Harvey Weinstein
-
@catogrande said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@catogrande said in Religion, Morality and Political Correctness on campus:
@salacious-crumb said in Religion, Morality and Political Correctness on campus:
Ooops, looks like I posted a minute too soon.
And what a thumbs-up headline:
EXCLUSIVE: JUDI DENCH, WHO HAD HARVEY WEINSTEIN 'TATTOO' ON HER BUTT, SAYS SEXUAL HARASSMENT REPORTS ARE 'HORRIFYING'
Except she didn't. She jokingly got her make up artist (I think) to write JD loves HW on her arse and showed it to the perv, then had it wiped off. Also that piece says that Weinstein gave her her first starring role in the movie Mrs Brown in 1997. Yeah sure, she was the lead but it sort of ignores the fact that she'd been in much bigger films in the past. Like, oh I don't know. Goldeneye?
Unlikely he sexually harassed her though....
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The same people who lost their shit over the Trump audio recording not only stayed silent about this for decades but are completely mute now.
Pathetic
Unlikely I would either...
Agree re the hypocrisy. as you may call I don't have much time for the Trump thing and equally so this. I guess though the difference is that Trump is a totally public person now whereas the fat perv was only relevant within his immediate domain. You often find when the influence is narrow but very powerful that fear rules completely. I see your Weinstein and I raise you Saville. There remain many influential people that have remained strangely quiet about dear old Jimmy.
Scum really.
Yeah, this is a much wider issue than just Weinstein, this type of deviant behaviour is rife in the industry. You see child stars like Corey Feldmen saying he was surrounded by peadophiles growing up, as well as countless other child stars developing drug dependancies and committing suicide. It's not an industry I'd let any of my children go anywhere near.
I see Tucker is calling for the Federal Government to get involved and investigate what is going on in Hollywood. And fair enough too, we often see glimpes like this of what is going on but so much is covered up.
Also, this is not all about the Democrats but the fact that the Hollywood elites are so overwhelmingly liberal, including large donations to their cause, it could end up being pretty damaging to them especially given the moral high ground stance they try to take on political issues. In this example it's difficult to believe the Clinton's were completely unaware of Weinstein's behaviour when taking donations from him.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@taniwharugby said in Harvey Weinstein:
Admittedly, I have read just one story on this, but basically he is being accused of over-enthusiastically trying it on?
I mean for each one of these women who knocked his sexual advances back, there was probably 2 that jumped on board...
Am sure some of them did so expecting it to help thier careers too.
If you or I approached a hollywood starlet in this manner that could be 'over-enthusiastically trying it on' because we have no power over them. The situation changes hugely when the 'trier' is your boss, teacher or someone else who can influence your life to the worse should you not go along with their advances.
I don't doubt that some were probably happy to make a decision to jump onboard, so to speak, to further their careers. That is their personal choice.I cannot remember, was this also your response to Trumps access hollywood tapes? You werent on board with the whole Trump sexual assault narrative?
Don't think I made any such similar comment with regard to Trump but thanks for trying to apply my comments on one point to another.
I suspect you may have misunderstood my post, so rather than edit it above I will do so here.
If you or I approached a hollywood starlet in this manner that could be 'over-enthusiastically trying it on' because we have no power over them.
The situation changes hugely to the worse when the 'trier' is your boss, teacher or someone else who can wield power to your disadvantage should you not go along with their advances. Then it becomes a nasty form of bullying.
I don't doubt that some were probably happy to make a decision to jump onboard, so to speak, to further their careers. That is their personal choice but it doesn't in any way justify the means of the approach or reduce the effect such an approach could have on others. -
@no-quarter said in Harvey Weinstein:
@catogrande said in Harvey Weinstein:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@catogrande said in Religion, Morality and Political Correctness on campus:
@salacious-crumb said in Religion, Morality and Political Correctness on campus:
Ooops, looks like I posted a minute too soon.
And what a thumbs-up headline:
EXCLUSIVE: JUDI DENCH, WHO HAD HARVEY WEINSTEIN 'TATTOO' ON HER BUTT, SAYS SEXUAL HARASSMENT REPORTS ARE 'HORRIFYING'
Except she didn't. She jokingly got her make up artist (I think) to write JD loves HW on her arse and showed it to the perv, then had it wiped off. Also that piece says that Weinstein gave her her first starring role in the movie Mrs Brown in 1997. Yeah sure, she was the lead but it sort of ignores the fact that she'd been in much bigger films in the past. Like, oh I don't know. Goldeneye?
Unlikely he sexually harassed her though....
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The same people who lost their shit over the Trump audio recording not only stayed silent about this for decades but are completely mute now.
Pathetic
Unlikely I would either...
Agree re the hypocrisy. as you may call I don't have much time for the Trump thing and equally so this. I guess though the difference is that Trump is a totally public person now whereas the fat perv was only relevant within his immediate domain. You often find when the influence is narrow but very powerful that fear rules completely. I see your Weinstein and I raise you Saville. There remain many influential people that have remained strangely quiet about dear old Jimmy.
