Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Outlaw Pete

That link is 404'ing, Liz....... here it is again.

Wherever there's a bandwagon, you can be damn sure Amanda will be hurling herself onto it.

Doesn't exactly run congruent with her previous musings:

"There were plane rides to Monaco and dinners in New York that I turned down. Eejit!"

"I thought I was being moralistic, that I had standards, but I should have said yes to the guys with the money"

Assetbacked

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.

Yes it would and I find it impossible to believe Weinstein is the only person in Hollywood to act like that.

Assetbacked

Bambi985 wrote: »

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.

Obfuscation. Your tactic is it deary when you cannot grasp an argument? Dismaying that you have one vote like me, democracy is nonsense.

ceadaoin.

Assetbacked wrote: »

Yes it would and I find it impossible to believe Weinstein is the only person in Hollywood to act like that.

Who said he was? There are similar rumours around many Hollywood stars. Casey Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix are two that have faced accusations in recent years.

anto9

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

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

Kinda like the wife of Paul Daniels the UK magician was asked ''what did you see in millionair Paul ?''

anto9

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

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

Link dont work for me ,but Amanda was one hot chick in her youth ,and she socialised in rich circles .She must have had 1000s lusting after her .

A Battered Mars Bar

Omg Amanda Brunker has come out with her sexual assault story from when she was 17 by an well known Irish businessman. Oh my f**king God the poor poor girl I feel so sorry for her. I had no idea I hope she's ok and finds the strength to get through this Harvey scandal.

pjohnson

STOP VICTIM BLAMING AMANDA. You rape apologists with your misogynistic rape culture life.

WinnyThePoo

Jaysus. The boys are all out to play.

pjohnson

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Jaysus. The boys are all out to play.

You really shouldn't just assume everyone with a differing view is male.

WinnyThePoo

pjohnson wrote: »

You really shouldn't just assume everyone with a differing view is male.

Boys.

Wibbs

I read yesterday that an ex member of the Pussycat Dolls has alleged that members of their group were passed around industry executives and other fat cats. Maybe she's out for attention on this bandwagon, but it would not surprise me one little bit favours for "favours" would be in the mix.

It looks like Weinstein was a serial abuser and rapist of dozens of women for over two decades and felt like he had free rein to be so. And clearly he had. Is there any other industry or culture where a creature that was apparently so obvious a criminal would last so long? It's beyond imagining TBH.

It begs the question of course that if such a criminal could act like this for such a long time and in pretty much full view, in a business that has more media scrutiny and access to media than any other, how come it took so long for the cat to be let out of the bag? It strongly suggests to me that the culture accepted that predators could operate as a part of doing business(his company's contract backs this up, with a scale of financial "penalties" for abuse of underlings). That they kept the media in line and until the cracks appeared in the dam when McGowen and Judd came forward he might have gotten way with it. Staggers the mind. I suppose even those hypocrites who backed a child rapist like Polanski couldn't pretend to ignore this. Though look at the molasses slow reaction from the PR types of the rest of the "stars".

Which would make it a given that Weinstein was not operating in a vacuum and wasn't the only one. He may well have been the worst criminal - Good christ I hope he was. The idea that there were/are others even half as bad is a scary one - but no way was/is he alone. More is coming out I reckon. I hope.

Penn

Wibbs wrote: »

I read yesterday that an ex member of the Pussycat Dolls has alleged that members of their group were passed around industry executives and other fat cats. Maybe she's out for attention on this bandwagon, but it would not surprise me one little bit favours for "favours" would be in the mix.

It looks like Weinstein was a serial abuser and rapist of dozens of women for over two decades and felt like he had free rein to be so. And clearly he had. Is there any other industry or culture where a creature that was apparently so obvious a criminal would last so long? It's beyond imagining TBH.

It begs the question of course that if such a criminal could act like this for such a long time and in pretty much full view, in a business that has more media scrutiny and access to media than any other, how come it took so long for the cat to be let out of the bag? It strongly suggests to me that the culture accepted that predators could operate as a part of doing business(his company's contract backs this up, with a scale of financial "penalties" for abuse of underlings). That they kept the media in line and until the cracks appeared in the dam when McGowen and Judd came forward he might have gotten way with it. Staggers the mind. I suppose even those hypocrites who backed a child rapist like Polanski couldn't pretend to ignore this. Though look at the molasses slow reaction from the PR types of the rest of the "stars".

