Harvey Weinstein scandal

[RavenSky]

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.

agree completely

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.

This mentality is why Dan and Fran Keller spent 21 years in prison after being falsely accused of child sexual abuse.

I say this as a woman who - at 19 years old - did have my "pussy" grabbed just like fuckwad Trump brags about doing to women:

NO... it is NOT less important to worry about "a hypothetical adult possibly being falsely accused of wrongdoing." We need to get BOTH parts rights.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind spending 21 years of your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit, but most adults would object.

 

[iolo]

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

It was exactly the same. as far as I can see.

 

[WAB]

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

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.

Several years ago I went through a brief period of dependency on opiates, and went through the horrible withdrawal that occurs, and will occur, to ANYONE who takes opiates for a certain length of time.

I've also had many bouts with dependency on alcohol, and I know all about that addiction.

But you're right, I'm not an expert. But you don't need to be an expert to see the proliferation of "addictions", nor to know the distinction between a literal, physiological dependency and an aspect of behavior, like a habit or compulsion.

I'm not saying someone cannot be truly addicted to food, or sex, or gambling, etc. But at the same time, not everyone who claims to be an addict is actually an addict.

 

[WAB]

agree completely

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.

This mentality is why Dan and Fran Keller spent 21 years in prison after being falsely accused of child sexual abuse.

I say this as a woman who - at 19 years old - did have my "pussy" grabbed just like fuckwad Trump brags about doing to women:

NO... it is NOT less important to worry about "a hypothetical adult possibly being falsely accused of wrongdoing." We need to get BOTH parts rights.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind spending 21 years of your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit, but most adults would object.

Of course I would mind. And like most adults, I would object. And, as you can see in my post, I specifically said I do not condone the senseless stupidity of witch-hunts.

I am not suggesting that investigations should be lax and unscientific, that we should just accept any and all testimony as fact and not take the trouble to do the job right. All I meant is that these creeps should feel the relentless pressure of a culture and civil society that has zero tolerance for child abuse and child rape.

Furthermore, let's say someone were to give me a moral challenge:

Go to prison for 21 years, or allow a child, any child, to be sodomized by a conscienceless monster—I think you could probably guess what I'd choose. What I would have to choose.

 

[Arctish]

Another crack in the wall of silence:

APA Agent Tyler Grasham Fired From Agency Following Sexual Assault Allegations

EXCLUSIVE: Tyler Grasham has been put on a leave of absence by his agency APA and is no longer physically in the Beverly Hills offices. We hear the agency took the agent off his desk Wednesday after accuser Blaise Godbe Lipman, now 28, went public on Facebook saying that the rep sexually assaulted him 10 years ago when he was seeking representation as a child actor. Deadline also spoke to another man who came forward with a similar allegation against Grasham.

Grasham, who has many child clients, will stay on a leave as the investigation by an independent third party continues.

 

[Arctish]

And another one:

A fifth woman accuses Roman Polanski of sexual abuse, demands he be booted from Academy

In case anyone needs a Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child, here's a refresher:

Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

 

[repoman]

Apparently Neogaf has had some serious problems with its mods being harassers/molesters (on their own time of course) and now the board owner. It is currently 503'ed.

https://press-start.com.au/news/2017/10/22/neogaf-down-mods-boycott-popular-gaming-forum/

Funny stream about by Mister Metokur (InternetAristocrat who helped launch Gamergate

 

[DrZoidberg]

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?

I was only referring to the thought-crime specifically. That was of a similar style to what was going on in Soviet union. Albeit on a smaller scale. It's the same underlying "theory". That if we only control news and entertainment then we'll brainwash people to support our side. It's evil and unamerican. I think McCarthy and Stalin had a lot in common.

 

[blastula]

Over 200 women have come forward about director James Toback. He had a similar m.o. to Weinstein, trying to get women to be in the same room while he rubs himself, but he had a very important (to him) twist, he demanded that you simultaneously gaze into his eyes and pinch his nipples. The women tell very similar tales of being propositioned on the street, often around Central Park, and of the patter he would use - brags about being a director, he would even carry around dvds of his movies to show, talks about all the actresses he's made into stars and he can do so for you too, and later on if you're lucky, oh by the way, he slips in that he has to orgasm 8 times a day. He is much more prolific than Weinstein, some women even said he tried this on them twice, because he forgot about the first time. He has given a ludicrous blanket denial to all this. There were even prior stories about his doings - Spy magazine had a piece in the 90s with accounts from about a dozen women with a handy chart that tracks his "pickup" technique, and Gawker has reported a few more within the past 10 years. But I guess he survived all that. Today is different.

 

[TSwizzle]

Did I miss the marches ?

 

[blastula]

Did I miss the marches ?

Ah, so that is what the OP was for. Because there was a march about president pussy grabber, your point is there should be a march over anyone else is found to be a harasser. Dumb and desperate.

