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.
2017/11/15 18:27:41
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
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.
To a certain extent, profit>mortality has always been a thing in human societies, but in the US it has consistently been stronger than average. Which is to say, yeah business as usual :(
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.
Okay, if I feel the need to deny the existence of bigfoot or the mothman, does that make them real or a "strong confirmation" that they exist? Or if you wanna keep it to social values/practice, if I deny white genocide does that make it real?
I'm not sure if you don't know what a straw man is or if you think that is what I actually said. If you don't agree with me that's fine, it's just my opinion, but don't pretend there's some logical flaw in it by creating a fictional argument I didn't make.
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.
Fair enough. Maybe I'm trying to be too apologetic.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/15 18:33:12
d-usa wrote: If he pulls out, will Keurig send everybody a new coffeemaker?
In the old days, before the Internet; you were really never exactly sure how crazy your neighbor was. You could just assume they were decent folks and relatively normal.
Now, the lid has been blown off that kettle!
People are eager to show just how crazy they actually are. Really, destroyng your Keurig over this?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2017/11/15 19:13:31
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Easy E wrote: People are eager to show just how crazy they actually are. Really, destroyng your Keurig over this?
I honestly wouldn't even know what brand my coffee maker was if I didn't walk over to look. So my question is, did all the people watching Hannity turn off their tv's and walk over to their kitchen to confirm if they were harboring the enemy there
Also this is pretty good advertisement for Keurig, never knew they existed before idiots started destroying their own property.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
2017/11/15 19:14:48
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
In response to consumer complaints, Keurig wrote Saturday, “We worked with our media partner and Fox News to stop our ad from airing during The Sean Hannity Show,” in a tweet that has since been deleted. (Keurig CEO Bob Gamgort today clarified that “the decision to communicate our short-term media actions on Twitter was done outside of company protocols.”)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/15 19:32:22
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
2017/11/15 19:39:57
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
avantgarde wrote: What if I just wanted an excuse to destroy my Keurig because pod coffee sucks?
Then I have two questions. One, why did you buy a pod coffee machine if pod coffee sucks? Two, why not try to sell it or recycle it?
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
2017/11/15 20:06:59
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
avantgarde wrote: What if I just wanted an excuse to destroy my Keurig because pod coffee sucks?
Get a YouTube account, film yourself admitting that you made a horrible mistake in buying a pod coffee maker, and then come up with the most creative way of destroying it. Only show the actual destruction after 20 minutes of "Hey guys, this is your BOI avantgarde here with another video" and talking about the spiritual journey that lead you to realize the error of your ways and how this decision to destroy it will impact you for the rest of your life. Then show the actual destruction, complete with lots of annoying backup music (preferably awesome epic music though, the kind you would shred some chicken with), from at least two different cameras, including at a minimum a "destruction, reverse scroll back to before the destruction, now destruction in slow motion" scene. Then tell everybody "thanks guys, be sure to SMASH that LIKE BUTTON and subscribe to my channel". Then watch that sweet monetization roll in and use it to buy a french press and some free trade organic coffee.
2017/11/15 20:42:50
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Ouze wrote: 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.
To a certain extent, profit>mortality has always been a thing in human societies, but in the US it has consistently been stronger than average. Which is to say, yeah business as usual :(
That's not entirely fair. I'd rather say that the appearance of morality has been more important in the US than many other western countries. Profit is all nice, but looking good is even more important. You're always so surprised and outraged when a politician or other public figure is caught having an affair and want to kick them, to many others it's just a sign that they're human and let's see if they can still do their jobs. We're just not as shocked at some sex scandal as you are.
Admittedly it IS great fun to see some anti-gay male politician - who built his platform on that - resign after he's caught soliciting random men for sex in a public restroom....
2017/11/15 23:49:57
Subject: Re:Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Ouze wrote: 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.
To a certain extent, profit>mortality has always been a thing in human societies, but in the US it has consistently been stronger than average. Which is to say, yeah business as usual :(
That's not entirely fair. I'd rather say that the appearance of morality has been more important in the US than many other western countries. Profit is all nice, but looking good is even more important. You're always so surprised and outraged when a politician or other public figure is caught having an affair and want to kick them, to many others it's just a sign that they're human and let's see if they can still do their jobs. We're just not as shocked at some sex scandal as you are.
Admittedly it IS great fun to see some anti-gay male politician - who built his platform on that - resign after he's caught soliciting random men for sex in a public restroom....
I was referring specifically to the 'when it gets in the way of profit' part. Note how there were no issues until there was a financial impact--the network and the show did not care about the morality of the matter one bit, but the slightest hit to income is worth a complete about-face.