Which would make it a given that Weinstein was not operating in a vacuum and wasn't the only one. He may well have been the worst criminal - Good christ I hope he was. The idea that there were/are others even half as bad is a scary one - but no way was/is he alone. More is coming out I reckon. I hope.

I read somewhere that it seems whenever news or allegations about Weinstein might come out he'd offer whatever media outlet more juicy stories about proper celebs instead on the condition they not print the thing about him. I'd imagine similar happened with others.

strandroad

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?

Anita Sarkeesian also made a career out of courting controversy

I don't like Amanda Brunker that much, but surely the way people are reacting to her would stop anybody from coming out over sexual assaults?

Billy86

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

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.

He is, however, very much caught up in this mess.

President Trump Subpoenaed Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations

OCT 15 2017, 4:04 PM ET

A former contestant on "The Apprentice" who accuses President Donald Trump of past sexual misconduct has filed a subpoena for "all documents concerning any woman who asserted that Donald J. Trump touched her inappropriately," it was revealed on Sunday.

nacho libre

Wibbs wrote: »

Which would make it a given that Weinstein was not operating in a vacuum and wasn't the only one. He may well have been the worst criminal - Good christ I hope he was. The idea that there were/are others even half as bad is a scary one - but no way was/is he alone. More is coming out I reckon. I hope.

It seems to me Weinstein got a way with for so long because he had dirt on others even more powerful than himself. These people are like birds of a feather. He will likely be the fall guy, while those behind the scenes make sure the dark deeds of others go unhidden. Again i will ask, what was Bill Clinton doing on Epstein's plane so many times. It's not possible he did not know everything there was to know about Epstein, given the intelligence material he would have access to about any prominent individual he encounters.

Ipso

Billy86 wrote: »

He is, however, very much caught up in this mess.

President Trump Subpoenaed Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations

He's obviously being framed by the wimmin who want to control the internet (how people can believe this is even possible is staggering)!

Ash.J.Williams

seamus wrote: »

"Sex addiction".

I thought South Park destroyed that nonsense with their pisstake episode. Weinstein really laying on the "Poor me" bull.

he got a mention in this weeks southpark

Ash.J.Williams

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.

i disagree ....

well i agree with the idiot part

just leave it to southpark!

RabbleRouser2k

anto9 wrote: »

Link dont work for me ,but Amanda was one hot chick in her youth ,and she socialised in rich circles .She must have had 1000s lusting after her .

I remember she had many 'friends with benefits' as in if she needed sex, she had fellas she'd call on. She said that on some RTE show, years ago, when she appeared as a 'talking head' type person.
The problem is, you can be the 'hottest woman in the world', but if people can't stand to be around you for five minutes, then they won't be asking you out to dinner. Plus, she was living at home with mom well into her 30s, so I'd imagine few people would want the drama of being around her and her mom-having to explain 'no, there's no relationship-I'm just here for a good time'.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't like Amanda Brunker that much, but surely the way people are reacting to her would stop anybody from coming out over sexual assaults?

It's Amanda Brunker-if anyone did/didn't do anything based on something she said, the country would be screwed.
And again, she wasn't sexually assaulted-it was some guy chancing his arm. But she's a writer, she could be making it up.

RabbleRouser2k

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?

She didn't expose anything-she peddled a story that was ideological propaganda. And she didn't even finish that-she ran out of ideas, because she was full of it.
As one person noted, every year, there is somewhere in the region of 100-2000 games released per year. (Again, not taking into account mobile gaming, ios gaming-this is PC and console gaming alone). Sarkeesian analysed about maybe 100-200 games, all chosen from the last 20-30 years. In any other scientific study, they would call that a drop in the ocean.
Even then, when you look at the videos-she clearly ignores how to play the game, skewing it for her own propaganda. For example, Hitman-she claimed one level 'called on the player to shoot a club full of strippers/prostitutes'. In actuality, the player is punished for shooting the women, can also shoot the men, and the mission for the level she showed is to kill a male target.
The gaming companies didn't listen to her-they pretty much ignored her. When game companies did follow a feminist, rather than egalitarian, ideology-they bombed. Mass Effect Andromeda, killed the company behind it. (If you want to see similar in TV, look at Heartbeats-which was so bad, it was hilarious. And of course, Ghostbusters 2016).

