Yeah, I'll also have to pull you up on that. If the racist, nazi sympathising cnuts on the extreme end of the right spectrum are not ruining the right, then I don't see how these idiots would ruin the left.
Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yeah, I'll also have to pull you up on that. If the racist, nazi sympathising cnuts on the extreme end of the right spectrum are not ruining the right, then I don't see how these idiots would ruin the left.
I just watched Emma Thomson on the BBC about Weinstein. She is saying effectively if only more or all the people in power in Hollywood were women this abuse would never happen.
I am admittedly a bottle of red wine below my usual if I am honest feeble grip on events but this strikes me as a bit sexist.
To me, the issue is unfettered power. Whoever you give that type of power to they use it and the underlings to those people are abused.
So let us say a woman is in HW's position. Are we saying that the fact she doesn't have a penis means she has an overriding vaginal halo which makes her immune to the corrupting effect of power? That Heath Ledger isn't forced to eat out her fat fifty-year-old pussy to get the Knight's tale break because she wants it and she can get away with forcing him to do it.
Are people really saying the definitive or significant difference is penis or vagina?
I am admittedly a bottle of red wine below my usual if I am honest feeble grip on events but this strikes me as a bit sexist.
To me, the issue is unfettered power. Whoever you give that type of power to they use it and the underlings to those people are abused.
So let us say a woman is in HW's position. Are we saying that the fact she doesn't have a penis means she has an overriding vaginal halo which makes her immune to the corrupting effect of power? That Heath Ledger isn't forced to eat out her fat fifty-year-old pussy to get the Knight's tale break because she wants it and she can get away with forcing him to do it.
Are people really saying the definitive or significant difference is penis or vagina?
Without denying that women in positions of power can be absolute assholes too: I expect the main points here rather to be a) changing the social climate in Hollywood by dissolving a deeply encrusted tradition of alpha-male dominance, and b) differences in male/female socialisation when it comes to sexual aggression.
Don't really have a formed opinion on this, but I'm sure it's not as stupid as you assume.
Last edited:
Yeah you're completely right. Sure not all sexual assault would stop if more women were in charge but there would definitely be less of an all boys club feel that often occurs when they people at power watch each others back. You would probably see more victims come out earlier and not be as afraid.
This tweet?
Not blaming you Mike but we need to stop posting tweets from random obscure deluded idiots. Only gets people like @Buchan worked for no reason.
Last edited:
How has this story broken now?
Investigative journalism by the NY Times I think.
If the business commentator in this article is right about the financial state of the company, then maybe he can't afford his cloak of invisibility any more.
http://www.vulture.com/2017/10/what-hollywood-really-thinks-about-the-weinstein-scandal.html
I don't care about the right. I only care about the left and, from what I can see, the complete obliteration of it from over-zealous censorship and fighting every single battle every single time. Having a hard-line stance on every single issue is detrimental to the movement. There's no room for manoeuvre. Some 'liberals' are more akin to fascists than progressives. I find this exasperating but every time I mention it, I'm berated for being a closet 'right-winger', which does nothing but solidify my position, quite frankly.
As for your point about Twitter, you're absolutely correct. Selective content/opinions, blocking those whom you disagree with etc. is a sure-fire way of building an untrusting and intolerant society. It's healthy to disagree and have differing opinions. It's healthy to listen to contrasting opinions. Social media, particularly Twitter, prevents that. I binned Twitter and Facebook months ago and it's made me happier as a result.
Who said they're not ruining the right? There's certainly an argument to be made that they evidently are.
Inversely surely? If I can make a lot ofmoney off someone by suing them they have less protection.
What I meant was if you're good at your job/very famous there will always be someone willing to forgive your crime, no matter how heinous, since you can make them money.
Oh, that makes sense.
Well someone mentioned Jason Momoa had been pulled into the storm and when I googled to see why, that tweet referencing that interview was the source. Even the Guardian was reporting on it. Google it and see.
So I was sat there thinking how someone got pulled into a sexual abuse and harassment scandal because of bad joke they made.
I don't see the tweet being referenced the Guardian? Posting the Guardian article makes sense but just some random weirdo only gets people riled up. In any case I'm not blaming you and we certainly shouldn't be advocating policing what tweets to post. It's just another fringe element getting more of a voice when in reality everyone will forget Jason Mamoa's bad joke in a couple of days.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the guy whatsoever, but removing him from credits isn't really right, no?
