Author Topic: Harvey Weinstein  (Read 33685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22857
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1050 on: August 10, 2019, 10:54:58 AM »
People sometimes do manage to off themselves while on suicide watch. All they can really do is make it a whole lot harder. It's also being reported that he'd been taken off of suicide watch, which would have been a big mistake. This guy was a no-brainer.

If he had lots of information he was looking to reveal it'll probably be showing up on a couple of news desks in the next 48 hours. He thought far enough ahead for this sort of thing to leave some posthumous instructions.

Crazy it happened once names got out. Bill Richardson, New Mexico ex Governer, was named. Now that is interesting locally because i remember him being praised highly by media and the likes.
There's really not much there at all. The dude might be guilty of being a typical john, and that's 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 Harmony

  • Posts: 800
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1051 on: August 10, 2019, 11:02:03 AM »
If he had lots of information he was looking to reveal it'll probably be showing up on a couple of news desks in the next 48 hours. He thought far enough ahead for this sort of thing to leave some posthumous instructions.

That is a very interesting point.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 800
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1052 on: August 11, 2019, 04:29:14 PM »
Latest conspiracy photos:





So before I would personally jump to conclusions, I'd want to have a whole lot more knowledge around how the human body changes in appearance after death.  I do know that skin turgor and color changes happen rapidly.  I would want to know how long he'd been dead in the top photo.  I'd also defer to a ME or mortician's opinion.

Do we know yet (too lazy to look) on how he suicided?  Was it hanging?  That's going to mess up someone's appearance.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist.  I have no reason to disbelieve the man transported to the hospital in the top photo above is not JE.



Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1103
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1053 on: August 11, 2019, 06:22:40 PM »
Dissecting photos as non experts is how ridiculous conspiracy theories are made. There is no point for anyone here to dissect the photos.


But hey if you're POTUS feel free to retweet the most ridiculous conspiracy theories in your feed because #YOLO

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 800
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1054 on: August 11, 2019, 07:02:38 PM »
There is no point for anyone here to dissect the photos.

I didn't really post them to request "dissection" - unless someone really wants to.  I won't tell anyone else what to do.

I do admit to finding various conspiracy theories interesting because I try to imagine the people who fully buy into them, without question.  And what is even more interesting - at least to me - is that I'm seeing these theories posted by liberals and conservatives almost 1:1. 


Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22857
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1055 on: August 11, 2019, 10:32:21 PM »
Do we know yet (too lazy to look) on how he suicided?  Was it hanging?  That's going to mess up someone's appearance.
He hanged himself. They put him on suicide watch for six days, and then up and decided to stick in him a cell by himself and not bother checking on him every 15 minutes like they were supposed to. He also had sheets and pants, as well as a bed frame and window bars to hang himself from. The biggest problem here, and the fuel for every conspiracy under the sun, is incompetence. Based on what we know, some grand conspiracy where Hillary blackmailed Giuliani to arrange for his death is indistinguishable from a few jailers and some NYC prison bureaucracy simply bungling the whole thing, as humans will often do. Despite incompetence being the far more likely scenario it's not the one most people tend to see.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2019, 11:07:15 PM by El Barto »
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21589
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1056 on: August 12, 2019, 06:08:38 AM »
I'm going with Occam's razor on this one.   

The prison system is underfunded and understaffed by a crew who just wants to hit their twenty year mark and start collecting a pension.

There's a mountain of evidence that this guy fucked children and provided a reliable channel for others to do so. He went from yachts, private jets, and being able to do who and what he wanted at the drop of a hat, to being stuck in a cell in isolation. The dude knew his life was over and ended it the first chance he got.

If there is any kind of conspiracy of any kind, my money is on it being nothing more than his guards being bribed to let him do his thing.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18964
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1057 on: August 12, 2019, 08:00:35 AM »
I'm seeing these theories posted by liberals and conservatives almost 1:1.

I think that's an important observation, and one that we shouldn't easily forget.

His gig wasn't a political gig, even if it overlapped with politicians.  His was a social gig.   He had "friends" (how you want to define that is up to the individual) across all political divides, and I think you can find people of both parties and NO parties that would prefer he shut his pie hole.   I think the Dubin, Brunel and Prince Andrew revelations are as impactful (or more) as any of the political (or quasi-political) associations.   