Edit: The doxxing didn't happen either-most of her claims was either highly exaggerated, or non-existant. However, she did doxx a transgender games journalist, who interviewed an 'opponent' of Sarkeesian.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/16/feminists-dox-and-harass-transgender-game-journalist-for-writing-about-online-harassment/

B0jangles

For those completely unaware of the whole 'thing' : Anika Sarkeesian, the international bogeyfeminist's greatest and most heinous act was to make a series of videos talking about how women are represented in videogames.

That's pretty much it.

She critiqued games, in the same way as films, books and all other media are.

Self-identified 'gamers' couldn't handle this and went berserk and now she's apparently at the forefront of a secret cabal with an evil plan for world domination.

(And just to put it out there, I've been playing games since I was about 8, first machine was an atari 800xl so I've probably been playing for longer than most and I still wouldn't call myself a 'gamer'.)

tylercheribini

You know you are f*cked when even Woody Allen is callin ya a creep.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

For those completely unaware of the whole 'thing' : Anika Sarkeesian, the international bogeyfeminist's greatest and most heinous act was to make a series of videos talking about how women are represented in videogames.

That's pretty much it.

She critiqued games, in the same way as films, books and all other media are.

Self-identified 'gamers' couldn't handle this and went berserk and now she's apparently at the forefront of a secret cabal with an evil plan for world domination.

(And just to put it out there, I've been playing games since I was about 8, first machine was an atari 800xl so I've probably been playing for longer than most and I still wouldn't call myself a 'gamer'.)

I'd be one of those folk who wasn't too pleased with her critique. She without a doubt made some valid points throughout. There is sexist portrayals of women in games. Games are made for a male dominated audience. In the same way I wouldn't be shocked to pick up a women's magazine and find it wasn't catered to the 15-25 male demograph. To say she was reviewing media like anything else isn't true imo. Most reviewers of film and books don't begin with a conclusion and cherry pick arguments to fit that conclusion. She simply lied in some cases to fit her narrative. She definitely made some incendiary claims to stoke the flames of controversy to heighten her own profile. I don't like when people do that.

valoren

Just to show how powerful and influential Weinstein's reputation as a Producer was in the late 90's consider that Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture in 1999. It is considered now one of, if not the worst movie to win Best Picture, an embarrassing winner as it won out over the likes of Saving Private Ryan, which was a nailed on winner, and The Thin Red Line, now considered one of the best war movies ever made. Weinstein had that much influence over the Academy's voter's.

It was Weinstein's over-bearing campaigning, networking and patent badgering that was tantamount of bullying the voting block that won the big prizes, so much so that the Academy changed the rules for campaigning due to his aggressive campaigning style including smearing other films, engaging in negative campaigns against other nominees to Academy members.

A more recent example was when Slumdog Millionaire was the favorite a few years ago, there was a story going around that the production had exploited indian child actors. The fingers were immediately pointed at our pal Harvey for making that up which he denied of course.

backspin.

He really is a vile beast. I hope he gets thrown in the slammer when all is said and done. He probably won't though.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be one of those folk who wasn't too pleased with her critique. She without a doubt made some valid points throughout. There is sexist portrayals of women in games. Games are made for a male dominated audience. In the same way I wouldn't be shocked to pick up a women's magazine and find it wasn't catered to the 15-25 male demograph. To say she was reviewing media like anything else isn't true imo. Most reviewers of film and books don't begin with a conclusion and cherry pick arguments to fit that conclusion. She simply lied in some cases to fit her narrative. She definitely made some incendiary claims to stoke the flames of controversy to heighten her own profile. I don't like when people do that.

The ins and outs of that whole business are not really appropriate for discussion in this thread, I only put in the explanation of who she is for people who haven't heard of her because of this post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104978076&postcount=869

If you are going to build up to a climax like

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:

I think it is important for people to know just how completely insane it is to talk about the global end of democracy approaching due to a plan masterminded by someone whose most prominent and controversial action is to review bloody games in a way that makes some gamers really cross.

Shurimgreat

What is to stop Amanda Brunker naming the Business man in question and having the case brought to court?