 

[blastula]

Here's another ludicrous denier.

Bill O'Reilly 'mad at God' over sexual misconduct allegations - Oct. 23, 2017

"You know, am I mad at God? Yeah, I'm mad at him," O'Reilly said on the latest episode of his web series, "No Spin News." "I wish I had more protection. I wish this stuff didn't happen. I can't explain it to you. Yeah, I'm mad at him."

He then said that he derives perspective from the tribulations of others, including Kate Steinle, a woman who was allegedly shot by an undocumented immigrant who has been the subject of numerous O'Reilly commentaries.

O'Reilly's response to allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior has been consistent. He's emphatically denied the claims, insisting that his wealth and fame make him a target for such accusations. And he's denounced the press that has reported on the allegations -- and the ensuing settlements -- as corrupt and desperate to take him down.

But O'Reilly's comments on his show Monday evening, which came after the New York Times reported on a $32 million settlement he reached with a former Fox News colleague who accused him of sexual misconduct, might have represented his most dramatic claim for victimhood yet. At one point, he said of his adversaries, "If they could literally kill me, they would."

"If I die tomorrow and I get an opportunity, I'll say, 'Why'd you guys work me over like that? Didn't [you] know my children were going to be punished? And they're innocent,'" he said. "But then I think about people who have it much, much rougher than me. And you know, I'm a big mouth. I'm a target. They're not targets."

 

[blastula]

Some perhaps unexpected names of interest added to the blotter.

Heather Lind accuses ex-Prez George H.W. Bush of sexual assault - NY Daily News

“He didn’t shake my hand. He touched me from behind from his wheelchair with his wife Barbara Bush by his side. He told me a dirty joke. And then, all the while being photographed, touched me again. Barbara rolled her eyes as if to say ‘not again.’ His security guard told me I shouldn’t have stood next to him for the photo.”

Lind, who played Anna Strong on the drama about “America’s first spy ring,” met the former president, 93, during a special screening of the show in 2014, a week before its premiere.

Et tu, Poppy? But at least he gave a halfway apology.

And this will make some pepe heads happy.

Elie Wiesel Sexually Assaulted Teenager at Charity Event, Woman Claims in 'Me Too' Account

In a "Me Too" post on Medium last week, Jennifer Listman, a former doctoral student at New York University and researcher at Yale University, recounts that the late Wiesel forced himself between her and her boyfriend during a photo shoot at the 1989 memorial event and molested her. As the photographer focused, Wiesel allegedly moved his hand from Listman's right shoulder to her shoulder blade, then down her back where he groped her as the photo was taken.

Both of those were photo shoot butt grabs, just like with Taylor Swift. Harassing minds think alike.

 

[Underseer]

Did I miss the marches ?

Ah, so that is what the OP was for. Because there was a march about president pussy grabber, your point is there should be a march over anyone else is found to be a harasser. Dumb and desperate.

That's typical conservative logic for you.

A pussy-grabber who lost his job, his wife, his credibility, and is vilified by the public needs to be protested even after he already lost basically everything, but protesting a serial sexual predator who openly boasted about sexual assault who was rewarded with the presidency is something everyone should overlook.

Fuck, but I can't imagine the mental gymnastics being a conservative must require. How do they do it?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ah, so that is what the OP was for. Because there was a march about president pussy grabber, your point is there should be a march over anyone else is found to be a harasser. Dumb and desperate.

That's typical conservative logic for you.

A pussy-grabber who lost his job, his wife, his credibility, and is vilified by the public needs to be protested even after he already lost basically everything, but protesting a serial sexual predator who openly boasted about sexual assault who was rewarded with the presidency is something everyone should overlook.

Fuck, but I can't imagine the mental gymnastics being a conservative must require. How do they do it?

Marching is so last century. Now we just like stuff on Facebook. Or like a dislike page on Facebook. People should march more. I'm for anything that protects us from the obesity epidemic.

 

[TSwizzle]

Is there a boycott of Weinstein's wife's clothing line in effect yet ? I haven't seen anything in the media hounding her brand or outlets that carry her line of products. Trying to get a handle on the rules.

 

[Malintent]

Is there a boycott of Weinstein's wife's clothing line in effect yet ? I haven't seen anything in the media hounding her brand or outlets that carry her line of products. Trying to get a handle on the rules.

Perhaps I can help you get on the same page of the Constitution as everyone else...

Public servants' usage of public money deserves a high degree of skepticism and is accompanied by regulation and control to prevent abuse

Private citizens' usage of privately acquired money does not deserve a high a degree of such.


Now, to also get you on the right page of basic common sense:

Someone who supports something you dislike is not someone you would tend to want to do business with. The Trump family businesses violates the above, as well as "evil through association".

