Mark Halperin of ABC News has had five women come out and accuse him of sexual harrassment. He's admitted to hitting on the women, some of whom were in more junior positions at ABC, but denies the claims made by three of the women that he molested them.
Thing is, it seems no-one gives a gak. This is getting almost zero traction anywhere. Sure there's bigger and worse accusations against more famous people, but a lot of it probably comes down to Halperin being part of an old guard of media figures, with centre left sensibilities but a commitment to treating political coverage from a both sides POV, and reducing everything down to a horse race. In this age, in the wake of Clinton's defeat, the power on the right and left rests with strongly ideological figures that treat people like Halperin with near complete contempt. Guys like Halperin can't even get arrested in this town anymore.
Easy E wrote: I am guessing they do not (Also not a lawyer) but most people don;t have the time, resources, or legal expertise to even want to get involved with an NDA dispute. That would be a very difficult path to proceed down, with very little pay off for the person under the NDA.
It really isn;t about enforcability, but another way the powerful can frighten and intimidate the less powerful with a paperwork storm that the less powerful do not hav ethe time, money, or connections to fight.
Yes. And this is particularly true as it applies to NDA's that are tacked on to wrongful termination suits. Often to just get the money someone is entitled to for wrongful termination or the cancellation of their contracts, they agree to an NDA because the alternative is to fight a major corporation for years, during which time they will find it near impossible to get a new job.
As you say, NDAs are all about the economic power that moneyed interests can exert to make sure secrets are kept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Because its BS if you really read it. The claim was touched her FROM behind not touched her behind, and has since been retracted by the accuser.
I'm not gonna talk about this particular accusation against Bush, because I don't know any of the details, but the thing about discounting it because it was retracted is one of the issues that needs to be addressed if we are are going to make some real change to the culture that allows this stuff to continue.
'Retract' is too often taken to assume that a complaint was made up. But that's not what happens a lot of the time. What happens a lot of the time is a woman makes a complaint having no idea how ugly things are likely to get. Then they realise really fast, when they get the first hints of people digging around in their past, when they get called up journalists sympathetic to the accused, when they get the first treatment of being treated as a 'contraversial accuser' rather than as a victim, then they drop their claim because they don't want to face years of this stuff.
Then its claimed the accusation was 'retracted'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: Ladies and gentlemen, zirs and ze's,
May I bid you welcome to twenty seventeen
Two minutes of hate for Emmanuel Goldstein?
Much worse for trump! All hate all the time!
Okay, first of all you've got your 1984 painfully wrong. The two minutes of hate was about people in power directing hatred against defeated opponents to distract from the failings of those in power. It was a direct reference to how Stalin maintained the specter of Trotsky long after he fled in to exile. Using that reference to criticise someone hating on a sitting president misses the point horribly. The two minutes hate wasn't just about hating someone, it was all about the way hatred is used by the powerful. Hating on a president is as far from Orwell's point as you can get.
Second of all, holy crap man we've in a thread about accusations of sexual abuse and how power has protected serial abusers, and Trump has around 20 accusations against him and has been recorded bragging about doing the exact things he's been accused of. But despite being the absolute poster boy for this thread's subject matter he has only minimally been mentioned, and those mentions have been carefully worded because he is the US president and so speaking plainly about those accusations and how truthful they probably are will drag in some of his defenders, force a closure of the thread and get people in trouble for debating US politics. Trump's position of power has in effect protected him from people talking about the accusations against him, even in a thread that is all about how power is used by sexual predators.
So if you want to complain about a minor dig against Trump's mental ability... then holy gak you do not get the problem we have with power and how it protects some really horrible people.
Easy E wrote: I am guessing they do not (Also not a lawyer) but most people don;t have the time, resources, or legal expertise to even want to get involved with an NDA dispute. It really isn;t about enforcability, but another way the powerful can frighten and intimidate the less powerful with a paperwork storm that the less powerful do not hav ethe time, money, or connections to fight.
Yes. And this is particularly true as it applies to NDA's that are tacked on to wrongful termination suits. Often to just get the money someone is entitled to for wrongful termination or the cancellation of their contracts, they agree to an NDA because the alternative is to fight a major corporation for years, during which time they will find it near impossible to get a new job.
A bit off the topic but this is the case with a lot of legalese stuff, like for instance the Terms of Service documents for video games and other programs. Companies will often claim blatantly illegal powers, then include a little blurb in the small print stating that any condition against the law in the customer's jurisdiction is void. EU customer protection, for example, is often a lot better than in the US and can't normally be given away even if many American corporations like to make you click a box under such a demand. Ofc the poor customer will still have to find out for himself which conditions he could challenge...
As for the topic it does seem a lot of people shut up because they were afraid of repercussions (losing jobs, contacts etc) or afraid of getting hit with a lawsuit for slander. Fear of losing your job is a pretty basic thing, and while we would like to think we have the moral fiber to risk it very few actually will unless they witness the crime itself instead of "understanding something's happened". And slander, well, if you're a hopeful new actress (or a lowly assistant working for a big shot movie mogul) you can't afford anything close to the same sort of legal counsel he can buy and probably has on retainer. You'll be the boy who cried wolf before the paperwork has even been filed.
Frazzled wrote: Because its BS if you really read it. The claim was touched her FROM behind not touched her behind, and has since been retracted by the accuser.
A second woman has come forward with allegations that she was groped by George H.W. Bush, after actress Heather Lind said this week that the former president touched her from behind while telling her a dirty joke in 2014.
New York actress Jordana Grolnick has also now accused Bush of a similar incident in 2016, in which he allegedly fondled her during a photo op.
Grolnick said: “He reached his right hand around to my behind, and as we smiled for the photo he asked the group, ‘Do you want to know who my favorite magician is?’ As I felt his hand dig into my flesh, he said, ‘David Cop-a-Feel!’”
Bush spokesperson Jim McGrath said in a statement that, because President Bush has been in a wheelchair for five years, his arm falls on the “lower waist.” He continued, “To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke—and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner.
Some have seen it as innocent; others clearly view it as inappropriate. To anyone he has offended, President Bush apologizes most sincerely.”
I am conflicted. I am glad that he admitted to his malarkey with little fuss. Because of that, I think it will blow over. But I am disappointed that his employees didn't tell him that he should not do a dirty old man comedy act. The Dad jokes makes me believe that he meant to be innocent. But, Dude, that is not OK.
I am completely honest when I say that I wouldn’t have considered that sexual assault, and just accepted it as a “dirty old man” kind of thing. I’m not going to pretend that I have screamed “sexual predator” every time I saw an old grandpa get handsy.
But then, maybe my kind of thinking is exactly the problem here and part of the reason we all need to look inward to see what kind of things we have accepted as normal.
sebster wrote: Mark Halperin of ABC News has had five women come out and accuse him of sexual harrassment. He's admitted to hitting on the women, some of whom were in more junior positions at ABC, but denies the claims made by three of the women that he molested them.
Thing is, it seems no-one gives a gak. This is getting almost zero traction anywhere. Sure there's bigger and worse accusations against more famous people, but a lot of it probably comes down to Halperin being part of an old guard of media figures, with centre left sensibilities but a commitment to treating political coverage from a both sides POV, and reducing everything down to a horse race. In this age, in the wake of Clinton's defeat, the power on the right and left rests with strongly ideological figures that treat people like Halperin with near complete contempt. Guys like Halperin can't even get arrested in this town anymore.
It sounds like Mr. Halperin was at least suspended from MSNBC/NBC over the allegations.
d-usa wrote: I am completely honest when I say that I wouldn’t have considered that sexual assault, and just accepted it as a “dirty old man” kind of thing. I’m not going to pretend that I have screamed “sexual predator” every time I saw an old grandpa get handsy.
Flip places with the actress. Imagine an old, crusty woman squeezed your behind and made a really dumb joke. You might feel a bit gross after.
Not nearly the same situation, but a much older female co-worker of mine made an innocent but sorta-inappropriate-for-the-workplace joke about wanting to see me dress up as a UPS driver for Halloween because she thought I'd look good in the brown shorts. I laughed at the time, and later told my wife about it and she laughed too. But we also agreed it was a inappropriate, and kinda icky because now I'd be imagining her checking out my sweet, sweet legs ( ) all day at work.
It just goes to show that one person's joke is another persons ick moment.
And probably as a general rule if you are 3x a person's age don't make the first move, sexually. Man or woman, you are a gross old person that only fetishists want to sleep with.
d-usa wrote: But then, maybe my kind of thinking is exactly the problem here and part of the reason we all need to look inward to see what kind of things we have accepted as normal.
Well said and exalted.
I don't know if the Anthony Bourdain Slate interview was posted in this thread yet (I've been lurking but may have missed a page or two) but he has some interesting reflections on his own (potential) culpability in normalizing bad behaviors during his time as a chef.
I don't know if the Anthony Bourdain Slate interview was posted in this thread yet (I've been lurking but may have missed a page or two) but he has some interesting reflections on his own (potential) culpability in normalizing bad behaviors during his time as a chef.
In that case the whole system is stacked against you, as with Weinstein. You knew that there were would be lawyers. You knew that friendly press outfits like the New York Post would be burying you with slanderous, disparaging information. You knew that you would be blackballed. You knew that you would be mocked. Your career and your business that you worked your whole life for, your entire universe of this field that you love is controlled absolutely by one man and you see his terrible reach and power to crush and silence again and again and again and the willingness of these massive deep pocketed companies to assist in that effort knowingly.
Easy E wrote: It sounds like Mr. Halperin was at least suspended from MSNBC/NBC over the allegations.
Was he suspended, or did he take leave for a period? That's often a matter of technicality, I guess.
Anyway, I may have jumped the gun on that one. After a couple of days it seems the Halperin story is gathering pace, at least on twitter. It seems like there's a narrative forming that Halperin was a key opinion leader in news coverage, which is true, and so his own issues with women caused him to lead that negative slant towards the Clinton campaign, which is something of a stretch, I think. If the claim was left at Halperin's issues being likely common among many people, and that in total led to the negative coverage of the campaign, I could see it, but that isn't where the left seems to be taking this.
d-usa wrote: I am completely honest when I say that I wouldn’t have considered that sexual assault, and just accepted it as a “dirty old man” kind of thing. I’m not going to pretend that I have screamed “sexual predator” every time I saw an old grandpa get handsy.
Flip places with the actress. Imagine an old, crusty woman squeezed your behind and made a really dumb joke. You might feel a bit gross after.
Not nearly the same situation, but a much older female co-worker of mine made an innocent but sorta-inappropriate-for-the-workplace joke about wanting to see me dress up as a UPS driver for Halloween because she thought I'd look good in the brown shorts. I laughed at the time, and later told my wife about it and she laughed too. But we also agreed it was a inappropriate, and kinda icky because now I'd be imagining her checking out my sweet, sweet legs ( ) all day at work.
It just goes to show that one person's joke is another persons ick moment.
And probably as a general rule if you are 3x a person's age don't make the first move, sexually. Man or woman, you are a gross old person that only fetishists want to sleep with.
d-usa wrote: But then, maybe my kind of thinking is exactly the problem here and part of the reason we all need to look inward to see what kind of things we have accepted as normal.
Well said and exalted.
I don't know if the Anthony Bourdain Slate interview was posted in this thread yet (I've been lurking but may have missed a page or two) but he has some interesting reflections on his own (potential) culpability in normalizing bad behaviors during his time as a chef.
I have a question based around the suspendings and firings over allegations of sexual assault. What if the allegations turn up to be false, or not proveable? Does the suspension get revoked, how about the job, do they get it back? I support due process and hammering sexual predators, but it seems like if we are going to normalize firing those accused of wrong doing without proof, it could easily become an abuse-able irrevocable power. How is this being minimized?
At the very least, particularly if someone has had multiple accusations from different employees, they've probably been creating a 'hostile work environment.'
So while, yes, it is a hypothetical problem, most studies I'm aware of have shown a vast, vast, vast, vast, vast disparity between genuine claims and false ones (EG less than 5%).
Compel wrote: At the very least, particularly if someone has had multiple accusations from different employees, they've probably been creating a 'hostile work environment.'
So while, yes, it is a hypothetical problem, most studies I'm aware of have shown a vast, vast, vast, vast, vast disparity between genuine claims and false ones (EG less than 5%).
I concur, I'm definitely not saying that's the case. It's just a thought expirement. I have met two very vindictive women in my past. Both were married to Soldiers I was in charge of. Both times they utilized false accusations and created enough problems for the SMs that in both cases the Commanders punished the Soldier in one form or another just to make it stop. Now in the civilian world where the majority of people live hypothetically what is done to mitigate the possibility that a vindictive woman can create these problems out of spite. Are we willing to just hand wave it away for the greater good of ensuring that the real and majority of all accusations are treated correctly?
redleger wrote: I have a question based around the suspendings and firings over allegations of sexual assault. What if the allegations turn up to be false, or not proveable? Does the suspension get revoked, how about the job, do they get it back? I support due process and hammering sexual predators, but it seems like if we are going to normalize firing those accused of wrong doing without proof, it could easily become an abuse-able irrevocable power. How is this being minimized?
So you are saying that people being able to fire somebody with no proof is a bad thing? Are you saying these workers need rights or protections? Maybe we should have some sort of government oversight that prevents a business from firing a person for any reason they want.
Even without the whole super weird American Right to [strikethrough]fire people whenever[/strikethrough] work rules, a lot of larger companies do have various rules in their contracts about "bringing the organisation into disrepute" that would probably come into effect as well.
redleger wrote: I have a question based around the suspendings and firings over allegations of sexual assault. What if the allegations turn up to be false, or not proveable? Does the suspension get revoked, how about the job, do they get it back? I support due process and hammering sexual predators, but it seems like if we are going to normalize firing those accused of wrong doing without proof, it could easily become an abuse-able irrevocable power. How is this being minimized?
So you are saying that people being able to fire somebody with no proof is a bad thing? Are you saying these workers need rights or protections? Maybe we should have some sort of government oversight that prevents a business from firing a person for any reason they want.
Maybe at-will states really do suck!
Sit outs, with our stogies and our beers (and bellies). The most pathetic example of the uneducated white vote imaginable. I hope brietbat is there to cover it. It will play really well on TV with the right filters. Actually, that would be a cameraman's nightmare. I cannot even fathom what sort of f-stop, shutter speed, apture and flash setting one could devise to capture my pasty white gelatinous goo in all its self righteous glory.
Communism taught us that abolish privilege, is to get privilege under a different demographic, and the transition from one unfair society to another is a bitch.
Reforming corporate culture is communism? What?
You should learn what an analogy is.
Any reform is a power shift, any power shift creates new masters to replace, reinforce or co-exist with the old.
Exceptions exist, but only under stringent public control under the auspices of uncorrupt people. You think that is likely in a massive, secretive and lucrative Hollywood industry.
redleger wrote: I have a question based around the suspendings and firings over allegations of sexual assault. What if the allegations turn up to be false, or not proveable? Does the suspension get revoked, how about the job, do they get it back? I support due process and hammering sexual predators, but it seems like if we are going to normalize firing those accused of wrong doing without proof, it could easily become an abuse-able irrevocable power. How is this being minimized?
So you are saying that people being able to fire somebody with no proof is a bad thing? Are you saying these workers need rights or protections? Maybe we should have some sort of government oversight that prevents a business from firing a person for any reason they want.
Maybe at-will states really do suck!
Either you are being very disingenuous or very sarcastic and I can not figure out which one. If the first I think you miss the point of the thought experiment. If the second then that is not technically what I was talking about.
redleger wrote: I have a question based around the suspendings and firings over allegations of sexual assault. What if the allegations turn up to be false, or not proveable? Does the suspension get revoked, how about the job, do they get it back? I support due process and hammering sexual predators, but it seems like if we are going to normalize firing those accused of wrong doing without proof, it could easily become an abuse-able irrevocable power. How is this being minimized?
So you are saying that people being able to fire somebody with no proof is a bad thing? Are you saying these workers need rights or protections? Maybe we should have some sort of government oversight that prevents a business from firing a person for any reason they want.
Maybe at-will states really do suck!
Either you are being very disingenuous or very sarcastic and I can not figure out which one. If the first I think you miss the point of the thought experiment. If the second then that is not technically what I was talking about.
But it is technically about what you are talking about. They don't get the job back. They were fired. That is how it works. You can be fired for anything within at-will states. If you fart in the same room as your boss they can fire you for it. Your boss hears a nasty rumor with no substance to it that you sexually assaulted a person, guess what, cya. You are asking us to minimize this, but it is a perfectly legal thing to do and people fight against protections from these types of things. Until changes are made to at-will states, protections from this type of employer abuse are impossible to put in to place.
After the first couple of weeks of training, I chose to join the team that worked on my area of expertise, and this is where things started getting weird. On my first official day rotating on the team, my new manager sent me a string of messages over company chat. He was in an open relationship, he said, and his girlfriend was having an easy time finding new partners but he wasn't. He was trying to stay out of trouble at work, he said, but he couldn't help getting in trouble, because he was looking for women to have sex with. It was clear that he was trying to get me to have sex with him, and it was so clearly out of line that I immediately took screenshots of these chat messages and reported him to HR.
…
Over the next few months, I began to meet more women engineers in the company. As I got to know them, and heard their stories, I was surprised that some of them had stories similar to my own. Some of the women even had stories about reporting the exact same manager I had reported, and had reported inappropriate interactions with him long before I had even joined the company. It became obvious that both HR and management had been lying about this being "his first offense", and it certainly wasn't his last. Within a few months, he was reported once again for inappropriate behavior, and those who reported him were told it was still his "first offense". The situation was escalated as far up the chain as it could be escalated, and still nothing was done.
Myself and a few of the women who had reported him in the past decided to all schedule meetings with HR to insist that something be done. In my meeting, the rep I spoke with told me that he had never been reported before, he had only ever committed one offense (in his chats with me), and that none of the other women who they met with had anything bad to say about him, so no further action could or would be taken. It was such a blatant lie that there was really nothing I could do. There was nothing any of us could do. We all gave up on Uber HR and our managers after that. Eventually he "left" the company. I don't know what he did that finally convinced them to fire him.
…
Less than a week after this absurd meeting, my manager scheduled a 1:1 with me, and told me we needed to have a difficult conversation. He told me I was on very thin ice for reporting his manager to HR. California is an at-will employment state, he said, which means we can fire you if you ever do this again. I told him that was illegal, and he replied that he had been a manager for a long time, he knew what was illegal, and threatening to fire me for reporting things to HR was not illegal. I reported his threat immediately after the meeting to both HR and to the CTO: they both admitted that this was illegal, but none of them did anything. (I was told much later that they didn't do anything because the manager who threatened me "was a high performer").
OK, so I think I understand that your point is literally, not hypothetically as the question was, the fact that they can be fired for anything is a travesty and that more government regulation is required to prevent states that allow employers to fire anyone for any reason is the problem. I get that, do not agree with even more government intrusion into business, but it is a fair point that women can in this hypothetical scenario do it carte blanche so to speak since in those states there is no requirement to do otherwise than take the easy road and fire the employee under suspicion/accused.
A man can be sexually harassed or assaulted in his job too, both by men or women co-workers. In fact I have seen some cases (Normally a female boss to one of his employes, talking about men being harassed/assaulted) go to court about this.
I'd say it all goes back to what protects the business more.
For maybe the next 2/3 weeks or so... They'll fire the manager.
After then, after the media microscope dies down? It's probably going back to getting rid of the employee (she was just not a good fit for the team...)
Note: Neither of those results have any relationship to what would have factually occurred in that situation.
redleger wrote: OK, so I think I understand that your point is literally, not hypothetically as the question was, the fact that they can be fired for anything is a travesty and that more government regulation is required to prevent states that allow employers to fire anyone for any reason is the problem. I get that, do not agree with even more government intrusion into business, but it is a fair point that women can in this hypothetical scenario do it carte blanche so to speak since in those states there is no requirement to do otherwise than take the easy road and fire the employee under suspicion/accused.
Am I understanding that correctly?
Yes, you understand how at-will states work. Complaining that this is happening is complaining that there is not more "government intrusion" in to business to protect citizens from bogus firings.
redleger wrote: I have a question based around the suspendings and firings over allegations of sexual assault. What if the allegations turn up to be false, or not proveable? Does the suspension get revoked, how about the job, do they get it back? I support due process and hammering sexual predators, but it seems like if we are going to normalize firing those accused of wrong doing without proof, it could easily become an abuse-able irrevocable power. How is this being minimized?
That's a fair point, we should be wary of going to a world where an accusation alone is enough.
That's why right now I think the step we need to make is to moving to a middle ground where we don't have to doubt or question the accuser while also not automatically convicting the accused. That sounds impossible but we do it all the time. You go and report an assault there's no expectation that your accusation will get the accused fired, arrested and convicted, but at the same time your claim isn't doubted, and your actions leading up to the assault won't be questioned and implied as somehow deserving of what happened.
That's the place we need to get to with sexual abuse allegations.
