Author Topic: Harvey Weinstein  (Read 44705 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #980 on: December 12, 2018, 12:11:34 PM »
EDIT:   I figured it out.  Never mind.

Offline vtgrad

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #981 on: December 13, 2018, 10:59:34 AM »
Wow... I just don't see it.  At all.  And whether or not it's forced removal from radio rotation or the choice of the radio station really isn't an issue in my eyes... if it's the choice of the station to remove that song from the rotation then there's a reason they decided to make that choice (said up-roar over the lyrics) which amounts to forced removal in the end anyway.  Maybe that's simplistic, but that's how I see it.  Correct me if I'm wrong...

Why can't we (when I say "we" I mean the broader society) think for ourselves instead of having someone think for us?  If thoughts are not on a dimly lit blue screen then we just can't be bothered to think ourselves, to form our own opinion?  I think this shift started within my generation (I'm 38 and I lived my formative years with and without our current tech)... I was not taught how to actually think, I learned how much later in life than I would have liked (and I'm still learning how to think).  This is a symptom of a larger societal problem I believe... if the population doesn't learn how to think, then they will lap-up something from one side or the other (pick your side and stick with it) and cling to it as gospel instead of letting that war go on inside their heads to really think about any issue and about the intent of words spoken, written, or sung.

Somebody said something about "having it both ways" and I think that person is right (Stads and Cram I think)... if the lyrics and language of that song are found to be suggestive, and we're going to have a SJW convention on how suggestive lyrics/language should be changed, then we need to dig into all lyrics right?  That slippery slope is getting more slippery in my eyes.  I'm really trying to see the other side of it but I'm not able too at the moment... for this particular song, I see two lovers talking to each other about not wanting the night to end.  Hell, I've been there myself... I see love and sex between two consenting adults.
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter; Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."  Ecclesiastes 12:13

Now with Twitler taking a high end steak of this caliber and insulting the cow that died for it by having it well done just shows zero respect for the product, which falls right in line with the amount of respect he shows for pretty much everything else.- Lonestar

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 22747
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #982 on: December 13, 2018, 11:26:03 AM »
What blows my mind is that this song became a thing, meanwhile you have modern rap music that, in my opinion, is far more appalling than anything in that song. I don't know the genre, but just for shits, I'm going to look up the top 5 rap songs in the country right now and see what the lyrics are like....

According to Billboard, these are the current top 5:

1) Sicko Mode - Travis Scott
This shit way too formal, y'all know I don't follow suit
Stacey Dash, most of these girls ain't got a clue
All of these hoes I made off records I produced
I might take all my exes and put 'em all in a group
Hit my esťs, I need the bootch
'Bout to turn this function to Bonnaroo
Told her "hop in, you comin' too"
In the 305, bitches treat me like I'm Uncle Luke
(Don't stop, pop that pussy!)
Had to slop the top off, it's just a roof (uh)
She said "where we goin'?" I said "the moon"
We ain't even make it to the room
She thought it was the ocean, it's just the pool
Now I got her open, it's just the Goose


2) Going Bad - Meek Mill featuring Drake
Put some bands all on your head like Jason Terry (Brrt, brrt, ooh)
Richard Mille cost a Lambo (That's a Lambo)
Known to keep the baddest bitches on commando (Salute)
Every time I'm in my trap, I move like Rambo (Extended)
Ain't a neighborhood in Philly that I can't go (That's a Fendi)
For real
She said, "Oh, you rich rich?" ("You rich rich")
Bitch, I graduated, call me "Big Fish" (Ballin')
I got Laurie Harrier on my wish list (That's Laurie)
That's the only thing I want for Christmas (True story, uh)

3) ZEZE - Kodak Black featuring Travis Scott and Offset
Offset! Blow the brains out the coupe (Boo)
Police wanna talk, but I'm on mute (Woo-woo, hey)
I'ma bust her wrist down 'cause she cute (Ice)
Fuck her on a yacht, dive in a pool (Yeah)
She an addict (Addict), addict for the lifestyle and the Patek (Patek)
Big daddy, have you ever felt Chanel fabrics? (Chanel)
I be drippin' to death, I need a casket (Drippin')

