Sunset and Wein: a tale of old Hollywood

[Stavros]

Harvey Weinstein is now being investigated by Scotland Yard in relation to claims of sexual assault. Ben Affleck is being ridiculed as 'Buttman' on social media owing to his finger-popping skills at parties and much else I don't want to repeat, but only point out it is 2017 not 1917.

Louis B. Meyer, in the good-old bad-old days may have been the producer in mind when the Hollywood 'casting couch' scenario was, not so much invented as reported, and it is worth noting I suppose that guys have also been at the wrong end of the stick when it came, or comes, to propositions, if not prepositions.

One thing strikes me about all this: there should be a simple rule, effectively implemented. If a producer, director or whoever wants to interview someone about a role (because it is not a roll), then do it in the company office, not a suite in the Plaza or the Ritz or the hotel of his choice.

Is this just the start of a sequence of exposures?

[broncofan]

I think it must be. The number of women who came forward to point the finger at Weinstein is over 20 already and the things he did were so brazen, as I suppose sexual assault always is, but he did it in a way that seemed like he knew he would not be exposed. Given some of these stories, I'm surprised a district attorney has not looked into pursuing a case against him here as I think the statute of limitations for sexual assault is usually fairly long.

The cases we've heard about have been mostly accusations from high profile actresses...it makes me think it's the tip of the iceberg. If Weinstein was brazen enough to do this to Mira Sorvino, whose father is Paul Sorvino, and Asia Argento, daughter of Dario Argento, imagine how many women he did this to who are not well-known.

There were a lot of people complicit in this through their silence and even actively by arranging meetings with Weinstein as you said in his suite, or with him where they would run out in the middle of a meeting leaving him alone with a young actress. I imagine there must be more.

It's time this is addressed seriously. How many lives have been seriously damaged by these predators??

[filghy2]

It seems that you can't get away with this in the movie business any more, or in the media business (Ailes, O'Reilly), but you can still get away with it in politics.

[fred41]

Given some of these stories, I'm surprised a district attorney has not looked into pursuing a case against him here as I think the statute of limitations for sexual assault is usually fairly long.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/nyregion/cy-vance-defends-weinstein-decision.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/10/16454182/cyrus-vance-harvey-weinstein-ivanka-donald-trump-junior-prosecute-donations-write-in

[Stavros]

I know it is speculation, but I wonder if there is a common problem among men such as Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and the now deceased Jimmy Savile in the UK, and that it is a combination of sexual and emotional inadequacy. I do not mean they have a small penis or something like that, but that they are supreme egotists who only think of their own needs and have no empathy for others, but cannot satisfy themselves sexually because of that. What strikes me about all three is that they appear to have no interest in the responsiveness of their female partner, their focus is only on what they want from the encounter, yet I wonder if they enjoy the moment of ejaculation, assuming it happens.

What is puzzling in Cosby's case is that he is a good looking man who has kept himself in shape, he has intelligence (a PhD in Educational Psychology), wit and charm, and I don't think he would struggle to have an affair with a younger woman, yet the evidence suggests his need for total control of a situation eliminates any genuine response from the partner and that if she is comatose during sex it is because it fulfills a fantasy on the man's part. Weinstein urging a young woman to watch him masturbate again makes himself the point of reference in the encounter, as the woman is merely an assembly of, to put it crudely, 'tits and ass'. Yet I wonder if there is any genuine fulfillment in these encounters, and that because of it, these men constantly go in search of something they cannot have, using their fame/power/influence to seek it. In this sense they become predators in search of a 'kill' to put it rhetorically, rather than claim they are sex addicts.

Hollywood has had its famous womanizers. Gary Cooper in his prime was alleged to have the biggest cock in town and he certainly used it as often as he could with as many women as he could find. Robert Mitchum attracted women like flies to a jam sandwich, and Rock Hudson never had to wonder where his next lay was coming from, all he needed to do was walk out of the house. Did any of them give a 'helping hand' to an aspiring actor? Perhaps, but the contrast is with attractive men who engage in consensual sex and those who manipulate men and women into sexual encounters they do not want.

Somewhere in these people, there is an emotional emptiness, a lack of empathy for others, and so I wonder what causes it, and whether or not, outside of the fame academy, it is one of the key reasons why so many married people confess that however much they love their partner, they are sexually unfulfilled. Most people most of the time never tell the truth about sex, and at a basic level may not be very good at it, but will never admit it. It is a key reason why 'escorts' are part of the world's oldest profession, though it does not mean all escorts are good at their job. But it does mean that while the focus is understandably on Harvey Weinstein and powerful men who abuse their position of power and trust, a deeper issue that concerns sexual behaviour and sexual freedom among all people is being put to one side. The need other men -most of them (notably in the USA) men who claim to be God-fearing Christians- have to control women's bodies with regard to family planning and abortion is surely just an extension of tinseltown's maledictions?

[Aticus100]

With all this justified and correct condemnation of such brazen abusive of position to impose oneself on young women, are half the American voting public thinking to themselves "nobody mention the President, nobody mention the President"

[peejaye]

Harvey who?
Yes; I do watch the daily news bulletins...&...as usual; it's dominated by events in the US!

[Stavros]

Harvey who?
Yes; I do watch the daily news bulletins...&...as usual; it's dominated by events in the US!

Peejaye, do you ever read the headline stories about the plot to oust the Chancellor Philip Hammond, the DUP threatening to vote against the Tories on the issue of women's pension rights, the numerous articles on the Brussels negotiations on Brexit? Maybe one fall-out from the referendum is that following every twist and turn of the negotiations is tedious and not worth the effort.

As for Weinstein, who I don't believe has actually been charged with a criminal offence, not yet anyway, his firm is on the verge of collapse, and he has been expelled from the 'Oscar's Academy', but this only begs questions about the deeper issues related to the way in which powerful men use their position to intimidate women, grope them and (allegedly) much worse.

This article in The Atlantic is useful because it compares two conservative voices on the Weinstein issues, presenting them thus:
As the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein reels from a New York Times exposé (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html?_r=0) that describes years of abusive behavior towards women, many right-leaning pundits are seizing the opportunity to discuss predatory male behavior in the liberal tribe, much as lefty pundits used Bill O’Reilly’s downfall to discuss bad actors on the right.

Many of these efforts offer worthwhile insights. And two contributions are most illuminating when juxtaposed with one another. Their authors approach the subject with some of the same assumptions. Both are appropriately scathing toward awful behavior by prominent Democrats. Yet the first effort represents the best of what American conservatism has to offer the country. And the second reveals odious moral rot.

Comparing them is hugely instructive.

It is quite a long article, but one of the more interesting reads, and few people emerge it from without shame, least of all the groper in the White House.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/one-harvey-weinstein-in-hollywood-another-in-the-white-house/542427/

[peejaye]

That's life Stavros....
The "Rich & Powerful" treating the fairer sex & the great unwashed like garbage!
I'm sure he will escape any form of severe punishment by having many friends in high places!
Now where have I heard that one before :smh

[Stavros]

That's life Stavros....
The "Rich & Powerful" treating the fairer sex & the great unwashed like garbage!
I'm sure he will escape any form of severe punishment by having many friends in high places!
Now where have I heard that one before :smh

I guess losing a marriage, a business and a carefully honed reputation is severe punishment, even before the law gets involved, if it does.

The real question is whether or not this affair will lead to substantial changes in the entertainment industry with regard to the way in which people are hired for films, to take an obvious example.