Someone who opposes something you dislike may very well be someone you would tend to want to do business with. The wife of the accused is filing for divorce and has 'decried' his abuses.

What part of any of that is hard for you to comprehend?

 

[ronburgundy]

Is there a boycott of Weinstein's wife's clothing line in effect yet ? I haven't seen anything in the media hounding her brand or outlets that carry her line of products. Trying to get a handle on the rules.

The rules are rather obvious and include "Don't sexually assault people."

There is no rule about how strong and widespread the public reaction will be to violations of these rules, but it tends to be somewhat predictable to anyone with the most basic understanding of human beings. One major factor is the amount of power and influence the person has. Not surprisingly, most minimally rational people's reactions tend to be tied to how much they and the people they most care about are potentially harmed. For example if the accused are the most powerful person in the world with massive impact on the lives of everyone in the world, then being a self-admitted serial rapist like Trump is likely to get a very strong widespread response. OTOH, if their influence is only over a relatively small number of people in an industry well outside of the spheres that most average people identify with, then the reaction will not be as strong.

Also, if the accused get rather quickly punished and stripped of their influence once the knowledge is made public and few others in positions of power defend them, then there is little need for the public to act to oppose their future influence. OTOH, if the serial rapist is actually put into the most powerful position in the world and endorsed and embraced by many other highly influential people after their actions become pubic knowledge, then there is likely to be widespread public action against the person and a push to remove them from their position of influence.

Note that these differential reactions based on the scope of the person's continued future influence is only for reasonable people with some degree of ethics. That excludes pretty much all Trump supporters and social conservatives more generally. Since they don't actually have regard for the rights of the powerless or woman in general, they don't react in a way based on protecting the past and future victims. Rather they react in whatever way best promotes their ideology, which includes misogynist and racist views and policies. Since Trump's power helps this cause, they completely ignore his admitted sexual assaults. Since "Hollywood" is one their favorite vague boogeymen of liberalism, they capitalize on the opportunity to go after one of its power-brokers, dishonestly pretending to care about sexual assault whose prosecution they regularly try to undermine.

As for Weinstein's wife, she didn't break the rule against sexual assault, so no reasonable person thinks her actions or inactions warrant near the attention or reaction that her husband is getting. At worst, she broke rules related to not exposing his crimes, as did his fellow studio execs for decades. But generally people are more forgiving when loved one's fail to aid in the punishment of the accused, versus when such coverups are engaged in by business associates purely out of profit motive. This is because most people have an informal rule that enabling a wrong doer solely for greed and profit is worse than doing so to shield one's kids from the trauma of exposing their parent, or innate tendencies to excuse immoral behavior of those to whom we are emotionally bonded. Also, it is not clear how much knowledge she actually had of his criminal-level assaults rather than merely knowledge of infidelity use of his position to elicit sex for professional "favors".
That said, she is in fact already being punished for her enabling role, such as via an Jewelry company dropping her planned line of rings.

 

[Bronzeage]

Ah, so that is what the OP was for. Because there was a march about president pussy grabber, your point is there should be a march over anyone else is found to be a harasser. Dumb and desperate.

That's typical conservative logic for you.

A pussy-grabber who lost his job, his wife, his credibility, and is vilified by the public needs to be protested even after he already lost basically everything, but protesting a serial sexual predator who openly boasted about sexual assault who was rewarded with the presidency is something everyone should overlook.

Fuck, but I can't imagine the mental gymnastics being a conservative must require. How do they do it?

The problem is with your metaphor. There are no gymnastics, mental or otherwise. A better metaphor would be a competition where athletes sink to the bottom of a pond and lie very still. The gymnastic metaphor implies there is an actual effort to avoid a conflict, while the pond sinking metaphor illustrates the passivity of conservative thought processes, which are oblivious to things going on, above the surface.

 

[LordKiran]

Is there a boycott of Weinstein's wife's clothing line in effect yet ? I haven't seen anything in the media hounding her brand or outlets that carry her line of products. Trying to get a handle on the rules.

Perhaps I can help you get on the same page of the Constitution as everyone else...

Public servants' usage of public money deserves a high degree of skepticism and is accompanied by regulation and control to prevent abuse

Private citizens' usage of privately acquired money does not deserve a high a degree of such.


Now, to also get you on the right page of basic common sense:

Someone who supports something you dislike is not someone you would tend to want to do business with. The Trump family businesses violates the above, as well as "evil through association".

Someone who opposes something you dislike may very well be someone you would tend to want to do business with. The wife of the accused is filing for divorce and has 'decried' his abuses.

What part of any of that is hard for you to comprehend?

None of it, it's just another example of Tswizzle not thinking his position through before he posts because he's in such a rush to point out the liberal hypocrisy that he couldn't be bothered to make sure there was an actual inconsistency.