Author Topic: Harvey Weinstein  (Read 21738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8724
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #875 on: April 23, 2018, 11:30:54 PM »
The truth is out there.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #876 on: April 24, 2018, 07:12:17 AM »
I hate to interupt the "Girl with huge tits walks in to a bar..." conversation, but Adami (or anyone), could you elaborate on the below;

...the idea that men should take what they want and so forth is largely a social construct. We're taught that in one way or another. It's continuously reinforced.

I can elaborate a little (writing a paper, crunch time). But in many societies, including Western culture, males are exposed to a ton of social messages about their role in pursuing women. This can be how their dads talk to them, or how they see other men do it, or the movies/TV they watch, or the books they read. Try to count the number of movies you've seen where the man has his urges and goes on the hunt to find a woman. It's everywhere.

What about the studies that purported to show differences between men and women in terms of reproduction and mating?  That suggest that men are not biologically monogamous, but seek out potential mates wherever they can and are pre-wired to essentially spread their seed?  This is borne out by the fact that we do not have a finite number of sperm, and do produce viable sperm into our 70's.  As compared to women who have a finite number of ovum, which only become available in a finite cycle, a cycle that ends around mid-life.   Women aren't strictly "monogamous" either, but tend to seek partners whom can protect their offspring.  That's not to say "are great fathers" in the socialized sense of the word, but that can protect the herd, so to speak.

Is this all nonsense now?

Are men more overtly sexually aggressive than women? I think most of us intuitively think so. I wouldn't be surprised that there are articles, as you say, to support the idea. But, I think where Jammin looses most of us is using the word predator...a term I reserve for the Sanduskys and Weinsteins of the world. It just seems nonsensical to assume all boys are born Weinsteins and must unlearn or overcome this predatory instinct.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #877 on: April 24, 2018, 07:13:01 AM »
I hate to interupt the "Girl with huge tits walks in to a bar..." conversation, but Adami (or anyone), could you elaborate on the below;

...the idea that men should take what they want and so forth is largely a social construct. We're taught that in one way or another. It's continuously reinforced.

I can elaborate a little (writing a paper, crunch time). But in many societies, including Western culture, males are exposed to a ton of social messages about their role in pursuing women. This can be how their dads talk to them, or how they see other men do it, or the movies/TV they watch, or the books they read. Try to count the number of movies you've seen where the man has his urges and goes on the hunt to find a woman. It's everywhere.

What about the studies that purported to show differences between men and women in terms of reproduction and mating?  That suggest that men are not biologically monogamous, but seek out potential mates wherever they can and are pre-wired to essentially spread their seed?  This is borne out by the fact that we do not have a finite number of sperm, and do produce viable sperm into our 70's.  As compared to women who have a finite number of ovum, which only become available in a finite cycle, a cycle that ends around mid-life.   Women aren't strictly "monogamous" either, but tend to seek partners whom can protect their offspring.  That's not to say "are great fathers" in the socialized sense of the word, but that can protect the herd, so to speak.

Is this all nonsense now?

Where's the predator?  I feel like somewhere in JD's mind he is thinking a lot of this, but keeps using the term predator.  I don't agree with "predator" to describe all men, but I do think, as you pointed out, there are biological differences that can explain some of human's sexual behavior.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #878 on: April 24, 2018, 07:53:18 AM »
I hate to interupt the "Girl with huge tits walks in to a bar..." conversation, but Adami (or anyone), could you elaborate on the below;

...the idea that men should take what they want and so forth is largely a social construct. We're taught that in one way or another. It's continuously reinforced.

I can elaborate a little (writing a paper, crunch time). But in many societies, including Western culture, males are exposed to a ton of social messages about their role in pursuing women. This can be how their dads talk to them, or how they see other men do it, or the movies/TV they watch, or the books they read. Try to count the number of movies you've seen where the man has his urges and goes on the hunt to find a woman. It's everywhere.

