Harvey Weinstein
-
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@no-quarter said in Harvey Weinstein:
Again, the hypocrisy is that the same people that worked themselves into a lather about Trump's attitude towards women, were at the same time cosying up to someone that by all accounts was clearly using his power to abuse young women for fucking decades. It was widely known among their circles yet they stayed quiet - I can't fathom how anyone can defend that.
For starters it wasn't clear to everyone what HW was doing. There would obviously have been rumours but as you can see many of his victims are only talking out now after his power over them has subsided.
Put yourself in the position of someone who 'knew' (especially someone in the business that he still wielded power over). They felt they couldn't say anything about their own bully but when they saw another being outed they could unload their feelings in that direction. That's not being a hypocrite, that's lashing out at another bully because they have experienced bullying themselves.
I don't get how people are simplifying this to 'they must have known and acted' when it is far more complex than that. Allegations without proof, allegations that drag in a victim that is not willing to be dragged in etc etc.
Trump himself was a Democrat funder for years and it was well known what a pig he was at times yet no one is calling out the party fundraisers as hypocrites for that.The point is Crucial, if you're going to get on your high horse and aggressively call out this kind of thing, you look pretty farking pathetic if you wilfully ignore the exact thing you're campaigning against and pick out the easy targets. How you can claim that's not hypocrisy or cowardice but simply "lashing out at another bully" is beyond me.
I'll boil it down to a simple example then.
A victim of sexual assault does not bring charges against their assaulter because they either lack enough proof that will stand up or don't want the further trauma of a prosecution (quite a common thing). Are you saying that person cannot aggressively call out or comment on other instances that happen to other people without being hypocrites? Are you calling them cowards?
If not the victims themselves how about their friends? A friend confides in you about a situation at work but doesn't want to make it public. Can you only then criticise someone else's bad behaviour if you out the person you were told about (or heard rumours about)?
When evidence has come to light (eg the Trump recording) of course people were willing to unload on him. The evidence was out there. They have acted in the same manner with HW and did the same with Cosby.
I would seriously doubt that anyone who knew facts about HW second hand still treated him in a chummy way. They probably avoided him, tolerated him where necessary and warned others off privately. That is quite a common situation described after workplace sexual bullying is exposed.Yes Crucial victims of sexual assault are cowards if they don't speak out. Ffs you're going off the reservation now.
I'm only coming back at your comments. You have clearly stated that anyone in Hollywood that knew about HW and didn't say anything are cowards and hypocrites for dumping on Trump.
Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. It didn't take much for the entire rotten edifice to crumble did it? Think how many women would have been spared if someone, anyone of the brave Hollywood activists had spoken up. Just one would have been enough. But of course it's much much braver to slander the easy targets than go after the guy in your own backyard. Shit might as well even get selfies with the guy and heap praise on him. You claim they treated him with distain? What complete and utter crap. He was their mate up until the very moment he became too poisonous to be associated with.
As mentioned, this kind of shit is rife in Hollywood, yet instead of uniting to fight it they'll just go after the buffoon who they used to like before he became leader of the wrong party. So much easier to do that than actually, I don't know, addressing the very same thing in their own industry. If you think that's perfectly justified and understandable, then that's your prerogative. But I find it astounding that you will continue to defend it with such vigour.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@no-quarter said in Harvey Weinstein:
Again, the hypocrisy is that the same people that worked themselves into a lather about Trump's attitude towards women, were at the same time cosying up to someone that by all accounts was clearly using his power to abuse young women for fucking decades. It was widely known among their circles yet they stayed quiet - I can't fathom how anyone can defend that.
For starters it wasn't clear to everyone what HW was doing. There would obviously have been rumours but as you can see many of his victims are only talking out now after his power over them has subsided.
Put yourself in the position of someone who 'knew' (especially someone in the business that he still wielded power over). They felt they couldn't say anything about their own bully but when they saw another being outed they could unload their feelings in that direction. That's not being a hypocrite, that's lashing out at another bully because they have experienced bullying themselves.
I don't get how people are simplifying this to 'they must have known and acted' when it is far more complex than that. Allegations without proof, allegations that drag in a victim that is not willing to be dragged in etc etc.
