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2017, 08:40:58 AM
Some producers told Variety they were conflicted about what to do around Lauer. They worried that their careers would be sidelined if they didn’t return his advances. “There is such shame with Matt Lauer not liking you,” the former employee added. “I did this special with him and we are traveling and I had a cold sore on my lip and I heard him say to Bryant Gumbel, ‘She has this really ugly cold sore on her lip,’ like that was something to be ashamed of. He was just really cruel.”


First, I heard there WAS rape involved, and that's why it escalated so quickly.   It was at... Rio I think (I've heard both the Rio Olympics and Sochi being mentioned as places where the alleged crimes occurred).   I've said before, I was at GE (in a different division) when they owned NBC, and even WE heard rumblings and rumors about the "Matt Lauer" that was behind the scenes.  Obviously we were in no position to act on that, being that none of us had even met him, even SEEN him, let alone had any first hand knowledge of the sitch. 

But I put that paragraph up there for a reason.   There is not one shred of illegality in that paragraph.   Cruel?  Maybe.   Insensitive?  Sure.   Actionable?  Not a shot.   I feel bad for that woman in one sense, but if that's the level that we've gotten to, where we AS MEN (and not "human beings") have to check ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, the pendulum has indeed swung too far.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Grappler on November 30, 2017, 09:01:06 AM
Some producers told Variety they were conflicted about what to do around Lauer. They worried that their careers would be sidelined if they didn’t return his advances. “There is such shame with Matt Lauer not liking you,” the former employee added. “I did this special with him and we are traveling and I had a cold sore on my lip and I heard him say to Bryant Gumbel, ‘She has this really ugly cold sore on her lip,’ like that was something to be ashamed of. He was just really cruel.”


 

But I put that paragraph up there for a reason.   There is not one shred of illegality in that paragraph.   Cruel?  Maybe.   Insensitive?  Sure.   Actionable?  Not a shot.   I feel bad for that woman in one sense, but if that's the level that we've gotten to, where we AS MEN (and not "human beings") have to check ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, the pendulum has indeed swung too far.

Take it as a whole - the feeling of needing to live up to Matt Lauer's expectations could make women feel like they needed to please him in order to succeed in their job, which then leads to the sexual harassment.  I HATE when I disappoint my boss, I can just see it in his eyes that I've let him down.  Women should not feel like they need to be blemish free in order to make their boss happy, nor should they feel like they have to submit to the sexual talk while at work.  So what he did in those instances is not illegal, but it is truly demeaning and should not happen in the office.  My wife took a new job once and spent 3 months working for a man that yelled and screamed at her.  He'd belittle her, demean her in front of other employees, and treat her and other employees like shit.  Should someone have to take that type of abuse at work from a superior, simply because "it's not illegal?"  People in my wife's position just go get a new job and leave that crap behind, which is what she did.  But some jobs in politics or the entertainment industry require fighting tooth and nail to get that job - women aren't going to give up those positions because they're being treated like crap.  So they need the power to stand up to the men that treat them poorly.

We as men SHOULD check ourselves when we are at work.  We are representing our employers when we are on their time.  The whole "guy talk" think with Billy Bush/Trump shows that nobody wants to be around a creep and that we have a duty to stand up for such demeaning behavior towards anyone.  That is why I contacted my HR department about the bully in my office.  Someone needed to say something and stand up to her (and stand up for the employees that had to take her abuse), and other people in the office just kept their heads down and stayed quiet to avoid her wrath.

The fact that you're whining about having to check yourself at work when around women means that this whole movement truly needs to happen.  I don't see how it's so hard it is for people to behave while at work.  My personality at work is 100% different than when I'm at home.  The office is not a place for people to "be themselves," it's a place for people to represent their employer in a professional manner.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 30, 2017, 09:09:23 AM
Some producers told Variety they were conflicted about what to do around Lauer. They worried that their careers would be sidelined if they didn’t return his advances. “There is such shame with Matt Lauer not liking you,” the former employee added. “I did this special with him and we are traveling and I had a cold sore on my lip and I heard him say to Bryant Gumbel, ‘She has this really ugly cold sore on her lip,’ like that was something to be ashamed of. He was just really cruel.”


But I put that paragraph up there for a reason.   There is not one shred of illegality in that paragraph.   

No, there absolutely is.  The bolded sentence alone makes it actionable, and it's not even a close call.  When a plaintiff's lawyer has that case, he knows he has a winner and the defense knows they are better off just writing a check and settling quickly.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Grappler on November 30, 2017, 09:17:09 AM
Some producers told Variety they were conflicted about what to do around Lauer. They worried that their careers would be sidelined if they didn’t return his advances. “There is such shame with Matt Lauer not liking you,” the former employee added. “I did this special with him and we are traveling and I had a cold sore on my lip and I heard him say to Bryant Gumbel, ‘She has this really ugly cold sore on her lip,’ like that was something to be ashamed of. He was just really cruel.”


But I put that paragraph up there for a reason.   There is not one shred of illegality in that paragraph.   

No, there absolutely is.  The bolded sentence alone makes it actionable, and it's not even a close call.  When a plaintiff's lawyer has that case, he knows he has a winner and the defense knows they are better off just writing a check and settling quickly.

Completely true - it's called Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment, which I completely missed in my response above.  I.e., "if you don't do something for me, then you, then your career is affected."
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 30, 2017, 09:24:09 AM
I think he was referring to the cold sore part, which has nothing at all to do with the bolded sexual harassment. A coworker here has been coughing, hacking, wheezing and being generally disgusting for the last 3 days. When I remark about Cholera being alive and well that's not me using my authority to try and fuck him.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 30, 2017, 09:28:32 AM
When I remark about Cholera being alive and well that's not me using my authority to try and fuck him.

If that's what you want the public record to reflect, I'm not going to call you out.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2017, 10:01:34 AM
Some producers told Variety they were conflicted about what to do around Lauer. They worried that their careers would be sidelined if they didn’t return his advances. “There is such shame with Matt Lauer not liking you,” the former employee added. “I did this special with him and we are traveling and I had a cold sore on my lip and I heard him say to Bryant Gumbel, ‘She has this really ugly cold sore on her lip,’ like that was something to be ashamed of. He was just really cruel.”


 

But I put that paragraph up there for a reason.   There is not one shred of illegality in that paragraph.   Cruel?  Maybe.   Insensitive?  Sure.   Actionable?  Not a shot.   I feel bad for that woman in one sense, but if that's the level that we've gotten to, where we AS MEN (and not "human beings") have to check ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, the pendulum has indeed swung too far.

Take it as a whole - the feeling of needing to live up to Matt Lauer's expectations could make women feel like they needed to please him in order to succeed in their job, which then leads to the sexual harassment.  I HATE when I disappoint my boss, I can just see it in his eyes that I've let him down.  Women should not feel like they need to be blemish free in order to make their boss happy, nor should they feel like they have to submit to the sexual talk while at work.  So what he did in those instances is not illegal, but it is truly demeaning and should not happen in the office.  My wife took a new job once and spent 3 months working for a man that yelled and screamed at her.  He'd belittle her, demean her in front of other employees, and treat her and other employees like shit.  Should someone have to take that type of abuse at work from a superior, simply because "it's not illegal?"  People in my wife's position just go get a new job and leave that crap behind, which is what she did.  But some jobs in politics or the entertainment industry require fighting tooth and nail to get that job - women aren't going to give up those positions because they're being treated like crap.  So they need the power to stand up to the men that treat them poorly.

But that's not the point.  That's not a gender position.  You or I shouldn't be yelled at either.   But we are.   Again, at GE, it was a brutal environment.   My boss had a saying: "What passes for casual conversation at GE would be a verbal mugging at any other company".   You knew it, you bought into it, and you moved on.   It wasn't SEXUAL - I can honestly say, in the five years I was there the first time, I never once ever saw even a  HINT of sexual misconduct.  My boss was a woman, and my team was almost exactly 50-50.   I loved that, though, because as hard as it was, I ALWAYS knew where I stood, and because I was able to not take it personally, I thrived.   Here's the thing though;  Welch was clear:   if you can't make it at GE, it doesn't make you a loser, it just means you didn't make it HERE.  There are plenty of companies that have different cultures that you can find your fit.   

The "illegality" IS important.   Each company has a culture, each industry has a culture, and these don't all - shouldn't all - be the same.   I don't want to work in a company that allows people to do whatever the fuck they want whenever the fuck they want, and we defer to "politically correct" euphemisms instead of doing the hard work.   I can remember giving my first pitch to the SVP of EHS - a legend in the industry, even outside the company - and my boss said before hand "DO NOT GO OFF MESSAGE".  Stick to the pitch, flesh it out, and answer his questions. Get in get out."   I went off message.  He was BROOOTAL.   My boss and colleagues had a lot of fun with that one.  Fast forward to three years later, and I was the guy that gave all the pitches to Mr. Ramsey, because I nailed every one of them.  When I left the company, he called me aside and said if I ever want to come back, call him personally.   Sometimes life isn't peaches and rainbows and unicorns.  It is WORK, not the country club.   

Quote
We as men SHOULD check ourselves when we are at work.  We are representing our employers when we are on their time.  The whole "guy talk" think with Billy Bush/Trump shows that nobody wants to be around a creep and that we have a duty to stand up for such demeaning behavior towards anyone.  That is why I contacted my HR department about the bully in my office.  Someone needed to say something and stand up to her (and stand up for the employees that had to take her abuse), and other people in the office just kept their heads down and stayed quiet to avoid her wrath.

Nominally I don't disagree with that.   But it's important that we check ALL sides of ourselves, and it's important that EVERYONE check themselves.   We can't tolerate grabass in the coffee room, or doors that lock automatically with a button under the desk.   But honestly, I feel it is out of line to start asserting our own subjective lines all over the place and ignore what are purposefully placed lines (again, the "illegality") in order to provide some objectivity.   If, as a leader, I choose to lead hardnosed as opposed to lovey-dovey, that shouldn't be a matter for HR.   If the staff doesn't like that, they are not entitled to that job, there is no RIGHT to that job.   We have to be careful here. 

Quote
The fact that you're whining about having to check yourself at work when around women means that this whole movement truly needs to happen.  I don't see how it's so hard it is for people to behave while at work.  My personality at work is 100% different than when I'm at home.  The office is not a place for people to "be themselves," it's a place for people to represent their employer in a professional manner.

First off, not "whining".    Anticipating the inevitable pendulum swing, yes, but whining?  Not hardly.  I'm with you 100% in that work is not an extension of my family room.  Having said that, I'm still leery of this new-found power being abused.   If I greet my executive assistant with "Wow!  Titties looking especially fine today!" I deserve to be shown the door.  No, I deserve to be booted on my ass, door be damned.    But that's not at all the same as "Look, I asked you to file the EHS statements by the end of the day and I asked that the meeting with [XYZ]  be scheduled.  That didn't happen.  This is not the first time.   You are on notice; if you cannot handle the responsibilities of the job, we will make changes."   Like it or not, gender notwithstanding, to paraphrase your words, my employees need to live up to my standards.  No, that standard shouldn't be what sex acts they're willing to do, but Matt Lauer works in an industry where looks matter.  They just do.   NBC is right and entitled to demand that their talent have a look and adhere to a standard.   I did at GE; it wasn't scripted, but it was well-known that you wore the "uniform" (brown slacks, blue shirt, blazer) to company functions.   You didn't, you make the statement that "I'm not a team player, I'm not playing ball".   You're entitled to make that statement.  The company ought to be entitled to take you at your word. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2017, 10:05:28 AM
Some producers told Variety they were conflicted about what to do around Lauer. They worried that their careers would be sidelined if they didn’t return his advances. “There is such shame with Matt Lauer not liking you,” the former employee added. “I did this special with him and we are traveling and I had a cold sore on my lip and I heard him say to Bryant Gumbel, ‘She has this really ugly cold sore on her lip,’ like that was something to be ashamed of. He was just really cruel.”


But I put that paragraph up there for a reason.   There is not one shred of illegality in that paragraph.   

No, there absolutely is.  The bolded sentence alone makes it actionable, and it's not even a close call.  When a plaintiff's lawyer has that case, he knows he has a winner and the defense knows they are better off just writing a check and settling quickly.

No, no, my poor editing skills.  I was talking about the cold sore part.  You're right about the advances.   But at some point there has to be SOME accountability by the employee.    We can't expect this to be totally one-sided, and no employee deserves a completely stress-free, negativity free environment.   If it's not a cold sore, maybe it's, like el Barto said, a cold.  Or something more contextual.  We still have offices to run.    We can't accommodate the whims and fickle wants of every single employee. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on November 30, 2017, 10:19:08 AM
Is there a guy in the world right now who is happier than Weinstein?

These Matt Lauer accusations are all over the place. He raped a woman. He commented on some chick's cold sore. I get the pattern of behavior here, but can we focus on things like, actual criminal acts?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 30, 2017, 10:42:00 AM
Some producers told Variety they were conflicted about what to do around Lauer. They worried that their careers would be sidelined if they didn’t return his advances. “There is such shame with Matt Lauer not liking you,” the former employee added. “I did this special with him and we are traveling and I had a cold sore on my lip and I heard him say to Bryant Gumbel, ‘She has this really ugly cold sore on her lip,’ like that was something to be ashamed of. He was just really cruel.”


