Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

The Rape of Lucretia

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You'd wonder how he got anyone to marry him, he is one ugly looking guy.

Thats not a very nice thing to say. The man may or may not be guilty of some bad stuff, and if is, will likely serve time, but to attack him with crude comments like that is uncalled for. He or his family might be reading this thread. Imagine how they would feel.

strandroad

On the topic of not speaking up and disappearing women, Courtney Love warned against him back in 2005:

https://twitter.com/ladyhaja/status/919328286378987522

And she claims she got life banned by her acting agency for her troubles:

https://twitter.com/Courtney/status/919271307908284416

She did disappear from movies in 2005. I only saw her in the Larry Flynn film, but she made quite an appearance in it, recognised with some well deserved awards.

retro:electro

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Thats not a very nice thing to say. They man may or may not be guilty of some bad stuff, and if is, will likely serve time, but to attack him with crude comments like that is uncalled for. He or his family might be reading this thread. Imagine how they would feel.

I think they'd be more offended and outraged by the fact he has been involved in systemic abuse and assault of women for decades over the fact one poster called him ugly.

pitifulgod

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Thats not a very nice thing to say. The man may or may not be guilty of some bad stuff, and if is, will likely serve time, but to attack him with crude comments like that is uncalled for. He or his family might be reading this thread. Imagine how they would feel.

We're pretty confident that he is guilty of it so I'm not gonna get upset about him being called ugly......

A Little Pony

James Corden has to be an utter idiot to be making jokes about a huge news story which is dominating the headlines which involves Hollywood. Making the jokes among the gala of Hollywood too, so stupid. At least wait until the dust has settled. The sensible people in all this are keeping a low profile and not making any comments at all.

A Little Pony

A Little Pony wrote: »

James Corden has to be an utter idiot to be making jokes about a huge news story which is dominating the headlines which involves Hollywood. Making the jokes among the gala of Hollywood too, so stupid. At least wait until the dust has settled. The sensible people in all this are keeping a low profile and not making any comments at all.

What did he go with?

ceadaoin.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Thats not a very nice thing to say. The man may or may not be guilty of some bad stuff, and if is, will likely serve time, but to attack him with crude comments like that is uncalled for. He or his family might be reading this thread. Imagine how they would feel.

By all accounts Weinstein dished out enough personal abuse over the years when he wasn't assaulting them, often criticising people's weight and appearance . I'd say it's called for tbh and I'm pretty sure his family have bigger things to worry about.

Why do you defend this man in every post?

selectamatic

mzungu wrote: »

For further proof, look at the "rehabilitation" of Mike Tyson as a comedy film star. That town was always the epitome of sleeze and moral bankruptcy.

Just on this, Mike Tyson's rape conviction is far from the open and shut case people are led to believe when you look into it.

Interestingly enough though I'd guarantee the sports industry is another one where abuse of power is rampant and I would argue Tyson was also clearly a victim of such abuses and manipulation.

Basically as someone pointed out already any industry where the chance of success is miniscule yet the rewards are vast, abuse of power tends to be rampant.

Maybe I'm wrong but I'd view a socially inept emotionally fragile and damaged Mike Tyson in a different light to some shady casting couch type "rapist".

I'd have Don king as boxings Harvey Weinstein before Tyson. In fact comparing Harvey to Don might even be too harsh on Weinstein.

The Rape of Lucretia

pitifulgod wrote: »

We're pretty confident that he is guilty of it so I'm not gonna get upset about him being called ugly......

He is entitled to due process, and there is still no need for gratuitous personal abuse. The lynch mob bandwagon mentality at the moment is a disgrace, and more could learn from the fairer attitudes of Lindsay Lohan and Woody Allen.

pitifulgod

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

He is entitled to due process, and there is still no need for gratuitous personal abuse. The lynch mob bandwagon mentality at the moment is a disgrace, and more could learn from the fairer attitudes of Lindsay Lohan and Woody Allen.

Calling him ugly isn't gratuitous... His behaviour on the other hand was disgusting and gratuitous... The fairer attitude of Woody Allen? Given the allegations against Allen which are credible, he probably relates to him but he managed to get away with it unlike Weinstein. We have decades of allegations against Weinstein which are matching up across the board, the least of his issues are being called ugly....

I'm not usually a big fan of Courtney Love's, but she's a legend in the above video.

