Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

meeeeh

It's a sign. Illuminati are trying to take over the work and brave lone solder Donald is standing between them and world apocalypse.

I have no doubt there is plenty of corruption among great and powerful but let's not mistake attempts to moderate venom that common garden trolls spout on social media with freedom of expression.

Noel82

tara73 wrote: »

'sorry', but this really made me laugh...the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare in America: and then that picture... what an evil bunch of 12! women (when it's about evilness, the women are in the majority..) and 2 men...tell us, who are they????

I'd assume he's talking about the stereotypical gender studies college type/social justice warrior look, like died hair and those type of glasses. The guy on the left doesn't look very manly either. In a world where having opposing views can be seen as hate speech, I can somewhat understand his reasoning.

strandroad

Noel82 wrote: »

I'd assume he's talking about the stereotypical gender studies college type/social justice warrior look, like died hair and those type of glasses. The guy on the left doesn't look very manly either. In a world where having opposing views can be seen as hate speech, I can somewhat understand his reasoning.

No, he means Anita Sarkeesian's (in the middle) visit to Google. She used to expose sexist tropes in computer games which made her the target of so much threats and doxxing that she's pretty much the face of the fight against online abuse against women now.
That's the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare, rightly rejected by the heartland of America.... looks like it means pizzagate is real?

selectamatic

silverharp wrote: »

in general terms though talent wins out in sport most of the time, if you are the best you are the best. Unknown actors are totally replaceable.

True talent and hard work will always win out in sport in its purity.

It's more the activities surrounding sport that are open to abuse by sordid characters. Case in point many talented boxers were fast tracked to world titles as long as the right people were getting the right cut of the pie. While other equally talented individuals were left to travel a longer harder road to success.

Sport in general though has been continuously revised and it's running improved. To a point thats it's better ran and more transparent than ever before; the same can't really be said for the showbiz industry. Perhaps this will be the turning point? but unfortunately I remain sceptical.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

tara73 wrote: »

'sorry', but this really made me laugh...the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare in America: and then that picture... what an evil bunch of 12! women (when it's about evilness, the women are in the majority..) and 2 men...tell us, who are they????

Good job taking it completely out of context.

If you are happy to have lunatics like these influencing the most powerful information platform in the world, there's not much I can say to you.

Just today, the book 'To Kill A Mockingbird' has been removed from the Mississippi school reading list because it's 'uncomfortable'. It's these kind of snowflakes that share the same ideals as the people in the picture.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/14/to-kill-a-mockingbird-harper-lee-mississippi-school-reading-list

Hande hoche!

strandroad wrote: »

No, he means Anita Sarkeesian's (in the middle) visit to Google. She used to expose sexist tropes in computer games which made her the target of so much threats and doxxing that she's pretty much the face of the fight against online abuse against women now.
That's the finalisation of an Orweillian nightmare, rightly rejected by the heartland of America.... looks like it means pizzagate is real?

On the plus side, we have Brianna Wu running for the US congress.

Is this a lizard people/Jews under the beds conspiracy theory thing?

That feeling when someone who previously appeared normal but suddenly starts coming out with the really exclusive and expensive crazy.

tara73

strandroad wrote: »

No, he means Anita Sarkeesian's (in the middle) visit to Google. She used to expose sexist tropes in computer games which made her the target of so much threats and doxxing that she's pretty much the face of the fight against online abuse against women now.

ok, sorry then, then it's a complete misunderstanding..:o but still don't know what the sentence should mean with Orwellian nightmare and the likes...:)anyway..

strandroad

tara73 wrote: »

ok, sorry then, then it's a complete misunderstanding..:o but still don't know what the sentence should mean with Orwellian nightmare and the likes...:)anyway..

She's an embattled woman + Google talks to her = the end of the world as we know it is near

Dr Brown

It seems that Irish actress Alison Doody didn't progress in her career because she wasn't willing to sleep with a studio boss.

She hit it big with a starring role in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade but I don't think she has done much since then.

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/the-weinstein-effect-irish-women-speak-out-i-saw-him-openly-grope-women-at-an-oscar-party-nobody-did-anything-36227965.html

tara73

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Good job taking it completely out of context.