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 800
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1058 on: August 12, 2019, 08:51:41 AM »
I'm going with Occam's razor on this one.   

This is where I'm firmly parked as well.

And thanks for the info, EB.

The photo in the Post article bothers me about one thing though.  If it is a photo snapped at the hospital after transport, why is his face showing at all?  If he's dead - and he certainly looks dead - wouldn't they have covered his face?  I dunno…maybe I've just watched too many Law and Order shows.  But I thought that was kind of SOP.

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 29089
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1059 on: August 12, 2019, 08:53:53 AM »
I'm going with Occam's razor on this one.   

This is where I'm firmly parked as well.

And thanks for the info, EB.

The photo in the Post article bothers me about one thing though.  If it is a photo snapped at the hospital after transport, why is his face showing at all?  If he's dead - and he certainly looks dead - wouldn't they have covered his face?  I dunno…maybe I've just watched too many Law and Order shows.  But I thought that was kind of SOP.

I have no idea, but maybe because they can't announce a time of death until they are at the hospital with a medical doctor? I dunno.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21589
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1060 on: August 12, 2019, 09:21:02 AM »
I'm going with Occam's razor on this one.   

This is where I'm firmly parked as well.

And thanks for the info, EB.

The photo in the Post article bothers me about one thing though.  If it is a photo snapped at the hospital after transport, why is his face showing at all? If he's dead - and he certainly looks dead - wouldn't they have covered his face?  I dunno…maybe I've just watched too many Law and Order shows.  But I thought that was kind of SOP.
 

I'm not an EMT and just thinking completely out loud here...

If he wasn't pronounced dead at the prison, they would have put into into the ambulance uncovered while they attempted lifesaving measures. He wouldn't have arrived in a body bag.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 800
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1061 on: August 12, 2019, 09:52:01 AM »
Fair points, both of you.  I'm certainly no EMT either.  But he looks pretty darn dead and I imagine he was pretty darn dead hanging in that cell.  But I supposed if the EMTs were in full-on resuscitation mode then that would make the most logical sense.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22857
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1062 on: August 12, 2019, 10:00:36 AM »
I'm not sure, but I believe that once any attempt at resuscitation begins, like CPR, it can't be ceased until a doctor pronounces him dead. The jailers would have begun that, even if it was pretty obvious he was croaked, and doctor would have made the declaration.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 29089
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1063 on: August 12, 2019, 10:06:18 AM »
Yea. Only an MD can pronounce time of death. Not EMTs.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 800
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1064 on: August 12, 2019, 10:10:48 AM »
So now I'm wondering if EMTs have to begin CPR on someone who is obviously dead.  The answer may be different in different jurisdictions.  IDK

But if the body is cold and rigor has set in, that would be fucking creepy.  Not saying that pertains to JE but just a casual observation.

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 29089
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1065 on: August 12, 2019, 10:11:48 AM »
If there’s no signs of life in the slightest, then no CPR to the best of my knowledge.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22857
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1066 on: August 13, 2019, 10:27:01 PM »
So now I'm wondering if EMTs have to begin CPR on someone who is obviously dead.  The answer may be different in different jurisdictions.  IDK

But if the body is cold and rigor has set in, that would be fucking creepy.  Not saying that pertains to JE but just a casual observation.

Apparently somebody posted some details to I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me an hour before any of this became public, and included some details that are pretty clearly from the EMT's point of view:

Quote
"Worked asystole arrest for 40 minutes, also intubated in the field/epi/2 liters NS infused. Telemetry advised bicarb and D50 in the field. Pt transported to Lower Manhattan ER and worked for 20 minutes and called. Hospital administrator was alerted, preparing statements,"

This was definitely not a clear-cut case of "He's dead, Jim." This was somebody with no pulse, but not so dead as to be unrecoverable.

Also, if anybody here is planning on anonymously leaking hot information to TMZ or something, don't use jargon that pinpoints you to one of only two possible people. Particularly when your future profession requires a very specific code of ethics that you're shitting all over.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21589
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1067 on: August 14, 2019, 06:24:59 AM »
I was reading this morning that the two guards on duty and tasked with watching this dude both fell asleep on the job.   

Me smells bullshit.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18964
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1068 on: August 14, 2019, 07:34:11 AM »
Also, if anybody here is planning on anonymously leaking hot information to TMZ or something, don't use jargon that pinpoints you to one of only two possible people. Particularly when your future profession requires a very specific code of ethics that you're shitting all over.