Trump himself was a Democrat funder for years and it was well known what a pig he was at times yet no one is calling out the party fundraisers as hypocrites for that.The point is Crucial, if you're going to get on your high horse and aggressively call out this kind of thing, you look pretty farking pathetic if you wilfully ignore the exact thing you're campaigning against and pick out the easy targets. How you can claim that's not hypocrisy or cowardice but simply "lashing out at another bully" is beyond me.
I'll boil it down to a simple example then.
A victim of sexual assault does not bring charges against their assaulter because they either lack enough proof that will stand up or don't want the further trauma of a prosecution (quite a common thing). Are you saying that person cannot aggressively call out or comment on other instances that happen to other people without being hypocrites? Are you calling them cowards?
If not the victims themselves how about their friends? A friend confides in you about a situation at work but doesn't want to make it public. Can you only then criticise someone else's bad behaviour if you out the person you were told about (or heard rumours about)?
When evidence has come to light (eg the Trump recording) of course people were willing to unload on him. The evidence was out there. They have acted in the same manner with HW and did the same with Cosby.
I would seriously doubt that anyone who knew facts about HW second hand still treated him in a chummy way. They probably avoided him, tolerated him where necessary and warned others off privately. That is quite a common situation described after workplace sexual bullying is exposed.Yes Crucial victims of sexual assault are cowards if they don't speak out. Ffs you're going off the reservation now.
I'm only coming back at your comments. You have clearly stated that anyone in Hollywood that knew about HW and didn't say anything are cowards and hypocrites for dumping on Trump.
Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. It didn't take much for the entire rotten edifice to crumble did it? Think how many women would have been spared if someone, anyone of the brave Hollywood activists had spoken up. Just one would have been enough. But of course it's much much braver to slander the easy targets than go after the guy in your own backyard. Shit might as well even get selfies with the guy and heap praise on him. You claim they treated him with distain? What complete and utter crap. He was their mate up until the very moment he became too poisonous to be associated with.
As mentioned, this kind of shit is rife in Hollywood, yet instead of uniting to fight it they'll just go after the buffoon who they used to like before he became leader of the wrong party. So much easier to do that than actually, I don't know, addressing the very same thing in their own industry. If you think that's perfectly justified and understandable, then that's your prerogative. But I find it astounding that you will continue to defend it with such vigour.
You do realise it isn't slander when the evidence is public? eg Trump tapes.
Now slander could well be when you publically comment on someone without being able to provide proof eg as you are doing to everyone that has willingly had their photo taken with HW while YOU assert that they would have known he was committing acts of sexual assault.I'm not defending anyone that you can prove acted with duplicity. I am defending the sweeping assumptions you are making.
So, just to clarify, you are definitely saying that the victims and their confidants are hypocrites and cowards? If that is how you view people in that situation then I'm stopping right here because I can't argue against attitudes like that without name calling.
-
To the best of my knowledge, Weinstein wasn't running for president, so I'm not really sure why the comparisons are that relevant? It's certainly a juicy story for the gossip rags, but I personally couldn't give a fuck about Hollywood and whether Weinstein is a scumbag (he's clearly worse). These rumors are certainly not new and it's only now that the story is coming out (because, ironically he got caught on tape like Trump) so people are supporting rather than breaking it.
On the other hand, I certainly care about whether the president of the United States is a scumbag - although, even then I'm not too concerned about whether they cheat on their husband/wife or not.
Anyway, I'm not sure how anyone is surprised about people choosing their own personal situation over publicizing the problems closer to them - it may be hypocritical but it's certainly safer, and I, for one, sadly can't say that I've taken the high road or even necessarily acted in the most honorable way in such situations.
-
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@no-quarter said in Harvey Weinstein:
Again, the hypocrisy is that the same people that worked themselves into a lather about Trump's attitude towards women, were at the same time cosying up to someone that by all accounts was clearly using his power to abuse young women for fucking decades. It was widely known among their circles yet they stayed quiet - I can't fathom how anyone can defend that.
For starters it wasn't clear to everyone what HW was doing. There would obviously have been rumours but as you can see many of his victims are only talking out now after his power over them has subsided.