What about the studies that purported to show differences between men and women in terms of reproduction and mating?  That suggest that men are not biologically monogamous, but seek out potential mates wherever they can and are pre-wired to essentially spread their seed?  This is borne out by the fact that we do not have a finite number of sperm, and do produce viable sperm into our 70's.  As compared to women who have a finite number of ovum, which only become available in a finite cycle, a cycle that ends around mid-life.   Women aren't strictly "monogamous" either, but tend to seek partners whom can protect their offspring.  That's not to say "are great fathers" in the socialized sense of the word, but that can protect the herd, so to speak.

Is this all nonsense now?

Unrelated to anything I'm talking about. I'm sure you can introduce a connection, but it would be pointless to the conversation at hand.

I'm not sure it isn't.  I have both history (good) and deep respect for Jammin', but I don't speak for him, nor would I assume I could.   But I know in some of his posts, in my brain I substitute out the word "predator" because  it has a connotation in our society (how ironic; we're trying to talk about issues that AREN'T socialized, and yet are getting caught up in nomenclature that IS).   "To Catch A Predator", etc. etc.   

I'm not at all excusing any behavior, nor am I saying that the socialization is wrong.  I do know, though, that the brain is essentially a sponge wallowing in a chemical soup that someone attached electrical wires to.   The "soup" in a man and the "soup" in a woman can and may be different (by virtue of a different balance of hormones, to start, as well as other chemicals the body uses to regulate and control processes).   I'm also not a CSI examiner, but  it's my understanding that a skilled examiner can determine "sex" of a skeleton through observation (i.e. NOT DNA), but that the jury is out - definitely out - on whether even the most skilled examiner can reliably determine the "race" of a skeleton through observation alone.   

Again, "difference" is a dirty word in our PC age of "we're all the equal and equivalent and it's dirty rotten Trumpian racism to suggest otherwise!" but the reality is, there ARE differences, and unless and until you can reasonably account for them in our discussion, it's going to be a hard road.   

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 482
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #879 on: April 24, 2018, 08:07:48 AM »
we’re all humans born on this planet but we’re not identical, everyone is different from each other.  No one has ever argued that position and it is the very definition of a strawman argument. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20646
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #880 on: April 24, 2018, 08:18:29 AM »
@Stadler. I believe the studies also suggest that women are polyamorous. The difference isn't in our desire to have more than one mate, but our availability to do so. Moreover, I think there's also some consideration that this isn't an instinctive behavior, but rather one that we adapted because our physiology allows for it.

And yes, one of those tight-trousered CSI chicks can look at a skeleton and determine gender, race, and to some extent age. Women have wider hips in relation to the rest of their frame.
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 jammindude

  • Posts: 8724
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #881 on: April 24, 2018, 08:55:42 AM »
Stadler hit the nail in the head on the idea that my bigger and more important point got lost on the modern and more emotional reaction to the word “predator”.

I was pointing to a larger pattern of predatory behavior.... not saying every man IS CURRENTLY a predator.

For instance. When I was courting my (now) wife. I sought her out. We worked in the same store. Whenever I was on break, I would go to her department and try to find her. I sent her notes thru office computer all day long. I was desperately in love...but on the surface, this is all “predatory” behavior.

If Steve Beschimi is walking up your street and staring, he’s a creep. If it’s Brad Pitt singing “On the Street Where You Live” (a song obsessing about being on the street, and remaining in close proximity to the person you’re currently obsessed with) it’s ok. If my wife hadn’t been open to my behavior, then that exact behavior becomes something else...but the behavior and the root of it, comes from the same place.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #882 on: April 24, 2018, 09:24:27 AM »
we’re all humans born on this planet but we’re not identical, everyone is different from each other.  No one has ever argued that position and it is the very definition of a strawman argument.

That's not the marching orders of most of the minority "#MeToo"-kind of movements.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #883 on: April 24, 2018, 09:26:12 AM »
@Stadler. I believe the studies also suggest that women are polyamorous. The difference isn't in our desire to have more than one mate, but our availability to do so. Moreover, I think there's also some consideration that this isn't an instinctive behavior, but rather one that we adapted because our physiology allows for it.

