Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

um7y1h83ge06nx · 12-01-2018 2:43pm

I think people should be very concerned about this "trial by media". The accusations the like of Weinstein are facing are serious. The police should investigate and if the prosecutors believe it should be taken to court then he should be brought to trial.

If he is found guilty (my opinion - he probably is given the amount of accusations surrounding him for many years) then he should get jail. But right now he is an innocent person.

Give the seriousness of sexual crimes we need to consider the victims but also realise that the accused should be afforded due process. Would be a nightmare to be innocent and accused of such crimes.

Neyite · 12-01-2018 2:45pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Btw can I ask why was Oprah speech so objectionable? What did she say that was so wrong?

Because she's like America's answer to Bono?

Wibbs · 12-01-2018 2:46pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Someone above you did. I was speaking in general and it was not aimed at you but since you raised the point, you didn't exactly go out of the way to question their statement either.

Eh I kinda did, right there in the bit you quoted.

Of course they can be utter scumbags but I think Oprah knows a bit more about the abuse than some keyboard warrior who dismisses her claims with but she was selling carbs... Being a victim doesn't make anyone a good person but until you can show me that she is some serial rapist or killer I'm pretty sure we can assume she knows a bit more about what she was talking about than those who are so eager to criticize her here.

Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't. Being a victim of any crime doesn't make one an expert in it. It makes one a subjective voice on the crime. That's another problem of late; the assumption of expertise where it's often not warranted and personal experience trumps objective analysis of a subject.

They might be but if everyone joins the bandwagon things might change. You don't achieve change by only mobilizing those who are not objectionable in any way.

Well you hit the nail on the head with the bandwagon word. That's what it has become and the more heated, mob like and exclusionary it becomes and the more people get fed up with pampered preachers of Hollywood, the more likely that this bandwagon will face a backlash and it's beginning to start.

Never mind what it's actually achieving. So far all we're hearing and seeing is noise. METOO!! Hashtags, catchphrases, trial by the mob on social media and millionaires in black dresses they didn't even have to pay for because all we need do is raise awareness. They love that word. Well it's pretty much all talk which is easy. Oh it sure plays to the stalls, but mark me will ultimately do feck all.

The people who will make a difference will be people like those women who are (often quietly)going to the authorities with their accusations and following up on it, rather than those tweeting so they get their you go girl retweets. And "awareness".

meeeeh · 12-01-2018 2:48pm

Sylas Purring Rigging wrote: »

I think people should be very concerned about this "trial by media". The accusations the like of Weinstein are facing are serious. The police should investigate and if the prosecutors believe it should be taken to court then he should be brought to trial.

If he is found guilty (my opinion - he probably is given the amount of accusations surrounding him for many years) then she should get jail. But right now he is an innocent person.

Give the seriousness of sexual crimes we need to consider the victims but also realise that the accused should be afforded due process. Would be a nightmare to be innocent and accused of such crimes.

I agree with that and that's why I don't overly like to comment on individual accusations. I think there are so many around Weinstein that it is unlikely he didn't commit at least some stuff he is accused of but in general any accusations should be treated with caution.

Wibbs · 12-01-2018 2:52pm

Neyite wrote: »

Because she's like America's answer to Bono?

+1 Without the "ah here" filter the Irish will generally apply to him. America as a culture has a fantastic degree of optimism within it, something the Irish could do with a dollop of, but they could equally do with a dollop of our cynicism. They are all too easily swayed by rehearsed emotionals and favoured demigods. Not surprising as they're exposed to it from the womb onwards. Even their news readers have increasingly gone the emote route, when they should be more dispassionate. Their public figures have had to become actors and "stars" so it's not too much of a stretch that their political figures would look to that too.

Wibbs · 12-01-2018 2:54pm

meeeeh wrote: »

I think there are so many around Weinstein that it is unlikely he didn't commit at least some stuff he is accused of but in general any accusations should be treated with caution.

+1. If he ever sees a courtroom the weight of numbers of women with the same story, never mind the actual taped encounter that corroborates his modus operandi will likely mean he'll see gaol time. Though it is America and wealth and prestige can be one helluva ally in court, but I reckon his goose is cooked there too.

meeeeh · 12-01-2018 3:01pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh I kinda did, right there in the bit you quoted.

Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't. Being a victim of any crime doesn't make one an expert in it. It makes one a subjective voice on the crime. That's another problem of late; the assumption of expertise where it's often not warranted and personal experience trumps objective analysis of a subject.

Well you hit the nail on the head with the bandwagon word. That's what it has become and the more heated, mob like and exclusionary it becomes and the more people get fed up with pampered preachers of Hollywood, the more likely that this bandwagon will face a backlash and it's beginning to start.

Never mind what it's actually achieving. So far all we're hearing and seeing is noise. METOO!! Hashtags, catchphrases, trial by the mob on social media and millionaires in black dresses they didn't even have to pay for because all we need do is raise awareness. They love that word. Well it's pretty much all talk which is easy. Oh it sure plays to the stalls, but mark me will ultimately do feck all.

The people who will make a difference will be people like those women who are (often quietly)going to the authorities with their accusations and following up on it, rather than those tweeting so they get their you go girl retweets. And "awareness".

Me too did something good. It told people that is ok not to just a good sport when someone in position of power riches you inappropriately just for a bit of craic. And it's ok not to be embarrassed about being attacked in the dark alley like it's your fault. Very often victims are not heroes and going to authorities actually makes very little difference. Sexual assaults are very hard to prosecute so it's naive to expect miniscule amount if convictions will change things. It's a bit pointless to be a hero in private when cultural shift is needed.

Neyite · 12-01-2018 3:06pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Never mind what it's actually achieving. So far all we're hearing and seeing is noise. METOO!! Hashtags, catchphrases, trial by the mob on social media and millionaires in black dresses they didn't even have to pay for because all we need do is raise awareness. They love that word. Well it's pretty much all talk which is easy. Oh it sure plays to the stalls, but mark me will ultimately do feck all.

Exactly Wibbs. Well, awareness is raised now. They got their Globes platform and next month we'll hear more of the guff inspirational speeches at the Oscars.

Are there actual strategies that will be implemented to prevent sexual harassment or sexual abuse in the industry? Are we going to see Hollywood honchos put in place protections for minors who are at risk of exploitation by their employers, co-stars and often even their own parents. Are we going to see anyone actually tried and convicted? Is Oprah et all going to go to the cops and make a statement about the crimes they witnessed? Probably not.

Wibbs · 12-01-2018 3:19pm

Neyite wrote: »

Are there actual strategies that will be implemented to prevent sexual harassment or sexual abuse in the industry? Are we going to see Hollywood honchos put in place protections for minors who are at risk of exploitation by their employers, co-stars and often even their own parents. Are we going to see anyone actually tried and convicted?

Beyond the sacrificial lamb that is Harvey, I doubt it N. It would be my opinion they don't want it to go that far. Why? Because any true investigation not controlled by the Hollywood machine would expose more unpalatable truths within certain sections of that culture and it would hit the already shaky Hollywood bottom line.

Interior. Day. Laptop.

My very first post on this thread. wrote: »

They brought Woody Allen back into the fold too after his well dodgy seduction and marriage to his adopted daughter. So long as someone makes bank, they get left in the sin bin for a time, but after a while they come back in quietly.

They also tend to be attention junkies so I expect much outrage for a time, each fighting over twitter to be the most supportive/victimised.

When something like this happens in Hollywood, or music biz or the fashion biz and goes public I think: A) sounds like he pissed off enough of the top movers and shakers or this would have never come to light(often they wait until a greasy bastard is dead). After all he kept paying off his previous victims to keep quiet for twenty years. Something changed. It's a pressure release valve for the ongoing stuff we never hear about and C) it looks like the industry is "taking this very seriously" and need a sacrificial goat to pin out, but tomorrow another aspiring actress(or actor) willing to do almost anything to be a "star" will be looking down the barrel of another greasy bastard on another casting couch. Business as usual.

I have no reason to change that prediction even after all this time.