If you are happy to have lunatics like these influencing the most powerful information platform in the world, there's not much I can say to you.

Just today, the book 'To Kill A Mockingbird' has been removed from the Mississippi school reading list because it's 'uncomfortable'. It's these kind of snowflakes that share the same ideals as the people in the picture.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/14/to-kill-a-mockingbird-harper-lee-mississippi-school-reading-list

sorry, but I don't get it (honestly). who are the lunatics now? somebody just explained that this is Anita Sarkeesian (never heard about her before, but she's probably only popular in the US?) I thought you like people who speak up/telling the truth? And I thought that's what she's doing??

Noel82

strandroad wrote: »

No, he means Anita Sarkeesian's (in the middle) visit to Google. She used to expose sexist tropes in computer games which made her the target of so much threats and doxxing that she's pretty much the face of the fight against online abuse against women now.

Everyone gets abuse online, doesn't matter who you are.
Here's a study from the election looking at anti Semitic abuse.

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/press-center/CR_4862_Journalism-Task-Force_v2.pdf

Ben Shapiro, Male/Conservative/Jew was by far the most targeted, more so than his female counterparts.



Now my point was more about culture and censorship and the direction it was going in and the stereotypical social justice warriors in positions of power who pertain to know everything but have zero real world experience. It could be 10 men with pink hair, doesn't matter. You're equating my problem is with Women, but it's not. Admittingly I'm judging a group of people by their looks, but their sex to me doesn't matter. Perhaps you want it to be an issue, I don't know.

All off topic so I'm done with this subject.

strandroad

Noel82 wrote: »

Now my point was more about culture and censorship and the direction it was going in and the people in the photo look like the stereotypical social justice warriors who pertain to know everything but have zero real world experience. It could be 10 men with pink hair, doesn't matter. You're equating my problem is with Women, but it's not. Admittingly I'm judging a group of people by their looks, but their sex to me doesn't matter. Perhaps you want it to be an issue, I don't know.

I wasn't referring to your post, but to Biggest lickspittle's, who named Sarkeesian in his post?
Anyway EOT.

Ulysses Gaze

Candie wrote: »

Is this a lizard people/Jews under the beds conspiracy theory thing?

That feeling when someone who previously appeared normal but suddenly starts coming out with the really exclusive and expensive crazy.

In these types of instances Candie, Cristiano Ronaldo sums it up best....

Assetbacked

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What does looks have to do with anything? Women wouldn't mind someone famous and good looking forcing themselves on them? Go away with that nonsense.

I'm not talking about forcing themselves on them but rather where it is seen as seedy and disgusting when Weinstein hits on a woman, it is a turn on when more famous and attractive actors use their status and looks to sleep with women.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Candie wrote: »

Is this a lizard people/Jews under the beds conspiracy theory thing?

That feeling when someone who previously appeared normal but suddenly starts coming out with the really exclusive and expensive crazy.

I'd rather not be associated with that sort of crap please, joking or otherwise.
I haven't said anything about jews or lizard people so don't try to smear me with that.

tara73 wrote: »

sorry, but I don't get it (honestly). who are the lunatics now? somebody just explained that this is Anita Sarkeesian (never heard about her before, but she's probably only popular in the US?) I thought you like people who speak up/telling the truth? And I thought that's what she's doing??

What I will say is that Anita Sarkeesian, like many young Americans, has been exposed to a certain ideology without any counterbalance of opposing arguments. This does not lead to a healthy state of mind overall. (On both sides of the political spectrum, I might add.)
Of course, she has some valid points. But a sort of 'digital red Guard' mindset has been brewing over the last few decades in the college campuses in the U.S.
And some people have appointed themselves moral authorities of society, and are very motivated in achieving their desired outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards

Anyway, I don't want to drag this topic off thread.

Like I said, we'll come back to this in a year or so and see where we are. I'll happily grovel and apologise if my case hasn't been proved.

