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:

 Spinner wrote:
I'm pretty comfortable in saying that if you use your position of power to coerce sexual favors from someone, you lose your Good Person Card.

Pence is a whole different basket of creepy issues, but that's what happens when you want to run a fundamentalist theocracy.

a theocracy run by someone who never went to church and has been accused of harassment by multiple people?

I'm referring to what Pence wants to run. Sounds like you're talking about what someone else is running now, although I'd note running a theocracy doesn't necessarily mean following its rules.

And I'm not sure what's meant by 'look at power differently', but I'm also pretty comfortable saying that if most men use positions of authority for sexual extortion - a claim not made by the linked article - then most men are bad people.

 Spinner wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I'm pretty comfortable in saying that if you use your position of power to coerce sexual favors from someone, you lose your Good Person Card.

Pence is a whole different basket of creepy issues, but that's what happens when you want to run a fundamentalist theocracy.

a theocracy run by someone who never went to church and has been accused of harassment by multiple people?

I'm referring to what Pence wants to run. Sounds like you're talking about what someone else is running now, although I'd note running a theocracy doesn't necessarily mean following its rules.

And I'm not sure what's meant by 'look at power differently', but I'm also pretty comfortable saying that if most men use positions of authority for sexual extortion - a claim not made by the linked article - then most men are bad people.

So you're a Mind reader now? It's that type if hyperbole that makes both left and right wingers look like idiots.

Well, no, I just listen to him when he describes his principles and his policies. You can't list yourself as your religious denomination first and foremost as a politician without being considered as someone pushing a theocratic agenda.

This is, however, not exactly on topic and veering toward US politics. Feel free to PM me if you want to talk that, though!

 Spinner wrote:
Well, no, I just listen to him when he describes his principles and his policies. You can't list yourself as your religious denomination first and foremost as a politician without being considered as someone pushing a theocratic agenda.

This statement is disturbing as all hell...

<-- not a very religious dude at all.

This is, however, not exactly on topic and veering toward US politics. Feel free to PM me if you want to talk that, though!

I'll tango if you want to continue this line of discussion.

This Twitter thread might be interesting for people who don't know what hotel room usually means in the movie industry (and why meetings happen there). In short: It usually refers to bigger suites with offices (or at lest separate rooms) for professional business meetings and not dome dinky little room. Those are convenient as both sides often meet somewhere on neutral ground (so to speak) as they are not always in each other's "home town" where the real offices are.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The idea that you can't be in a room with a woman who isn't your wife is weird AF, and as a professional, it's more than a bit unreasonable to exclude women from business dinners and other functions because you're afraid you can't control yourself. They're people, not objects with magical powers.

It's the idea you are in a room Alone with another female employee, and it is not in the work environs is what is problematic and should be limited.

Eh? Business dinners and lunches aren't about being alone in a room with anyone. They're done in restaurants in public. You can see dozens going on in DC and LA just walking down the street.

Professional behavior really isn't hard, neither is basic humanity, no matter what crazy people propose.

Prestor Jon wrote:
That's a bunch of nonsense. If you know a serious crime, like assault or rape has occurred you have an obligation to report it to the police. It's not ok to ignore criminals committing violent crimes and we have rape shield laws to protect the anonymity of victims. When you don't stop rapists and child molesters they keep on assaulting people. Look at the Sandusky case, the Penn State administration knew Sandusky was raping kids but didn't go to the police, 10 years later a school principal discovers Sandusky is raping students there and calls the police. In the intervening decade between McQueary's witnessing Sandusky molesting a kid at Penn State and the school principal calling the police Sandusky raped multiple children. Why was that allowed to happen? Because Penn State administrators in the athletic department didn't want to deal with the negative publicity of a criminal case against Sandusky. It's inexcusable to enable sexual predators to victimize more people.

First up, you mentioned child molesters, but obviously missed the points I made earlier about how it is very different when the child is a victim. Second up, you started talking about institutional cover ups that have absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. In Penn State, for instance, we saw acts by multiple people to deny and deflect what had happened. Obviously none of that is okay.

What I am saying is that if a grown adult is a victim and you know what happened, you should go and talk to that person and tell them you know what happened and that you will support them with whatever action they choose to take. If they decide to not to make what happened public, then it is not your place to make that decision for them. That's it. That's the point I made, it's a simple one born directly out of a respect for grown adults to make their own choices. It says nothing about when the victim is a child, and it certainly isn't a defense of anyone who attempts to make it harder for a victim to make their case public or prevent them getting justice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
The victims are always blamed, it's the American way, it's on the bingo card for a reason. You can't have a rape trail without the obligatory "look how she is dressed" defense. Look at how the women accusing trump were treated.