Me. About to feel my ball.
Roger-Montgomery-reveals-how-to-calculate-forecast-Value.able-valuations-236x300.jpg

Roger-Montgomery-reveals-how-to-calculate-forecast-Value.able-valuations-236x300.jpg

meeeeh · 12-01-2018 3:20pm

Neyite wrote: »

Exactly Wibbs. Well, awareness is raised now. They got their Globes platform and next month we'll hear more of the guff inspirational speeches at the Oscars.

Are there actual strategies that will be implemented to prevent sexual harassment or sexual abuse in the industry? Are we going to see Hollywood honchos put in place protections for minors who are at risk of exploitation by their employers, co-stars and often even their own parents. Are we going to see anyone actually tried and convicted? Is Oprah et all going to go to the cops and make a statement about the crimes they witnessed? Probably not.

Do you think that is what makes a change? The damageto the bottom line, when a movie has to be pulled because someone involved is target of negative publicity brings change. Do you really think nicely worded mission statement or safety statement or someone hired into hr department to deal with it will make any difference? Changes happen when it becomes more expensive not to pay attention than it is to keep victim quiet. As stated plenty of times it's not like people didn't know about Weinstein, it would be very easy to protect victims. And they didn't protect victim(s) even when they went to police, Weinstein was removed when he was damaging for the bottom line.

Wibbs · 12-01-2018 3:34pm

Aye. Hollywood and big businesses in general tend to operate on that logic alright. Remember that car(whose name escapes) that Ford released in the 70's, where if it was hit from behind it tended to burst into flames and kill the occupants. Ford's bean counters and lawyers reckoned it would be cheaper to pay out on any lawsuits than to make engineering changes to the cars coming off the production line. It finally came out and the car was a massive sales failure, but that was their line of thinking.

Ditto for Hollywood. Harvey got away with it for so long, so long as he was making money. Lots of it. Better again he was making money on "worthy" films. The perfect producer. Woody Allen got a pass for a similar reason. Polanski the same. His supporters like Streep et al constantly referred to his "artistry". Child rape? Meh, he's a genius you know. Harvey has been a spent force for a few years now. His umbrella of success was springing holes, so not too much of an issue if he gets thrown under the outrage bus. It's when current big money makers and "artists" got smeared by association then Hollywood got worried. If a current big money maker and artist gets accused? They're really in fear of that.

Neyite · 12-01-2018 3:36pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you think that is what makes a change? The damageto the bottom line, when a movie has to be pulled because someone involved is target of negative publicity brings change. Do you really think nicely worded mission statement or safety statement or someone hired into hr department to deal with it will make any difference? Changes happen when it becomes more expensive not to pay attention than it is to keep victim quiet. As stated plenty of times it's not like people didn't know about Weinstein, it would be very easy to protect victims. And they didn't protect victim(s) even when they went to police, Weinstein was removed when he was damaging for the bottom line.

True, I forgot that momentarily - apologies

It's the bottom line every time.

kunst nugget · 12-01-2018 3:46pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Remember that car(whose name escapes) that Ford released in the 70's, where if it was hit from behind it tended to burst into flames and kill the occupants. Ford's bean counters and lawyers reckoned it would be cheaper to pay out on any lawsuits than to make engineering changes to the cars coming off the production line. It finally came out and the car was a massive sales failure, but that was their line of thinking.

The Pinto.

12-01-2018 3:49pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Someone above you did. I was speaking in general and it was not aimed at you but since you raised the point, you didn't exactly go out of the way to question their statement either.

Of course they can be utter scumbags but I think Oprah knows a bit more about the abuse than some keyboard warrior who dismisses her claims with but she was selling carbs... Being a victim doesn't make anyone a good person but until you can show me that she is some serial rapist or killer I'm pretty sure we can assume she knows a bit more about what she was talking about than those who are so eager to criticize her here.

They might be but if everyone joins the bandwagon things might change. You don't achieve change by only mobilizing those who are not objectionable in any way.

you also know that victims of abuse have been known to go on and abuse people themselves?? being that you seem to be "assuming" she knows more about abuse, why cant any one of us keyboard warriors assume she's also complicit as per the research to hand!! since you're assuming!!!