Out of all the clips we've seen of celebrities 'calling out' Harvey years ago (like Seth McFarlane at the awards show) this one of Courtney's is the most telling IMO. You can tell a lot from those few seconds. It's like the whole scenario wrapped into a very short bundle - We hear about Weinstein's method where he invites girls to a high-end hotel for a 'party'. We hear why someone would be reluctant to speak-up or outright refuse to do so, 'because libel'. And we see Courtney look around to make sure there's none of Harvey's people nearby before she gives the answer.

The interviewer asked her a very open question - Did she have any advice for young girls coming to Hollywood? That question invited a million different answers. Obviously the interviewer was looking for something harmless for Comedy Central - "Make sure to have some good, professional headshots in your resume" or "Get yourself a good agent" might have sufficed. But no, this is Courtney Love, high as a kite and all out of fúcks to give who you're asking, not Courtney Cox in the early days of Friends looking to cement the 'girl next door' look.

Interesting the answer which Courtney chose without hesitation. Sure, she physically hesitated in saying it aloud 'because of libel', but you can see that she had her mind made up on an answer the moment the question left the interviewer's mouth.

Mad that this was 12 years ago. I'm sure Harvey's got a lot of 'partying' done since then. Also, if celebrities were alluding to this on camera in 2005, you have to imagine that he was a well-established 'partier' by then.

How long has he been at it? How many women? This guy obviously had a lot of sex in his life, but was any of that with a woman who truly desired him?

strandroad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How long has he been at it? How many women? This guy obviously had a lot of sex in his life, but was any of that with a woman who truly desired him?

A British actress accused him of forcible rape back in 1980:
http://m.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/a-pathetic-revolting-attack-british-actress-alleges-she-was-raped-by-harvey-weinstein-in-her-home-36228230.html

And Rose McGowan said in an interview that she had to have an elbow and wrist surgery as a result of the assault.

Galwayguy35

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Thats not a very nice thing to say. The man may or may not be guilty of some bad stuff, and if is, will likely serve time, but to attack him with crude comments like that is uncalled for. He or his family might be reading this thread. Imagine how they would feel.

I'd say they couldn't give 2 fooks what some fella over in Galway says about that dirty oul bastard.

The Rape of Lucretia

pitifulgod wrote: »

His behaviour on the other hand was disgusting and gratuitous

Some countries are moving to a post-rape-culture culture. Some people are going to be caught in the turbulence of the transition.

tara73

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not usually a big fan of Courtney Love's, but she's a legend in the above video.

Out of all the clips we've seen of celebrities 'calling out' Harvey years ago (like Seth McFarlane at the awards show) this one of Courtney's is the most telling IMO. You can tell a lot from those few seconds. It's like the whole scenario wrapped into a very short bundle - We hear about Weinstein's method where he invites girls to a high-end hotel for a 'party'. We hear why someone would be reluctant to speak-up or outright refuse to do so, 'because libel'. And we see Courtney look around to make sure there's none of Harvey's people nearby before she gives the answer.

The interviewer asked her a very open question - Did she have any advice for young girls coming to Hollywood? That question invited a million different answers. Obviously the interviewer was looking for something harmless for Comedy Central - "Make sure to have some good, professional headshots in your resume" or "Get yourself a good agent" might have sufficed. But no, this is Courtney Love, high as a kite and all out of fúcks to give who you're asking, not Courtney Cox in the early days of Friends looking to cement the 'girl next door' look.

Interesting the answer which Courtney chose without hesitation. Sure, she physically hesitated in saying it aloud 'because of libel', but you can see that she had her mind made up on an answer the moment the question left the interviewer's mouth.

Mad that this was 12 years ago. I'm sure Harvey's got a lot of 'partying' done since then. Also, if celebrities were alluding to this on camera in 2005, you have to imagine that he was a well-established 'partier' by then.

How long has he been at it? How many women? This guy obviously had a lot of sex in his life, but was any of that with a woman who truly desired him?

this. with this one sentence she 'ruined' her career and she knew it but didn't give a sh***. That's just so great.

silverharp

selectamatic wrote: »

Just on this, Mike Tyson's rape conviction is far from the open and shut case people are led to believe when you look into it.

Interestingly enough though I'd guarantee the sports industry is another one where abuse of power is rampant and I would argue Tyson was also clearly a victim of such abuses and manipulation.