 

But I put that paragraph up there for a reason.   There is not one shred of illegality in that paragraph.   Cruel?  Maybe.   Insensitive?  Sure.   Actionable?  Not a shot.   I feel bad for that woman in one sense, but if that's the level that we've gotten to, where we AS MEN (and not "human beings") have to check ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, the pendulum has indeed swung too far.

Take it as a whole - the feeling of needing to live up to Matt Lauer's expectations could make women feel like they needed to please him in order to succeed in their job, which then leads to the sexual harassment.  I HATE when I disappoint my boss, I can just see it in his eyes that I've let him down.  Women should not feel like they need to be blemish free in order to make their boss happy, nor should they feel like they have to submit to the sexual talk while at work.  So what he did in those instances is not illegal, but it is truly demeaning and should not happen in the office. 

Exactly my take on the context of that paragraph.  The work environment was so hostile under Lauer that a female employee worried that having a virus resulting in a cold sore on her mouth would be enough to cost her her job.  THAT is the point.  Power in the wrong hands leading to termination for something as frivolous as having the audacity to have a blemish on your face.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on November 30, 2017, 10:59:27 AM
Depending on what their contract says, if they have one, anyone can be fired for any reason. I can be fired if my boss wakes up on the wrong side of the bed. Likewise, I can quit whenever I want and not need a good reason, or any reason at all. Your point is valid and I support it, but I don't think we should let a comment about cold sores cloud the serious issue of execs and suits raping their subordinates.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: sueńo on November 30, 2017, 11:18:24 AM
Russell Simmons - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/30/567470136/russell-simmons-removing-himself-after-second-allegation-of-sexual-assault

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2017, 12:12:44 PM
Some producers told Variety they were conflicted about what to do around Lauer. They worried that their careers would be sidelined if they didn’t return his advances. “There is such shame with Matt Lauer not liking you,” the former employee added. “I did this special with him and we are traveling and I had a cold sore on my lip and I heard him say to Bryant Gumbel, ‘She has this really ugly cold sore on her lip,’ like that was something to be ashamed of. He was just really cruel.”


 

But I put that paragraph up there for a reason.   There is not one shred of illegality in that paragraph.   Cruel?  Maybe.   Insensitive?  Sure.   Actionable?  Not a shot.   I feel bad for that woman in one sense, but if that's the level that we've gotten to, where we AS MEN (and not "human beings") have to check ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, the pendulum has indeed swung too far.

Take it as a whole - the feeling of needing to live up to Matt Lauer's expectations could make women feel like they needed to please him in order to succeed in their job, which then leads to the sexual harassment.  I HATE when I disappoint my boss, I can just see it in his eyes that I've let him down.  Women should not feel like they need to be blemish free in order to make their boss happy, nor should they feel like they have to submit to the sexual talk while at work.  So what he did in those instances is not illegal, but it is truly demeaning and should not happen in the office. 

Exactly my take on the context of that paragraph.  The work environment was so hostile under Lauer that a female employee worried that having a virus resulting in a cold sore on her mouth would be enough to cost her her job.  THAT is the point.  Power in the wrong hands leading to termination for something as frivolous as having the audacity to have a blemish on your face.

Sort of akin to what Cool Chris said, I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.   Or should I say, that shouldn't result in Matt Lauer's public and prominent firing.  That's a matter for him and his supervisors to discuss in his annual reviews.    It's certainly not a question of gender.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Grappler on November 30, 2017, 12:19:40 PM
Depending on what their contract says, if they have one, anyone can be fired for any reason. I can be fired if my boss wakes up on the wrong side of the bed. Likewise, I can quit whenever I want and not need a good reason, or any reason at all. Your point is valid and I support it, but I don't think we should let a comment about cold sores cloud the serious issue of execs and suits raping their subordinates.

It's not clouding the issue - Harmony pointed out that it's adding to a very hostile work environment, which is sexual harassment.  Sexual harassment comes in two forms - Quid Pro Quo (sexual favors in return for something) and Hostile Environment (uncomfortable work environment).  Matt Lauer was involved in both types of harassment. 

Stadler - he deserved to be fired for all of his behaviors combined.  There is more to it than just saying that someone had a cold sore. 

I was mistaken in my response to Stadler - a hostile work environment and quid pro quo harassment are very illegal. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on November 30, 2017, 12:26:09 PM
Grapp:  "Hostile work environment" harassment has a very specialized meaning and is not the same as merely an "uncomfortable work environment."  It is much more than that.  The cold sore comments usually wouldn't be relevant to a hostile work environment claim. 

That said, we're sort of talking about two different things here.  A violation of a particular company's sexual harassment policy or other codes of conduct doesn't necessarily have to rise to the level of being illegal sexual harassment.  Most prudent employers nowadays have policies in place that are more strict than the law because they want to be seen as having higher standards than the "bare minimum" the law requires, and want to proactively head off illegal conduct long before it gets to the level of being illegal.  I'm not saying Lauer's "cold sore" comments even rose to the level of a policy violation.  Taken together with the other allegations, NBC may have felt they were relevant to the overall environment he created.  Or it may simply be that the news is just piling on and showing what a jerk he is.  At this point, it doesn't really matter. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Podaar on November 30, 2017, 12:39:08 PM
The "cold sore comment" could be part of a larger pattern of sexual harassment if the 'standard' Lauer had for facial blemishes was only applied to women. It's not necessarily gender-neutral.

At this point, it doesn't really matter. 

Yup.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 30, 2017, 01:47:10 PM
The "cold sore comment" could be part of a larger pattern of sexual harassment if the 'standard' Lauer had for facial blemishes was only applied to women. It's not necessarily gender-neutral.

At this point, it doesn't really matter. 

Yup.

I love this place.  I was going to say the exact same thing.  It has to do with the whole context of the work environment.  If I were the unfortunate woman who got canned for having a cold sore, I'd certainly consider all my options.  NBC is a big place.  All I have to do is find ONE man who was not fired for a cold sore and bingo - unlawful termination based on gender inequality.  Mitigating circumstances being equal and all.  But yeah, we're getting pretty deep into the weeds here pulling out one paragraph in that entire article and beating it to death when the much bigger issue with regard to Lauer has been laid to rest.

Aside - Podaar - I LOVE your avatar.   That was my Facebook header last year.   :laugh:
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Podaar on November 30, 2017, 02:04:54 PM
 :tup

I started using that for my Holiday avatar just last year.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 30, 2017, 03:37:35 PM
:tup

I started using that for my Holiday avatar just last year.

Stop copying me!   :rollin
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2017, 04:42:26 PM
The "cold sore comment" could be part of a larger pattern of sexual harassment if the 'standard' Lauer had for facial blemishes was only applied to women. It's not necessarily gender-neutral.

At this point, it doesn't really matter. 

Yup.

I love this place.  I was going to say the exact same thing.  It has to do with the whole context of the work environment.  If I were the unfortunate woman who got canned for having a cold sore, I'd certainly consider all my options.  NBC is a big place.  All I have to do is find ONE man who was not fired for a cold sore and bingo - unlawful termination based on gender inequality.  Mitigating circumstances being equal and all.  But yeah, we're getting pretty deep into the weeds here pulling out one paragraph in that entire article and beating it to death when the much bigger issue with regard to Lauer has been laid to rest.

Aside - Podaar - I LOVE your avatar.   That was my Facebook header last year.   :laugh:

Well, all this is speculation and based almost entirely on facts we don't have, and probably never will.  Point of story is "what is the message moving forward?"    It should NOT be that "if someone makes fun of my cold sore, I just hit the lottery". 

The fact of the matter is, there's a lot of people - not here, I'm talking about in the national dialogue - that don't have the first clue about what the terms they're using actually mean.   

Grapp:  let me be clear:  I have no issue with Lauer being fired.   I've already said to anyone who will listen, he had a reputation for a while now.  He had, by all accounts, lawyers present and he had his position heard.  There's never any excuse for the defined terms we have been talking about here (rape, sexual assault, hostile work environment), nor should there be.  What I'm talking about is that we can't now start to "play" with those definitions because someone feels like they're now entitled to say "ME TOO!". 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 30, 2017, 04:45:16 PM
Point of story is "what is the message moving forward?"    It should NOT be that "if someone makes fun of my cold sore, I just hit the lottery".

Who is saying that?   :huh:
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on November 30, 2017, 04:55:52 PM
What I'm talking about is that we can't now start to "play" with those definitions because someone feels like they're now entitled to say "ME TOO!". 

This is what I have been thinking in my head but unable to say. I hate to keep coming back to the cold sore, but if some asshat comments on your cold sore, you didn't just get sexually assaulted.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Podaar on November 30, 2017, 05:01:42 PM
What I'm talking about is that we can't now start to "play" with those definitions because someone feels like they're now entitled to say "ME TOO!". 

This is what I have been thinking in my head but unable to say. I hate to keep coming back to the cold sore, but if some asshat comments on your cold sore, you didn't just get sexually assaulted.

Admittedly, I haven't read every comment in this thread, but has anyone suggested that?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 30, 2017, 07:05:25 PM
What I'm talking about is that we can't now start to "play" with those definitions because someone feels like they're now entitled to say "ME TOO!". 

This is what I have been thinking in my head but unable to say. I hate to keep coming back to the cold sore, but if some asshat comments on your cold sore, you didn't just get sexually assaulted.

Admittedly, I haven't read every comment in this thread, but has anyone suggested that?
Not directly. However what we keep seeing are examples of legitimate assault being supported by allegations of simple douchebaggery, or even innocuous behavior. When you do that you imply equivalency, I think.

He grabbed my butt when we posed for a picture.
He threatened to have me fired if I didn't sleep with him.
He got me drunk and took liberties.
He tried to kiss me once.
He locked me in a room and jerked off in front of me.


One of these is not like the others.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: orcus116 on November 30, 2017, 08:40:41 PM
That reminds me of a conversation my friend and I had the other day with the word harassment versus assault. By definition they're two completely different ends of the same spectrum however even minor claims of harassment are being equated to the level of assault, and that is a little disturbing because it means that the second one of these new stories breaks it's not "so and so did this" it's "so and so is a rapist". At least that's how the mob is perceiving anyone is being accused lately unless I'm taking some really pessimistic view of all this. I even had a good friend just casually toss out the "guess who made it to the while male perv list today" a week or so back in a manner that suggested that he didn't even really look into what the accusations were; he saw a name and assumed the person was just "another one of them".
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on November 30, 2017, 10:08:21 PM
What I'm talking about is that we can't now start to "play" with those definitions because someone feels like they're now entitled to say "ME TOO!". 

This is what I have been thinking in my head but unable to say. I hate to keep coming back to the cold sore, but if some asshat comments on your cold sore, you didn't just get sexually assaulted.

Again, I think there is a point being missed here, and maybe that's on me for not explaining it well.  No one is suggesting that Matt Lauer making a snide remark about a cold sore = sexual harassment.  Alone and in and of itself it may be a rude comment, but he is allowed to have an opinion and he is allowed to be an asshole.  The Variety article points out in several instances the power that he had in that work environment - see Ann Curry as yet another example - an environment where a woman working under him could reasonably fear she'd be sacked should he find something objectionable about her, including a cold sore on her face that she has no control over having.

Would a man working under Lauer have had similar concerns if he had a cold sore?  Maybe.  I don't know.  This is all speculation here, but I highly doubt it.  And THAT is point.  Not that it happened.  Not that this situation apart from everything else he's been accused of would have brought the same outcome, but that the perception by staff that there was a threat of job loss if a woman wasn't up to some standard is concerning.  And it is part of the whole picture of the power dynamics that exist when sexual harassers are allowed to harass unimpeded.  For fucking years and years.

One can simply chalk it up to women being overly emotional about it, if that makes it feel any better.  But unless you've been there, you have NO IDEA what it is like to work in that environment day in and day out.  Especially when it is made crystal clear to you from day one just who is in charge of everything impacting your career.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Cool Chris on November 30, 2017, 10:34:00 PM
Harmony, you are right, I cannot have any idea what it is like to work under such conditions. I do not disagree with much of what you are saying, and if we are picking sides, I believe I am on your side. I am probably not saying well what I am trying to, so I will try and revisit this tomorrow. Thank you for bringing the appropriate perspective to this thread. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on November 30, 2017, 11:40:02 PM
I'm sure Cold Sore Girl at NBC felt quite uncomfortable in her work and I'm very sympathetic to her cause. Toxic work environments will fucking kill you. I've been there. And I'm sure Lauer contributed greatly to that environment. I just don't like that as an example of why he's a swine, and I think it's counterproductive to reason; something I'm a big fan of.

In short, I'm on CSG's side, I think Lauer is a dick, and we should be able to discuss it without muddying up the waters with unrelated issues.

Quote
Would a man working under Lauer have had similar concerns if he had a cold sore?
That's hard to say, but I'm not sure it's a pro or con either way. For one thing, we don't know if her concern was valid. If we're going to be judgemental we have to also consider the fact that she might just be paranoid. But there's also the fact that people react to things differently. Men can fuck with each other in ways we can't (or at least shouldn't) fuck with womenfolk. My reaction in CSG's situation probably would have been to tell him "STFU, you bald-headed freak." I'm sure there are women that would have done the same, just as there are men who would have quietly fretted over the potential loss of their job. Basically, I'm willing to concede that Lauer's a dick and that he fostered a bad work environment, but not that every woman who felt uncomfortable working for NBC has a valid bitch about him and/or gender bias.

Again, let's stick with what we know. It seems damning enough.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Podaar on December 01, 2017, 05:51:37 AM
Again, let's stick with what we know. It seems damning enough.