HAHA, that seems like a really dumb thing to do.  My good nature is hoping that someone took an illicit photo of some notes or something.  ;)

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22857
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1069 on: August 14, 2019, 03:38:42 PM »
Jesus, he's not going to attack children is he?
YES HE IS!

I have a few problems with all of this that nobody seems willing to broach. We'll begin with Epstein's victims who are upset that they'll never get "justice." He's fucking dead! What more do they want? He's dead as a direct result of his actions. Not only that, but the consequences of his actions created a situation that was so unbearable for him that he had to kill himself. We're talking Shakespearean level justice here. This is about as much as anybody could hope for. Is the problem that he didn't suffer long enough? That's not justice. My best guess is that they wanted to see him tried, convicted, sentenced to a gazillion years in jail, and then dead after a suitable period of time. The reality is that he wasn't going to confess to anything. After Florida does anybody really think Barr would have offered a plea deal with less than 12 consecutive life sentences and the death penalty on top? Moreover, in this climate he'd have been convicted of being the black dahlia killer if they felt like charging him with it. A trial would have simply been a televised airing of grievances. Is that a necessary component of justice? What are they really missing out on?

Another problem I'm having is with who we're calling victims. In fact, pretty much how we're describing the whole thing. The girl who filed a civil suit this morning claims that she was violently raped, presumably by Epstein. I'm highly sympathetic to her, and if her allegations are true then Epstein got exactly what he deserved. At the same time, the vast majority of what we're actually concerned about are girls who in their later teens agreed to give a guy a handjob and massage in exchange for $500, and moved along from there. I'm not aware of coercion in these cases, no duress, but only the prospect of money. If we're being honest here, don't they bear some responsibility for their involvement? Is victimhood binary, or is there an axis where it intersects with a diagonal line of personal responsibility?

Nowadays, we describe every act of prostitution in this country as sex trafficking because it sounds bad. Look at Bob Kraft. People don't generally sympathize with prostitutes, and we tend to write off johns as common pervs and weirdos. If you describe them as sex traffickers and their victims, though, now you're dong the Lord's legal work. I haven't actually heard of any allegations that sound like what we originally defined as sex trafficking. I've heard of nobody kept against their will. Nobody had their passports seized and, to the best of my knowledge, they weren't forced to do anything. I certainly haven't heard of any beatings. The reality is that they were making money and partying with rich guys in penthouses and on a Caribbean island, and that's more than enough incentive for a virtually endless supply of hot teenage tail.

Within a 2 mile radius of me right now are probably a half dozen AMPs. In there you're likely to find some genuine, honest to God sex trafficking victims. Those are the ones we should really be bothered about, and comparing all of Epstein's victims to them is pretty fucked up.

My point here isn't to defend Epstein, and it isn't to bash girls who feel like they were wronged. What bothers me is that we've taken the worst examples of what he was up to and applied them to everything he was up to, most of which was [relatively] above board. The public narrative is pretty much on par with Hillary's Child Sex Dungeon and Fine Italian Cuisine. Of orgies at thirty thousand feet with little kids as the inflight entertainment. Of a guy creating an army nubile of sex slaves to be sold to the highest bidder. That's not it. At the same time the guy did commit plenty of serious crimes which he would have been held accountable for, and rightly so. As they keep telling us, "as young as 14, 15, and 16!" At some point he crosses a line. Do we really need to embellish those crimes, though? As I've said in the past we don't need to make up a story that Hitler kicked his dog; the business with the Jews is probably enough. I'd apply the same rule here. Moreover, we're creating an arena where an awful lot of women are able to turn their indiscretions into victim status and garner the accompanying sympathy, and nobody will question it. In any other context don't we tend to frown on that?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21589
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1070 on: August 14, 2019, 04:05:17 PM »
Good post, Barto. However, I think what most people were hoping for, myself included, was to see what else would have come to light. There were rumored to be upwards of a millions pages of evidence that could have been used in his trial. That's going to waste now. I don't think the "justice" you speak of was only aimed at Epistein, but rather his entire circle. This was an opportunity to potentially out dozens of people in his  orbit who are just as guilty and now likely to continue going about their fucked up ways of living. Justice, at least in my eyes, was going to be everyone involved in this having their day in front of a judge, not just Epstein. That seems like a pipe dream now.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22857
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1071 on: August 14, 2019, 06:00:04 PM »
Good post, Barto. However, I think what most people were hoping for, myself included, was to see what else would have come to light. There were rumored to be upwards of a millions pages of evidence that could have been used in his trial. That's going to waste now. I don't think the "justice" you speak of was only aimed at Epistein, but rather his entire circle. This was an opportunity to potentially out dozens of people in his  orbit who are just as guilty and now likely to continue going about their fucked up ways of living. Justice, at least in my eyes, was going to be everyone involved in this having their day in front of a judge, not just Epstein. That seems like a pipe dream now.
I don't know of any reason why a trial would be necessary to investigate those millions of pages of evidence. In fact, it might actually be easier now that those pages aren't being used to crucifying someone. Honestly, I suspect this thing's probably gotten too big now to let it rest, and I just don't see how the lack of a trial precludes exploring other avenues.
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: 18964
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1072 on: August 14, 2019, 08:45:10 PM »
In any other context don't we tend to frown on that?