4) Drip Too Hard - Lil Baby & Gunna
I don't care where I go, long as I get paid
Bad lil' vibe, she been on my mind
Soon as I get back, she gettin' slayed
Do this all the time, this ain't no surprise
Every other night, another movie gettin' made
Drip too hard, donít stand too close
You gon' fuck around and drown off this wave

5) Mo Bamba - Sheck Wes
I got hoes (ho)
Calling a young ni---a phone, phone (bitch)
Where's Ali with the motherfucking dope?
(With the motherfucking dope)
Dope (with the motherfucking dope)
With the motherfucking dope (bitch)
With the dope (getting rich), with my bros (bitch, shit)
I fucked your ho (shit)
And she ain't even let you know (she fucked up)

Damn, this n---a nice, fuck is you talking about?
('Cause I got) bitch (hoes)
And my n---a One-Six, my n---a
Ali, the Daytrip n---a, fuck is n---as talking about?
(I got hoes, shit
Young Sheck Wes, I do it on the go)


We have an entire genre of music that, in my opinion, completely shits on women and objectifies them to a very high level. Why don't we see anyone up in arms about songs like these?






Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #983 on: December 13, 2018, 12:43:43 PM »
She thought it was the ocean, it's just the pool
Now I got her open, it's just the Goose

Bil Cosby would be proud...

Quote
Calling a young ni---a phone, phone (bitch)
Where's Ali with the motherfucking dope?
(With the motherfucking dope)
Dope (with the motherfucking dope)
With the motherfucking dope (bitch)
With the dope (getting rich), with my bros (bitch, shit)
I fucked your ho (shit)
And she ain't even let you know (she fucked up)

I think I can tell you where the "dope" is.  :)

Quote
fuck is you talking about?

Yes, do tell.  Fuck IS you talking about?  :) 
« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 01:28:34 PM by Stadler »

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 44554
  • Gender: Male
  • Head Judge of the Peanut Gallery
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #984 on: December 13, 2018, 01:02:45 PM »
Chino, it's nuts.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 774
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #985 on: December 13, 2018, 01:24:40 PM »
I have no take on  ę baby itís cold outside Ľ in fact I actively refuse to have one, Iím just not sure using that as an excuse to ridicule hip-hop music is the most constructive thing, but thatís just me. 

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14924
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #986 on: December 13, 2018, 01:27:06 PM »
What blows my mind is that this song became a thing, meanwhile you have modern rap music that, in my opinion, is far more appalling than anything in that song. I don't know the genre, but just for shits, I'm going to look up the top 5 rap songs in the country right now and see what the lyrics are like....

**snip**

Quite simply it's because our society right now is rife with double standard(s)....to the point it's almost comical.....across many spectrum's.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 44554
  • Gender: Male
  • Head Judge of the Peanut Gallery
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #987 on: December 13, 2018, 01:32:07 PM »
I have no take on  ę baby itís cold outside Ľ in fact I actively refuse to have one, Iím just not sure using that as an excuse to ridicule hip-hop music is the most constructive thing, but thatís just me.

I don't think anyone was ridiculing hip hop. It's just asking the question of why is one old song so chagrined, especially when compared to what seems to be socially acceptable, even though the sexual references are so blatant.

Perhaps if the lyrics were "Baby it's cold outside, let me put my d**k in your ****.." then maybe that would be OK.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #988 on: December 13, 2018, 01:33:16 PM »
I have no take on  ę baby itís cold outside Ľ in fact I actively refuse to have one, Iím just not sure using that as an excuse to ridicule hip-hop music is the most constructive thing, but thatís just me.

For me it's less about "using it as an excuse to ridicule hip-hop music" than it is to point out the selectivity of the "being offended".  I understand that you react to the moment - you need not look past immediate transgressions just because  there might be one elsewhere that is worse - but it is fair to say "does the context of the moment support your 'feelings'"?   

I think in a more general way, it's a constructive exercise to evaluate your (not you, personally, but an individual) personal feelings against a more general scale, and make the conscious decision to say "yes, even in the context of rap music's misogyny, and independent of my personal feelings, this is an issue that must be raised".    I believe, strongly, that a lot of people are skipping this step, or at least subsuming it to "hey, I can really push my agenda with this one!"