Exactly.

Blaming Obama & the dems is just a cheap political attack to keep their base riled up and afraid of "those" liberals. It's what keeps them going to the polls and voting R. They believe the girls accusing Clinton, but not the ones accusing Trump nor O'reilly. I bet Weinstein won't get his job back ever, but it's amazing how fast O'reilly did. Can't let a good spin doctor go to waste it seems.

It's fething shameful that sex abuse has become a partisan issue.

Though I'd say this is actually more cynical than just getting the base to remain afraid of Democrats because they have a donor who was a sex predator. I think it's about trying to nullify the sex abuse allegations against Trump, and against multiple people at FOX News. The ploy is that if they can make a big enough deal about this then they'll manage to mud stuck to both sides and thereby negate it as an issue. It's pretty goofy to try and say the because a donor to one party was a sex predator for years, then it doesn't matter that the other side's president is a sex predator, but it does seem to be working.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I said earlier, I don't give two hoots for Weinstein, and the sheer number of people accusing him of crimes, is probably an example of where we can apply the law of averages.

All I'm saying is that ancient, hard fought rights, the foundation of Western Civilisation, should not be sacrificed for the sake of some media circus.

And I'm explaining to you that none of those rights require members of the public to stop using their common sense and reason, and none of those rights are lost when the public speaks plainly about the facts placed in front of it. I agree that when there is genuine doubt, where the statements made by accusers appear opportunistic, or when the accused has made a full denial of the charges, then we should move forward with caution and an appreciation of the doubt in the case. But it achieves nothing to make a show of pretend doubt in cases like this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Victim blaming is as common as accusation is proof of guilt.

What happened to innocent til proven guilty? Until convicted of a crime one should not be allowed to public accuse someone of it. I believe that's called inflamitory remarks.

This isn't some 'he said/she said' debate. Dozens of women have come forward, most with absolutely nothing to gain by making their statements. And Weinstein has denied none of it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If this is knowledge of the crime after the fact, then you are right. If I witness it, the victim has no say. As a mandated reporter, I am required by law to report all abuse that I witness, regardless of what the victim says. If not, I can face legal consequences.

Mandated reporters are designated as such because they deal with minors and dependent adults. Which as I've already said several fething times are totally different to mature, decision making adults. A point you and a bunch of others are choosing to ignore for some strange reason or another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
I remember playing LA Noire for the first time. A mission on the Traffic Desk goes in to this and as this story comes back I can't help think about this. It only make me think of Roman Polanski, how they all stood up and applauded him as Harrison Ford stood there, no emotion on his face. Polanski having been convicted raping a young underage girl in a hot tub of a friends home, another director whom escapes my name. He then ran off to Canada and hasn't come back since, a wanted criminal. And I can only think how they, the Hollywood elite, liberal in much a sense gave this man a God damn award.

Not Canada, France. And the circumstances around the trial are pretty weird, he basically confessed when he was offered a sweetheart plea bargain, but it became known the judge was going to discard the plea deal and give Polanski 50 years. That's not cool in a lot of ways, Polanski admitted guilt to one charge believing in good faith he was being offered a deal. But the judge's reason to ignore the deal was also entirely understandable, Polanski confessed to 'only' statutory rape and was going to get time served and walk out of court a free man, which is absurd because the crime wasn't just that she was underage, he drugged her and had sex with her while unconscious. Anyway, on hearing that his slap on the wrist deal was going to be ignored and he was going to get a huge sentence, Polanski fledto France.

I completely agree that Hollywood trying to ignore what Polanski did is awful, but at the same time the girl who was raped has spent years trying to move on with her life and just wants this left alone. So in a perfect world, or as perfect as can be when someone gets away with rape, Hollywood would stop celebrating Polanski, and this woman wouldn't have to keep getting reminded about what happened to her. But this isn't a perfect world, so parts of Hollywood keep pretending he isn't a child rapist, and other people keep trying to use this girl as part of a crusade against Hollywood.