Well, actually, as to the first part (the overkill part), NO.  This is starting to be the modus operandi when it comes to harm and wrongdoing across multiple contexts.  For another thread, but this is the kernel of most of my posts that are interpreted by some to be apologizing for Trump (I promise you, I am not).     

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 615
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1073 on: August 14, 2019, 09:17:40 PM »
Jesus, he's not going to attack children is he?
YES HE IS!

I have a few problems with all of this that nobody seems willing to broach. We'll begin with Epstein's victims who are upset that they'll never get "justice." He's fucking dead! What more do they want? He's dead as a direct result of his actions. Not only that, but the consequences of his actions created a situation that was so unbearable for him that he had to kill himself. We're talking Shakespearean level justice here. This is about as much as anybody could hope for. Is the problem that he didn't suffer long enough? That's not justice. My best guess is that they wanted to see him tried, convicted, sentenced to a gazillion years in jail, and then dead after a suitable period of time. The reality is that he wasn't going to confess to anything. After Florida does anybody really think Barr would have offered a plea deal with less than 12 consecutive life sentences and the death penalty on top? Moreover, in this climate he'd have been convicted of being the black dahlia killer if they felt like charging him with it. A trial would have simply been a televised airing of grievances. Is that a necessary component of justice? What are they really missing out on?

Another problem I'm having is with who we're calling victims. In fact, pretty much how we're describing the whole thing. The girl who filed a civil suit this morning claims that she was violently raped, presumably by Epstein. I'm highly sympathetic to her, and if her allegations are true then Epstein got exactly what he deserved. At the same time, the vast majority of what we're actually concerned about are girls who in their later teens agreed to give a guy a handjob and massage in exchange for $500, and moved along from there. I'm not aware of coercion in these cases, no duress, but only the prospect of money. If we're being honest here, don't they bear some responsibility for their involvement? Is victimhood binary, or is there an axis where it intersects with a diagonal line of personal responsibility?

Nowadays, we describe every act of prostitution in this country as sex trafficking because it sounds bad. Look at Bob Kraft. People don't generally sympathize with prostitutes, and we tend to write off johns as common pervs and weirdos. If you describe them as sex traffickers and their victims, though, now you're dong the Lord's legal work. I haven't actually heard of any allegations that sound like what we originally defined as sex trafficking. I've heard of nobody kept against their will. Nobody had their passports seized and, to the best of my knowledge, they weren't forced to do anything. I certainly haven't heard of any beatings. The reality is that they were making money and partying with rich guys in penthouses and on a Caribbean island, and that's more than enough incentive for a virtually endless supply of hot teenage tail.

Within a 2 mile radius of me right now are probably a half dozen AMPs. In there you're likely to find some genuine, honest to God sex trafficking victims. Those are the ones we should really be bothered about, and comparing all of Epstein's victims to them is pretty fucked up.