If you recall the case of the 'fake sheikh' Mazher Mahmood and the singer Tulisa Contostavlos, she was lured to a hotel on the premise of a Hollywood film proposal in an attempt to entrap her in a drug scandal scam for the benefit of the Murdoch press. The 'sting' was a set-up but almost destroyed her career and indeed, she was at one point suicidal, yet she persevered and it is now Mahmood who is in prison. You could argue that Tulisa or someone on their team should have done her own research -like calling the production company in LA or the agents of Brad Pitt who was also said to be in the frame for the film that never was. The crucial point would be not to meet in a hotel but the designated office of the production company, or some place which is more formal. The same would go for auditions. Why go to the expense of setting up a camera and renting rooms in a hotel when there are film studios where this can be done?

But attitudes are hard to change, and the precarious nature of the film industry makes hiring and firing difficult to regulate, and one is reminded of two famous phrases -'the kid stays in the picture'; and 'you'll never work in this town again'.

[Aticus100]

I suspect one of the reasons this is more likely to be prevalent in the film industry is that there are no Protected Characteristics in acting.


It's one of the few (along with modelling) jobs where the hirer can pick you based entirely on wether they like the way you look so their is nothing to stop a Producer or Directer saying "yep, she is perfect for the role in every way. I just don't want her". And that's tuff to regulate

[bluesoul]

There were a lot of people complicit in this through their silence and even actively by arranging meetings with Weinstein as you said in his suite, or with him where they would run out in the middle of a meeting leaving him alone with a young actress. I imagine there must be more.


exactly what authority was anyone going to complain to about harvey's behavior? the cops? the DA? did the victims complain? did his brother?

your fake "it's time this is addressed seriously" is almost as silly as your attempt at trying to understand the gravity of the situation. but good try.

[broncofan]

exactly what authority was anyone going to complain to about harvey's behavior? the cops? the DA? did the victims complain? did his brother?

your fake "it's time this is addressed seriously" is almost as silly as your attempt at trying to understand the gravity of the situation. but good try.
The DA did not prosecute a case he should have prosecuted. That's complicity. If his brother knew and did not confront Harvey or bring the matter to the attention of the board that is absolutely complicity. Leaving a meeting at someone's instruction so that person can be alone with a woman to assault her is complicity. The fact that 30 women have come forward is evidence that sexual assault is not being addressed seriously in Hollywood. Nice work defending rape.

Stop trolling my posts you stupid shit.

[Stavros]

I suspect one of the reasons this is more likely to be prevalent in the film industry is that there are no Protected Characteristics in acting.
It's one of the few (along with modelling) jobs where the hirer can pick you based entirely on wether they like the way you look so their is nothing to stop a Producer or Directer saying "yep, she is perfect for the role in every way. I just don't want her". And that's tuff to regulate

There is also the Non-Disclosure Agreement which I was vaguely aware of before, and an internet search suggests that if someone has been paid off over an accusation or actual sexual harassment they get some money but must sign an NDA preventing them from ever talking about it in public, though how far some NDAs are legal is a matter of dispute. Some, perhaps many celebrities make guests to parties sign NDAs, confiscate their phones for the duration and threaten severe penalties if any details of the party are leaked to the press. Justin Bieber apparently has 'wild' parties he doesn't want you to know about but whatever the issue over privacy might be, the NDA appears to have been an effective tool that has drawn a veil of secrecy over some of the lurid stories that have affected Hollywood probably since the silent era. I have no links but you can do a search on it and find plenty of stuff, and one should also accept that confidentiality clauses make sense in competitive industries and may also apply to actors and staff working on films the production company wants to keep secret before their release.

[broncofan]

did the victims complain?

Ambra Gutierrez did complain. Not only did she complain but she has Harvey on tape admitting to sexual assault. Since when is an open admission of sexual assault not enough to prosecute? Just exit the conversation.

[bluesoul]

you don't seem to comprehend how powerful harvey was- which is exactly why ambra gutierrez's tape didn't help her before (it may now) but harvey had people like peter bart protecting him. he was throwing fundraisers for hillary clinton. he could get a room at cannes when it's fully booked five years in advance. do you even know who peter bart is, or are you just going to google the name and after clueing yourself who he is, pretend you always knew?

and i love how repeating bullet points you read online suddenly makes you think you've know everything there is about this story. and so you the best you can do is "the DA did not prosecute a case he should have prosecuted". no shit sherlock. if you'd bothered to think just a little, or do a little research, then you'd have realized the DA was receiving large sums of money from weistein's former attorney, elkan abramowitz. it also just so happens abramowitz was a partner at the firm the DA used to work at.

but because this is all information you didn't know, you just repeat a headline you read then you add your little moral crap like you would have done anything- and to make yourself feel better, you call me a troll and i should exit the conversation.

oh and LOL at the guy that thinks phone's are confiscated at parties. that's cute. unfortunately we don't still live in the 90s

[Stavros]

oh and LOL at the guy that thinks phone's are confiscated at parties. that's cute. unfortunately we don't still live in the 90s

I don't know for sure if this happens, it is alleged to be a rule at Justin Bieber's parties which is why I suggested using an internet search engine for more coverage of NDAs some of which is titillating trash but may contain a grain of truth for all I know. And you may or may not know of an incident at a 'pool party' in Las Vegas a few years ago when camera footage of the host, Prince Harry was leaked to the press after his security team were supposed to have confiscated guests phones for the duration of the event.

The rich and powerful, whether it is the Princes of industry, A list Hollywood big-shots or the Mafia, I think you will agree, often use their influence to avoid public embarrassment, even potential legal problems, as happened in New York City when Cyrus Vance Jr successfully prevented the prosecution of Ivanka and Jared Kushner for fraud and larceny with regard to SoHo apartments they were trying to sell, allegedly inflating the price to would-be buyers to give the impression the apartments were selling like crazy and the buyers should seal the deal as soon as possible and part with their cash. But who knows? maybe there was no case to answer.

[broncofan]

you don't seem to comprehend how powerful harvey was- which is exactly why ambra gutierrez's tape didn't help her before (it may now) but harvey had people like peter bart protecting him. he was throwing fundraisers for hillary clinton. he could get a room at cannes when it's fully booked five years in advance. do you even know who peter bart is, or are you just going to google the name and after clueing yourself who he is, pretend you always knew?

and i love how repeating bullet points you read online suddenly makes you think you've know everything there is about this story. and so you the best you can do is "the DA did not prosecute a case he should have prosecuted". no shit sherlock. if you'd bothered to think just a little, or do a little research, then you'd have realized the DA was receiving large sums of money from weistein's former attorney, elkan abramowitz. it also just so happens abramowitz was a partner at the firm the DA used to work at.

but because this is all information you didn't know, you just repeat a headline you read then you add your little moral crap like you would have done anything- and to make yourself feel better, you call me a troll and i should exit the conversation.

I didn't read a headline or use someone's bullet points but said something you yourself acknowledge is true, which is that there was a culture of complicity. I love that you have done original research to prove my point. And no I did not know who Peter Bart is (nor do I see his special relevance except that you can pretend to have insider knowledge) but knew everything in your second paragraph, which is a piss poor excuse for inaction.

You also have no idea how sexual assault has affected my life which is why it is so unbelievably inappropriate for you to pretend to know what I would have done or what my motives are in expressing concern. You have no clue how out of line you are in this case.