And by the way? The person who's house this took place in? Jack Nicholson. And the primary material witness was Angelica Houston. And one reason given by Polanski for doing this was grief over the murder of his girlfriend a year before, who was killed by Charlie Manson, who was only at that house because it used to be owned by a Beach Boy, who Manson really wanted to kill. This whole thing would be amazing who's who of Hollywood scandal, if the underlying event wasn't so damned sad.

 sebster wrote:
Though I'd say this is actually more cynical than just getting the base to remain afraid of Democrats because they have a donor who was a sex predator. I think it's about trying to nullify the sex abuse allegations against Trump, and against multiple people at FOX News. The ploy is that if they can make a big enough deal about this then they'll manage to mud stuck to both sides and thereby negate it as an issue. It's pretty goofy to try and say the because a donor to one party was a sex predator for years, then it doesn't matter that the other side's president is a sex predator, but it does seem to be working.

So what you're saying is.... both sides are equally bad

Spetulhu wrote:
Could be different in different countries ofc, but over here a citizen isn't required to report crimes that have already happened. If they find evidence of a serious crime people will still usually report it because it's the right thing to do. They are, however, by law required to report something like a guy planning a murder, rape etc, the "can still be prevented" part. And ofc we're by law required to render aid to people in danger even if all we can do is call the emergency number and wait.

Actually Finland has mandated reporter requirements for several professions.

Note there requirements aren't placed on all citizens, just one people with some professional role within institutions dealing with vulnerable people (children, students, the elderly etc). Dreadwinter compared it to someone having a heart attack and noting that a nearby doctor has a legal liability to help that other bystanders don't have. Another example would be a Chief Financial Officer having a greater obligation to report indications of financial misconduct, than is expected of other people working in finance roles.

It's an attempt to try and break up the institutional cover ups we've seen revealed in the last couple of decades. The idea is that a teacher or a child care worker who hears something now has a legal liability for staying quiet, and that will hopefully stop the number of cases of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
If you feel that way so be it but do keep it to yourself please and do not be rude. I am not one to get emotional about this stuff or instantly say someone is wrong because several others say he is. Once proof is given more so then word of mouth, then he is guilty.

Right now, we have an accused person yet to be proven guilty of any crime already being called a rapist. Word of mouth proof is as strong as the paper it is written on.

I will not jump on any band wagon until all the chips are played, then I will make an informed choice and stand by it. I am not saying they are liers or he is guilty.

Literally one post before this you were calling his accusers prostitutes. Now you switch to concern about people pre-judging Weinstein. That's an interesting double standard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:
Now I'm sure we would all like to think of ourselves as 'good people', but let's be honest, many men today and throughout history have abused power for the sexual attentions of women; it simply doesn't wash with me to dismiss them all just 'bad people'.

A man who has the willpower to never, ever be in any situation alone with a woman, also has the willpower to not rape women if he is in those situations.

Pence's position is about a showy display of public virtue, it has nothing to do with actually keeping women safe.

What is clear to me is this; if you are a man in any sort of position of power you have to be honest and say this temptation will occur and that it is one that many good men have been unable to resist through will power alone.

No, absolutely not. Good men don't sit there in private with a woman, fighting a constant battle every second to not rape that women, then threaten to destroy her career if she says anything. That's not a good man who gave in to temptation. That's a rapist who raped, who is absolutely in any way not a good man.

However, I think the premise that we all put a little bit more thought into how we can avoid putting ourselves (and our lady friends/ colleges) in these potentially compromising situations is a sound one

It's good to keep business relations formal for lots of reasons. And it is good and respectful to avoid situations like inviting women to your hotel room for business, which could be threatening to the woman and likely intimidating. I agree there. There are limits to that for lots of reasons, but as a general move its one thing many industries could do to reform.

Just moving away from Hollywood I think a lot could be done to move away from the functions that are held in hotels, where everyone books rooms in those hotels, and each night after the presentations you get those horrific free for alls at the bar where a whole bunch of people are drinking on company tabs. That's just an open door to all kinds of mistakes getting made by all kinds of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
So what you're saying is.... both sides are equally bad

That's the one

Voss wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The idea that you can't be in a room with a woman who isn't your wife is weird AF, and as a professional, it's more than a bit unreasonable to exclude women from business dinners and other functions because you're afraid you can't control yourself. They're people, not objects with magical powers.

It's the idea you are in a room Alone with another female employee, and it is not in the work environs is what is problematic and should be limited.

Eh? Business dinners and lunches aren't about being alone in a room with anyone. They're done in restaurants in public. You can see dozens going on in DC and LA just walking down the street.