Any reform is a power shift, any power shift creates new masters to replace, reinforce or co-exist with the old.
Exceptions exist, but only under stringent public control under the auspices of uncorrupt people. You think that is likely in a massive, secretive and lucrative Hollywood industry.
You should learn what crap analogies are, and why you shouldn't make them.
I actually went to write a longer answer, but decided the whole premise was so ridiculous that a single sentence making fun of the argument was probably better for everyone. That was probably a mistake on my part, because now I'm stuck having to write the whole thing out anyway.
So, to get to it, the problem you made is in assuming that there will always be some unaccountable level of power. That just as communism made the mistake* of replacing one powerful group of elites with another powerful group of elites, in the same way reform of corporate culture would require installing a new powerful elite. But communism wasn't the only way to break the old monarch/mercantilist model, and in fact communism was the minority attempt, only notable for being a horribly failed method. Far more common, and consistently successful was a shift to liberal democracy, which removed the old, unaccountable forms of power not by replacing them with new powerful elites, but by replacing them with a ruling class that is held accountable through elections. That method in turn also proved successful in breaking down economic power, as the new elected leaders were given incentives to break down power groups.
That latter example is far closer to what will be, what can be attempted here. What is being discussed is changing culture so that even those with tremendous organisational power can be held accountable for their actions.
*Communism made a lot of mistakes, this is just one of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redleger wrote: OK, so I think I understand that your point is literally, not hypothetically as the question was, the fact that they can be fired for anything is a travesty and that more government regulation is required to prevent states that allow employers to fire anyone for any reason is the problem. I get that, do not agree with even more government intrusion into business, but it is a fair point that women can in this hypothetical scenario do it carte blanche so to speak since in those states there is no requirement to do otherwise than take the easy road and fire the employee under suspicion/accused.
Am I understanding that correctly?
The issue is that when you can fire someone without having to give a plausible reason why, it becomes much easier to fire someone for any reason you please, including as a punishment for accusing a favoured staff member of sexual assault.
I don't love all the hoops that are often put in place before you can fire someone, but 'at will' is not the answer. It makes it almost impossible to prove illegal firings, including firing someone for speaking out about individual predators or cultures of sex abuse.
It's likely to do with the contracts that hold their employment.
Such legalese as acting in a manner that doesn't bring negative attention to the company and the like. I thought that was pretty standard in high profile jobs.
Don't punch women in an elevator. Don't fight dogs. Don't live a lifestyle that causes dozens of women to come forth and accuse you of sexual harassment/assault. That type of stuff.
But since someone decided to beat on the union drum, there seems to be a lot of press talking about how the SAG failed in its responsibilities to protect those it was supposed to protect.
djones520 wrote: It's likely to do with the contracts that hold their employment.
Such legalese as acting in a manner that doesn't bring negative attention to the company and the like. I thought that was pretty standard in high profile jobs.
Don't punch women in an elevator. Don't fight dogs. Don't live a lifestyle that causes dozens of women to come forth and accuse you of sexual harassment/assault. That type of stuff.
But since someone decided to beat on the union drum, there seems to be a lot of press talking about how the SAG failed in its responsibilities to protect those it was supposed to protect.
If they were aware that these things were happening with regularity, which I have no clue how they were not aware of it, then they did fail to protect them. Either restructure/rehire from the top down as far as union leadership goes or dissolve it and reform a new one, making sure none of the old higher ups within the union are given the opportunity to gain leadership positions again.
Regardless, the legalese of at-will states is pretty clear. You have no protections. Do not pass go. I said good day sir. yadda yadda yadda
Anthony Rapp, an actor in Star Trek Discovery, has now made an allegation against Kevin Spacey. It occurred when Rapp was 14 and Spacey 26, in 1986. Spacey carried Rapp to his bed and lay on him, Rapp says Spacey was clearly initating something then Rapp pushed him off and left.
In his response, Spacey said he doesn't recall the incident and apologises for what happened. He then publically came out, saying he now lives as a gay man, previously having been bisexual.
So that's probably going to win most 'worst time to come out' contests for quite a while.
sebster wrote: Anthony Rapp, an actor in Star Trek Discovery, has now made an allegation against Kevin Spacey. It occurred when Rapp was 14 and Spacey 26, in 1986. Spacey carried Rapp to his bed and lay on him, Rapp says Spacey was clearly initating something then Rapp pushed him off and left.
In his response, Spacey said he doesn't recall the incident and apologises for what happened. He then publically came out, saying he now lives as a gay man, previously having been bisexual.
So that's probably going to win most 'worst time to come out' contests for quite a while.
Two things:
1. Both Spacey and Rapp's statement indicate Spacey was drunk at the time. This does not excuse the act, but it may factor in to how some people judge it.
2. "Worst time to come out", yes, but what else could he do in response to an accusation of gay sexual harassment?
I don't know what to think about this one. Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.
I was wondering when Spacey would be brought into this. Anyone I know that had dealings with him describe him as a slimey guy, trying to coerce them into having sex with him.
I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.
Ouze wrote: I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.
It's probably something to do with the fact that being gay in the 80s and even 90s was a very different thing than it is today. Going after a young man who is technically a minor is nothing compared to having your professional and personal life blown up by simply being outed as gay.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.
Depends who they are. Nobody wants to deride David Bowie and Jimmy Page for having long term relationships with children in the 70s, for instance, but it would bury anyone today. Similarly, I don't think this will particularly harm Spacey since it's 30 years gone. It'd kill a political career stone dead, irrespective of chronology, though.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.
Depends who they are. Nobody wants to deride David Bowie and Jimmy Page for having long term relationships with children in the 70s, for instance, but it would bury anyone today. Similarly, I don't think this will particularly harm Spacey since it's 30 years gone. It'd kill a political career stone dead, irrespective of chronology, though.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.
Depends who they are. Nobody wants to deride David Bowie and Jimmy Page for having long term relationships with children in the 70s, for instance, but it would bury anyone today. Similarly, I don't think this will particularly harm Spacey since it's 30 years gone. It'd kill a political career stone dead, irrespective of chronology, though.
If this was an isolated incident, maybe.
It rarely is though...
Like I say, Jimmy Page is still a near-universally-lauded rock superhero and he kept a 14 locked in his house for year, so...
Wanda Sykes said "don't try to hide behind the rainbow", which I thought was well-put.
One aspect about this that is especially unfortunately is that by trying to shield himself in this way, he dredges up long debunked myths that gay people are likely to be pedophiles.
Ouze wrote: Wanda Sykes said "don't try to hide behind the rainbow", which I thought was well-put.
One aspect about this that is especially unfortunately is that by trying to shield himself in this way, he dredges up long debunked myths that gay people are likely to be pedophiles.
Ouze wrote: I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.
From what the people who have been around him tell me, he had a number of things he did that were repulsive. He was described to me in ways such as slimey, nasty, and just an all around repellant individual.
Ouze wrote: I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.
From what the people who have been around him tell me, he had a number of things he did that were repulsive. He was described to me in ways such as slimey, nasty, and just an all around repellant individual.
So... you're saying in Horrible Bosses, he wasn't really acting.
Ouze wrote: I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.
From what the people who have been around him tell me, he had a number of things he did that were repulsive. He was described to me in ways such as slimey, nasty, and just an all around repellant individual.
So... you're saying in Horrible Bosses, he wasn't really acting.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.
Depends who they are. Nobody wants to deride David Bowie and Jimmy Page for having long term relationships with children in the 70s, for instance, but it would bury anyone today. Similarly, I don't think this will particularly harm Spacey since it's 30 years gone. It'd kill a political career stone dead, irrespective of chronology, though.
Netflix have canned House of Cards, so I was wrong on that front!
Ouze wrote: I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.
Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.
That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.
That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.
This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.
The Spacey thing was an open secret. I have friends who say he hit on them. they were even somewhat warned beforehand to watch out for him, and they were just extras.
I have to wonder if House of Cards wasn't just about done anyway. I stopped watching it a few years ago - I think I only ever watched the first 2 seasons - but as I understand it, he played an ambitious politician, and he eventually wound up POTUS, right? Not sure where you go from there - Tom Clancy painted himself into the exact same corner many years ago with Jack Ryan.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The Spacey thing was an open secret. I have friends who say he hit on them. they were even somewhat warned beforehand to watch out for him, and they were just extras.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.
That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.
This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.
I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Netflix absolutely can do whatever it wants.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.
That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.
This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.
I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Netflix absolutely can do whatever it wants.
So are you saying that this doesn't feel a bit...twitchy?
a) At least he out&out apologized... which is way more than what the other jackwagons has done.
b) Holy gak, he tried to hook up with a 14 yo!
c) Dude tried to use the rainbow shield . Jesus wept... way to go to strengthen gay/pedo stereotypes. My gay friends are pissed!
d) if that happened 30 years ago... don't be shocked to hear other peeps come forward, as these things aren't generally 'isolated events'.
Wait till you hear what your president did.. oh wait, no politics. Damn I was going to release the biggest bombshell in history, and then I realized I couldn't.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.
That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.
This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.
I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Netflix absolutely can do whatever it wants.
So are you saying that this doesn't feel a bit...twitchy?
twitchy and legal/illegal are very different things
My point was that Netflix's response, given the nature of the accusation (over 30 years ago, unsubstantiated, vague circumstances, etc), felt...reflexive and panicked. I'm not saying that Netflix didn't have every right to do what they did, or that what they did was wrong, only that it looks like they acted on impulse
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.
That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.
This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.
I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Netflix absolutely can do whatever it wants.
So are you saying that this doesn't feel a bit...twitchy?
twitchy and legal/illegal are very different things
My point was that Netflix's response, given the nature of the accusation (over 30 years ago, unsubstantiated, vague circumstances, etc), felt...reflexive and panicked. I'm not saying that Netflix didn't have every right to do what they did, or that what they did was wrong, only that it looks like they acted on impulse
If you have an employee that is accused of something pretty awful, you want to save face by immediately distancing yourself from that person. It's not twitchy, it is good business!
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah that was a really odd way of attempting to deflect that, basically ensuring that it would rile up the crowd he was attempting to mollify. Had he made the aplogogy without the coming out expose, it would have been more effective.
That said, without wanting to minimize anyone's experiences, shutting down a successful show over an unsupported allegation of an incident from more than 30 years ago feels a bit...twitchy. Unless there's more to it Im unaware of.
This is perfectly fine and perfectly legal. The whole innocent until proven guilty only goes for a court of law, a business such as Netflix is not held to the same standards. Freedom and all that.
I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Netflix absolutely can do whatever it wants.
So are you saying that this doesn't feel a bit...twitchy?
twitchy and legal/illegal are very different things
My point was that Netflix's response, given the nature of the accusation (over 30 years ago, unsubstantiated, vague circumstances, etc), felt...reflexive and panicked. I'm not saying that Netflix didn't have every right to do what they did, or that what they did was wrong, only that it looks like they acted on impulse
If you have an employee that is accused of something pretty awful, you want to save face by immediately distancing yourself from that person. It's not twitchy, it is good business!
In many circumstances, yes. When the accusation is older than most of your consumer base, unsubstantiated, vague, and in reference to one of your most popular offerings, that usually is cause for some degree of pause, and the speed and decisiveness at which this decision was taken is unusual as a result. That's all I was commenting on.
I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.
Dreadwinter wrote: I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.
If we don't allow famous people to have some little sin here and there, whats is gonna be of our society?
Hitchcock certainly would have never happened. The crap he did to Tippi Herdron was pretty gakky. Where do we draw the line between crazy guy who make people do stuff to get his art. And crazy guy who does stuff to get his kicks off? Because complicity doesn't cut it.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Hitchcock certainly would have never happened. The crap he did to Tippi Herdron was pretty gakky. Where do we draw the line between crazy guy who make people do stuff to get his art. And crazy guy who does stuff to get his kicks off? Because complicity doesn't cut it.
If everything is based on an agreement with another responsible adult (As long as no limits are exceeded such as murder, etc ...), I think that is the line.
Now, we can talk about influence peddling and abuse of power in that kind of "agreements"
He pretty clearly and pretty intentionally went over "the line". But it wasn't sexual in nature, at least from her point of view (who knows what was going on in his head other than him, and maybe Truffaut.) Grace Kelly sort of looked at him as a pathetic little man who happened to be really good at what he did. He tried to make advances on her, like a lot of his actresses, but she shrugged him off. If you want a good book on Hitch, take a look at "The Dark Side of Genius".
Dreadwinter wrote: I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.
I'm not talking about what should be or making any sort of judgements, just noticing its surprising the speed and decisiveness of the action given typical industry history and the high place the show had on their playbill. It notes a hightened awareness to this sort of thing. Whether that is genuine understanding and caring about the issue, social grandstanding, panicked CYA legal/brand decision, clever excuse to kill something they wanted to kill anyway, or something else or a combination of all of the above, it is what it is, however accusations of this type (he said/he said private encounters) and age (like it or not, most people do weigh the fact that it happened over 30 years ago, even if unconciously) have often not killed popular careers or shows in the past (at least this decisively), and the fact that it has in this case is surprising.
As horrible as it is (and it is horrible), at some point I weigh my desire to see justice vs my desire to see the next season of Cards. Cards wins. I am a horrible person. I wonder what it would be like if this sort of story hit before the final season of Game of Thrones drops, and HBO decides to call it off? No ending for anybody from anybody.. ever. Maybe GRRM will finally be vindicated in his grave saying, "see, nobody could have ended it".
Gordon Shumway wrote: As horrible as it is (and it is horrible), at some point I weigh my desire to see justice vs my desire to see the next season of Cards. Cards wins. I am a horrible person. I wonder what it would be like if this sort of story hit before the final season of Game of Thrones drops, and HBO decides to call it off? No ending for anybody from anybody.. ever. Maybe GRRM will finally be vindicated in his grave saying, "see, nobody could have ended it".
I know what you mean, where do you draw the line. Fans have been paying for netflix and supporting House of Cards for years. For them to just end it in an unsatisfying way is a slap in the face to the user/fanbase. All that hard work and development of these characters and stuff for what? How hard is their hand being forced here...
I don't know if anyone has heard of crystal castles but something similar to the Weinstein etc stuff has went down with that band as well:
An arrest warrant has been obtained for actress Rose McGowan for possession of a controlled substance.
It stems from a police investigation of personal belongings left behind on a United flight arriving at Washington Dulles International Airport on 20 January.
Police say the items tested positive for narcotics. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department obtained the warrant on 1 February.
Do police normally test items left behind for drugs ..?
Since when do arrest warrants get issued for "traces of narcotics" ?
Generally customs will detect traces with a swab,then look for **actual** narcotics and if none are found let the person go...because theres no evidence that the trace readings come from that trip, or not, for example, someones clothes coming into contact with a nightclub door handle...or a spilled pill bottle, or that trip to Amsterdam 10 years ago right ?
Dreadwinter wrote: I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.
Should we also stop all publications of Lovecraft works because of his virulent racism in his youth?
Dreadwinter wrote: I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.
Should we also stop all publications of Lovecraft works because of his virulent racism in his youth?
An arrest warrant has been obtained for actress Rose McGowan for possession of a controlled substance.
It stems from a police investigation of personal belongings left behind on a United flight arriving at Washington Dulles International Airport on 20 January.
Police say the items tested positive for narcotics. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police Department obtained the warrant on 1 February.
Do police normally test items left behind for drugs ..?
Since when do arrest warrants get issued for "traces of narcotics" ?
Generally customs will detect traces with a swab,then look for **actual** narcotics and if none are found let the person go...because theres no evidence that the trace readings come from that trip, or not, for example, someones clothes coming into contact with a nightclub door handle...or a spilled pill bottle, or that trip to Amsterdam 10 years ago right ?
Dreadwinter wrote: I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.
Should we also stop all publications of Lovecraft works because of his virulent racism in his youth?
I hope you realize that is something completely different than sexually assaulting an minor.
For me, that film totally fell apart in the last 20 minutes. Here's this obsessive psycho killer, who has spent literally years preparing and then executing a highly detailed revenge plan involving lots of different victims, and he chucks it out the window at the last minute to annoy some minor police character in the hope he will get shot.
Dreadwinter wrote: I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.
I'm not talking about what should be or making any sort of judgements, just noticing its surprising the speed and decisiveness of the action given typical industry history and the high place the show had on their playbill. It notes a hightened awareness to this sort of thing. Whether that is genuine understanding and caring about the issue, social grandstanding, panicked CYA legal/brand decision, clever excuse to kill something they wanted to kill anyway, or something else or a combination of all of the above, it is what it is, however accusations of this type (he said/he said private encounters) and age (like it or not, most people do weigh the fact that it happened over 30 years ago, even if unconciously) have often not killed popular careers or shows in the past (at least this decisively), and the fact that it has in this case is surprising.
Probably a combination. Earlier this year a (now) former colleague of mine was convicted of pedophilia as well. He was fired immediately after the conviction.
Us regular schmoes had no idea it was going on, but I remember thinking both "good riddance." And "good that they waited for a conviction before getting rid of the bastard."
This is assuming that upper management was aware of the proceedings. They must have known something was amiss.
welshhoppo wrote:But innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore, there is no point denying it.
It does exist in the court of law where it's important but if I were to say that Kevin Spacey or any of the accused people is an donkey-cave for having possibly done this they won't end up in prison. "Innocent until proven guilty" is important because when it come to crime (and not gossip/public accusations) your freedom is at stake (and we can for now ignore how there's different results for different groups and all the problems out judicial systems have). The same just doesn't work outside the judicial system. You would need to control peoples' minds to solve that problem, besides most people in power with that type of accusation keep having a rather normal life. That this stuff gets such a degree of media attention now is rather an outlier, not even a year ago an candidate with multiple similar accusations got elected as the president of the USA. In the eye of the public it's more common the other way around "innocent, despite contrary evidence".
Tannhauser42 wrote: Two things:
1. Both Spacey and Rapp's statement indicate Spacey was drunk at the time. This does not excuse the act, but it may factor in to how some people judge it.
2. "Worst time to come out", yes, but what else could he do in response to an accusation of gay sexual harassment?
I don't know what to think about this one. Do we condemn people today for something they did while intoxicated 30 years ago? I condemn the act, but I don't know what to think about the person today.
There is no amount of drunk that would make me try and have sex with a 14 year old. 14.
What should we think about the person today? That's a big question. What should we think about anyone who made a really big screw up? I guess it depends on how out of character it is with the rest of their lives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I have to wonder if House of Cards wasn't just about done anyway. I stopped watching it a few years ago - I think I only ever watched the first 2 seasons - but as I understand it, he played an ambitious politician, and he eventually wound up POTUS, right? Not sure where you go from there - Tom Clancy painted himself into the exact same corner many years ago with Jack Ryan.
Spoilers, I guess. Spacey's assumes the presidency, suddenly becomes and idiot and screws up a bunch of stuff. He then runs for election in his own right with his wife as VP. He wins after some really ludicrous twists. But leaks out of the Whitehouse substantiate a lot of the bad stuff he did and force Spacey to resign and his wife becomes President. Spacey reveals he was the leaker, and his new plot was to move back behind the scenes where he is more powerful, somehow. It was pretty stupid. Honestly the best thing about the last season is it wrapped everything up. The news to me wasn't that Netflix was cancelling the show, but that they were planning on making any more before Rapp's statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: So are you saying that this doesn't feel a bit...twitchy?
It's more likely that Netflix support for the show was already tepid. I don't know what the ratings were like but HoC had dropped off everyone's prestige TV lists years ago. I'd be amazed if anyone today was signing up for Netflix to access HoC, or if anyone would cancel their Netflix accounts because there was no more HoC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: If you have an employee that is accused of something pretty awful, you want to save face by immediately distancing yourself from that person. It's not twitchy, it is good business!
It depends. Nike famously stood by Tiger Woods when his behaviour was brought to light. And Woods wasn't even an employee, he was in a contract with Nike with a strict morality clause that Nike could have used to walk away from the deal. But Nike looked at the business of it, knew how important Woods was to Nike maintaining its place in the golf market, and so they let the deal go quiet for about a year before returning to business as usual. And today Woods is still earning stupid money from Nike, and Nike maintains its billion dollar golf operation.
So you're right that its about business, but it isn't as simple as dropping someone who's been accused of something to protect the business. It depends what their business is worth to you. HoC probably wasn't worth that much anymore, so Netflix had a pretty easy decision. But if, say, GRR Martin got outed as doing some bad stuff* then HBO would have a much tougher decision to make because that show is worth billions to them.
Yeah, I get the feeling the show was on its way out. Somebody told me he became the Potus and my first thought was "So now what?" Doesn't seem like a lot to do after that. With current events the way they are, it wouldn't have surprised me if they dropped it when it was in its prime either. There has been a lot of backlash for companies/people trying to wait these things out.
Nike doesn't surprise me. That company has never been the most ethical. I doubt HBO would drop GoT if GRRM came out as a rapist/pedophile. They would probably just remove him as a writer and stop associating with him to finish out the show.
Dreadwinter wrote: Nike doesn't surprise me. That company has never been the most ethical.