[bluesoul]

nobody confiscates a phone at an industry event or party. your phone is put into a magnetic wallet that you cannot open and you keep that. when you leave, you go to the security people to have it unlocked. most events are just too big to have people "hold onto" that many phones not to mention the clusterfuck of all those people trying to get back their phones.

if someone is making people sign NDA's, then it's unlikely those people are in the industry- and since you mentioned the biebz i'd wager those were groupies asked to sign documents. a few years back (maybe 3 or so) a certain choreographer decided to go up against someone in the music industry. i think they had underestimated what he was up against. not long after spilling the beans on said industry guy, he very quickly left the country, retracted his story and his career was done. last i heard, he's still scared to come back.

[bluesoul]

I didn't read a headline or use someone's bullet points but said something you yourself acknowledge is true, which is that there was a culture of complicity. I love that you have done original research to prove my point. And no I did not know who Peter Bart is (nor do I see his special relevance except that you can pretend to have insider knowledge) but knew everything in your second paragraph, which is a piss poor excuse for inaction.

You also have no idea how sexual assault has affected my life which is why it is so unbelievably inappropriate for you to pretend to know what I would have done or what my motives are in expressing concern. You have no clue how out of line you are in this case.

yawn- first of all i'm not agreeing with you or proving your point dimwit. i'm actually saying everything about your point was incorrect. can't you fucking read?

two: how do you know i wasn't sexually assaulted myself? you know you have no point to make so now you play the victim. story, but just like quantasia sharpton, alleging you've been sexually assaulted does suddenly make it so.

and actually i do know what you would have done and what your motives are. you know how? your history. but that's just typical of you- to try and make this about yourself.

[broncofan]

yawn- first of all i'm not agreeing with you or proving your point dimwit. i'm actually saying everything about your point was incorrect. can't you fucking read?

two: how do you know i wasn't sexually assaulted myself? you know you have no point to make so now you play the victim. story, but just like quantasia sharpton, alleging you've been sexually assaulted does suddenly make it so.

and actually i do know what you would have done and what your motives are. you know how? your history. but that's just typical of you- to try and make this about yourself.

Yes, because nobody who is self-absorbed has ever been sexually assaulted. In fact, it creates a shield around you which protects your bodily integrity. If subjects are personal I don’t see the issue with bringing in experience. When someone mentions the Nazis or antisemitism I almost always mention that I’m Jewish. When someone wants to discuss a legal issue, I sometimes though not always mention that I’m a lawyer. I typically don’t mention that I am a victim of sexual assault and in fact, other than the people I reported it to I’ve only confided in three people who know me personally.

The fact is I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or even bringing in information that makes my claim that more people should have acted seem unreasonable given specific things about Hollywood. I do have a problem with you telling me my concern is fake or that I have no clue how I would act in such a situation.

I want you to think about how someone with not such great self-control who has been sexually assaulted (and ignored and undermined when he reported it) would react to what you’ve said. It’s absolutely infuriating. I also don’t know why you have chosen to target me and a few other people for insults and abuse which is often gratuitous and completely uncalled for.

[broncofan]

and actually i do know what you would have done and what your motives are. you know how? your history. but that's just typical of you- to try and make this about yourself.

And if your insults were just a way for you to tell us you're connected in the industry or an insider, just say it. I think that's what you've been hinting at with most of your posts.

Do you think nobody was in a position to tell the board at the Weinstein company? Yes, it could jeopardize their career, but if people can come forward, even if they're not sure it will make a difference of course they should. It was the fact that the NY time story was published that created an environment where other victims felt they could come forward. The board at the Weinstein company claimed they didn't know about the abuse, which is unlikely to be true, but if someone other than a victim reported it to the board at the risk of their career, it would be tougher for the board to claim they didn't know.

The irony of all of this, the attacks on me, accusing me of faking interest in sexual assault, is that it was just a means for you to say you've been to Hollywood parties or are an insider.

[Stavros]

nobody confiscates a phone at an industry event or party. your phone is put into a magnetic wallet that you cannot open and you keep that. when you leave, you go to the security people to have it unlocked. most events are just too big to have people "hold onto" that many phones not to mention the clusterfuck of all those people trying to get back their phones.
if someone is making people sign NDA's, then it's unlikely those people are in the industry- and since you mentioned the biebz i'd wager those were groupies asked to sign documents. a few years back (maybe 3 or so) a certain choreographer decided to go up against someone in the music industry. i think they had underestimated what he was up against. not long after spilling the beans on said industry guy, he very quickly left the country, retracted his story and his career was done. last i heard, he's still scared to come back.

nobody confiscates a phone at an industry event or party. your phone is put into a magnetic wallet that you cannot open and you keep that. when you leave, you go to the security people to have it unlocked. most events are just too big to have people "hold onto" that many phones not to mention the clusterfuck of all those people trying to get back their phones.
-a person goes to a party and their phone is taken away from them so that they cannot access it at any time during their presence at the party. In other words, it is confiscated, or find me another word to describe what happened.

You are missing a key point: privacy and the right to privacy, and sexual assault. I don't really know who this Bieber fella is, some pop singer with loadsamoney and not many brains who wants to get laid as often as he can- big deal.

There is a major difference between a private party among consenting adults, and an encounter between a producer and an (aspiring or established) actor who is physically assaulted against their will. The point of issue that I was drawing attention to was the difference between an NDA in advance of a wild LA party, and in the case of the producer and the actor, after the assault, a 'gag' via an NDA on an illegal act. In both cases, a person with money/influence is determined to control events to their advantage, which might be fine for innocent incidents, but not where a criminal act has taken place.

[broncofan]

In both cases, a person with money/influence is determined to control events to their advantage, which might be fine for innocent incidents, but not where a criminal act has taken place.
Pretty comprehensive treatment of the enforceability of NDAs.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/9/16447118/confidentiality-agreement-weinstein-sexual-harassment-nda

[bluesoul]

I don’t see the issue with bringing in experience. When someone mentions the Nazis or antisemitism I almost always mention that I’m Jewish. When someone wants to discuss a legal issue, I sometimes though not always mention that I’m a lawyer.

sorry -not sorry: but i only read until here and had to stop. you're exactly the type of person i absolutely despise. you're a lawyer who tells people they're jewish when someone mentions the nazis.

i'd understand if you mentioned you were jewish because someone was saying something antisemitic around you or directly to you- but to do it just because someone mentioned the nazis? well- that's exactly the kind of thing that really salts my meat.
and while i could have let you do your little song and dance routine all day long i realized i'm just not that person.

btw: remember when i told you, you just repeat other people's bullet points? here you are saying exactly that (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?48732-Climate-change-could-mean-the-extinction-of-our-species&p=1796176&viewfull=1#post1796176). i'm sure a lawyer as "creative" as you can even find a place to include that you're jewish in that piece right?

[trish]

sorry -not sorry: but i only read until here and had to stop. ...btw: remember when i told you, you just repeat other people's bullet points? here you are saying exactly that (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?48732-Climate-change-could-mean-the-extinction-of-our-species&p=1796176&viewfull=1#post1796176). i'm sure a lawyer as "creative" as you can even find a place to include that you're jewish in that piece right?To be fair, broncofan didn't repeat a single bullet point from ( here you are saying exactly that (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?48732-Climate-change-could-mean-the-extinction-of-our-species&p=1796176&viewfull=1#post1796176) ). Rather, he commented upon each and invented an amusing comparison that alluded to a previous poster's somewhat flawed logic. It might do you well to actually read the posts (in their entirety) to which you reply.

