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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't the latest news that the local mall kept an eye out for him because he was known to creep around the place?

State RNC is threatening anyone who wants to put in for write in, that they'll never get another position there.

So, the Luther Strange write-in vote is not a thing? SAD!

According to Rush, he was a democrat during that time and that’s why nobody cared.

Why would they write in? The longer a write in campaign is not started the worse plan it becomes.

This is Cowboy Roy's last shot at higher office. Splitting the ticket will allow Jones a chance to squeak in.

The best play here (the instance Moore didn't drop) is to disown him on the national stage but back him at the state level or at least not overtly sabotage Moore. He's Bama's favored son, no way they elect a Dem if you properly spin the pedo accusations. Then you have your GOP senator to shore up majority come 2018 and you get to act like you had scruples until the heat fades.

His adversarial attitude is Mitch's problem but it's still better to the GOP than having a Dem mucking up tax reform or the senate majority.

The long term problem that creates is the GOP will be labelled as 'the rapist party' and it's going to be extremely difficult to shift that message regardless of the reality of the matter.

I'm continually shaking my head at how many people have difficulty condemning a person who did something wrong. It's really not difficult. When there is overwhelming evidence that a person did something wrong, condemn those actions. Simple. Done. It's pathetic on the part of society that the behavior we see is even remotely acceptable.

If somebody labels himsellf as part of a group you consider yourself part of, for many people is hard to do the reasonable mental work of thinking "This is a big group. That guy can totally do wrong. Him doing wrong not makes me or the group wrong. I can totally condemn him without betraying the group we both are part of. Condemning him doesn't give a victory to the opposite group"

You can see this everywhere. From people defending represive goverments of other countries because they label themselves as communists/socialists/Nationalists/Capitalists, to people defending people of his same religion, or defending a Star player of his favourite sport team if he does something illegal and wrong, etc...

 whembly wrote:
I didn't discuss it because there's *still* a banned topic. I'm amazed the mods hasn't warned us yet to stop talking about US Politics.

So please stop inferring simply because I don't discuss it.

What? I never complained you didn't comment, because you did comment. "Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore." Those are your words, posted by you.

My complaint was about your comment. Because you took 'most' of the GOP withdrawing their support as evidence that Moore doesn't reflect on the party. But earlier in this thread, in your opening post that started this thread, you said "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?"

So apparently Hollywood can permit something for years, and when uncovered it isn't enough that almost everyone rejects the abuser, that's still enough to say Hollywood has a dark side.

But the Republican party can have a serial abuser in their midst, with a string of victims and a pattern of behaviour known by many in the public, and when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".

Don't deny the double standard, because that would be some impossible nonsense. Realise what you've done. Reflect on it. Use this as a chance to learn something about how you think about issues.

Guys, I know we all love to gain internet and ego points, pointing at mental incoherences of other posters. But I don't know if anything valuable is gonna come out that. Or at least, insisting on it once it has been clearly explained the first time.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I didn't discuss it because there's *still* a banned topic. I'm amazed the mods hasn't warned us yet to stop talking about US Politics.

So please stop inferring simply because I don't discuss it.

What? I never complained you didn't comment, because you did comment. "Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore." Those are your words, posted by you.

My complaint was about your comment. Because you took 'most' of the GOP withdrawing their support as evidence that Moore doesn't reflect on the party. But earlier in this thread, in your opening post that started this thread, you said "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?"

So apparently Hollywood can permit something for years, and when uncovered it isn't enough that almost everyone rejects the abuser, that's still enough to say Hollywood has a dark side.

But the Republican party can have a serial abuser in their midst, with a string of victims and a pattern of behaviour known by many in the public, and when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".

Don't deny the double standard, because that would be some impossible nonsense. Realise what you've done. Reflect on it. Use this as a chance to learn something about how you think about issues.

I dunno Seb, I can see why he would be reluctant to post more detailed thoughts on the GOP. And as a GOP supporter his thoughts are likely to have more nuance than being summed up as "really has a dark side, eh?" Further I would say there's been many more revelations about hollywood starts recently than politicians. You may be entirely right but I think the assumption is a bit of a stretch here.