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #989 on: December 13, 2018, 01:37:11 PM »
I'm sorry but I never listen to radio anymore.  Are those hip hop songs played on a lot of stations these days?   :huh:

Anyway - this is humorous

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJB9GP5gyAw
Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 22747
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #990 on: December 13, 2018, 01:45:57 PM »
I have no take on  ę baby itís cold outside Ľ in fact I actively refuse to have one, Iím just not sure using that as an excuse to ridicule hip-hop music is the most constructive thing, but thatís just me.

I wasn't ridiculing hip-hop. I'm just wondering why the lyrics of a 75 year old song are being scrutinized to the point where radio stations are refusing to play it, meanwhile, an entire genre of music is cranking out new hits on a daily basis that do nothing but glorify the objectification of women.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #991 on: December 13, 2018, 01:49:35 PM »
Has it occurred to you guys that maybe there's a different demographic listening to jazz classics than modern rap? The reason that nobody's bitching about rappers defiling their hos is because the only people that listen to that shit are fine with it. The people who don't listen to it rarely have to hear it since it won't pop up on the EZ listening station. BICO shows up all the time on my local jazz station (it's not relegated to Christmas), and likely plenty of other stations during Christmas. It probably took somebody by surprise and they made a stink about it. 
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 vtgrad

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #992 on: December 14, 2018, 09:13:59 AM »
Has it occurred to you guys that maybe there's a different demographic listening to jazz classics than modern rap? The reason that nobody's bitching about rappers defiling their hos is because the only people that listen to that shit are fine with it. The people who don't listen to it rarely have to hear it since it won't pop up on the EZ listening station. BICO shows up all the time on my local jazz station (it's not relegated to Christmas), and likely plenty of other stations during Christmas. It probably took somebody by surprise and they made a stink about it.

I understand that the demographic between Jazz and Rap is different, but the point transcends the demographic argument I think.  Any person, of any demographic, can flip on their favorite radio station and become offended by a lyric if they so choose, but why would that person feel the need to stamp out one particular song or another just because their sensibilities are offended by it?  Why not take George Carlin's advice and just change the channel?  Our society is breeding the mentality of "I'm offended by it, then everyone should see why I'm offended by it and agree with me", it's dangerous to encourage that type of non-thinking in my opinion.

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter; Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."  Ecclesiastes 12:13

Now with Twitler taking a high end steak of this caliber and insulting the cow that died for it by having it well done just shows zero respect for the product, which falls right in line with the amount of respect he shows for pretty much everything else.- Lonestar

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #993 on: December 14, 2018, 09:19:30 AM »
Has it occurred to you guys that maybe there's a different demographic listening to jazz classics than modern rap? The reason that nobody's bitching about rappers defiling their hos is because the only people that listen to that shit are fine with it. The people who don't listen to it rarely have to hear it since it won't pop up on the EZ listening station. BICO shows up all the time on my local jazz station (it's not relegated to Christmas), and likely plenty of other stations during Christmas. It probably took somebody by surprise and they made a stink about it.

I understand that the demographic between Jazz and Rap is different, but the point transcends the demographic argument I think.  Any person, of any demographic, can flip on their favorite radio station and become offended by a lyric if they so choose, but why would that person feel the need to stamp out one particular song or another just because their sensibilities are offended by it?  Why not take George Carlin's advice and just change the channel?  Our society is breeding the mentality of "I'm offended by it, then everyone should see why I'm offended by it and agree with me", it's dangerous to encourage that type of non-thinking in my opinion.
Oh, I agree. People should just change the damn station. The point I was responding to was about the implied hypocrisy of worrying about the jazz singer and letting the rappers do whateverthehell they want.
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 vtgrad

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #994 on: December 14, 2018, 09:51:48 AM »
Has it occurred to you guys that maybe there's a different demographic listening to jazz classics than modern rap? The reason that nobody's bitching about rappers defiling their hos is because the only people that listen to that shit are fine with it. The people who don't listen to it rarely have to hear it since it won't pop up on the EZ listening station. BICO shows up all the time on my local jazz station (it's not relegated to Christmas), and likely plenty of other stations during Christmas. It probably took somebody by surprise and they made a stink about it.