Ipso · 12-01-2018 7:03pm

meeeeh wrote: »

What victimhood. I'm just saying that the opinion is discredited with completely unconnected to the subject or unproven slur.

Btw can I ask why was Oprah speech so objectionable? What did she say that was so wrong?

Nothing. It just doesn't qualify her to be president. The reaction is everything that is wrong with the modern liberal movement. A complete and utter circle **** in an echo chamber surrounded with a warm glow of smugness.
It's this kind of nonsense that leads to people like trump getting elected.

meeeeh · 12-01-2018 7:37pm

Ipso wrote: »

Nothing. It just doesn't qualify her to be president. The reaction is everything that is wrong with the modern liberal movement. A complete and utter circle **** in an echo chamber surrounded with a warm glow of smugness.
It's this kind of nonsense that leads to people like trump getting elected.

Oh it most definitely doesn't qualify her for a job of president and that idea is complete nonsense. I think it more lack of imagination. She is considered opposite to Trump because she is a black woman but she is not opposite to Trump. It would be replacing bilionare media personality with no political experience or serious program with another bilionare media personality without any political experience or serious program. It would be more of the same but her speech was still good.

Sand · 12-01-2018 10:10pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Me too did something good. It told people that is ok not to just a good sport when someone in position of power riches you inappropriately just for a bit of craic. And it's ok not to be embarrassed about being attacked in the dark alley like it's your fault. Very often victims are not heroes and going to authorities actually makes very little difference. Sexual assaults are very hard to prosecute so it's naive to expect miniscule amount if convictions will change things. It's a bit pointless to be a hero in private when cultural shift is needed.

The thing is, I don't think these are new insights. Sexual assault and generally sleazy behaviour in any context has not been 'okay' for decades. Using a mass media example, the whole draw of a show like 'Mad Men' was its opening up a window on an office culture that was so alien to the modern world it might as well have been science fiction.

That Hollywood still operates on the basis that trading (or expecting) sexual favours for professional advancement and promotion is normal doesn't tell us anything about the wider world. It just informs us about the champions of progressive morality. If a cultural shift is needed, its with Hollywood and its Weinstein liberalism catching up with the rest of the world rather than lecturing to it.

bnt · 12-01-2018 10:35pm

More on Paul Haggis: his ex-wife Deborah Rennard has gone public with a strongly-worded statement supporting Paul.

Paul and I had our troubles. If we didn’t we wouldn’t have separated in late 2009, and we wouldn’t have divorced after that. He has flaws, as do we all, he is by no stretch of the imagination a perfect man. But I know Paul better than just about anyone on the planet. I have seen him in the best and worst of times, I know who he is inside and out, and I know he would never use coercion, threats, or violence to have sex with a woman.

mad muffin · 12-01-2018 11:28pm

Liam Neeson is going to get it in the neck…

RabbleRouser2k · 12-01-2018 11:43pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Wahlberg and Williams are represented by the same agency, which makes it even worse

Yeah, the same agency who's founder groped Terry Crews.

rusty cole wrote: »

I remember years ago she had he "experts" on the show Wowing the crowd as to how her fat body was down to "THE CARBBBS ladiieeeessssss"

What's the difference between this and a shoddy evangelist?? the crowd even buys into the whole agenda and narrative!! Fakery of the highest order. sure is that any different than how trump won his election??

Yep, the Church of Oprah-where to criticize it is to be denounced as a Heathen.

Kathleen Madigan had a great joke about Oprah, tbh. One week Oprah will come out and be like 'Jimmy Choo shoes, ladies-you have to have them! Go out and buy them!' (The shoes cost $1000 a pair, minimum).
Next week: 'Oprah helps you balance your spending!' and Oprah walks out, looking in 'pity' at all the now angry, poor women who went broke buying shoes. 'Well, ladies, overdid it with the spending? Made the mistake of spending beyond your means?'
And you know the audience are sitting there like 'well you f**king told us to buy shoes!!!'

The carbs are the least worst thing she did. Besides the anti-vaxx thing, she helped sell the Iraq Invasion to the American people. Dedicated three shows to it.

