• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Harvey Weinstein scandal

Jon Osterman said:
So, to sumarise, your boss is bad at an essential part of his job but good at others, and you feel the good outweighs the bad. Fair enough, but if the bad part had included sexually harassing his staff, it really wouldn't have outweighed the good.
Click to expand...

I did't say that. I don't think that his bad qualities outweigh the good. It's very stressful having a boss like this. What makes it worth it is the job. If everything works out according to plan, I will not have any interaction with my boss. So I guess it helps to motivate me, not to fuck up. He's still a terrible person to interact with.

Jon Osterman said:
"fuck-up" was your expression by the way. I am not quite sure what you mean by your comment. Are you suggesting, for example, someone who commits rape shouldn't be punished because it was an isolated "fuck-up"? Just give them another chance? That's not how a civilized society should work IMHO.
Click to expand...

aha... the black and white fallacy. Since you didn't agree with me, that must mean that you hate me. Hitler also hated a lot. So you're like Hitler. Why are you like Hitler?

Try again.
 
DrZoidberg said:
I did't say that. I don't think that his bad qualities outweigh the good. It's very stressful having a boss like this. What makes it worth it is the job. If everything works out according to plan, I will not have any interaction with my boss. So I guess it helps to motivate me, not to fuck up. He's still a terrible person to interact with.
Click to expand...

Make up your mind. Either he is a good boss, or a bad boss. If he is a good boss, my comment stands. If he is a bad boss, your comment doesn't really make sense.


Jon Osterman said:
aha... the black and white fallacy. Since you didn't agree with me, that must mean that you hate me. Hitler also hated a lot. So you're like Hitler. Why are you like Hitler?

Try again.
Click to expand...

What? When did I say I hate you? I don't know you.

You were suggesting that we give those who have committed sexual assault another chance. I was disagreeing. That doesn't imply I hate you.
 
Jon Osterman said:
DrZoidberg said:
I did't say that. I don't think that his bad qualities outweigh the good. It's very stressful having a boss like this. What makes it worth it is the job. If everything works out according to plan, I will not have any interaction with my boss. So I guess it helps to motivate me, not to fuck up. He's still a terrible person to interact with.
Click to expand...

Make up your mind. Either he is a good boss, or a bad boss. If he is a good boss, my comment stands. If he is a bad boss, your comment doesn't really make sense.
Click to expand...

He's both. He's intelligent. So therefore he makes intelligent decisions and comes with valuable feedback. But bad because he makes everybody feel bad. And makes sure everybody worries all the time whether or not he's going to fire them or something. He's really not good at putting people at ease.

My point is that we need to allow for socially awkward people to take some room in society. At the very least, because it's good for the economy. The more inclusive our economy, the stronger and more robust it gets.

Jon Osterman said:
Jon Osterman said:
aha... the black and white fallacy. Since you didn't agree with me, that must mean that you hate me. Hitler also hated a lot. So you're like Hitler. Why are you like Hitler?

Try again.
Click to expand...

What? When did I say I hate you? I don't know you.

You were suggesting that we give those who have committed sexual assault another chance. I was disagreeing. That doesn't imply I hate you.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't. I was saying that what Louis CK did, doesn't qualify as sexual assault. You then pretended like I was arguing for giving rapists a second chance. You even used the word "rape". Which is an absurd inference and a complete misrepresentation of my position. So then I did the same thing to you and decided you were Hitler.
 
DrZoidberg said:
TSwizzle said:
DrZoidberg said:
Louis CK got guilted into accepting fault simply because he was famous. Should famous people not flirt?
Click to expand...

Louis CK has a problem and he has been forced to confront it. He accepts that he was at fault. Do you even know what flirting is ? Getting your dick out and rubbing one out in front of women uninvited is not flirting. Approaching women in the work place and asking them to come back to your office to watch you masturbate is not flirting. Women are sick of this behavior and are not going to tolerate it no matter who it is or what industry is involved.
Click to expand...

Come on. "Approaching women in the work place".
Click to expand...

He was doing it on the sets where filming was taking place, that was the nail in his coffin. You keep ignoring that and keep blabbing about something else.
 
DrZoidberg said:
Come on. "Approaching women in the work place". Which also is a bar. We have special social rules regarding flirting around office buildings that do not apply when you're in a bar. If you work in a bar you are expected to put up with being propositioned.
Click to expand...
wrong

He asked them to come with him to his room. That belongs to the category of things that could be a sexual invitation.
Click to expand...
wrong

I think all the stuff he did is grey area stuff. It's not cool. But pretty fucking far from sexual assault. And a world apart from stuff that Harvey Weinstein did.
Click to expand...
It's really not all that grey. It is really very very simple... clear, unambiguous affirmative consent.

I fully agree that what Louis CK did did not rise to the level of what Harvey Weinstein did - which could be why no one is claiming it is the same - but Louis CK was still in the wrong and he finally apologised for it.
 
DrZoidberg said:
We're all sick of socially awkward and clumsy behaviours. My boss, bless his clever little heart, does not know how to interact with people. I'm fucking sick of it. But that's life. We can't demand from other people that they, at all times, behave appropriately. There's got to be a range. On one end we have the "great, keep doing that". On the other end we have mental abuse and sexual assault. And in the middle we've got a grey area of stuff that doesn't clearly fit in either category. We simply have to accept this, or society won't function. There's loads of people out there for one reason or another just can't get it right. Autists for instance. Do we really want a world where those less than perfect are socially prohibited from interacting with others?
Click to expand...