[bluesoul]

-a person goes to a party and their phone is taken away from them so that they cannot access it at any time during their presence at the party. In other words, it is confiscated, or find me another word to describe what happened.

it's not confiscated. you can choose not to have it in the metal wallet by simply returning it your car. in fact, if you go to an event that doesn't want you to have your phone, they'll tell you not to bring your phone. it's much easier for everyone this way.

see, you can find every little way to claim it's confiscation, but it isn't. one of the biggest reasons it's done is to avoid random flashes coming from random phones when pictures are being taken because flashes create shadows.

btw: my favorite part of your whole reply was when you said you didn't know who bieber was, then you explained exactly who bieber was:

"I don't really know who this Bieber fella is, some pop singer with loadsamoney and not many brains who wants to get laid as often as he can- big deal. "

then you end it on "big deal". but you're the one who brought him up with your example of an NDA. if he's not a big deal, why did you use that example?

and this is the problem when you just copy and paste stuff you've googled. you're trying to make something you read (probably about beiber) fit an industry that he isn't involved in. for all i know beiber confiscates phones at all his parties or maybe he did so at that one particular party.

as to the rest- you can honestly be serious this needs a reply. i said one of the reasons weistein's behavior hadn't surfaced earlier (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?104727-Sunset-and-Wein-a-tale-of-old-Hollywood&p=1795955&viewfull=1#post1795955)publicly (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?104727-Sunset-and-Wein-a-tale-of-old-Hollywood&p=1795955&viewfull=1#post1795955) was because his lawyer had paid off the DA (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?104727-Sunset-and-Wein-a-tale-of-old-Hollywood&p=1795955&viewfull=1#post1795955).

and you say "the point of the issue that i was drawing attention to..." as though i missed a point. i didn't miss a fucking point- i made the same bloody point. so i guess it was just your need to state the obvious?

[bluesoul]

To be fair, broncofan didn't repeat a single bullet point from ( here you are saying exactly that (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?48732-Climate-change-could-mean-the-extinction-of-our-species&p=1796176&viewfull=1#post1796176) ). Rather, he commented upon each and invented an amusing comparison that alluded to a previous poster's somewhat flawed logic. It might do you well to actually read the posts (in their entirety) to which you reply.

when i confronted him about repeating other people's bullet points, he said he didn't. here you are saying exactly that is him saying "I've actually taken down what Trish wrote in case I have to explain to anyone the case for anthropogenic climate change."

so in case he has to explain anthropogenic climate change, he took down what you said so he can make that his reply. so what do you think he "took down" and why when he said it was to make the same reply on that topic?

and you said to read the whole post. he's just flapping gums. he liked what you said and wishes you expanded on the topic to include class struggle. obviously he wanted more bullet points.

[broncofan]

The entire purpose of the post was a joke. It was a play on the fact that redvex thinks everything is about communism so I found a segue to talk about how it would be a good primer on both subjects. The "I've taken this down...it's the das kapital of climate change explanations" was meant to sound like a stuffy Marxist professor, a stereotype someone on the right might have....Jesus Christ (who was a Jew*)

You didn't confront me about repeating other people's bullet points, you literally made up an accusation that I did. You're genuinely too egotistical and dumb to talk about any issue so you insult others.

The only reason you made the distinction between confiscating phones and locking them in a magnetic wallet is so you can claim insider knowledge. It has no relevance at all to his point. Nobody gives a shit if you think you're an important person. They only know that you have almost nothing to add to any conversation.

[broncofan]

sorry -not sorry: but i only read until here and had to stop. you're exactly the type of person i absolutely despise. you're a lawyer who tells people they're jewish when someone mentions the nazis.

You're exactly the type of person I despise. A shmuck who is so insecure that he's dying to tell people who he knows, who he's related to, and what celebrity's party he's a wallflower at. A small fish in big waters who nobody respects and so he takes it out on others with his resentment. Someone who wants recognition for worthless ideas simply because he believes he's important. A bad writer, a worse thinker, and just an all around pest.

[Stavros]

btw: my favorite part of your whole reply was when you said you didn't know who bieber was, then you explained exactly who bieber was:
"I don't really know who this Bieber fella is, some pop singer with loadsamoney and not many brains who wants to get laid as often as he can- big deal. "
then you end it on "big deal". but you're the one who brought him up with your example of an NDA. if he's not a big deal, why did you use that example?


The theme is control, a person controlling events so that if something happens it can be covered up, denied, erased. This is where Justin Bieber and George Clooney or whoever it is fits in with the argument even if it has nothing to do with sexual assault as is alleged to be the case with Weinstein. And I don't know much about Bieber, I have never listened to his music, I don't know much about him other than he is Canadian and has a reputation for being a bit wild -I avoid pop singers and reality tv because they don't interest me but I thought that thematically it was relevant to the thread. You also seem to get upset when people using the internet use an internet link to back up a claim or offer a more detailed account that is online/ It is not necessarily a weakness on my part, as I have in other threads quoted from books that sit on my shelf at home, and even think I have a few original ideas sometimes.

Lastly I am not sure why you are so hostile, the thread is about something serious that has been known about but not exposed enough in the entertainment industry - and sport, and politics, and the Church- and we are being asked, what are we going to do about it, or, can we do anything about it? I would prefer it if you addressed that issue.

[broncofan]

The problem is entirely with this guy. He will quote a sentence of what he thinks is a contradiction with no purpose in sight. If, for instance, I say there were a lot of people complicit through silence or by facilitating sexual assault, his contradiction is that Harvey had too many connections that could destroy these people. But if people can't talk because Harvey's henchmen were too powerful then the blame shifts from people who were intimidated into silence to those within and outside of the industry who through corruption and malice suppressed evidence of sexual assault. The correction is fine, but it still means that there were a lot of people complicit, but instead of by silence, through active means. But like a little child he's too eager to show people he knows something that he's forgotten his point if he ever had one.

He has no intention of having a conversation or advancing a conversation, only of telling us that he knows how Hollywood parties work. This is not the only thread on this side of the forum he has derailed...

[Aticus100]

You're exactly the type of person I despise. A shmuck who is so insecure that he's dying to tell people who he knows, who he's related to, and what celebrity's party he's a wallflower at. A small fish in big waters who nobody respects and so he takes it out on others with his resentment. Someone who wants recognition for worthless ideas simply because he believes he's important. A bad writer, a worse thinker, and just an all around pest.

Not wishing to pour oil on troubled waters but I just read this response and it might be the best forum “put down” I’ve ever seen.

[bluesoul]

You didn't confront me about repeating other people's bullet points, you literally made up an accusation that I did. You're genuinely too egotistical and dumb to talk about any issue so you insult others.

is that fucking right? i made up all this crap up right? (everyone: feel free to read all the bullcrap and make a judgement for yourself.).

the more i talk to you (or rather, type to you), the more i dislike you.

you're at a minus twenty by now. i hope i'm lower by your standards.

[bluesoul]

Lastly I am not sure why you are so hostile, the thread is about something serious that has been known about but not exposed enough in the entertainment industry - and sport, and politics, and the Church- and we are being asked, what are we going to do about it, or, can we do anything about it? I would prefer it if you addressed that issue.


don't see the point (again- this isn't the issue) but whatever... i have time.

you said one thing that was incorrect. i stated it was incorrect. what next? air is good for humans. drinking clean water is great. see. it's easy to state the obvious.

how about context you big dummy?