I'm not certain we can decide it is immediately unethical to keep a celebrity relationship just because he's in a scandal. In Woods' case there was no issue of consent, they were simply adulterous affairs. But even if it was worse than that, I don't know it's more ethical to drop the relationship and have to fire thousands of people from the inevitable lost sales, because you want to avoid some bad PR and keep a squeaky clean image.
I'm not saying keeping the relationship is ethical either. Just that there's a lot of interests at stake and we shouldn't resort to easy ethical judgements.
But yeah, I agree that HoC had meandered since he became president, and that was almost certainly a major factor in the show being canned.
Kevin Spacey released an official statement today. It goes as follows.
"We get hung up on this child abuse stuff… This is one of the reasons why I hate the left, the one size fits all policing of culture, this arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent.
I’m grateful for Father Michael [a Catholic priest he claims to have had sex with as a teenager]. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.
Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody who is 13 years old and sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty, who do not have functioning sex organs yet, who have not gone through puberty.
In the gay world, some of the most important enriching, and incredibly life-affirming, important, shaping relationships are between younger boys and older men. They can be hugely positive experiences very often for those young boys."
Actually that was a Milo Yiannopoulos quote. Close enough for government work.
Dreadwinter wrote: I am confused. What does any of that have to do with anything? I mean, it was a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact it was unsubstantiated means nothing, as I noted earlier. It doesn't seem that vague, the accuser was pretty specific with what happened. The popularity of the show should not even come in to consideration here.
Should we also stop all publications of Lovecraft works because of his virulent racism in his youth?
I hope you realize that is something completely different than sexually assaulting an minor.
What I'm trying to get at is that we should have a degree of separation between art and it's creator.
Bran Dawri wrote: So, how long until the first accusations from the music industry are going to break?
With all its similarities to the movie industry, I cannot imagine circumstances are very different there.
If anything, I expect it to be worse. It was an open secret in the 80's that female musicians were expected to service the record label producers of they wanted any chance of a career.
Groped a director.
Flashed a bartender
Preyed on actors whilst at the Old Vic.
Spoiler:
New allegations have emerged from a number of men accusing Kevin Spacey of sexual misconduct.
US filmmaker Tony Montana claims he was groped by the actor in a Los Angeles bar in 2003.
Montana says he was left with PTSD for six months after he claims Spacey "forcefully" grabbed his crotch.
It follows an allegation made by Anthony Rapp that the House of Cards actor tried to "seduce" him when he was 14 years old.
Kevin Spacey says he has no recollection of that encounter, and was "beyond horrified".
Film director Montana told Radar Online that he was in his thirties when the incident took place at the Coronet Bar in LA.
He says he removed Spacey's hand from his crotch and walked away, but claims the actor later followed him into the men's toilets.
'Routinely preyed'
Incidents regarding Spacey are also alleged to have taken place in the UK while the two-time Oscar winner was the artistic director at the Old Vic in London between 2004 and 2015.
Mexican actor Roberto Cavazos, who acted in several plays at the theatre, claims Spacey "routinely preyed" on young male actors.
"It seems the only requirement was to be a male under the age of 30 for Mr Spacey to feel free to touch us," he wrote in a Facebook post.
He said he fended off two "unpleasant" advances from Spacey that "bordered on harassment," but that others were afraid to do so.
"There are a lot of us who have a 'Kevin Spacey story'," says Cavazos.
The Old Vic has set up a confidential complaints process for anyone connected to the 200-year-old theatre to come forward.
It said in a statement: "We aim to foster a safe and supportive environment without prejudice, harassment or bullying of any sort, at any level."
'Seedy and a bit weird'
Separately, a British man claims Kevin Spacey exposed himself to him in 2010, when he was working at a hotel in West Sussex.
Speaking to the Sun, Daniel Beal alleges the Usual Suspects star flashed his private parts, saying: "It's big, isn't it?" and tried to get the then 19-year-old to touch him.
Netflix suspends production of sixth series of House of Cards
Spacey's special Emmy award withdrawn
Why are people angry about Kevin Spacey coming out?
The former bartender claims Spacey also invited him up to his room, but he rejected the star's advances.
Beal says Spacey gave him his £5,000 watch later that same evening, and a few weeks later called him asking to meet up.
He told the Sun: "In hindsight, that must have been grooming. He was just like his character in House Of Cards - seedy and a bit weird."
'Either stupid or predatory'
The BBC has also uncovered allegations of sexual misconduct against Spacey by a man who claims he was harassed by the star in the mid-1980s.
The man, who wanted to remain anonymous, says he met the star at theatre school before being invited to New York by him, when he was 17 years old.
Speaking to the Victoria Derbyshire programme, the man (who they've called John), says despite sleeping on the star's sofa he woke up fully clothed with Spacey lying on him, in his underwear.
John, who still works in the entertainment industry, said Spacey again became "affectionate" the second night he was in the city.
"I burst into tears because I couldn't articulate any more what was happening to me. I was scared... To his credit, he backed off and we went to sleep."
Reflecting on his experience, John says: "It seems he was grooming me. For me, I never let on that that's what I was interested in. I never discussed it, nor did I want it.
John points out neither of them drank any alcohol that weekend.
"He was either very stupid or he was predatory - or maybe a little of both. I was uncomfortable at best, traumatised at worst, emotionally.
John says he didn't tell the authorities or his parents at the time, although he has since told friends.
Kevin, I think you may have a few issues to deal with my friend. I don't think being gay is one of them.
Groped a director.
Flashed a bartender
Preyed on actors whilst at the Old Vic.
Spoiler:
New allegations have emerged from a number of men accusing Kevin Spacey of sexual misconduct.
US filmmaker Tony Montana claims he was groped by the actor in a Los Angeles bar in 2003.
Montana says he was left with PTSD for six months after he claims Spacey "forcefully" grabbed his crotch.
It follows an allegation made by Anthony Rapp that the House of Cards actor tried to "seduce" him when he was 14 years old.
Kevin Spacey says he has no recollection of that encounter, and was "beyond horrified".
Film director Montana told Radar Online that he was in his thirties when the incident took place at the Coronet Bar in LA.
He says he removed Spacey's hand from his crotch and walked away, but claims the actor later followed him into the men's toilets.
'Routinely preyed'
Incidents regarding Spacey are also alleged to have taken place in the UK while the two-time Oscar winner was the artistic director at the Old Vic in London between 2004 and 2015.
Mexican actor Roberto Cavazos, who acted in several plays at the theatre, claims Spacey "routinely preyed" on young male actors.
"It seems the only requirement was to be a male under the age of 30 for Mr Spacey to feel free to touch us," he wrote in a Facebook post.
He said he fended off two "unpleasant" advances from Spacey that "bordered on harassment," but that others were afraid to do so.
"There are a lot of us who have a 'Kevin Spacey story'," says Cavazos.
The Old Vic has set up a confidential complaints process for anyone connected to the 200-year-old theatre to come forward.
It said in a statement: "We aim to foster a safe and supportive environment without prejudice, harassment or bullying of any sort, at any level."
'Seedy and a bit weird'
Separately, a British man claims Kevin Spacey exposed himself to him in 2010, when he was working at a hotel in West Sussex.
Speaking to the Sun, Daniel Beal alleges the Usual Suspects star flashed his private parts, saying: "It's big, isn't it?" and tried to get the then 19-year-old to touch him.
Netflix suspends production of sixth series of House of Cards
Spacey's special Emmy award withdrawn
Why are people angry about Kevin Spacey coming out?
The former bartender claims Spacey also invited him up to his room, but he rejected the star's advances.
Beal says Spacey gave him his £5,000 watch later that same evening, and a few weeks later called him asking to meet up.
He told the Sun: "In hindsight, that must have been grooming. He was just like his character in House Of Cards - seedy and a bit weird."
'Either stupid or predatory'
The BBC has also uncovered allegations of sexual misconduct against Spacey by a man who claims he was harassed by the star in the mid-1980s.
The man, who wanted to remain anonymous, says he met the star at theatre school before being invited to New York by him, when he was 17 years old.
Speaking to the Victoria Derbyshire programme, the man (who they've called John), says despite sleeping on the star's sofa he woke up fully clothed with Spacey lying on him, in his underwear.
John, who still works in the entertainment industry, said Spacey again became "affectionate" the second night he was in the city.
"I burst into tears because I couldn't articulate any more what was happening to me. I was scared... To his credit, he backed off and we went to sleep."
Reflecting on his experience, John says: "It seems he was grooming me. For me, I never let on that that's what I was interested in. I never discussed it, nor did I want it.
John points out neither of them drank any alcohol that weekend.
"He was either very stupid or he was predatory - or maybe a little of both. I was uncomfortable at best, traumatised at worst, emotionally.
John says he didn't tell the authorities or his parents at the time, although he has since told friends.
Kevin, I think you may have a few issues to deal with my friend. I don't think being gay is one of them.
Doesn't surprise me. It's right in line with the stories I've been told about him.
Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
His early work was but his work the last decade or so has been pretty bad. Of course I never liked David Lynch either and everyone else in film school wanted to give him a handy j in the worst way so I may not be the one ask about it.
Relapse wrote: Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
Do you contend that Polanski's work is not Oscar-worthy?
I'm not argurining about his work, but about how he seemed to get a pass by Hollywood. guess you never heard about the 13 year old he raped or that he fled to France to escape punishment. Yet we have a roomful of people giving him a standing ovation years later. His career didn't seem to skip a beat, despite his predations of children.i
Relapse wrote: Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
Do you contend that Polanski's work is not Oscar-worthy?
I'm not argurining about his work, but about how he seemed to get a pass by Hollywood. guess you never heard about the 13 year old he raped or that he fled to France to escape punishment. Yet we have a roomful of people giving him a standing ovation years later. His career didn't seem to skip a beat, despite his predations of children.i
Polanski's deplorable personal life is as famous as his acclaimed professional work. Yes, he should have been put in jail back in 1977, and why France was willing to harbour a rapist I don't understand.
But that didn't happen, and he was free to create some pretty universally-lauded films. I think it is possible to admire someone's work while recognizing that person is a vile human being.
Relapse wrote: Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
Do you contend that Polanski's work is not Oscar-worthy?
I'm not argurining about his work, but about how he seemed to get a pass by Hollywood. guess you never heard about the 13 year old he raped or that he fled to France to escape punishment. Yet we have a roomful of people giving him a standing ovation years later. His career didn't seem to skip a beat, despite his predations of children.i
Polanski's deplorable personal life is as famous as his acclaimed professional work. Yes, he should have been put in jail back in 1977, and why France was willing to harbour a rapist I don't understand.
But that didn't happen, and he was free to create some pretty universally-lauded films. I think it is possible to admire someone's work while recognizing that person is a vile human being.
One doesn’t be invalidate the other but they are inseparable. Polanski the film maker and Polanski the rapist are the same person you can’t have on without the other. Being a rapist doesn’t make him a bad director and being a great filmmaker doesn’t mean it’s ok for him to rape a girl but the Oscar was given to Polanski the person and that includes the good and the bad. The Producers Guild of America has banned Weinstein for life and it’s got nothing to do with Miramax movies it’s all about the organization not wanting to associate with a sexual predator, no amount of award worthy movies he produced can wash that stink off of him. The Academy decided that Polanski’s actions as a rapist weren’t enough to discourage them from giving him an Oscar and that’s their choice but they still decided that laudin a movie was more important than disassociating from a man who raped a child.
Ahtman wrote: His early work was but his work the last decade or so has been pretty bad. Of course I never liked David Lynch either and everyone else in film school wanted to give him a handy j in the worst way so I may not be the one ask about it.
Speaking of, have there been any allegations made against Lynch? I know he has a reputation as liking the ladies, but I'm really hoping he's in the clear on all this. Twin Peaks is one of my favorite TV shows of all time.
Relapse wrote: Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
Do you contend that Polanski's work is not Oscar-worthy?
I'm not argurining about his work, but about how he seemed to get a pass by Hollywood. guess you never heard about the 13 year old he raped or that he fled to France to escape punishment. Yet we have a roomful of people giving him a standing ovation years later. His career didn't seem to skip a beat, despite his predations of children.i
Polanski's deplorable personal life is as famous as his acclaimed professional work. Yes, he should have been put in jail back in 1977, and why France was willing to harbour a rapist I don't understand.
But that didn't happen, and he was free to create some pretty universally-lauded films. I think it is possible to admire someone's work while recognizing that person is a vile human being.
One doesn’t be invalidate the other but they are inseparable. Polanski the film maker and Polanski the rapist are the same person you can’t have on without the other. Being a rapist doesn’t make him a bad director and being a great filmmaker doesn’t mean it’s ok for him to rape a girl but the Oscar was given to Polanski the person and that includes the good and the bad. The Producers Guild of America has banned Weinstein for life and it’s got nothing to do with Miramax movies it’s all about the organization not wanting to associate with a sexual predator, no amount of award worthy movies he produced can wash that stink off of him. The Academy decided that Polanski’s actions as a rapist weren’t enough to discourage them from giving him an Oscar and that’s their choice but they still decided that laudin a movie was more important than disassociating from a man who raped a child.
Sorry, I'm confused. If one doesn't invalidate the other then what's the issue with recognizing that this despicable rapist is a outstanding director?
I'm even more confused about how France is a safe haven for American criminals. Uncle Sam can't say, "Hey, Francis! A rapist of ours is in Paris, can we have him back?"
Relapse wrote: Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
Do you contend that Polanski's work is not Oscar-worthy?
I'm not argurining about his work, but about how he seemed to get a pass by Hollywood. guess you never heard about the 13 year old he raped or that he fled to France to escape punishment. Yet we have a roomful of people giving him a standing ovation years later. His career didn't seem to skip a beat, despite his predations of children.i
Polanski's deplorable personal life is as famous as his acclaimed professional work. Yes, he should have been put in jail back in 1977, and why France was willing to harbour a rapist I don't understand.
But that didn't happen, and he was free to create some pretty universally-lauded films. I think it is possible to admire someone's work while recognizing that person is a vile human being.
Relapse wrote: Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
Do you contend that Polanski's work is not Oscar-worthy?
I'm not argurining about his work, but about how he seemed to get a pass by Hollywood. guess you never heard about the 13 year old he raped or that he fled to France to escape punishment. Yet we have a roomful of people giving him a standing ovation years later. His career didn't seem to skip a beat, despite his predations of children.i
Polanski's deplorable personal life is as famous as his acclaimed professional work. Yes, he should have been put in jail back in 1977, and why France was willing to harbour a rapist I don't understand.
But that didn't happen, and he was free to create some pretty universally-lauded films. I think it is possible to admire someone's work while recognizing that person is a vile human being.
You miss the point.
Is the point, "Hollywood Libtards are Hypocrites?" Because that's not a great point.
Relapse wrote: Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
Do you contend that Polanski's work is not Oscar-worthy?
I'm not argurining about his work, but about how he seemed to get a pass by Hollywood. guess you never heard about the 13 year old he raped or that he fled to France to escape punishment. Yet we have a roomful of people giving him a standing ovation years later. His career didn't seem to skip a beat, despite his predations of children.i
Polanski's deplorable personal life is as famous as his acclaimed professional work. Yes, he should have been put in jail back in 1977, and why France was willing to harbour a rapist I don't understand.
But that didn't happen, and he was free to create some pretty universally-lauded films. I think it is possible to admire someone's work while recognizing that person is a vile human being.
One doesn’t be invalidate the other but they are inseparable. Polanski the film maker and Polanski the rapist are the same person you can’t have on without the other. Being a rapist doesn’t make him a bad director and being a great filmmaker doesn’t mean it’s ok for him to rape a girl but the Oscar was given to Polanski the person and that includes the good and the bad. The Producers Guild of America has banned Weinstein for life and it’s got nothing to do with Miramax movies it’s all about the organization not wanting to associate with a sexual predator, no amount of award worthy movies he produced can wash that stink off of him. The Academy decided that Polanski’s actions as a rapist weren’t enough to discourage them from giving him an Oscar and that’s their choice but they still decided that laudin a movie was more important than disassociating from a man who raped a child.
Sorry, I'm confused. If one doesn't invalidate the other then what's the issue with recognizing that this despicable rapist is a outstanding director?
I'm even more confused about how France is a safe haven for American criminals. Uncle Sam can't say, "Hey, Francis! A rapist of ours is in Paris, can we have him back?"
Nope. He's French, and France doesn't have to extradite it's own citizens to the US if it doesn't want to.
It's not popular, but he seems to be pretty popular with the French government.
Ahtman wrote: His early work was but his work the last decade or so has been pretty bad. Of course I never liked David Lynch either and everyone else in film school wanted to give him a handy j in the worst way so I may not be the one ask about it.
Speaking of, have there been any allegations made against Lynch? I know he has a reputation as liking the ladies, but I'm really hoping he's in the clear on all this. Twin Peaks is one of my favorite TV shows of all time.
The daughter denies it and it seemed like just babble anyways, and Anderson may be a bit of a nut so whatever. I also hope he is clean, he strikes me as the guy to be more into attractive adult women though and not a pedo.
Relapse wrote: Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
Do you contend that Polanski's work is not Oscar-worthy?
I'm not argurining about his work, but about how he seemed to get a pass by Hollywood. guess you never heard about the 13 year old he raped or that he fled to France to escape punishment. Yet we have a roomful of people giving him a standing ovation years later. His career didn't seem to skip a beat, despite his predations of children.i
Polanski's deplorable personal life is as famous as his acclaimed professional work. Yes, he should have been put in jail back in 1977, and why France was willing to harbour a rapist I don't understand.
But that didn't happen, and he was free to create some pretty universally-lauded films. I think it is possible to admire someone's work while recognizing that person is a vile human being.
One doesn’t be invalidate the other but they are inseparable. Polanski the film maker and Polanski the rapist are the same person you can’t have on without the other. Being a rapist doesn’t make him a bad director and being a great filmmaker doesn’t mean it’s ok for him to rape a girl but the Oscar was given to Polanski the person and that includes the good and the bad. The Producers Guild of America has banned Weinstein for life and it’s got nothing to do with Miramax movies it’s all about the organization not wanting to associate with a sexual predator, no amount of award worthy movies he produced can wash that stink off of him. The Academy decided that Polanski’s actions as a rapist weren’t enough to discourage them from giving him an Oscar and that’s their choice but they still decided that laudin a movie was more important than disassociating from a man who raped a child.
Sorry, I'm confused. If one doesn't invalidate the other then what's the issue with recognizing that this despicable rapist is a outstanding director?
I'm even more confused about how France is a safe haven for American criminals. Uncle Sam can't say, "Hey, Francis! A rapist of ours is in Paris, can we have him back?"
Nope. He's French, and France doesn't have to extradite it's own citizens to the US if it doesn't want to.
It's not popular, but he seems to be pretty popular with the French government.
Oh man, I can't believe I didn't consider that he might not be American.
I'd like to think that if France convicted Wayne Gretzky* of drugging and raping a teenager, and he fled back to Canada, we'd be all, Ah, hey, no bud, back to France with ya pal, sorry, eh. Thanks for all the highlight goals though, and beauty tape to tape passing."
*Greatest ice hockey player of all time and Canadian national treasure
Bran Dawri wrote: So, how long until the first accusations from the music industry are going to break?
With all its similarities to the movie industry, I cannot imagine circumstances are very different there.
Or what about theater, musicals and ballet? I know someone who wanted to become a ballet dancer. He has exactly the same kind of stories. To advance is not just a matter of talent, but just as much a matter of letting yourself get touched by the right people.
It is really sad, but is there really a thing we can do about this kind of business? Not unless we massively shake up the way these industries work I think.
Relapse wrote: Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
Do you contend that Polanski's work is not Oscar-worthy?
I'm not argurining about his work, but about how he seemed to get a pass by Hollywood. guess you never heard about the 13 year old he raped or that he fled to France to escape punishment. Yet we have a roomful of people giving him a standing ovation years later. His career didn't seem to skip a beat, despite his predations of children.i
Polanski's deplorable personal life is as famous as his acclaimed professional work. Yes, he should have been put in jail back in 1977, and why France was willing to harbour a rapist I don't understand.
But that didn't happen, and he was free to create some pretty universally-lauded films. I think it is possible to admire someone's work while recognizing that person is a vile human being.
You miss the point.
Is the point, "Hollywood Libtards are Hypocrites?" Because that's not a great point.
I've never used the term libtard, since I think it's moronic, neither am I singling out liberals. The point is pretty solid, though.
Relapse wrote: Interesting that they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a standing ovation not many years ago.
Do you contend that Polanski's work is not Oscar-worthy?
I'm not argurining about his work, but about how he seemed to get a pass by Hollywood. guess you never heard about the 13 year old he raped or that he fled to France to escape punishment. Yet we have a roomful of people giving him a standing ovation years later. His career didn't seem to skip a beat, despite his predations of children.i
Polanski's deplorable personal life is as famous as his acclaimed professional work. Yes, he should have been put in jail back in 1977, and why France was willing to harbour a rapist I don't understand.