I don't think anybody doubts that where power structures exist this kind of behaviour is more common that we want to admitt. That applies to Hollywood. But to politics too.
Sexual harassers, Paedophiles, etc... of every colour and political party and ideology, I doubt are a mathematically substantial amout of the whole, but I'm pretty sure that they are enough to be a relevant and present nearly everywhere problem that we just don't appear to fight in a really substantial leve.
It appears that is changing in recent years. But will the movement keep going pass the enteirtaiment industry?

 sebster wrote:
...when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".

You're not thinking far enough outside the box on this.

 Galas wrote:
But will the movement keep going pass the enteirtaiment industry?

I think we'll definitely see some things happen once the 2018 election season starts, and it won't be pretty. We'll just have to wait and see, really. Hopefully, there will be a domino effect that carries it over into other areas, and not just the entertainment industry and politics.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I didn't discuss it because there's *still* a banned topic. I'm amazed the mods hasn't warned us yet to stop talking about US Politics.

So please stop inferring simply because I don't discuss it.

What? I never complained you didn't comment, because you did comment. "Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore." Those are your words, posted by you.

My complaint was about your comment. Because you took 'most' of the GOP withdrawing their support as evidence that Moore doesn't reflect on the party. But earlier in this thread, in your opening post that started this thread, you said "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?"

So apparently Hollywood can permit something for years, and when uncovered it isn't enough that almost everyone rejects the abuser, that's still enough to say Hollywood has a dark side.

But the Republican party can have a serial abuser in their midst, with a string of victims and a pattern of behaviour known by many in the public, and when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".

Don't deny the double standard, because that would be some impossible nonsense. Realise what you've done. Reflect on it. Use this as a chance to learn something about how you think about issues.

No.

Unless the mods give full-throated approval to discuss the political aspect of this, I'm not going down this road here and try to convince you otherwise. We'd be well into thread-lock territory.

PM me if you want to discuss this further.

EDIT: NithMusketeer has the right of it....

 Ouze wrote:

Spoiler:

 sebster wrote:
...when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".

You're not thinking far enough outside the box on this.

I...I have no words. I don't even have an amusing internet meme to post. Just, wow.

2016: Man what a stupid year...

2017: Hold my beer....

 Ouze wrote:

You're not thinking far enough outside the box on this.

It seems to me that the response to such allegations against a member of the entertainment industry is not really comparable to a politician, especially one in the middle of an election.

So turning it into a partisan issue "look at those evil <insert political party here>, they aren't unanimously and immediately condemning <insert politician name here> like happened with <insert name of member of entertainment industry>" is of limited value.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Of course that is possible, enjoying a glass of wine or two with dinner is pretty normal and not all people care enough not to drive afterwards. Haha two peas and a whole prawn actually sounds pretty good for a restaurant visited by stars, I've certainly seen smaller portions today.

The drive home part has me scratching my head too. Some people just take alcohol really well and might feel confident enough to drive even if they totally shouldn't. I have seen Dutch people able to do it on a bicycle, two wheels must be harder than four. Maybe he actually did drive home while still heavily intoxicated, but is just ashamed to admit that he did. I don't think we will ever get to hear the full story and so far no other people have stepped forwards to accuse Takei (as of this moment that I'm aware of), which makes it harder than a case with multiple accusers like everybody says.

Also it was the 80s, people were a lot less worried about driving while intoxicated. What might have been 'felt okay to drive' then would be 'lost license and suspended jail sentence' today. So he could still have been drunk/under the effect of the drug?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Then I hope sebster mentions later on that we've be PM'ing on these verious topics and I had made my opposition to Moore bluntly and that I hope the Doug wins so that the fricking Bannon-wings dies out.

I can confirm whembly was opposed to Moore, and to his credit that opposition was even before Moore was outed as a predator. It was for all the awful things that we knew about Moore before this latest revelation.

But that doesn't have anything to do with whembly's position here, where he commented on Moore and the Republican reaction, and is now refusing to reply to my point about what he said, because he doesn't talk about Moore or the Repubilcan reaction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think any of the Republicans jumping to defend Moore have said anything at all about Takei.