My point here isn't to defend Epstein, and it isn't to bash girls who feel like they were wronged. What bothers me is that we've taken the worst examples of what he was up to and applied them to everything he was up to, most of which was [relatively] above board. The public narrative is pretty much on par with Hillary's Child Sex Dungeon and Fine Italian Cuisine. Of orgies at thirty thousand feet with little kids as the inflight entertainment. Of a guy creating an army nubile of sex slaves to be sold to the highest bidder. That's not it. At the same time the guy did commit plenty of serious crimes which he would have been held accountable for, and rightly so. As they keep telling us, "as young as 14, 15, and 16!" At some point he crosses a line. Do we really need to embellish those crimes, though? As I've said in the past we don't need to make up a story that Hitler kicked his dog; the business with the Jews is probably enough. I'd apply the same rule here. Moreover, we're creating an arena where an awful lot of women are able to turn their indiscretions into victim status and garner the accompanying sympathy, and nobody will question it. In any other context don't we tend to frown on that?

I don't have much to add other than part of what you'Re getting into touches on arguments that have been going on in feminist circles for decades.  Sex work and all it entails is one of the most divisive issues.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 800
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1074 on: August 15, 2019, 08:37:15 AM »
My point here isn't to defend Epstein, and it isn't to bash girls who feel like they were wronged. What bothers me is that we've taken the worst examples of what he was up to and applied them to everything he was up to, most of which was [relatively] above board.


So do you see Epstein as merely a pimp?  Legally, is the definition of pimping out underage girls considered a form of sex trafficking?  (I'm asking, I honestly don't know.)

As for the victims wanting their pound of flesh and actually getting around 200 pounds of flesh but still wanting him to fry (figuratively).  Could it be that once his estate is settled, they are hoping to get a cut?  I mean, I know that sounds awful but is it really different - except for the scale of things - than adults accusing pedophile priests and suing for damages?

You know, sex scandals happen every minute of every day.  The difference between your run-of-the-mill sex scandal and the Epstein case is that most people don't give a shit about the former.  They want the sordid details of the latter because it involves the rich, famous, and highly powerful people in the world.  That's what sells.  It has literally been this way since time began.

One thing I've wondered about though - recently I've seen some reports about how Russia-linked social media accounts have been purposefully pushing stories about racism.  I think the info was from a Clemson University study.  The purpose for pushing these stories is to further divide people and possibly to attempt to push racial tensions into the streets.  Is it at all possible that these conspiracy stories and even the stories about Epstein and other scandals like the Hillary Pizzagate story are likewise being pushed and prodded?


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18964
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1075 on: August 15, 2019, 08:56:10 AM »
I could be wrong, as I haven't followed it closely enough, but I understand that the connection has already been made to the Pizzagate thing.   I could have sworn that there were links to Russian-backed propaganda sources from a woman's social media feed (I forget if it was Facebook or Twitter) that was really pushing the "Pizzagate" thing. 

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23443
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1076 on: August 15, 2019, 09:02:31 AM »
The russian bots stirring the pot on US social media is a real thing. Didnt they also organize real rallies during the election last time?

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22857
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1077 on: August 15, 2019, 09:05:57 AM »
My point here isn't to defend Epstein, and it isn't to bash girls who feel like they were wronged. What bothers me is that we've taken the worst examples of what he was up to and applied them to everything he was up to, most of which was [relatively] above board.


So do you see Epstein as merely a pimp?  Legally, is the definition of pimping out underage girls considered a form of sex trafficking?  (I'm asking, I honestly don't know.)
I'm not even sure I'd call him a pimp. Seems to me that pimps are in it to make money from the girls' hard efforts. I don't gather that was happening here. Do we know if he was taking a cut of their money? I'm not sure why he'd bother. It was a pittance compared to his legal income. My hunch is that he was just keeping tabs on a variety of girls who were interested in screwing rich guys for fun and profit. Legally an argument could probably be made that he was still pandering under my interpretation. Realistically I'd call it a stretch.

That applies to the trafficking thing, as well. I have no idea what US code says about trafficking, but I'd be surprised if it didn't include something about bringing in girls from overseas to work as prostitutes. Again, there might be a legal theory that he was doing that, but I'd call it a reach, and more importantly, and insult to the real victims of sex trafficking.

Quote
One thing I've wondered about though - recently I've seen some reports about how Russia-linked social media accounts have been purposefully pushing stories about racism.  I think the info was from a Clemson University study.  The purpose for pushing these stories is to further divide people and possibly to attempt to push racial tensions into the streets.  Is it at all possible that these conspiracy stories and even the stories about Epstein and other scandals like the Hillary Pizzagate story are likewise being pushed and prodded?