Yeah, that would probably be best. Both you and Harmony have made excellent posts that pretty much says it all, but because this is a discussion forum I find I still have something I'd like to bring up.

Fruitcake.

No one likes it, right. Yet someone with pour taste is going to give you one at some point. Still, being given one isn't very sinister and could even be characterized as generous.

Now, imagine having a fruitcake lowered to you in a basket along with the lotion you are required to put on your skin. No one is saying that either gift rises to the level of getting the hose again (an out and out assault), but both the lotion and the fruitcake feel different now, don't you think? Both are now part of the power Grumb has over you and are about as pleasant as having HSV-1.

Is that characterization over the top? Probably, but remember the woman in the Variety article brought up the cold sore. Why do you suppose she would do that? If we presume she's as reasonable as us, and that under normal circumstances she would just consider the comment as garden variety douche-baggery, why now does she mention it in relationship to her work environment? The only reason I can think of is that his cold sore comment is a fruitcake in a basket at the end of a long rope.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: portnoy311 on December 01, 2017, 06:16:06 AM
That is certainly a post on a message board.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 01, 2017, 07:40:27 AM
Point of story is "what is the message moving forward?"    It should NOT be that "if someone makes fun of my cold sore, I just hit the lottery".

Who is saying that?   :huh:

I don't know that anyone has outright said that here, but that's the inevitable next step here, once you clear out the more egregious actions.   Why is that even being mentioned in the context of Lauer, with whom we allegedly already have a rape beef?   Isn't that piling on?   It's sort of like arresting a guy for a home invasion where he tied up, raped and killed the people that lived there, then saying "Oh, and we gave him a parking ticket because he didn't feed the meter."

And if we're buying into the whole power of "#MeToo!", then the women reading that are going to search for similarities.  And the clear rape victim is going to find common ground, but the woman who "felt bad" at work is going to find that common ground too.  I don't hear anyone saying "well, "#MeToo" only goes so far!"
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 01, 2017, 07:50:00 AM
What I'm talking about is that we can't now start to "play" with those definitions because someone feels like they're now entitled to say "ME TOO!". 

This is what I have been thinking in my head but unable to say. I hate to keep coming back to the cold sore, but if some asshat comments on your cold sore, you didn't just get sexually assaulted.

Again, I think there is a point being missed here, and maybe that's on me for not explaining it well.  No one is suggesting that Matt Lauer making a snide remark about a cold sore = sexual harassment.  Alone and in and of itself it may be a rude comment, but he is allowed to have an opinion and he is allowed to be an asshole.  The Variety article points out in several instances the power that he had in that work environment - see Ann Curry as yet another example - an environment where a woman working under him could reasonably fear she'd be sacked should he find something objectionable about her, including a cold sore on her face that she has no control over having.

Would a man working under Lauer have had similar concerns if he had a cold sore?  Maybe.  I don't know.  This is all speculation here, but I highly doubt it.  And THAT is point.  Not that it happened.  Not that this situation apart from everything else he's been accused of would have brought the same outcome, but that the perception by staff that there was a threat of job loss if a woman wasn't up to some standard is concerning.  And it is part of the whole picture of the power dynamics that exist when sexual harassers are allowed to harass unimpeded.  For fucking years and years.

One can simply chalk it up to women being overly emotional about it, if that makes it feel any better.  But unless you've been there, you have NO IDEA what it is like to work in that environment day in and day out.  Especially when it is made crystal clear to you from day one just who is in charge of everything impacting your career.

I've given already about four examples of that kind of thing happening in a gender neutral way, and I've got enough more to clog this forum for the rest of the afternoon (here's a good one:  a VP had a party for his team; it was at a local pool hall, because the VP liked to drink tequila and play billiards.   My boss asked his team, "who's going to represent?  Who likes tequila?"  I didn't but I am very good at pool, so I said that.   He arranged for me to be driven to the party with a coworker, he made sure that coworker was with me the entire time, and basically said "take one for the team".   Now, I get it, tequila shooters and pool is not a bad gig, but think of how that could go wrong, yet it was clear to me that workplace progress hinged on my actions and behavior at that party.  The more I could drink tequila and win at pool, the better I - and all of my team - would be.  I didn't go to law school and get an MBA to have my career hinge on whether I put down a good enough base for my drinking, or was able to gauge the condition of the pool table in a drunken state.)

I'm saying this:   if we're going to agree that we have to have extreme scrutiny on the behavior of men in the workplace so that we don't have a sexual context to things that shouldn't have that sexual context, then it's only fair and just that we have extreme scrutiny to make sure that "sexual context" just doesn't mean "the gender of one person was female".   We cannot get to a situation where the opposite occurs, where we can push and cajole performance from men in a non-sexual way, but cannot do that with women.   We want gender equality at work, we want equal pay for equal work, but now we're seeming to imply that there are different standards for judging the performance of men and women at work because of their gender?   How does that work? 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 01, 2017, 07:57:57 AM
Would a man working under Lauer have had similar concerns if he had a cold sore?  Maybe.  I don't know.  This is all speculation here, but I highly doubt it.  And THAT is point.  Not that it happened.  Not that this situation apart from everything else he's been accused of would have brought the same outcome, but that the perception by staff that there was a threat of job loss if a woman wasn't up to some standard is concerning.  And it is part of the whole picture of the power dynamics that exist when sexual harassers are allowed to harass unimpeded.  For fucking years and years.

One can simply chalk it up to women being overly emotional about it, if that makes it feel any better.  But unless you've been there, you have NO IDEA what it is like to work in that environment day in and day out.  Especially when it is made crystal clear to you from day one just who is in charge of everything impacting your career.

This is hard for me, Harmony, because I do have a deep respect for you and your position, and please do not forget that.   But if I may, I want to gently push back on that thought for a second.   What do I not have any idea of?   No, there was no sexual component to it, but the environment I was in at GE was 24/7/365.   If I got a call at midnight because we needed to have a deal done in Germany the next day, I was expected to answer it.   If "year end" was on Christmas Day, and we needed a deal closed, I was expected to do it.  And I was expected to travel on sometimes hours notice.   I was expected to drink tequila and not embarrass myself and my team afterward.   I was expected to dress a certain way, and act a certain way, and behave a certain way.   It was never spelled out, but the path was clear.  And here's the deal:   I didn't have to do ANY of it.  I could have moved on at any time.    Working for GE, I would have gotten a job at almost any company in the world had I pursued it hard enough, and while it doesn't apply to the girl busking fries at McDonald's, I can assure you that any of the interns working for NBC at that time have not hurt for work with any of fifteen other networks/production companies.  When NBC was owned by GE, a job that demanded $100K on the free market in any GE division paid somewhere around $75K or $80K because of the prestige factor of working for the network, working with "talent" and (for some) working at 30 Rock.

Let me be clear:  I'm not suggesting that ANY woman should shut their pie hole and take it.  That's NOT what I'm saying at all.  But I am saying that at least at this point, when we're talking about "upending the gender power imbalance" - which is a good thing, no doubt, no question - we have to be careful that we are really talking about GENDER imbalance, and not just a more general "workplace power imbalance". 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 01, 2017, 08:02:11 AM
Again, let's stick with what we know. It seems damning enough.

Yeah, that would probably be best. Both you and Harmony have made excellent posts that pretty much says it all, but because this is a discussion forum I find I still have something I'd like to bring up.

Fruitcake.

No one likes it, right. Yet someone with pour taste is going to give you one at some point. Still, being given one isn't very sinister and could even be characterized as generous.

Now, imagine having a fruitcake lowered to you in a basket along with the lotion you are required to put on your skin. No one is saying that either gift rises to the level of getting the hose again (an out and out assault), but both the lotion and the fruitcake feel different now, don't you think? Both are now part of the power Grumb has over you and are about as pleasant as having HSV-1.

Is that characterization over the top? Probably, but remember the woman in the Variety article brought up the cold sore. Why do you suppose she would do that? If we presume she's as reasonable as us, and that under normal circumstances she would just consider the comment as garden variety douche-baggery, why now does she mention it in relationship to her work environment? The only reason I can think of is that his cold sore comment is a fruitcake in a basket at the end of a long rope.

And I'm saying that maybe her bringing it up is a fact that would work against that presumption.    Though I have to be honest; as much as I dislike fruitcake I'm not at all getting your analogy.  When does my basket come? 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 01, 2017, 08:05:36 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/britney-spears-disaster-artist-ari-graynor-reveals-beat-pop-star-breakout-role-214238489.html
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on December 01, 2017, 08:09:07 AM
Point of story is "what is the message moving forward?"    It should NOT be that "if someone makes fun of my cold sore, I just hit the lottery".

Who is saying that?   :huh:

I don't know that anyone has outright said that here, but that's the inevitable next step here, once you clear out the more egregious actions.   Why is that even being mentioned in the context of Lauer, with whom we allegedly already have a rape beef?   Isn't that piling on?   It's sort of like arresting a guy for a home invasion where he tied up, raped and killed the people that lived there, then saying "Oh, and we gave him a parking ticket because he didn't feed the meter."

And if we're buying into the whole power of "#MeToo!", then the women reading that are going to search for similarities.  And the clear rape victim is going to find common ground, but the woman who "felt bad" at work is going to find that common ground too.  I don't hear anyone saying "well, "#MeToo" only goes so far!"

It seems like you are having an issue with whoever authored that article in Variety.  Fair enough.  If you don't like "piling on" with Lauer, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Have you ever know an attorney in a court of law trying to defend their client by bringing up witnesses in order to sway the jury as to the character of the alleged victim?  You know, like a former boyfriend who might testify that his former girlfriend liked rough sex?  Or a coworker who thought the victim always dressed a little bit slutty?  Piling on is pretty much SOP.  My opinion is that I don't mind a bit of piling on where warranted.  And the part of the article demonstrates to me - as I said previously - just the tenor of the atmosphere these women were subjected to.

As for reaching for similarities, I guess I have more faith that HR departments going forward are going to become experts at being able to weed out those bringing forth issues that don't amount to legit harassment.  But I tell you what, when you see an example of a woman "reaching for similarities" to take advantage of a poor guy being unfairly accused in the work place, please post them for us here.  I'd gladly discuss it then.

EB mentioned earlier someone he knew being accused on a college campus.  We could discuss it more, but I do think that sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual assault on college campuses are not quite the same things.  They have similarities, but vastly differing rules of engagement.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on December 01, 2017, 08:12:05 AM
What I'm talking about is that we can't now start to "play" with those definitions because someone feels like they're now entitled to say "ME TOO!". 

This is what I have been thinking in my head but unable to say. I hate to keep coming back to the cold sore, but if some asshat comments on your cold sore, you didn't just get sexually assaulted.

Again, I think there is a point being missed here, and maybe that's on me for not explaining it well.  No one is suggesting that Matt Lauer making a snide remark about a cold sore = sexual harassment.  Alone and in and of itself it may be a rude comment, but he is allowed to have an opinion and he is allowed to be an asshole.  The Variety article points out in several instances the power that he had in that work environment - see Ann Curry as yet another example - an environment where a woman working under him could reasonably fear she'd be sacked should he find something objectionable about her, including a cold sore on her face that she has no control over having.

Would a man working under Lauer have had similar concerns if he had a cold sore?  Maybe.  I don't know.  This is all speculation here, but I highly doubt it.  And THAT is point.  Not that it happened.  Not that this situation apart from everything else he's been accused of would have brought the same outcome, but that the perception by staff that there was a threat of job loss if a woman wasn't up to some standard is concerning.  And it is part of the whole picture of the power dynamics that exist when sexual harassers are allowed to harass unimpeded.  For fucking years and years.

One can simply chalk it up to women being overly emotional about it, if that makes it feel any better.  But unless you've been there, you have NO IDEA what it is like to work in that environment day in and day out.  Especially when it is made crystal clear to you from day one just who is in charge of everything impacting your career.

I've given already about four examples of that kind of thing happening in a gender neutral way, and I've got enough more to clog this forum for the rest of the afternoon (here's a good one:  a VP had a party for his team; it was at a local pool hall, because the VP liked to drink tequila and play billiards.   My boss asked his team, "who's going to represent?  Who likes tequila?"  I didn't but I am very good at pool, so I said that.   He arranged for me to be driven to the party with a coworker, he made sure that coworker was with me the entire time, and basically said "take one for the team".   Now, I get it, tequila shooters and pool is not a bad gig, but think of how that could go wrong, yet it was clear to me that workplace progress hinged on my actions and behavior at that party.  The more I could drink tequila and win at pool, the better I - and all of my team - would be.  I didn't go to law school and get an MBA to have my career hinge on whether I put down a good enough base for my drinking, or was able to gauge the condition of the pool table in a drunken state.)

I'm saying this:   if we're going to agree that we have to have extreme scrutiny on the behavior of men in the workplace so that we don't have a sexual context to things that shouldn't have that sexual context, then it's only fair and just that we have extreme scrutiny to make sure that "sexual context" just doesn't mean "the gender of one person was female".   We cannot get to a situation where the opposite occurs, where we can push and cajole performance from men in a non-sexual way, but cannot do that with women.   We want gender equality at work, we want equal pay for equal work, but now we're seeming to imply that there are different standards for judging the performance of men and women at work because of their gender?   How does that work?

Tell me, were you told you could lose your job and possibly your career if you hadn't agreed to drink tequila and play pool?