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm no fan of Oprah's programs but if there is a person who can talk about abuse with authority it's her. That doesn't mean I want her to be American president but don't discredit her valid points with discussion about crabs just because you don't want to hear what she is saying or because you don't like where she is politically. This thread long ago became an opportunity to throw mud at mostly liberal women and nothing else.

She can talk about her experiences, but she can't speak for everyone. Anyone who believes they can is delusional. I have Mental Health issues, I can only speak for myself with regards to this. Even an expert psychologist cannot speak for every person.
(Btw, nobody mentioned crabs). And claiming we're just attacking 'liberal' women is ridiculous. You're only selecting what you want to believe.

Ash.J.Williams · 12-01-2018 11:49pm

Ipso wrote: »

Nothing. It just doesn't qualify her to be president. The reaction is everything that is wrong with the modern liberal movement. A complete and utter circle **** in an echo chamber surrounded with a warm glow of smugness.
It's this kind of nonsense that leads to people like trump getting elected.

That sums it all up exactly

RabbleRouser2k · 13-01-2018 12:00am

rusty cole wrote: »

you also know that victims of abuse have been known to go on and abuse people themselves?? being that you seem to be "assuming" she knows more about abuse, why cant any one of us keyboard warriors assume she's also complicit as per the research to hand!! since you're assuming!!!

Also, according to studies, if a male is abused by a female, it's more likely he will become an abuser.
Which is interesting, I feel, in how little of sexual abuse crimes, committed by women, are reported.

meeeeh · 13-01-2018 12:44am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, the same agency who's founder groped Terry Crews.

Yep, the Church of Oprah-where to criticize it is to be denounced as a Heathen.

Kathleen Madigan had a great joke about Oprah, tbh. One week Oprah will come out and be like 'Jimmy Choo shoes, ladies-you have to have them! Go out and buy them!' (The shoes cost $1000 a pair, minimum).
Next week: 'Oprah helps you balance your spending!' and Oprah walks out, looking in 'pity' at all the now angry, poor women who went broke buying shoes. 'Well, ladies, overdid it with the spending? Made the mistake of spending beyond your means?'
And you know the audience are sitting there like 'well you f**king told us to buy shoes!!!'

The carbs are the least worst thing she did. Besides the anti-vaxx thing, she helped sell the Iraq Invasion to the American people. Dedicated three shows to it.

You are way too invested into Oprah. I know she had a talk show I didn't watch. However you are wrong about Jimmy Shoos, plenty are under 1000 dollars (about half) non sale price. And it's a little bit silly to blame Oprah for people spending money they don't have, there is a thing called personal responsibility. She made women buy shoes, oh the horror!!! Did she marched them to the shop? Anyway she could pick worse brand.

(Crabs/carbs was spelling mistake.)

RabbleRouser2k · 13-01-2018 3:26am

meeeeh wrote: »

You are way too invested into Oprah. I know she had a talk show I didn't watch. However you are wrong about Jimmy Shoos, plenty are under 1000 dollars (about half) non sale price. And it's a little bit silly to blame Oprah for people spending money they don't have, there is a thing called personal responsibility. She made women buy shoes, oh the horror!!! Did she marched them to the shop? Anyway she could pick worse brand.

(Crabs/carbs was spelling mistake.)

That story was a paraphrasing of a Kathleen Madigan joke, she's a comic. If it did or didn't happen, I dunno. It's a good example of the stuff she does.
Encourage spending beyond their means.

Anyways, did anyone see the Late Late show tonight? Liam Neeson did an interview, as did Sean Spicer (surprising guest list tonight) and Neeson's comments on the metoo movement, describing it as a 'witch hunt' were met with 'revulsion' from twitter.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/liam-neeson-criticised-over-hollywood-sexual-harassment-scandal-comments-on-late-late-show-822560.html

Liam Neeson was on the Late Late Show, was asked about MeToo...and suddenly twitter think's he's condoning rape.

The only thing they have to judge it on is a clip from the late late show. He clarified his statements later on in the interview, but twitter went insane. It's like those mad countries who think someone said something nasty because someone told them, and they can't read the truth.