But that didn't happen, and he was free to create some pretty universally-lauded films. I think it is possible to admire someone's work while recognizing that person is a vile human being.
One doesn’t be invalidate the other but they are inseparable. Polanski the film maker and Polanski the rapist are the same person you can’t have on without the other. Being a rapist doesn’t make him a bad director and being a great filmmaker doesn’t mean it’s ok for him to rape a girl but the Oscar was given to Polanski the person and that includes the good and the bad. The Producers Guild of America has banned Weinstein for life and it’s got nothing to do with Miramax movies it’s all about the organization not wanting to associate with a sexual predator, no amount of award worthy movies he produced can wash that stink off of him. The Academy decided that Polanski’s actions as a rapist weren’t enough to discourage them from giving him an Oscar and that’s their choice but they still decided that laudin a movie was more important than disassociating from a man who raped a child.
Sorry, I'm confused. If one doesn't invalidate the other then what's the issue with recognizing that this despicable rapist is a outstanding director?
I'm even more confused about how France is a safe haven for American criminals. Uncle Sam can't say, "Hey, Francis! A rapist of ours is in Paris, can we have him back?"
Because it’s the same person, the Academy lauded a rapist when they lauded a great director and not everyone is going to agree that great moviemaking is worthwhile enough to give an award to a rapist.
Mr. Burning wrote: More accusations regarding Kevin Spacey are surfacing.
Yeah, like a lot of people I originally focused on Spacey's weirdly timed coming out announcement. But reading his statement again on the actual incident is damning. It basically says 'I don't remember that but it sounds like something I'd do'. Which says he did stuff like that a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Nope. He's French, and France doesn't have to extradite it's own citizens to the US if it doesn't want to.
It's not popular, but he seems to be pretty popular with the French government.
The other part in all this that's very important is Polanski got absolutely rail roaded by the US courts. Basically he was offered a sweetheart plea deal for time served and so he pled guilty expecting to only get time served. But then word got back to him that the judge wasn't going to honour the plea and was instead going give a much more extreme sentence.
I've got no sympathy of Polanski because, you know, he raped a child, but that's not justice and most countries wouldn't return their citizens in those circumstances.
I mean, just imagine if Polanski was a US citizen who'd broken bail and come home to the US. Does anyone think the US would be in favour of sending him back, after he only admitted guilt because of a sweetheart plea deal that the foreign court then chose to ignore?
Bran Dawri wrote: So, how long until the first accusations from the music industry are going to break?
With all its similarities to the movie industry, I cannot imagine circumstances are very different there.
Or what about theater, musicals and ballet? I know someone who wanted to become a ballet dancer. He has exactly the same kind of stories. To advance is not just a matter of talent, but just as much a matter of letting yourself get touched by the right people.
It is really sad, but is there really a thing we can do about this kind of business? Not unless we massively shake up the way these industries work I think.
The fashion industry is the same. I read enough articles with vague accusations (the models can't just risk their jobs). Some of the worst cases are underaged eastern European models. They end up in Paris (or anywhere else far away from home), working at relatively low rates (the influx of eastern models pushed wages down from the 90s "supermodel era"), half a dozen living in one relatively small apartment, and some agency owners (or other people in positions of power) sexually harass and assault them. Those kids literary have no way out, they are not making huge sums of money and their wages are helping out their families at home (or even the only source of money) so they can't do much to avoid it because losing their job might end up destroying the financial stability of their family.
On today's show, for the first time ever, Corey Feldman identified one of his alleged abusers: John Grissom. pic.twitter.com/hrQUSTzSCc
— Dr. Mehmet Oz (@DrOz) November 2, 2017
On today's show, for the first time ever, Corey Feldman identified one of his alleged abusers: John Grissom. pic.twitter.com/hrQUSTzSCc
— Dr. Mehmet Oz (@DrOz) November 2, 2017
He has been saying for a while he was gonna call out the pedo's from the industry. Looks like he finally is. He tried to talk about it years ago but the press ignored him, essentially silenced through passiveness.
In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations. According to dozens of pages of documents, and seven people directly involved in the effort, the firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world’s largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives “highly experienced and trained in Israel’s elite military and governmental intelligence units,” according to its literature.
Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her. One of the investigators pretended to be a women’s-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan. The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press. In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details.
The explicit goal of the investigations, laid out in one contract with Black Cube, signed in July, was to stop the publication of the abuse allegations against Weinstein that eventually emerged in the New York Times and The New Yorker. Over the course of a year, Weinstein had the agencies “target,” or collect information on, dozens of individuals, and compile psychological profiles that sometimes focussed on their personal or sexual histories. Weinstein monitored the progress of the investigations personally. He also enlisted former employees from his film enterprises to join in the effort, collecting names and placing calls that, according to some sources who received them, felt intimidating.
May, 2017, McGowan received an e-mail from a literary agency introducing her to a woman who identified herself as Diana Filip, the deputy head of sustainable and responsible investments at Reuben Capital Partners, a London-based wealth-management firm. Filip told McGowan that she was launching an initiative to combat discrimination against women in the workplace, and asked McGowan, a vocal women’s-rights advocate, to speak at a gala kickoff event later that year. Filip offered McGowan a fee of sixty thousand dollars. “I understand that we have a lot in common,” Filip wrote to McGowan before their first meeting, in May, at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. Filip had a U.K. cell-phone number, and she spoke with what McGowan took to be a German accent. Over the following months, the two women met at least three more times at hotel bars in Los Angeles and New York and other locations. “I took her to the Venice boardwalk and we had ice cream while we strolled,” McGowan told me, adding that Filip was “very kind.” The two talked at length about issues relating to women’s empowerment. Filip also repeatedly told McGowan that she wanted to make a significant investment in McGowan’s production company.
Filip was persistent. In one e-mail, she suggested meeting in Los Angeles and then, when McGowan said she would be in New York, Filip said she could meet there just as easily. She also began pressing McGowan for information. In a conversation in July, McGowan revealed to Filip that she had spoken to me as part of my reporting on Weinstein. A week later, I received an e-mail from Filip asking for a meeting and suggesting that I join her campaign to end professional discrimination against women. “I am very impressed with your work as a male advocate for gender equality, and believe that you would make an invaluable addition to our activities,” she wrote, using her wealth-management firm’s e-mail address. Unsure of who she was, I did not respond.
Filip continued to meet with McGowan. In one meeting in September, Filip was joined by another Black Cube operative, who used the name Paul and claimed to be a colleague at Reuben Capital Partners. The goal, according to two sources with knowledge of the effort, was to pass McGowan to another operative to extract more information. On October 10th, the day The New Yorker published my story about Weinstein, Filip reached out to McGowan in an e-mail. “Hi Love,” she wrote. “How are you feeling? . . . Just wanted to tell you how brave I think you are.” She signed off with an “xx.” Filip e-mailed McGowan as recently as October 23rd.
In fact, “Diana Filip” was an alias for a former officer in the Israeli Defense Forces who originally hailed from Eastern Europe and was working for Black Cube, according to three individuals with knowledge of the situation. When I sent McGowan photos of the Black Cube agent, she recognized her instantly. “Oh my God,” she wrote back. “Reuben Capital. Diana Filip. No fething way.”
Kinda makes McGowan’s assertion that drugs were planted in her bag seem more plausible no ?
In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations. According to dozens of pages of documents, and seven people directly involved in the effort, the firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world’s largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives “highly experienced and trained in Israel’s elite military and governmental intelligence units,” according to its literature.
Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her. One of the investigators pretended to be a women’s-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan. The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press. In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details.
The explicit goal of the investigations, laid out in one contract with Black Cube, signed in July, was to stop the publication of the abuse allegations against Weinstein that eventually emerged in the New York Times and The New Yorker. Over the course of a year, Weinstein had the agencies “target,” or collect information on, dozens of individuals, and compile psychological profiles that sometimes focussed on their personal or sexual histories. Weinstein monitored the progress of the investigations personally. He also enlisted former employees from his film enterprises to join in the effort, collecting names and placing calls that, according to some sources who received them, felt intimidating.
May, 2017, McGowan received an e-mail from a literary agency introducing her to a woman who identified herself as Diana Filip, the deputy head of sustainable and responsible investments at Reuben Capital Partners, a London-based wealth-management firm. Filip told McGowan that she was launching an initiative to combat discrimination against women in the workplace, and asked McGowan, a vocal women’s-rights advocate, to speak at a gala kickoff event later that year. Filip offered McGowan a fee of sixty thousand dollars. “I understand that we have a lot in common,” Filip wrote to McGowan before their first meeting, in May, at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. Filip had a U.K. cell-phone number, and she spoke with what McGowan took to be a German accent. Over the following months, the two women met at least three more times at hotel bars in Los Angeles and New York and other locations. “I took her to the Venice boardwalk and we had ice cream while we strolled,” McGowan told me, adding that Filip was “very kind.” The two talked at length about issues relating to women’s empowerment. Filip also repeatedly told McGowan that she wanted to make a significant investment in McGowan’s production company.
Filip was persistent. In one e-mail, she suggested meeting in Los Angeles and then, when McGowan said she would be in New York, Filip said she could meet there just as easily. She also began pressing McGowan for information. In a conversation in July, McGowan revealed to Filip that she had spoken to me as part of my reporting on Weinstein. A week later, I received an e-mail from Filip asking for a meeting and suggesting that I join her campaign to end professional discrimination against women. “I am very impressed with your work as a male advocate for gender equality, and believe that you would make an invaluable addition to our activities,” she wrote, using her wealth-management firm’s e-mail address. Unsure of who she was, I did not respond.
Filip continued to meet with McGowan. In one meeting in September, Filip was joined by another Black Cube operative, who used the name Paul and claimed to be a colleague at Reuben Capital Partners. The goal, according to two sources with knowledge of the effort, was to pass McGowan to another operative to extract more information. On October 10th, the day The New Yorker published my story about Weinstein, Filip reached out to McGowan in an e-mail. “Hi Love,” she wrote. “How are you feeling? . . . Just wanted to tell you how brave I think you are.” She signed off with an “xx.” Filip e-mailed McGowan as recently as October 23rd.
In fact, “Diana Filip” was an alias for a former officer in the Israeli Defense Forces who originally hailed from Eastern Europe and was working for Black Cube, according to three individuals with knowledge of the situation. When I sent McGowan photos of the Black Cube agent, she recognized her instantly. “Oh my God,” she wrote back. “Reuben Capital. Diana Filip. No fething way.”
Kinda makes McGowan’s assertion that drugs were planted in her bag seem more plausible no ?
Seems so.
Also, Pro-tip to Law Students: When your client asks you to facilitate witness/target intimidation... your answer is always "No".
Y'know, it disgusts me enough that there are people like Weinstein. But now I'm even more disgusted knowing that there are people like these Black Cube companies that will happily accept money in exchange for covertly defending people like Weinstein and essentially supporting his actions.
Ouze wrote: That Rose Mcgowan drug thing seemed shady AF from the very beginning.
If the drugs were planted, sure. But she wouldn't be the first person in Hollywood to like a little snort now and then. Didn't I hear recently that one of the Stranger Things actors just got busted for bringing a little baggie of personal use coke into the country?
Yes, that's correct - Charlie Heaton was denied entry recently when he triggered a drug sniffing dog at LAX, and subsequently, cocaine reside was found on some of his stuff. He wasn't arrested.
That's certainly better than nothing. It doesn't solve the organized crime and lack of quality control/consumer safety issues, though, which accounts for most of the deaths the War on Drugs causes.
feeder wrote: That's certainly better than nothing. It doesn't solve the organized crime and lack of quality control/consumer safety issues, though, which accounts for most of the deaths the War on Drugs causes.
On the other hand, many lives are saved by such simple means as addicts getting access to clean needles and other paraphernalia without fear of police raids. Sharing needles because you fear getting them (or it's otherwise bothersome) spreads stuff like hepatitis and HIV, and getting treatment for such is also a problem for drug addicts if they'd be hauled in for the chemicals in their bloodwork.
And ofc, if using isn't a crime some rebellious people won't even want to try. What's the fun in doing something legal? Not to mention it frees massive police resources to hunt the guys that make the big money, ie the drug suppliers.
feeder wrote: That's certainly better than nothing. It doesn't solve the organized crime and lack of quality control/consumer safety issues, though, which accounts for most of the deaths the War on Drugs causes.
On the other hand, many lives are saved by such simple means as addicts getting access to clean needles and other paraphernalia without fear of police raids. Sharing needles because you fear getting them (or it's otherwise bothersome) spreads stuff like hepatitis and HIV, and getting treatment for such is also a problem for drug addicts if they'd be hauled in for the chemicals in their bloodwork.
Is getting arrested out of hospital for having traces of illegal substances in your bloodwork a thing? I come from the hippiest part of a hippy country, so maybe that never occurred to me. That's some draconian gak there.
And ofc, if using isn't a crime some rebellious people won't even want to try. What's the fun in doing something legal? Not to mention it frees massive police resources to hunt the guys that make the big money, ie the drug suppliers.
I'd rather free those resources to treat the guys that have issues with addiction, rather than making criminals out of job creators that are supplying a demand. People that manufacture cocaine are fundamentally the same as people that manufacture alcohol or run casinos.
According to reputable sources, America's real drug problem is legally prescribed opioids being used by the neglected working class in the pursuit of comforting oblivion.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Could we not get too sidetracked with the drugs discussion? Please?
Yes, sorry, I started this. My point (as related to the subject) was that it wouldn't be relatively easy to ruin a person by planting drugs in their luggage if we didn't have this ludicrous War on Drugs.
Kilkrazy wrote: According to reputable sources, America's real drug problem is legally prescribed opioids being used by the neglected working class in the pursuit of comforting oblivion.
I think part of the problem is that the medical community has done a horrible job at being entirely focused on "customer happiness" and is throwing narcotics at every little thing to keep pain at a zero and satisfaction ratings in the positive.
Instead we just need to tell people that pain-free procedures, and for many a pain-free life, are simply unrealistic and that they need to expect some pain.
I had my wisdom teeth taken out last year and was given a bottle full of Norco and 800mg tabs of ibuprofen. I took the Norco for a day because I've heard about how terrible wisdom teeth surgery is, but after two doses I figured I would just take the ibuprofen routinely for a week to stay on top of the pain and only take the Norco if I need it. Never took another pill after that day, because by using scheduled NSAIDs I was able to control it. Four months later I had a vasectomy and while I still got my legs up in stirrups the doc talks to me about pain control and how he is entering a script to my pharmacy for Norco for the pain and was out the door before I could even mention that I still have a bottle full of those things at home. 16 years ago I had a back injury at work and after having the workman's comp doc just write me pills for a month and then asking for surgery I asked him for a second opinion and he got pissed and fired me. The second doc didn't write for a single pill and just send me to physical therapy instead. After 4 weeks the pain was gone, and I still use those exercises if I get a tinge after all those years.
Hospitals don't want negative ratings by consumers impacting their profit, doctors don't want negative reviews and don't want to spend half their time explaining to people that some pain is normal. Insurance companies don't want to pay for physical therapy and other non-medication treatments for chronic pain, but they are happy to throw $5 at a bottle of pills.
Hydrocodone is the real gateway drug in the USA, and it's handed out like candy by the medical community.
Anyway, that's a rant for another thread...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Could we not get too sidetracked with the drugs discussion? Please?
Tying it all together, I've read about a doctor who prescribed addictive painkillers to his female patients so that they would become hooked...and then he would coerce them into giving him sexual favors in exchange for a prescription refill.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Tying it all together, I've read about a doctor who prescribed addictive painkillers to his female patients so that they would become hooked...and then he would coerce them into giving him sexual favors in exchange for a prescription refill.
"Now, when it says 'do no harm'... I'm not, like, actually hurting them, am I? More like doing them a favor amirite! Givin' them some Doctor Dong! "
The 'I Love You, Daddy' screening was abruptly axed just hours before it was set to take place.
The New York premiere of Louis C.K.'s upcoming film, I Love You, Daddy, set for Thursday, has been canceled. Reps for the premiere, due to take place at the Paris Theatre, cited "unexpected circumstances."
A source tells The Hollywood Reporter that a New York Times story on the comedian is about to break, and the premiere was canceled in case it is damaging. Additionally, Louis C.K.'s planned appearance on CBS' The Late Show With Stephen Colbert was also canceled, with William H. Macy taking his place.
Coming in on the tail of Louis CK:
"Portia de Rossi accuses Steven Seagal of sexual harassment"
The Arrested Development actress, who is married to US talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, made the allegation in a tweet posted on Wednesday night.
She alleges that during a film audition Mr Seagal told her "how important it was to have chemistry off-screen" before unzipping his trousers.
Mr Seagal's manager told BBC News that the actor had no comment.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Coming in on the tail of Louis CK:
"Portia de Rossi accuses Steven Seagal of sexual harassment"
The Arrested Development actress, who is married to US talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, made the allegation in a tweet posted on Wednesday night.
She alleges that during a film audition Mr Seagal told her "how important it was to have chemistry off-screen" before unzipping his trousers.
Mr Seagal's manager told BBC News that the actor had no comment.
I wonder what Hollywood will look like after this has had some time to play out. Unfortunately, sexual abuse will never go away completely. On the other hand, I can see the big studios and production companies really clamping down tight and doing their best to avoid this kind of liability. It doesn't seem much of a stretch for directors, actors and producers to be vetted like law enforcement or political candidates are (supposed to be), with a thorough background check before any kind of project is started. This kind of sustained movement has the potential to drastically alter the culture and politics of the entertainment industry, but I guess only time will tell in what ways.
The Louis CK thing has been talked about for a long time now. I remember when the accusations against Cosby first came to light there was a radio interview here talking about how the comedy industry is a tough business where most acts make very little money, so the few really big stars that command big audiences make the whole thing commercial, and as a result there are very strong motivations to protect those few really big earners. The conversation then went on how there were still comedians today who were being similarly protected to how Cosby was protected, which prompted the interviewer to ask if that was a reference the rumours about Louis CK. The interviewee was as honest in her reply as you could be without getting herself in legal trouble.
In other news, proving that people will still circle the wagons around people that are important to various establishments, there's a strong push back against the accusations against Roy Moore. The conservative media that has embraced every accusation against everyone in Hollywood has suddenly rediscovered that it is easy to accuse women of lying... because Moore is very important to them. I don't want to make this a political thing, because we're not allowed to do that, but there is an important point that needs to be made again and again - these people will remain protected as long as powerful groups want them protected, and those groups lack integrity.
Hollywood now hearing and respecting accusations against people who are still very powerful, like Kevin Spacey is maybe a good sign that Hollywood will no longer protect it's most powerful people, but it's more likely to be temporary as long as underlying power relationships remain. I think the only way we will see a change in any culture is if we see a change in every culture.
Galas wrote: One could expect that those people, having as much fame and power as they have, shouldn't need to do this kind of things to have sex.
Probably they could have all the women they want, willingly. But I suppose the feeling of forcing yourself on the basis of pure power is too ecstatic.
For the longest time I heard that mantra that rape wasn't about sex, it was about power. I always accepted this, but I'm not sure I really understood it. I think I understand it now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: I wonder what Hollywood will look like after this has had some time to play out.
Much like the issues with institutional cover up of paedophilia, we will miss any chance of reform if we hold up a single organisation/industry as a scapegoat for this. Pedophilia wasn't just in the Catholic Church, this isn't just a Hollywood thing.
Speaking of those entrenched power structures, there was a story today about Bill O'Reilly's contract.
His contract originally had a stipulation that he could not be fired for harassment unless the accusations against him were proven in court. As a result, he could just pay off accusers over and over again, and he was essentially immune from being fired for them.
Subsequent to the most recent $32 million dollars settlement, and with Roger Ailes leaving the picture, when O'Reilly's contract was renegotiated, that Fox board demanded that clause be struck, which is how he was originally fired.
Still, you have to wonder what kind of organization would sign such a contract, which clearly lays out a picture of someone as a serial sexual harasser and immunizes them from it.
I guess the same one that brings him back afterward as a guest to start his rehab tour, much as Mel Gibson is now enjoying.
Ouze wrote: Subsequent to the most recent $32 million dollars settlement, and with Roger Ailes leaving the picture, when O'Reilly's contract was renegotiated, that Fox board demanded that clause be struck, which is how he was originally fired.
When you make people a lot of money, the people who benefit will do anything to protect you, it seems.
Still, you have to wonder what kind of organization would sign such a contract, which clearly lays out a picture of someone as a serial sexual harasser and immunizes them from it.
I guess the same one that brings him back afterward as a guest to start his rehab tour
Probably the same sort of organisation that was run by a serial offender for years, and that is right now attempting to protect Roy Moore by attacking the women who've spoken out against him.
much as Mel Gibson is now enjoying.
Yeah, what the hell is that about? At least until about a year ago Gibson was largely leading his own productions, and they were pretty grim films. But now there's an ad on tv for some family comedy pap, and we're supposed to start pretending he's just a nice guy again or something?
he could not be fired for harassment unless the accusations against him were proven in court.