RabbleRouser2k

Bit worried about people doing the 'he raped her, she still dated him-so it's not rape' thing. Um, it is. If you read up on it, it's quite distressing to read, but not uncommon for a rape victim to date her rapist. It's a way for her/ him to suppress their realisation 'they were raped'.
For Argento, it seems very much like she didn't want to admit it-also, she tweeted how she was abused more than once, as a teen, and in her twenties. So she had more than one abuser. (If you've seen 'Author: the JT Story'-she doesn't come across very well in that, as in very promiscuous to 'get the job'-for an abuse victim, it explains the behaviour (I wouldn't know, personally, how an abuse survivor behaves. It just comes from research, reading). It often happens that someone who's abused sexually, will become overly sexual, to sort of 'justify' that their abuse/ rape, was 'within their control'-when it obviously wasn't. It's a sad, complex issue).

mzungu

selectamatic wrote: »

Just on this, Mike Tyson's rape conviction is far from the open and shut case people are led to believe when you look into it.

I don't wish to take the thread off-topic, but Tyson was convicted in a country that has a high burden of proof, and the attending physician who examined Desiree Washington afterwards testified that her physical condition was consistent with rape. Tyson's chauffeur gave evidence too, and it backed up Washington's version of events.

selectamatic wrote: »

I would argue Tyson was also clearly a victim of such abuses and manipulation.

Maybe he was a victim of dodgy hangers-on, but that would be entirely separate to actions. He committed rape, and that can't be blamed on anybody else but Tyson himself.

selectamatic wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong but I'd view a socially inept emotionally fragile and damaged Mike Tyson in a different light to some shady casting couch type "rapist".

It does appear that Weinstein was far more a serial abuser than Tyson, but in the grand scheme of things that changes nothing. They both behaved like thugs. Mike Tyson was a grown man and at the time was the "baddest man on the planet". A lot of people are "emotionally fragile" but they don't do what Tyson did. His past means nothing here, he was a grown man with agency and he knew full well what he was doing. To suggest otherwise creates a picture of Tyson as being almost infantile and a victim of circumstances beyond his control. That was most certainly not the case.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

selectamatic wrote: »

Just on this, Mike Tyson's rape conviction is far from the open and shut case people are led to believe when you look into it.

Interestingly enough though I'd guarantee the sports industry is another one where abuse of power is rampant and I would argue Tyson was also clearly a victim of such abuses and manipulation.

Basically as someone pointed out already any industry where the chance of success is miniscule yet the rewards are vast, abuse of power tends to be rampant.

Maybe I'm wrong but I'd view a socially inept emotionally fragile and damaged Mike Tyson in a different light to some shady casting couch type "rapist".

I'd have Don king as boxings Harvey Weinstein before Tyson. In fact comparing Harvey to Don might even be too harsh on Weinstein.

Mike Tyson was sexually abused as a stranger, and had a very tough upbringing it must be said. This would probably manifest itself in some of his behaviour.

I'm not making an excuse for him, btw. Just explaining how his version of right and wrong might not be the same as us.

He is obviously still accountable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4726286/Mike-Tyson-opens-sexual-molestion-child.html

ceadaoin.

Assetbacked wrote: »

I'm not talking about forcing themselves on them but rather where it is seen as seedy and disgusting when Weinstein hits on a woman, it is a turn on when more famous and attractive actors use their status and looks to sleep with women.

But Weinstein wasn't merely "hitting on" women was he? He used his status and power to coerce, assault and ruin women. Big difference. Cornering a woman and forcing her to watch you masturbate would be seedy and disgusting no matter what the person doing it looked like.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

But Weinstein wasn't merely "hitting on" women was he? He used his status and power to coerce, assault and ruin women. Big difference. Cornering a woman and forcing her to watch you masturbate would be seedy and disgusting no matter what the person doing it looked like.

The looks thing has been posited or insinuated a few times, I think one such post was removed.

As though there is any comparison between a mere unwanted approach and a full-blown sexual assault or rape, intimidation and professional ruination.

marienbad

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

with lunatics like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian et al.





.

Jeez thank God you warned us - there was me worrying about Trump , kim jong un , Putin et al and I should have focused on Sarkeesian and company - that was close . Lets hope we are not too late

ceadaoin.