I understand that the demographic between Jazz and Rap is different, but the point transcends the demographic argument I think.  Any person, of any demographic, can flip on their favorite radio station and become offended by a lyric if they so choose, but why would that person feel the need to stamp out one particular song or another just because their sensibilities are offended by it?  Why not take George Carlin's advice and just change the channel?  Our society is breeding the mentality of "I'm offended by it, then everyone should see why I'm offended by it and agree with me", it's dangerous to encourage that type of non-thinking in my opinion.
Oh, I agree. People should just change the damn station. The point I was responding to was about the implied hypocrisy of worrying about the jazz singer and letting the rappers do whateverthehell they want.

Ah... understood. 
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter; Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."  Ecclesiastes 12:13

Now with Twitler taking a high end steak of this caliber and insulting the cow that died for it by having it well done just shows zero respect for the product, which falls right in line with the amount of respect he shows for pretty much everything else.- Lonestar

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #995 on: June 02, 2019, 09:54:43 AM »

Even outside of the public eye, victims of sexual harassment almost always suffer consequences on the job, even if the the perpetrator is removed.  https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/15/16438750/weinstein-sexual-harassment-facts

Now victims of sexual assault can suffer even more consequences than merely trying to recover from their trauma - even if the perpetrator is convicted.  Now it seems like coming forward and even winning your case in a court of law can potentially bankrupt you too.  Message received by sexual assault victims everywhere, "Don't come forward unless you are prepared to deal with the fall out we are about to unleash on you."

Also worth pointing out, the state of Minnesota passed a law that suspended the statute of limitations on sex abuse charges.  That allowed this case to even be heard.  This needs to be the rule across the board, IMO.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/05/28/to-recover-defense-costs-childrens-theatre-goes-after-assault-survivor?fbclid=IwAR2rTbZ3RAT6kpsBOJwCcNewO-pjZ0XGd8mHHsS9d2hsO9lG3sXsND-nEH0


Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9509
  • Gender: Male
  • Inglourious Basstard
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #996 on: June 02, 2019, 11:10:32 AM »
Also worth pointing out, the state of Minnesota passed a law that suspended the statute of limitations on sex abuse charges.  That allowed this case to even be heard.  This needs to be the rule across the board, IMO.

I recall hearing WA just changed their statute of limitations on sex assault/abuse.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #997 on: June 02, 2019, 01:57:04 PM »
Also worth pointing out, the state of Minnesota passed a law that suspended the statute of limitations on sex abuse charges.  That allowed this case to even be heard.  This needs to be the rule across the board, IMO.

I recall hearing WA just changed their statute of limitations on sex assault/abuse.

Just looked that up.  That's great, good on Inslee for signing it.  The science around trauma seems to be making its way to changing the laws.  I worry about the states that don't seem to care about science that much.   :-\
Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 32629
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #998 on: June 21, 2019, 08:21:27 AM »
Question: does anyone think the Lavar Ball comment earlier this week was sexual harrassment?  I heard about this yesterday.  ESPN has already removed the clip, but it is easy to find on YT or Twitter.

https://sports.yahoo.com/espn-has-no-plans-to-put-lavar-ball-on-network-after-inappropriate-comment-to-molly-qerim-201150443.html

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25954
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #999 on: June 21, 2019, 08:24:36 AM »
 :lol

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1000 on: June 21, 2019, 08:26:04 AM »
Question: does anyone think the Lavar Ball comment earlier this week was sexual harrassment?  I heard about this yesterday.  ESPN has already removed the clip, but it is easy to find on YT or Twitter.

https://sports.yahoo.com/espn-has-no-plans-to-put-lavar-ball-on-network-after-inappropriate-comment-to-molly-qerim-201150443.html
Not sexual harassment. Out of line, though. And realistically, the fault is on ESPN and not Ball's stupid ass. Everybody knows that he's a loudmouth dipshit and putting him on the air is asking for controversy. That's why ESPN continues to do so, and they're now paying the price (steeper though it should be).
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 Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8266
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1001 on: June 21, 2019, 08:28:46 AM »
Considering the source, I think Ball showed remarkable restraint not making some joke about stick shifts.
ďI have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the U.S. that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.Ē ó Christopher Hitchens

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 32629
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1002 on: June 21, 2019, 08:29:52 AM »
That was my thought as well, Barto.  It was journalistic malpractice by continuing to but that buffoon on TV, and if this is what gets him off it, I am fine with it.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1003 on: June 21, 2019, 02:49:15 PM »
Some light reading which I am certain will be dismissed as complete BS by some.  But I have to say as someone who has been sexually assaulted myself, I find her accounts to have a ring of plausibility to them.  In more ways than one.