As to "different standards" I don't want that.  Women are fully capable of sexually harassing men in the workplace.  They should be held accountable too.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on December 01, 2017, 08:13:53 AM
Would a man working under Lauer have had similar concerns if he had a cold sore?  Maybe.  I don't know.  This is all speculation here, but I highly doubt it.  And THAT is point.  Not that it happened.  Not that this situation apart from everything else he's been accused of would have brought the same outcome, but that the perception by staff that there was a threat of job loss if a woman wasn't up to some standard is concerning.  And it is part of the whole picture of the power dynamics that exist when sexual harassers are allowed to harass unimpeded.  For fucking years and years.

One can simply chalk it up to women being overly emotional about it, if that makes it feel any better.  But unless you've been there, you have NO IDEA what it is like to work in that environment day in and day out.  Especially when it is made crystal clear to you from day one just who is in charge of everything impacting your career.

This is hard for me, Harmony, because I do have a deep respect for you and your position, and please do not forget that.   But if I may, I want to gently push back on that thought for a second.   What do I not have any idea of?   No, there was no sexual component to it, but the environment I was in at GE was 24/7/365.   If I got a call at midnight because we needed to have a deal done in Germany the next day, I was expected to answer it.   If "year end" was on Christmas Day, and we needed a deal closed, I was expected to do it.  And I was expected to travel on sometimes hours notice.   I was expected to drink tequila and not embarrass myself and my team afterward.   I was expected to dress a certain way, and act a certain way, and behave a certain way.   It was never spelled out, but the path was clear.  And here's the deal:   I didn't have to do ANY of it.  I could have moved on at any time.    Working for GE, I would have gotten a job at almost any company in the world had I pursued it hard enough, and while it doesn't apply to the girl busking fries at McDonald's, I can assure you that any of the interns working for NBC at that time have not hurt for work with any of fifteen other networks/production companies.  When NBC was owned by GE, a job that demanded $100K on the free market in any GE division paid somewhere around $75K or $80K because of the prestige factor of working for the network, working with "talent" and (for some) working at 30 Rock.

Let me be clear:  I'm not suggesting that ANY woman should shut their pie hole and take it.  That's NOT what I'm saying at all.  But I am saying that at least at this point, when we're talking about "upending the gender power imbalance" - which is a good thing, no doubt, no question - we have to be careful that we are really talking about GENDER imbalance, and not just a more general "workplace power imbalance".

I've experience both types of workplaces.  I'd take the one that you describe over the one where I was being pressured to blow the boss 6 days a week and twice on Sunday.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 04, 2017, 10:18:04 AM
A TON of great ideas here and great thoughts. Seriously.

It seems like you are having an issue with whoever authored that article in Variety.  Fair enough.  If you don't like "piling on" with Lauer, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Have you ever know an attorney in a court of law trying to defend their client by bringing up witnesses in order to sway the jury as to the character of the alleged victim?  You know, like a former boyfriend who might testify that his former girlfriend liked rough sex?  Or a coworker who thought the victim always dressed a little bit slutty?  Piling on is pretty much SOP.  My opinion is that I don't mind a bit of piling on where warranted.  And the part of the article demonstrates to me - as I said previously - just the tenor of the atmosphere these women were subjected to.

Of course they do that, and of course you're right.  The difference is, though, that each and every one of those witnesses can be cross-examined, and the opposing party has the right - right then and there, in a closed session, with no Twitter - to present their own evidence, and the jury HAS to weight both sides.   I'm not against piling on, per se; if Matt Lauer did this once, five times, or 50, we need to know about ALL 50, no doubt.   But it has to be of merit, and can't be just for the sake of "piling on". 

Quote
As for reaching for similarities, I guess I have more faith that HR departments going forward are going to become experts at being able to weed out those bringing forth issues that don't amount to legit harassment.  But I tell you what, when you see an example of a woman "reaching for similarities" to take advantage of a poor guy being unfairly accused in the work place, please post them for us here.  I'd gladly discuss it then.

It's the internet.  I'm sure I could find anything if I really looked hard enough. Haha.   But the faith in HR is only as good as the degree to which the process is followed.  You've really hit on the problem here.  These are complex situations, and we're trying to reach some consensus and some uniformity here, but we're looking at five or six stakeholders that have ZERO common interests.   Courts care about the plaintiff and the defendant, PERIOD.  Nothing else is a consideration (do you think the OJ jury would have ruled as they did if they knew then what they know now?  What they knew even weeks after trial?).   Companies don't give two shits about the individual actors.  They care about the workplace and the status of their company in the general marketplace, PERIOD.   Nothing else matters (proof:  Matt Lauer, their SINGLE most profitable news talent was jettisoned the MINUTE he became a liability).   The accuser cares about herself and MAYBE other women.   They don't care about the accused or the workplace.   The accused cares about himself, PERIOD.  So you have all these competing interests, and no one way of looking at things accounts for all those varied interests.

All I'm saying is that you can't then have a system that puts an inordinate amount of weight in any one basket, because then it's too easily gamed. 

Quote
EB mentioned earlier someone he knew being accused on a college campus.  We could discuss it more, but I do think that sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual assault on college campuses are not quite the same things.  They have similarities, but vastly differing rules of engagement.

I think that is another way of saying some of the things I'm trying to say above, to be honest.   The rules of engagement ARE different, and different again when you talk about interpersonal relationships.   What is a crime at work is likely (in some cases) a desirable and attractive trait in a personal relationship.   And, and let's be honest, many of these things aren't really about the position.   I don't want to use personal examples here, as it's inappropriate, but I look around me - I have two daughters - and see too many examples where guy 1 does something, and he's creepy, and guy 2 does the exact same thing but because he's Guy 2 (or not guy 1) it's cute or charming, or endearing. 

Look, "No" is always "no", and I'm not saying otherwise.   If my wife is not in the mood, it doesn't happen.  There's no "taking one for the team" when it comes to this stuff. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 04, 2017, 10:36:07 AM
Tell me, were you told you could lose your job and possibly your career if you hadn't agreed to drink tequila and play pool?

As to "different standards" I don't want that.  Women are fully capable of sexually harassing men in the workplace.  They should be held accountable too.

Do I have to be told?  Does that make a difference?  Because to be honest, I wasn't told - explicitly - but then again, it wasn't the kind of thing that went into your annual review documentation.   

Sidebar, here, the psychology of these stories is profoundly interesting to me.   The lack of judgment and contextual awareness is baffling to me.   I'm not one of them, but I have a couple friends that are the quintessential "ladies men", and neither, to my knowledge, have to rely on exposing their d*** or threatening jobs, and yet they have, if not "Gene Simmons" numbers, then at least the local equivalent.   Without discounting the discomfort to women, and not at all excusing what is clearly criminal behavior, but I can't help thinking that if Matt Lauer had even a modicum of self-restraint, he could have had a long line of lady friends and no one would have cared (except for the odd woman who wanted more from him).  I wish I could say otherwise, but the fact that I have never once ever walked into a room, whipped out my flute and started playing it is less about not wanting to be a sexual predator, and more about recognizing, implicitly, that it's not the best tactic for getting to where I wanted to go.   I work on Howard Stern's assumption, that is, my best move is not forcing some strange woman watch me take a shower.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 04, 2017, 10:38:16 AM
Would a man working under Lauer have had similar concerns if he had a cold sore?  Maybe.  I don't know.  This is all speculation here, but I highly doubt it.  And THAT is point.  Not that it happened.  Not that this situation apart from everything else he's been accused of would have brought the same outcome, but that the perception by staff that there was a threat of job loss if a woman wasn't up to some standard is concerning.  And it is part of the whole picture of the power dynamics that exist when sexual harassers are allowed to harass unimpeded.  For fucking years and years.

One can simply chalk it up to women being overly emotional about it, if that makes it feel any better.  But unless you've been there, you have NO IDEA what it is like to work in that environment day in and day out.  Especially when it is made crystal clear to you from day one just who is in charge of everything impacting your career.

This is hard for me, Harmony, because I do have a deep respect for you and your position, and please do not forget that.   But if I may, I want to gently push back on that thought for a second.   What do I not have any idea of?   No, there was no sexual component to it, but the environment I was in at GE was 24/7/365.   If I got a call at midnight because we needed to have a deal done in Germany the next day, I was expected to answer it.   If "year end" was on Christmas Day, and we needed a deal closed, I was expected to do it.  And I was expected to travel on sometimes hours notice.   I was expected to drink tequila and not embarrass myself and my team afterward.   I was expected to dress a certain way, and act a certain way, and behave a certain way.   It was never spelled out, but the path was clear.  And here's the deal:   I didn't have to do ANY of it.  I could have moved on at any time.    Working for GE, I would have gotten a job at almost any company in the world had I pursued it hard enough, and while it doesn't apply to the girl busking fries at McDonald's, I can assure you that any of the interns working for NBC at that time have not hurt for work with any of fifteen other networks/production companies.  When NBC was owned by GE, a job that demanded $100K on the free market in any GE division paid somewhere around $75K or $80K because of the prestige factor of working for the network, working with "talent" and (for some) working at 30 Rock.

Let me be clear:  I'm not suggesting that ANY woman should shut their pie hole and take it.  That's NOT what I'm saying at all.  But I am saying that at least at this point, when we're talking about "upending the gender power imbalance" - which is a good thing, no doubt, no question - we have to be careful that we are really talking about GENDER imbalance, and not just a more general "workplace power imbalance".

I've experience both types of workplaces.  I'd take the one that you describe over the one where I was being pressured to blow the boss 6 days a week and twice on Sunday.

As would I.   And certainly, the difference in choices probably speaks a lot to the point that you're trying to make.   I recognize that.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on December 05, 2017, 09:45:46 AM
Add another one to the list.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/danny-masterson-fired-netflixs-ranch-rape-allegations-1064353https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/danny-masterson-fired-netflixs-ranch-rape-allegations-1064353

(https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/scale_crop_768_433/2017/12/danny_masterson.jpg)

Danny Masterson is done at Netflix.

The actor, who is facing multiple allegations of rape, has been fired from the streaming giant's scripted comedy The Ranch.

"As a result of ongoing discussions, Netflix and the producers have written Danny Masterson out of The Ranch. [Monday] was his last day on the show, and production will resume in early 2018 without him," Netflix said in a statement.Danny Masterson is done at Netflix.

The actor, who is facing multiple allegations of rape, has been fired from the streaming giant's scripted comedy The Ranch.

"As a result of ongoing discussions, Netflix and the producers have written Danny Masterson out of The Ranch. [Monday] was his last day on the show, and production will resume in early 2018 without him," Netflix said in a statement.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on December 05, 2017, 10:37:56 AM
John Oliver got into it with Dustin Hoffman

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/12/04/john-oliver-grills-dustin-hoffman-over-sexual-harassment-allegation/?utm_term=.6cc052bc1b4c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/12/04/john-oliver-grills-dustin-hoffman-over-sexual-harassment-allegation/?utm_term=.6cc052bc1b4c)
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on December 05, 2017, 10:42:06 AM
John Oliver got into it with Dustin Hoffman

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/12/04/john-oliver-grills-dustin-hoffman-over-sexual-harassment-allegation/?utm_term=.6cc052bc1b4c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/12/04/john-oliver-grills-dustin-hoffman-over-sexual-harassment-allegation/?utm_term=.6cc052bc1b4c)

Can you copy and paste the text? I'm hitting a paywall.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on December 05, 2017, 10:48:30 AM
Quote
NEW YORK — HBO host John Oliver hammered Dustin Hoffman about allegations of sexual harassment and the actor fired back with a ferocious defense, as a seemingly benign screening became an explosive conversation about Hollywood sexual misconduct on Monday night.

“This is something we’re going to have to talk about because … it’s hanging in the air,” Oliver said to Hoffman at the discussion, an anniversary screening of the film “Wag the Dog.” He was alluding to an allegation made by Anna Graham Hunter last month that Hoffman groped her and made inappropriate comments when she was a 17-year-old intern on the set of the 1985 TV movie “Death of a Salesman.”

“It’s hanging in the air?” Hoffman said. “From a few things you’ve read, you’ve made an incredible assumption about me,” he noted, adding sarcastically, “You’ve made the case better than anyone else can. I’m guilty.”

The “Last Week Tonight” personality was moderating a 20th-anniversary screening panel at the 92nd Street Y on behalf of the Tribeca Institute, with stars Hoffman, Robert De Niro, producer Jane Rosenthal and director Barry Levinson on the stage. About halfway through the hour-long talk, Oliver brought up the issue to Hoffman, saying he found the actor’s statements about the matter wanting. Nearly the entire rest of the discussion was then dominated by Oliver, Hoffman and the subject of sexual harassment.

Hoffman had offered a conditional apology at the time of the allegation, and on Monday he underscored an “if” included in that statement, noting several times that he didn’t really believe he had done anything wrong. He said that he had not engaged in groping, that he didn’t recall meeting Graham Hunter and that all his comments on set were simply how members of “a family” talked to one another.

“I still don’t know who this woman is,” Hoffman said. “I never met her; if I met her, it was in concert with other people.”

Oliver dismissed that as insufficient, then cited Hoffman’s response at the time of the allegation that the actor’s behavior on set was “not reflective of” who he really is.

“It’s ‘not reflective of who I am’ — it’s that kind of response to this stuff that pisses me off,” Oliver said. “It is reflective of who you were. If you’ve given no evidence to show it didn’t [happen] then there was a period of time for a while when you were a creeper around women. It feels like a cop-out to say ‘It wasn’t me.’ Do you understand how that feels like a dismissal?”