Professional behavior really isn't hard, neither is basic humanity, no matter what crazy people propose.

Agreed. We're both in the same page.
I have had female and make employees. I treat them the same and act as you noted.

It's gone international now, with official accusations made in Britain by Lysette Anthony and others. Reading some of these stories of the things he did is just absolutely disgusting.

Do you think there is a possibility of criminal charges?

Sebster, I am not ignoring your point. However, you are ignoring the fact that I treat minors and adults the same way if I witness abuse.

All Hollywood can technically go to Hell in my opinion.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
All Hollywood can technically go to Hell in my opinion.

Because of a very small number of criminals in an industry with tens of thousands of people that supports millions more?

Or is this a Liberals!! thing?

Love the, "outrage", from these people. Here's some more outrage for Polanski as demonstrated by Hollywood:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk

Anyone taking these people as their moral compass is in a sad way.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
That's a bunch of nonsense. If you know a serious crime, like assault or rape has occurred you have an obligation to report it to the police. It's not ok to ignore criminals committing violent crimes and we have rape shield laws to protect the anonymity of victims. When you don't stop rapists and child molesters they keep on assaulting people. Look at the Sandusky case, the Penn State administration knew Sandusky was raping kids but didn't go to the police, 10 years later a school principal discovers Sandusky is raping students there and calls the police. In the intervening decade between McQueary's witnessing Sandusky molesting a kid at Penn State and the school principal calling the police Sandusky raped multiple children. Why was that allowed to happen? Because Penn State administrators in the athletic department didn't want to deal with the negative publicity of a criminal case against Sandusky. It's inexcusable to enable sexual predators to victimize more people.

First up, you mentioned child molesters, but obviously missed the points I made earlier about how it is very different when the child is a victim. Second up, you started talking about institutional cover ups that have absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. In Penn State, for instance, we saw acts by multiple people to deny and deflect what had happened. Obviously none of that is okay.

What I am saying is that if a grown adult is a victim and you know what happened, you should go and talk to that person and tell them you know what happened and that you will support them with whatever action they choose to take. If they decide to not to make what happened public, then it is not your place to make that decision for them. That's it. That's the point I made, it's a simple one born directly out of a respect for grown adults to make their own choices. It says nothing about when the victim is a child, and it certainly isn't a defense of anyone who attempts to make it harder for a victim to make their case public or prevent them getting justice.

It is one hundred percent my obligation to my community, my family, my coworkers, my friends and myself to report a violent crime if I see it/hear it/know about it, regardless of the age or feelings of the victim.

If I'm walking to my car in the parking lot after work and I see what looks like a man assaulting a woman in poorly lit far corner of the parking lot and I yell and run over there and the man flees, I find the woman on the ground disheveled, bruised and dazed. I ask her if she's ok and I take out my phone and tell her not to worry because I'm going to call 911 but she tells me No, no, that's ok I'm fine, I'm fine I just want to go home. She gathers her things, gets in her car and drives off. Should I call the police and report what I saw or not?

My stance is that I should absolutely report witnessing an assault 100% of the time. We, as a society, have decided to criminalize assault/sexual assault, to discourage it and punish anyone who is convicted of committing it. I don't see any compelling reason to ever not report a violent crime. When crimes go unreported it allows the criminals to continue to roam free and victimize more members of the community. That's not good for anybody.

I agree with you that it's not a good idea to "go public" with a crime, but that's because publicity isn't going to stop a criminal, law enforcement needs to do that. The reason Harvey Weinstein got to commit sexual harassment and sexual assault for decades is because nobody went to law enforcement to make him stop. Being an anonymous source for a story in Entertainment Weekly or Variety or gossiping about it to the point that it's an "open secret" isn't likely to lead to an arrest or prosecution of Weinstein. At best it tarnishes his reputation but it certainly doesn't stop him from harassing and assaulting people.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.". (Edmund Burke)

Joe Biden made a really great speech on this a couple of days ago, dunno if it has been shared here.

I honestly do not understand how this is a political issue.... unless it is a a very elaborate attempt at Whataboutism. If that is the only reason this is a political issue than.... WOW!

If not an elaboarate attempt at Whataboutism, then I applaud everyone's efforts to root out sexual harassment and misogynistic (sp?) power structures. What is the next step to hold those who have behaved badly accountable in Hollywood, D.C. and across the globe?

It is an issue by it's own virtue, that's for sure.