What possible benefit can she have for coming forward now?  Publicity?  Fame?  Will that be worth the death threats that will undoubtedly go along with that?

How about the benefit of lifting some heavy burdens that have been carried around for decades?  Maybe it's even an act of contrition for keeping silent for so long and thus the guilt of knowing if she'd have spoken out sooner, some victims could've been saved.

If only that Donna Karan coatdress could talk....

https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html

Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 31098
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1004 on: June 21, 2019, 03:00:25 PM »
Some light reading which I am certain will be dismissed as complete BS by some.  But I have to say as someone who has been sexually assaulted myself, I find her accounts to have a ring of plausibility to them.  In more ways than one.

What possible benefit can she have for coming forward now?  Publicity?  Fame?  Will that be worth the death threats that will undoubtedly go along with that?

How about the benefit of lifting some heavy burdens that have been carried around for decades?  Maybe it's even an act of contrition for keeping silent for so long and thus the guilt of knowing if she'd have spoken out sooner, some victims could've been saved.

If only that Donna Karan coatdress could talk....

https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html

I saw this on a news website and scrolled briefly through the comments.

Almost every single one was how, because it's in her book, that it can NOT be taken seriously because she's lying to sell books.

Sadly, and I do mean sadly, that alone will trump (Ugh, so sorry) any thing at all that she is actually saying.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1005 on: June 21, 2019, 03:20:31 PM »
Some light reading which I am certain will be dismissed as complete BS by some.  But I have to say as someone who has been sexually assaulted myself, I find her accounts to have a ring of plausibility to them.  In more ways than one.

What possible benefit can she have for coming forward now?  Publicity?  Fame?  Will that be worth the death threats that will undoubtedly go along with that?

How about the benefit of lifting some heavy burdens that have been carried around for decades?  Maybe it's even an act of contrition for keeping silent for so long and thus the guilt of knowing if she'd have spoken out sooner, some victims could've been saved.

If only that Donna Karan coatdress could talk....

https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html

I saw this on a news website and scrolled briefly through the comments.

Almost every single one was how, because it's in her book, that it can NOT be taken seriously because she's lying to sell books.

Sadly, and I do mean sadly, that alone will trump (Ugh, so sorry) any thing at all that she is actually saying.

Of course you are right - I didn't know she'd written a book honestly, not that it matters to me.  It doesn't change the fact that I take her seriously.  If one or more of the pedophile priests' victims wrote a book documenting their abuse, even if it made them very wealthy, it wouldn't change the horror of what they went through nor the importance of their story (IMO).  Many people author books that help them process things in their own lives.  I wouldn't expect abuse and trauma to be any different.

It is sad for me to admit that as I read her excerpt and noted the relationship she stated she had with the Me Too movement that I knew that alone would cause people to disregard what she had to say.  It is ironic that this movement has given courage to so many to come forward with their stories and yet at the same time lumps them into a group that can be so easily dismissed. 

Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 31098
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1006 on: June 21, 2019, 03:40:55 PM »
Sadly we live in a time of such cynicism and black and white thinking, that anything other than purely selfless altruism (on the side of the victim only, of course) is seen as sufficient evidence to disregard or doubt without the presence of undeniable proof.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1007 on: July 12, 2019, 12:07:27 PM »
Taking this from the Trump Tweets thread to here.  I figured Epstein and Weinstein could co-exist in a thread about assholes.

EB, could you elaborate on this a bit for me?  I want to be sure I'm understanding your point about the Epstein case.

The same thing applies to rape, which is damn near universally applicable to all sexual acts at this point. We're seeing this in the Epstein case right now.
Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1008 on: July 12, 2019, 12:40:31 PM »
Taking this from the Trump Tweets thread to here.  I figured Epstein and Weinstein could co-exist in a thread about assholes.