Hoffman accused Oliver of “putting me on display” and said he felt blindsided because neither Oliver nor Tribeca organizers had told him that the moderator would raise the subject.

Several times, however, Oliver sought to move on and talk about the film, but Hoffman returned to the subject of harassment, growing testy as he said Oliver was not keeping an “open mind” while unquestionably believing accusers.

“Do you believe this stuff you read?” Hoffman asked.

“Yes,” Oliver replied. “Because there’s no point in [an accuser] lying.”

“Well, there’s a point in her not bringing it up for 40 years,” Hoffman said.

“Oh, Dustin,” Oliver said disapprovingly, putting his head in his hand.

At one point, Rosenthal tried to jump in and defuse the situation.

“You also have the way men and women worked together [in the past]; you are in a situation where ‘that was then, this is now,’” Rosenthal said. “[And] what difference is all this going to make? … This conversation doesn’t do any good. We have a platform here. How are we moving [the issue] forward?”

Oliver, though, said he felt it was imperative to talk about it. “This isn’t fun for me,” the TV personality noted. “[But] there’s an elephant in the room because, this particular incident, a conversation has not been had.” He noted that the film they were gathering to discuss, “Wag The Dog,” dealt with sexual misconduct by a powerful man.

Rosenthal then said of the film, “It wasn’t produced by Weinstein or Miramax…Kevin Spacey wasn’t starring in it. Let’s look at real sexual criminal predators.”

“That’s a low bar,” Oliver retorted.

The back-and-forth mainly centered on the Graham Hunter allegations, and also at times invoked an accusation by Hoffman’s “The Graduate” co-star Katharine Ross that he had groped her on the set of the classic film. It did not manifestly address another claim, by the writer Wendy Riss Gatsiounis, that Hoffman had propositioned her inappropriately in a pitch meeting in 1991.

The showdown happened as sexual harassment issues continue to roil the entertainment world, with a growing number of men falling under suspicion and being held to account, often publicly. The exchange, however, marked a rarity in the post-Harvey Weinstein era, which has seen accused harassers generally offer short statements in response to allegations, if they respond at all. Very few have engaged in long public conversations about it, and almost none have sounded as defiant as Hoffman did Monday night.

After the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, more women and men have come forward against a growing list of well-known male figures. (Erin Patrick O'Connor, Nicki DeMarco/The Washington Post)
The conversation grew increasingly angry as it wore on. When Hoffman began talking about his long career, Oliver interjected with “Oh, Jesus.”

“So now I can’t even finish a sentence?” Hoffman asked.

Hoffman also cited “Tootsie” as evidence of his feminist bona fides.

“I would not have made that movie if I didn’t have an incredible respect for women,” Hoffman said. “The theme of the movie is he became a better man by having been a woman.”

He said he had an awakening of sorts when, dressed as a woman for that film, he was ignored by some men on the set. “I said when I came home to my wife that I never realized men were that were brutal, that men are that obvious,” Hoffman recounted. “They didn’t find me attractive and they just erased me.”

He added, “What makes me sad is that I grew up in an environment in which we were taught to want the girls on the covers of magazines, the models, and I said to my wife ‘Look at how many interesting women I passed up … look at how many women were erased by me because of the generation I was born.’ That was a very strong reason for me wanting to make that movie.

“It’s shocking to me you don’t see me more clearly,” he then said to Oliver. “That you go by a couple of things you read.”

As the panel went on some in the crowd became involved.

“Move on. Let it go,” one woman could be heard shouting to Oliver. She was soon drowned out by other people, one of whom said “Shame on you.” Another yelled to Oliver, “Thank you for believing women,” to loud cheers.

Oliver said that he considered not addressing the subject at what was intended as a genial chat but then decided he bore an obligation.

“I can’t leave certain things unaddressed,” the host said. “The easy way is not to bring anything up. Unfortunately that leaves me at home later at night hating myself. ‘Why the … didn’t I say something? No one stands up to powerful men.’”

“Am I the powerful man?” Hoffman asked.

The actor asked why the questioner wouldn’t hear his side. “Keep a kind of open mind if you can, John.”

“I’m trying,” Oliver said.

“Well I’m trying harder than you are,” Hoffman shot back.

Tensions did not cool throughout the session.

“You weren’t there,” Hoffman said to Oliver about the “Salesman” set.

“I’m glad [I wasn’t],” the host replied
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on December 05, 2017, 11:05:34 AM
That sounds super uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on December 05, 2017, 11:06:02 AM
I can't help thinking that if Matt Lauer had even a modicum of self-restraint, he could have had a long line of lady friends and no one would have cared (except for the odd woman who wanted more from him).  I wish I could say otherwise, but the fact that I have never once ever walked into a room, whipped out my flute and started playing it is less about not wanting to be a sexual predator, and more about recognizing, implicitly, that it's not the best tactic for getting to where I wanted to go.   I work on Howard Stern's assumption, that is, my best move is not forcing some strange woman watch me take a shower.

Maybe his wife would've cared?  His children?

I don't think it really has much to do with wanting to sleep with many women.  I think it has to do with ego, power, and control.  Look at the clip of Dustin Hoffman recently posted.  Listen to how he justifies his inappropriate behavior - "we were on a set" "we always do this" "it was the end of a difficult day" along with all the other typical responses, "we have a different recollection of events" "it was the way things were back then" "IF my actions were wrong THEN I'll apologize".  No ownership, no self-reflection, no contrition or even thought to the alleged victims - and there were others if you believe women like Meryl Streep.  His own ego doesn't possibly allow for acknowledgment that he crossed a line.  It is absolutely pathetic.

At any rate - I saw this the other day and it made me think of this thread.  We could all use a little levity from time to time and it falls in line with Howard Stern's philosophy.

https://medium.com/@chrisrosenthall/nobody-wants-to-see-your-dick-a-guide-to-handling-your-newfound-wealth-and-influence-132708f771b9
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: AngelBack on December 05, 2017, 11:33:07 AM
I'm still pissed about the 27million in hush funds that tax payers have paid to settle harassment claims against congressmen in secret.

The average U.S. citizen pays around $180,000.00 over a lifetime in federal income tax.  That means that 150 people worked their entire career just to keep victims quiet and to do so in secret.  Makes me furious.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on December 05, 2017, 11:38:53 AM
I'm still pissed about the 27million in hush funds that tax payers have paid to settle harassment claims against congressmen in secret.

The average U.S. citizen pays around $180,000.00 over a lifetime in federal income tax.  That means that 150 people worked their entire career just to keep victims quiet and to do so in secret.  Makes me furious.

If it is truly "hush money" just to get people to "keep quiet," then I get it.  But if what we are talking about is settlement money to settle a legitimate dispute, that's very different.  In my experience, the media does not know the difference.  Nor do they care. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Grappler on December 05, 2017, 11:54:24 AM

I don't think it really has much to do with wanting to sleep with many women.  I think it has to do with ego, power, and control.  Look at the clip of Dustin Hoffman recently posted.  Listen to how he justifies his inappropriate behavior - "we were on a set" "we always do this" "it was the end of a difficult day" along with all the other typical responses, "we have a different recollection of events" "it was the way things were back then" "IF my actions were wrong THEN I'll apologize".  No ownership, no self-reflection, no contrition or even thought to the alleged victims - and there were others if you believe women like Meryl Streep.  His own ego doesn't possibly allow for acknowledgment that he crossed a line.  It is absolutely pathetic.

Totally agreed.  I've read things where a handful of actors allude to a long-standing rule in Hollywood, where infidelity is allowed "on set" by Hollywood couples.  One partner is off filming a movie, and as long as they don't bring the infidelity home, the couple is fine.  So actors have this notion that they should be allowed to behave in a certain manner while working.

Hollywood has loose morals and the industry has allowed this behavior for far too long.  It may be (un)common knowledge that movie stars are "allowed" to fool around while away and on-set, but that set is also a workplace where subordinate employees or other actors should be protected and not treated like groupies.  Contrary to his comment, I'd say that Dustin Hoffman is a very powerful man, especially while on a film-set - he is held in very high regard and could even have the power to have people kicked off the production.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: AngelBack on December 05, 2017, 11:54:59 AM
I'm still pissed about the 27million in hush funds that tax payers have paid to settle harassment claims against congressmen in secret.

The average U.S. citizen pays around $180,000.00 over a lifetime in federal income tax.  That means that 150 people worked their entire career just to keep victims quiet and to do so in secret.  Makes me furious.

If it is truly "hush money" just to get people to "keep quiet," then I get it.  But if what we are talking about is settlement money to settle a legitimate dispute, that's very different.  In my experience, the media does not know the difference.  Nor do they care.

From a legal perspective I'm sure there is a difference.  But I'm not sure I care.  An elected official can misbehave and then dip into the public treasury to cover his deeds?  And is such a way the tax payers can't know about it?  Are you saying this is just "the cost of doing business" even if it is in settlement?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on December 05, 2017, 12:16:47 PM
I'm still pissed about the 27million in hush funds that tax payers have paid to settle harassment claims against congressmen in secret.

The average U.S. citizen pays around $180,000.00 over a lifetime in federal income tax.  That means that 150 people worked their entire career just to keep victims quiet and to do so in secret.  Makes me furious.

If it is truly "hush money" just to get people to "keep quiet," then I get it.  But if what we are talking about is settlement money to settle a legitimate dispute, that's very different.  In my experience, the media does not know the difference.  Nor do they care.

From a legal perspective I'm sure there is a difference.  But I'm not sure I care.  An elected official can misbehave and then dip into the public treasury to cover his deeds?  And is such a way the tax payers can't know about it?  Are you saying this is just "the cost of doing business" even if it is in settlement?

No.  And there are several issues with what you said. 

First off, I am not saying elected officials can misbehave and cover it up with public funds.  That isn't what I was saying at all.  Let's take as a hypothetical a situation where it is TRULY a borderline case.  I'm not going to give specific facts, because there is a huge spectrum.  But let's say it was a case where a neutral observer who could see and hear EVERYTHING that went on couldn't tell whether an encounter was truly consensual or whether it was coerced and inappropriate.  From the "harasser's" perspective, it was truly a good faith belief that everything was consensual.  From the "harassee's" perspective, she felt it was forced and she had to go along with it.  But let's say it falls squarely "on the line" and could go either way.  Let's further presume that the "harasser" genuinely feels he did nothing wrong, but is truly sorry that his actions were construed otherwise.  After full disclosure and negotiations, EVERYONE involved feels that it is better to reach a compromise and compensate the "harassee" with $100,000.  She feels vindicated and feels she is fully compensated for any harm she suffered.  She is spared having to air everything and tell the story several times over to attorneys, in front of a jury, having herself out there in the press repeatedly, etc.  And both sides save perhaps $1,000,000 in attorneys' fees bringing the case to trial.  That compromise and resolution makes sense from a practical perspective.  It isn't a matter of "from a legal perspective."  I'm talking purely from a practical perspective.  That isn't "paying someone off to keep them quiet."  That is a legitimate compromise that addresses everyone's interests to a great extent.  And it is a resolution that ultimatley saves taxpayers a lot of money.  "Hush money" isn't a cost of doing business.  But unfortunately, having a litigation budget in place to address claims that may come up IS a legitimate cost of business.  Resolving claims than can be resolved less expensively than taking them to trial saves money in that budget.

Lastly, as far as taxpayers not knowing anything about it, it depends.  If the claim is against the government and/or a government employee acting in his official capacity, settlement money is generally paid by the government, and the settlement is a matter of public record.  If he is being sued as a private citizen, he or his insurance company pay (i.e., not the government), and the settlement is generally private and confidential.  But the latter situation isn't what you were asking about.  I only present it for completeness.  Again, in the former situation, it isn't a secret.  Taxpayers can know about it because it is public record.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on December 05, 2017, 01:27:51 PM
Hollywood has loose morals and the industry has allowed this behavior for far too long.  It may be (un)common knowledge that movie stars are "allowed" to fool around while away and on-set, but that set is also a workplace where subordinate employees or other actors should be protected and not treated like groupies.  Contrary to his comment, I'd say that Dustin Hoffman is a very powerful man, especially while on a film-set - he is held in very high regard and could even have the power to have people kicked off the production.

I'd like to push back a bit gently on this in that it isn't JUST Hollywood and it has nothing to do with their "loose morals".  This is literally happening all over the place.  The Hollywood - and DC - component is just more in the news because of the 'celebrity' status of those involved.  I do agree that Hoffman is a very powerful man, on and off a film set.  And power definitely plays into sexual harassment in the workplace.  So it isn't surprising.

Rolling Stone has the entire John Oliver and Dustin Hoffman clip.  The bit that cram posted is essentially an edited version.  I think if you watch Hoffman's body language and mannerisms, you'll see a bit more than what that edited written version conveys.  Robert DeNiro is sitting there looking extremely uncomfortable too.

The allegations about Danny Masterson have been out there for quite some time.  IIRC, his publicist claims that his 'religion' of Scientology, makes it a-ok to rape a woman you are in a relationship with.  Don't even get me started on Scientology. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 05, 2017, 02:05:35 PM
John Oliver got into it with Dustin Hoffman

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/12/04/john-oliver-grills-dustin-hoffman-over-sexual-harassment-allegation/?utm_term=.6cc052bc1b4c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/12/04/john-oliver-grills-dustin-hoffman-over-sexual-harassment-allegation/?utm_term=.6cc052bc1b4c)

I have real problems with both sides, but primarily with Oliver's statement '“Yes,” Oliver replied. “Because there’s no point in [an accuser] lying.”' and the audience member yelling to Oliver, '“Thank you for believing women,” to loud cheers.'