I guess they're doing it so people don't boycott the films though.
I guess they're doing it so people don't boycott the films though.
Yea it does seem a bit much. You can't just rewrite history and take away what he has done/achieved.
Seems like it part of the culture these days when a scandal breaks out, everyone wants to go to the next level.
Well no, no argument there!
Pretty much a given that a movie will be made about this. Who would play Weinstein?
Depends who's willing to sleep with him, I guess.
There was a certain woman in power who oversaw the Yewtree era of Heath, Saville etc
I think you're on the right path.
It is a bit sexist, but is it really that controversial? I think she's probably right.
This whole thing has turned into a witch (or wizard) hunt and all these women coming out now saying "I new about this years ago but said nothing" just seems like bullshit.
Emma Thompson was at too, "I knew last year", well if you know fecking say something, you haven't worked in years so you've nothing to lose.
Also, look at the man's wife, she's hot, she's probably only with him for the power/money he has, because he's not exactly a looker, look at Trump's wife.
Emma Thompson was at too, "I knew last year", well if you know fecking say something, you haven't worked in years so you've nothing to lose.
Also, look at the man's wife, she's hot, she's probably only with him for the power/money he has, because he's not exactly a looker, look at Trump's wife.
The feck you gonna do just knowing? There's plenty of people in the public eye that many of us suspect/know are wrong uns, but what are you really going to do? Libel them and get sued into oblivion?
I think Penn Jillete would be great in this role. Also wasn't Tom Cruise in the fat suit in "Tropic thunder" supposed to be a thinly veiled imitation of Harvey?
How can he be libelled when he actually committed the acts?
All these people come out saying, he did the same to me, years ago.
Yeah, that's rubbish. I've been on the receiving end of exactly the kind of stuff Weinstein is being accused of from women. It's all about unchecked power. Of course Emma Thompson would be getting on a high horse though, and unsurprisingly with her it's the wrong one.
Hang on a sec @Sassy Colin - Emma Thompson on that Newsnight thing specifically said she didnt know anything about any of this sexual stuff but it didnt surprise her and it was endemic in the system. She didnt say she knew last year - not in that interview anyway. If she said something completely different somewhere else then that in itself is odd.
Just because something is true doesn't mean you're not committing libel. If you'd tweeted the details being published now about a year ago and his lawyers had sued you, you would have lost the case and been fined. And subsequent evidence that your statement is true wouldn't get your money back.
And this is how many sexual predators get caught. The women who go to the police soon after an assault usually either get sent out of the department with nothing to show for it, or if it goes further wind up in a fight with lawyers they can't afford to fight. It's usually years later, after someone makes a list of multiple women that shows a clear pattern that these guys get caught. That's if the victims are lucky and their assaulter gets caught - the vast majority aren't so lucky.
And yet she says nothing about it, if she knows something, she should say it.
She just did. She said that abuse, including sexual abuse, is rife in Hollywood. Even if she wanted to say something more specific the lawyers on newsnight and every other newspaper/news outlet would very quickly stop it from broadcasting because of libel laws.
It shouldn't be up to individuals like Emma Thompson to stop sexual predators, it's up to the police to, you know, police.
You put "I knew last year" in quotation marks, but she didnt actually say or even imply that. That was all I was alluding to. Now youre making a different point which I dont feel the need to answer because its been made and countered and made and countered hundreds of times already.
What has his wife's looks got to do with any of this?
Yeah, but someone needs to report them first eh? They don't just randomly investigate people without reason. And also the legal system has to hold up it's end. And that includes the plaintiffs.
How many times did Weinstein get taken to court only to settle outside of it? 6-7 was it? Which means one of two things:
a) Plaintiffs felt it was a case they wouldn't win or it would drag too long and thus opted to settle for damages. Or...
b) They were happy to take a huge payment and keep quiet thus allowing this predator to continue his nasty work.
I'm guessing here, but most cases must be falling under a). No one wants to be involved in lengthy litigation battle especially against someone with a lot more wealth and influence. Which is a problem of the legal system and a reason why people in Weinstein's position feel they are above the law. The b) category is just sad.
Last edited:
I can only assume the implication is that women are all gold diggers anyway, and are happy to prostitute themselves when it suits them but cry foul when it doesn't.