Last night I was trying to find pictures of the Lolita Express for a different conversation with Stadler. For every one picture of the aircraft there were 15 of Clinton. Conspiracies galore. It's actually pretty difficult to find credible information about this whole situation because it's buried under several metric shit-tons of politicized garbage. The accepted theory about Russian meddling is that they weren't trying to get Trump elected per se, though that was certainly a bonus, but rather to divide Americans and subvert the democratic process. Just peruse facebook and you see countless examples. Pushing a democrat child sex ring would certainly fit in with that. At the same time there are more than enough American dipshits to do that, so who knows.
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: 18964
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1078 on: August 15, 2019, 09:07:00 AM »

I don't have much to add other than part of what you'Re getting into touches on arguments that have been going on in feminist circles for decades.  Sex work and all it entails is one of the most divisive issues.

What's your take on that?  I had an extremely interesting conversation - both online and offline - with the author Michael Moorcock on this subject.   I've always been on the side of "what a woman does with her body is her choice, including abortion, but also selling it for sex, whether it's real or filmed".  I don't know if it was just his skill in putting words together, but he was able to create shade and nuance in the more radical points of view of people like Dworkin (all pornography is rooted in misogyny, and all sex - even consensual heterosexual sex is a form of rape (which she later walked back from)) which gave me pause.  I still lean libertarian on this point but it's not a straightforward or easy question. 

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 800
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1079 on: August 15, 2019, 09:20:29 AM »
Nobody asked me but I'll chime in.  I think the difficulty with how feminists see the sex worker industry is very layered.  Speaking for myself - caveat, I've never worked in the sex industry - the conflict comes from understanding that there are many in the industry who are being used and abused by some of those who are running the show.  I have no problem with women or men who choose to participate in that line of work, so long as they are of legal age and are doing it without coercion or abuse.  And as long as they are maintaining their health status so as not to spread STIs.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18964
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1080 on: August 15, 2019, 09:23:32 AM »
I'm not even sure I'd call him a pimp. Seems to me that pimps are in it to make money from the girls' hard efforts. I don't gather that was happening here. Do we know if he was taking a cut of their money? I'm not sure why he'd bother. It was a pittance compared to his legal income. My hunch is that he was just keeping tabs on a variety of girls who were interested in screwing rich guys for fun and profit. Legally an argument could probably be made that he was still pandering under my interpretation. Realistically I'd call it a stretch.

That applies to the trafficking thing, as well. I have no idea what US code says about trafficking, but I'd be surprised if it didn't include something about bringing in girls from overseas to work as prostitutes. Again, there might be a legal theory that he was doing that, but I'd call it a reach, and more importantly, and insult to the real victims of sex trafficking.

This not my area of (legal) expertise, so I can't comment on that, but I will say that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he didn't make a cent - directly - from these sexcapades.  His base job was one of relationships, and traveling (metaphorically) with the rich and famous was the best way to cultivate that.  He's known for playing up his "Harvard" connections, which are basically that he gave them a shit ton of money to further his scientific endeavors; he never actually attended Harvard (I believe he never actually graduated from ANY college), so for him, I would not be surprised if the company of the wealthy and influential was payment in and of itself.   

Quote
One thing I've wondered about though - recently I've seen some reports about how Russia-linked social media accounts have been purposefully pushing stories about racism.  I think the info was from a Clemson University study.  The purpose for pushing these stories is to further divide people and possibly to attempt to push racial tensions into the streets.  Is it at all possible that these conspiracy stories and even the stories about Epstein and other scandals like the Hillary Pizzagate story are likewise being pushed and prodded?

Last night I was trying to find pictures of the Lolita Express for a different conversation with Stadler. For every one picture of the aircraft there were 15 of Clinton. Conspiracies galore. It's actually pretty difficult to find credible information about this whole situation because it's buried under several metric shit-tons of politicized garbage. The accepted theory about Russian meddling is that they weren't trying to get Trump elected per se, though that was certainly a bonus, but rather to divide Americans and subvert the democratic process. Just peruse facebook and you see countless examples. Pushing a democrat child sex ring would certainly fit in with that. At the same time there are more than enough American dipshits to do that, so who knows.
[/quote]

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22857
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1081 on: August 15, 2019, 09:31:49 AM »
I'm not even sure I'd call him a pimp. Seems to me that pimps are in it to make money from the girls' hard efforts. I don't gather that was happening here. Do we know if he was taking a cut of their money? I'm not sure why he'd bother. It was a pittance compared to his legal income. My hunch is that he was just keeping tabs on a variety of girls who were interested in screwing rich guys for fun and profit. Legally an argument could probably be made that he was still pandering under my interpretation. Realistically I'd call it a stretch.