You can't say either of those things, and if your predicating assumption are that accusers, generally, have no point in lying, or that we are going to believe "women" as a class, that kind of defeats the purpose of dialogue, and also undermines the very principle of "innocent until proven guilty".   I don't think we should talk in terms of classes or even groups.  I'm sure there are people on both sides that are more or less truthful, and maybe even the same person on different issues.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on December 05, 2017, 03:25:13 PM
John Oliver got into it with Dustin Hoffman

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/12/04/john-oliver-grills-dustin-hoffman-over-sexual-harassment-allegation/?utm_term=.6cc052bc1b4c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/12/04/john-oliver-grills-dustin-hoffman-over-sexual-harassment-allegation/?utm_term=.6cc052bc1b4c)

I have real problems with both sides, but primarily with Oliver's statement '“Yes,” Oliver replied. “Because there’s no point in [an accuser] lying.”' and the audience member yelling to Oliver, '“Thank you for believing women,” to loud cheers.'

You can't say either of those things, and if your predicating assumption are that accusers, generally, have no point in lying, or that we are going to believe "women" as a class, that kind of defeats the purpose of dialogue, and also undermines the very principle of "innocent until proven guilty".   I don't think we should talk in terms of classes or even groups.  I'm sure there are people on both sides that are more or less truthful, and maybe even the same person on different issues.
That was pretty concerning to me, as well.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on December 05, 2017, 03:42:25 PM
Yup.  Oliver was WAY out of line in several respects.  How about we weigh all the evidence and draw reasoned conclusions based on what the evidence actually shows rather than drawing kneejerk conclusions based on preconceived biases about which side we like better?  Doing anything less than that does a grave disservice to ALL parties involved.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on December 05, 2017, 07:37:20 PM
Yeah that really pisses me off, especially seeing as I typically like Oliver. I posted in this thread a few pages back several example of women admitting that they lied about rape allegations for a variety of reasons.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on December 05, 2017, 09:30:52 PM
Yeah that really pisses me off, especially seeing as I typically like Oliver. I posted in this thread a few pages back several example of women admitting that they lied about rape allegations for a variety of reasons.

Can I ask though?  Those women who lied about their rapes - in any of those cases were the men in those scenarios being accused by more than one woman?  Because I start to get more suspicious when there are multiple accusers of the same guy.  Multiple accusers who do not know one another and yet tell very similar stories.  Does that give anyone pause at all?

Do women lie about being raped?  I'm sure there are some.  People lie about all kinds of things.  All the time.  Men do not corner the market on lying, for sure.

Hoffman has at least 3 women telling similar stories.  And while an ass grab or telling sexual stories among the cast and crew may not rise to the level of sexual assault, they most certainly are inappropriate behavior in the workplace.  These issues should be discussed.  Maybe that wasn't the forum, that could be debated, sure.  I don't fault Oliver for asking the questions.  And if you look at the recording, Oliver tries to change the subject but Hoffman returns to it.  But I'm happy the question was asked.

Hoffman brings up his role in Tootsie - a movie I happened to like A LOT.  I may even own it.  But listen to what he says about his female counterpart, Dorothy, in that role.  He talks about her like because she is unattractive and therefore unfuckable, it's somehow the worst thing in the world for a woman.  Really?  That's what he got out of that role?  Now I don't want to be accused of piling on, but somehow because he played a woman in a movie, we should all assume he couldn't possibly be an asshole to women he works with?  It's kind of like, "I can't possibly be a racist.  I have a black friend!"

I don't know if anyone has read Hunter's letters that she wrote and mailed to her sister at the time of her contacts with Hoffman while making Death of a Salesman.  Could she be lying?  I guess.  Seems kind of weird that 30+ years ago she'd take the time to write all this down, send to London to her sister, with a long term plan to disclose it all down the line sometime in order to make Hoffman look bad. It is worth a read, IMO.  https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/dustin-hoffman-sexually-harassed-me-i-was-17-guest-column-1053466






Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on December 05, 2017, 10:28:07 PM
I don't fault Oliver for asking the questions.  And if you look at the recording, Oliver tries to change the subject but Hoffman returns to it.  But I'm happy the question was asked.

If I were Hoffman, I'd probably keep coming back to it as well if, as Oliver did to him, the implication was basically, "Yeah, you denied it.  But we all know you did it, and I just don't see how you can live with yourself.  But, whatever.  I don't have to live in your disgusting life.  Let's move on."  I don't fault Hoffman at all for saying, "Now just one minute!  We're NOT moving on if that's the implication you're going to drop."  Oliver is more the problem than the solution at that point.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on December 05, 2017, 11:00:52 PM
I'll also point out the false dilemma in Oliver's reasoning that really troubled me, which is that a person need not be a liar to tell a falsehood. He could simply be mistaken. I'm very confident that the women making these accusations are sincere and honest, not a liar among them, but that doesn't mean I don't question their story, or consider that it might be exaggerated or mis-remembered.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on December 06, 2017, 06:16:32 AM
Yeah that really pisses me off, especially seeing as I typically like Oliver. I posted in this thread a few pages back several example of women admitting that they lied about rape allegations for a variety of reasons.

Can I ask though?  Those women who lied about their rapes - in any of those cases were the men in those scenarios being accused by more than one woman?  Because I start to get more suspicious when there are multiple accusers of the same guy.  Multiple accusers who do not know one another and yet tell very similar stories.  Does that give anyone pause at all?


I honestly don't recall. I agree that when multiple women come forward it seems to be a little more credible, and should call for pause, but it still doesn't mean certainty. People are greedy and people hold grudges. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that men and women will lie about a situation to ride a possible gravy train. I remember when Toyota had the floor mat issue in the prius, hundreds of people came forward saying their gas pedal got stuck and caused them to crash. Many of those were proven false (though the defect was real) and they were just trying to get free repairs or get in on a lawsuit. Same thing with Michael Jackson. Did he do shady stuff with kids? Probably. But once shit started hitting the fan, there were tons of people who came forward saying Michael molested their child despite never having any kind of contact with the man.

All I'm saying is that just because multiple women start coming forward doesn't mean we should accept their stories as complete truths by default.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on December 06, 2017, 07:29:05 AM
All I'm saying is that just because multiple women start coming forward doesn't mean we should accept their stories as complete truths by default.
There shouldn't be a "default," period.  Each case needs to be carefully considered without rushing to judgment one way or the other.  That's the only fair way to handle these kinds of things.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 06, 2017, 08:04:56 AM
Yeah that really pisses me off, especially seeing as I typically like Oliver. I posted in this thread a few pages back several example of women admitting that they lied about rape allegations for a variety of reasons.

Can I ask though?  Those women who lied about their rapes - in any of those cases were the men in those scenarios being accused by more than one woman?  Because I start to get more suspicious when there are multiple accusers of the same guy.  Multiple accusers who do not know one another and yet tell very similar stories.  Does that give anyone pause at all?

Do women lie about being raped?  I'm sure there are some.  People lie about all kinds of things.  All the time.  Men do not corner the market on lying, for sure.

Hoffman has at least 3 women telling similar stories.  And while an ass grab or telling sexual stories among the cast and crew may not rise to the level of sexual assault, they most certainly are inappropriate behavior in the workplace.  These issues should be discussed.  Maybe that wasn't the forum, that could be debated, sure.  I don't fault Oliver for asking the questions.  And if you look at the recording, Oliver tries to change the subject but Hoffman returns to it.  But I'm happy the question was asked.

I don't care if it is a 100 women; you need to assess each one on their merits.  That doesn't mean that they won't get tried in a court of law at the same time, but you DO NOT say "Oh, well, these first two checked out; every one after gets added to the list!"   In fact, the more that come out, in one sense, the more scrutiny they should have because of, well, "#MeToo".   This isn't about "women", Harmony.   This is not about "believing women" or giving women their "moment to speak".   

Quote

Hoffman brings up his role in Tootsie - a movie I happened to like A LOT.  I may even own it.  But listen to what he says about his female counterpart, Dorothy, in that role.  He talks about her like because she is unattractive and therefore unfuckable, it's somehow the worst thing in the world for a woman.  Really?  That's what he got out of that role?  Now I don't want to be accused of piling on, but somehow because he played a woman in a movie, we should all assume he couldn't possibly be an asshole to women he works with?  It's kind of like, "I can't possibly be a racist.  I have a black friend!"

I don't know if anyone has read Hunter's letters that she wrote and mailed to her sister at the time of her contacts with Hoffman while making Death of a Salesman.  Could she be lying?  I guess.  Seems kind of weird that 30+ years ago she'd take the time to write all this down, send to London to her sister, with a long term plan to disclose it all down the line sometime in order to make Hoffman look bad. It is worth a read, IMO.  https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/dustin-hoffman-sexually-harassed-me-i-was-17-guest-column-1053466

I'm not sure what to make of the "Tootsie" thing; I never saw that movie (honestly, I'm not a huge Hoffman fan; every time I watch him I have a voice in my head that says "I'm ACTING here!  Watch me!   I'M ACTING HERE!".  He's like the Yngwie Malmsteen of acting, in my book.)  but I question that.   Tom Cruise isn't qualified to be a Military Policeman, though he played one on screen.  Alan Alda is not a doctor though he knows how to yell "STAT!" with gravitas.    And I happen to agree with you on the notion of that woman being "fuckable".   It just screams of deflection, if you ask me.   

As to your last paragraph, fair enough; but those writings do not apply to ANY other accuser, only her.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on December 06, 2017, 08:12:12 AM
All I'm saying is that just because multiple women start coming forward doesn't mean we should accept their stories as complete truths by default.
There shouldn't be a "default," period.  Each case needs to be carefully considered without rushing to judgment one way or the other.  That's the only fair way to handle these kinds of things.

But part of the big shift that's happenening is people being willing to believe the accusers when before they didn't.  Most tof the time we don't have any evidence other than what the accusers says, it's either believe or don't.    So if we go back to not believing nothing will have changed.    I know my argument probably doesn't hold up, I suck at this.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on December 06, 2017, 08:15:08 AM
All I'm saying is that just because multiple women start coming forward doesn't mean we should accept their stories as complete truths by default.
There shouldn't be a "default," period.  Each case needs to be carefully considered without rushing to judgment one way or the other.  That's the only fair way to handle these kinds of things.

But part of the big shift that's happenening is people being willing to believe the accusers when before they didn't.  Most tof the time we don't have any evidence other than what the accusers says, it's either believe or don't.    So if we go back to not believing nothing will have changed.    I know my argument probably doesn't hold up, I suck at this.

It isn't a matter of believing or not believing. It's a matter of acknowledging the seriousness of the accusation and taking it to a court of law.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on December 06, 2017, 08:16:55 AM
All I'm saying is that just because multiple women start coming forward doesn't mean we should accept their stories as complete truths by default.
There shouldn't be a "default," period.  Each case needs to be carefully considered without rushing to judgment one way or the other.  That's the only fair way to handle these kinds of things.

But part of the big shift that's happenening is people being willing to believe the accusers when before they didn't.  Most tof the time we don't have any evidence other than what the accusers says, it's either believe or don't.    So if we go back to not believing nothing will have changed.    I know my argument probably doesn't hold up, I suck at this.

It isn't a matter of believing or not believing. It's a matter of acknowledging the seriousness of the accusation and taking it to a court of law.

But isn't that simply the status quo we had before all this?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 06, 2017, 08:20:13 AM
All I'm saying is that just because multiple women start coming forward doesn't mean we should accept their stories as complete truths by default.
There shouldn't be a "default," period.  Each case needs to be carefully considered without rushing to judgment one way or the other.  That's the only fair way to handle these kinds of things.

But part of the big shift that's happenening is people being willing to believe the accusers when before they didn't.  Most tof the time we don't have any evidence other than what the accusers says, it's either believe or don't.    So if we go back to not believing nothing will have changed.    I know my argument probably doesn't hold up, I suck at this.

You don't suck at this; your ideas are often thought provoking.   But I think Chino nailed it; we're talking a lot about "now we BELIEVE them!".  That's not really the standard, and that's not really enough.    Okay, we take these accusations seriously; that's a good first step.  NOW WHAT? 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 06, 2017, 08:20:53 AM
All I'm saying is that just because multiple women start coming forward doesn't mean we should accept their stories as complete truths by default.
There shouldn't be a "default," period.  Each case needs to be carefully considered without rushing to judgment one way or the other.  That's the only fair way to handle these kinds of things.

But part of the big shift that's happenening is people being willing to believe the accusers when before they didn't.  Most tof the time we don't have any evidence other than what the accusers says, it's either believe or don't.    So if we go back to not believing nothing will have changed.    I know my argument probably doesn't hold up, I suck at this.

It isn't a matter of believing or not believing. It's a matter of acknowledging the seriousness of the accusation and taking it to a court of law.

But isn't simply the status quo we had before all this?

Apparently not; Weinstein is not a felon.   A whole bunch of other people aren't felons. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on December 06, 2017, 08:28:13 AM
All I'm saying is that just because multiple women start coming forward doesn't mean we should accept their stories as complete truths by default.
There shouldn't be a "default," period.  Each case needs to be carefully considered without rushing to judgment one way or the other.  That's the only fair way to handle these kinds of things.