And yes, one of those tight-trousered CSI chicks can look at a skeleton and determine gender, race, and to some extent age. Women have wider hips in relation to the rest of their frame.

I could have sworn that your last paragraph is accurate as to gender (pelvis, but a few other bones as well) and age (the way the joints have developed, and how some of the bones have progressed from cartilage to calcified bone) but not race.  I thought that "race" identification through observation was a highly contested area of forensic science (having something to do with brain case measurements or some such shit).   It at best provides a range, but nothing conclusive. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #884 on: April 24, 2018, 09:30:37 AM »
If my wife hadn’t been open to my behavior, then that exact behavior becomes something else...but the behavior and the root of it, comes from the same place.

Well, that's certainly an underlying idea, independent of predator.   Some - not all, not most, but SOME - of the behavior in many of the "#MeToo" stories is exactly this:  when Christian Grey does it, it makes Anastasia swoon.    When Donald Trump does it, it's boorish and crude and unwanted.   

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #885 on: April 24, 2018, 09:32:55 AM »
@Stadler. I believe the studies also suggest that women are polyamorous. The difference isn't in our desire to have more than one mate, but our availability to do so. Moreover, I think there's also some consideration that this isn't an instinctive behavior, but rather one that we adapted because our physiology allows for it.

And yes, one of those tight-trousered CSI chicks can look at a skeleton and determine gender, race, and to some extent age. Women have wider hips in relation to the rest of their frame.

I could have sworn that your last paragraph is accurate as to gender (pelvis, but a few other bones as well) and age (the way the joints have developed, and how some of the bones have progressed from cartilage to calcified bone) but not race.  I thought that "race" identification through observation was a highly contested area of forensic science (having something to do with brain case measurements or some such shit).   It at best provides a range, but nothing conclusive.

I took an elective anthropology class in high school and one test was for us to examine real human bones and give age/sex/race.  I don't remember the details nor if the science behind the bone differences was 100% fact though, but seemed legit when we learned it.  I just remember it being a really cool thing to examine.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #886 on: April 24, 2018, 09:36:38 AM »
we’re all humans born on this planet but we’re not identical, everyone is different from each other.  No one has ever argued that position and it is the very definition of a strawman argument.

That's not the marching orders of most of the minority "#MeToo"-kind of movements.

That's interesting.  I consider myself a member of that group but never got those kind of marching orders.  Can you point them out for me?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #887 on: April 24, 2018, 09:46:58 AM »
we’re all humans born on this planet but we’re not identical, everyone is different from each other.  No one has ever argued that position and it is the very definition of a strawman argument.

That's not the marching orders of most of the minority "#MeToo"-kind of movements.

That's interesting.  I consider myself a member of that group but never got those kind of marching orders.  Can you point them out for me?

They're posted online.    :o :yarr

Look, I'm being facetious; I would have hoped that was obvious.   I would consider myself a member of that group as well, at least from the stand point that I believe everyone has their story and everyone ought to be able to communicate that story - to the extent it's provable, validatable, and subject to the rules of due process that we've all agreed to live under - but I bristle on a DAILY basis with the idea that some discussion points just aren't fit for general consumption.

I FIRMLY and unequivocally believe that there is no fundamental or meaningful distinction between black and white, but having said that, if science was to find tomorrow that, say, black people as a group have 25% more advanced oxygen-processing capability and so the black race are demonstrably better athletes as a matter of race...

Our society is not equipped to handle that.     And God forbid if the science shows something negative, like the brain capacity is 25% less than non-Hispanic Caucasians. My point is, the very essence of an equality movement has to down play or ignore any potential "difference" by it's very nature, else it shoots itself in the foot.   

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8724
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #888 on: April 24, 2018, 09:55:16 AM »
If my wife hadn’t been open to my behavior, then that exact behavior becomes something else...but the behavior and the root of it, comes from the same place.