[bluesoul]

The problem is entirely with this guy. He will quote a sentence of what he thinks is a contradiction with no purpose in sight. If, for instance, I say there were a lot of people complicit through silence or by facilitating sexual assault, his contradiction is that Harvey had too many connections that could destroy these people. But if people can't talk because Harvey's henchmen were too powerful then the blame shifts from people who were intimidated into silence to those within and outside of the industry who through corruption and malice suppressed evidence of sexual assault. The correction is fine, but it still means that there were a lot of people complicit, but instead of by silence, through active means. But like a little child he's too eager to show people he knows something that he's forgotten his point if he ever had one.

He has no intention of having a conversation or advancing a conversation, only of telling us that he knows how Hollywood parties work. This is not the only thread on this side of the forum he has derailed...

incorrect- but obviously, we're going nowhere with this rather than rambling back and forth. here's the case: you're saying something based on what you think is right- and something based what i think is right. the question, who do you believe? you have your party (i'm cool with that- i hate them too) and i don't have mine (im cool with that too).

royal rumble?

royal rumble (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uSSF04V0EI)?

[bluesoul]

The theme is control, a person controlling events so that if something happens it can be covered up, denied, erased. This is where Justin Bieber and George Clooney or whoever it is fits in with the argument even if it has nothing to do with sexual assault as is alleged to be the case with Weinstein. And I don't know much about Bieber, I have never listened to his music, I don't know much about him other than he is Canadian and has a reputation for being a bit wild -I avoid pop singers and reality tv because they don't interest me but I thought that thematically it was relevant to the thread. You also seem to get upset when people using the internet use an internet link to back up a claim or offer a more detailed account that is online/ It is not necessarily a weakness on my part, as I have in other threads quoted from books that sit on my shelf at home, and even think I have a few original ideas sometimes.

Lastly I am not sure why you are so hostile, the thread is about something serious that has been known about but not exposed enough in the entertainment industry - and sport, and politics, and the Church- and we are being asked, what are we going to do about it, or, can we do anything about it? I would prefer it if you addressed that issue.

you're a bullshitter and always have been. george clooney and the biebz are two totally different personalities acting in different ways and to suggest they somehow "get your phones" is just idiotic.

to put it mildly- i think you're someone who doesn't get exposed to the outside world much. you're entire universe is just googling what you think you know and expounding on that.

now this isn't such a bad thing when you're dealing with certain subjects- but not this. and now you're dealing with someone who isn't that type of character- nor am i the type of character to put up with that kind of crap. you wanna go back and forth about this? you can write all you want- but to me, it's flapping gums and stroking your pony boy's ego and nothing more.

we can do this all year long (the year isn't that long btw)

[bluesoul]

Not wishing to pour oil on troubled waters but I just read this response and it might be the best forum “put down” I’ve ever seen.

appreciate your input but let me just ask: what would you rather have? a bunch of people agreeing or different arguments corresponding (with a few insults to boost i have to admit that)? what's more fun?

[broncofan]

If any of your comments made sense or you offered something critical but helpful I'd have accepted it. Whatever your issue is, it's serious.

You seem to think that it's unreasonable for Stavros to read news stories or google something. Do you expect him to fly from the UK, embed himself as an undercover journalist at one of Bieber's parties and tell us his first-hand accounts? I haven't paid super close attention to the stream of comments between you and Stavros but this is my general impression.... a re-enactment:

Stavros: celebrities will sometimes use ndas as well as other means to protect privacy. But there's a difference between protecting privacy and placing a gag on someone that prevents them from revealing criminal wrongdoing.

You: the way they protect privacy is not what you claim it is. If you had ever been to Hollywood you'd know they don't take your phone. Someone's stuck in the 90s(chuckles).

Stavros: but the main point is that this is a serious problem and there are concerns about various ways illegal activities can be covered up.

You: You claim you don't know much about Justin Bieber but you know he sings. Keep googling google boy. Google google google.

Stavros: yes, but there are various news organizations whose job it is to report stories accurately and have editorial standards that....

You: let me stop you right there I'm falling asleep. I stopped reading when you said something like "I'm boring I read...google google.."

I would take some of the blame for this conversation not going the way it should have but your interaction with him pretty much shows us why it's impossible to have a conversation with you.

[bluesoul]

lol

i don't give a fuck how you rucking want to end this. the bottom line line is, if you or anyone says something that i think this stupid i will call it out. it's as simple as that. and i get it, you want to get away with your crapship- that fine. get away with it. just don't don't it when i can see. now, do you feel feel bad?

i didn't to take you feel so bad. you can be the idiot you are and just know your place just know when your call for okay? you get it? dummy?

[bluesoul]

If any of your comments made sense or you offered something critical but helpful I'd have accepted it. Whatever your issue is, it's serious.

except i don't. i don't want you to learn anything do you do not get? if i think something is good, why in god's name why in gods name would i educate you?

you being fooflish and making bad choices ensures my life. you know how i know that? look at you yourself?

[broncofan]

except i don't. i don't want you to learn anything do you do not get? if i think something is good, why in god's name why i want you to share in it? you're the last person i'd want included in that zest. fuck off
I'm a bit concerned about the way some of your recent comments come across. I was upset at many of your earlier comments, less so at this point for a few reasons. It's difficult if you see everyone as your enemy and they have no clue why. If you think I'm full of shit, so be it. Be well.

[broncofan]

lol
i don't give a fuck how you rucking want to end this.
Let's do it amicably. If you think I said something wrong you're entitled to tell me. But let's be done with the insults...if you insult me I'll accept it and move on. We just want to discuss some of the issues is all and make sense of whatever facts we can glean. Thanks.

[bluesoul]

oh is that so sad? i just got a... (i don't want to boast again?) few point. i think the babes are ready to go for the right so lets do this...

[bluesoul]

btw: you or anyone: feel free to call me any name you feel gets your point across. i want to understand you and get your feelings off your chest it's healthy. so if i'm a piece of fuck please call me that. just make your point clear because i will fuck your statements like a virgin. make sure they're accurate and from the heart. let's do this:

to me: your sitting dipshits. you can start running now and i will start shotting.

[Stavros]

you're a bullshitter and always have been. george clooney and the biebz are two totally different personalities acting in different ways and to suggest they somehow "get your phones" is just idiotic.

to put it mildly- i think you're someone who doesn't get exposed to the outside world much. you're entire universe is just googling what you think you know and expounding on that.


You have no idea who I am or what I do, or where I live or what I know, but I have admitted what I don't know, and only used the Bieber claims as part of the wider debate about what the reality of being rich famous and powerful might be, particularly if it is not good. I would rather you contributed to the debate on sexual harassment at the level I am trying to pitch it and not turn every post into a personal confrontation that has no purpose and no positive outcome.

For example, can sexual harassment, which in the letter of the law is illegal in many countries, be eliminated from an industry that has sex and sexuality at the core of so much of its product?

Producers and casting directors looking for a particular type of person to act in a film, should be able to make that choice without asking young actresses to take part in a strip parade that they would never ask of the actors playing their mother or grandmother -(thing is, 80 year old Ms Fonda, we need to see you naked before we can cast you in our Hillary flick). A simple rule would make it unethical for decision-makers on a film to interview actual or potential actors in the privacy of a hotel room or a villa in Cannes, or they should always be chaperoned. A sense of trust has been broken, and though it may be passed off as unrealistic, 'that's what guys do' or even 'how bad do you want to be in this movie?' there should be ethical boundaries.