Basically as someone pointed out already any industry where the chance of success is miniscule yet the rewards are vast, abuse of power tends to be rampant.

Maybe I'm wrong but I'd view a socially inept emotionally fragile and damaged Mike Tyson in a different light to some shady casting couch type "rapist".

I'd have Don king as boxings Harvey Weinstein before Tyson. In fact comparing Harvey to Don might even be too harsh on Weinstein.

in general terms though talent wins out in sport most of the time, if you are the best you are the best. Unknown actors are totally replaceable.

meeeeh

tara73 wrote: »

this. with this one sentence she 'ruined' her career and she knew it but didn't give a sh***. That's just so great.

That statement was brave but Courtney Love was not a penniless 20 year old trying to make it at the time. I don't like the ranking of victims by who said something and who didn't.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Google Sanela Jenkins Room 23

I nearly forgot to reply to this. Yes I was aware of Ms. Jenkins and her warped behaviour.
In fact, I first became aware of her when reading about a Hollywood insider using the name 'Himmmm' that was leaking some of these details from a few years ago, most of which are now revealed to be highly accurate.

Some people believe the insider to be Robert Downey Junior, although I'm not so sure. Anyway, the insider had lots to say about Ms. Jenkins, and he was particularly scathing of actress Hayden Panettiere. There was a strong implication that she is into seriously sadistic practices, and I'm not talking mere kinky S&M here:

https://jezebel.com/5892565/is-robert-downey-jr-spreading-insider-celeb-gossip-on-blogs

So far we've talked a lot about the dark side of Hollywood, but the insider revealed that there are plenty of celebrities on the side of the angels too. He provided the following list of good guys:

• David Kelley
• John Hughes (was the best)
• Natasha Gregson Wagner
• Bryan Lourd
• Neil Patrick Harris
• Jon Hamm
• Guy Ritchie
• Tommy Lee Jones
• Susanna Hoffs
• Kevin Kline & Phoebe Cates
• Drew Barrymore
• Steve Martin
• Rachel McAdams
• Bob Kosberg
• Sofia Coppola
• Zoe Cassavetes
• Moon Zappa
• Brad Pitt
• John Favreau
• Amber Heard
• Jerry Bruckheimer
• Molly Ringwald
• Tom Hanks
• Rob Reiner
• Susan Downey
• Will Staeger
• Miranda Cosgrove
• Seth Macfarlane
• Richard Lovett
• Johnny Depp
• Akiva Goldsman
• Alan Horn
• Elton John
• Kate Beckinsale
• Ron Meyer
• and yes...even Mel Gibson (faults and all.)

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Which is exactly why the likes of Obama and Merkel were talking about reining in freedom of the Internet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Biaq5srhBJ8

Precisely. The main issue with these shadowy organised crime/big business hybrid crime cartels is that they need full, total control of the State to remain in power. They know they will lose their grip if they don't achieve full spectrum dominance, particularly of the media. And most especially of the internet.

That is why the election of Donald Trump represents not just an upset, but probably the single biggest atomic level blast the political world has ever seen.
Although Trump is no angel, he is absolutely against the globalist agenda, and is very much an outsider of the Clinton crime syndicate.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the election of Hillary Clinton would have been the final nail in the coffin of old world democracy as we know it. I firmly believe she would have cooked up some excuse to seize control of the internet, and we would end up with a Chinese style internet regulated by terrifying social justice warriors like we saw with Google and their jaw dropping collaboration with lunatics like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian et al.

We had a terrifying glimpse of the future, and thankfully the heartland of America mobilised and rejected what would have been the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare in America:




A decade from now, when the full truth comes out about Hillary and Obama, the public will look back on this era with astonishment and wonder just how, in the face of overwhelming organised crime and global political 'deep state' power structures, the citizens were able to wrestle back control of their lives and freedom. This victory will make Dunkirk look like a tea party.

And when the real heavy stuff starts to break, the well armed American public is going to get very, very, very angry.

Just about the only solution I can see is to offer an amnesty to those involved in the paedophile rings in exchange for information, and mental treatment. A South African style truth and reconciliation committee would be an idea to get a full grasp of the scale of what is going on.

Some of you reading this might laugh and think I've lost my mind at this point, but I'll make a point of bumping this thread a year from now to remind you all.

And I'll guarantee you that information will be revealed at that point that will make you question your own sanity and grasp of reality.