I don't think this is a bad contract clause, I wouldn't want to be fired for an accusation that wasn't true and you can only really prove it one way or another in court.
The mistake was not putting something about a financial settlement being tantamount to an admission of guilt in the contract.
Ouze wrote: Speaking of those entrenched power structures, there was a story today about Bill O'Reilly's contract.
His contract originally had a stipulation that he could not be fired for harassment unless the accusations against him were proven in court. As a result, he could just pay off accusers over and over again, and he was essentially immune from being fired for them.
Subsequent to the most recent $32 million dollars settlement, and with Roger Ailes leaving the picture, when O'Reilly's contract was renegotiated, that Fox board demanded that clause be struck, which is how he was originally fired.
Still, you have to wonder what kind of organization would sign such a contract, which clearly lays out a picture of someone as a serial sexual harasser and immunizes them from it.
I guess the same one that brings him back afterward as a guest to start his rehab tour, much as Mel Gibson is now enjoying.
The same organisation that now defends a child molester. Enter Roy Moore and Sean Hannity to the defense. Fox news, rape, molestation, crimes against women and children are only bad if democrats do it, its acceptable and defendable when R's do it.
sirlynchmob wrote: The same organisation that now defends a child molester. Enter Roy Moore and Sean Hannity to the defense. Fox news, rape, molestation, crimes against women and children are only bad if democrats do it, its acceptable and defendable when R's do it.
I don't think this is true, to be honest. I suspect partisanship is strong enough that if the exact same thing happened on the left, you'd see a similar circling of the wagons, because I think that's a feature of US culture. I'm not doing a "both sides are bad" appeal to moderation, so much as an observation that in the US, in 2017, political tribalism seems to trump all other values at this point and I have no real reason to think it's a right-wing phenomenon.
While the specific left/right angle is just a sure way to a political poop fling and a lock, it would be better, and certainly more on-topic to discuss how media organizations like Fox etc protect serial harassers so long as they are useful.
reds8n wrote: TBH I don't think that's even unique to the USA, pretty certain it's the same anywhere in the world.
That red team/blue team partisanship now trumps apparently all other values? That's sad to hear. I don't think it was a feature of this country until our relatively recent history - look at how many members of his own party helped to oust Nixon. There was a fair bit of cooperation between the two parties as recently as the latter half of the Clinton administration.
sirlynchmob wrote: The same organisation that now defends a child molester. Enter Roy Moore and Sean Hannity to the defense. Fox news, rape, molestation, crimes against women and children are only bad if democrats do it, its acceptable and defendable when R's do it.
I don't think this is true, to be honest. I suspect partisanship is strong enough that if the exact same thing happened on the left, you'd see a similar circling of the wagons, because I think that's a feature of US culture. I'm not doing a "both sides are bad" appeal to moderation, so much as an observation that in the US, in 2017, political tribalism seems to trump all other values at this point and I have no real reason to think it's a right-wing phenomenon.
While the specific left/right angle is just a sure way to a political poop fling and a lock, it would be better, and certainly more on-topic to discuss how media organizations like Fox etc protect serial harassers so long as they are useful.
Except we didn't see a circling of the wagons for Weinstein, he got kicked to the curb, no one is defending the guy Nor any of the other accused that have come to light. It is a right wing thing to defend their reps no matter how heinous the crime, It is only the right that does it.
I'm sure Murdoch will defend moore long enough so moore can vote to lower his taxes.
the thread has been political since the first post, I'm surprised it's still around.
sirlynchmob wrote: I'm sure Murdoch will defend moore long enough so moore can vote to lower his taxes.
Last night Hannity defended the relationship between a man in his 30s and a 14 year old child as "consensual", while interviewing a contributor who claimed actual victims of sexual assault and harassment are "few and far between"; so there really is no point in having this discussion, honestly. Roy Moore is 100% still going to be elected and you're still going to have plenty of defense of him because that's who we are now, so there really is no productive debate to be had there.
Obviously it started from a political place, as you note, and in fact I did very early on as well: certainly the much more widely known Bill O'Reilly had no thread started for him. However, both this thread and the topic have kind of evolved. It's not even really about Weinstein anymore.
reds8n wrote: TBH I don't think that's even unique to the USA, pretty certain it's the same anywhere in the world.
#MeToo has had a major impact in Sweden.
Among other things, several beloved TV-personas/hosts and journalists has been accused of (and quite a few have admitted to committing) many years of sexual abuse against female co-workers.
It seems our national theater (Dramaten) also has a long history of making cover ups for the male actors/performers when they get a little too touchy with their female co-workers.
Can't wait to see who or what will be exposed next week. Quite a few heads have already rolled, and more will follow.
reds8n wrote: TBH I don't think that's even unique to the USA, pretty certain it's the same anywhere in the world.
#MeToo has had a major impact in Sweden.
Among other things, several beloved TV-personas/hosts and journalists has been accused of (and quite a few have admitted to committing) many years of sexual abuse against female co-workers.
It seems our national theater (Dramaten) also has a long history of making cover ups for the male actors/performers when they get a little too touchy with their female co-workers.
Can't wait to see who or what will be exposed next week. Quite a few heads have already rolled, and more will follow.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing that. I was unaware of the larger impact beyond Hollywood. Are we seeing this in other EU natiosn as well thansk to Social Media? What about further abroad?
reds8n wrote: TBH I don't think that's even unique to the USA, pretty certain it's the same anywhere in the world.
#MeToo has had a major impact in Sweden.
Among other things, several beloved TV-personas/hosts and journalists has been accused of (and quite a few have admitted to committing) many years of sexual abuse against female co-workers.
It seems our national theater (Dramaten) also has a long history of making cover ups for the male actors/performers when they get a little too touchy with their female co-workers.
Can't wait to see who or what will be exposed next week. Quite a few heads have already rolled, and more will follow.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing that. I was unaware of the larger impact beyond Hollywood. Are we seeing this in other EU natiosn as well thansk to Social Media? What about further abroad?
The hashtag is quite popular in Germany, too, and I think one or two actresses have opened up about incidents in the German movie scene. Mostly I have seen discussions and opinions in online newspapers. So there's an impact here, too, at least to a certain degree.
sirlynchmob wrote: I'm sure Murdoch will defend moore long enough so moore can vote to lower his taxes.
Last night Hannity defended the relationship between a man in his 30s and a 14 year old child as "consensual", while interviewing a contributor who claimed actual victims of sexual assault and harassment are "few and far between"; so there really is no point in having this discussion, honestly. Roy Moore is 100% still going to be elected and you're still going to have plenty of defense of him because that's who we are now, so there really is no productive debate to be had there.
Obviously it started from a political place, as you note, and in fact I did very early on as well: certainly the much more widely known Bill O'Reilly had no thread started for him. However, both this thread and the topic have kind of evolved. It's not even really about Weinstein anymore.
We? No. That might be how you are, and way to many others, but it will never be my position.
I've seen how the thread has evolved, which is why I added in moore, so we can see the contrast on how those accused are treated. The two sides are in no way comparable on the subject.
the left ostracizes and rejects them, the right defends and welcomes them.
sirlynchmob wrote: I'm sure Murdoch will defend moore long enough so moore can vote to lower his taxes.
Last night Hannity defended the relationship between a man in his 30s and a 14 year old child as "consensual", while interviewing a contributor who claimed actual victims of sexual assault and harassment are "few and far between"; so there really is no point in having this discussion, honestly. Roy Moore is 100% still going to be elected and you're still going to have plenty of defense of him because that's who we are now, so there really is no productive debate to be had there.
Obviously it started from a political place, as you note, and in fact I did very early on as well: certainly the much more widely known Bill O'Reilly had no thread started for him. However, both this thread and the topic have kind of evolved. It's not even really about Weinstein anymore.
We? No. That might be how you are, and way to many others, but it will never be my position.
I've seen how the thread has evolved, which is why I added in moore, so we can see the contrast on how those accused are treated. The two sides are in no way comparable on the subject.
the left ostracizes and rejects them, the right defends and welcomes them.
Yeah, no.
Both political sides will defend/turn a blind eye to someone when its convenient. Harvy Wienstein for instance. The various people he donated to on the Left were happy to take his money even though his behavior was basically common knowledge. Everybody knew about it. It was only once it blew up like this that they decided to drop him, and you should note they still kept his money.
As you noted, they dropped him. Unlike a certain president who got elected with more accusations and lawsuits and saying he does it. also there's this current moore guy.
You don't see people claiming the bible says what wienstein did was ok, unlike moore.
Grey Templar wrote: Both political sides will defend/turn a blind eye to someone when its convenient. Harvy Wienstein for instance. The various people he donated to on the Left were happy to take his money even though his behavior was basically common knowledge. Everybody knew about it. It was only once it blew up like this that they decided to drop him, and you should note they still kept his money.
I follow entertainment news pretty closely and I don't think his behavior was common knowledge outside of certain small circles. I would hazard that the percentage of the general public who even knew his name, period, is incredibly tiny.
Also, the idea that it was common knowledge and was overlooked because of his invaluable campaign donations is pretty laughable. This is a guy who generated 2.5 million in donations over the last 17 years - I question if $140k in a year even gets you a call back from politicians at the national level, let alone looking the other way at what are likely serial criminal offenses. His power was rooted in his connections to directors, producers, agents, and other parts of the movie making infrastructure.
Grey Templar wrote: Both political sides will defend/turn a blind eye to someone when its convenient. Harvy Wienstein for instance. The various people he donated to on the Left were happy to take his money even though his behavior was basically common knowledge. Everybody knew about it. It was only once it blew up like this that they decided to drop him, and you should note they still kept his money.
I follow entertainment news pretty closely and I don't think his behavior was common knowledge outside of certain small circles. I would hazard that the percentage of the general public who even knew his name, period, is incredibly tiny.
Also, the idea that it was common knowledge and was overlooked because of his invaluable campaign donations is pretty laughable. This is a guy who generated 2.5 million in donations over the last 17 years - I question if $140k in a year even gets you a call back from politicians at the national level, let alone looking the other way at what are likely serial criminal offenses. His power was rooted in his connections to directors, producers, agents, and other parts of the movie making infrastructure.
Look, mate, we don't your 'facts' getting in the way of a good ol' Both Sides narrative.
Ouze wrote: Speaking of those entrenched power structures, there was a story today about Bill O'Reilly's contract.
His contract originally had a stipulation that he could not be fired for harassment unless the accusations against him were proven in court. As a result, he could just pay off accusers over and over again, and he was essentially immune from being fired for them.
Subsequent to the most recent $32 million dollars settlement, and with Roger Ailes leaving the picture, when O'Reilly's contract was renegotiated, that Fox board demanded that clause be struck, which is how he was originally fired.
Still, you have to wonder what kind of organization would sign such a contract, which clearly lays out a picture of someone as a serial sexual harasser and immunizes them from it.
I guess the same one that brings him back afterward as a guest to start his rehab tour, much as Mel Gibson is now enjoying.
The same organisation that now defends a child molester. Enter Roy Moore and Sean Hannity to the defense. Fox news, rape, molestation, crimes against women and children are only bad if democrats do it, its acceptable and defendable when R's do it.
No US politics please, even about weirdoes wearing Western cowboy hats.
Looks like Louis CK is being by far the most adult person on the receiving end of accusations thus far, openly confirming the accusations and admitting fault.
Comedian Louis C.K. has said the sexual misconduct allegations levied against him are true.
He apologized Friday after a bombshell report by the New York Times the day before cited five women who said the comedian engaged in sexual misconduct, including masturbating in front of them.
"These stories are true. At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true," he wrote. "But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It's a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly."
C.K. went on to say that he is "remorseful" and has "tried to learn" from his irresponsible behavior.
"There is nothing about this that I forgive myself for. And I have to reconcile it with who I am. Which is nothing compared to the task I left them with ... The hardest regret to live with is what you've done to hurt someone else," the statement continued.
He also apologized to the FX network, The Orchard production studio, the cast and crew of his film, "I Love You, Daddy," and others.
"I've brought pain to my family, my friends, my children and their mother," C.K. wrote. "I have spent my long and lucky career talking and saying anything I want. I will now step back and take a long time to listen."
Probably just an attempt to salvage a career out of this current tide of allegations, but a good one. It's probably the most contrite and sincere sounding apology of any in this whole sordid affair, accepting personal responsibility with minimal deflection and no attempts to dispute accusers stories or shame them. It will be interesting to see how it turns out for him, and if it will change anything for anyone else.
Galas wrote: One could expect that those people, having as much fame and power as they have, shouldn't need to do this kind of things to have sex.
Probably they could have all the women they want, willingly. But I suppose the feeling of forcing yourself on the basis of pure power is too ecstatic.
For the longest time I heard that mantra that rape wasn't about sex, it was about power. I always accepted this, but I'm not sure I really understood it. I think I understand it now.
As with all things, it's always about power: who has it, who doesn't, and what you can do with it. In instances like this, the message being sent is "I don't just have the power to have any woman, I have the power to take you."
sirlynchmob wrote: I'm sure Murdoch will defend moore long enough so moore can vote to lower his taxes.
Last night Hannity defended the relationship between a man in his 30s and a 14 year old child as "consensual", while interviewing a contributor who claimed actual victims of sexual assault and harassment are "few and far between"; so there really is no point in having this discussion, honestly. Roy Moore is 100% still going to be elected and you're still going to have plenty of defense of him because that's who we are now, so there really is no productive debate to be had there.
Obviously it started from a political place, as you note, and in fact I did very early on as well: certainly the much more widely known Bill O'Reilly had no thread started for him. However, both this thread and the topic have kind of evolved. It's not even really about Weinstein anymore.
We? No. That might be how you are, and way to many others, but it will never be my position.
I've seen how the thread has evolved, which is why I added in moore, so we can see the contrast on how those accused are treated. The two sides are in no way comparable on the subject.
the left ostracizes and rejects them, the right defends and welcomes them.
Yeah, no.
Both political sides will defend/turn a blind eye to someone when its convenient. Harvy Wienstein for instance. The various people he donated to on the Left were happy to take his money even though his behavior was basically common knowledge. Everybody knew about it. It was only once it blew up like this that they decided to drop him, and you should note they still kept his money.
That's exactly right.
It's exactly the same with this Moore guy, except that once his behaviour became common knowledge, rather than drop him, he has been defended strenuously by the Republicans.
Apart from that, he and Weinstein have been through the exact same process.
So far he said he didn’t do anything, but if he was “romantically pursuing” a teenage girl he would have gotten her parents consent, but he doesn’t remember any teenagers.
State Reps want the accusers persecuted. And the worst defense so far from some in the State leadership is “old guys hooked up with young girls in the Bible all the time, so what’s the big deal. Jesus was born to a teenage mom marrying an old guy, so why are people upset?”
Vaktathi wrote: . It's probably the most contrite and sincere sounding apology of any in this whole sordid affair, accepting personal responsibility with minimal deflection and no attempts to dispute accusers stories or shame them. It will be interesting to see how it turns out for him, and if it will change anything for anyone else.
One of the entertainment blogs I read asked if an apology is really meaningful if he never says the word "sorry" or "apology", and they ran with that headline so it poisoned the whole way I then read the statement
Make sure to remember these events the next time someone claims that rape and sexual abuse mainly is a problem among immigrants and that there's no "domestic" rape culture. This gak is everywhere. It permeates society from top to bottom. Wherever there is power there's gakbags ready to abuse that power to hurt others.
Make sure to remember these events the next time someone claims that rape and sexual abuse mainly is a problem among immigrants and that there's no "domestic" rape culture. This gak is everywhere. It permeates society from top to bottom. Wherever there is power there's gakbags ready to abuse that power to hurt others.
And he lives in Sweden, which I seem to recall is the rape capita .. err oh hang on
Ouze wrote: Obviously it started from a political place, as you note, and in fact I did very early on as well: certainly the much more widely known Bill O'Reilly had no thread started for him. However, both this thread and the topic have kind of evolved. It's not even really about Weinstein anymore.
The thread has certainly evolved, but I don't think there's any way to ignore the obvious political gaming going on in how the subject is being reported. It's not really feasible to discuss the twisted way Fox News is approaching accusations of sexual misconduct without pointing out that the network's reporting is driven completely by its political identity (which is where I point out I'm amazed no one has brought up the whole "legitimate rape" thing, but I guess others are better at segregating their brains than me).
I think people only care about power and abuse when it suits them, and if there's going to be a positive discussion of that there's no way around the blatant political edge the story took on very quickly after breaking and how that continues to effect the national discussion of Weinsein and others in news media. In that regard Roy Moore is a rather depressing example of society's hypocrisy in regards to power and abuse are on full display because I think you're completely right Ouze. He's going to win anyway. We as a society will have a debate amongst ourselves what it means to like someone's movies after finding out their a sleaze bag, but we will at best only offer a cursory mention of how hundreds of thousands or millions of people will vote for a sleaze bag and put him in political office because we all know he's going to win anyway and realize it's pointless. In that way Ellen Page's bit posted by Compel is very apt, because either we care about this issue everywhere or we really don't care at all, which is exactly why when this all blows over everyone will go back to not caring that some famous person in a hotel somewhere is fondling someone less famous, until it suddenly suits someone to care.
The "change" everyone keeps hoping for was dead before it had a chance to occur, because the story only blew up in the first place not because anyone wanted change but because someone realized they could gain by taking one sleaze back and smearing everyone and everything that sleaze bag had ever done, talked to, or been associated with with his sleaze. Change has to happen at the roots, and at our roots I think we still don't really care because I don't see much of a discussion about the hypocrisy the story itself represents; the use reduction of victimization to a game of political tit for tat.
I think it's less that we're compartmentalising it and more that we're consciously trying to avoid going into the 'American Politics' sphere because this all, as a whole, really needs to be discussed and the thread getting locked doesn't help that discussion.
That's one of the reasons why I linked Ellen's article rather than posting it
George Takei wrote:Friends,
I'm writing to respond to the accusations made by Scott R. Brunton. I want to assure you all that I am as shocked and bewildered at these claims as you must feel reading them.
The events he describes back in the 1980s simply did not occur, and I do not know why he has claimed them now. I have wracked my brain to ask if I remember Mr. Brunton, and I cannot say I do. But I do take these claims very seriously, and I wanted to provide my response thoughtfully and not out of the moment.
Right now it is a he said / he said situation, over alleged events nearly 40 years ago. But those that know me understand that non-consensual acts are so antithetical to my values and my practices, the very idea that someone would accuse me of this is quite personally painful.
Brad, who is 100 percent beside me on this, as my life partner of more than 30 years and now my husband, stands fully by my side. I cannot tell you how vital it has been to have his unwavering support and love in these difficult times.
Thanks to many of you for all the kind words and trust. It means so much to us.
Yours in gratitude,
George
sirlynchmob wrote: I'm sure Murdoch will defend moore long enough so moore can vote to lower his taxes.
Last night Hannity defended the relationship between a man in his 30s and a 14 year old child as "consensual", while interviewing a contributor who claimed actual victims of sexual assault and harassment are "few and far between"; so there really is no point in having this discussion, honestly. Roy Moore is 100% still going to be elected and you're still going to have plenty of defense of him because that's who we are now, so there really is no productive debate to be had there.
Obviously it started from a political place, as you note, and in fact I did very early on as well: certainly the much more widely known Bill O'Reilly had no thread started for him. However, both this thread and the topic have kind of evolved. It's not even really about Weinstein anymore.
It still *is* about Weinstein... and anyone else of the like.
I just watched a replay of the segment of that Hannity segment. The consensual part he was referring to the 17/18 yo and as to the 14 yo, Moore had a very tepid response. Frankly, that Hannity interview should sink Moore.
Anyway, I think your overall point can be distilled to as "Political Tribalisms" at it's worst. It's a freaking repeat of the Clinton allegations in the 90's.
Ouze wrote: I don't think this is true, to be honest. I suspect partisanship is strong enough that if the exact same thing happened on the left, you'd see a similar circling of the wagons, because I think that's a feature of US culture. I'm not doing a "both sides are bad" appeal to moderation, so much as an observation that in the US, in 2017, political tribalism seems to trump all other values at this point and I have no real reason to think it's a right-wing phenomenon.
While the specific left/right angle is just a sure way to a political poop fling and a lock, it would be better, and certainly more on-topic to discuss how media organizations like Fox etc protect serial harassers so long as they are useful.
You have a point to an extent, afterall the left covered for Bill Clinton, and looked to minimise his escapades as just being a blow job etc. Except it is not okay to pursue sex with people much lower in power, and there's probably no greater power differential on earth than the president compared to an intern. And the Paula Jones account is really not at all different to what Weinstein did - she was an Arkansas employee who was taken up to his room apparently for work, only for Clinton to then attempt to pressure her in to sex.
So I think on an individual partisan level you are probably correct. But individual partisans are only a small part of politics, large organisations drive most of what happens. Right now FOX and Breitbart are running tightly focused editorial content that is specifically aimed to minimise the allegations against Moore and turn it in to just another part of the culture war - its not a coincidence that Moore's defense specifically claims this is just a political attack because it comes from WaPo, which is also the exact attack being made by Breitbart. In contrast, Weinstein wasn't defended by any media on the left, in fact it was the NYT and New Yorker that broke the story.
There are differences and they need to be understood and thought about. Not for the sake of one side of politics or the other wining a point, but because it shows the difference in cultures and structures that leads to victims being pressured in to silence, compared to those that allow and even support victims who speak out.
Both political sides will defend/turn a blind eye to someone when its convenient. Harvy Wienstein for instance. The various people he donated to on the Left were happy to take his money even though his behavior was basically common knowledge. Everybody knew about it. It was only once it blew up like this that they decided to drop him, and you should note they still kept his money.
That's a claim that's been made a lot, and it's basically junk. It was reportedly known in certain circles in Hollywood, but not outside of that. Malia Obama interned for Weinstein, for god's sake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Looks like George Takei has been added to the list now.
A pretty detailed story, with accusations of being drugged as well.
It's so hard to tell with stuff like this. It's really just one word versus another.
I'm not sure it is ever just one word vs another. There's a lot we can look at to make a pretty reasonable guess about the truthfulness of the claims. Is there just one accuser, or several? How much of the accuser's story fits with what can be verified? Does the accused attempt to dispute the details of the claims, or just deny and vilify the accuser?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Make sure to remember these events the next time someone claims that rape and sexual abuse mainly is a problem among immigrants and that there's no "domestic" rape culture. This gak is everywhere. It permeates society from top to bottom. Wherever there is power there's gakbags ready to abuse that power to hurt others.
This must be a Sweden specific comment. I literally don't know what the feth you are talking about.
d-usa wrote: So far he said he didn’t do anything, but if he was “romantically pursuing” a teenage girl he would have gotten her parents consent, but he doesn’t remember any teenagers.
State Reps want the accusers persecuted. And the worst defense so far from some in the State leadership is “old guys hooked up with young girls in the Bible all the time, so what’s the big deal. Jesus was born to a teenage mom marrying an old guy, so why are people upset?”
Well if we're going to talk about politicians, I agree with D-usa here, this is the 8th level of crazy. COme on Alabama, you're embarrassing yourself now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: The point being, male and father of Weiner Dogs, you wouldn't.
I've never heard the term Milkshake Duck before. That's a good learning point and I think it's an excellent description of this kind of post hoc regret regarding someone you admired who turns out to have feet of clay.
When it comes to revising someone's history and works, should we stop watching a film or reading a book by someone who turns out to have been an abuser?
I've seen that discussion quite often (for example, relating to Lovecraft and his racism). While, ultimately it's up to someones own personal viewpoints and whether they are able to enjoy a piece of work independently of its creators, the general conclusion I've seen people come to is, while, yes it can be ok, there is still an onus and responsibility to acknowledge the creators flaws and to educate oneself about them and the possible influences it bears on their work.
Going back to the Lovecraft example, in the context of my previous paragraph, it's fair to enjoy his stories, to enjoy 'Call of Cthulhu' and all the things that have since spun out of this source but a person also needs to realise that these stories about the 'fear and terror' of the outsiders are ultimately about Lovecraft's fear of people who looked different from him.
Although, when dealing with this and people who are still alive, one should probably factor in the consideration of the ramifications of one continuing to fund such a person and therefore taking responsibility for that choice, and the continued impact on ones victims...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Make sure to remember these events the next time someone claims that rape and sexual abuse mainly is a problem among immigrants and that there's no "domestic" rape culture. This gak is everywhere. It permeates society from top to bottom. Wherever there is power there's gakbags ready to abuse that power to hurt others.
This must be a Sweden specific comment. I literally don't know what the feth you are talking about.
Because when these types of discussions come up, Sweden is often accused of being the rape capitol of the world (due to some dishonest interpretation of the statistics), so other counties must be just fine by comparison.
Compel wrote: I've seen that discussion quite often (for example, relating to Lovecraft and his racism). While, ultimately it's up to someones own personal viewpoints and whether they are able to enjoy a piece of work independently of its creators, the general conclusion I've seen people come to is, while, yes it can be ok, there is still an onus and responsibility to acknowledge the creators flaws and to educate oneself about them and the possible influences it bears on their work.
Going back to the Lovecraft example, in the context of my previous paragraph, it's fair to enjoy his stories, to enjoy 'Call of Cthulhu' and all the things that have since spun out of this source but a person also needs to realise that these stories about the 'fear and terror' of the outsiders are ultimately about Lovecraft's fear of people who looked different from him.
Although, when dealing with this and people who are still alive, one should probably factor in the consideration of the ramifications of one continuing to fund such a person and therefore taking responsibility for that choice, and the continued impact on ones victims...
While a good point, I'm not sure Lovecraft's attitudes are a good comparison. Much like RE Howard and other contemporaries, their racism was much more a product of their time and socially accepted culture than sexual assault is nowadays. These faults were a product of their time rather than a fault in their moral fibre. As opposed to Weinstein and his ilk who are scumbags by the standards of their own time already.
If memory serves, from various reading of articles I've done about Lovecraft (articles about him were popular when he was taken off of the 'World Fantasy awards' award), 'a product of his time' really doesn't wash for excusing him. - EG, he was called out for his attitude by various contemplates on several occasions.
George Takei wrote:Friends,
I'm writing to respond to the accusations made by Scott R. Brunton. I want to assure you all that I am as shocked and bewildered at these claims as you must feel reading them.
The events he describes back in the 1980s simply did not occur, and I do not know why he has claimed them now. I have wracked my brain to ask if I remember Mr. Brunton, and I cannot say I do. But I do take these claims very seriously, and I wanted to provide my response thoughtfully and not out of the moment.
Right now it is a he said / he said situation, over alleged events nearly 40 years ago. But those that know me understand that non-consensual acts are so antithetical to my values and my practices, the very idea that someone would accuse me of this is quite personally painful.
Brad, who is 100 percent beside me on this, as my life partner of more than 30 years and now my husband, stands fully by my side. I cannot tell you how vital it has been to have his unwavering support and love in these difficult times.
Thanks to many of you for all the kind words and trust. It means so much to us.
Yours in gratitude,
George
Some pretty delicious irony here. Apparently when you're the one staring down the barrel of nasty allegations it's time for nuance and discussion, but not before.
I don't think "delicious irony" is a great choice of words when it comes to potential sexual assault and the victims.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Make sure to remember these events the next time someone claims that rape and sexual abuse mainly is a problem among immigrants and that there's no "domestic" rape culture. This gak is everywhere. It permeates society from top to bottom. Wherever there is power there's gakbags ready to abuse that power to hurt others.
Agreed, from #metoo it appears widespread in Europe as well as the US. Sadly just the term 'rape culture' only brings out the worst gak in certain parts of society, instead of leading to a constructive debate.
whembly wrote:At least Louis CK is facing the music honestly.
The last time his response to similar accusations was that it's just rumours (and he was general dismissive of the accusations). Now that it might hit him financially he's apologising.
Frazzled wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Make sure to remember these events the next time someone claims that rape and sexual abuse mainly is a problem among immigrants and that there's no "domestic" rape culture. This gak is everywhere. It permeates society from top to bottom. Wherever there is power there's gakbags ready to abuse that power to hurt others.
This must be a Sweden specific comment. I literally don't know what the feth you are talking about.
Are you sure? I don't want to drag politics into this but just watch the first 40 seconds of this video as a reminder:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Make sure to remember these events the next time someone claims that rape and sexual abuse mainly is a problem among immigrants and that there's no "domestic" rape culture. This gak is everywhere. It permeates society from top to bottom. Wherever there is power there's gakbags ready to abuse that power to hurt others.
Agreed, from #metoo it appears widespread in Europe as well as the US. Sadly just the term 'rape culture' only brings out the worst gak in certain parts of society, instead of leading to a constructive debate.
There is a wide divide between "widespread sexual harassment" and "rape culture" which makes the latter a non-productive label if your goal is constructive debate.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Make sure to remember these events the next time someone claims that rape and sexual abuse mainly is a problem among immigrants and that there's no "domestic" rape culture. This gak is everywhere. It permeates society from top to bottom. Wherever there is power there's gakbags ready to abuse that power to hurt others.
Agreed, from #metoo it appears widespread in Europe as well as the US. Sadly just the term 'rape culture' only brings out the worst gak in certain parts of society, instead of leading to a constructive debate.
There is a wide divide between "widespread sexual harassment" and "rape culture" which makes the latter a non-productive label if your goal is constructive debate.
Rape culture as a concept goes beyond plain rape, in that sense its perhaps an unlucky choice. It includes widespread sexual harassment, but also slut shaming, trivialization of sexual assault,, victim blaming, objectification and normalization of acts such as prison rape (you can even find people advocating for prison rape right here in off-topic). See how many of these cases include any of the above. Rape culture might be an unfortunate term to some, but there is no denying that Western society handles sexual assault relatively poorly.
The dad in the Brock Turner case really was a 'shining' example calling rape "20 minutes of action" his son shouldn't lose his future over. But several judges have also hit headlines in the past years with absolutely eyebrow raising comments.
I mostly think you just proved my point by having to expound on the term. Rape is not the social norm, so the term "rape culture" can't stand on its own, if someone accuses a person of rape and the person says "yeah, I did, so what" they're going to become a social punching bag and go to jail. If "rape culture" is a more ethereal term rather than a direct one, instead describing background effects that might lead to a higher incidence of rape, then you're always going to have arguments about its existence and/or severity in society as a whole.
Few deny scumbags exist and are a widespread problem, but "rape culture" is a rather large leap from "scumbags exist".
Compel wrote: Gal Gadot has announced that she will walk away from Wonder Woman 2 if Brett Ratner continues to have any involment with the DC Comics and the films.
A hollow threat given WB already severed their partnership with Ratner.
I mostly think you just proved my point by having to expound on the term. Rape is not the social norm, so the term "rape culture" can't stand on its own, if someone accuses a person of rape and the person says "yeah, I did, so what" they're going to become a social punching bag and go to jail. If "rape culture" is a more ethereal term rather than a direct one, instead describing background effects that might lead to a higher incidence of rape, then you're always going to have arguments about its existence and/or severity in society as a whole.
Few deny scumbags exist and are a widespread problem, but "rape culture" is a rather large leap from "scumbags exist".
So what? We call it 'sexual assault' culture? Why? The term has existed for decades and is an influential concept in feminism. The problem of sexual assault is widespread, only 20% gets reported. Thats hundreds of thousands of cases, maybe even millions in countries as large as the US. That goes beyond "scumbags exist". Plus the trivialization, victim blaming and people rooting for prison rape gets out on public forums. Its not just dark corners where people hide these opinions, they feel comfortable enough to out them socially. Hell, Moore's defenders are a great recent example of this.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: if someone accuses a person of rape and the person says "yeah, I did, so what" they're going to become a social punching bag and go to jail.
Unless it turns into "look how short her skirt was" or "she just changed her mind" or "she slept with A/B/C/D and liked it, so clearly that slut wanted me too" or "we're married, of course sex happens" or any of the countless other arguments that it wasn't really rape.
Compel wrote: Gal Gadot has announced that she will walk away from Wonder Woman 2 if Brett Ratner continues to have any involment with the DC Comics and the films.
A hollow threat given WB already severed their partnership with Ratner.
Apparently they still have a $450 million with the production company that... He owns.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: if someone accuses a person of rape and the person says "yeah, I did, so what" they're going to become a social punching bag and go to jail.
Unless it turns into "look how short her skirt was" or "she just changed her mind" or "she slept with A/B/C/D and liked it, so clearly that slut wanted me too" or "we're married, of course sex happens" or any of the countless other arguments that it wasn't really rape.
Then we have cases like Brock Turner, who was caught in the act and only had to serve three months. How many Turner cases don't make the news?
whembly wrote:At least Louis CK is facing the music honestly.
The last time his response to similar accusations was that it's just rumours (and he was general dismissive of the accusations). Now that it might hit him financially he's apologising.
Frazzled wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Make sure to remember these events the next time someone claims that rape and sexual abuse mainly is a problem among immigrants and that there's no "domestic" rape culture. This gak is everywhere. It permeates society from top to bottom. Wherever there is power there's gakbags ready to abuse that power to hurt others.
This must be a Sweden specific comment. I literally don't know what the feth you are talking about.
Are you sure? I don't want to drag politics into this but just watch the first 40 seconds of this video as a reminder:
You missed where he said some illegals. We just had an illegal open up with a rifle on drivers on I 35 in Austin the other day.
Honestly, "rape culture" as an academic concept is hardly that outrageous. People get hung up on the "rape" part for some reason and start arguing vehemently against it, but you don't see people arguing against political realism despite the theory's name having much more outrageous implications.
It's almost as if people don't want to accept that there's a massive problem with sexual assault... Y'know, like the concept of "rape culture" posits in the first place.
Its the tried and classic defense of semantics. You see the exact same thing in discussions about climate change, like when someone makes the oh so clever observation that "the weather is always changing." It's missing the forest through the trees.
I mostly think you just proved my point by having to expound on the term. Rape is not the social norm, so the term "rape culture" can't stand on its own, if someone accuses a person of rape and the person says "yeah, I did, so what" they're going to become a social punching bag and go to jail. If "rape culture" is a more ethereal term rather than a direct one, instead describing background effects that might lead to a higher incidence of rape, then you're always going to have arguments about its existence and/or severity in society as a whole.
Few deny scumbags exist and are a widespread problem, but "rape culture" is a rather large leap from "scumbags exist".
So what? We call it 'sexual assault' culture? Why?
Because, IMO at least, the term "rape culture" should probably be reserved as a description of times where rape IS accepted and normalised. When you hear about comfort women in WW2 or sex slaves or women raped and murdered in honour killings, thank feth we don't live in a society that sort of crap is considered anything less than disgusting and abhorrent.
Maybe I'm just trying to be overly optimistic but I'm happy if nothing else that on the whole people do want to string up the scumbags who use their power to take advantage of others, to me that's encouraging because it shows we don't live in a culture that could be described as a "rape culture" other than as being hyperbole (and inflammatory hyperbole is rarely a great way to start a productive discussion).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Its the tried and classic defense of semantics. You see the exact same thing in discussions about climate change, like when someone makes the oh so clever observation that "the weather is always changing." It's missing the forest through the trees.
I'm not going to get in to your climate change analogy because, well, what's the point... but language is important. It is totally debatable that items one person considers as contributing to "rape culture" actually does increase likelihood or decrease perceived severity of rape, so if you want a meaningful discussion then discuss those items instead of using catch phrases that will only reinforce a person's stance (either for or against yours).
Anyone seeking to have a meaningful discussion about something should be able to see that language is important. If all you want to do is further ingrain existing divides, sure, use whatever language you like, but then don't cry about how meaningful discussion is quashed by it.
The argument about the legitimacy of the "rape culture" concept derives from a reluctance to admit that sexual discrimination, harassment and assault is much more widespread than many people believe.
Therefore when such a case occurs various reasons are put forward to deny the existence of the overarching acceptance by society of predominantly male predation on women.
"It's just locker room talk."
"All I did was put my hand on her knee."
"She was asking for it, flaunting herself in that kind of dress."
And so on, and so on.
The fact is, these kind of attentions have never been acceptable to women, they are things that women have been forced to put up with due to the imbalance of power in society.
Things have changed a lot in the past 20 years, and there are a lot of older men around who may have done these and got away with it. Now it's no longer acceptable to do these things and the chickens are coming home to roost.
H.B.M.C. wrote: A hollow threat given WB already severed their partnership with Ratner.
WB and Ratner agreed Ratner would not be involved in any film as a director. But Ratner co-owns a financing company with Steve Mnuchin (Trump's Treasury Secretary) and James Packer (the Australian billionaire). They fund somewhere around 25% of most major WB films, including the original Wonder Woman and a whole bunch of other WB films outside the DC stable (like Gravity and the Lego Movies).
Gal Gadot is saying she won't sign for another WW unless WB stops its financing deal with Ratner RatPac-Dune entirely. For WB that's a massive demand, there RatPac-Dune can have several hundred million shuffling around in WB films at any one tme, you can't just find a replacement financing partner on that scale by putting an ad in the paper.
Don't do that. You know full well what Trump intended people to hear, and you know exactly what the audience heard. Sneaking weasel words in there doesn't change the message.
I mostly think you just proved my point by having to expound on the term. Rape is not the social norm, so the term "rape culture" can't stand on its own, if someone accuses a person of rape and the person says "yeah, I did, so what" they're going to become a social punching bag and go to jail. If "rape culture" is a more ethereal term rather than a direct one, instead describing background effects that might lead to a higher incidence of rape, then you're always going to have arguments about its existence and/or severity in society as a whole.
Few deny scumbags exist and are a widespread problem, but "rape culture" is a rather large leap from "scumbags exist".
So what? We call it 'sexual assault' culture? Why?
Because, IMO at least, the term "rape culture" should probably be reserved as a description of times where rape IS accepted and normalised. When you hear about comfort women in WW2 or sex slaves or women raped and murdered in honour killings, thank feth we don't live in a society that sort of crap is considered anything less than disgusting and abhorrent.
Maybe I'm just trying to be overly optimistic but I'm happy if nothing else that on the whole people do want to string up the scumbags who use their power to take advantage of others, to me that's encouraging because it shows we don't live in a culture that could be described as a "rape culture" other than as being hyperbole (and inflammatory hyperbole is rarely a great way to start a productive discussion).
No, again the term wasn't made to cover those things. What you mention also falls under what we call war crimes and sex slavery/trafficking, which would/should be the terms used in those cases. You just take issue with the rape part, so you want to call it sexual assault culture because you're uncomfortable with using a strong expression of sexual assault (i.e. rape) as the name for the wider concept? It draws the attention, its a strong term that makes people uncomfortable, but that is the name chosen. Like AlmightyWalrus mentions, we use the term realism in a variety of acedemic concepts, that have no reflection on the actual underlying meaning, should we change all terms like that?
Hahaha wait what, string up the scumbags? This is a joke right? All they have suffered in most cases mentioned here is the loss of their careers and/or reputations, they are still rich and free. Hell, sexual assault won't stand in the way of gaining the presidency or election to the senate! Most rapists won't even get convicted or put on trial because victims don't want to come forward in this society. You take issue with the term rape culture, but then continue with a naive view of what happens to rapists. In most cases its he said, she said and guess who they will believe? Because as Peregrine points out, character assasination is still a pretty good way to get people to blame the victim.
PS: why only argue semantics, and not the millions of likely victims that show its not just a "scumbags exists", societal acceptance of prison rape as punishment, trivialization in politics and other parts of rape culture? Your argument seems to be that we don't live in a 'sexual assault' culture that we tend to turn a blind eye to?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Because, IMO at least, the term "rape culture" should probably be reserved as a description of times where rape IS accepted and normalised. When you hear about comfort women in WW2 or sex slaves or women raped and murdered in honour killings, thank feth we don't live in a society that sort of crap is considered anything less than disgusting and abhorrent.
Maybe I'm just trying to be overly optimistic but I'm happy if nothing else that on the whole people do want to string up the scumbags who use their power to take advantage of others, to me that's encouraging because it shows we don't live in a culture that could be described as a "rape culture" other than as being hyperbole (and inflammatory hyperbole is rarely a great way to start a productive discussion).
Right now there have been defenses of Moore that relations between a man over 30 and a 14 year old is biblically okay. Another Alabama official said the accusers should be prosecuted. Meanwhile on FOX News Hannity is trying to discredit the accuser by claiming most claims like this are lies.
Those sorts of attacks on the accuser are pretty common (well maybe not the biblical one, that was pretty amazing). So there is a culture that punishes people for speaking out, which allows abusers to offend again and again. You are right that the issue is nowhere near comfort women, but the difference is not one of type, but merely degrees.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Because, IMO at least, the term "rape culture" should probably be reserved as a description of times where rape IS accepted and normalised. When you hear about comfort women in WW2 or sex slaves or women raped and murdered in honour killings, thank feth we don't live in a society that sort of crap is considered anything less than disgusting and abhorrent.
Maybe I'm just trying to be overly optimistic but I'm happy if nothing else that on the whole people do want to string up the scumbags who use their power to take advantage of others, to me that's encouraging because it shows we don't live in a culture that could be described as a "rape culture" other than as being hyperbole (and inflammatory hyperbole is rarely a great way to start a productive discussion).
Right now there have been defenses of Moore that relations between a man over 30 and a 14 year old is biblically okay. Another Alabama official said the accusers should be prosecuted. Meanwhile on FOX News Hannity is trying to discredit the accuser by claiming most claims like this are lies.
Those sorts of attacks on the accuser are pretty common (well maybe not the biblical one, that was pretty amazing). So there is a culture that punishes people for speaking out, which allows abusers to offend again and again. You are right that the issue is nowhere near comfort women, but the difference is not one of type, but merely degrees.
Well put. I'd like to add that those sorts of attacks/opinions are held through sections of the public. A public that includes law enforcement and the judiciary system (just a part of course). Which has a significant impact as these are the institutions we turn to for justice. But then we get 'gems' like "why didn't you close your legs", "sometimes sex hurts" and "is it rape if you don't scream/struggle?". I kid people not, those have been some comments by judges over the years made to the victim. Even if those comments aren't rape they are part of the wider opinions around sexual assault, how are they not terribly problematic to hold in such positions? What will victims think reading about that if they haven't reported their own case yet? How many hold these views subconciously and don't voice them and subsequently get removed from their positions?
You missed where he said some illegals. We just had an illegal open up with a rifle on drivers on I 35 in Austin the other day.
You mean where he said "some are good people" the rest are rapists and criminals.
whats the difference when an 'illegal" shoots up a place as opposed to any other American? None at all I'd guess.
here's your thoughts & prayers.
anywho back on topic, I thought we were past the rape culture until trump got elected, weeiner got reelected, and moore gets defended. Also the war on women that the R's have been waging for decades now. It's pretty clear now that America has a problem with how women are treated.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is all part of rape culture. Not only to tacitly sanction sexual harassment against women, but also to discourage complaints when they occur.
Yes, its what people tend to forget when they focus too much on a single word instead of the concept.
sirlynchmob wrote: anywho back on topic, I thought we were past the rape culture until trump got elected, weeiner got reelected, and moore gets defended. Also the war on women that the R's have been waging for decades now. It's pretty clear now that America has a problem with how women are treated.
While rights of women (mainly relating to birth control) are a politically contentious issue in the US, more so than most of Western Europe, the #metoo movement has shown that society wise Western Europe is pretty bad too. Its not enough that politics are progressive/liberal on this (although its a great start). Just accepting it happens on the political stage isn't enough to tackle it in society, let alone in other organizational structures and institutions such as media and business.
LordofHats wrote: Its the tried and classic defense of semantics. You see the exact same thing in discussions about climate change, like when someone makes the oh so clever observation that "the weather is always changing." It's missing the forest through the trees.
I'm not going to get in to your climate change analogy because, well, what's the point... but language is important. It is totally debatable that items one person considers as contributing to "rape culture" actually does increase likelihood or decrease perceived severity of rape, so if you want a meaningful discussion then discuss those items instead of using catch phrases that will only reinforce a person's stance (either for or against yours).
Anyone seeking to have a meaningful discussion about something should be able to see that language is important. If all you want to do is further ingrain existing divides, sure, use whatever language you like, but then don't cry about how meaningful discussion is quashed by it.
Thanks for providing an excellent example of what I'm talking about
Anyone seeking to have a meaningful discussion would have the intellectual maturity to push past the semantic to explore underlying conception, not just argue a banal and purposefully dismissive position about hwo "language is important." Meaning is important, and language is merely a tool to convey it. Turning language into an arbitrarily rigid rock with which to beat ideas you dislike isn't insightful or clever, but it is a great way to quash meaningful discussion while claiming a intellectual high ground that hasn't been earned.
H.B.M.C. wrote: A hollow threat given WB already severed their partnership with Ratner.
WB and Ratner agreed Ratner would not be involved in any film as a director. But Ratner co-owns a financing company with Steve Mnuchin (Trump's Treasury Secretary) and James Packer (the Australian billionaire). They fund somewhere around 25% of most major WB films, including the original Wonder Woman and a whole bunch of other WB films outside the DC stable (like Gravity and the Lego Movies).
Gal Gadot is saying she won't sign for another WW unless WB stops its financing deal with Ratner RatPac-Dune entirely. For WB that's a massive demand, there RatPac-Dune can have several hundred million shuffling around in WB films at any one tme, you can't just find a replacement financing partner on that scale by putting an ad in the paper.
Points for being ballsy I guess, but I'm not so sure that one will pan out.
Is because rape culture that we see things like this:
Spoiler:
And we make hundreds of excuses to convince ourselves that it was totally normal, you know! And we saw that kind of thing all the time. Go to a park, take look in the bus, or in the subway. You'll see cases of sexual harassment everywhere. Some minor, others worse, but all carefully subtle so people aroud it don't notice.
I spend two weeks counting that when I was in Madrid (The capital of spain, many people, and nobody pay attention to other people) and my media at the end was 6.5 sexual harassments a day. Most of those where in the morning, on the Subway. The amount of people randomly touching the ass of a woman, just to see how the woman tensed, without even trying to see who had touched her, was disgusting.
I stoped paying attention to that kind of things, really. It was depressing.
Probably worth ignoring anyone arguing that we should avoid 'catchphrases' like rape culture. They might as well be saying 'male gaze? What you talking about? Women have eyes, too!'.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is all part of rape culture. Not only to tacitly sanction sexual harassment against women, but also to discourage complaints when they occur.
Yes, its what people tend to forget when they focus too much on a single word instead of the concept.
One could also think of rape culture as shorthand for "a culture that makes life easier for (would be) rapists and sexual harassers and enables them even if that culture is superficially/technically against it and that culture often lets them get away with it". Rape culture is just a bit shorter and easier to handle and more of a technical term that's not commonly used in general small talk.
I think this is the first one I've been kind of less believing of. - But then, that's part of the whole thing, isn't it?
It's worth saying that this is the first of the recent ones that someone has come out saying, "no this is horse****" Not just a, "oh, I was drunk, I don't remember" or "the bible says it's ok" but a very strenuous denial of anything of the sort.
The other thing is, Takei is, some would say, a very easy target for such a thing. Being non-white, gay, an opponent to the current establishment...
Overall, I honestly don't know what to think of this one...
Well, I guess there's the "Allison Mack" allegations too, which I'm kinda surprised hasn't gotten more traction over all. But that whole thing is just firmly in the area of 'completely bizarre to comprehend' to me.
Compel wrote: It's worth saying that this is the first of the recent ones that someone has come out saying, "no this is horse****" Not just a, "oh, I was drunk, I don't remember" or "the bible says it's ok" but a very strenuous denial of anything of the sort.
Which is one of the odder things about Roy Moore, to circle back for a bit - he gave a pretty bizarre, at best, defense of himself. Do you date teenage girls? "Not generally, no", and "that wouldn't have been my customary behavior" are definitely not the kind of denials that should engender proxy defenses of him.
I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists. If someone said "witch trials are a problem in society" the response would be of confusion over why someone would have such a silly viewpoint. It's like when when people say "racism is dead" or "sexism is dead" if it were actually dead no one would make that statement. No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.
Compel wrote: It's worth saying that this is the first of the recent ones that someone has come out saying, "no this is horse****" Not just a, "oh, I was drunk, I don't remember" or "the bible says it's ok" but a very strenuous denial of anything of the sort.
Which is one of the odder things about Roy Moore, to circle back for a bit - he gave a pretty bizarre, at best, defense of himself. Do you date teenage girls? "Not generally, no", and "that wouldn't have been my customary behavior" are definitely not the kind of denials that should engender proxy defenses of him.
LordofHats wrote: Points for being ballsy I guess, but I'm not so sure that one will pan out.
Yeah, it's a hell of a demand. I mean, there's been some amazing star requests over the years, I don't think I've ever seen a demand that a major studio completely change their financing arrangements on almost all the major films in the studio.
As to whether it happens... dunno. It's a hell of a request, but the DC franchise is hugely important to WB, and Gadot is the star of the only film in that series that people actually like.
I just doubt that Gadot is valued by the executives as much as the financing Rat-Pack provides. My suspicion though is that there will be some kind of token apology/statement from Ratner/Rat-Pack about how they don't support these things/his thoughts have changed or whatever bs suits them, and everything will just go along as normal.
Mario wrote: One could also think of rape culture as shorthand for "a culture that makes life easier for (would be) rapists and sexual harassers and enables them even if that culture is superficially/technically against it and that culture often lets them get away with it". Rape culture is just a bit shorter and easier to handle and more of a technical term that's not commonly used in general small talk.
That's a good summary. I'd add that it is also a culture that also makes abusers more common, through ideas such as men being owed sexual gratification, or women being deceitful or manipulative or otherwise deserving of rape.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I just doubt that Gadot is valued by the executives as much as the financing Rat-Pack provides. My suspicion though is that there will be some kind of token apology/statement from Ratner/Rat-Pack about how they don't support these things/his thoughts have changed or whatever bs suits them, and everything will just go along as normal.
I doubt a statement from RatPac-Dune will be enough, unless Gadot thought she had more power than she does, and then blinks when she realise WB is going to call her on this because they can't walk away from the financing deal. What's also possible Mnuchin and Packer will buy out Ratner, Packer certainly has the money. Or they'll rework the funding balances so more RatPac Dune money goes in to non-DC films? I guess its also possible that WB sever ties with RatPac Dune, with some other financing group coming in, but those deals typically take a long time to set up.
Ouze wrote: Which is one of the odder things about Roy Moore, to circle back for a bit - he gave a pretty bizarre, at best, defense of himself. Do you date teenage girls? "Not generally, no", and "that wouldn't have been my customary behavior" are definitely not the kind of denials that should engender proxy defenses of him.
Yeah, also telling was the defence attempted by Alabama Republicans. If the motive was just to protect a man they believe was falsely accused, then it is the most thing to say 'the charges are false' and start pointing out all the ways that the stories given by the 4 victims and 30 witnesses don't align with the facts. Instead we see one guy claim that the relationship would be biblical and therefore okay. Another called to prosecute the accusers. On FOX News Hannity started making up claims that many/most accusations were false, but never attempted to disprove any part of any claim by any of the 4 girls or the 30 witnesses. Breitbart sent reporters to Alabama to investigate the claims, and so far their big break is claiming that the women didn't approach WaPo, but after WaPo heard about the allegations they spoke to the women and convinced them to speak on the record - which is exactly what the WaPo story described. So that's a lot of media resources motivated to defending Moore, and so far none of them have found any flaws in the WaPo story, and in fact they don't even seem to be trying.
It's near impossible to reconcile that approach, by Moore and his various defenders, with how people would go about defending an actual innocent person.
Which indicates that denying something exists for long enough, and consistently enough, can drown the problem out when the next horror of human nature - The Global Scourge(tm) of Communism for example - is exposed and shouts so loud that said denied subject is pushed aside as, to put it politely, boring. I think someone called it outrage fatigue - something we as a species should learn to handle better, because the internet isn't going to make it less frequent.
LordofHats wrote: I just doubt that Gadot is valued by the executives as much as the financing Rat-Pack provides. My suspicion though is that there will be some kind of token apology/statement from Ratner/Rat-Pack about how they don't support these things/his thoughts have changed or whatever bs suits them, and everything will just go along as normal.
I doubt a statement from RatPac-Dune will be enough, unless Gadot thought she had more power than she does, and then blinks when she realise WB is going to call her on this because they can't walk away from the financing deal. What's also possible Mnuchin and Packer will buy out Ratner, Packer certainly has the money. Or they'll rework the funding balances so more RatPac Dune money goes in to non-DC films? I guess its also possible that WB sever ties with RatPac Dune, with some other financing group coming in, but those deals typically take a long time to set up.
It does seem most likely that, as things go on, Ratner will get bought/pushed out, making everything hunky-dory again. If not, and Gadot doesn't back down, I'm sure she's banked enough off her work so far to live quite a comfortable life. And I bet Marvel would find a use for her, just to stick it in DC's eye.
The more of these stories I see, I sometimes ask myself: "who is the one person I most don't want to hear any allegations about?" One name that comes to mind is Joss Whedon. I feel like so much of his work would just be completely undermined if he turned out to be one of these scumbags. That could just be the huge Buffy/Firefly fan in me talking, though.
Tannhauser42 wrote: It does seem most likely that, as things go on, Ratner will get bought/pushed out, making everything hunky-dory again. If not, and Gadot doesn't back down, I'm sure she's banked enough off her work so far to live quite a comfortable life. And I bet Marvel would find a use for her, just to stick it in DC's eye.
Her pay for Wonder Woman was about $300k. Even when its a big budget film, if the star isn't famous in their own right they don't get that much - the value is in raising their profile and the big payout if the film demands sequels. She'd be commanding a lot more now, both as WW and in all her other film roles, but she can't walk away from films and go buy herself an island yet.
Regarding Takei, the fact that it took almost 40 years for the victim to actually come out in public makes me slightly suspicious. Reading trough the story, it feels more like a date-gone-wrong between two individuals who initially had mutual feelings of attraction towards each other.
"Inappropriate" is the word that comes to mind, not "rape" or "sexual abuse".
MinscS2 wrote: Regarding Takei, the fact that it took almost 40 years for the victim to actually come out in public makes me slightly suspicious. Reading trough the story, it feels more like a date-gone-wrong between two individuals who initially had mutual feelings of attraction towards each other.
"Inappropriate" is the word that comes to mind, not "rape" or "sexual abuse".
40 years is normal. Abuse is often cause for shame and being gay 40 years ago certainly complicated coming out (perhaps both as in gay to the public and a victim). Eventually time sets in and you might not want to come forward and bring up all those memories again. But now with so many people telling their stories, it might be easier to tell their own.
It certainly starts off as a possible date gone wrong or perhaps Takei was mistakingly thinking it was a date.
The problem with the date gone wrong/inappropriate approach is the part where the man is allegedly drugged by Takei. If that is true, that is beyond a doubt assault. So far one person has come forward and Takei has denied everything. Its hard to know what the truth is.
Although to be honest, once the drugged part came in I started thinking that this doesn't sound like a one off. What I mean by that is that once someone is prepared to drug people to get sex, s/he certainly wouldn't do it only once right? Cosby comes to mind. Maybe more people step forwards against Takei, making judgement easier. If not, then its going to remain a complicated case.
MinscS2 wrote: Regarding Takei, the fact that it took almost 40 years for the victim to actually come out in public makes me slightly suspicious. Reading trough the story, it feels more like a date-gone-wrong between two individuals who initially had mutual feelings of attraction towards each other.
"Inappropriate" is the word that comes to mind, not "rape" or "sexual abuse".
As Disciple of Fate said, it isn't unusual for people to keep this quiet for 40 years. Through the pedophile scandal people spoke out having lived 50 or 60 years in silence about things done to them when they were little kids. Victim's wives didn't know, it was horrific to read. And then you start to realise there's probably even more cases of people never speaking out and going to their grave carrying that secret. So yeah, coming out after 40 years, when other people begin speaking out for the first time is quite normal.
As to the actual case, its a difficult one. Brunton has told the story to friends before, just not publicly. So I have to say Brunton's story sounds quite believable to me. I mean, what's the plan behind concocting a story and telling it every so often to friends for decades, so that maybe one day if large numbers of Hollywood rape stories started Brunton could launch his plan decades in the making to.... something?
As to what Takei was accused of doing is quite believable. The drugging thing is possibly just a case of drinking more than you realised, or the booze hitting you harder than normal (empty stomach etc). From there what Takei was accused of - taking advantage of someone drunk enough to be on the edge of consciousness... was fairly horribly seen as a normal thing at that time. It is not like other recent cases where there was a premeditated attempt to use power to force compliance (Weinstein) or the victim was very young (Spacey/Moore), or where no consent was attempted at all (Loius CK).
So if Takei gave a mea culpa, I could see everyone moving on. But instead Takei has denied the events entirely. And there's no chance he actually just forgot about this. I mean, I've got a terrible memory but there's no way I'd forget the time I was undressing someone and they suddenly got up and fled the house.
Which means someone has to have been lying. And well, I can't say it with any certainly but I gotta say I believe Brunton's story a lot more.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists. If someone said "witch trials are a problem in society" the response would be of confusion over why someone would have such a silly viewpoint. It's like when when people say "racism is dead" or "sexism is dead" if it were actually dead no one would make that statement. No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.
That doesn't really follow, just because you have to say that creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution
The more of these stories I see, I sometimes ask myself: "who is the one person I most don't want to hear any allegations about?" One name that comes to mind is Joss Whedon. I feel like so much of his work would just be completely undermined if he turned out to be one of these scumbags. That could just be the huge Buffy/Firefly fan in me talking, though.
Sadly, there's plenty of allegations about Joss out there, some of which I'm believe he's admitted to.
I think they *did*, end up being consensual but when you look at the whole power dynamic thing between producers/showrunners and actresses, well...
His wife wasn't exactly a fan of it though... Which, if memory serves, is where a lot of the allegations came from during his recent divorce.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists. If someone said "witch trials are a problem in society" the response would be of confusion over why someone would have such a silly viewpoint. It's like when when people say "racism is dead" or "sexism is dead" if it were actually dead no one would make that statement. No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.
That doesn't really follow, just because you have to say that creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution
You're presenting an example that supports the argument you're challenging. People only say 'creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution' because there is a significant group of people argue otherwise. The expression only exists because the problem exists.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists. If someone said "witch trials are a problem in society" the response would be of confusion over why someone would have such a silly viewpoint. It's like when when people say "racism is dead" or "sexism is dead" if it were actually dead no one would make that statement. No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.
That doesn't really follow, just because you have to say that creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution
You're presenting an example that supports the argument you're challenging. People only say 'creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution' because there is a significant group of people argue otherwise. The expression only exists because the problem exists.
You misunderstood the argument, NinthMusketeer argued that if people felt a need to deny something, that thing actually exists or at least a strong confirmation of it existing, not just that people that argue for it exists.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists.
So my point was that doesn't make sense and I used the example of denying creationism as legitimate science, in NinthMusketeers world that would be a strong confirmation that creationism was actually a legitimate science
MinscS2 wrote: Regarding Takei, the fact that it took almost 40 years for the victim to actually come out in public makes me slightly suspicious. Reading trough the story, it feels more like a date-gone-wrong between two individuals who initially had mutual feelings of attraction towards each other.
"Inappropriate" is the word that comes to mind, not "rape" or "sexual abuse".
As Disciple of Fate said, it isn't unusual for people to keep this quiet for 40 years. Through the pedophile scandal people spoke out having lived 50 or 60 years in silence about things done to them when they were little kids. Victim's wives didn't know, it was horrific to read. And then you start to realise there's probably even more cases of people never speaking out and going to their grave carrying that secret. So yeah, coming out after 40 years, when other people begin speaking out for the first time is quite normal.
As to the actual case, its a difficult one. Brunton has told the story to friends before, just not publicly. So I have to say Brunton's story sounds quite believable to me. I mean, what's the plan behind concocting a story and telling it every so often to friends for decades, so that maybe one day if large numbers of Hollywood rape stories started Brunton could launch his plan decades in the making to.... something?
As to what Takei was accused of doing is quite believable. The drugging thing is possibly just a case of drinking more than you realised, or the booze hitting you harder than normal (empty stomach etc). From there what Takei was accused of - taking advantage of someone drunk enough to be on the edge of consciousness... was fairly horribly seen as a normal thing at that time. It is not like other recent cases where there was a premeditated attempt to use power to force compliance (Weinstein) or the victim was very young (Spacey/Moore), or where no consent was attempted at all (Loius CK).
So if Takei gave a mea culpa, I could see everyone moving on. But instead Takei has denied the events entirely. And there's no chance he actually just forgot about this. I mean, I've got a terrible memory but there's no way I'd forget the time I was undressing someone and they suddenly got up and fled the house.
Which means someone has to have been lying. And well, I can't say it with any certainly but I gotta say I believe Brunton's story a lot more.
It is entirely possible he wouldn't remember. As he was drunk himself he could be prone to blackouts. I've seen that happen to many people. Along with that though the victim being so drunk could have dreamt the incident and his drunk mind thought it was real.
Which is why the he/she said incidents are so hard to get to the truth of it all.
and speaking to the culture, apparently 37% of "you know who" are more willing to back moore because of the assaults. His actions also were common knowledge in his circles.
LordofHats wrote: I just doubt that Gadot is valued by the executives as much as the financing Rat-Pack provides. My suspicion though is that there will be some kind of token apology/statement from Ratner/Rat-Pack about how they don't support these things/his thoughts have changed or whatever bs suits them, and everything will just go along as normal.
On the flip-side, it can't be difficult to find someone else with the money to finance a gold mine like the Marvek pics. The key blocker would be if the Ratner group have a legal contractual position.
It is entirely possible he wouldn't remember. As he was drunk himself he could be prone to blackouts. I've seen that happen to many people. Along with that though the victim being so drunk could have dreamt the incident and his drunk mind thought it was real.
I know it's frequently a quick talking point to jump on the "if we are both drunk, then neither can consent, so how can one drunk person rape another drunk person" excuse when people start talking about intoxication and consent. I'm usually not a fan of that talking point, but I also admit that it can be a handy excuse to have in court when you are trying to determine if one person was intoxicated enough not to be able to consent, and the other was not intoxicated enough to not know they were raping someone.
As far as Takei, I don't know what to make of it. I would like to think that it wasn't a "I'm gonna drug a fan and try to rape him" situation and more of a "he just broke up, he's hanging out with me, he wants to come to my house, he want's some action" kind of misunderstanding fueled by alcohol on both their parts. One person drank more than they thought and passed out, the other so drunk that they are trying to feth someone who passed out drunk.
It is entirely possible he wouldn't remember. As he was drunk himself he could be prone to blackouts. I've seen that happen to many people. Along with that though the victim being so drunk could have dreamt the incident and his drunk mind thought it was real.
I know it's frequently a quick talking point to jump on the "if we are both drunk, then neither can consent, so how can one drunk person rape another drunk person" excuse when people start talking about intoxication and consent. I'm usually not a fan of that talking point, but I also admit that it can be a handy excuse to have in court when you are trying to determine if one person was intoxicated enough not to be able to consent, and the other was not intoxicated enough to not know they were raping someone.
As far as Takei, I don't know what to make of it. I would like to think that it wasn't a "I'm gonna drug a fan and try to rape him" situation and more of a "he just broke up, he's hanging out with me, he wants to come to my house, he want's some action" kind of misunderstanding fueled by alcohol on both their parts. One person drank more than they thought and passed out, the other so drunk that they are trying to feth someone who passed out drunk.
I'm not even getting into consent, This could be a case of false memories on the victim, Or again takei could have blacked out the night.
It was a common game at a previous work place, called "what did I do last night" where a group that was way to drunk tries to piece together what happened the night before. It was amusing who remembered things that never happened and those that forgot key details.
This late in the game it's impossible to tell what really happened that night with takei. Takei is the Schrodinger's rapist, only two people should know what happened, and both were way to "drunk" to be credible witnesses.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why is it that we're defending Takei but not the other people in this thread?
Dunno. Maybe it's harder to believe an activist like Takei behaved that way? Also, the story is about 2 drunk people and it's easier to justify a sharing of the blame, whether that's fair or not.
Of all the stories that have come out, it's the one I don't want to believe and hope isn't true.
Oh, I don't want to think it's true either, but in fairness' sake would "they were drunk!" really have been a good excuse in the other cases? I think there's a lot of us that don't want to believe that Takei did something like this, he's a living meme after all, but we've got roughly the same level of evidence regarding him as we did with a number of others that we've condemned without a second thought.
Plus, as was pointed out, the accuser's told this story to friends for decades, it's not like he made it up on the spot.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Oh, I don't want to think it's true either, but in fairness' sake would "they were drunk!" really have been a good excuse in the other cases?
The other cases seem to be more than two drunk people ending up in a sexual situation, so it probably wouldn't be an excuse.
Trying to feth a minor? Being drunk is no excuse.
Spending years masturbating in front of people you have power over? Being drunk is no excuse.
Etc etc.
sirlynchmob wrote: [This late in the game it's impossible to tell what really happened that night with takei. Takei is the Schrodinger's rapist, only two people should know what happened, and both were way to "drunk" to be credible witnesses.
Aye. If one is too drunk to consent and the other is too drunk to recognize it, well, it's a bad situation but not quite the same sort of bad as demanding sexual favors from people dependent on you for a job.
Besides, you don't actually have to be drunk (or affected at all) in order to make mistaken advances on someone. You might just be bad at reading people. I remember an article connected to the college sex scandals (hiding sexual assaults to protect the reputation of the school, basically) where a guy made advances on a girl he'd gone out with after they came back to his place and sat in the same sofa watching a movie. He thought it was OK - she stayed in his company after all - and that she'd say if it wasn't fine. But she was in fact straight up too scared to say anything, and this guy was just a fellow student, not someone who could blacklist you from the career you wanted. If the guy was more experienced he'd have noticed she wasn't warming up at all, and if she had a bit more self-confidence she'd have told him to stop. What happened was nothing, except the guy getting reprimands later when the girl filed a complaint. Not an undeserved complaint, but if she hadn't been scared at the time she could have told him off and no complaint would have been necessary. Freezing up or fleeing when in a really unfamiliar and uncomfortable situation is, however, not in any way an unknown human response.
No, I don't think Weinstein or most of the other listed people were "mistaken" about how attracted young actresses were to them. But misunderstandings also happen.
sebster wrote: As to what Takei was accused of doing is quite believable. The drugging thing is possibly just a case of drinking more than you realised, or the booze hitting you harder than normal (empty stomach etc). From there what Takei was accused of - taking advantage of someone drunk enough to be on the edge of consciousness... was fairly horribly seen as a normal thing at that time. It is not like other recent cases where there was a premeditated attempt to use power to force compliance (Weinstein) or the victim was very young (Spacey/Moore), or where no consent was attempted at all (Loius CK).
So if Takei gave a mea culpa, I could see everyone moving on. But instead Takei has denied the events entirely. And there's no chance he actually just forgot about this. I mean, I've got a terrible memory but there's no way I'd forget the time I was undressing someone and they suddenly got up and fled the house.
Which means someone has to have been lying. And well, I can't say it with any certainly but I gotta say I believe Brunton's story a lot more.
Yes, I don't think you would just forget something like this. And at the same time, why the hell would someone make up something like this.
But the part I wanted to adres was the drinks thing. They had dinner so it shouldn't have been an empty stomach and Brunton said this:
The two men went back to the actor's condo for a drink the same night. "We have the drink and he asks if I would like another," Brunton recalls. "And I said sure. So, I have the second one, and then all of a sudden, I begin feeling very disoriented and dizzy, and I thought I was going to pass out. I said I need to sit down and he said sit over here and he had the giant yellow beanbag chair. So I sat down in that and leaned my head back and I must have passed out."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-accused-sexually-assaulting-model-1981-1056698
It being his second drink plus that experience sounds like more than just too much alcohol. Unless Brunton didn't remember the right number. The way this comes across is far darker than just having a drink too many (i.e. drugged). But maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists. If someone said "witch trials are a problem in society" the response would be of confusion over why someone would have such a silly viewpoint. It's like when when people say "racism is dead" or "sexism is dead" if it were actually dead no one would make that statement. No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.
That doesn't really follow, just because you have to say that creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution
You're presenting an example that supports the argument you're challenging. People only say 'creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution' because there is a significant group of people argue otherwise. The expression only exists because the problem exists.
You misunderstood the argument, NinthMusketeer argued that if people felt a need to deny something, that thing actually exists or at least a strong confirmation of it existing, not just that people that argue for it exists.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists.
So my point was that doesn't make sense and I used the example of denying creationism as legitimate science, in NinthMusketeers world that would be a strong confirmation that creationism was actually a legitimate science
Apples to oranges. Scientific concepts are not social values or practices.
Eddie Braganza, one of the editors at DC Comics has been fired.
He has been alleged to have been harassing female staff for, well, years.
Again, this seems to have been an 'open secret' in the industry and has been a source of several women leaving DC over the years. And others I know of who have refused to work with DC Comics as a result of this.
I guess this all feeds back to the whole 'rape culture' discussion. You've got this guy, barely any consumers and readers of comic books has probably heard of and he's been protected for years by a company, who must have been fine losing out on dozens of talented female writers, artists and so on. Even dropping all moral and ethical points from the discussion, there's absolutely no rationality to it.
I don't think we are defending Takei so much as pointing out the flaws in the potential case against him.
1. It's one man's word against another's.
2. It happened 40 years ago.
3. Both were supposedly seriously drunk.
4. There is no pattern of accusations against Takei.
5. Takei has given a full and frank account of his version of events.
6. Etc. etc.
But most importantly of course he is a well-known left-winger and supporter of the Demcrats, much like Weinberger, whom the left-wing media and populace are givng an equally easy ride.
Unlike the Republican Moore, whose party has rightly condemned for his apparent paedophilia.
Kilkrazy wrote: But most importantly of course he is a well-known left-winger and supporter of the Demcrats, much like Weinberger, whom the left-wing media and populace are givng an equally easy ride.
Unlike the Republican Moore, whose party has rightly condemned for his apparent paedophilia.
Mr. Moore reached over and began groping me, putting his hands on my breasts. I tried to open my car door to leave, but he reached over and locked it so I could not get out. I tried fighting him off, while yelling at him to stop, but instead of stopping he began squeezing my neck attempting to force my head onto his crotch. I continued to struggle. I was determined that I was not going to allow him to force me to have sex with him. I was terrified. He was also trying to pull my shirt off. I thought that he was going to rape me. I was twisting and struggling and begging him to stop. I had tears running down my face.
At some point he gave up. He then looked at me and said, "You are a child. I am the District Attorney of Etowah County. If you tell anyone about this, no one will believe you." He finally allowed me to open the car door and I either fell out or he pushed me out. I was on the ground as he pulled out of the parking area behind the restaurant. The passenger door was open as he burned rubber pulling away leaving me laying there on the cold concrete in the dark.
It's going to be hard to claim he didn't know this woman, since he signed her high school yearbook.
And waives a pistol around. To those who CC and are serious about it, thats what you would call a douche bag move (and illegal at least in Texas). Waive a pistol at me and its Bill Drill time.
But we should not hold this against Alabama, they have a really cool battleship that I almost fell off of.
Frazzled wrote: Ouze beat me to it. This one is #5 I think. I see Allred got her publicity seeking hooks in first, thats a negative.
Moral of the story, never trust someone wearing a cowboy hat unless they are from Texas, the Southwest, or Norte Mexico.*
*Kind of takes the old "all hat and no cattle" phrase to a completely different place.
It's going to be hard to claim he didn't know this woman, since he signed her high school yearbook.
Am I the only one who finds that creepy as sin?
Paedophiles LOVE to do that kind of things. They want to make the child feel helpless, and they always try to go as far as they can without the adults around them, and the childs they are molesting, take notice about anything. We as a society too, always make mental excuses to that kind of "creepy" behaviour, because, who wants to believe that the guy/woman is a paedophile?
They are like Pennywise from "IT". They make adults look at the other way, meanwhile they are torturing psichologically the childs they are abusing.
A woman has said she was 16 when former US President George HW Bush groped her buttocks as she posed for a photo with him and her mother. Rosyln Corrigan is the sixth woman to accuse Mr Bush of inappropriately touching her in similar circumstances. She told Time Magazine she met Mr Bush at a 2003 meeting of CIA officers in Texas, where her father worked. "My initial reaction was absolute horror," she said about the incident. "I was really, really confused." "I was a child," Ms Corrigan added.
It seems to me that there's a certain proportion of men who seemingly can't deal with mature women on a level of equality, so they go to the young girls instead.
I mean, the girls that Moore seems to have preyed on -- allegedly -- are "nubile" in the technical sense that they have sexually mature bodies. He isn't interested -- allegedly -- in actual children. He is interested in girls who have a developed body but not a developed mental and social situation that would help them fend off his advances. Allegedly.
I imagine Genghis Connie would simply have shot the fether and good riddance. One time I approve the US gun culture.
It's amazing how far we've come. There was some case in the 30s about one US politician accusing another one of fething pigs, to make him deny. Now we've got people accusing a politician of fething children and his friends aren't denying it, they are finding excuses.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, not excuses really, but reasons why it's OK.
I'm not saying what you have said isn't part of this specific problem, Kilkrazy. But I was talking about paedophilia in a more generic sense.
The past year in Spain we had a case that become mainstream when a guy that for years had been taking photos, profesionally, for children, for private schools, sport clubs, etc... was exposed as a paedophile. After knowing that, you could go to his Tweeter and saw all the photos of him with little children in his house (The house of the paedophile) with texts like:
"Taking pictures for the new yearbook!" or "Maria with the new school uniform!". And it was creepy as f****.
They love to hide in plain sight. Paedophiles are some of the most mentally disturbed individuals that exist.
This was the guy. Just searching for the photos make me sick :
Spoiler:
So the next time you see someone acting as a creep with children, like the video I pass before of some USA politician, don't look at the other say or make excuses. The most probable thing is that he is a monster in "disguise"
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why is it that we're defending Takei but not the other people in this thread?
Honestly probably because Takei is kind of awesome, while others in this thread are people who were already thought/known to be kind of iffy on the subject. So people don't want to believe Takei did it, and maybe he didn't idk, but I think one of the hallmarks of why this problem persists is the unwillingness to believe that figures we admire could have done something wrong. Remember Lance Armstrong? How many years did literally nearly everyone deny that he could have been cheating before it was finally accepted?
It seems to me that there's a certain proportion of men who seemingly can't deal with mature women on a level of equality, so they go to the young girls instead.
I mean, the girls that Moore seems to have preyed on -- allegedly -- are "nubile" in the technical sense that they have sexually mature bodies. He isn't interested -- allegedly -- in actual children. He is interested in girls who have a developed body but not a developed mental and social situation that would help them fend off his advances. Allegedly.
I imagine Genghis Connie would simply have shot the fether and good riddance. One time I approve the US gun culture.
It's amazing how far we've come. There was some case in the 30s about one US politician accusing another one of fething pigs, to make him deny. Now we've got people accusing a politician of fething children and his friends aren't denying it, they are finding excuses.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, not excuses really, but reasons why it's OK.
They have run into them, they call 'em "creepers." Yes she has a can of mace the size of a garbage can. When legally able she will take official possession of her Beretta attitude adjuster.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think we are defending Takei so much as pointing out the flaws in the potential case against him.
1. It's one man's word against another's.
2. It happened 40 years ago.
3. Both were supposedly seriously drunk.
4. There is no pattern of accusations against Takei.
5. Takei has given a full and frank account of his version of events.
6. Etc. etc.
But most importantly of course he is a well-known left-winger and supporter of the Demcrats, much like Weinberger, whom the left-wing media and populace are givng an equally easy ride.
Unlike the Republican Moore, whose party has rightly condemned for his apparent paedophilia.
The 'lefties' in Hollywood by and large stood by Polanski for decades. Pretending like it's a stark dividing line between political parties is simply playing into the partisan divide.
Compel wrote: Again, this seems to have been an 'open secret' in the industry and has been a source of several women leaving DC over the years. And others I know of who have refused to work with DC Comics as a result of this.
I guess this all feeds back to the whole 'rape culture' discussion. You've got this guy, barely any consumers and readers of comic books has probably heard of and he's been protected for years by a company, who must have been fine losing out on dozens of talented female writers, artists and so on. Even dropping all moral and ethical points from the discussion, there's absolutely no rationality to it.
The one I've been thinking about for a while is Leon Wieseltier, who was the culture editor at New Republic. I don't know if this fits with the guy at DC, but it could explain why he was able to do what he did, despite having little actual power through his own work.
After the accusations against Wieseltier, Vanity Fair re-released their once suppressed piece on him from back in the mid-90s. There was nothing in there about sex crimes, but it was a pretty harsh take down on Weinstein in its own way. Among other stuff, a massive cocaine habit and a career that produced not one original work, it showed Wieseltier as a man who maintained a ruthless powerbase inside New Republic - he forced out several more senior staff at New Republic and built a culture where people were afraid to challenge him on even the most minor things.
It isn't true in every case, but I think we're missing a big part of the story if we only look at the women who became sexual victims. That's obviously the worst of the issue, but that isn't the only power dynamic at play. Often there's a greater pattern of bullying that forces many people to submit or distance themselves, and that isolates the women. Men like this can corrupt whole organisations.
sirlynchmob wrote: It is entirely possible he wouldn't remember. As he was drunk himself he could be prone to blackouts. I've seen that happen to many people. Along with that though the victim being so drunk could have dreamt the incident and his drunk mind thought it was real.
Which is why the he/she said incidents are so hard to get to the truth of it all.
I might be wrong, but I don't believe Brunton ever suggested Takei was drunk. Although it is possible, Brunton might not have noticed Takei was also drunk, or might have forgotten that part of the story over the years.
I agree it is very hard to reach any kind of satisfactory conclusion about this one.
and speaking to the culture, apparently 37% of "you know who" are more willing to back moore because of the assaults. His actions also were common knowledge in his circles.
Yep. And now there's chants of 'nut or slut' attacking the women who spoke out.
One positive is Mitch McConnell, senate majority leader, saying Moore should step aside, and saying "I believe the women".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why is it that we're defending Takei but not the other people in this thread?
Because there has only been one accusation against Takei. That is critical, because one person can make a story up, or be part of a horrible misunderstanding. But when three or four or more people all detail very similar experiences with the same person, all independent of each other, its way beyond the bounds of plausibility that they all made up extremely similar stories.
And note I'm inclined to believe Brunton and not Takei. But I understand why Takei's case is a lot more defensible than any of the others so far accused.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yes, I don't think you would just forget something like this. And at the same time, why the hell would someone make up something like this.
Yeah, which I think means it is likely that someone was lying. I think it's pretty much a guess at this point as to who is lying, though I lean towards Takei lying about something he is quite ashamed of. But it's a guess.
But the part I wanted to adres was the drinks thing. They had dinner so it shouldn't have been an empty stomach and Brunton said this:
It was his second drink at Takei's place. It's possible they had already had drinks before. It would be weird if they hadn't. As to the meal - good pick up, I thought they'd been at a bar, but I think that was me getting confused with the details of previous times they met. As a dodge... it was the '80s and dinner was a huge plate with like two peas and a prawn on it?
But yeah, this is just speculation, but I think it is more believable that Brunton drank too much and it caught up with him, than Takei drugged him. Although Brunton's description, of being black out drunk, then waking up and being sober enough to leave and drive home doesn't sound like any drinking experience I've had, witnessed or been told about, so who knows.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's amazing how far we've come. There was some case in the 30s about one US politician accusing another one of fething pigs, to make him deny. Now we've got people accusing a politician of fething children and his friends aren't denying it, they are finding excuses.
The one and only LBJ. I don't know if the story has ever been confirmed, but it's told that he wanted to run a smear against a primary opponent in one of his early elections, and when told the claim wasn't true, LBJ said "I know it isn't true, but I want him to have to deny it." It's pretty close to the perfect example of mudslinging, the story doesn't have to be true, it doesn't have to be believed, it doesn't even have to be believable. It can do harm just by having your opponent associated with the charge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: The 'lefties' in Hollywood by and large stood by Polanski for decades. Pretending like it's a stark dividing line between political parties is simply playing into the partisan divide.
I think conservatives have some strange idea that George Clooney rocks up at DNC meetings and says he can get Katy Perry to sing at the convention, but only if 'free Polanski' is added to the party platform. Or the Railworkers Union wants to push for higher wages, but will not act until they can get Barbara Streisand's approval.
The 'lefties' in Hollywood are just a bunch of people who are on the left of politics, the only difference between them and any random blogger is a few more people pay attention when a celebrity says they don't like the president. The various causes and values of 'the left' are not undermined because one or a few celebrities are shown to be hypocrites, any more than the various causes of the right would be undermined if it was revealed than some right wing blogger also defended Polanski.
What's happened with Moore has been entirely different. There we've seen a coordinated defense among many established elements of the right wing, with FOX News suddenly starting a new argument that 'most accusers' are liars, in direct contradiction to how they treated previous accusations. At the same time Breitbart is running a defense calling to reject the claims of the article entirely because it came from WaPo, which just happens to be the exact same defense Moore himself has attempted. The majority of senators have gone with an 'if true' statement, pretending they just can't tell if 5 women coming up with similar stories independant of each other just might be telling the truth*. In response to this, a very large majority of Republicans in Alabama are still committed to voting for Moore, with 37% saying that are more likely to vote for him after the allegation. It is impossible to dismiss this as not being part of the right wing as a whole, it covers all its elements, its elected leaders, its media and its voters. It is what the right wing is.
*Thankfully, some senators have now spoken out saying the believe the women, including Mitch McConnell.
Speculation is that if he wins the election, the senate may refuse to seat him under the "unfit" clause that I'm not going to look up right now, and replace him with... Jeff Sessions, which is quite the case of turning lemons into lemonade.
Speculation is that if he wins the election, the senate may refuse to seat him under the "unfit" clause that I'm not going to look up right now, and replace him with... Jeff Sessions, which is quite the case of turning lemons into lemonade.
That is political genius. Republicans can take a stand against Moore and still get to keep their two vote lead in the senate. Alabamans can be told not to worry about Moore being a predator, because a vote for Moore will actually mean getting Sessions back. And Trump gets to move Sessions out of the AG role, and install someone who'll be more... 'active'... in handling Mueller's investigation.
If that comes to pass it will be one of the most skillful political maneuvers I've ever seen. Cynical to the core as well, of course.
Speculation is that if he wins the election, the senate may refuse to seat him under the "unfit" clause that I'm not going to look up right now, and replace him with... Jeff Sessions, which is quite the case of turning lemons into lemonade.
That is political genius. Republicans can take a stand against Moore and still get to keep their two vote lead in the senate. Alabamans can be told not to worry about Moore being a predator, because a vote for Moore will actually mean getting Sessions back. And Trump gets to move Sessions out of the AG role, and install someone who'll be more... 'active'... in handling Mueller's investigation.
If that comes to pass it will be one of the most skillful political maneuvers I've ever seen. Cynical to the core as well, of course.
That's so genius, it'll never happen.
I believe it takes a super majority of the senate to remove a "seated" Senator.
. Jesus wept... way to go to strengthen gay/pedo stereotypes. 
People that manufacture cocaine are fundamentally the same as people that manufacture alcohol or run casinos.
:
