Author Topic: Harvey Weinstein  (Read 22664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #140 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?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10291
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #141 on: October 23, 2017, 06:03:13 PM »
the crack team at divine cosmos dot com has it all figured out, don't worry.

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 8377
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #142 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.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #143 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.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 8377
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #144 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.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 849
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #145 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

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #146 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.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #147 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. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #148 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. 

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18794
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #149 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.

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

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #150 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.

http://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. 

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 849
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #151 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.

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 8377
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #152 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.

I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18794
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #153 on: October 26, 2017, 08:10:45 AM »
More on Harvery

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.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #154 on: October 26, 2017, 09:04:22 AM »
More on Harvery

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.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18794
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #155 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).

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #156 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.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 849
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #157 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.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #158 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.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 10:10:09 AM by Adami »
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #159 on: October 26, 2017, 10:06:19 AM »
Her integrity is irrelevant.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18794
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #160 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.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #161 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.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #162 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.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #163 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). 

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 849
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #164 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.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #165 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?   

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4965
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #166 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.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #167 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.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18794
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #168 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.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20217
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #169 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.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #170 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.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1513
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #171 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.
---

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #172 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. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #173 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.   

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 849
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #174 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...