The same control structure that Harvey Weinstein had over Hollywood? Apply that same structure to the major media organisations and you'll start to understand why so many journalists are terrified of speaking out.

Many of them know what is going on. Just look at the convenient deaths of Andrew Breitbart and Michael Hastings, both of whom were working on major stories involving serious corruption.

I would also remind you that in the grand scheme of things, people like Harvey Weinstein barely even ranks as a mid level manager. So don't waste too much time overanalysing him. He's a busted flush at this point.
We've got bigger fish to fry.

I've had about ten years of a head start over the average Joe Public on what is going on behind the scenes, and so far we've barely even scratched the surface.

The world as you know it is about to change forever.
But there's an awful lot of work to do, and the opposition are very, very clever.

WinnyThePoo

It never ceases to amaze me how there seems to be a massive black spot when it comes to trump. He isn't an outsider. He isn't change.

tara73

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

We had a terrifying glimpse of the future, and thankfully the heartland of America mobilised and rejected what would have been the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare in America:

'sorry', but this really made me laugh...the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare in America: and then that picture... what an evil bunch of 12! women (when it's about evilness, the women are in the majority..) and 2 men...tell us, who are they????

meeeeh

It's a sign. Illuminati are trying to take over the work and brave lone solder Donald is standing between them and world apocalypse.

I have no doubt there is plenty of corruption among great and powerful but let's not mistake attempts to moderate venom that common garden trolls spout on social media with freedom of expression.

Noel82

tara73 wrote: »

'sorry', but this really made me laugh...the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare in America: and then that picture... what an evil bunch of 12! women (when it's about evilness, the women are in the majority..) and 2 men...tell us, who are they????

I'd assume he's talking about the stereotypical gender studies college type/social justice warrior look, like died hair and those type of glasses. The guy on the left doesn't look very manly either. In a world where having opposing views can be seen as hate speech, I can somewhat understand his reasoning.

strandroad

Noel82 wrote: »

I'd assume he's talking about the stereotypical gender studies college type/social justice warrior look, like died hair and those type of glasses. The guy on the left doesn't look very manly either. In a world where having opposing views can be seen as hate speech, I can somewhat understand his reasoning.

No, he means Anita Sarkeesian's (in the middle) visit to Google. She used to expose sexist tropes in computer games which made her the target of so much threats and doxxing that she's pretty much the face of the fight against online abuse against women now.
That's the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare, rightly rejected by the heartland of America.... looks like it means pizzagate is real?

selectamatic

silverharp wrote: »

in general terms though talent wins out in sport most of the time, if you are the best you are the best. Unknown actors are totally replaceable.

True talent and hard work will always win out in sport in its purity.

It's more the activities surrounding sport that are open to abuse by sordid characters. Case in point many talented boxers were fast tracked to world titles as long as the right people were getting the right cut of the pie. While other equally talented individuals were left to travel a longer harder road to success.

Sport in general though has been continuously revised and it's running improved. To a point thats it's better ran and more transparent than ever before; the same can't really be said for the showbiz industry. Perhaps this will be the turning point? but unfortunately I remain sceptical.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

tara73 wrote: »

'sorry', but this really made me laugh...the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare in America: and then that picture... what an evil bunch of 12! women (when it's about evilness, the women are in the majority..) and 2 men...tell us, who are they????

Good job taking it completely out of context.

If you are happy to have lunatics like these influencing the most powerful information platform in the world, there's not much I can say to you.

Just today, the book 'To Kill A Mockingbird' has been removed from the Mississippi school reading list because it's 'uncomfortable'. It's these kind of snowflakes that share the same ideals as the people in the picture.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/14/to-kill-a-mockingbird-harper-lee-mississippi-school-reading-list

Hande hoche!

strandroad wrote: »

No, he means Anita Sarkeesian's (in the middle) visit to Google. She used to expose sexist tropes in computer games which made her the target of so much threats and doxxing that she's pretty much the face of the fight against online abuse against women now.
That's the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare, rightly rejected by the heartland of America.... looks like it means pizzagate is real?

On the plus side, we have Brianna Wu running for the US congress.

Is this a lizard people/Jews under the beds conspiracy theory thing?

