Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Christy42

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Yes. Full anonymity for all sexually related crimes and the end to automatically believing the alleged victim.

Please state how this would help the people who have been victims? Certainly they don't seem to trust it and with full anonymity all those celebs named would still be working. Given a fair few have admitted what they have done I ask again how this would help the victims-remember that this is nearly automatically a he said/they said situation and so near impossible to prove in a court of law.

Trust me. The victim s are frequently not automatically believed as is and plenty have been accused of lying.

Venom

Wibbs wrote: »

Seems to be the gist alright. Evil Men (c) and all that. Let's switch it around.... I'm actually not at all concerned if a few raped women have their stories ignored if it saves the reputations of even just a few good men. The smelling salts would be needed after a tweet like that.

This Lindin wan is clearly a muppet who has drunk deep from the well of modern "feminism" and the "equality" mask slipped, that's all. The usual nonsense is trotted out. The "half the population is oppressed" by the "Patriarchy". Id est; the usual "feminist" worldview filter of women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame. As I've noted before this never fails to fit the "feminist" rhetoric de jour.

In this idiot's tweets she expands on this by essentially setting out her stall that men are the oppressors so no man is truly innocent, so who cares if a blameless man gets trampled? I also love the gargantuan ego on this idiot where she says this is a price she's willing to pay. Really? You wouldn't have to pay anything, you silly cow.

It's amazing how fast she tried to backtrack on whose rights its ok to sacrifice when the fact more black men get accused of rape than white men was brought up. This fools stance that all men are just evil coz "reasons" so its ok to screw them over, except if its non white men coz that would be racism "reasons" and that would be wrong and also the deffo no taking sides if its anything to do with high school/college kids coz that's problematic due to how many fake claims have come to light "reasons" is just outstanding!



The mental gymnastics it must take for this asshole to believe the crap she spouts is just staggering.

JP Liz V1

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

A woman has chosen to come forward as one of the women accusing Danny Masterson of rape.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/danny-masterson-rape-accuser-comes-forward-to-blast-netflix-we-do-matter?via=twitter_page

Has Danny Masterson still a show on Netflix?

cantdecide

Christy42 wrote: »

Please state how this would help the people who have been victims? Certainly they don't seem to trust it and with full anonymity all those celebs named would still be working. Given a fair few have admitted what they have done I ask again how this would help the victims-remember that this is nearly automatically a he said/they said situation and so near impossible to prove in a court of law.

Trust me. The victim s are frequently not automatically believed as is and plenty have been accused of lying.

So you believe there is a right answer to the question of who is more acceptable to be thrown under the bus - innocent victims of crimes or innocent victims of false accusations?

Christy42

cantdecide wrote: »

So you believe there is a right answer to the question of who is more acceptable to be thrown under the bus - innocent victims of crimes or innocent victims of false accusations?

I do not. I am just less quick to judge someone who veers heavily towards the victims of false allegations.

I don't fully agree with the statement but I can see why someone would be frustrated and make it. Plus there does seem to be more evidence of unreported assaults than false victims. However both are difficult to measure in any real terms.

ceadaoin.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

But Anna080 it might make someone realise that the consensual fumble they had at the Trinity Ball in 2003 was actually assault!!!!

Who cares if a member of the oppressing classes is inconvenienced by being sacked, vilified and suicidal????

Smash the Patriarchy!!!

/sarcasm

I now feel like a shower after typing that garbage

Except thats not really going to happen is it? It's far more likely that someone doesn't report an actual assault. But don't let the facts get in the way or anything

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Yes. Full anonymity for all sexually related crimes and the end to automatically believing the alleged victim.

Yes, even in a case where dozens of women have come forward with similar stories about the same person, indicating a clear modus operandi , they are probably still lying the bitches.

Even if they aren't lying if they didn't fight the guy off or if they took a settlement rather than have their private lives dragged through the court for all to see well then that's their fault too. Also, If they don't come forward they are responsible for any future assaults committed by the same perpetrator.

That's the gist of your arguments throughout this thread isnt it? Thank god for women like you, fighting the evils of feminism

server down

mad muffin wrote: »

Okayyyy thennnnn…

Just so I get it right. Because the alt right have called him out on it it’s fake? Gotcha.