Well, that's certainly an underlying idea, independent of predator.   Some - not all, not most, but SOME - of the behavior in many of the "#MeToo" stories is exactly this:  when Christian Grey does it, it makes Anastasia swoon.    When Donald Trump does it, it's boorish and crude and unwanted.

 But it doesn’t even have to get to the point of bondage games. It’s the same thing with the simpler things in life. A guy tries to make eye contact with a pretty girl on the bus. Is he creeping?   A guy has a crush on the girl at the store so he just makes sure that he goes through her line every time he’s there to chat her up. Is he stalking?   It all depends on whether or not his behavior is accepted by the other party or not. But his behavior is exactly the same either way.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20646
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #889 on: April 24, 2018, 09:56:27 AM »
@Stadler. I believe the studies also suggest that women are polyamorous. The difference isn't in our desire to have more than one mate, but our availability to do so. Moreover, I think there's also some consideration that this isn't an instinctive behavior, but rather one that we adapted because our physiology allows for it.

And yes, one of those tight-trousered CSI chicks can look at a skeleton and determine gender, race, and to some extent age. Women have wider hips in relation to the rest of their frame.

I could have sworn that your last paragraph is accurate as to gender (pelvis, but a few other bones as well) and age (the way the joints have developed, and how some of the bones have progressed from cartilage to calcified bone) but not race.  I thought that "race" identification through observation was a highly contested area of forensic science (having something to do with brain case measurements or some such shit).   It at best provides a range, but nothing conclusive.
The leg bones, femur in particular, give you an indicator of race. Though with all of these things they're not going to be constant and definitive. As a rule white folk have straight bones, while people of African ancestry tend to have curved bones that are somewhat "springier." This is something we're not really supposed to discuss, though. Ask Jimmy the Greek why.
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 jammindude

  • Posts: 8724
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #890 on: April 24, 2018, 10:03:39 AM »
 On the subject of race at the skeletal level. I still remember  A special class that was held in high school probably back around 1986 or so that was all about addressing race issues. The class was taught by a black woman. It was her that pointed out that on the skeletal level if you put a pencil along the teeth of a white person‘s skull the top of the pencil will touch the nasal cavity. If you put a pencil along the teeth of the skull of a black person it will stick out and not touch the nasal cavity. Not sure if these findings have been updated.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 482
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #891 on: April 24, 2018, 11:24:40 AM »
certain individuals are proven to be better athletes all the time.   I'm not sure what relevance it has.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #892 on: April 24, 2018, 01:29:16 PM »
we’re all humans born on this planet but we’re not identical, everyone is different from each other.  No one has ever argued that position and it is the very definition of a strawman argument.

That's not the marching orders of most of the minority "#MeToo"-kind of movements.

That's interesting.  I consider myself a member of that group but never got those kind of marching orders.  Can you point them out for me?

They're posted online.    :o :yarr

Look, I'm being facetious; I would have hoped that was obvious.   I would consider myself a member of that group as well, at least from the stand point that I believe everyone has their story and everyone ought to be able to communicate that story - to the extent it's provable, validatable, and subject to the rules of due process that we've all agreed to live under - but I bristle on a DAILY basis with the idea that some discussion points just aren't fit for general consumption.

Ok.  It felt like a cousin of the shill gambit.  At least weekly I'm accused of being a shill for Monsatan, so I may be overly sensitive to it.  I mean, I've been waiting by the mailbox for my check but it never seems to show up.   :P

Not to rehash the thread but it really isn't plausible for every person who has ever been sexually harassed or abused to be able to prove or validate their abuse under 'the rules of due process'.  I understand the pitfalls therein, but speaking from very personal experience, I'd not be able to prove mine and thus have to throw my 'story' on the mercy of the reader with the knowledge that I can be accused of lying about it.  Though I have nothing to gain by telling my story and certain something to lose.  But that is the choice I'm willing to live with.

many of the "#MeToo" stories is exactly this:  when Christian Grey does it, it makes Anastasia swoon.    When Donald Trump does it, it's boorish and crude and unwanted.   