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 8:39am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Anyways, did anyone see the Late Late show tonight? Liam Neeson did an interview, as did Sean Spicer (surprising guest list tonight) and Neeson's comments on the metoo movement, describing it as a 'witch hunt' were met with 'revulsion' from twitter.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/liam-neeson-criticised-over-hollywood-sexual-harassment-scandal-comments-on-late-late-show-822560.html

Liam Neeson was on the Late Late Show, was asked about MeToo...and suddenly twitter think's he's condoning rape.

The only thing they have to judge it on is a clip from the late late show. He clarified his statements later on in the interview, but twitter went insane. It's like those mad countries who think someone said something nasty because someone told them, and they can't read the truth.

There is a large bunch of childish mouthy hysterics out there and social media encourages this and gives them a platform beyond what they should have and a power they most certainly should not have.

Fig. 1

Average Twitter reaction.

A backlash and some semblance of a return to measured consideration is in dire need of happening.

Sad Professor · 13-01-2018 1:15pm

For anyone convinced of Woody Allen's guilt on the basis of the word of some of the Farrows, I'd strongly recommend reading this piece. There were two formal investigations into Allen, both found no evidence of child abuse. And Moses Farrow (Mia's other adopted child) disputes the allegations, accusing Mia Farrow of brainwashing and emotional abuse.

https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/qa-with-dylan-farrow/

I don't know what to believe personally, but this is a complex case and Allen's guilt should not be assumed.

I think Gerwig, Rebecca Hall et al are well intentioned, but I don't think they have done their research and are being pressured by the media and the Farrows into blacklisting Allen.

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 1:41pm

Interesting read SP. Beyond all the "interesting" narrative changes by his ex wife, he makes the point that in all his decades of making on average one film per year, not a single cast or crew member has had anything but praise for him and his treatment of people. Within the biz he's famously easy to work with since day one. Yeah, though the whole marrying the adopted daughter bit I find "icky", there's more than a hint of another story behind the received one.

twill · 13-01-2018 1:55pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

For anyone convinced of Woody Allen's guilt on the basis of the word of some of the Farrows, I'd strongly recommend reading this piece. There were two formal investigations into Allen, both found no evidence of child abuse. And Moses Farrow (Mia's other adopted child) disputes the allegations, accusing Mia Farrow of brainwashing and emotional abuse.

https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/qa-with-dylan-farrow/

I don't know what to believe personally, but this is a complex case and Allen's guilt should not be assumed.

I think Gerwig, Rebecca Hall et al are well intentioned, but I don't think they have done their research and are being pressured by the media and the Farrows into blacklisting Allen.

It's not "the Farrows" who allege child abuse, it's Dylan Farrow. If you are calling anyone a liar, it has to be her. Woody Allen's P.R. team has led a vicious campaign against her, go out of their way to avoid actually stating that she is lying, though they strongly insinuate it. Their main method of attack is to pretend that there were investigations that proved Allen's innocence, which is untrue, and accuse Mia Farrow of coaching Dylan.

Sad Professor · 13-01-2018 2:07pm

twill wrote: »

It's not "the Farrows" who allege child abuse, it's Dylan Farrow. If you are calling anyone a liar, it has to be her. Woody Allen's P.R. team has led a vicious campaign against her, go out of their way to avoid actually stating that she is lying, though they strongly insinuate it. Their main method of attack is to pretend that there were investigations that proved Allen's innocence, which is untrue, and accuse Mia Farrow of coaching Dylan.

I didn't call anyone liar. I clearly said I don't know what to believe and that the case is complex. Allen's innocence hasn't been proved, nor does it have to be, only his guilt.

twill · 13-01-2018 2:12pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I didn't call anyone liar. I clearly said I don't know what to believe and that the case is complex. Allen's innocence hasn't been proved, nor does it have to be, only his guilt.

As I said, you said it was on the word of the Farrows. It's not. It's on the word of an adult woman who continues to accuse Allen of molesting her. The talk of brainwashing etc is a way of responding to her continued allegations as lies without directly calling her a liar.

Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Comments