That applies to the trafficking thing, as well. I have no idea what US code says about trafficking, but I'd be surprised if it didn't include something about bringing in girls from overseas to work as prostitutes. Again, there might be a legal theory that he was doing that, but I'd call it a reach, and more importantly, and insult to the real victims of sex trafficking.

This not my area of (legal) expertise, so I can't comment on that, but I will say that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he didn't make a cent - directly - from these sexcapades.  His base job was one of relationships, and traveling (metaphorically) with the rich and famous was the best way to cultivate that.  He's known for playing up his "Harvard" connections, which are basically that he gave them a shit ton of money to further his scientific endeavors; he never actually attended Harvard (I believe he never actually graduated from ANY college), so for him, I would not be surprised if the company of the wealthy and influential was payment in and of itself.   
That's certainly the argument I'd expect them to make (if he was being charged with pandering). But I'm not sure how you'd prosecute that. In this sense the girls are no different than the aircraft. They're accoutrements. Even if he arranged for them to be there. If I open a nightclub and make it a particularly desirable place for hos to congregate, so as to draw in lots of rich folk, am I a pimp? What if I put a sign on the door that says "hos drink free?"

This gets more complicated as I think about it. I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton didn't have to write a check to the girls he banged on Little Saint James. Epstein himself was paying the girls. Are you still a pimp if you pay the girls yourself to screw other people?
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: 18964
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1082 on: August 15, 2019, 09:32:10 AM »
Nobody asked me but I'll chime in.  I think the difficulty with how feminists see the sex worker industry is very layered.  Speaking for myself - caveat, I've never worked in the sex industry - the conflict comes from understanding that there are many in the industry who are being used and abused by some of those who are running the show.  I have no problem with women or men who choose to participate in that line of work, so long as they are of legal age and are doing it without coercion or abuse.  And as long as they are maintaining their health status so as not to spread STIs.

I personally welcome your input; the question was sparked by Xe, but it's interesting to hear all takes on it.

I tend to agree with you, pretty much down the line.   The part of Moorcock's argument that made me reconsider the most was the notion that the presence of pornography for the consumer - that is, the person watching the porn at some later time and place - knows nothing of the conditions under which it is made, but will still engender feelings that subjugate and objectify women.   I'm iffy on that; we objectify PEOPLE on such a mass scale that I struggle to see a measurable difference - for those that aren't already predisposed to hate women for some other reason - between seeing Scarlett Johansen preen fully clothed in a suspense thriller, Carmen Electra preen half-naked on screen in a horror movie, and seeing Lana Rhodes preening full naked in her own movie. 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22857
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1083 on: August 15, 2019, 09:35:54 AM »

I don't have much to add other than part of what you'Re getting into touches on arguments that have been going on in feminist circles for decades.  Sex work and all it entails is one of the most divisive issues.

What's your take on that?  I had an extremely interesting conversation - both online and offline - with the author Michael Moorcock on this subject.   I've always been on the side of "what a woman does with her body is her choice, including abortion, but also selling it for sex, whether it's real or filmed".  I don't know if it was just his skill in putting words together, but he was able to create shade and nuance in the more radical points of view of people like Dworkin (all pornography is rooted in misogyny, and all sex - even consensual heterosexual sex is a form of rape (which she later walked back from)) which gave me pause.  I still lean libertarian on this point but it's not a straightforward or easy question.
The problem with the feminists who are opposed to sex work is that they deny agency to the women they seek to empower. Their objections negate the possibility that a woman might want to play for pay. At this point there are plenty of women who want to do what they do, and to suggest that they're simply pawns being used by evil men paints them as week and stupid.     
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: 800
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harvey Weinstein
« Reply #1084 on: August 15, 2019, 09:36:40 AM »
Pushing a democrat child sex ring would certainly fit in with that. At the same time there are more than enough American dipshits to do that, so who knows.

LoL - I think it is a symbiotic relationship.   :laugh:

Actually, maybe that's not funny....