I’m no fan of Biden but there’s nothing there.

Outlaw Pete

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, even in a case where dozens of women have come forward with similar stories about the same person, indicating a clear modus operandi , they are probably still lying the bitches.

Why misrepresent the user's tone like that?

Even if they aren't lying if they didn't fight the guy off or if they took a settlement rather than have their private lives dragged through the court for all to see well then that's their fault too. Also, If they don't come forward they are responsible for any future assaults committed by the same perpetrator.

Getting sexually assaulted and then taking hush money absolutely contributes to a culture where the powerful get to do what they like without impunity.

That's the gist of your arguments throughout this thread isnt it? Thank god for women like you, fighting the evils of feminism

But wasn't that one of the very things which Feminism* set out to dismantle, the idea that a woman's view wasn't given singular value the way a man's view was, but instead seen as being merely just a "woman's view"? Yet ironically, here you are implying that she has done something against feminism, when in actual fact the only one doing that is you, as you're suggesting she should have views which run more in line with that of other women.


*speaking of classical feminism obviously, not today's self indulgent victimhood obsessed muck.

Wibbs

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Has Danny Masterson still a show on Netflix?

That could get interesting. Given he's a member of the same "religion" as Tom Cruise and John Travolta(who's already had accusations of being handsy with male masseurs) and they go full on hard core when protecting their own.

ceadaoin.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why misrepresent the user's tone like that?



Getting sexually assaulted and then taking hush money absolutely contributes to a culture where the powerful get to do what they like without impunity.



But wasn't that one of the very things which Feminism* set out to dismantle, the idea that a woman's view wasn't given singular value the way a man's view was, but instead seen as being merely just a "woman's view"? Yet ironically, here you are implying that she has done something against feminism, when in actual fact the only one doing that is you, as you're suggesting she should have views which run more in line with that of other women.


*speaking of classical feminism obviously, not today's self indulgent victimhood obsessed muck.

You don't have to be a feminist to not describe a rape as "performing sexual favours" and the victims as prostitutes and liars. Every single time. Im not suggesting she should have views more in line with other women, just that the constant victim blaming is unnecessary. The only reason I even mentioned feminism is because that poster feels the need to constantly mention it herself

I don't think I'm misrepresenting her tone tbh.

It's not that her opinions are abhorrent to feminists, it's just that her opinions are simply abhorrent.

Outlaw Pete

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The only reason I even mentioned feminism is because that poster feels the need to constantly mention it herself

Well, I think it's the elephant in the room tbh. Third wave feminism's influence on society is what is driving a lot of what we are seeing happening here. Some of what we see is of course for the good but there are many bad aspects to it all too. I do however quite like that some of the views these people espoused over the years like 'Believe All Women' are now biting them in the ass. As when it's men they know that are being accused, suddenly their philosophies, when not strictly adhered to, are getting them in trouble with the residents of their favourite echo chambers.

I would have major respect for Lena Dunham, and I think others would too, if she had come out and said: 'You know what, sometimes it's not always as simple as just believing women and I hadn't appreciated that before now' but instead she effectively begged for forgiveness and followed it with modern day feminist drivel, saying:

"Under patriarchy, I believe you is essential. Until we are all believed, none of us will be believed. We apologise to any women who have been disappointed."

And who was she referring to when she spoke of disappointing people I wonder? Those who instantly treated her like a pariah because she had the audacity to say she believed a man maybe? Of course. So now she's back to her position of 'believing all women' again, apparently. Yeah right. Truth is she is being dishonest in the hope that the liberal left won't disown her completely.

Getting back to the user's point though:

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Yes. Full anonymity for all sexually related crimes and the end to automatically believing the alleged victim.

What exactly is wrong with this view, as with respect, you never really addressed it.

retro:electro

Latest Instagram by Una Thurman. She seems to be alleging she's a victim of Harvey also?

Tigger

Wibbs wrote: »

That could get interesting. Given he's a member of the same "religion" as Tom Cruise and John Travolta(who's already had accusations of being handsy with male masseurs) and they go full on hard core when protecting their own.

Homosexuality is a "religion " now?

Outlaw Pete

Jaysus, a bullet is too good for him?? You know what this means!!

No more public ****...