EB, could you elaborate on this a bit for me?  I want to be sure I'm understanding your point about the Epstein case.

The same thing applies to rape, which is damn near universally applicable to all sexual acts at this point. We're seeing this in the Epstein case right now.
Traditionally rape has involved an element of force, or at least coercion. I've never seen GoT, so I'll cite Dr. Melfi as a perfect example. Despite being on a TV show it was brutal to the point of being hard to watch. Rape has expanded to cover any sexual act where consent is not firm and implicit. In general I'm fine with that; consent is king. Yet we've turned Dr. Melfi's experience into an umbrella term that equates her with a girl who the next morning regrets going home with a guy she met at a bar. When we describe acts where affirmative consent is demonstrated the entire time as rape I think we minimize what happens to a woman snatched out of a parking garage somewhere.
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: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1009 on: July 12, 2019, 12:51:32 PM »
Sadly we live in a time of such cynicism and black and white thinking, that anything other than purely selfless altruism (on the side of the victim only, of course) is seen as sufficient evidence to disregard or doubt without the presence of undeniable proof.

But... cynicism works both ways.   We've had a clear, concise and conclusive (in most ways) report by a professional investigator marshalling all the resources of he United States Of America that said without equivocation that Donald Trump DID NOT collude with Russia.  And yet... there are millions of people that believe he did, and CONGRESS is seeking to subpoena Jared Kushner to "further investigate" that point (specifically, collusion).   Trump "grabs 'em by the p****!" and there are MILLIONS that believe that he should be in jail for that comment alone, because they assume it's a verbal confession.   So in that light, is it really that egregious to have a healthy cynicism on both sides?  A hallmark of our judicial system is fair representation on BOTH sides.  There's a guy here in CT, Norm Pattis - he's representing the husband in that case where the wife from New Canaan has been missing for almost a month and a half, as well as Alex Jones in the Sandy Hook suit - that has written books about how he doesn't care if his clients are guilty or not; they deserve someone with the wherewithall to navigate the legal system in their favor, advocating for them zealously, if only to make sure that the guv'mint doesn't steam roll them.

John Adams. 

I think ANY position that doesn't allow for the other side to at least have some portion of the truth is to be dangerous, be it for this woman, or for Trump (or any other person accused but not convicted, of sexual assault).   It's heartbreaking that women have to be in this situation, I totally get that.   But unfortunately (or not) that's not a variable in due process. 

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1010 on: July 12, 2019, 12:55:06 PM »
Taking this from the Trump Tweets thread to here.  I figured Epstein and Weinstein could co-exist in a thread about assholes.

EB, could you elaborate on this a bit for me?  I want to be sure I'm understanding your point about the Epstein case.

The same thing applies to rape, which is damn near universally applicable to all sexual acts at this point. We're seeing this in the Epstein case right now.
Traditionally rape has involved an element of force, or at least coercion. I've never seen GoT, so I'll cite Dr. Melfi as a perfect example. Despite being on a TV show it was brutal to the point of being hard to watch. Rape has expanded to cover any sexual act where consent is not firm and implicit. In general I'm fine with that; consent is king. Yet we've turned Dr. Melfi's experience into an umbrella term that equates her with a girl who the next morning regrets going home with a guy she met at a bar. When we describe acts where affirmative consent is demonstrated the entire time as rape I think we minimize what happens to a woman snatched out of a parking garage somewhere.

I've never seen GoT either, FWIW.  Also never watched The Sopranos. 

But while I think I get your point, I'm still confused what that has to do with the Epstein case.  I'll admit, I am not up on every victim account but I think where this is going is with regard to legal age.  Can a child even give consent?  We call it "statutory rape" for a reason.  A 14/15 year old is coerced into a situation that she couldn't possibly understand how to handle.  "Come into this room and give me a massage and I'll give you $300."  Then over time that 'massage' turns into a happy ending and then to penetration.  Does the fact that she willingly went into that room with him for the massage make it any less of a rape?  Is the fact he didn't 'snatch her out of a parking garage' make it less of a rape?

