advertisement


Harvey Weinstein

And as for merlin... nobody has to agree with his clearly-expressed views (which in a court a judge would be bound out of fairness to the defendant to carefully consider), but FFS attack the argument, not the man ...

There comes a point where the argument is the man. merlin is a misoygnist and has no argument in the same way that a racist has no argument other than expressing a belief, sincerely held no doubt, that is considered abhorrent by right thinking people in the West.
 
Well if you have all this empathy and imagination coming out of every orifice, try to imagine how bitter a good, hard working actress feels who sees a job or career stolen from her by another actress who does what she herself refused to do.

The job/career wasn't "stolen", as there is no real job/career on offer.
In this hypothetical the "producer" is offering work for sexual favours.

She is, after all, just as dependent on the whims of powerful men.

So neither actors are the problem! The fault lies with the co-ercive producer.

There comes a point where the argument is the man. merlin is a misoygnist and has no argument in the same way that a racist has no argument other than expressing a belief, sincerely held no doubt, that is considered abhorrent by right thinking people Worldwide.

small fify
 
The problem is that there are people who assume a noble (but very simplistic) moral posture, think that they understand everything there is to understand, and are outraged by any comment outside their narrow vision.

And Scott Rosenberg made a statement on facebook today which is worth reading. If you Google Weinstein+Rosenberg.
 
There comes a point where the argument is the man. merlin is a misoygnist and has no argument in the same way that a racist has no argument other than expressing a belief, sincerely held no doubt, that is considered abhorrent by right thinking people in the West.

Well, Cav, I do appreciate the clarity with which you express yourself there... but I feel we are what we do, not what we say (& thank goodness for that, here in the Off Topic forum at pfm...), so I still think it's inappropriate to label someone a misogynist, unless you know that to be the case through direct personal experience of the individual involved (beyond internet debate).
 
As long as justice does its job that's ok for me.

There doesn't appear to be any need for that.

Social media has spoken.

FWIW, I don't argue with Chav because the lad is on my "ignore" list. Life is too short. Now if anyone wants to put forward an intelligent argument I'm happy to engage. Just not with certain predictable individuals. :)
 
And Scott Rosenberg made a statement on facebook today which is worth reading. If you Google Weinstein+Rosenberg.

Def worth reading the whole thing : thanks for posting, Paul.

A snippet :

But like I said: everybody-****ing-knew.

And to me, if Harvey’s behavior is the most reprehensible thing one can imagine, a not-so-distant second is the current flood of sanctimonious denial and condemnation that now crashes upon these shores of rectitude in gloppy tides of bullshit righteousness.

Because everybody-****ing-knew.
 
These threads can go round in circles, at the end of the day, there is only person to blame, the guy at the centre of all this, without him there would be no issue.

Placing blame outside of this is futile, there are lots of reasons why those who did know (victims aside) did not speak up, I would imagine those in the industry was down to pure self preservation & selfishness, those outside, those who may know the victims, it is up to the victim to bring a case forward, it is those who have suffered, not those they befriend, who should speak up, if they feel they can, other people have no right to put anyone who has suffered sexual abuse in the limelight, without their say so.

It would be ok to out the guy, but this would achieve nothing without testimony from a victim.
 
I think that's nonsense - Nicholson wasn't even there at the time. Polanski had taken photo's of the 13 year old girl before (so was well aware of her age) before he invited her for the private photo session where he drugged and raped her. He admitted having sex with her (including knowing she was well underage) - his only partial defence was that ti was consensual (denied by his victim), however that wasn't much of an argument given he knew she was 13.

There are quite a number of additional allegations coming out about Polanski as well, including some that are similar to Weinstein as well as others which also involve underage girls. From what is currently available in the public domain we can see that Weinstein is bad, but Polanski appears much worse given the age of his admitted and alleged victims.

Only you are quoting the mythology of Hollywood against that claimed by others who were actually there and the other actor was Peter Fonda. Polanski had made Rosemary's baby and had done so with the aid of the California "Satanist" community amongst others, they appear in the apartment scene at the end. The film studio re-edited the film without Polanski's knowledge or permission however, Polanski took the rap for it from the Satanist community and it is often said he was running scared for several years of their "revenge". His film "The Ninth Gate" is often seen as his "apology" to that community.

That's in no way to deny he had dodgy tastes however, I would imagine something such as his version of Tess of the Durberville's would be a far more fruitful grounds for allegations of abuse, given the now known history of its' star Natasha Kinski and the dreadful childhood it is claimed she suffered.

At the same time Polanski was meant to have committed his crimes, a friend of mine who later killed herself, was being systematically abused by half the men folk of the village she grew up in in "nice and safe" South Yorkshire. When she "ran away" to a "big town" and reported said abuse, she was returned to her home and absolutely nothing was done to investigate her claims. Just maybe, had some film producer abused her, people might have been far more inclined to listen to her claims simply because it confirms a prejudice about "showbiz people".

Furthermore, I recently discovered to my horror that, another friend who killed herself, was systematically abused by her father only he was a "right honorable", so nothing was done there either. The point being, the whole Hollywood thing is as ever, being used to berate Hollywood by much of the media rather than, address the awful reality of life in the USA and the UK in 50s.60s.70s.80s where, the abuse of children was endemic to society and we did less than nothing in fact, we made it worse by making it virtually impossible for victims to come forward.