But part of the big shift that's happenening is people being willing to believe the accusers when before they didn't.  Most tof the time we don't have any evidence other than what the accusers says, it's either believe or don't.    So if we go back to not believing nothing will have changed.    I know my argument probably doesn't hold up, I suck at this.
Willing to believe is great. It's great for any argument and honestly should be the default for everybody. Necessarily believing is bullshit and no better or worse than refusing to believe.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on December 06, 2017, 08:31:22 AM
It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that men and women will lie about a situation to ride a possible gravy train. I remember when Toyota had the floor mat issue in the prius, hundreds of people came forward saying their gas pedal got stuck and caused them to crash. Many of those were proven false (though the defect was real) and they were just trying to get free repairs or get in on a lawsuit. Same thing with Michael Jackson. Did he do shady stuff with kids? Probably. But once shit started hitting the fan, there were tons of people who came forward saying Michael molested their child despite never having any kind of contact with the man.

All I'm saying is that just because multiple women start coming forward doesn't mean we should accept their stories as complete truths by default.

I don't mean my next 2 posts to be blunt - I'm time pressed, nothing more.

What exactly is the gravy train that women get for coming forward?  If we stick with the Hoffman account by Ms. Hunter, what is her payoff?  Being accused of being a liar?  Being harassed for daring to blow the whistle on a beloved actor?  Because that is definitely happening.  I supposed she could be looking for her 5 minutes of fame?  I dunno.  Talking about my past experiences with sexual harassment makes my anxiety flair up and I want to crawl into a little ball and hide under the covers.  It certainly doesn't make me feel good to talk about them and relive them.  And yes, I do realize that there are people out there who want the spotlight on them more than anything.  But in my experience with sexual abuse survivors, they mostly just want it to go away.

And gosh, talking about something embarrassing like sexual harassment or assault doesn't strike me as even in the same ballpark as people looking to get free stuff after an auto recall.  I mean, I get your point but, eeeesh.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Harmony on December 06, 2017, 08:33:33 AM
I don't care if it is a 100 women; you need to assess each one on their merits.

A few pages back, I shared one of my experiences with this subject.  Most of you here were very supportive even though my case doesn't have any "merit" in that it is simply a he said/she said.  Does that mean you really didn't believe me because I couldn't possibly have any proof to back up my claims?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 06, 2017, 09:01:12 AM
I don't care if it is a 100 women; you need to assess each one on their merits.

A few pages back, I shared one of my experiences with this subject.  Most of you here were very supportive even though my case doesn't have any "merit" in that it is simply a he said/she said.  Does that mean you really didn't believe me because I couldn't possibly have any proof to back up my claims?

I didn't say that at all.   I did believe you, given the knowledge I have (i.e. I've never met you, I wouldn't know you in person if you were standing on my foot, and have no track record - other than your posts - to verify your veracity).   BUT... that doesn't mean that a) I'm ready to castrate the guy that did that to you, or b) that I would necessarily believe the next person in your workplace.   It does mean that if you walked into my law office (full disclosure: I don't practice this kind of law) I would likely take your case and help you to the extent of my powers.   Again, though, that doesn't mean that I take the NEXT woman that walks in, or that I would take EVERY woman who walks in and says "[Insert that guy's name]".   

Do you see the difference?  (It's important to me that you do, because I don't want there to be even the WHIFF of disrespect coming from my post). 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on December 06, 2017, 09:07:28 AM
I don't care if it is a 100 women; you need to assess each one on their merits.

A few pages back, I shared one of my experiences with this subject.  Most of you here were very supportive even though my case doesn't have any "merit" in that it is simply a he said/she said.  Does that mean you really didn't believe me because I couldn't possibly have any proof to back up my claims?

I didn't say that at all.   I did believe you, given the knowledge I have (i.e. I've never met you, I wouldn't know you in person if you were standing on my foot, and have no track record - other than your posts - to verify your veracity).   BUT... that doesn't mean that a) I'm ready to castrate the guy that did that to you, or b) that I would necessarily believe the next person in your workplace.   It does mean that if you walked into my law office (full disclosure: I don't practice this kind of law) I would likely take your case and help you to the extent of my powers.   Again, though, that doesn't mean that I take the NEXT woman that walks in, or that I would take EVERY woman who walks in and says "[Insert that guy's name]".   

Do you see the difference?  (It's important to me that you do, because I don't want there to be even the WHIFF of disrespect coming from my post).

I don't think talking about it in the context of lawyers and courts muddles the issue, that's the disconnect that often happens. Going back to basics, why did you believe Harmony,  is it because you listened (or in this case read) to her? Then why wouldn't you believe the next person? 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on December 06, 2017, 09:17:25 AM
I don't think talking about it in the context of lawyers and courts muddles the issue, that's the disconnect that often happens. Going back to basics, why did you believe Harmony,  is it because you listened (or in this case read) to her? Then why wouldn't you believe the next person? 

I'm not trying to answer FOR Stadler.  But since my thinking is somewhat similar to his, the question seems equally applicable to me, so forgive me for jumping in.

For me, it's not a question of "belief."  As of her telling of the story, I have heard one side.  I'm not prepared to make credibility determinations or pass judgment based on that.  It's not really a question of "belief" or "disbelief."  If pressed, I would have a hard time saying whether I believe or disbelieve her.  I have no reason to disbelieve.  But I think committing to judgment is still premature and pointless. 

BUT that doesn't mean I don't feel empathetic and supporting.  I do.  Forgive me if this sounds cold, but whether or not I fully believe not only her version of events, but the meaning she ascribes to them is not really relevant or productive, IMO.  Being supportive is.  I don't need to believe to support.  If a subordinate reports some conduct like that in my workplace, I don't necessarily have to default to accepting her version as true in order for me to rightly tell her, "What you are reporting is very serious, and we are going to take this very seriously and thoroughly investigate to make sure that things like this don't happen in the workplace."  She is entitled to my and the employer's full support and empathy, even if there isn't enough at the outset (or ever) to believe her.  Again, there's a difference between judgment and support.  Belief is necessary for the former, but not necessarily for the latter.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 06, 2017, 09:33:32 AM
I don't care if it is a 100 women; you need to assess each one on their merits.

A few pages back, I shared one of my experiences with this subject.  Most of you here were very supportive even though my case doesn't have any "merit" in that it is simply a he said/she said.  Does that mean you really didn't believe me because I couldn't possibly have any proof to back up my claims?

I didn't say that at all.   I did believe you, given the knowledge I have (i.e. I've never met you, I wouldn't know you in person if you were standing on my foot, and have no track record - other than your posts - to verify your veracity).   BUT... that doesn't mean that a) I'm ready to castrate the guy that did that to you, or b) that I would necessarily believe the next person in your workplace.   It does mean that if you walked into my law office (full disclosure: I don't practice this kind of law) I would likely take your case and help you to the extent of my powers.   Again, though, that doesn't mean that I take the NEXT woman that walks in, or that I would take EVERY woman who walks in and says "[Insert that guy's name]".   

Do you see the difference?  (It's important to me that you do, because I don't want there to be even the WHIFF of disrespect coming from my post).

I don't think talking about it in the context of lawyers and courts muddles the issue, that's the disconnect that often happens. Going back to basics, why did you believe Harmony,  is it because you listened (or in this case read) to her? Then why wouldn't you believe the next person?

Well, with the caveat that I know none of this with the certainty it would take to punish a third party, I have talked with her in the past (here).  We've talked about other issues.   She is opinionated (that's a compliment) but not extremely so.  She seems reasonable and open to alternative explanations for why things happen as they do, again, in other contexts.    Here, on this board, where there is no potential for action or backlash, I feel like the downside to telling a "story" is far greater than the upside to telling the truth, or not saying anything at all.   

The point here is, I didn't JUST believe her out the gate.  I didn't JUST believe her because she's a woman.   I assessed the situation.  If the next woman is also a poster here, that has the same sort of bona fides as Harmony, yeah, I'll believe her.   If the next woman is a new member, with one post under her belt, a screen name that says "VengeangeAgainstMen", and a confession that says "and we need to kill this motherfucker for his perpetuation of the male power stereotype, amiright?  You're either with me or against me!" maybe not so much.   

Do you believe me when I tell you something from my real life?   Do you (or did you) believe SeventhSon?   Why, or why not?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on December 06, 2017, 09:49:40 AM

The point here is, I didn't JUST believe her out the gate.  I didn't JUST believe her because she's a woman.   I assessed the situation.  If the next woman is also a poster here, that has the same sort of bona fides as Harmony, yeah, I'll believe her.   If the next woman is a new member, with one post under her belt, a screen name that says "VengeangeAgainstMen", and a confession that says "and we need to kill this motherfucker for his perpetuation of the male power stereotype, amiright?  You're either with me or against me!" maybe not so much.   

That's reasonable,  how we've interacted with someone influences our behaviour.  I just don't think it's beyond us to afford some of  the same humanization to people we haven't talked to. 

Quote
Do you believe me when I tell you something from my real life?   Do you (or did you) believe SeventhSon?   Why, or why not?

I do, I don't have a reason not to and the stakes are much lower anyway. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: vtgrad on December 06, 2017, 10:33:52 AM
I don't think talking about it in the context of lawyers and courts muddles the issue, that's the disconnect that often happens. Going back to basics, why did you believe Harmony,  is it because you listened (or in this case read) to her? Then why wouldn't you believe the next person? 

I'm not trying to answer FOR Stadler.  But since my thinking is somewhat similar to his, the question seems equally applicable to me, so forgive me for jumping in.

For me, it's not a question of "belief."  As of her telling of the story, I have heard one side.  I'm not prepared to make credibility determinations or pass judgment based on that.  It's not really a question of "belief" or "disbelief."  If pressed, I would have a hard time saying whether I believe or disbelieve her.  I have no reason to disbelieve.  But I think committing to judgment is still premature and pointless. 

BUT that doesn't mean I don't feel empathetic and supporting.  I do.  Forgive me if this sounds cold, but whether or not I fully believe not only her version of events, but the meaning she ascribes to them is not really relevant or productive, IMO.  Being supportive is.  I don't need to believe to support.  If a subordinate reports some conduct like that in my workplace, I don't necessarily have to default to accepting her version as true in order for me to rightly tell her, "What you are reporting is very serious, and we are going to take this very seriously and thoroughly investigate to make sure that things like this don't happen in the workplace."  She is entitled to my and the employer's full support and empathy, even if there isn't enough at the outset (or ever) to believe her.  Again, there's a difference between judgment and support.  Belief is necessary for the former, but not necessarily for the latter.

THAT... was well said.

The situation I present below is nothing akin to sexual harassment, but it is akin to the basic premise of these situations, which is one person makes a claim and the other person refutes that claim (he-said, she-said... though I hate using that terminology).

As a 17-yr old, my best friend, his younger sister, and I went to a certain retailer to buy a few cd's and magazines.  While standing in the magazine isle, I tucked-in my shirt and while doing that, realized I'd left my wallet at home; I told them both that I was going to go home for my wallet and I'd be right back.  I left.

About 25-minutes later I returned to the store and couldn't find them; figuring they bummed a ride with somebody else, I went to his house.  When I got there I was immediately confronted by their father stating that I had convinced them to shop-lift several magazines.  Turns out that as I left the store "Loss Prevention" detained them for shop-lifting (I got out before they could stop me).  The security camera footage (without audio) showed us all in the isle and showed me tucking in my shirt, which security assumed was me suggesting that my friend and his sister put the mags in their pants.  And of course, my friend and his sister were upset because their father was upset... and their father fully invested in "Loss Prevention's" assumption that I put them up to it and then left (I went back to the retailer to speak with loss prevention on my own and hot-headed... that's another story).

I was pulled aside by my friend and told "whatever my sister and I say, just agree with it and all this will blow over in a few days"; I said "what the hell are you talking about"?  In order to ease their father's anger, they both backed up the story that I put them up to it and he confronted me saying that the younger sister would do anything for me and I should be ashamed... yada, yada.  He said they had the security footage showing me giving them instructions on how to do it... I said they had security camera footage of me tucking my shirt in and that's all (no audio, no context).  I asked my friend to back me up... saying "you know I didn't tell you to steal anything, help me out!"  He said nothing.

So, I'm saying I didn't so anything... my friend and his sister are saying I did so that their father can lay the blame somewhere else... and the only evidence is video of me tucking in my shirt without audio for context (circumstancial at best).  So who should be believed?  What evidence proves, beyond basic doubt, that the accused did anything?

It all becomes he-said, she-said... but we automatically assume the guilt of the accused.  I'm not saying that any of these accusers are lying, and I'm not saying that any of them are being honest either... I'm saying (as many others have said more eloquently than I) that judgment shouldn't be levied without hearing all sides and viewing evidence (what evidence there is if any).  There's nothing more disheartening than being accused of something and being automatically presumed guilty... just as there is nothing more disheartening than being the accuser and being dismissed.  This whole situation is slippery, and knee-jerk reactions to either side of the spectrum simply pours more oil on that slippery surface.

Looking back, I understand what my friend and his sister were trying to do (and it did blow over, though I never admitted or agreed with them), but the cost was loss of respect and trust from a man that I considered a friend... and to this day, when I see him he avoids contact with me (20-yrs later).  No one would listen to me or my defense, everything I said was thrown back in my face with snide comments and sarcasm, and that helped no one, on either side of the argument.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 06, 2017, 11:17:06 AM

The point here is, I didn't JUST believe her out the gate.  I didn't JUST believe her because she's a woman.   I assessed the situation.  If the next woman is also a poster here, that has the same sort of bona fides as Harmony, yeah, I'll believe her.   If the next woman is a new member, with one post under her belt, a screen name that says "VengeangeAgainstMen", and a confession that says "and we need to kill this motherfucker for his perpetuation of the male power stereotype, amiright?  You're either with me or against me!" maybe not so much.   