I admit I have no idea if there were some 18 year olds in Epstein's circle that were fully well aware and willing to fuck powerful men for money and that sometimes the line between 17 and 18 can appear blurry.  But the fact remains that we have laws to protect underage minors for a reason and calling it 'rape' seems appropriate to me with regard to the Epstein case.

Now ask me if I think a 19 year old should be charged with rape for having sex with his more-than-willing 17 year old girlfriend and I'm not going to call it rape.  But that isn't even in the same ballpark as the Epstein case, IMO.

Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 31098
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1011 on: July 12, 2019, 01:00:54 PM »
Sadly we live in a time of such cynicism and black and white thinking, that anything other than purely selfless altruism (on the side of the victim only, of course) is seen as sufficient evidence to disregard or doubt without the presence of undeniable proof.

I think ANY position that doesn't allow for the other side to at least have some portion of the truth is to be dangerous, be it for this woman, or for Trump (or any other person accused but not convicted, of sexual assault).   It's heartbreaking that women have to be in this situation, I totally get that.   But unfortunately (or not) that's not a variable in due process.

Your post wasn't super related to what I said, but this was a good point.

It's a tough situation though. Most rapes or sexual assault has no demonstrable evidence to prove that it happened. Just by the nature of the crime itself. If a person comes up to me, grabs my dick and says they want to rape me with a double bladed dildo and then walk away.....I have no evidence that any of that happened.

So you're left with this "They assaulted me" "No I didn't". Then the assailant walks away almost every single time.

That system is NOT fair and cannot continue on that level because you're essentially saying it's okay to rape/assault/whatever as long as there's no direct evidence because the person saying they didn't do it will always be believed.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24255
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1012 on: July 12, 2019, 01:38:23 PM »
Taking this from the Trump Tweets thread to here.  I figured Epstein and Weinstein could co-exist in a thread about assholes.

EB, could you elaborate on this a bit for me?  I want to be sure I'm understanding your point about the Epstein case.

The same thing applies to rape, which is damn near universally applicable to all sexual acts at this point. We're seeing this in the Epstein case right now.
Traditionally rape has involved an element of force, or at least coercion. I've never seen GoT, so I'll cite Dr. Melfi as a perfect example. Despite being on a TV show it was brutal to the point of being hard to watch. Rape has expanded to cover any sexual act where consent is not firm and implicit. In general I'm fine with that; consent is king. Yet we've turned Dr. Melfi's experience into an umbrella term that equates her with a girl who the next morning regrets going home with a guy she met at a bar. When we describe acts where affirmative consent is demonstrated the entire time as rape I think we minimize what happens to a woman snatched out of a parking garage somewhere.

I've never seen GoT either, FWIW.  Also never watched The Sopranos. 

But while I think I get your point, I'm still confused what that has to do with the Epstein case.  I'll admit, I am not up on every victim account but I think where this is going is with regard to legal age.  Can a child even give consent?  We call it "statutory rape" for a reason.  A 14/15 year old is coerced into a situation that she couldn't possibly understand how to handle.  "Come into this room and give me a massage and I'll give you $300."  Then over time that 'massage' turns into a happy ending and then to penetration.  Does the fact that she willingly went into that room with him for the massage make it any less of a rape?  Is the fact he didn't 'snatch her out of a parking garage' make it less of a rape?

To be honest, I think it does. Do I think it should be crime? Of course. Is Epstein a scumbag. Sure. I'm just not so quick to call somebody a rapist for something that was ostensibly consensual. And to your point, nobody can grant consent until that magical day they become an adult at 16, 17, or 18 as determined by geography. I still maintain there needs to be a distinction for behavior that is consensual at the practical level that doesn't involve throwing about the strongest descriptor we have available.

Quote
I admit I have no idea if there were some 18 year olds in Epstein's circle that were fully well aware and willing to fuck powerful men for money and that sometimes the line between 17 and 18 can appear blurry.  But the fact remains that we have laws to protect underage minors for a reason and calling it 'rape' seems appropriate to me with regard to the Epstein case.
Most of them, from what I gather. From what I've seen, of the "treasure trove" of pictures they recovered one of them was of a "possibly underage" female. One of Murdock's rags published a string of pictures of girls leaving his NYC mansion, and most of them looked of age to me, and the reports we're seeing all make a point of saying "as young as" 14-16. The dude was clearly up to some shady shit, but much of it is far less shady than the public perception.