Would Star Trek have reached Alabama yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Guys, I know we all love to gain internet and ego points, pointing at mental incoherences of other posters. But I don't know if anything valuable is gonna come out that. Or at least, insisting on it once it has been clearly explained the first time.

I believe the opposite. I think the only good that comes out of any conversation like this is from people seeing the weaknesses in their thought patterns and then working on those weaknesses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I dunno Seb, I can see why he would be reluctant to post more detailed thoughts on the GOP. And as a GOP supporter his thoughts are likely to have more nuance than being summed up as "really has a dark side, eh?"

Developing more sophisticated views about the wrongdoing by an organisation he supports, but having simpler, more hostile views towards an organisation he was already hostile to is exactly the point.

Further I would say there's been many more revelations about hollywood starts recently than politicians. You may be entirely right but I think the assumption is a bit of a stretch here.

Don't forget Ailles and O'Reilly at FOX News. While not elected, they were absolutely a key part of Republican politics. And then if we go back to 2015 we have Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House, who was convicted for sexual abuse of a minor, a crime he had covered up with hush money paid with misappropriated Federal funds. Then before that you had Mark Foley, who in 2006 was caught sexting an underage girl, which was only finally acted on when evidence became undeniable, before then Hastert had denied and delayed any investigation.

On the other side there was Weiner, and of course Clinton.

And here's a stat for everyone - a member of the House yesterday reported that in the last 10 to 15 years $15 million has been paid out by a special fund to victims of sexual harassment. Whether that's just harrasment by members of the House or if it also includes their senior staff, I don't know.

So yeah, there's no stretch calling this a major issue in Washington as well as Hollywood.

And that doesn't damn anyone involved in politics, certainly not anyone who supports one side or politics or the other. But people who were very quick to attack Hollywood who are now decide to have more nuanced views when it comes to something closer to home... well I think they should spend some time thinking about how they approach these issues.

 Ouze wrote:
You're not thinking far enough outside the box on this.

Again, I am in awe. Why can't Hollywood write villains this amazing?

 whembly wrote:
No.

Unless the mods give full-throated approval to discuss the political aspect of this, I'm not going down this road here and try to convince you otherwise. We'd be well into thread-lock territory.

But you came in and you commented, to defend the Republican party and claim Moore and his defenders don't reflect on the greater party. This is the exact opposite of your take in the post you started this thread with, where Weinstein's behaviour and the years it was ignored/covered up was enough to condemn the whole industry no matter how much people were speaking out against Weinstein now.

I'm not asking for a political take on this. You don't have to discuss the Republican party at all. What I want is a recognition that you saw the two sets of allegations and you approached each very differently because you are supportive of one group, and antagonistic to the other.

This matters because its exactly those sorts of thoughts and the rationalisations that flow from them that let these things happen. It's exactly the rationalisations that many Clinton staffers admitted to in the wake of the Clinton administration. It's the rationalisation that millions of voters went through to justify voting for Trump, and its more or less the rationalisation I went through to justify supporting Clinton despite his predatory behaviour.

It is exactly what we need to be honest about if we're going to change any of this.

The fact that I am 100% confident, in light of who started this thread, that this thread is totally a “damn liberals, look at them” thread makes the excuse of “I wouldn’t want to make this political” very questionable.

 d-usa wrote:
The fact that I am 100% confident, in light of who started this thread, that this thread is totally a “damn liberals, look at them” thread makes the excuse of “I wouldn’t want to make this political” very questionable.

This.

The Champion of US politics "What Aboutism" can't really start a thread with a blatant "what about" twinge to it and then claim they don't want it to be political.

Other posters have tried that, and as I said in those threads, no one whose been here long enough to know who is who is that stupid.

Seriously, I'm not trying to bash whembly. I like the dude and I count him as a mate. I'm also not trying to make this about Repubilcans or politics any more than Roy Moore makes that necessary, because I don't want this thread locked. I'm just trying to get whembly to maybe look at the difference in how he approached Hollywood's scandal, and how he approached Moore's scandal, to maybe think a bit about why he might have reached opposite conclusions on the two events.

And then maybe, hopefully, out of that conversation we might start talking about how everyone has similar blind spots.

