Harvey Weinstein scandal

[Bronzeage]

I also don't recognize the drop off of interest from women. I'm in my 40's and I've never before been treated so openly as a sexual object by young women. I don't know about you guys when you were younger, but women didn't use to come onto me then. I had to make an effort. Today it's completely different. I don't think it's "daddy issues". I think it's just a question of personalities. Now when I'm older I meet young girls who are emotionally complex, sensitive or just weird sexually. They're, for whatever reason, into things that are hard to communicate to a young guy. I think that's all it is.

Of course all women have daddy issues. All human being have a complicated relationship to both their parents. Saying that a young woman fucks older men because she has daddy issues, says nothing.

This goes in the whatever you say file.

 

[LordKiran]

I also don't recognize the drop off of interest from women. I'm in my 40's and I've never before been treated so openly as a sexual object by young women. I don't know about you guys when you were younger, but women didn't use to come onto me then. I had to make an effort. Today it's completely different. I don't think it's "daddy issues". I think it's just a question of personalities. Now when I'm older I meet young girls who are emotionally complex, sensitive or just weird sexually. They're, for whatever reason, into things that are hard to communicate to a young guy. I think that's all it is.

Of course all women have daddy issues. All human being have a complicated relationship to both their parents. Saying that a young woman fucks older men because she has daddy issues, says nothing.

This goes in the whatever you say file.

I think its a fair observation. A lot of young guys are either really stupid, or really dorky and lack any real confidence.

Never-mind women, these are turnoffs to anybody who's looking for more than cheap thrills. "There are plenty of young women I've met that didn't interest me because they're Y.D.F., possess vapid and uninteresting personalities, or possess insufferable insecurities they just haven't worked through.

People don't really come into their own until much later in life, yet nobody wants to date a work-in-progress.

 

[Arctish]

I thought that was Corey Feldman. Didn't he do an interview or write a book a year or two ago about this?

They both talked about. Haim claimed to have been raped at age eleven.

The Hollywood Reporter published an interview with Corey Feldman on that subject last May:

Corey Feldman on Elijah Wood Hollywood Pedophilia Controversy: "I Would Love to Name Names"

A recent interview with Elijah Wood has reignited the conversation on pedophilia in the entertainment business. The Lord of the Rings star later clarified, first to The Hollywood Reporter and then on his personal Twitter account, that his comments about "something major ... going on in Hollywood" were based not on his own experiences and observations but rather on news reports and the 2015 documentary film An Open Secret.

But another former child actor — Corey Feldman, star of such iconic 1980s movies as The Goonies, Stand by Me and The Lost Boys — was not so lucky. In past interviews, his A&E reality series The Two Coreys and his 2013 memoir, Coreyography, Feldman has detailed how he was preyed upon by men in the industry. His own experiences were not as nightmarish as what befell his Two Coreys co-star, the late Canadian actor Corey Haim. Haim was just 11 when, Feldman says, a man raped him on a movie set. (Haim died in 2010 at age 38 after years of drug addiction.)

 

[iolo]

I'm sure that Weinstein is a very nasty bit of work indeed, but this is getting too close to a lynching for my tsste.

A lynching is a mob murder. Weinstein got fired. Based on the hints available, there are signs that this is true. Like all of the settlements. Ben Affleck was smacked back by Rose McGowan for pretending to be shocked.

He only got fired when he stopped making money for the rest of his gang. I think the essence of lynching is mob action based on prejudice to deny law.

 

[Playball40]

To be fair, I do not believe you understand the mechanism of addiction. It's NOT just a lack of self control.

He's denied some, but not all, and admits he has a problem with "sexual addiction".

Jaysus H Christ, didn't that ugly fuck ever learn how to rub one out? Lack of imagination, I imagine. Sex addict? Jaysus H Christ, if only I could get in on THAT gravy train.

My bleeding heart goeth elsewhere. Sex addiction my ass. There are such things as zippers, restraint, reserve, self-control, self-discipline.

It's like when some 400 pound person claims they are addicted to food. There are many opportunities to let yourself be a wee tad hungry. Restraint, self-control, self-discipline. You can choose to put the nice big fat hamburger down, and throw out the nice greasy fries.

It sucks, and it hurts, but it's possible.

 

[Playball40]

I thought that was Corey Feldman. Didn't he do an interview or write a book a year or two ago about this?

They both talked about. Haim claimed to have been raped at age eleven.

And I believe Haim ultimately killed himself. I know people in this industry and have heard that yes, it is commonplace for young boys and girls.

 

[ronburgundy]

Not even remotely close to a "lynching"

He still has his millions and his freedom and, most importantly to your poor analogy, his life.

But no trial. I take that to be the key element in any American denial of justice, as under McCarthy.

Trials are only relevant to determining whether a government can forcibly take away a person's property or their basic human liberties, like control over their movement own body that prison inherently entails.