As for that, I'm not sure I agree.  I'm willing to entertain the notion that beautiful people are given more leeway in life and that behavior could include inappropriate behavior such as sexual harassment.  But it's not always as cut and dry as you make it seem there.  If someone you find exceedingly hot in your work place starts flirting with you, it may take you some time to get past the ego boost of "Wow, she really likes me!" and then down the road the realization dawns on you that, "Hey, that's inappropriate."  When someone who you aren't attracted to you at all makes a pass, it isn't unusual to recoil in disgust and nip that BS in the bud, like yesterday.

It really has nothing to do with the Me Too movement at all.

And for the record, Melania and a long line of women who some would consider hot seem to find Trump's advances anything but boorish, crude, and unwanted.


Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8724
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #893 on: April 24, 2018, 01:54:46 PM »
That’s because Trump any many like him hold a big attraction for certain women. Money and power are a HUGE attraction to some.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #894 on: April 27, 2018, 09:36:09 AM »
we’re all humans born on this planet but we’re not identical, everyone is different from each other.  No one has ever argued that position and it is the very definition of a strawman argument.

That's not the marching orders of most of the minority "#MeToo"-kind of movements.

That's interesting.  I consider myself a member of that group but never got those kind of marching orders.  Can you point them out for me?

They're posted online.    :o :yarr

Look, I'm being facetious; I would have hoped that was obvious.   I would consider myself a member of that group as well, at least from the stand point that I believe everyone has their story and everyone ought to be able to communicate that story - to the extent it's provable, validatable, and subject to the rules of due process that we've all agreed to live under - but I bristle on a DAILY basis with the idea that some discussion points just aren't fit for general consumption.

Ok.  It felt like a cousin of the shill gambit.  At least weekly I'm accused of being a shill for Monsatan, so I may be overly sensitive to it.  I mean, I've been waiting by the mailbox for my check but it never seems to show up.   :P

Not to rehash the thread but it really isn't plausible for every person who has ever been sexually harassed or abused to be able to prove or validate their abuse under 'the rules of due process'.  I understand the pitfalls therein, but speaking from very personal experience, I'd not be able to prove mine and thus have to throw my 'story' on the mercy of the reader with the knowledge that I can be accused of lying about it.  Though I have nothing to gain by telling my story and certain something to lose.  But that is the choice I'm willing to live with.

Fair enough; but we still operate under those constraints.  I can think OJ Simpson a murderer until the cows come home but I can't accuse him of it, and I can't refer to him publicly as "That Murdered OJ Simpson".    Even Fred Goldman can't do that.   We're not talking about friends shooting the shit, or individuals - like you - making reasoned decisions based on your read of the circumstances.    I've written about that before; we make judgments all the time like that.   But we're also talking about people that are not doing what you and I are talking about, but rather shaming people (like Netflix, NBC) into taking action because it's more cost effective to fuck over one person than it is to lose 1,000,000 customers. That's not "justice".  That's "bullying". 



many of the "#MeToo" stories is exactly this:  when Christian Grey does it, it makes Anastasia swoon.    When Donald Trump does it, it's boorish and crude and unwanted.   

As for that, I'm not sure I agree.  I'm willing to entertain the notion that beautiful people are given more leeway in life and that behavior could include inappropriate behavior such as sexual harassment.  But it's not always as cut and dry as you make it seem there.  If someone you find exceedingly hot in your work place starts flirting with you, it may take you some time to get past the ego boost of "Wow, she really likes me!" and then down the road the realization dawns on you that, "Hey, that's inappropriate."  When someone who you aren't attracted to you at all makes a pass, it isn't unusual to recoil in disgust and nip that BS in the bud, like yesterday.

It really has nothing to do with the Me Too movement at all.

And for the record, Melania and a long line of women who some would consider hot seem to find Trump's advances anything but boorish, crude, and unwanted.
[/quote]

It wasn't meant to imply only "good looking".  I'm not particularly good looking, but my wife is beautiful and smart (she's actually won beauty pageants).   I have no doubt that at some point someone has said - even if to themselves - WTF is she doing with HIM?   I get the popular opinion now about his "grossness" but Donald Trump in any other context would likely considered by many to be an attractive man.  There are countless men that have a long list of paramours that many of us go "whaa?"   Gene Simmons.  Keith Richards is married to a super model.   Many people are attracted to money or power or personality over "looks".   I think I've told this story before but a girl I met on Match broke up with me because she didn't think I was "romantic enough" because I didn't lean over and kiss her while we were walking along a gas-lit brick street on our first date.   I had literally been in her presence for about 45 minutes at that point.  Thankfully I erred on the good side of things (from a sexual predator standpoint, though she was a catch) but that same scenario could very easily be someone's #MeToo moment.   

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #895 on: April 27, 2018, 10:24:33 AM »
How does someone 'break up' with someone who has only been on 1 date?   :huh:  Sounds like you dodged a huge bullet there, Stadler.



Anyway, Cosby was found guilty.  Without turning to Google, can any one of us name 5 of the women he was accused of drugging and assaulting?  Out of what - 60 or so now?

If you can't then can someone explain to me how these women are only going after him for fame and media attention?  This is what women are accused of when they speak out, right?  And then we wonder why women don't speak out sooner.


And FWIW, I've been reading that there is a plan in the works for Charlie Rose to launch a come-back show where he interviews famous men who have been accused of harassment.  The 2 people I've read mentioned for interviews are Matt Lauer and Louis C.K.  Anyone think that if this plan for a show is a good thing?  Why or why not?


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20646
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #896 on: April 27, 2018, 10:32:23 AM »
And FWIW, I've been reading that there is a plan in the works for Charlie Rose to launch a come-back show where he interviews famous men who have been accused of harassment.  The 2 people I've read mentioned for interviews are Matt Lauer and Louis C.K.  Anyone think that if this plan for a show is a good thing?  Why or why not?
Probably not, and that's a shame. The truth is it'll be scripted PR bullshit. I was largely on Lewis CK's side, and I'd love to hear his honest opinion about what went down. He's not going to share it there.

On a sidenote, it'll be grist for the people who bash everything by extension. In this case it'll be an example of "misogyny to the extreme. A celebration of sexual predation. A forum for abusive men to attack their victims. Etc." People should be smart enough to stay out of such a fray.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #897 on: April 27, 2018, 11:00:36 AM »
I'm hoping that Louis CK will eventually go on Marc Maron's WTF podcast. 

I think the idea for the 'come-back' show is ludicrous and very short-sighted.  I am willing however, to let the ratings do the talking should it ever get to that point.  Lord knows there are plenty of people to choose from to interview.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #898 on: April 27, 2018, 12:20:27 PM »
And FWIW, I've been reading that there is a plan in the works for Charlie Rose to launch a come-back show where he interviews famous men who have been accused of harassment.  The 2 people I've read mentioned for interviews are Matt Lauer and Louis C.K.  Anyone think that if this plan for a show is a good thing?  Why or why not?

I'd bet it get ratings so I can see why TV would consider the idea... but I don't find it interesting.  At least not with Charlie Rose doing the interview.  Just seems too sympathetic if he's asking the questions IMO.  Also, unless any of these guys are actually innocent or have something to prove, I don't see any reason for them to do an interview and bring back their names/stories in the media.  In theory, a no filter tell all from a Louis CK/Weinstein/Cosby would be really interesting, but that'll never happen.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #899 on: May 07, 2018, 08:31:34 PM »
Reading this article has made me sick to my stomach.  It is difficult to wrap my head around the fact that a DA who has used his office to take on an active role in the #MeToo movement can be so duplicitous.  And violence and threats toward victims aside, he sounds like a horrible alcoholic who obviously doesn't give a shit about drinking and driving.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse

Quote
“It’s torturous for me to do this,” she says. “I like my life.” Of this article, she says, “I wish my name did not have to be in it,” and notes, of Schneiderman, “I know it’s going to be my word against his, because I don’t have photos of bruises, and I don’t have a police report.” Schneiderman’s accusers, she feels, are in an unusually difficult situation. As she puts it, “What do you do if your abuser is the top law-enforcement official in the state?”