Ulysses Gaze

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Today's latest installment of the lunacy "ban Sleeping Beauty for the non-consensual kiss".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-calls-sleeping-beauty-taken-11568729

I hope there are aliens - they can't do any worse!

The whole thing is being set up by....

Penn

Tigger wrote: »

Homosexuality is a "religion " now?

Scientology. Danny Masterson is a Scientologist, like Cruise and Travolta.

cantdecide

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

...she effectively begged for forgiveness...

Comrade Dunham has now realised her misunderstanding.

Ulysses Gaze

cantdecide wrote: »

Comrade Dunham has now realised her misunderstanding.

Dunham is finished as a major, influential Feminist voice.

You should read the letter written by the now ex Lenny Letters author who knew Dunham in college. Zinzi Clemmons is her name. She just quit writing for the website because of the scandal.

Zinzi's statement on Lena describes how she knew the actress much before she was famous, calling her strain of insensitive comments "hipster racism [...] which typically uses sarcasm as a cover, and in the end, it looks a lot like gaslighting– “It’s just a joke. Why are you overreacting?” is a common response to a lot of these statements."

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/zinzi-clemmons-slams-lena-dunham-for-hipster-racism-news.39814.html

mad muffin

server down wrote: »

I’m no fan of Biden but there’s nothing there.

Groping and trying to kiss young girls is nothing? Putting his hands on women is nothing? Making them feel uncomfortable is nothing?

Did I watch someone else do it? It wasn’t the former Vice President Joe Biden?

Tigger

Penn wrote: »

Scientology. Danny Masterson is a Scientologist, like Cruise and Travolta.

two things
1 i know it was a joke
2 i know it was a joke

i know this is the same thing twice but it bears mentioning

Tigger

anna080 wrote: »

Latest Instagram by Una Thurman. She seems to be alleging she's a victim of Harvey also?

if she was offerd a job in return for sex and this makes her a victim
then all prostitutes are victims and stuff

do you wanna see a real feminist find the lady that did the im an escort ask me anything

JP Liz V1

There is another woman accusing Jeremy Piven

Tigger

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

There is another woman accusing Jeremy Piven

yeah
hes probably finished but im not surprised

JP Liz V1

Tigger wrote: »

yeah
hes probably finished but im not surprised

He keeps denying and took a polygraph

Christy42

Tigger wrote: »

if she was offerd a job in return for sex and this makes her a victim
then all prostitutes are victims and stuff

do you wanna see a real feminist find the lady that did the im an escort ask me anything

That does not make any sense, literally no sense whstsoever. If someone tried to pressure into sex simply so that she can do her job (which is not prostitution) then she is a victim. Making women have sex with you before you give them a job is wrong. A woman should not be forced into prostitution if she does not want to be (or have someone attempt to angle into that area). If she chooses that profession it is a different matter.

A prostitute on the other hand is actively offering sex. That is their job.

Do you see the difference?

ceadaoin.

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

He keeps denying and took a polygraph

I don't know if he is guilty or not but lie detectors are total BS. They aren't admissable in court for a reason

RabbleRouser2k

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't know if he is guilty or not but lie detectors are total BS. They aren't admissable in court for a reason

Yeah, easily adjusted or tampered with.

The best way to get a decent, accurate interpretation of facts is to ask a ton of questions. PEople lying often waver, people telling the truth do not.

Penn

Tigger wrote: »

two things
1 i know it was a joke
2 i know it was a joke

i know this is the same thing twice but it bears mentioning

Ha, apologies. Sometimes in these days when some people are so quick to outrage, it's easier to be oblivious to the obvious.

cloudatlas

Tigger wrote: »

if she was offerd a job in return for sex and this makes her a victim
then all prostitutes are victims and stuff

do you wanna see a real feminist find the lady that did the im an escort ask me anything

What an absolute jump to make, with so little information.

Dohnjoe

mad muffin wrote: »

Groping and trying to kiss young girls is nothing? Putting his hands on women is nothing? Making them feel uncomfortable is nothing?

Did I watch someone else do it? It wasn’t the former Vice President Joe Biden?