That feeling when someone who previously appeared normal but suddenly starts coming out with the really exclusive and expensive crazy.

tara73

strandroad wrote: »

No, he means Anita Sarkeesian's (in the middle) visit to Google. She used to expose sexist tropes in computer games which made her the target of so much threats and doxxing that she's pretty much the face of the fight against online abuse against women now.

ok, sorry then, then it's a complete misunderstanding..:o but still don't know what the sentence should mean with Orwellian nightmare and the likes...:)anyway..

strandroad

tara73 wrote: »

ok, sorry then, then it's a complete misunderstanding..:o but still don't know what the sentence should mean with Orwellian nightmare and the likes...:)anyway..

She's an embattled woman + Google talks to her = the end of the world as we know it is near

Dr Brown

It seems that Irish actress Alison Doody didn't progress in her career because she wasn't willing to sleep with a studio boss.

She hit it big with a starring role in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade but I don't think she has done much since then.

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/the-weinstein-effect-irish-women-speak-out-i-saw-him-openly-grope-women-at-an-oscar-party-nobody-did-anything-36227965.html

tara73

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Good job taking it completely out of context.

If you are happy to have lunatics like these influencing the most powerful information platform in the world, there's not much I can say to you.

Just today, the book 'To Kill A Mockingbird' has been removed from the Mississippi school reading list because it's 'uncomfortable'. It's these kind of snowflakes that share the same ideals as the people in the picture.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/14/to-kill-a-mockingbird-harper-lee-mississippi-school-reading-list

sorry, but I don't get it (honestly). who are the lunatics now? somebody just explained that this is Anita Sarkeesian (never heard about her before, but she's probably only popular in the US?) I thought you like people who speak up/telling the truth? And I thought that's what she's doing??

Noel82

strandroad wrote: »

No, he means Anita Sarkeesian's (in the middle) visit to Google. She used to expose sexist tropes in computer games which made her the target of so much threats and doxxing that she's pretty much the face of the fight against online abuse against women now.

Everyone gets abuse online, doesn't matter who you are.
Here's a study from the election looking at anti Semitic abuse.

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/press-center/CR_4862_Journalism-Task-Force_v2.pdf

Ben Shapiro, Male/Conservative/Jew was by far the most targeted, more so than his female counterparts.



Now my point was more about culture and censorship and the direction it was going in and the stereotypical social justice warriors in positions of power who pertain to know everything but have zero real world experience. It could be 10 men with pink hair, doesn't matter. You're equating my problem is with Women, but it's not. Admittingly I'm judging a group of people by their looks, but their sex to me doesn't matter. Perhaps you want it to be an issue, I don't know.

All off topic so I'm done with this subject.

strandroad

Noel82 wrote: »

Now my point was more about culture and censorship and the direction it was going in and the people in the photo look like the stereotypical social justice warriors who pertain to know everything but have zero real world experience. It could be 10 men with pink hair, doesn't matter. You're equating my problem is with Women, but it's not. Admittingly I'm judging a group of people by their looks, but their sex to me doesn't matter. Perhaps you want it to be an issue, I don't know.

I wasn't referring to your post, but to Biggest lickspittle's, who named Sarkeesian in his post?
Anyway EOT.

Ulysses Gaze

Candie wrote: »

Is this a lizard people/Jews under the beds conspiracy theory thing?

That feeling when someone who previously appeared normal but suddenly starts coming out with the really exclusive and expensive crazy.

In these types of instances Candie, Cristiano Ronaldo sums it up best....

Assetbacked

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What does looks have to do with anything? Women wouldn't mind someone famous and good looking forcing themselves on them? Go away with that nonsense.

I'm not talking about forcing themselves on them but rather where it is seen as seedy and disgusting when Weinstein hits on a woman, it is a turn on when more famous and attractive actors use their status and looks to sleep with women.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Candie wrote: »

Is this a lizard people/Jews under the beds conspiracy theory thing?

That feeling when someone who previously appeared normal but suddenly starts coming out with the really exclusive and expensive crazy.

I'd rather not be associated with that sort of crap please, joking or otherwise.
I haven't said anything about jews or lizard people so don't try to smear me with that.

tara73 wrote: »

sorry, but I don't get it (honestly). who are the lunatics now? somebody just explained that this is Anita Sarkeesian (never heard about her before, but she's probably only popular in the US?) I thought you like people who speak up/telling the truth? And I thought that's what she's doing??