On the one hand she cites an alleged woman who was "no friend of women". On the other she worries about the perpetrator and her own hopes that her silence didn't cause him to go on to harm other women. If she was truly concerned and a friend of women she'd name and shame the perpetrator so that other women could be protected.

valoren

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't like Amanda Brunker that much, but surely the way people are reacting to her would stop anybody from coming out over sexual assaults?

I guess it's a case of reputation in this case where she presumably jumps on any latest bandwagon.

A case of Boy (or Girl) who cried wolf. When you actually have a legitimate position on a topic (in this case sexual harrassment), your previous attention seeking dilutes the serious message and is questioned.

DaeryssaOne

Reese Witherspoon and America Ferrera are now also speaking about previous abuse / assaults - neither named Harvey though.

While in one way I think it's fantastic that a light is being shed on this whole sorry affair, a horrible cynical part of me is wondering whether this is the new 'Ice bucket challenge' I sincerely hope not. While I'm not saying these women in particular are just looking for attention I would hope that there are no women (or men) exaggerating claims simply to get attention on social media.

optogirl

jobr wrote: »

Reese Witherspoon and America Ferrera are now also speaking about previous abuse / assaults - neither named Harvey though.

While in one way I think it's fantastic that a light is being shed on this whole sorry affair, a horrible cynical part of me is wondering whether this is the new 'Ice bucket challenge' I sincerely hope not. While I'm not saying these women in particular are just looking for attention I would hope that there are no women (or men) exaggerating claims simply to get attention on social media.

unfortunately I think it's true to say that most women have experience of, at least, sexual harassment. Most of us get embarassed or angry or scared & try to forget it but now that I see how absolutely widespread and frankly downright unfair it is, I am so sad. Sad that women too are guilty of shrugging it off as a humiliating experience that just happens to us. Maybe it's time we collectively tried to change this for future generations of women & maybe the sudden outbreak of people willing to stand up and say 'it happened to me too' will be some sort of catalyst.

valoren

valoren wrote: »

I guess it's a case of reputation in this case where she presumably jumps on any latest bandwagon.

A case of Boy (or Girl) who cried wolf. When you actually have a legitimate position on a topic (in this case sexual harrassment), your previous attention seeking dilutes the serious message and is questioned.

Perhaps, but it still would put off legitimate people who might want to come forward.

server down

valoren wrote: »

Just to show how powerful and influential Weinstein's reputation as a Producer was in the late 90's consider that Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture in 1999. It is considered now one of, if not the worst movie to win Best Picture, an embarrassing winner as it won out over the likes of Saving Private Ryan, which was a nailed on winner, and The Thin Red Line, now considered one of the best war movies ever made. Weinstein had that much influence over the Academy's voter's.

It was Weinstein's over-bearing campaigning, networking and patent badgering that was tantamount of bullying the voting block that won the big prizes, so much so that the Academy changed the rules for campaigning due to his aggressive campaigning style including smearing other films, engaging in negative campaigns against other nominees to Academy members.

.

to be fair, that bit is Harvey doing his job. You are right about shakespeare in love though.

Riddle101

Interesting article about Kevin Smith. He's donating his residuals from his movies, which were produced by Weinstein to charity. I say fair play to him.

http://www.elleuk.com/life-and-culture/culture/news/a39354/kevin-smith-donate-money-harvey-weinstein-films/

Wibbs

Yeah fair bloody play to him alright. And let's face it it seems that he didn't know about Weinstein and is hardly to blame for that greasy bastards reign of being a pervert, but he shows more spine than any of the other "men" who did know about and have only rattled out PR platitudes. Can't see Tarantino giving up his residuals, or Pitt(who knew about at least on ex who was directly manhandled), or Affleck(ditto) or a few on a long list.

Then again replacing the Hollywood sign with one that reads Hypocrisy would be more representative. When you have muppets like Streep among others wittering on about feminism while defending a child rapist. Hell you have DeCaprio from his silk lined pulpit wittering on about global warming and reducing our footprint, while flying around the world to these backslapping rallies on private jets. Are these **** that out of touch, that bloody stupid?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

marienbad wrote: »

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

B0jangles wrote: »

The ins and outs of that whole business are not really appropriate for discussion in this thread, I only put in the explanation of who she is for people who haven't heard of her because of this post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104978076&postcount=869

If you are going to build up to a climax like



I think it is important for people to know just how completely insane it is to talk about the global end of democracy approaching due to a plan masterminded by someone whose most prominent and controversial action is to review bloody games in a way that makes some gamers really cross.