If he has done anything inappropriate - then people can report it

Watch almost any game show host with contestants; touching, hand holding, hugging, comforting. Can easily be misconstrued or distorted into "groping", "feeling", etc - the key is intent, which can sometimes be subjective

Double edged sword at the moment - predators are getting outed, but there may be collateral damage with innocent people

Penn

The bit that strikes me about Thurman's post is "...and all your wicked conspirators..."

Given Tarantino's previous statement about knowing about some of things Weinstein was doing for years and doing nothing to stop it or protect his actresses from it (given Daryl Hannah's story and how it happened during Kill Bill), I wonder if that's who she's referring to. Especially when you consider how linked Thurman's career is to Tarantino.

I can't find any further comment from Tarentino since he said he needed time to 'come to terms with his pain' when the whole Weinstein thing first blew up. I know he has a movie coming out and wonder if he's busy trying to distance himself from his friend of decades to limit the personal damage.

If he knew Weinsteins form and continued to support and work with him, even when he had reached the top of his career and was all but untouchable himself, I won't have an ounce of respect for the guy.

Shurimgreat

Why is Uma Thurman only coming out now? Why not years ago?

Looks like bandwagon jumping to me. If he wasn't exposed she would have kept her mouth shut and continued to work with him and benefit financially from working with him.

Christy42

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Why is Uma Thurman only coming out now? Why not years ago?

Looks like bandwagon jumping to me. If he wasn't exposed she would have kept her mouth shut and continued to work with him and benefit financially from working with him.

Because no matter when you do come out people will always attack you so what is the point given it took a critical mass of accusations to do something to Weinstein.

Evidence: your post going on the timing of the claim ffs. Like that is the biggest deal in all this.

Dave_The_Sheep

Candie wrote: »

If he knew Weinsteins form and continued to support and work with him, even when he had reached the top of his career and was all but untouchable himself, I won't have an ounce of respect for the guy.

I'd be highly surprised if all the big players in the movie industry of the same stature/position as Tarantino were not aware of it. If the dog in the street knows, and that appears to have been the case, then you can be sure those at the top also knew.

I love this quote from Reddit:

Louis CK built a comedy career talking about how he was a messed up, unattractive serial masturbator and people laughed and he was beloved for his raw honesty - until it was revealed he was being honest and then people were disgusted at him.

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

I love this quote from Reddit:

Except it's pretty much nonsense

He joked about anything and everything, things that were true, things that weren't true - it was part of a routine. His routine wasn't the issue, it was his real life actions

Many comedians talk/joke about dark subjects/activities. There's a massive difference between that and actually engaging in those activities

Shurimgreat

Christy42 wrote: »

Because no matter when you do come out people will always attack you so what is the point given it took a critical mass of accusations to do something to Weinstein.

Evidence: your post going on the timing of the claim ffs. Like that is the biggest deal in all this.

I can understand a young poor actress who needs the work.

Thurman clearly has known what Weinstein is like for years. She's known it seems he was either a rapist or someone who serially attacks women.

She chose to continue to work with him, even though she was a massive name who could easily have found work with other producers and directors.

She kept her mouth shut and took his money.

Now he can't give her money any more she speaks up.

Its complete bullsh*t.

I've plenty of sympathy for the vast majority of his victims. But one or two such as Thurman, you'd have to question their role in all this. She had plenty of chance to speak up and protect other women. She chose to stay quiet and keep the millions rolling in.

Shurimgreat

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

I'd be highly surprised if all the big players in the movie industry of the same stature/position as Tarantino were not aware of it. If the dog in the street knows, and that appears to have been the case, then you can be sure those at the top also knew.

The same applies to some of the women who worked with Weinstein and who chose to speak out when he was no longer the big paymaster. And lets be honest, its the producer who pays the salaries at the end of the day.

homerun_homer

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

I'd be highly surprised if all the big players in the movie industry of the same stature/position as Tarantino were not aware of it. If the dog in the street knows, and that appears to have been the case, then you can be sure those at the top also knew.

Tarantino has already admitted that he knew Weinstein was up to certain shenanigans.

Shurimgreat

homerun_homer wrote: »

Tarantino has already admitted that he knew Weinstein was up to certain shenanigans.

I think he might be tainted by association.

He was heavily dependent on Weinstein for much of his career including his breakout films. Whether this will affect his career from now on remains to be seen.