I don't think this one was entirely about the ad revenue. It's Keurig, not Nike or Budweiser. I think they just finally realized the potato was getting a bit too hot to hold.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/16 01:52:12
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2017/11/16 02:04:12
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Tannhauser42 wrote: I don't think this one was entirely about the ad revenue. It's Keurig, not Nike or Budweiser. I think they just finally realized the potato was getting a bit too hot to hold.
Keurig was one of nine advertisers to drop out. But apart from that nitpick I agree, the position Hannity staked was starting to look like a really bad idea. Once the Republican party began distancing themselves from Moore, Hannity was becoming a lone voice in the wilderness (unless you count Breitbart, and no-one should ever count Breitbart).
There are times when a career can survive and even flourish by taking a stand on an issue, Hannity got a large boost from backing Trump loud and proud early on, but defending Moore against sex allegations is probably not the place anyone wants to make a defining career moment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/16 03:31:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2017/11/16 04:29:43
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
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'?
You've known me a while... wasn't that me holding back?
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.
Will you ever hold up a mirror before you talk about the GOP? Therein lies your answer.
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."
Aye... and? Isn't that an apt description of the "dark side of Hollywood"???
You see... this was me trying to have a discussion about.. yaknow Hollywood.
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.
If you or others think that is absurd, there really isn't much discuss.
I'm well comfortable at my first position in my opposition to Moore. Frankly, I'm very confused how you think I've arrived in opposite direction between Moore and Weinstein.
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.
Too little to late imo. Just this last year, during the runup of the election, you'd have the likes of CNN, MSNBC, WashingtonPost, etc... working oh so very hard to put an accused rapist and his enabler back in the White House.
So, when the Clintons are on the outs with national politics...now? NOW? It's kosher to start believing Clinton's accusers? The courageous thing to do is to believe his accusers then... not now.
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.
There *are* no shortage of things to condemn the GOP over... especially the despicable wagon-circling around Moore when the allegations started.
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.
Aye.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2017/11/16 08:02:11
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
whembly wrote: I'm tired, cranky... been working my arse off. So I apologize for flipping out on you.
Hey I'm tired and cranky and I ain't been doing gak lately, so at least you have an excuse
Aye... and? Isn't that an apt description of the "dark side of Hollywood"???
You see... this was me trying to have a discussion about.. yaknow Hollywood.
But that's my point, you were happy to have a conversation about the dark side of Hollywood, you started a thread for that purpose. But when other people in the thread wanted to talk about the dark side of the GOP, you had to come in and give context, and talk about how it wasn't all dark.
In other words, when the subject was a group you don't hold dear, you were happy to focus in on that horrible part. When it is a group you have some level of identification, not only do you not want to focus in on that dark part, but when other people do focus in on it you feel the need to counter, and try and give some context.
I'm well comfortable at my first position in my opposition to Moore. Frankly, I'm very confused how you think I've arrived in opposite direction between Moore and Weinstein.
You haven't, I'm not claiming that. That is not what this is about.
Too little to late imo. Just this last year, during the runup of the election, you'd have the likes of CNN, MSNBC, WashingtonPost, etc... working oh so very hard to put an accused rapist and his enabler back in the White House.
So, when the Clintons are on the outs with national politics...now? NOW? It's kosher to start believing Clinton's accusers? The courageous thing to do is to believe his accusers then... not now.
I'll just look past the enabler stuff, that's a place that will get this thread locked. Enough to say I don't agree, and think that's a dangerous attitude, for reasons that have nothing to do with the Clintons. PM if you're interested.
Anyhow, I agree that there is a large element of political convenience, and I agree that's not good enough, but it is certainly better than never admitting it was ever a problem. It is a good start to finally start some change on this that some left wing commentators come forward and said their position about Clinton was wrong.
There *are* no shortage of things to condemn the GOP over... especially the despicable wagon-circling around Moore when the allegations started.
Yes, thankyou. But I'm trying to open the conversation more, because that in itself is just a beatstick against the Republicans. No different to the GOP moralising while the Democrats drew the wagons around Clinton. It scores points, whips up the base but does nothing to actually change the culture that lets this keep on happening.
What's needed, I think, as a first step is for people to admit that they are less inclined to believe the victim when the accused man fills an important role in institutions they personally benefit from. I've used the political aspect of it only because that's the area most people have been involved in at least a little, because not many of us are Weinstein Company investors, or on the board of New Republic. But most of us had opinions of Clinton, and of Trump and Moore. And if we're honest, we could admit our opinions on them and the organisations that protected them change dramatically based on political loyalties.