Candie wrote: »

The looks thing has been posited or insinuated a few times, I think one such post was removed.

As though there is any comparison between a mere unwanted approach and a full-blown sexual assault or rape, intimidation and professional ruination.

Yeah wtf is up with people spouting this nonsense? It's pure misogyny and so depressing to see. I can only assume they got lost on the way to r/incels.

Bambi985

Assetbacked wrote: »

I'm not talking about forcing themselves on them but rather where it is seen as seedy and disgusting when Weinstein hits on a woman, it is a turn on when more famous and attractive actors use their status and looks to sleep with women.

What you'll find people think is "seedy and disgusting" is Weinstein's behaviour of groping, mauling, threatening, emotionally blackmailing, masturbating in front of and sexually assaulting women. If that's your idea of "hitting on women" then I hope to jesus I never meet you.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah wtf is up with people spouting this nonsense? It's pure misogyny and so depressing to see. I can only assume they got lost on the way to r/incels.

Don't ever go there, I did out of curiosity about a year ago and I'm still not right.

It's just a way of turning it back onto the women, making Weinstein the victim of his unfortunate looks and highlighting how shallow and superficial the women are. After all, nobody considers it assault if you happen to be manhandled and raped by someone with symmetrical features. :rolleyes:

strandroad

Candie wrote: »

Don't ever go there, I did out of curiosity about a year ago and I'm still not right.

It's just a way of turning it back onto the women, making Weinstein the victim of his unfortunate looks and highlighting how shallow and superficial the women are. After all, nobody considers it assault if you happen to be manhandled and raped by someone with symmetrical features. :rolleyes:

Bill Cosby looked great and dressed smart in his prime, I doubt it was of any comfort to his victims.

pitifulgod

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Good job taking it completely out of context.

If you are happy to have lunatics like these influencing the most powerful information platform in the world, there's not much I can say to you.

Just today, the book 'To Kill A Mockingbird' has been removed from the Mississippi school reading list because it's 'uncomfortable'. It's these kind of snowflakes that share the same ideals as the people in the picture.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/14/to-kill-a-mockingbird-harper-lee-mississippi-school-reading-list

You're bringing discussion into bizarre and conspiratorial territory but it must be pointed that To Kill a Mockingbird has been one of the most challenged books in the US since its release. It's nothing to do with 'snowflake' rubbish as the biggest protesters of the book, often seem the type who object to it.

America simply isn't comfortable with discussing racism, particularly in the Deep South eg Mississippi which is where this story originates. Confederate states are those who tend to be the most uncomfortable with Mockingbird.

You've made some points I agree with in this topic but you've unfortunately interwoven with rubbish that relates more to your conspiracies about Obama and Hillary...

tara73

pitifulgod wrote: »

America simply isn't comfortable with discussing racism, particularly in the Deep South eg Mississippi which is where this story originates. Confederate states are those who tend to be the most uncomfortable with Mockingbird.

this is kind of offtopic, but it has to be said: so why is America simply not comfortable with discussing racism. That is simply very, very frightening for such a liberate, free country they still pretend to be to the world around them.
We simply shouldn't accept it. it's a very, very bad sign they took the book out of the school reading list, should be the opposite, should be on every school reading list!

marienbad

tara73 wrote: »

this is kind of offtopic, but it has to be said: so why is America simply not comfortable with discussing racism. That is simply very, very frightening for such a liberate, free country they still pretend to be to the world around them.
We simply shouldn't accept it. it's a very, very bad sign they took the book out of the school reading list, should be the opposite, should be on every school reading list!

Taking books out of the reading list every year is standard practice , regularly happens to Maya Angelou and has even happened to Steinbeck's Grapes Of Wrath . Just par for the course , doesn't make it right but that is the way it is .

JP Liz V1

Ah poor Amanda Brunker of course she had an encounter with a Harvey type monster and only now reveals all

http://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/amanda-brunker-an-irish-tycoon-tried-to-convince-me-to-perform-sex-acts-when-i-was-17