But it is also a political issue because we have a POTUS who has admitted to sexual assault, an establishment that was still okay with him being POTUS, a bunch of voters who were still OK with him being POTUS. This of course resulted in a bunch of Democrats blasting Trump, the GOP, and the voters for supporting a self-admitted pussy grabber.

Of course the same Democrats got a bunch of money from a person known for sexual assault, and when that became public they were super slow to the punch to speak out against him or dump his money.

There is a significant group for whom it is less about the victims, and more about "haha, the Democrats like sexual assault as well".

 d-usa wrote:
It is an issue by it's own virtue, that's for sure.

But it is also a political issue because we have a POTUS who has admitted to sexual assault

A disgusting lewd comment, not actual assault. jeez man, Trump is easy picking w/o you making this up.

, an establishment that was still okay with him being POTUS, a bunch of voters who were still OK with him being POTUS. This of course resulted in a bunch of Democrats blasting Trump, the GOP, and the voters for supporting a self-admitted pussy grabber.

Just read the transcript.
So... having said that, a guy with this kind of disposition and character should've not been anywhere close to the WhiteHouse.

Hence why I voted for the stoner.

Of course the same Democrats got a bunch of money from a person known for sexual assault, and when that became public they were super slow to the punch to speak out against him or dump his money.

There is a significant group for whom it is less about the victims, and more about "haha, the Democrats like sexual assault as well".

Whattaboutism cuts both ways... I'm mean, there are some in this thread who can't resist.

But, I think we all do a good job calling 'em out on both sides too.

When you have *that* many accusations, it's kinda hard to ignore it.

I mean, Weinstein's accusers are now international...

What Ouze did is not whataboutism. His comments do not deflect or attempt to play down the accusations against weinstein, only point out the blatant hypocrisy of Fox.

There is the answer, better than I was able to give it.

Wear the Team Trump uniform with pride.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
What Ouze did is not whataboutism. His comments do not deflect or attempt to play down the accusations against weinstein, only point out the blatant hypocrisy of Fox.

Seems like that's what he did.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
There is the answer, better than I was able to give it.

Wear the Team Trump uniform with pride.

Okay d... you run with that.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
All Hollywood can technically go to Hell in my opinion.

Because of a very small number of criminals in an industry with tens of thousands of people that supports millions more?

Or is this a Liberals!! thing?

probably because of the two Hollywood elites that got elected as president. two of the worst presidents with huge mental issues. both of whom were obsessed with walls and greatly increased the deficit.

keep Hollywood out of politics indeed.

Okay, like the second part of my post said, if this is NOT about Whataboutism then....

What is the next step to hold those who have behaved badly accountable in Hollywood, D.C. and across the globe?

Is it legislation? A social media campaign? More public shaming? Encouraging people to donate money and time to certain charities? What is it?

I'm really hoping this does end up being a positive move and not just a political weapon... The "metoo" hashtag is looking like it's being a thing now, with both BBC staff sharing some stories as well as various people I'm following on twitter.

I've got to say, I never thought I was naive about the whole thing, but the sheer scale of it, the sheer numbers of women affected. That, I think is the real surprise.

 Easy E wrote:
Okay, like the second part of my post said, if this is NOT about Whataboutism then....

Yeah... you've been on the mark.

What is the next step to hold those who have behaved badly accountable in Hollywood, D.C. and across the globe?

Is it legislation? A social media campaign? More public shaming? Encouraging people to donate money and time to certain charities? What is it?

All of the above to be honest.... Weinstein probably isn't the only one... he's just the one that got caught.

 whembly wrote:
But, I think we all do a good job calling 'em out on both sides too.

Yes, that's why you've started threads on Bill O'Reilly, Eric Bolling, and Roger Ailes.

In your defense as a Fox News viewer, you might not be aware any of those things happened.

Get real. Your concern over celebrity sexual assault scandals started the second you could use it as a political attack on a wealthy democratic donor.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, I think we all do a good job calling 'em out on both sides too.

Yes, that's why you've started threads on Bill O'Reilly, Eric Bolling, and Roger Ailes.

In your defense as a Fox News viewer, you might not be aware any of those things happened.

Get real. Your concern over celebrity sexual assault scandals started the second you could use it as a political attack on a wealthy democratic donor.

A) I don't watch Fox News as I don't have cable
B) When I did, I watched CNN... I'm the generation who watched the first Gulf War on CNN at school.
C) We did talk to many of that in the locked US politics thread.
D) Your last sentence couldn't be further from the truth.