What I will say is that Anita Sarkeesian, like many young Americans, has been exposed to a certain ideology without any counterbalance of opposing arguments. This does not lead to a healthy state of mind overall. (On both sides of the political spectrum, I might add.)
Of course, she has some valid points. But a sort of 'digital red Guard' mindset has been brewing over the last few decades in the college campuses in the U.S.
And some people have appointed themselves moral authorities of society, and are very motivated in achieving their desired outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards

Anyway, I don't want to drag this topic off thread.

Like I said, we'll come back to this in a year or so and see where we are. I'll happily grovel and apologise if my case hasn't been proved.

RabbleRouser2k

Bit worried about people doing the 'he raped her, she still dated him-so it's not rape' thing. Um, it is. If you read up on it, it's quite distressing to read, but not uncommon for a rape victim to date her rapist. It's a way for her/ him to suppress their realisation 'they were raped'.
For Argento, it seems very much like she didn't want to admit it-also, she tweeted how she was abused more than once, as a teen, and in her twenties. So she had more than one abuser. (If you've seen 'Author: the JT Story'-she doesn't come across very well in that, as in very promiscuous to 'get the job'-for an abuse victim, it explains the behaviour (I wouldn't know, personally, how an abuse survivor behaves. It just comes from research, reading). It often happens that someone who's abused sexually, will become overly sexual, to sort of 'justify' that their abuse/ rape, was 'within their control'-when it obviously wasn't. It's a sad, complex issue).

mzungu

selectamatic wrote: »

Just on this, Mike Tyson's rape conviction is far from the open and shut case people are led to believe when you look into it.

I don't wish to take the thread off-topic, but Tyson was convicted in a country that has a high burden of proof, and the attending physician who examined Desiree Washington afterwards testified that her physical condition was consistent with rape. Tyson's chauffeur gave evidence too, and it backed up Washington's version of events.

selectamatic wrote: »

I would argue Tyson was also clearly a victim of such abuses and manipulation.

Maybe he was a victim of dodgy hangers-on, but that would be entirely separate to actions. He committed rape, and that can't be blamed on anybody else but Tyson himself.

selectamatic wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong but I'd view a socially inept emotionally fragile and damaged Mike Tyson in a different light to some shady casting couch type "rapist".

It does appear that Weinstein was far more a serial abuser than Tyson, but in the grand scheme of things that changes nothing. They both behaved like thugs. Mike Tyson was a grown man and at the time was the "baddest man on the planet". A lot of people are "emotionally fragile" but they don't do what Tyson did. His past means nothing here, he was a grown man with agency and he knew full well what he was doing. To suggest otherwise creates a picture of Tyson as being almost infantile and a victim of circumstances beyond his control. That was most certainly not the case.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

selectamatic wrote: »

Just on this, Mike Tyson's rape conviction is far from the open and shut case people are led to believe when you look into it.

Interestingly enough though I'd guarantee the sports industry is another one where abuse of power is rampant and I would argue Tyson was also clearly a victim of such abuses and manipulation.

Basically as someone pointed out already any industry where the chance of success is miniscule yet the rewards are vast, abuse of power tends to be rampant.

Maybe I'm wrong but I'd view a socially inept emotionally fragile and damaged Mike Tyson in a different light to some shady casting couch type "rapist".

I'd have Don king as boxings Harvey Weinstein before Tyson. In fact comparing Harvey to Don might even be too harsh on Weinstein.

Mike Tyson was sexually abused as a stranger, and had a very tough upbringing it must be said. This would probably manifest itself in some of his behaviour.

I'm not making an excuse for him, btw. Just explaining how his version of right and wrong might not be the same as us.

He is obviously still accountable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4726286/Mike-Tyson-opens-sexual-molestion-child.html

ceadaoin.

Assetbacked wrote: »

I'm not talking about forcing themselves on them but rather where it is seen as seedy and disgusting when Weinstein hits on a woman, it is a turn on when more famous and attractive actors use their status and looks to sleep with women.

But Weinstein wasn't merely "hitting on" women was he? He used his status and power to coerce, assault and ruin women. Big difference. Cornering a woman and forcing her to watch you masturbate would be seedy and disgusting no matter what the person doing it looked like.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

But Weinstein wasn't merely "hitting on" women was he? He used his status and power to coerce, assault and ruin women. Big difference. Cornering a woman and forcing her to watch you masturbate would be seedy and disgusting no matter what the person doing it looked like.

The looks thing has been posited or insinuated a few times, I think one such post was removed.