[broncofan]

http://variety.com/2017/politics/news/harvey-weinstein-non-disclosure-agreements-battle-1202593671/

[bluesoul]

^^ didn't read the above (exception to the variety thing). so- besides this big fucking clusterfuck that this shitshow just so happens to be, i love how they had a thing about brit marling (http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/actress-brit-marling-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-1202596595/). wtf? seriously. this is fucking it. major players are going down because theres no way brit marling is "alleging" this and isn't a serious fucking investigation. yeah- brit marling. oh wow- i actually didn't think it was that bad, but it's THAT BAD. i.e. it's over.

[bluesoul]

but it's THAT BAD. i.e. it's over.

yup- harvey single-handedly killed a golden goose that not only lay the eggs, but cracked the shell, poured the yolk into a riedel vinum cuvee prestige then added champagne and served it to you chilled.

and now with investors running, bankruptcy seems imminent- especially after your first main lifeline (who just so happens to be one of the donald's oldest pals and the guy who recommended manafort as his campaign manager) says this:

no one is interested in salvaging a company which would benefit harvey

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/business/media/weinstein-company-colony-capital.html

[broncofan]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-toback-follow-up-20171023-story.html

Lots of women coming forward with stories about James Toback. 300 women have come forward. When I heard the name, I remembered something on Amy Schumer's twitter account that I looked up from way back in 2014. He said something about .... Well better to hear it direct as I'm not telling a good story here. https://twitter.com/amyschumer/status/470762798419828737

I've only heard this guy mentioned a few times in stories I've read and it's always in connection with harassment.

[broncofan]

https://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/10/27/selma-blair-and-rachel-mcadams-share-horrific-encounters-with-director-james-toback/

Kind of a nauseating read but gives you a good idea of what he is accused of with two high profile cases.

Realize this broke a couple of days ago but I haven't been reading much news.

[bluesoul]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8yhyvOGFRc

[bluesoul]

btw he said he's been degraded in unimaginable ways yet he did this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ67H9JHAHM

[Stavros]

Since this story became front page news, one reputation after another has been opened to scrutiny, the most obvious recent one being that of Kevin Spacey. Netflix has stopped production of House of Cards while the actor, as is now standard, is seeking 'help'. Dustin Hoffman has been accused, though more serious allegations have been made against James Toback whom most people had never heard of, though they might know his films.

In the UK, however, the exposure of certain men could have significant repercussions on the government of Mrs May. A list claiming to identify Tory MPs and their particular traits (one is accused of being 'handsy' with women, another 'permanently drunk') may be partially correct but in many cases is clearly not, as it transpires Amber Rudd and Kwasi Kwarteng were having an affair when Rudd's marriage to Times journalist AA Gill (now dead from cancer) broke down. What we do know is that a former candidate for leader of the Tory Party and self-proclaimed 'devout Christian' and 'family man' Steven Crabb bombarded a young woman with sexually explicit texts, while junior Minister with a brief on international trade, Mark Garnier asked his secretary -whom he regularly referred to as 'sugar tits' to to buy him two vibrators from a Soho sex shop while he stood outside on the naughty step. He may yet go in the mini-shuffle May must now do, as the highest profile casualty has been the resignation of Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.

The odd thing with Fallon is that he has admitted touching the knee of the journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer for whom it was of no consequence, which therefore makes one wonder if Fallon resigned before something more serious about him was exposed. One must say, however, that these days it is rare for a politician to resign as a matter of principle, though Fallon's defence of British arms sales to Saudi Arabia and his claim that their war in the Yemen is not illegal should have seen him sacked long ago.

Whatever happens, the question is, can we find the right words to describe what we think is wrong, and that deserves punishment, but that there is a difference between an act that is against the law, and an act that we find ethically unacceptable?

We can agree that rape is both illegal and unacceptable, whoever does it. But if a woman or a man is groped at a party by someone, drunk or sober, famous and/or powerful, it may be ethically unacceptable, but how far should punishment go for that incident, and, is it really news, or even scandalous news? One of the issues here is that allegations concerning some people suggest this is not incidental, but chronic behaviour, that it was not just a case of X having too much to drink at a party and pinching someone's bottom, but that X at every opportunity groped and/or made sexual suggestions way beyond what the situation allowed.

As an example, in the 1970s I met a woman, then in her 50s who had been interviewed for a secretarial position by the eminent philosopher Bertrand Russell, only he spent most of the interview chasing her round the office in an attempt to relieve her of most of her clothes (she claimed), and Russel was once described by someone who didn't like him as having the sexual manners of an alley cat. These days, Russell, one of the most admired men in his day -as admired as David Attenborough is today- would not survive the scrutiny of the press.

This does not attempt to minimise the problem, rather, I would prefer to see something done about real cases of harassment and assault, than trivial examples of an actor or producer making suggestive comments to someone else that can easily be brushed aside without causing harm or distress, which must be the yardstick used to measure the gravity of the incident.

[filghy2]

I agree that it's a tricky issue, Stavros. Regulating social behaviour is difficult because so much depends on the situation and the people involved. Different people may also perceive the same behaviour quite differently.

That said, I'm not sure we should take the view that anything short of rape or very serious harassment should be a private matter. Non-consensual groping is defined by the law as a form of sexual assault, although most cases are probably not prosecuted. Also, where there is a power imbalance the risk of public exposure (and possible career/financial implications) may be the only thing that inhibits bad behaviour by the powerful.

Yes, there is a risk that isolated instances may be blown out of proportion, but we should also bear in mind that persistent sexual harassment may impair women's ability to have rewarding careers and social life. Aside from questions of the law, there are also issues around employers' responsibilities to provide a non-threatening workplace, which presumably require a higher standard than criminality.

[Stavros]

The week has ended with more exposures among MPs, two Tory -if you include Fallon- and now two Labour MPs, all but Fallon denying they have done anything wrong. There is even a theory that the exposure of Michael Fallon by Andrea Leadsom has more to do with the two of them arguing over Brexit than him touching someone's knee, though there might be other incidents to emerge in his case.

The problem is that this threatens to run out control and eclipse the gloom hanging over Parliament because of the Brexit negotiations. The moral argument puts it in perspective: if, as Michael Fallon said in his resignation letter, his behaviour fell short of the standards expected by his office as Secretary of State for Defence, does that mean it is ok if he is just an MP? One Tory and one Labour MP have had the whip withdrawn, but the reality is that neither May nor Corbyn can force them to resign and fight a by-election because the Commons majority is so fragile. Yet the irony of all this might be the collapse of Mrs May's government, not because of internal conflict over Brexit, but a series of exposures of sexual harassment and possibly worse that nobody predicted a month ago. As for the public's perception of its governing class, how low can it go?

[Stavros]

Sony TriStar has pulled the new film from Ridley Scott from the AFI Festival. All the Money in the World is about the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III but features Kevin Spacey and the producers did not want other stars like Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams to be questioned in public about Spacey, sexual harassment, and so on. Netflix has also decided not to show Gore, with Kevin Spacey (it is about Al Gore, it is not a horror movie, I think there is a difference), while those who have worked on House of Cards now claim Spacey has been a serial groper, pest, call it what you will.