Quote
Now ask me if I think a 19 year old should be charged with rape for having sex with his more-than-willing 17 year old girlfriend and I'm not going to call it rape.  But that isn't even in the same ballpark as the Epstein case, IMO.
Yet we call it the same thing, and we treat it the same way. On the night of my 18th birthday I committed numerous acts that the state of Texas considered "aggravated sexual assault of a child." Think about that. That's the same thing as some guy who snatches a little girl out of the park and forcibly rapes her. Does it make sense to conflate the two?

And to be clear, I'm way cool with age of consent laws and punishments for violating them. I just don't think "statutory rape" is a good way of looking at it, and I think we need to have a far better plan for it than we're capable of working out. We're just not really capable of acting rationally where minors are involved, which is generally my point where Epstein is concerned. Bust him for what he's done wrong (and he's done plenty). Just don't misrepresent it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 31098
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1013 on: July 12, 2019, 01:43:17 PM »
Not too related, but (dependent on state) I'm pretty sure a 19-year-old banging a 17-year-old is not considered statutory rape.

Usually once you get past the 18 (or whatever) mark, there's also laws about the age gap between the people. Again, depends on the state.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22975
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1014 on: July 12, 2019, 01:48:40 PM »
Sadly we live in a time of such cynicism and black and white thinking, that anything other than purely selfless altruism (on the side of the victim only, of course) is seen as sufficient evidence to disregard or doubt without the presence of undeniable proof.

I think ANY position that doesn't allow for the other side to at least have some portion of the truth is to be dangerous, be it for this woman, or for Trump (or any other person accused but not convicted, of sexual assault).   It's heartbreaking that women have to be in this situation, I totally get that.   But unfortunately (or not) that's not a variable in due process.

Your post wasn't super related to what I said, but this was a good point.

It's a tough situation though. Most rapes or sexual assault has no demonstrable evidence to prove that it happened. Just by the nature of the crime itself. If a person comes up to me, grabs my dick and says they want to rape me with a double bladed dildo and then walk away.....I have no evidence that any of that happened.

So you're left with this "They assaulted me" "No I didn't". Then the assailant walks away almost every single time.

That system is NOT fair and cannot continue on that level because you're essentially saying it's okay to rape/assault/whatever as long as there's no direct evidence because the person saying they didn't do it will always be believed.

Ugh.  I can't really respond to this without really veering pretty far into the intellectual (which kind of tramples the emotional and moral, and unfairly).   Suffice to say that this is a general problem in the judicial system, and a long, long time ago, a judgement call was made that we'd prefer 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed.  That informs this.   It's not SUPPOSED to be easy, as callous as that may be to an individual victim. 

But I'm thinking of this in a slightly different way.  Much has been made of her book; I don't give a shit about her book. it doesn't go to her veracity; heck, she might have published that to fund the lawyer she used to bring charges.  Who knows?  But in an age as caustic and toxic as we're in, the stakes are high, and ought to be treated as such.   What would YOU do to save those children in CAGES at the border, drinking urine, something something breast milk (I don't know; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said something about breast milk in her emotional plea to address the border situation).  You don't think someone would, in the bon amie of the #MeToo movement, throw out a rape accusation if it tips the scales for impeachment?   Not saying SHE did, but is it impossible?   So in the context of "We believe all women!" how does that get sorted?  What if she was assaulted, but by someone else, and said "ENOUGH"; and made this accusation to "help" the supposedly countless women that Trump allegedly assaulted in the past?   Or to exact revenge for Blaisey-Ford and the draconian, Conservative court that it gave us?   

If only from the standpoint that with a fluid standard, I'm not even 1000% sure about MYSELF, and I lived it with good intent and a kind heart, so I have zero doubt that the possibility exists that Trump sexually assaulted SOMEONE along the way.   But that general thought CANNOT be the standard for adjudging her veracity or not in this specific case.  The law, at least in some cases, takes great pains to avoid that.   
« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 11:03:45 AM by Stadler »