So maybe once we think about that, we might realise how it is that Moore is still leading in aggregates of polls in Alabama. How O'Reilly is slowly being welcomed back at FOX. How Clinton didn't just stay in office, but remained popular and was widely regarded as a feminist. How people thought Weiner needed a second chance (that he blew). Because people will ignore allegations if they allegation threaten their own political interests.
From there, when we consider politics is small, then think about stuff that really matters like our workplace and our own career, then its possible to understand why people in whole institutions might go in to denial, or even facilitate cover ups. It doesn't excuse what people did to cover for Weinstein or anyone else, but it helps explain it.
And once we've done all that, then we might start to talk about how we can fight against those tendencies that we all have. And then, maybe, we might start to move towards a place where people can't do this kind of thing for years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/16 08:36:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2017/11/16 15:33:26
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
whembly wrote:So, when the Clintons are on the outs with national politics...now? NOW? It's kosher to start believing Clinton's accusers? The courageous thing to do is to believe his accusers then... not now.
sebster wrote:What's needed, I think, as a first step is for people to admit that they are less inclined to believe the victim when the accused man fills an important role in institutions they personally benefit from. I've used the political aspect of it only because that's the area most people have been involved in at least a little, because not many of us are Weinstein Company investors, or on the board of New Republic. But most of us had opinions of Clinton, and of Trump and Moore. And if we're honest, we could admit our opinions on them and the organisations that protected them change dramatically based on political loyalties.
I'm quite sure I've fallen into this exact trap. I always thought Juanita Broaddrick was a little hard to swallow for... well, it was easy to find reasons why. As time has gone by though, I've wondered, especially over the course of the election when it was all rehashed again. I've now come to think that she's almost certainly telling the truth. Why do I believe her now? Her story hasn't changed, she hasn't gotten any more credible. I'd like to say because we've become more aware of how widespread sexual assault actually is, and how much more people understand that victims may take a very long time to come forward, and so on....but on some level I have to wonder how my bias comes into play. As Whembly says, now that it doesn't matter and in fact in some part HRC helped to put Trump in the White House, is that why I'm more inclined to see things in a light less favorable to my team? Just lame ass tribalism? I assume the answer has to be yes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/16 15:34:20
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2017/11/16 17:02:33
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Don't forget that there was a lot of wolf-crying at the time, with scandals that never amounted to anything and investigations that turned up nada. It made it difficult to take any allegations against Clinton seriously. Now, after there has been time to sort through everything and the rate of claims, false or otherwise, has slowed down, it is easier to measure the accusations on their own merits rather than as a concerted bs blizzard.
Really, if you heard an allegation today that another prominent D was running a sex ring out of a sandwich shop, would you be inclined to take that seriously?
whembly wrote:So, when the Clintons are on the outs with national politics...now? NOW? It's kosher to start believing Clinton's accusers? The courageous thing to do is to believe his accusers then... not now.
sebster wrote:What's needed, I think, as a first step is for people to admit that they are less inclined to believe the victim when the accused man fills an important role in institutions they personally benefit from. I've used the political aspect of it only because that's the area most people have been involved in at least a little, because not many of us are Weinstein Company investors, or on the board of New Republic. But most of us had opinions of Clinton, and of Trump and Moore. And if we're honest, we could admit our opinions on them and the organisations that protected them change dramatically based on political loyalties.
I'm quite sure I've fallen into this exact trap. I always thought Juanita Broaddrick was a little hard to swallow for... well, it was easy to find reasons why. As time has gone by though, I've wondered, especially over the course of the election when it was all rehashed again. I've now come to think that she's almost certainly telling the truth. Why do I believe her now? Her story hasn't changed, she hasn't gotten any more credible. I'd like to say because we've become more aware of how widespread sexual assault actually is, and how much more people understand that victims may take a very long time to come forward, and so on....but on some level I have to wonder how my bias comes into play. As Whembly says, now that it doesn't matter and in fact in some part HRC helped to put Trump in the White House, is that why I'm more inclined to see things in a light less favorable to my team? Just lame ass tribalism? I assume the answer has to be yes.
Good on you for that introspection Ouze, seriously.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2017/11/16 17:30:23
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/11/16 18:27:27
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
Can anything actually come from an ethics investigation? I'm honestly not really sure, but I've always had the impression that they don't accomplish anything meaningful.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2017/11/16 18:32:00
Subject: Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood
The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.
That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...