It's a big ask from everyone, I know. Hope springs eternal.

 sebster wrote:


But you came in and you commented, to defend the Republican party and claim Moore and his defenders don't reflect on the greater party. This is the exact opposite of your take in the post you started this thread with, where Weinstein's behaviour and the years it was ignored/covered up was enough to condemn the whole industry no matter how much people were speaking out against Weinstein now.

I'm not asking for a political take on this. You don't have to discuss the Republican party at all. What I want is a recognition that you saw the two sets of allegations and you approached each very differently because you are supportive of one group, and antagonistic to the other.

This matters because its exactly those sorts of thoughts and the rationalisations that flow from them that let these things happen. It's exactly the rationalisations that many Clinton staffers admitted to in the wake of the Clinton administration. It's the rationalisation that millions of voters went through to justify voting for Trump, and its more or less the rationalisation I went through to justify supporting Clinton despite his predatory behaviour.

It is exactly what we need to be honest about if we're going to change any of this.

No... I most certainly did not. I've tried to stay away from politics at the mods behest... my silence on certain topics shouldn't be construed of... well... anything.

When I started this thread and said I "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?" that is in NO WAY to be interpreted that I think the pedo/rapist/sexual assaulters of the Hollywood bigwig as somehow be "representative" to Hollywood as a whole. In fact, it's very insulting that *this* is how you're framing your arguments in your attempt to get a pound of whembly-o-flesh. It is no more ridiculous than to claim Ted Kennedy letting a woman to die or that Bill Clinton's rape accusations is anymore indicative to the Democratic party as a whole.

In fact, it's hilarious that you can't even see the wide fething brush you're using...and continue to use.

Stop that.

You can recognized that Roy Moore is absolutely unqualified for the senate seat, without dragging the whole party on it's petard to flout out some virtual-signaling dick measuring contest.

Likewise you can condemn the behaviors of the likes of Weinstein/Spacey/et el without dragging everyone else down in Hollywood.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The fact that I am 100% confident, in light of who started this thread, that this thread is totally a “damn liberals, look at them” thread makes the excuse of “I wouldn’t want to make this political” very questionable.

Question all you want boyo.

This wasn't a "damn libs" post... this was an attempt to have a serious discussion over serious issues.

Not my problem that you don't feel that way.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
Seriously, I'm not trying to bash whembly. I like the dude and I count him as a mate. I'm also not trying to make this about Repubilcans or politics any more than Roy Moore makes that necessary, because I don't want this thread locked. I'm just trying to get whembly to maybe look at the difference in how he approached Hollywood's scandal, and how he approached Moore's scandal, to maybe think a bit about why he might have reached opposite conclusions on the two events.

And then maybe, hopefully, out of that conversation we might start talking about how everyone has similar blind spots.

It's a big ask from everyone, I know. Hope springs eternal.

Oh bloody hell...

Please elaborate on how I've reached opposite conclusions on the two events.

...I'll wait.

 sebster wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I dunno Seb, I can see why he would be reluctant to post more detailed thoughts on the GOP. And as a GOP supporter his thoughts are likely to have more nuance than being summed up as "really has a dark side, eh?"

Developing more sophisticated views about the wrongdoing by an organisation he supports, but having simpler, more hostile views towards an organisation he was already hostile to is exactly the point.

More sophisticated =/= more or less hostile. Also, commenting that Hollywood has a dark side is hardly a blanket comment on Hollywood as a whole. Literal comments aside, I haven't seen anything from him that indicates he is more/less forgiving of one side to the other (on this particular matter). Further, to say "US politics really has a dark side, eh?" is such a baseline assumption it would be like saying "the sky is really blue some days, huh?" verses Hollywood where many people may not/do not take that as a basic trait of the industry. I usually agree with you when calling out other posters but I think past conversations with Whembly may be affecting your objectivity on this one.

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The fact that I am 100% confident, in light of who started this thread, that this thread is totally a “damn liberals, look at them” thread makes the excuse of “I wouldn’t want to make this political” very questionable.

This.

The Champion of US politics "What Aboutism" can't really start a thread with a blatant "what about" twinge to it and then claim they don't want it to be political.