Hollywood overnight seems to have turned puritanical to the point that even a sniff of anything untoward will end your career.

Shurimgreat

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think he might be tainted by association.

He was heavily dependent on Weinstein for much of his career including his breakout films. Whether this will affect his career from now on remains to be seen.

Hollywood overnight seems to have turned puritanical to the point that even a sniff of anything untoward will end your career.

Every studio in Hollywood spent the past month trying to woo Tarantino with Sony picking it up after offering him one hell of a deal.

Christy42

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I can understand a young poor actress who needs the work.

Thurman clearly has known what Weinstein is like for years. She's known it seems he was either a rapist or someone who serially attacks women.

She chose to continue to work with him, even though she was a massive name who could easily have found work with other producers and directors.

She kept her mouth shut and took his money.

Now he can't give her money any more she speaks up.

Its complete bullsh*t.

I've plenty of sympathy for the vast majority of his victims. But one or two such as Thurman, you'd have to question their role in all this. She had plenty of chance to speak up and protect other women. She chose to stay quiet and keep the millions rolling in.

I can still see it as a hard thing to admit to. Plus while you will still get work the public ridicule can't be fun. I can't imagine that her coming forward earlier would have seemed like it would make a difference. You needed loads to come forward to tip this over the edge.

Granted I also don't criticise Tarantino too much over keeping his own mouth shut. It certainly does not show bravery on them. She told their he truth, belatedly but still a weird thing to go heavy on her with plenty of other targets.

pitifulgod

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think he might be tainted by association.

He was heavily dependent on Weinstein for much of his career including his breakout films. Whether this will affect his career from now on remains to be seen.

Hollywood overnight seems to have turned puritanical to the point that even a sniff of anything untoward will end your career.

After Reservoir Dogs, he could have directed for any studio. Pulp Fiction just solidified it fully....

Billy86

pitifulgod wrote: »

After Reservoir Dogs, he could have directed for any studio. Pulp Fiction just solidified it fully....

Pretty much - he couldn't sell True Romance for love nor money yet as soon as Reservoir Dogs was out he had a number of companies apparently after it with Tony Scott eventually directing and the likes of Christian Slater (pretty big star in 1993), Val Kilmer, Dennis Hopper, Gary Oldman and Brad Pitt in it, plus a pre-fame James Gandolfini directing.

Tarantino would strike me as one of the least dependent people on any producers etc since the mid 90s... he's stuck with some true, but he's up there with the Coen Bros, Scorcese etc for having a name you can just slap on the poster and watch the money fly in.

RabbleRouser2k

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Why is Uma Thurman only coming out now? Why not years ago?

Looks like bandwagon jumping to me. If he wasn't exposed she would have kept her mouth shut and continued to work with him and benefit financially from working with him.

I dunno-I think you were damned if you did, damned if you didn't. Weinstein could make or break a person.
Thurmans' movie career isn't what it was, which probably gives her a lot of freedom, tbh. After Kill Bill, she didn't get many good roles-My Super ex-girlfriend and Motherhood were so ill advised and poorly judged...but then again so were her pre-Kill Bill roles. So I have to wonder if Weinstein had a role in that, or if she had a terrible manager.
I'm thinking it was the latter.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Except it's pretty much nonsense

He joked about anything and everything, things that were true, things that weren't true - it was part of a routine. His routine wasn't the issue, it was his real life actions

Many comedians talk/joke about dark subjects/activities. There's a massive difference between that and actually engaging in those activities

I'm thinking that too-like I know comedians like Daniel Tosh, Frankie Boyle and Daniel Mintz joke about dark material-there's a certain element of 'ya can't say that' to the jokes, or a bit of 'ohhh, noooo...' but they themselves are not demented fiends. Many of em are down to earth, regular people-it's just the moment you tell them 'you can't say that' is the moment they feel 'they have to say it'.

JP Liz V1

Tigger wrote: »

yeah
hes probably finished but im not surprised

CBS has cancelled his show Wisdom of the Crowd

RabbleRouser2k

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

CBS has cancelled his show Wisdom of the Crowd

And that Corrie guy plead guilty, and now has to sign onto a sex offenders register.
Seems Corrie's quick firing of him was down to nobody being surprised.

JP Liz V1

Matt Lauer has been sacked by NBC