Put yourself in the position of someone who 'knew' (especially someone in the business that he still wielded power over). They felt they couldn't say anything about their own bully but when they saw another being outed they could unload their feelings in that direction. That's not being a hypocrite, that's lashing out at another bully because they have experienced bullying themselves.
I don't get how people are simplifying this to 'they must have known and acted' when it is far more complex than that. Allegations without proof, allegations that drag in a victim that is not willing to be dragged in etc etc.
Trump himself was a Democrat funder for years and it was well known what a pig he was at times yet no one is calling out the party fundraisers as hypocrites for that.The point is Crucial, if you're going to get on your high horse and aggressively call out this kind of thing, you look pretty farking pathetic if you wilfully ignore the exact thing you're campaigning against and pick out the easy targets. How you can claim that's not hypocrisy or cowardice but simply "lashing out at another bully" is beyond me.
I'll boil it down to a simple example then.
A victim of sexual assault does not bring charges against their assaulter because they either lack enough proof that will stand up or don't want the further trauma of a prosecution (quite a common thing). Are you saying that person cannot aggressively call out or comment on other instances that happen to other people without being hypocrites? Are you calling them cowards?
If not the victims themselves how about their friends? A friend confides in you about a situation at work but doesn't want to make it public. Can you only then criticise someone else's bad behaviour if you out the person you were told about (or heard rumours about)?
When evidence has come to light (eg the Trump recording) of course people were willing to unload on him. The evidence was out there. They have acted in the same manner with HW and did the same with Cosby.
I would seriously doubt that anyone who knew facts about HW second hand still treated him in a chummy way. They probably avoided him, tolerated him where necessary and warned others off privately. That is quite a common situation described after workplace sexual bullying is exposed.Yes Crucial victims of sexual assault are cowards if they don't speak out. Ffs you're going off the reservation now.
I'm only coming back at your comments. You have clearly stated that anyone in Hollywood that knew about HW and didn't say anything are cowards and hypocrites for dumping on Trump.
Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. It didn't take much for the entire rotten edifice to crumble did it? Think how many women would have been spared if someone, anyone of the brave Hollywood activists had spoken up. Just one would have been enough. But of course it's much much braver to slander the easy targets than go after the guy in your own backyard. Shit might as well even get selfies with the guy and heap praise on him. You claim they treated him with distain? What complete and utter crap. He was their mate up until the very moment he became too poisonous to be associated with.
As mentioned, this kind of shit is rife in Hollywood, yet instead of uniting to fight it they'll just go after the buffoon who they used to like before he became leader of the wrong party. So much easier to do that than actually, I don't know, addressing the very same thing in their own industry. If you think that's perfectly justified and understandable, then that's your prerogative. But I find it astounding that you will continue to defend it with such vigour.
You do realise it isn't slander when the evidence is public? eg Trump tapes.
Now slander could well be when you publically comment on someone without being able to provide proof eg as you are doing to everyone that has willingly had their photo taken with HW while YOU assert that they would have known he was committing acts of sexual assault.I'm not defending anyone that you can prove acted with duplicity. I am defending the sweeping assumptions you are making.
So, just to clarify, you are definitely saying that the victims and their confidants are hypocrites and cowards? If that is how you view people in that situation then I'm stopping right here because I can't argue against attitudes like that without name calling.
Yes Crucial the victims are cowards. Ffs.
I'm done with you. Good night.
-
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
(Rose McGowan must be their worse nightmare about now...)
-
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
It still fascinates me, the obsession with kicking Obama and Clinton when the power they have is zilch. It is mainly done as whataboutery in order to counter any criticism of Trump, the most devisive POTUS seen in a long time (partly due to social media and partly his own behaviour).
It's called "Trump Derangement Syndrome," dude. When politicians and media are obsessed and fixated on the biggest hoax since WMD and scream "the election was stolen!!" naturally you're going to get a lot of butthurt losers. Moping. Sulking. Having hissy-fits. Tantrums. Stamping their feet. Spitting their dummies. Every day. For years.
-
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
If true regarding Weinstein, then it is also true regarding another Democrat funder - Trump
This is ipso-facto genius-level logic. Works every time.
I.e. "If true regarding Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, then it is also true regarding another Austrian - Arnold Schwarzenegger."
Wow - this is simple!
"If true that Hillary conquered Everest, then it is also true regarding another bee-keeper -- Lydia Ko."
Amazing!! Add water; makes it's own sauce.
-
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
It still fascinates me, the obsession with kicking Obama and Clinton when the power they have is zilch. It is mainly done as whataboutery in order to counter any criticism of Trump, the most devisive POTUS seen in a long time (partly due to social media and partly his own behaviour).
It's called "Trump Derangement Syndrome," dude. When politicians and media are obsessed and fixated on the biggest hoax since WMD and scream "the election was stolen!!" naturally you're going to get a lot of butthurt losers. Moping. Sulking. Having hissy-fits. Tantrums. Stamping their feet. Spitting their dummies. Every day. For years.
That's so funny.
Trump supporters had to make up a name for everyone that criticises him and call them deranged.
"If you disagree with us you are deranged and obviously unable to see how brilliant the man is!".Yep, let's just shut down debate with a bit of schoolyard name calling ya sore losers!
The media attention is a symptom of his divisiveness not a cause. The man himself decrees to his followers that anyone that disagrees with him is not a real American. If that isn't divisive behaviour I don't know what is.
-
LA Times has come out with their preliminary list.
Asia Argento
Rosanna Arquette
Jessica Barth
Zoe Brock
Emma de Caunes
Cara Delavingne
Dawn Dunning
Ambra Battilana Gutierrez
Louisette Geiss
Judith Godreche
Heather Graham
Angelina Jolie
Ashley Judd
Katherine Kendall
Rose McGowan
Emily Nestor
Lauren O'Connor
Gwyneth Paltrow
Tomi-Ann Roberts
Lauren Sivan
Mira Sorvino
Lucia StollerLook for it to grow...
-
-
I can't help but think that the people who think this has nothing to do with politics have not even read Weinsteins statement.
-
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
LA Times has come out with their preliminary list.
list of what? Women he propositioned? I hope the LA Times doesn't write a list of the women I've propositioned.
-
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
list of what? Women he propositioned? I hope the LA Times doesn't write a list of the women I've propositioned.
Some of the allegations aren't just propositioning. Rape, sexual assault and indecent exposure
-
@duluth Perhaps @Salacious-Crumb could have linked to the source...
-
@tim said in Harvey Weinstein:
Here's a fun read:
The bio for 30 year Republican Congressman and eight year House Republican leader Dennis Hastert:
Oh, he was also a child abuser who had been paying hush-money to victims.
Incredibly ---- today tone-deaf idiots Newsweek published a commentary from this sick child rapist. They're taking justified abuse from all sides.
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert explains what's wrong with Trump's Congress
-
List is growing. I'll update soon....
Not about Weinstein, but since we keep hearing about this being the "tip o' the iceberg," I highly recommend this absorbing documentary from 2014 called "An Open Secret" about child pedo rings in Hollywood, and not just beacuse it features a pitch-perfect length of Nick Cave's "Beautiful Creatures" from Murder Ballads. Bryan Singer, who did Usual Suspects, X-Men, etc. is busted.
-
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
(Rose McGowan must be their worse nightmare about now...)
McGowan has thrown away the Non-Disclosure Agreement she was paid off $100K; says Harvey raped her.
Word is the Weinstein Company is nearing financial collapse, with-or-without the name-change. McGowan probably knows they won't have the money, let alone nerve, to slap a lawsuit on her for breach of the NDA.
-
Looks like Amazon Studios honcho Roy Price will be facing his own set of allegations of sexual impropriety and his head is on the chopping block. Not sure whether his division is connected to that All Blacks doco series and/or bidding for future rugby test broadcasts. (Anybody...?). Interesting to see how deep this rabbithole goes...
Amazon Studios’ Roy Price Suspended Amid Sexual Harassment Claims; COO Albert Cheng Named Interim Boss
[...]
The news comes as Hackett Dick, the daughter of Philip K. Dick, detailed to the Hollywood Reporter today exactly how and where Price propositioned her during Comic-Con 2015 in San Diego.
[...]"Propositioned"...? Very vague. I'd hate to think asking politely for a girl's phone number is now considered sexual harrassment, but we'll see how the details develop...