Trials and their outcomes have little relevance to how private citizens should treat other people. That is because trial outcomes only have a modest relation to whether a person broke laws, and the law has very minimal relation to whether a person acted unethically.
In government run trials, principles of procedural fairness must be upheld for the longterm sake of a fair, just, and free society. Sometimes those procedural rules mean that a guilty person goes unpunished. On the flipside, biases and failures of reason of judges and juries sometimes means that the innocent get punished. That makes the outcome of any trial merely one piece of information that a rational person should use to decide what a persons actions were and whether they are immoral and deserve repudiation. Sometimes the wealth of other information is so overwhelming that it is implausible that a trial outcome would notably alter that conclusion.

Also, the bar of certainty will depend on whether one is going to react in a way that harms the person vs. merely stop acting in a way that helps them. Firing someone is the latter and no one is obligated to help another continue to make millions, so it is reasonable to set the bar of certainty very low and stop helping that person the moment there is sound suspicion.

Note that this does NOT apply to any arm of government (from courts to any government agency or school) firing or dismissing or refusing help to citizens. For that they must keep the bar at beyond reasonable doubt determined by formal courtroom like procedures. This is because, unlike private citizens, the government does only exist at the expense of the people and in order to help people, including all the accused. Thus any decision for it to not help a specific person is essentially a harm to that person and as an action of government must be kept in check by high standards of evidence to protect the long term principles that govern the justice system.

 

[Bronzeage]

This goes in the whatever you say file.

I think its a fair observation. A lot of young guys are either really stupid, or really dorky and lack any real confidence.

Never-mind women, these are turnoffs to anybody who's looking for more than cheap thrills. "There are plenty of young women I've met that didn't interest me because they're Y.D.F., possess vapid and uninteresting personalities, or possess insufferable insecurities they just haven't worked through.

People don't really come into their own until much later in life, yet nobody wants to date a work-in-progress.

Sometimes, I feel like a special case, having been confident, smart, and a cool dude from the age of 14 and up.

Most young guys are really stupid, or really dorky and lack any real confidence. Fortunately none of those are deal breakers, and works in progress won't have trouble finding dates, if they remember the "smell good, clean shirt, clean fingernails, and smile," rule.

We are talking about relationships which lead to partnerships, not casual hookups and fuck buddies. That's a different world where the scales are constantly sliding. It's a place where 40-something men can imagine that young women see them as a sex object, which is basically the equivalent of "Hey, I think the stripper digs me."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

which is basically the equivalent of "Hey, I think the stripper digs me."

But she does dig me. It's only every other customer she has that she's lying to about that.

 

[Bronzeage]

which is basically the equivalent of "Hey, I think the stripper digs me."

But she does dig me. It's only every other customer she has that she's lying to about that.

When the stripper does dig you, that's when your troubles begin. Seriously.

 

[WAB]

I think its a fair observation. A lot of young guys are either really stupid, or really dorky and lack any real confidence.

Never-mind women, these are turnoffs to anybody who's looking for more than cheap thrills. "There are plenty of young women I've met that didn't interest me because they're Y.D.F., possess vapid and uninteresting personalities, or possess insufferable insecurities they just haven't worked through.

People don't really come into their own until much later in life, yet nobody wants to date a work-in-progress.

Most young guys are really stupid, or really dorky and lack any real confidence. Fortunately none of those are deal breakers, and works in progress won't have trouble finding dates, if they remember the "smell good, clean shirt, clean fingernails, and smile," rule.

Dammit! (*smacks head*) That's where I've been going wrong all these years! You mean you actually need a shirt? Are the ladies that into shirts? Damn.

Do I have to tuck it in?

 

[Arctish]

They both talked about. Haim claimed to have been raped at age eleven.

And I believe Haim ultimately killed himself. I know people in this industry and have heard that yes, it is commonplace for young boys and girls.

I was thinking about what Corey Feldman said about young actors being 'passed around' by production assistants, casting directors, agents, etc., at Hollywood parties. I've also been thinking about the Boston Globe Spotlight articles that uncovered the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. That got me thinking about River Phoenix.

Phoenix had a chaotic home life (his family moved over 40 times by the time he turned 18). He had reportedly been molested as a child when his family was part of the Children of God cult. He was Feldman's age, meaning he was the right age to be one of the boys Feldman was talking about. Both he and Feldman appeared in the movie Stand By Me when they were 14-15 years old and would have been meeting the same people on-set and at parties around that time. River Phoenix was an alcoholic by the time he was 20, and was using drugs more and more frequently when he died at 23.

In the movie Spotlight, the first abuse survivor the Boston Globe reporters get to interview is a guy with needle marks on his arm who's struggling to cope with what happened to him, and is described by his lawyer as one of the "lucky ones" because "He's still alive".

I'm wondering if River Phoenix was one of the unlucky ones.

I hope the reports of child sex abuse in Hollywood are thoroughly investigated. And I hope the people who have been groping, fingering, fondling, and fucking those kids join Jerry Sandusky in prison.

 

[WAB]

I hope the reports of child sex abuse in Hollywood are thoroughly investigated. And I hope the people who have been groping, fingering, fondling, and fucking those kids join Jerry Sandusky in prison.

Seconded.