There is an ocean of difference between "socially awkward" and sexually harassing someone. You want to use the example of an autistic person... ok, let's do that. If an autistic person is violent and tends to strike people, you can be damned sure that said person needs to be taught to curb their behavior or kept clear of others. NO ONE needs to involuntarily put up with being struck... or sexually harassed... while some other person figures it out.

A society that does not expect an appropriate minimal level of behavior out of everyone is the society that does not function.
 
DrZoidberg said:
Jon Osterman said:
A witch hunt is not a bad thing if it actually catches witches. And it seems to me that we are finally catching up with a lot of them, who have been allowed to abuse their power for too long. Most of these cases have not been isolated "fuck-ups" - they have been systematic harassment, ingrained in their way of life.
Click to expand...


Your attitude truly scares me. It's nice that "most" of these cases haven't been isolated "fuck-ups". Why not demand that all of them are? You've already admitted that it's ok that some innocents get thrown under the buss, as long as we nail badies. That's not how a civilized society should work IMHO.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said, though. Most of these people have been serial harassers/abusers... including Louis CK. That doesn't automatically mean anyone else was innocent, though.
 
That is partially true at times, but handsome men can still be creepy as hell and at legal risk for the same actions done by average or ugly men.
 
RavenSky said:
DrZoidberg said:
We're all sick of socially awkward and clumsy behaviours. My boss, bless his clever little heart, does not know how to interact with people. I'm fucking sick of it. But that's life. We can't demand from other people that they, at all times, behave appropriately. There's got to be a range. On one end we have the "great, keep doing that". On the other end we have mental abuse and sexual assault. And in the middle we've got a grey area of stuff that doesn't clearly fit in either category. We simply have to accept this, or society won't function. There's loads of people out there for one reason or another just can't get it right. Autists for instance. Do we really want a world where those less than perfect are socially prohibited from interacting with others?
Click to expand...

There is an ocean of difference between "socially awkward" and sexually harassing someone. You want to use the example of an autistic person... ok, let's do that. If an autistic person is violent and tends to strike people, you can be damned sure that said person needs to be taught to curb their behavior or kept clear of others. NO ONE needs to involuntarily put up with being struck... or sexually harassed... while some other person figures it out.

A society that does not expect an appropriate minimal level of behavior out of everyone is the society that does not function.
Click to expand...

Black and white fallacy again. There's a huge difference between being socially awkward and hitting somebody. You interpreted what I say as if I was ok with hitting people. Where did I do that? You're just like Jon Osterman trying to pretend that I'm ok with rape. I think you should appologise for being dishonest in the way you discuss this with me. I'm not cool with it.

- - - Updated - - -

RavenSky said:
That's not what he said, though. Most of these people have been serial harassers/abusers... including Louis CK. That doesn't automatically mean anyone else was innocent, though.
Click to expand...

In what way was Louis CK a serial harasser?
 
DrZoidberg said:
You're just like Jon Osterman trying to pretend that I'm ok with rape.
Click to expand...

It does sound like you are. You are making excuses for sexual harassment, which is not very far away from rape. Indeed, sexual harassment is seeking sexual contact with someone who does not consent to that contact. It may not yet be physical, but if it heads that way it will become sexual assault and then rape. Sexual harassment is the first step towards rape and should never be excused.

If one can't "flirt" without it becoming sexual harassment, then one should stop flirting! (Though I would challenge that any of these allegations could seriously be considered flirting, even by the most misogynist witness.)
 
thebeave said:
Well, looks like Danny Masterson is the rapist du jour. So long Danny! Enjoy your new job at McDonalds:

http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/05/danny-masterson-the-ranch-netflix-sexual-assault/
Click to expand...
He has 4 women accusing him of rape, three of them are Scientologists as is Masterson... that’s probably a big reason why the authorities are having trouble prosecuting him. e. g. Scores of Scientologists are saying these women are lying. Authorities are having problems finding the first woman who reported a rape, etc
 
repoman said:
That is partially true at times, but handsome men can still be creepy as hell and at legal risk for the same actions done by average or ugly men.
Click to expand...
A lot of it depends on if we want sexual advances from that person.
Before we were dating, I probably could have accused my first wife of stalking me at work. But back then the thought never crossed my mind.... Hell , I was extremely flattered she was showing me so much attention.
 
couch_sloth said:
thebeave said:
Well, looks like Danny Masterson is the rapist du jour. So long Danny! Enjoy your new job at McDonalds:

http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/05/danny-masterson-the-ranch-netflix-sexual-assault/
Click to expand...
He has 4 women accusing him of rape, three of them are Scientologists as is Masterson... that’s probably a big reason why the authorities are having trouble prosecuting him. e. g. Scores of Scientologists are saying these women are lying. Authorities are having problems finding the first woman who reported a rape, etc
Click to expand...

The allegations were public for months, so Netflix's response has been curious compared to what happened to Spacey. They're doing it now because the attention has been increasing and was accelerated yesterday with a story about a Netflix exec saying they're not doing anything because they don't believe the accusers. But it makes you wonder if it took so long because of a Scientology thing.
 
DrZoidberg said:
blastula said:
Your speculation just assumes that the allegation is true? There's such a massive unknown here that we have no reason to infer anything from it. At this point I'm getting increasingly sceptical of every new accusation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you're poorly informed about the allegations.
Click to expand...

So please enlighten us about the details that make the accusation convincing?
Click to expand...

I was talking about all the allegations in general. You have shown that you are misinformed about them, as explained here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom