Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Orlanth wrote:

Arkin and Pitt weren't shutdown as they were not whistleblowers. They handled issues relevant to them them selves and with subtlety.

Threatening to kill someone is "subtlety"? You would think going against Weinstein like that would have ended his career as that's what Weinstein reportedly did to women who rejected him. Weinstein ended careers over less.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Arkin and Pitt weren't shutdown as they were not whistleblowers. They handled issues relevant to them them selves and with subtlety.

Threatening to kill someone is "subtlety"? You would think going against Weinstein like that would have ended his career as that's what Weinstein reportedly did to women who rejected him. Weinstein ended careers over less.

Maybe the threat was credible enough?

Spetulhu wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Arkin and Pitt weren't shutdown as they were not whistleblowers. They handled issues relevant to them them selves and with subtlety.

Threatening to kill someone is "subtlety"? You would think going against Weinstein like that would have ended his career as that's what Weinstein reportedly did to women who rejected him. Weinstein ended careers over less.

Maybe the threat was credible enough?

Not knowing Pitt personally I can say I have no idea

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Arkin and Pitt weren't shutdown as they were not whistleblowers. They handled issues relevant to them them selves and with subtlety.

Threatening to kill someone is "subtlety"? You would think going against Weinstein like that would have ended his career as that's what Weinstein reportedly did to women who rejected him. Weinstein ended careers over less.

Maybe the threat was credible enough?

Not knowing Pitt personally I can say I have no idea

I mean he did create that thing that we don't talk about, as well as a budding hobby in soap manufacturing

 reds8n wrote:
came up ages back :

http://observer.com/2018/05/george-takei-accuser-scott-brunton-changed-his-story-of-drugs-assault/

One activist I interviewed while writing this story told me, “If good people like George Takei get mistakenly swept up in the net of #MeToo, perhaps that’s a sacrifice they should be willing to make for the cause.”

See, this kind of horror show and this kind of reaction to it is exactly why some folk were urging caution and a more considered approach. Now that certain brands of "activist" have got the train going they're not going to slow down for something so minor as utterly destroying someone who's done nothing wrong, even to the point of throwing someone like George Takei under the bus and then insisting he should be glad to throw himself(or rather, be thrown) upon the barbed wire so the Great March of Justice might continue.

Big MorGan creeped onto a girl .....oh dear just a standard oap then you should see what they do to the nurses i work with on a hospital ward.

"Exposed."

MF was accused of statutory rape like twelve years ago and it was a media circus. Everyone knows he's a creep.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
"Exposed."

MF was accused of statutory rape like twelve years ago and it was a media circus. Everyone knows he's a creep.

I missed that when it was happening. Jeebus.

 Orlanth wrote:
Sometimes it is better to deal with it in person. Societal labels are dangerous and can backfire. It was easier, safer and more efficient for Arkin to do as he did.
Understood that you don't blame Arkin, per se, but he was perhaps wiser in not bleating to the authorities.

When Brad Pitt muscled Weinstock rather than blow the whistle on him I think he did exactly the right thing. MeToo is only wise after it went viral, plenty of people did the MeToo thing before and it normally resulted in shutdowns of those who care enough to act and no action against perpetrators. Nassar case tells us that. However Arkin or Pitt saying 'stop or else' or words/actions to that effect are effective and survivable.

What I'm saying is the bigger point is about why Arkin was best served by doing nothing more, and why Pitt did the best thing for Paltrow by going no further. That speaks to a culture and environment that is badly broken, which allows serial abusers to get away with it for years.

So no, what was 'efficient' for Arkin is not the point. Not because there's any value in second guessing what Arkin did, but because the real, meaningful question is to look at the culture and environment where Freeman and Arkin's took place, and look to replace that obviously toxic culture with something a lot healthier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Corey Feldman spent a lot of years away from hollywood, career basically over because he "blew the whistle" and accused people of wrong-doing.

This idea of Corey Feldman being shut out because he spoke out about pedophilia in Hollywood has become a popular narrative, but it's got a lot of problems. For starters, Feldman was a 1980s teen idol, his career decline is much more easily explained by the regular use by date such stars have than any kind of secret pedophilia cabal. This is supported by Feldman having gotten really weird over time. Secondly, Feldman spoke out against his own abuser, an assistant in his Dad's management team, so no-one actually connected in Hollywood.

I'm not trying to discredit or diminish Feldman's story. Full credit to him for speaking out. But we shouldn't attach an easy narrative to like the Hollywood shut out to it.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
MeToo is only wise after it went viral, plenty of people did the MeToo thing before and it normally resulted in shutdowns of those who care enough to act and no action against perpetrators. Nassar case tells us that. However Arkin or Pitt saying 'stop or else' or words/actions to that effect are effective and survivable.

What I'm saying is the bigger point is about why Arkin was best served by doing nothing more, and why Pitt did the best thing for Paltrow by going no further. That speaks to a culture and environment that is badly broken, which allows serial abusers to get away with it for years.

And ofc, if the victim isn't willing to report it (for various reasons) it wouldn't have helped if Arkin or Pitt made a big show of the harassment. It would be word against word, and hmm - is sexual harassment a crime the police HAVE to investigate or does it require the victim to file a report? If the victim doesn't support Arkin/Pitt it'll be a libel lawsuit from the perpetrator instead.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
"Exposed."

MF was accused of statutory rape like twelve years ago and it was a media circus. Everyone knows he's a creep.

Wait what? I didn't know that. I only knew he was hooking up with his step-granddaughter or some such.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Arkin and Pitt weren't shutdown as they were not whistleblowers. They handled issues relevant to them them selves and with subtlety.

Threatening to kill someone is "subtlety"? You would think going against Weinstein like that would have ended his career as that's what Weinstein reportedly did to women who rejected him. Weinstein ended careers over less.

Maybe the threat was credible enough?

He is a pretty good actor. Maybe he is that good.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Sometimes it is better to deal with it in person. Societal labels are dangerous and can backfire. It was easier, safer and more efficient for Arkin to do as he did.
Understood that you don't blame Arkin, per se, but he was perhaps wiser in not bleating to the authorities.

When Brad Pitt muscled Weinstock rather than blow the whistle on him I think he did exactly the right thing. MeToo is only wise after it went viral, plenty of people did the MeToo thing before and it normally resulted in shutdowns of those who care enough to act and no action against perpetrators. Nassar case tells us that. However Arkin or Pitt saying 'stop or else' or words/actions to that effect are effective and survivable.

What I'm saying is the bigger point is about why Arkin was best served by doing nothing more, and why Pitt did the best thing for Paltrow by going no further. That speaks to a culture and environment that is badly broken, which allows serial abusers to get away with it for years.

So no, what was 'efficient' for Arkin is not the point. Not because there's any value in second guessing what Arkin did, but because the real, meaningful question is to look at the culture and environment where Freeman and Arkin's took place, and look to replace that obviously toxic culture with something a lot healthier.

Why should Arkin or Pitt fall on their swords for your peace of mind?
Muscling an abuser has the desired effect, reporting them likely not but WILL be career enders for them. The person to report are the victims themselves, and a lot of them wont either.

There is a reason for conspiracy of silence, the stakes are high. You are demanding further action from those who have had the stones to have taken action and are not satisfied until they have put everything on the line, and you are doing this from the safety of your own armchair far away.