Looks to me like that phrase 'You'll never work in this town again' is going to mean we may have seen the last of Spacey for some time...but would that be fair, would it be just? He has not been arrested and charged with a crime (yet) let alone convicted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/kevin-spacey-john-paul-getty-film-all-the-money-in-the-world-pulled-afi-festival-sexual-assault-a8041576.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/kevin-spacey-house-of-cards-sexual-harassment-assault-anthony-rapp-hollywood-sex-scandal-a8035026.html

[fred41]

Would it be fair? Sure. There are plenty of jobs that pay peanuts, yet still have employment standards, that at the very least, don't allow you to go around grabbing genitalia. I like to think there's occasionally a price to pay for being an asshole like that. Incredibly hard to land a job and keep successful at it the way Spacey has. Which of course is one of the many reasons sexual harassment has gone unpunished for so long in Hollywood. He's lucky he already got to amass plenty of wealth in his middle years.Give someone else a chance. Fuck him. (Chances are he will one day land on his feet again anyway)

Just a quick correction. The Kevin Spacey film "Gore" for Netflix is about Gore Vidal.

[broncofan]

Sony TriStar has pulled the new film from Ridley Scott from the AFI Festival. All the Money in the World is about the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III but features Kevin Spacey and the producers did not want other stars like Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams to be questioned in public about Spacey, sexual harassment, and so on. Netflix has also decided not to show Gore, with Kevin Spacey (it is about Al Gore, it is not a horror movie, I think there is a difference), while those who have worked on House of Cards now claim Spacey has been a serial groper, pest, call it what you will.

Looks to me like that phrase 'You'll never work in this town again' is going to mean we may have seen the last of Spacey for some time...but would that be fair, would it be just? He has not been arrested and charged with a crime (yet) let alone convicted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/kevin-spacey-john-paul-getty-film-all-the-money-in-the-world-pulled-afi-festival-sexual-assault-a8041576.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/kevin-spacey-house-of-cards-sexual-harassment-assault-anthony-rapp-hollywood-sex-scandal-a8035026.html
I agree with some individual points of yours, which I think are important but disagree in the conclusion. The presumption of innocence is important even when someone is accused of sexual assault and this is sometimes ignored by people. If the defendant is adamant he didn't do what he's accused of then nearly any defense is going to look like victim shaming or is going to involve calling the person accusing him a liar. How else can someone assert their innocence in these cases? This unfortunately means that when the person is actually guilty, the way he asserts his innocence is likely to add injury to the victim. This very unfortunate fact should not deprive someone of their right to defend themselves.

But I don't know if there should be something called the Weinstein Rule or the Cosby Rule where we're strictly talking about the probability that someone in the public eye has committed at least one assault. If a person is accused by more than a dozen people of attacking them, it becomes very unlikely that everyone either misread a situation or is lying. And it becomes very safe for social and not legal purposes to assume the person has done something wrong. Admittedly grabbing is not nearly as serious as what Weinstein did but it's not right either.

There's also the fact that the initial accusation against him was an attempt to commit statutory rape, which he basically admitted. The grabbing, while not as serious, also took place on the job, which adds power to the equation which makes it worse because the person cannot easily tell him to fuck off.

[broncofan]

Whatever happens, the question is, can we find the right words to describe what we think is wrong, and that deserves punishment, but that there is a difference between an act that is against the law, and an act that we find ethically unacceptable?

We can agree that rape is both illegal and unacceptable, whoever does it. But if a woman or a man is groped at a party by someone, drunk or sober, famous and/or powerful, it may be ethically unacceptable, but how far should punishment go for that incident, and, is it really news, or even scandalous news? One of the issues here is that allegations concerning some people suggest this is not incidental, but chronic behaviour, that it was not just a case of X having too much to drink at a party and pinching someone's bottom, but that X at every opportunity groped and/or made sexual suggestions way beyond what the situation allowed.

This is the other point I agree with in general but just think that employers are right to part with Kevin Spacey. There is a continuum from ethical, to unethical, to unethical and illegal. But as these cases are in an employment setting and so persistent they probably could have been pursued legally as sexual harassment claims.

[blackchubby38]

Sony TriStar has pulled the new film from Ridley Scott from the AFI Festival. All the Money in the World is about the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III but features Kevin Spacey and the producers did not want other stars like Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams to be questioned in public about Spacey, sexual harassment, and so on. Netflix has also decided not to show Gore, with Kevin Spacey (it is about Al Gore, it is not a horror movie, I think there is a difference), while those who have worked on House of Cards now claim Spacey has been a serial groper, pest, call it what you will.

Looks to me like that phrase 'You'll never work in this town again' is going to mean we may have seen the last of Spacey for some time...but would that be fair, would it be just? He has not been arrested and charged with a crime (yet) let alone convicted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/kevin-spacey-john-paul-getty-film-all-the-money-in-the-world-pulled-afi-festival-sexual-assault-a8041576.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/kevin-spacey-house-of-cards-sexual-harassment-assault-anthony-rapp-hollywood-sex-scandal-a8035026.html

I think its fair in the sense that people in Hollywood and the media have lost their jobs for saying something stupid. So if there ever was a reason for someone not being able to work for awhile it would be that person being a serial groper. Especially when one of their victims was a 14 year old boy.

Now I do think there has to be statue of limitations when it comes to some of these groping allegations. Meryl Streep alleges that Dustin Hoffman groped her back in the day. Now if it indeed did happen, maybe it should be resolved between the two of them and not brought out into the open.

I don't want to see this thing becoming a witch hunt or people use it as a way to settle any old scores they may have.

[Stavros]

Would it be fair? Sure. There are plenty of jobs that pay peanuts, yet still have employment standards, that at the very least, don't allow you to go around grabbing genitalia. I like to think there's occasionally a price to pay for being an asshole like that. Incredibly hard to land a job and keep successful at it the way Spacey has. Which of course is one of the many reasons sexual harassment has gone unpunished for so long in Hollywood. He's lucky he already got to amass plenty of wealth in his middle years.Give someone else a chance. Fuck him. (Chances are he will one day land on his feet again anyway)

Just a quick correction. The Kevin Spacey film "Gore" for Netflix is about Gore Vidal.

My mistake with Gore, I don't know what happened there. I also agree with your points and those made above by Broncofan and Blackchubby. Even if not proven in a court of law, Spacey has conceded he crossed the line and there seem to be multiple examples now. But hard to see him working as an actor in films in the near future. I don't know if his relative popularity will save him in the long run, I shall probably still watch The Usual Suspects without feeling embarrassed. After all, I know what sort of person Wagner was, but I shall never stop listening to Tristan or the Ring, a debate for another thread I think. Curious how different it seems when the person concerned is alive.

[blackchubby38]

My mistake with Gore, I don't know what happened there. I also agree with your points and those made above by Broncofan and Blackchubby. Even if not proven in a court of law, Spacey has conceded he crossed the line and there seem to be multiple examples now. But hard to see him working as an actor in films in the near future. I don't know if his relative popularity will save him in the long run, I shall probably still watch The Usual Suspects without feeling embarrassed. After all, I know what sort of person Wagner was, but I shall never stop listening to Tristan or the Ring, a debate for another thread I think. Curious how different it seems when the person concerned is alive.

I think its safe to say after today's allegations against him, Spacey is probably finished in Hollywood. Now the question becomes does anything he was starring in like All the Money in World ever get released. Or does it go straight to DVD and streaming sites.

[Stavros]

I think its safe to say after today's allegations against him, Spacey is probably finished in Hollywood. Now the question becomes does anything he was starring in like All the Money in World ever get released. Or does it go straight to DVD and streaming sites.

Straight to sales I think, but then the question is, who is interested in a film about Gore Vidal or John Paul Getty III? Not me, for what that's worth.

[bluesoul]

i'll be honest- there are some people i just can't wait to see burn. spacy? okay. weinstein? fuck him. sheen? fuck him just as hard (as use the idiot above me's dicks to it).

the point, if there are still assholes and molesters (clears thought. coughs and takes another swig of whisky- mmmmm sorry had to do it for you assholes)... where was i?

i fucking wager- there is one more producer still to be "uncovered". new yorker.

stravos: wanna start googling like a good doggy?

[buttslinger]

I don't know what percentage of crimes that occur actually get prosecuted, but I imagine it's a very small percentage.
Gaming the system is the American way.

[Stavros]

stravos: wanna start googling like a good doggy?

-Hmmm..Reservoir Dogs... Maybe we should rest the case on evidence rather than barks and bites, Mr Blonde.

[bluesoul]

jeezus that was a terrible joke. i wish you'd at least have respected me enough and given me something to work with and instead a clumsy hash attempt at tarantino?

okay, it's whatever i guess.

[Jericho]

Damn, and Louis CK bites the dust!
"At least I asked if they minded before I got my dick out"!

[trish]

If a woman laughs when Louis CK whips his dick out is it because 1) of his comedic performance and absurdist sense of humor, 2) it's the only way he can think of at the moment to score, or 3) his dick is humiliatingly tiny? Given the state of modern masculinity, one wonders which reaction he's going for.

[Stavros]

Although Harvey Weinstein has yet to be arrested or appear in court, it has been revealed that over the years he has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to prevent any woman from publicly accusing him of assault or harassment, using Non-Disclosure Agreements or the use of private investigators to find material with which to smear the reputation of an accuser. These are not the actions of a man who believes himself to be innocent or just 'one of the lads' when it comes to making unwanted advances to women.

Meanwhile, more names enter the frame -Louis CK I had never heard of before and have not googled, so I still don't know who he is, and it is of no importance to me anyway. Add to the list Dustin Hoffman, Richard Dreyfuss, Jeffrey Tambor -who says he has left Transparent having been accused by two members of the cast of a form of groping- and Roy Moore, but no more about him here.

What surprises me is how some are using Al Franken's problem as a means to prise open the record of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, thus:
a) those who defended the Republican candidate in the 2016 elections from criticism of his 'locker-room talk' saying:
“Trump was just talking about doing bad stuff to women. Clinton actually did it. And he did it in the Oval Office.”

and B) Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, began the process, asserting last week that Clinton should have stepped down (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bill-clinton-monica-lewinsky-affair-us-president-resign-democratic-senator-kirsten-gillibrand-a8060861.html). “I think that is the appropriate response,”
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/americans-take-sexual-misconduct-charges-seriously-politicians-clinton-moore-franken-a8061801.html

It surprises me because the evidence suggests that whatever Clinton and Lewinsky did was consensual where the key case to answer since Weinstein is the opposite, and in some cases may be criminal. I think this is where the 'process' may run out of hand, for if a broader reference to sexual athletics is to be judged, where does one stop? If Clinton, then Kennedy. If Kennedy then Warren 'Hardon' Harding, if Harding then Jefferson, and so on. After all, it is not getting laid that should be the bone of contention, but assault and harassment.

[bluesoul]

^^ huh? i wish you tried to make sense

[blackchubby38]

Although Harvey Weinstein has yet to be arrested or appear in court, it has been revealed that over the years he has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to prevent any woman from publicly accusing him of assault or harassment, using Non-Disclosure Agreements or the use of private investigators to find material with which to smear the reputation of an accuser. These are not the actions of a man who believes himself to be innocent or just 'one of the lads' when it comes to making unwanted advances to women.

Meanwhile, more names enter the frame -Louis CK I had never heard of before and have not googled, so I still don't know who he is, and it is of no importance to me anyway. Add to the list Dustin Hoffman, Richard Dreyfuss, Jeffrey Tambor -who says he has left Transparent having been accused by two members of the cast of a form of groping- and Roy Moore, but no more about him here.

What surprises me is how some are using Al Franken's problem as a means to prise open the record of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, thus:
a) those who defended the Republican candidate in the 2016 elections from criticism of his 'locker-room talk' saying:
“Trump was just talking about doing bad stuff to women. Clinton actually did it. And he did it in the Oval Office.”

and B) Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, began the process, asserting last week that Clinton should have stepped down (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bill-clinton-monica-lewinsky-affair-us-president-resign-democratic-senator-kirsten-gillibrand-a8060861.html). “I think that is the appropriate response,”
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/americans-take-sexual-misconduct-charges-seriously-politicians-clinton-moore-franken-a8061801.html

It surprises me because the evidence suggests that whatever Clinton and Lewinsky did was consensual where the key case to answer since Weinstein is the opposite, and in some cases may be criminal. I think this is where the 'process' may run out of hand, for if a broader reference to sexual athletics is to be judged, where does one stop? If Clinton, then Kennedy. If Kennedy then Warren 'Hardon' Harding, if Harding then Jefferson, and so on. After all, it is not getting laid that should be the bone of contention, but assault and harassment.

I think what's happening is the line is being blurred between what's immoral and what's illegal. What should be settled in a criminal case and what could probably be settled in either civil court or with an apology. What charge ends a career and which one doesn't. Both the mainstream and social media are responsible for this because how fast these stories are coming in. We are at the point where there's a least one a day and depending on how famous the person is or how severe the charges are, the story can last for quite some time.

I think its important for the mainstream media to do its due diligence and try to distinguish and differentiate between each case to make sure the wrong people aren't caught up in the frenzy. Mob justice whether its in real life or on the internet is very a dangerous thing to be on the receiving end of.

Now when it comes to Bill Clinton and Rob Moore debate. That's a perfect example of people willing to overlook a person's transgressions if they play for the team they root for. While the crimes that Rob Moore is being accused of are far worse than the Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton has been accused of illegal sexual conduct in the past. I think Gillibrand was looking to 2020 and trying to remove the specter of Bill Clinton so his transgressions wouldn't be brought up again.

[Stavros]

Fair arguments, Blackchubby that I agree with. I am not sure about Bill Clinton and his past as I don't know much about it, and what little I have come across has been part of the conspiracy theories determined to smear his and his wife's reputation for political gain, so until there is more clarity I reserve my judgement on him.

[filghy2]

The impeachment proceedings against Clinton were on grounds of perjury and obstruction of justice, stemming from his sworn deposition in the Paula Jones case that he had not had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. So even his political opponents back then were not arguing for his removal on grounds of sexual misconduct per se.

FDR is another interesting historical case. He is known to have had at least one long-term mistress, and there are rumours of others. Different times then of course. The press did not even report the fact that he had to use a wheelchair.

[blackchubby38]

I think any former U.S. president who had a extra marital affair with a consenting adult should be kept out of the discussion of sexual misconduct. While it maybe considered immoral by some, I have always felt that adultery was familial issue instead of a societal one. The exception being a politician who runs on a platform of family values and is caught cheating on his or her spouse.

[Jericho]

If a woman laughs when Louis CK whips his dick out is it because 1) of his comedic performance and absurdist sense of humor, 2) it's the only way he can think of at the moment to score, or 3) his dick is humiliatingly tiny? Given the state of modern masculinity, one wonders which reaction he's going for.

Possibly, all the above! :hide-1: