Harvey Weinstein
-
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
It beggars belief people surrounding the sitting president and presumptive nominee didn't know they were hitching their wagon to a deviant criminal pervert who could badly stain the party and presidency.
If true regarding Weinstein, then it is also true regarding another Democrat funder - Trump
Where's the hypocrisy? When rumours turned to fact they were both decried as scum. I'm fairly certain that if you want to start a hypocrite hunt you could find plenty that keep silent or continued to support Trump yet are jumping on the Weinstein bandwagon.
Should every charity that accepted help from Bill Cosby be hung, drawn and quartered because they ignored rumours?
A couple of days ago the cries were 'shocking silence' expecting instant press releases from every Trump critic that knew Weinstein. As those statements have come out the cries are 'hypocrites'.
Can't win either way so why expect an immediate response?Upshot is that this is only political because some people want to make it so. Imaginations have conjured up some deliberate decisions whereby Obama and Clinton sat down and said 'the party fundraisers have received a donation from Harvey. You know we have heard a few rumours about him be a bit of a creep, should we accept the money? Fuck yeah, nothing to do with us"
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 not about the statements being hypocritical. It was interesting that it took such a long time for them to come out, but most people expected that would be the absolute least they would do.
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.
They can't win either way because their dirty laundry had already been aired.
Also, the Democratic party is not a charity so that Cosby comparison is not really valid.
Calling out the blatent hypocrisy of Hollywood celebs and the Democrats isn't about defending Trump. I'm personally astounded that he even came to power, which I think shows how bad things are on the left nowadays with the neo-Marxism that has spread leading to the current victimhood/outrage culture we see everywhere. Trump winning is very much a symptom of that, but that's a topic for another thread really.
-
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
It beggars belief people surrounding the sitting president and presumptive nominee didn't know they were hitching their wagon to a deviant criminal pervert who could badly stain the party and presidency.
If true regarding Weinstein, then it is also true regarding another Democrat funder - Trump
Where's the hypocrisy? When rumours turned to fact they were both decried as scum. I'm fairly certain that if you want to start a hypocrite hunt you could find plenty that keep silent or continued to support Trump yet are jumping on the Weinstein bandwagon.
Should every charity that accepted help from Bill Cosby be hung, drawn and quartered because they ignored rumours?
A couple of days ago the cries were 'shocking silence' expecting instant press releases from every Trump critic that knew Weinstein. As those statements have come out the cries are 'hypocrites'.
Can't win either way so why expect an immediate response?Upshot is that this is only political because some people want to make it so. Imaginations have conjured up some deliberate decisions whereby Obama and Clinton sat down and said 'the party fundraisers have received a donation from Harvey. You know we have heard a few rumours about him be a bit of a creep, should we accept the money? Fuck yeah, nothing to do with us"
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 devise POTUS seen in a long time (partly due to social media and partly his own behaviour).
It's like you just ignore what has been written here. The silence wasn't hypocritical (although the "it's a NY thing" was a shocker) nor were the subsequent statements. The hypocrisy is due to the fact that the very same people who were hyperventilating to the extreme about the allegations against Trump were actually good mates with this guy. His antics were the worst kept secret in Hollywood and claiming people knew nothing is total bullshit. Oh these brave Crusaders were happy to man the barracades when it came to the orange guy who couldn't touch their careers (in fact some became relevant again because of it) but when it came to actually showing some balls and outing someone with power in Hollywood, this heroism deserted them.
Nobody can seriously tell me that Weinstein is an outlier. In an industry like this, he's just the tip of the iceberg. But again, these brave souls chose to go after the orange guy rather than the guy who could hurt their careers.
So really, this has nothing to do with Trump, Republicans, Democrats or even politics. It's not like Mrs Feminist Icon Hillary Clinton who happens to be married to a serial philanderer who literally had his dick sucked by an intern in the Oval Office needed Weinstein to demonstrate how she isn't a feminist hero. No, it's about the incredible hypocrisy of Hollywood and their virtue signalling bullshit. Why anyone would defend these pricks is beyond me, but perhaps for some bizarre reason certain people think an attack on Hollywood is an attack on their own politics.
-
@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. -
@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.
-
@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. -
@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.
-
@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.
If that is not what you meant then explain what you do mean.
If you are excluding victims and their confidants from your statement then that leaves who? Those that have heard rumours? You expect them to leave themselves open to US system litigation based on rumours?
Now if you exclude them of your expectation I guess you are talking about political parties that happily accepted donations. That is indeed a fair call except we don't know that those that accepted the money knew the rumours or whether those rumours were backed by enough fact to cause concern. That is merely guesswork.
I have said a number of times that I am happy to call out that hypocrisy if proved. I would certainly agree that if Obama or Clinton knowingly accepted donations when that had been given proof (or strong rumour that that hadn't been investigated further) then that is extremely poor on their behalf. I am yet to see that proof though so aren't going to condemn them on guesswork. -
@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 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.
But they absolutely did NOT do that. Not only did they stay chummy with him, they publicly praised him on a regular basis, encouraging others to work with him. And in both the Democrats and the Clinton Foundation's case, happily accepted donations from him. I'm amazed you are defending these people, they are far from your average worker - all of them are massively rich Hollywood elites with more money than they know what to do with. Calling him out was hardly going to see them fall on hard times. And if staying quiet and continuing to praise the prick wasn't bad enough, they also made money from their hypocritcal virtue signalling as if they have some sort of moral high ground.
Anyway, I've more than made my point on that. Agree to disagree or this will keep going round in circles.
-
@no-quarter 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 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.
But they absolutely did NOT do that. Not only did they stay chummy with him, they publicly praised him on a regular basis, encouraging others to work with him. And in both the Democrats and the Clinton Foundation's case, happily accepted donations from him. I'm amazed you are defending these people, they are far from your average worker - all of them are massively rich Hollywood elites with more money than they know what to do with. Calling him out was hardly going to see them fall on hard times. And if staying quiet and continuing to praise the prick wasn't bad enough, they also made money from their hypocritcal virtue signalling as if they have some sort of moral high ground.
Anyway, I've more than made my point on that. Agree to disagree or this will keep going round in circles.
See my comments above regarding what the political side knew or didn't. Our difference in opinion seems to stem from me not being happy to condemn them on an assumption of knowledge.
As for the Hollywood side, who is going to call the guy out on rumour? Maybe a similarly powerful colleague would be expected to tell him to stop but even then nothing would go public unless and until a victim was willing to go public as well. There has actually been the odd comment thrown out in public but they didn't get traction from a media treading a careful legal line. The old 'we all knew but couldn't say a thing until now' scenario.
I just fail to see how that makes people hypocrites or cowards when they call out someone else that has opened themselves up to criticism with public evidence. -
@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.