That's reasonable,  how we've interacted with someone influences our behaviour.  I just don't think it's beyond us to afford some of  the same humanization to people we haven't talked to. 


But Bosk answered that.   "Humanize" doesn't mean "believe unequivocally".  Police are a great example here; when they're flagged down, and the person says "Three guys just grabbed my purse and ran away!" or "I just got beaten for no reason at all!" whether they "believe" or not is immaterial.  They do, though, treat the "victim" with respect, dignity and human compassion until all the facts are on the table. 
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on December 06, 2017, 12:26:58 PM
Kind of went under the radar but John Hockenberry recently got "outed." That bums me out as I really enjoyed his show and thought he was a great host. Seems he was a real asshole, though, and his abusive behavior went on over 10 years hosting The Takeaway. Hearing Todd Zwillich's (new host) apology to the former employee he was interviewing was pretty rough.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: AngelBack on December 06, 2017, 12:31:57 PM
Kind of went under the radar but John Hockenberry recently got "outed." That bums me out as I really enjoyed his show and thought he was a great host. Seems he was a real asshole, though, and his abusive behavior went on over 10 years hosting The Takeaway. Hearing Todd Zwillich's (new host) apology to the former employee he was interviewing was pretty rough.

That is disappointing. I have watched a ton of the World Science Festival debates that he moderated and always thoroughly enjoyed him.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: bosk1 on December 06, 2017, 12:35:58 PM
Hollywood has loose morals and the industry has allowed this behavior for far too long.  It may be (un)common knowledge that movie stars are "allowed" to fool around while away and on-set, but that set is also a workplace where subordinate employees or other actors should be protected and not treated like groupies.  Contrary to his comment, I'd say that Dustin Hoffman is a very powerful man, especially while on a film-set - he is held in very high regard and could even have the power to have people kicked off the production.

I'd like to push back a bit gently on this in that it isn't JUST Hollywood and it has nothing to do with their "loose morals".  This is literally happening all over the place.  The Hollywood - and DC - component is just more in the news because of the 'celebrity' status of those involved. 

Wanted to come back to this.  I agree wholeheartedly that it isn't JUST Hollywood and D.C.  It would be sad if there is a mad push to out as many potential abusers in Hollywood and D.C., and then the whole thing just dies down and gets swept under the rug again as if it isn't a bigger problem.  But that said, Hollywood and D.C. are indeed cesspools and seem to breed this sort of behavior more than the typical, everyday environment most of us live in.  I don't think they are more in the news simply because of the celebrity status of those involved.  I think a big reason you have so many people coming forward from those two environments is because it happens more frequently and is (or was) more easily swept under the rug in those environments.  And since we live in a society that tends to idolize our entertainers and those in power, I have no problem whatsoever with shining a spotlight on those two environments specifically.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Grappler on December 06, 2017, 12:48:42 PM
Hollywood has loose morals and the industry has allowed this behavior for far too long.  It may be (un)common knowledge that movie stars are "allowed" to fool around while away and on-set, but that set is also a workplace where subordinate employees or other actors should be protected and not treated like groupies.  Contrary to his comment, I'd say that Dustin Hoffman is a very powerful man, especially while on a film-set - he is held in very high regard and could even have the power to have people kicked off the production.

I'd like to push back a bit gently on this in that it isn't JUST Hollywood and it has nothing to do with their "loose morals".  This is literally happening all over the place.  The Hollywood - and DC - component is just more in the news because of the 'celebrity' status of those involved. 

Wanted to come back to this.  I agree wholeheartedly that it isn't JUST Hollywood and D.C.  It would be sad if there is a mad push to out as many potential abusers in Hollywood and D.C., and then the whole thing just dies down and gets swept under the rug again as if it isn't a bigger problem.  But that said, Hollywood and D.C. are indeed cesspools and seem to breed this sort of behavior more than the typical, everyday environment most of us live in.  I don't think they are more in the news simply because of the celebrity status of those involved.  I think a big reason you have so many people coming forward from those two environments is because it happens more frequently and is (or was) more easily swept under the rug in those environments.  And since we live in a society that tends to idolize our entertainers and those in power, I have no problem whatsoever with shining a spotlight on those two environments specifically.

Oh, I agree.  I was just commenting on the prevalence of accusations coming out of Hollywood, where actors tend to believe that film sets are their own personal playgrounds.  The whole #metoo thing flooded my facebook feed that day, proving that so many people in general have been subjected to improper workplace behaviors and sexual harassment/abuse.

Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on December 06, 2017, 01:24:15 PM
Look slike Franken is stepping down tomorrow
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Chino on December 06, 2017, 01:40:24 PM
Another woman has come out against Franken.

Then I saw Al Franken. I only bug celebrities for pictures when it’ll make my foster mom happy. She loves Franken, so I asked to get a picture with him. We posed for the shot. He immediately put his hand on my waist, grabbing a handful of flesh. I froze. Then he squeezed. At least twice.

I’d been married for two years at the time; I don’t let my husband touch me like that in public because I believe it diminishes me as a professional woman. Al Franken’s familiarity was inappropriate and unwanted. It was also quick; he knew exactly what he was doing.

It shrunk me. It’s like I was no longer a person, only ornamental. It said, “You don’t matter—and I do.” He wanted to cop a feel and he demonstrated he didn’t need my permission.



I'm sorry, and maybe I'm being a pig here, but is this really in the same category of sexual assault?
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 06, 2017, 01:48:41 PM
Hollywood has loose morals and the industry has allowed this behavior for far too long.  It may be (un)common knowledge that movie stars are "allowed" to fool around while away and on-set, but that set is also a workplace where subordinate employees or other actors should be protected and not treated like groupies.  Contrary to his comment, I'd say that Dustin Hoffman is a very powerful man, especially while on a film-set - he is held in very high regard and could even have the power to have people kicked off the production.

I'd like to push back a bit gently on this in that it isn't JUST Hollywood and it has nothing to do with their "loose morals".  This is literally happening all over the place.  The Hollywood - and DC - component is just more in the news because of the 'celebrity' status of those involved. 

Wanted to come back to this.  I agree wholeheartedly that it isn't JUST Hollywood and D.C.  It would be sad if there is a mad push to out as many potential abusers in Hollywood and D.C., and then the whole thing just dies down and gets swept under the rug again as if it isn't a bigger problem.  But that said, Hollywood and D.C. are indeed cesspools and seem to breed this sort of behavior more than the typical, everyday environment most of us live in.  I don't think they are more in the news simply because of the celebrity status of those involved.  I think a big reason you have so many people coming forward from those two environments is because it happens more frequently and is (or was) more easily swept under the rug in those environments.  And since we live in a society that tends to idolize our entertainers and those in power, I have no problem whatsoever with shining a spotlight on those two environments specifically.

Well, in a very real way, the power differential is greater there.    You have interns - some right out of high school - working side by side with men (yes) that have 30 years in leading this country, and have voted - meaningfully on ALL - not some, but ALL - of the major issues we've faced over those past years.   You have Hollywood moguls meeting with actresses that they view as nothing more than "talent", and even then, "talent" usually incorporates to one degree or another "nice tits".   I know for me, even though I've worked for corporations for most of my life, and have spent time in the same room as Jack Welch, et al, on any given WEEK the people I encounter are either subordinates, but I don't wield the kind of power where anyone above me wouldn't throw me to the wolves in a fucking HEARTBEAT, or are a few levels above me, and are not that different in that if someone WAS to complain, again, those people would be thrown to the wolves before any senior exec is going to take a bullet for them.   

Also, Hollywood and DC are far more transient.  How many of you have taken your current job thinking it would only last for six weeks, or two months, or until the next election?   Howard Stern talks about this all the time on his show.  He asks every actor/actress that comes in, in one form or another, about the relationships on set.   How it's easy to "fall in love" or to assume a level of familiarity that doesn't exist in "real life".   Look, I would never "take her" without her consent, but I've been married a while now, and we do things with each other that I would NEVER EVER EVER do to someone I just met.   Lean in and kiss her.   Put my hand on her rear as she walks by.  That's our "language".   When you get forced familiarity, these things can be (wrongfully) assumed.   I'm not saying the men are excused here - they are still very much in the wrong for assuming - but you asked "why Hollywood" and I'm suggesting an answer.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 06, 2017, 01:51:17 PM
Another woman has come out against Franken.

Then I saw Al Franken. I only bug celebrities for pictures when it’ll make my foster mom happy. She loves Franken, so I asked to get a picture with him. We posed for the shot. He immediately put his hand on my waist, grabbing a handful of flesh. I froze. Then he squeezed. At least twice.

I’d been married for two years at the time; I don’t let my husband touch me like that in public because I believe it diminishes me as a professional woman. Al Franken’s familiarity was inappropriate and unwanted. It was also quick; he knew exactly what he was doing.

It shrunk me. It’s like I was no longer a person, only ornamental. It said, “You don’t matter—and I do.” He wanted to cop a feel and he demonstrated he didn’t need my permission.



I'm sorry, and maybe I'm being a pig here, but is this really in the same category of sexual assault?

My first reaction.   Yeah, it may have been "unwanted" but that doesn't make it illegal.   I have a tendency to shake hands, and sometimes I will put the other hand on top.   I can imagine this being something near to that. 

And lambaste me all you want, but if you don't let your HUSBAND put his arm around you because it "diminishes you as a professional woman", I think you have some things you need to work out.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on December 06, 2017, 04:22:34 PM
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/more-lawmakers-demand-for-sen-frankens-resignation-amid-growing-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct

So Franken will more than likely step down soon,

https://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2017-silence-breakers/

Time magazine is recognizing the "silence-breakers" as person of the year,

and meanwhile... Roy Moore will  probably still get elected in Alabama.  Un-fucking-real.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: El Barto on December 07, 2017, 09:02:34 AM
My understanding is that the final straw that prompted the congressional womenfolk to abandon him was an anonymous report. Somebody wrote in claiming the exact same behavior that had been reported and people started jumping ship. It would appear that Stadler, had he the wherewithal, could have gotten him tossed out the door with a simple bit of creative writing.

That said, the dude does need to resign, and I suspect he probably is guilty of being a cad. I'm not defending him, but rather reiterating my point that we need to be more cautious about these things than we currently are.

The contrast between democrats cleaning their own house and republicans circling the wagons and denying everything to keep their seats is going to hurt them, I think. At least it damn well should.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: cramx3 on December 07, 2017, 09:21:22 AM
Regardless of the truth to any accusations (and I lean to believe), the democrats response to out Franken is at least consistent and the comparison Moore/republicans is just astonishing.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Stadler on December 07, 2017, 09:30:25 AM
For the record, I'm no fan of Franken - personally, comedically, or politically - but I think it's a travesty that he is being called to step down, and if you're asking me - I think you are, haha - I think Conyers and Franken are sacrificial lambs to be used as political capital at a future date, either with Moore, or Trump himself.    This is not "one guy doing the right thing, on his own accord".   Nope, not at all going to believe that. 

As for Moore, I don't understand the mindset.  I mean, I understand being less than supportive morally of a guy that dates young women, but isn't that what the election is for?  If he gets more votes than his opponent, why isn't that enough?   Moore is a bad example of this, but Weinstein notwithstanding, there's a growing number of people that believe that there isn't one "silver bullet" trait anymore.    People aren't willing to forsake economic programs or foreign policy positions, etc., just because the person isn't fully compliant on whatever the identity politics issue of the day is.   This is the Trump phenomenon.   
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on December 07, 2017, 09:31:21 AM
I generally agree with the above few posts but there are almost certainly going to be other senators facing these allegations in the very near future, and at some point the politician in question will be from an at-risk seat. That's not the case with Franken and Conyers. When it's a risky seat under threat, that will be the point that party principles will be tested. I hope the Dems show as much conviction then (when it will politically matter) as now (when it generally doesn't).

I don't write that to diminish the steps taken already. They're positive. It's just a note of caution, that's all. Nothing significant (politically) is riding on ousting Franken and Conyers, but the day will come - and probably soon - when a lot will be riding on what the party does about one of their senators. Let's call it the Dems' Own Roy Moore Dilemma. And when that day arrives we'll see what their principles are made of.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: XeRocks81 on December 07, 2017, 09:37:21 AM
I generally agree with the above few posts but there are almost certainly going to be other senators facing these allegations in the very near future, and at some point the politician in question will be from an at-risk seat. That's not the case with Franken and Conyers. When it's a risky seat under threat, that will be the point that party principles will be tested. I hope the Dems show as much conviction then (when it will politically matter) as now (when it generally doesn't).

I don't write that to diminish the steps taken already. They're positive. It's just a note of caution, that's all. Nothing significant (politically) is riding on ousting Franken and Conyers, but the day will come - and probably soon - when a lot will be riding on what the party does about one of their senators. Let's call it the Dems' Own Roy Moore Dilemma. And when that day arrives we'll see what their principles are made of.

Franken only barely got elected in 2008 (there was a recount and a trial I believe),  in 2014 he had 53.2% of the vote. I think it could go either way.
Title: Re: Harvey Weinstein
Post by: Dave_Manchester on December 07, 2017, 09:44:08 AM