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 837
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #900 on: May 25, 2018, 07:00:22 AM »
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/entertainment/harvey-weinstein-to-surrender/index.html

Honestly, I can't understand why he turned himself in. I would be gone in a heartbeat... disappear into the ether. I'm not sure why he would choose this.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8724
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #901 on: May 25, 2018, 07:09:35 AM »
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20646
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #902 on: May 25, 2018, 08:16:07 AM »
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/entertainment/harvey-weinstein-to-surrender/index.html

Honestly, I can't understand why he turned himself in. I would be gone in a heartbeat... disappear into the ether. I'm not sure why he would choose this.
That's kind of a tossup. On the one hand he's probably very confident that he won't be convicted. I doubt he's worried at all about going to jail. At the same time it's looking pretty obvious that he is going to spend the rest of his life fighting off the various allegations, even if none of them stick. If he's a calculating man, it's a question of spending the rest of your life in various courtrooms or spending the rest of your life evading numerous federal law enforcement agencies.

Moreover, he isn't Polanski. Skipping out was the obvious move and most countries were on RP's side. When you're running from one maniac US judge you'll get a lot of support. Weinstein is very clearly in the wrong here, though. The French aren't going to stick their necks out for him, and fighting extradition from pleasant countries isn't an easy thing to do. Unless he set up a second identity for such situations years ago running's probably not going to be much fun.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #903 on: May 25, 2018, 11:02:58 AM »
I've never met the man, but based on what I've heard and heard said, he lives in a different world.  I wouldn't be surprised if, when he said that "he's never had non-consentual sex in his life" that he believed that.   I think there's a reasonable shot that he thinks he did little wrong, and what's a little massage among friends when I'm your ticket to an Oscar, and film credibility?    How else to explain some of the antics?

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #904 on: May 25, 2018, 01:54:59 PM »
So you are suggesting he has some sort of mental illness that makes him unable to distinguish right from wrong?

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #905 on: May 25, 2018, 01:57:22 PM »
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/entertainment/harvey-weinstein-to-surrender/index.html

Honestly, I can't understand why he turned himself in. I would be gone in a heartbeat... disappear into the ether. I'm not sure why he would choose this.
On the one hand he's probably very confident that he won't be convicted.

I'm thinking he feels either this or he won't be going to jail if he is convicted/settles.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #906 on: May 25, 2018, 02:45:39 PM »
So you are suggesting he has some sort of mental illness that makes him unable to distinguish right from wrong?

No, I wouldn't go that far.   But "laurel"/"yanni".   He  lives in a world of barter.  You show my movie, I give you previews of the next movie.   You make this big budget Oscar-bait film for me now, and I'll fund your vanity project tomorrow.   I give you this starring role in an Oscar nominated picture and you allow me the pleasure of your flesh when I'm in town.   By all accounts he handled his business affairs the same way he handled his sex life; like a bull in a China shop.   Howard Stern was telling the story of how Harvey had asked him for something (full disclosure, Howard and Beth are friends with his wife/ex-wife; she designed Beth's wedding gown) and it got to the point that Harvey was calling every couple hours, until Howard finally said "Harvey, enough."   He didn't make Miramax one of the most prestigious studios in the world by being a pansy.   He by many accounts, set new standards for the degree to which a studio would "promote" it's talent for Oscar consideration. 

And for the record, his lawyer has already, today in court, made the argument that some of Harvey's behavior was undoubtedly boorish, but not in fact illegal.