I was referring more to what is known as Cultural Hegemony, which is something I see becoming more and more prevalent across the internet. I certainly wasn't trying to promote some 'wimmins conspiracy' nonsense. (Although I admit my explanation was rushed and clumsy.)

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

In Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of that society—the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that their imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm; the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class

I was using the people in the picture as an example of those who should not be left anywhere near power based on their previous examples of being economical with the truth when it suits them.


I hope this clears things up.

Incidentally, the BBC had an excellent article yesterday about how China's internet is controlled. It's well worth a read. The first line is particularly striking, and is something we should all be thinking very carefully about.

If you control public communication you can control the way people think and how they behave. That's what Xi Jinping's government is counting on.
And it is never more true than at the time of major political gatherings.
The Communist Party Congress, held every five years, is set to begin next week: an event which will culminate in the revelation of the new leadership team behind General Secretary Xi.
So the censors here are poised to restrict with one hand and disseminate with the other.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-41523073

Now imagine trying to break the Weinstein story with an army of Hillary's internet sanitisers working 24/7 to suppress and delete any negative stories about her.

That was the particular image I was trying to convey.
Anyway, as you said, we're dragging this discussion off topic. This is about Weinstein and his scumbag network.

alchemist33

Couldn't that Cultural Hegemony be even more easily applied to the system that spawned Weinstein and allowed him to carry on for decades?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah fair bloody play to him alright. And let's face it it seems that he didn't know about Weinstein and is hardly to blame for that greasy bastards reign of being a pervert, but he shows more spine than any of the other "men" who did know about and have only rattled out PR platitudes. Can't see Tarantino giving up his residuals, or Pitt(who knew about at least on ex who was directly manhandled), or Affleck(ditto) or a few on a long list.

Then again replacing the Hollywood sign with one that reads Hypocrisy would be more representative. When you have muppets like Streep among others wittering on about feminism while defending a child rapist. Hell you have DeCaprio from his silk lined pulpit wittering on about global warming and reducing our footprint, while flying around the world to these backslapping rallies on private jets. Are these **** that out of touch, that bloody stupid?

In Pitt's case at least, he may have a very good reason for keeping quiet. Pitt was, according to some reports, dating his 15 year Dallas co-star Shalane McCaul when Pitt was 24 years old. I'm sure Weinstein could have framed that news story in a very, very negative way if he wanted...

https://www.google.ie/search?q=lipstick+alley+shalene+mccaul&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPkcXXu_jWAhUFB8AKHWGiAHcQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=590#imgrc=NETv4gczoIR9EM:

Pitt also allegedly starting dating Juliette Lewis when she as 16. They definitely went public when she turned 18:

https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/brad-pitt-at-26-with-his-underaged-teen-girlfriends.577453/

I'll bet Weinstein was running a sort of J. Edgar Hoover scheme on all of Hollywood, with the approval of even more powerful people. Information is the greatest commodity going.
Get dirt on everyone, and manipulate your way from there. A very straightforward strategy, when you think about it from a strictly rational point of view.
Morally repugnant, of course.

professore

SeanW wrote: »

President Trump made some stupid remarks.

Harvey Weinstein actually abused women. His actions went FAR beyond Trumps.

If you can't see the difference between making dumb comments and actually abusing people, it suggests at minimum a very narrow mindset.

Trump stated a fact. If you have money and power you can do anything to women, as everyone will cover up for you - especially other women - and frantically shame others who commit far milder offences like making a stupid joke that they thought was in private on a bus 20 years ago.

This whole Weinstein debacle could be a ruse to distract from the paedophile rings that are common knowledge in Hollywood. He is Hollywood's Eamonn Casey, people will look back in 10 years and say "at least he only talked adult women into sex in exchange for advancing their careers" when the really depraved sh1t finally comes out.

Not making excuses for him, mind, he's a sleazy rapist.

professore

optogirl wrote: »

unfortunately I think it's true to say that most women have experience of, at least, sexual harassment. Most of us get embarassed or angry or scared & try to forget it but now that I see how absolutely widespread and frankly downright unfair it is, I am so sad. Sad that women too are guilty of shrugging it off as a humiliating experience that just happens to us. Maybe it's time we collectively tried to change this for future generations of women & maybe the sudden outbreak of people willing to stand up and say 'it happened to me too' will be some sort of catalyst.