Other posters have tried that, and as I said in those threads, no one whose been here long enough to know who is who is that stupid.

There's politics then there's politics. 'Political' isn't a binary where it is or it isn't, it's a spectrum. Did Whembly's political slant help motivate him to start this thread? Probably. But he may have started it even without said political slant. And the content of his first post is very straightforward. Posted by someone else I don't think anyone would see it as anti-left.

At the very least, I think the reaction to Whembly has been disproportionate to the bias he may have shown.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I didn't discuss it because there's *still* a banned topic. I'm amazed the mods hasn't warned us yet to stop talking about US Politics.

So please stop inferring simply because I don't discuss it.

What? I never complained you didn't comment, because you did comment. "Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore." Those are your words, posted by you.

My complaint was about your comment. Because you took 'most' of the GOP withdrawing their support as evidence that Moore doesn't reflect on the party. But earlier in this thread, in your opening post that started this thread, you said "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?"

So apparently Hollywood can permit something for years, and when uncovered it isn't enough that almost everyone rejects the abuser, that's still enough to say Hollywood has a dark side.

But the Republican party can have a serial abuser in their midst, with a string of victims and a pattern of behaviour known by many in the public, and when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".

Don't deny the double standard, because that would be some impossible nonsense. Realise what you've done. Reflect on it. Use this as a chance to learn something about how you think about issues.

I dunno Seb, I can see why he would be reluctant to post more detailed thoughts on the GOP. And as a GOP supporter his thoughts are likely to have more nuance than being summed up as "really has a dark side, eh?" Further I would say there's been many more revelations about hollywood starts recently than politicians. You may be entirely right but I think the assumption is a bit of a stretch here.

I saw the recent list from Hollywood, which included Bush sr, and it's no where near the length of this list:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october172007/repub_scandals_10_17_07.php

Sure Hollywoods dirt is coming to light "recently", but there's a steady stream of offenders across the political spectrum, but most of them from the GOP. Which when you boil it all down all you can really conclude is that America has a rape culture, yet only one side is defending it, and elected a president who has a longer list of accusers than most on the Hollywood list.

 whembly wrote:
No... I most certainly did not. I've tried to stay away from politics at the mods behest... my silence on certain topics shouldn't be construed of... well... anything.

Dude. This was you, in this thread;

whembly wrote:Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore.

That doesn't "reflect" the GOP party anymore than Kennedy leaving a women to drown or BIll Clinton's issues reflect the Democratic party.

How is that 'trying to stay away from politics'?

When I started this thread and said I "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?" that is in NO WAY to be interpreted that I think the pedo/rapist/sexual assaulters of the Hollywood bigwig as somehow be "representative" to Hollywood as a whole. In fact, it's very insulting that *this* is how you're framing your arguments in your attempt to get a pound of whembly-o-flesh.

I don't want a pound of flesh. That is not what this is about. Seriously dude, we've been doing this for years, there's a long list of times I've caught out this or that, I have no need to add one more to the pile.

What I want is there to be some conversation about how we view this stuff, how our bias and our own motivations cause us to view new allegations. Politics is a good way of showing this, because there's such an obvious switch in so many people, not just you, in how the accusation is addressed, based on which side the accuser belongs to.

This is you in the first couple of pages of the thread, regarding the accusations against Hollywood.

"its de jour in the industry"
"Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?"
"...and I'm sure there are fethloads of other executives who'd need to be exposed. I guess the whole "Casting Couch™" genre in porn is hitting pretty close to reality...eh?"
"At the same time, this is an industry that requires you to know the right people to be successful... and it appears, that many of those "people" abuse their position of power in despicable ways."

Later on, you attempt a defense of the GOP on the grounds that most of them had rescinded their support of Moore;
"Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore. That doesn't "reflect" the GOP party anymore than Kennedy..."

Never mind that at that point there had been very few withdrawals of support, and most of what we'd seen was 'if true' dodges and some extremely weird defenses from Alabama GOP figures, the difference in those two approaches is telling.