There was a period in the 1970s where in Hollywood, mothers would aggressively "pimp" and there can be on other word for it, their daughters to the film industry and music industry using fake IDs to obtain entrance to any number of venues and parties they would not have otherwise been allowed anywhere near. Ergo, when you hear of stories from the 70s involving so called "kids" and Hollywood, one needs to be circumspect and then some about the veracity of the claims. These were almost wholly "kids" who would scare most 50 year old blokes and make them feel about as worldly as a vicar from some sleepy English hamlet in the 1940s. There's an interview with Pamela De Barres about what went on back then and she pulls no punches at all about how, her position in the hierarchy was usurped by girls in their teens who were almost all under the aegis of their mothers.

Funnily enough, one of the most powerful ex pats in Hollywood is an old mucka of mine from the days at the Speak. She makes no bones that one of her key promotions came after she , as everyone knew she would, drank some exec under the table in less than 2 hours and he immediately promoted her on the understanding that his "failure" was not made public. He thought he was going to get a "leg over", he ended up bent over the loo of an infamous nightclub talking to god on the great white telephone for about 3 hours. Ergo, to try and extrapolate Hollywood and showbiz to the rest of the world as some sort of overall dynamic, is both intellectually dishonest and ridiculous.

I truly hope that, the Weinstein revelations are the watershed for sexual abuse and that, those of both sexes who were intimidated, conned, and outright forced into sexual relations with people who held positions of authority feel they can say "me too" and that we as a society , can actually address the whole problem finally, in something resembling an adult manner.
 
Well, Cav, I do appreciate the clarity with which you express yourself there... but I feel we are what we do, not what we say (& thank goodness for that, here in the Off Topic forum at pfm...), so I still think it's inappropriate to label someone a misogynist, unless you know that to be the case through direct personal experience of the individual involved (beyond internet debate).

Well I am pretty sure I have never personally witnessed merlin physically abusing women. What I have seen him do on this forum is expressing views on women that any right thinking person (imho) would consider abhorrent - ymmv as they say.
 
Only you are quoting the mythology of Hollywood against that claimed by others who were actually there and the other actor was Peter Fonda.

Where did you get this bollocks? It bears zero resemblance to the undisputed (not even by Polanski) of the case. The only way his own testimony differs from the facts I stated is that he said the 13 year old girl didn't say no.
 
Where did you get this bollocks? It bears zero resemblance to the undisputed (not even by Polanski) of the case. The only way his own testimony differs from the facts I stated is that he said the 13 year old girl didn't say no.

FireMoon was there and saw the whole thing.
 
Well, Cav, I do appreciate the clarity with which you express yourself there... but I feel we are what we do, not what we say (& thank goodness for that, here in the Off Topic forum at pfm...), so I still think it's inappropriate to label someone a misogynist, unless you know that to be the case through direct personal experience of the individual involved (beyond internet debate).

With thanks but I rather imagine any response that you get will sadly indicate an inability on Cav's part to understand your post jtrade.

I would expect the person concerned to make more ridiculous claims for women of all denominations and faiths as the poster concerned (not sure of their sex) aims to stand up for what they believe in and protect women worldwide from the reality of life.

I'm not a big fan of PC bubbles (not a character from Trumpton I might add). I'm all for protecting women from abuse and harm. Just not for shielding them from reality when it comes to discussion.
 
I think the basic question is are we taking part in this discussion to express moral condemnation, to decide who is good and who is bad, or to explore and analyse something that is happening in the world?

In purely moral terms Weinstein appears to be monstrously guilty of horrible behaviour. But what of all the people who knew and kept on taking his money? The male and female assistants (the "facilitators" as Asia Argent calls them) who would leave the room so he could be alone with his prey.

At the same time we might ask why Hollywood is 95% run by men.

Also depressing that everyone is talking now that Weinstein is no longer the all-powerful producer he once was. Sure, one could argue that before they were afraid to talk because he was so powerful.

Another curious fact is that Asia Argento has said she was molested when she was 16 by an Italian actor/director, and again when she was 26 by a very important American director. But she has not named them. I wonder why.
 
FWIW, I don't argue with Chav because the lad is on my "ignore" list. Life is too short. Now if anyone wants to put forward an intelligent argument I'm happy to engage. Just not with certain predictable individuals. :)

You claimed you'd put me on your ignore list a few months ago.
But you were caught out lying, weren't you?

Anyway, your post is certainly not a sensible method of ignoring Cav.
On the contrary, you appear desperate for his attention.
 
I think the basic question is are we taking part in this discussion to express moral condemnation, to decide who is good and who is bad, or to explore and analyse something that is happening in the world?

In purely moral terms Weinstein appears to be monstrously guilty of horrible behaviour. But what of all the people who knew and kept on taking his money? The male and female assistants (the "facilitators" as Asia Argent calls them) who would leave the room so he could be alone with his prey.

At the same time we might ask why Hollywood is 95% run by men.

Also depressing that everyone is talking now that Weinstein is no longer the all-powerful producer he once was. Sure, one could argue that before they were afraid to talk because he was so powerful.

Another curious fact is that Asia Argento has said she was molested when she was 16 by an Italian actor/director, and again when she was 26 by a very important American director. But she has not named them. I wonder why.
With some, it seems much easier to ignore the truth & live in a bubble of self belief.

Much easier to ignore the questions when you have no answer.

I will ask again,
Do you have any personal experience dealing with women who have been placed in this position?
That is, claims of sexual abuse or sexual harassment, I would really hope not, after reading your posts, but the question is out there for you to ignore.

I will be back tomorrow to ask again.
 
Don't hold your breath while waiting, man.

I think given all the publicity Weinberg has created, that one is about to go off.

Sir Tom Jones has said the abuse and harassment alleged to have taken place in Hollywood is also widespread in the music industry. (link)
 


advertisement


Back
Top