Go after them, and put accusations of witch hunts on the back burner.

Not that I'm condoning the mindless stupidity of witch hunts!

But, I say, as always, prioritize: What's worse, a hypothetical adult possibly being falsely accused of wrongdoing (which is bad, don't get me wrong), or a hypothetical minor being sexually abused? Obviously, it's more important to worry about the hypothetical minor being abused, and to keep minors safe from predators.

Weed them out. Scare them. The more scared they are of repercussions, the MORE restraint they will put on their behavior.

 

[bilby]

Most young guys are really stupid, or really dorky and lack any real confidence. Fortunately none of those are deal breakers, and works in progress won't have trouble finding dates, if they remember the "smell good, clean shirt, clean fingernails, and smile," rule.

Dammit! (*smacks head*) That's where I've been going wrong all these years! You mean you actually need a shirt? Are the ladies that into shirts? Damn.

Do I have to tuck it in?

Yes.

You should probably tuck your shirt in, too.

 

[iolo]

But no trial. I take that to be the key element in any American denial of justice, as under McCarthy.

Trials are only relevant to determining whether a government can forcibly take away a person's property or their basic human liberties, like control over their movement own body that prison inherently entails.

Trials and their outcomes have little relevance to how private citizens should treat other people. That is because trial outcomes only have a modest relation to whether a person broke laws, and the law has very minimal relation to whether a person acted unethically.
In government run trials, principles of procedural fairness must be upheld for the longterm sake of a fair, just, and free society. Sometimes those procedural rules mean that a guilty person goes unpunished. On the flipside, biases and failures of reason of judges and juries sometimes means that the innocent get punished. That makes the outcome of any trial merely one piece of information that a rational person should use to decide what a persons actions were and whether they are immoral and deserve repudiation. Sometimes the wealth of other information is so overwhelming that it is implausible that a trial outcome would notably alter that conclusion.

Also, the bar of certainty will depend on whether one is going to react in a way that harms the person vs. merely stop acting in a way that helps them. Firing someone is the latter and no one is obligated to help another continue to make millions, so it is reasonable to set the bar of certainty very low and stop helping that person the moment there is sound suspicion.

Note that this does NOT apply to any arm of government (from courts to any government agency or school) firing or dismissing or refusing help to citizens. For that they must keep the bar at beyond reasonable doubt determined by formal courtroom like procedures. This is because, unlike private citizens, the government does only exist at the expense of the people and in order to help people, including all the accused. Thus any decision for it to not help a specific person is essentially a harm to that person and as an action of government must be kept in check by high standards of evidence to protect the long term principles that govern the justice system.

A civilized society is one where no penalty can be imposed on a citizen without a properly-formulated legal judgement of his peers based on the proper consideration of the evidence. Anything else is barbarism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A civilized society is one where no penalty can be imposed on a citizen without a properly-formulated legal judgement of his peers based on the proper consideration of the evidence. Anything else is barbarism.

You're talking criminal law. Society can still give social punishments for stuff frowned upon. That's still civilized. If you have a friend who is accused of rape and you think he got off on a technicality, you might want to, not be his friend anymore. That's what's happened on Harvey Weinstein.

Nobody has a right to keep a job or has a right to friendship.

 

[iolo]

A civilized society is one where no penalty can be imposed on a citizen without a properly-formulated legal judgement of his peers based on the proper consideration of the evidence. Anything else is barbarism.

You're talking criminal law. Society can still give social punishments for stuff frowned upon. That's still civilized. If you have a friend who is accused of rape and you think he got off on a technicality, you might want to, not be his friend anymore. That's what's happened on Harvey Weinstein.

Nobody has a right to keep a job or has a right to friendship.

Left the door wide open for McCarthy, that notion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're talking criminal law. Society can still give social punishments for stuff frowned upon. That's still civilized. If you have a friend who is accused of rape and you think he got off on a technicality, you might want to, not be his friend anymore. That's what's happened on Harvey Weinstein.

Nobody has a right to keep a job or has a right to friendship.

Left the door wide open for McCarthy, that notion.

It's a completely different thing. McCarthism is basically thought crime. He was in practice a Stalin style communist. Social punishments is not even close to being that

 

[barbos]

http://www.vulture.com/2017/10/harvey-weinstein-russian-tv-host-details-alleged-harassment.html
The guy even tried to get russians.

 

[WAB]

Left the door wide open for McCarthy, that notion.

It's a completely different thing. McCarthism is basically thought crime. He was in practice a Stalin style communist. Social punishments is not even close to being that

How exactly was McCarthy a Stalin-style communist? This is what is amazing to me, that reasonable, rational people can actually type such things, and expect that no-one will notice.

You realize Stalin killed and imprisoned people, that he was responsible for the deaths of what, 25 million? You DO KNOW that Joseph Stalin was one of the most evil, heartless individuals ever to stink up the planet, right?

And you call McCarthy a Stalinist communist?

Hey, hey, I think, as you do, that McCarthy was an asshole, and that he went to an absurd extreme.

But, you know that McCarthy and Stalin are WORLDS apart, right?