Scum really.
... Also, this is not all about the Democrats but the fact that the Hollywood elites are so overwhelmingly liberal, including large donations to their cause, it could end up being pretty damaging to them especially given the moral high ground stance they try to take on political issues. In this example it's difficult to believe the Clinton's were completely unaware of Weinstein's behaviour when taking donations from him.
Difficult to tell who knew what or suspected what. Expecting a politician to refuse a donation from a possibly dodgy source is akin to expecting airborne porcines. In the UK we had the Savile issue. He was suspected of being a paedo, so much so that he was (anecdotedly) blocked from the BBC Children In Need programme for years. He was knighted, honoured left right and centre and I don't recall either HM the Queen or any of the pollies that pushed for the honours being held to account for not speaking out, before or after. I just don't see this Weinstein thing or Savile for that matter as a political issue at all.
-
@booboo said in Harvey Weinstein:
How does this get to be a Republicans v Democrats debate?
The guy was one of the biggest, most high profile fundraisers and "bundlers" for the Democratic Party. And it goes a lot deeper than that.
And then when caught and he supposedly "apologized," Harv didn't mention sexual harrassment, he didn't mention sexual assault, he didn't apologise to his victims. Instead, he virtue-signalled directly at his base:
"I am going to need a place to channel that anger so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention.
"I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. I’m going to do it at the same place I had my Bar Mitzvah.
"I’m making a movie about our President, perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party.
"One year ago, I began organizing a $5 million foundation to give scholarships to women directors at USC. While this might seem coincidental, it has been in the works for a year. It will be named after my mom and I won’t disappoint her.”
You'd have to have your head buried in the sand to fail to recognise the message he's sending to weasel his way out getting-by with a little help from his friends : "Give me a bweak, pwease fowgive me, I'm a good impowtant SJW Democwat."
-
@antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
Poor Harvey, the pile-on is starting to make me feel some sympathy for the guy.
Seriously?
Lindsay Lohan Defends Harvey Weinstein: ‘I Feel Very Bad for Him – Everyone Needs to Stop’
-
@booboo said in Harvey Weinstein:
How does this get to be a Republicans v Democrats debate?
Seriously.
It's a "is it ok to be a maggot because he's got money and influence?" v. "Should people be decent human beings?" debate?
The guy is a scumbag, that doesn't seem to be in doubt. But the wailing about his political standpoint and whether he donates to the Dems is totally irrelevant. Let's not pretend that the GOP don't accept money from individuals or organizations with questionable ethical credentials, this is not a phenomenon restricted to either group
-
@canefan said in Harvey Weinstein:
But the wailing about his political standpoint and whether he donates to the Dems is totally irrelevant.
-
Weinstein & Co. have been stumping about Republican so-called "War Against Women" for decades and poisoned the culture with toxic politically-correct divisiveness that's made boogeymen of conservatives since (at least) Reagan.
-
Weinstein was given enormous power, privilege & leeway within the Democratic Party and previous tenants of White House.
-
If we are to believe the news reports coming out the past few days -- and if we accept the knowing winks and elbows in clear view of "30 Rock" and Oscar ceremonies -- the testimonies to Harvey Weinstein's sexual depravity and predation are being alternately regarded as an "open secret" and Hollywood's "worst kept secret..."
-
Is it possible -- even in a liberal mind -- is it worth asking; is it it possible that for the most cynical of reasons Democrats knew EXACTLY who this guy was but the end justified the means, and if it meant using a (secret) sex predator to wear an "I'm With Her" button and bundle money to promote womens causes, so be it.
Let's not pretend that the GOP don't accept money from individuals and organizations with questionable ethical credentials, this is not a phenomenon restricted to either group.
Exclusivity. .. Who's claiming that?
Worth remembering the culture-war in lead-up to U.S. election a year ago how almost the entirety of Hollywood supported Hillary and it was a nightshow joke that the only celebrity who supported Trump was Scott Baio. That was a big joke. And it wasn't conservatives and Trump-supporters pimping that big joke. It was Democrats themselves. They want to stake out and claim that industry and those glamorous stars as THEIR exclusive property. I say, stand back, get out of the way and let 'em own it. Harvey's THEIR guy.
-
-
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
@canefan said in Harvey Weinstein:
But the wailing about his political standpoint and whether he donates to the Dems is totally irrelevant.
-
Weinstein & Co. have been stumping about Republican so-called "War Against Women" for decades and poisoned the culture with toxic politically-correct divisiveness that's made boogeymen of conservatives since (at least) Reagan.
-
Weinstein was given enormous power, privilege & leeway within the Democratic Party and previous tenants of White House.
-
If we are to believe the news reports coming out the past few days -- and if we accept the knowing winks and elbows in clear view of "30 Rock" and Oscar ceremonies -- the testimonies to Harvey Weinstein's sexual depravity and predation are being alternately regarded as an "open secret" and Hollywood's "worst kept secret..."
