Harvey Weinstein



  • @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.

    So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.

    Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.

    Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?

    What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?

    Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
    She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.

    I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.

    Holy fuck, the irony.

    I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.

    You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'

    I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.

    You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.

    No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?

    It is a straw man because you are arguing something nobody ever said or argued.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.

    So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.

    Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.

    Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?

    What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?

    Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
    She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.

    I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.

    Holy fuck, the irony.

    I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.

    You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'

    I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.

    You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.

    No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?

    What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?



  • An "open secret" from that latest NYT article:

    alt text



  • @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.

    So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.

    Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.

    Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?

    What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?

    Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
    She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.

    I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.

    Holy fuck, the irony.

    I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.

    You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'

    I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.

    You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.

    No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?

    What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?

    I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.
    I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.

    So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.

    Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.

    Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?

    What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?

    Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
    She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.

    I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.

    Holy fuck, the irony.

    I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.

    You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'

    I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.

    You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.

    No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?

    What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?

    I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.

    How is it hypocritical?

    I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.

    It's an inference any reasonable person makes from your statement.



  • @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.

    So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.

    Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.

    Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?

    What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?

    Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
    She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.

    I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.

    Holy fuck, the irony.

    I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.

    You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'

    I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.

    You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.

    No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?

    What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?

    I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.

    How is it hypocritical?

    I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.

    It's an inference any reasonable person makes from your statement.

    How is it hypocritical? see now that would have been a better question. Rather than you running off to attack yet another straw man you created.

    Given her comments on Trump and other anti male comments, her decision that behavior like that was acceptable if it was only against her and not against others is laughable. As is her assumption that it only happened to her and therefore keeping quiet is a good option. Remember her speech at the womens march? I would be fascinated how she could reconcile that with her silence about Weinstein.

    How nice of you to decide what a reasonable person would decide, I don't think I would accept you as an arbiter of that.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.

    So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.

    Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.

    Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?

    What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?

    Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
    She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.

    I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.

    Holy fuck, the irony.

    I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.

    You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'

    I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.

    You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.

    No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?

    What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?

    I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.

    How is it hypocritical?

    I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.

    It's an inference any reasonable person makes from your statement.

    How is it hypocritical, see now that would have been a better question. Rather than you running off to attack yet another straw man you created.

    Still avoiding the question I see.

    How nice of you to decide what a reasonable person would decide, I don't think I would accept you as an arbiter of that.

    I honestly don't care.



  • @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.

    So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.

    Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.

    Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?

    What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?

    Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
    She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.

    I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.

    Holy fuck, the irony.

    I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.

    You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'

    I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.

    You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.

    No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?

    What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?

    I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.

    How is it hypocritical?

    I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.

    It's an inference any reasonable person makes from your statement.

    How is it hypocritical, see now that would have been a better question. Rather than you running off to attack yet another straw man you created.

    Still avoiding the question I see.

    How nice of you to decide what a reasonable person would decide, I don't think I would accept you as an arbiter of that.

    I honestly don't care.

    I think you do. Most reasonable people would....

    And I did answer the question. Once you took down your silly straw man and packed it away till the next time you are out of your depth.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel I don't think it's that weird. There's a world of difference in twenty years for someone to realise that an issue didn't just happen to them, but is a pattern of behaviour.

    So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok.

    Yes, it's her decision about how she treats an incident where someone asks her to give him a massage or watch him shower.

    Well that is a straw man. Who ever claimed any different?

    What strawman would that be? Whatever else were you suggesting here?

    Ok, cut the bullshit. In no way did anyone say that it wasn't her decision to say something or not. Or how she handled. it is just obvious.
    She could have come out and said she deserved what she got and so did all the other women. And people have a right to call her on her hypocrisy and stupidity.

    I am starting to think that yet again you are just trolling.

    Holy fuck, the irony.

    I will ask you again, please show where anyone at all said she couldn't treat it any way she wanted.

    You asked if it was 'ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one'

    I responded by pointing out she wasn't sexually assaulted. She was propositioned. She's on record stipulating her knowledge of any other alleged issues didn't exist until 2015.

    You called that a strawman. When asked to explain how it's a straw man argument, you've elected not to answer.

    No, you are lying. You actually said that she could treat it in any way she wanted, I ask again,. where did anyone say she couldnt?

    What else did you imply when you wrote: "So it is ok for her to keep silent about a sexual.assault.... until there is more than one....ah ok"? Other than to remove that course of action from her?

    I didnt imply anything, I asked a question. To illustrate the hypocrisy of her position, not to say she couldnt decide her position. I cannot remove a position from her, that is a stupid statement, I can criticise the hypocrisy and stupidity of her position.

    How is it hypocritical?

    I have neither said nor implied that she couldn't choose how to respond.

    It's an inference any reasonable person makes from your statement.

    How is it hypocritical, see now that would have been a better question. Rather than you running off to attack yet another straw man you created.

    Still avoiding the question I see.

    How nice of you to decide what a reasonable person would decide, I don't think I would accept you as an arbiter of that.

    I honestly don't care.

    I think you do. Most reasonable people would....

    And I did answer the question. Once you took down your silly straw man and packed it away till the next time you are out of your depth.

    It's amazing what you can do if you go back and edit your posts when someone's already addressed your original post.

    But to your new point:

    Given her comments on Trump and other anti male comments, her decision that behavior like that was acceptable if it was only against her and not against others is laughable. As is her assumption that it only happened to her and therefore keeping quiet is a good option. Remember her speech at the womens march? I would be fascinated how she could reconcile that with her silence about Weinstein.

    I don't recall her speech at the 'womens march'. Do you have a relevant transcript?



  • @antipodean it was way over the top hyperbole like all of the speeches given by celebrities are on Trump. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven, especially when you consider this type of stuff is absolutely bloody rife in Hollywood. For them to suddenly take the moral high ground on a few comments Trump made 10 years ago was absolutely absurd, and it's only served to fuel the polarizing environment we see now.



  • This whole thing just reeks of bullshit ... let's be clear, 2 of hollywood's leading, powerful woman, Jolie & Paltrow, who both have NEVER been afraid of speaking out against anything, are now coming out saying it happened to them ...

    Really?

    I'm not a buyer of fuck all of this.



  • 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.



  • Just to give you an idea of how untouchable these pricks think they are, Terry Crews has come out with his story of sexual assault from a Hollywood exec.

    If they can grope him and expect to get away with it, what chance does a 20 year old starlet have?

    And these guys can destroy your career.



  • @baron-silas-greenback said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @catogrande said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @salacious-crumb It's not all about the democrats you know.

    Where did he say it was?

    Perhaps it would have been better to say "Not everything is about the democrats".

    However just from this thread

    (Obamas and Clintons still deathly silent . . . )

    And of course, the silence from allied Democratic Party heavyweight operatives such as the Clintons and the Obamas is even more deafening.



  • @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.



  • @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?



  • @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'

    http://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-judi-dench-who-has-harvey-weinstein-tattoo-her-butt-says-sexual-680815?amp=1

    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'

    http://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-judi-dench-who-has-harvey-weinstein-tattoo-her-butt-says-sexual-680815?amp=1

    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.



  • 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?


Log in to reply