Now, once again, this isn't to score internet points. I don't give a feth about that. It's about opening up some understanding about how we all engage with these accusations when they happen, how we will happily believe them when they suit us, but ignore, deny or oppose them when we find them threatening. And more than that, how we will ignore the failings in institutions that let these things happen, when we happen to benefit from or remain supportive of those institutions. Brian Cranston recently said he thought Weinstein and Spacey might find a way back - to people outside of Hollywood that sounds absurd, but we're not in that bubble. To people outside of the Republican bubble, the argument that the GOP mostly rescinded their support of Moore is also absurd.

It is no more ridiculous than to claim Ted Kennedy letting a woman to die or that Bill Clinton's rape accusations is anymore indicative to the Democratic party as a whole.

Bill Clinton's various predatory acts isn't indicative, but the decision of the party and its supporters to ignore and normalise his behaviour must be owned by the Democratic Party. And it's been interesting to watch that realisation slowly develop, to see the Democrats start to realise they can't just talk the talk on women's issues, they need to walk the walk and treat predators as they should be treated.

You can recognized that Roy Moore is absolutely unqualified for the senate seat, without dragging the whole party on it's petard to flout out some virtual-signaling dick measuring contest.

The term is virtue signaling, and that's not what is happening. It as though there's a shortage of things to condemn the GOP over. But what Hannity did, what Breitbart did, what various Alabama GOP figures attempted to argue, that stuff shouldn't just be forgotten.

Likewise you can condemn the behaviors of the likes of Weinstein/Spacey/et el without dragging everyone else down in Hollywood.

Absolutely, but we can talk about how a large chunk of Hollywood worked to enable and cover for Weinstein and how that needs to change, just as should happen in many other places.

 Ouze wrote:
It's like selectively reading the article and then asking why we're lynching Ben Affleck for making Argo.

Not really. It's more a case of not getting caught in the minutia when there are serious allegations going on.

Plus I don't like the knock on effect. Ratpack getting screwed 'cause of Ratner's actions? The Weinstien company being ostracised because of their head's actions? How is that fair to the people who make a living in this companies.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
More sophisticated =/= more or less hostile. Also, commenting that Hollywood has a dark side is hardly a blanket comment on Hollywood as a whole. Literal comments aside, I haven't seen anything from him that indicates he is more/less forgiving of one side to the other (on this particular matter). Further, to say "US politics really has a dark side, eh?" is such a baseline assumption it would be like saying "the sky is really blue some days, huh?" verses Hollywood where many people may not/do not take that as a basic trait of the industry.

I included a bunch of quotes above, it should show a pretty different approach, where whembly approaches the Weinstein scandal speculating how deep it goes, then with Moore he suddenly switches to noting (exaggerating) the efforts of Republicans to distance themselves from Moore.

I usually agree with you when calling out other posters but I think past conversations with Whembly may be affecting your objectivity on this one.

Dude, I like whembly. I think he's a good bloke. Probably the only way any part history plays in to this is that I'm trying to have the conversation, there's a lot of other posters who if they'd said the same thing I'd just not bother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Plus I don't like the knock on effect. Ratpack getting screwed 'cause of Ratner's actions? The Weinstien company being ostracised because of their head's actions? How is that fair to the people who make a living in this companies.

Won't somebody think of the motion picture financing companies!?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Spoiler:

 sebster wrote:
...when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".

You're not thinking far enough outside the box on this.

I...I have no words. I don't even have an amusing internet meme to post. Just, wow.

Rush Limbaugh has a rare form of mouth cancer. The only cure is sucking off republicans. He's been battling his disease for 30 years.

I am jealous of the UK! They can have a legit Politics thread and no one gets all butt hurt. :(

The scary thing about that Rush piece is that 50% of the US will hear that, and that is the only discussion they will hear about the topic. I live in one of those rural parts of a state where the only media you get reliably is Clear Channel.

I guarantee I will hear some one repeat that to me in person almost verbatim at least once this week.

Hannity realized how immoral it was to provide political cover for a sex predator started losing some advertisers, so he's issued an ultimatum to Moore.

So we see the familiar pattern repeat; the morality of powerful institutions is based on how useful the alleged harasser, rapist, or pedophile is to the bottom line.

If he pulls out, will Keurig send everybody a new coffeemaker?