-
Is it possible -- even in a liberal mind -- is it worth asking; is it it possible that for the most cynical of reasons Democrats knew EXACTLY who this guy was but the end justified the means, and if it meant using a (secret) sex predator to wear an "I'm With Her" button and bundle money to promote womens causes, so be it.
Let's not pretend that the GOP don't accept money from individuals and organizations with questionable ethical credentials, this is not a phenomenon restricted to either group.
Exclusivity. .. Who's claiming that?
Worth remembering the culture-war in lead-up to U.S. election a year ago how almost the entirety of Hollywood supported Hillary and it was a nightshow joke that the only celebrity who supported Trump was Scott Baio. That was a big joke. And it wasn't conservatives and Trump-supporters pimping that big joke. It was Democrats themselves. They want to stake out and claim that industry and those glamorous stars as THEIR exclusive property. I say, stand back, get out of the way and let 'em own it. Harvey's THEIR guy.
What rubbish. That's like saying that everyone who reads articles on the Herald agrees with Ratpoo.
-
-
@salacious-crumb You really ought to be in politics yourself. It is a political necessity these days to make political mileage out of every little triumph or disaster.
This Weinstein story is a story of sexual preying on those less powerful, the using and abusing of many people over many years. It is about abuse of corporate power, it is about personal depravity on a huge scale. It is not about politics no matter which way this perv voted or who he gave money to.
-
@catogrande said in Harvey Weinstein:
@salacious-crumb You really ought to be in politics yourself. It is a political necessity these days to make political mileage out of every little triumph or disaster.
This Weinstein story is a story of sexual preying on those less powerful, the using and abusing of many people over many years. It is about abuse of corporate power, it is about personal depravity on a huge scale. It is not about politics no matter which way this perv voted or who he gave money to.
Sez you. The Culture War says differently.
"Those actors who lecture you from the Oscar podium every year about their virtue and your lack of it -- suddenly silent."
-
This post is deleted!
-
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
@catogrande said in Harvey Weinstein:
@salacious-crumb You really ought to be in politics yourself. It is a political necessity these days to make political mileage out of every little triumph or disaster.
This Weinstein story is a story of sexual preying on those less powerful, the using and abusing of many people over many years. It is about abuse of corporate power, it is about personal depravity on a huge scale. It is not about politics no matter which way this perv voted or who he gave money to.
Sez you. The Culture War says differently.
"Those actors who lecture you from the Oscar podium every year about their virtue and your lack of it -- suddenly silent."
Oh well, that's cut and dried then.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Some of you (shall remain nameless) seem to be in deep-deep denial or else clueless -- if you'd watched Oscar ceremonies anytime the past decade and watched the Democratic National Conventions parading celebrities across their podiums giving religious testimony to the holiness of Obama and Hillary, then you haven't been paying attention. They are the EXACT same cast of characters.
Contrast to the past two GOP National Convention's where you had Clint Eastwood last time (for Mittens), and this time for Trump the long celebrity list was.... Dana White .... and that was about it!
You can pretend otherwise, but Hollywood and the Democratic Party are joined at the hip, and when there's an event of enormous cognitive dissonance and psychological trauma like we're seeing here, that spotlight is going to be directed where it is.
It's also worth asking -- were political connections involved to protect their asset and get law enforcemet to lay off investigating him...?
Maybe we'll get to see a Special Counsel appointed with full subpoena power to investigate whether known sex predators colluded with politicians and interfered in the 2016 election in exchange for FBI protection. Some lovely comeuppance medicine that would be!!
-
This post is deleted!
-
Ben Affleck is getting dragged into this for his own, ummm, indiscretions... and maybe with underage girls?
(Rose McGowan must be their worse nightmare about now...)
-
-
@canefan said in Harvey Weinstein:
@booboo said in Harvey Weinstein:
How does this get to be a Republicans v Democrats debate?
Seriously.
It's a "is it ok to be a maggot because he's got money and influence?" v. "Should people be decent human beings?" debate?
The guy is a scumbag, that doesn't seem to be in doubt. But the wailing about his political standpoint and whether he donates to the Dems is totally irrelevant. Let's not pretend that the GOP don't accept money from individuals or organizations with questionable ethical credentials, this is not a phenomenon restricted to either group
The whole point is that Hillary Clinton, the Dems and Hollywood went ballastic on Trump about his alleged treatment of women. They screamed, the yelled, they organised protests, they preached. Yet they turned a blind eye to a Hollywood heavyweight who was a major Democrat donor and fund-raiser. A guy who had visited the White House a dozen times. Female "pundits" or comedians blasted Trump for being a sex fiend were actually friends with this fucker.
In other words this incident has shown them up as a bunch of pathetic hypocrites and cowards.
It's just like one of those ministers or hyperconservative politicians who scream about moral fibre being caught in a brothel or with underage boys.