It needs to be called out WHEN IT HAPPENS and TELL PEOPLE. The whole "me too" thing just sounds like a cynical play for attention. People need to get proof and write books, blogs and youtube videos. The vast majority of people, both men and women, are disgusted by this kind of behaviour and will support you. There are laws with punitive penalties in place for offenders, and nowadays even the suggestion of sexual assault is enough to ruin a career. So go for it and root out those scumbags.

Ulysses Gaze

Riddle101 wrote: »

Interesting article about Kevin Smith. He's donating his residuals from his movies, which were produced by Weinstein to charity. I say fair play to him.

http://www.elleuk.com/life-and-culture/culture/news/a39354/kevin-smith-donate-money-harvey-weinstein-films/

I'm not a massive fan of his films, but he is also one of the few in Hollywood who did not support Polanski and publicly stated so:

https://twitter.com/ThatKevinSmith/status/4472158172?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fthatkevinsmith%2Fstatus%2F4472158172

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

professore wrote: »

It needs to be called out WHEN IT HAPPENS and TELL PEOPLE. The whole "me too" thing just sounds like a cynical play for attention. People need to get proof and write books, blogs and youtube videos. The vast majority of people, both men and women, are disgusted by this kind of behaviour and will support you. There are laws with punitive penalties in place for offenders, and nowadays even the suggestion of sexual assault is enough to ruin a career. So go for it and root out those scumbags.

And that's why we need to be very, very careful. I wouldn't put it past those with something to hide starting rumours and innuendo about innocent people in order to deflect attention. The last thing we want to see is another witch hunt.

The burden of proof exists for a reason, even though it can be frustrating at times.
Having said that, more people (especially celebrities) do need to start speaking up loudly if they have useful information.

Particularly about Dan Schneider, Bryan Singer, and Victor Salva.

Ulysses Gaze

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

And that's why we need to be very, very careful. I wouldn't put it past those with something to hide starting rumours and innuendo about innocent people in order to deflect attention. The last thing we want to see is another witch hunt.

The burden of proof exists for a reason, even though it can be frustrating at times.
Having said that, more people (especially celebrities) do need to start speaking up loudly if they have useful information.

Particularly about Dan Schneider, Bryan Singer, and Victor Salva.

I was pretty disappointed that Francis Ford Coppola's Production company produced both his Jeepers Creepers movies.

The movies where the camera seems to linger on teenage boys running around with no tops on.....

The Rape of Lucretia

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I was pretty disappointed that Francis Ford Coppola's Production company produced both his Jeepers Creepers movies.

The movies where the camera seems to linger on teenage boys running around with no tops on.....

Times change. Its not that long ago, everyone thought it funny to laugh at a homosexual paedophile at work. Many still do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2A194yTWoQ

PCeeeee

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I was pretty disappointed that Francis Ford Coppola's Production company produced both his Jeepers Creepers movies.

The movies where the camera seems to linger on teenage boys running around with no tops on.....

Times change. Its not that long ago, everyone thought it funny to laugh at a homosexual paedophile at work. Many still do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2A194yTWoQ

Jesus. That's astounding. Wtf?

tylercheribini

"Spielberg had a peephole installed in Weinstein's hotel rooms and would masturbate with a prosthetic child hand made from the skin of babies arses."- The National Enquirer.

o1s1n

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Times change. Its not that long ago, everyone thought it funny to laugh at a homosexual paedophile at work. Many still do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2A194yTWoQ

It was and still is - detwist your knickers :pac:

tylercheribini

Agreed, satire always was and still is one of the most powerful weapons against the transgressions of the powerful and the elite.

marienbad

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

I was using the people in the picture as an example of those who should not be left anywhere near power based on their previous examples of being economical with the truth when it suits them.


Now imagine trying to break the Weinstein story with an army of Hillary's internet sanitisers working 24/7 to suppress and delete any negative stories about her.

You consider this cultural hegemony ? Get a grip . Most of the world is controlled by right wing governments or dictators , with the EU about the only hold out , and even that is being assailed from within. And most of those governments and dictators have no problem with lying and worse to maintain their power .

And you see 'the Clinton Crime Syndicate ' and a dozen women visiting Google as indicators of the end of days !

As I say get a grip and may the force be with them ( they will need it )