As though there is any comparison between a mere unwanted approach and a full-blown sexual assault or rape, intimidation and professional ruination.

marienbad

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

with lunatics like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian et al.





.

Jeez thank God you warned us - there was me worrying about Trump , kim jong un , Putin et al and I should have focused on Sarkeesian and company - that was close . Lets hope we are not too late

ceadaoin.

Candie wrote: »

The looks thing has been posited or insinuated a few times, I think one such post was removed.

As though there is any comparison between a mere unwanted approach and a full-blown sexual assault or rape, intimidation and professional ruination.

Yeah wtf is up with people spouting this nonsense? It's pure misogyny and so depressing to see. I can only assume they got lost on the way to r/incels.

Bambi985

Assetbacked wrote: »

I'm not talking about forcing themselves on them but rather where it is seen as seedy and disgusting when Weinstein hits on a woman, it is a turn on when more famous and attractive actors use their status and looks to sleep with women.

What you'll find people think is "seedy and disgusting" is Weinstein's behaviour of groping, mauling, threatening, emotionally blackmailing, masturbating in front of and sexually assaulting women. If that's your idea of "hitting on women" then I hope to jesus I never meet you.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah wtf is up with people spouting this nonsense? It's pure misogyny and so depressing to see. I can only assume they got lost on the way to r/incels.

Don't ever go there, I did out of curiosity about a year ago and I'm still not right.

It's just a way of turning it back onto the women, making Weinstein the victim of his unfortunate looks and highlighting how shallow and superficial the women are. After all, nobody considers it assault if you happen to be manhandled and raped by someone with symmetrical features. :rolleyes:

strandroad

Candie wrote: »

Don't ever go there, I did out of curiosity about a year ago and I'm still not right.

It's just a way of turning it back onto the women, making Weinstein the victim of his unfortunate looks and highlighting how shallow and superficial the women are. After all, nobody considers it assault if you happen to be manhandled and raped by someone with symmetrical features. :rolleyes:

Bill Cosby looked great and dressed smart in his prime, I doubt it was of any comfort to his victims.

pitifulgod

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Good job taking it completely out of context.

If you are happy to have lunatics like these influencing the most powerful information platform in the world, there's not much I can say to you.

Just today, the book 'To Kill A Mockingbird' has been removed from the Mississippi school reading list because it's 'uncomfortable'. It's these kind of snowflakes that share the same ideals as the people in the picture.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/14/to-kill-a-mockingbird-harper-lee-mississippi-school-reading-list

You're bringing discussion into bizarre and conspiratorial territory but it must be pointed that To Kill a Mockingbird has been one of the most challenged books in the US since its release. It's nothing to do with 'snowflake' rubbish as the biggest protesters of the book, often seem the type who object to it.

America simply isn't comfortable with discussing racism, particularly in the Deep South eg Mississippi which is where this story originates. Confederate states are those who tend to be the most uncomfortable with Mockingbird.

You've made some points I agree with in this topic but you've unfortunately interwoven with rubbish that relates more to your conspiracies about Obama and Hillary...

tara73

pitifulgod wrote: »

America simply isn't comfortable with discussing racism, particularly in the Deep South eg Mississippi which is where this story originates. Confederate states are those who tend to be the most uncomfortable with Mockingbird.

this is kind of offtopic, but it has to be said: so why is America simply not comfortable with discussing racism. That is simply very, very frightening for such a liberate, free country they still pretend to be to the world around them.
We simply shouldn't accept it. it's a very, very bad sign they took the book out of the school reading list, should be the opposite, should be on every school reading list!

marienbad

tara73 wrote: »

this is kind of offtopic, but it has to be said: so why is America simply not comfortable with discussing racism. That is simply very, very frightening for such a liberate, free country they still pretend to be to the world around them.
We simply shouldn't accept it. it's a very, very bad sign they took the book out of the school reading list, should be the opposite, should be on every school reading list!

Taking books out of the reading list every year is standard practice , regularly happens to Maya Angelou and has even happened to Steinbeck's Grapes Of Wrath . Just par for the course , doesn't make it right but that is the way it is .

JP Liz V1

Ah poor Amanda Brunker of course she had an encounter with a Harvey type monster and only now reveals all

http://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/amanda-brunker-an-irish-tycoon-tried-to-convince-me-to-perform-sex-acts-when-i-was-17