|
Post by haggis on Oct 11, 2017 17:17:58 GMT -5
I think Weinstein's actions are going past the "casting couch." Promising roles for sexual favors is one thing, rape and actions designed to humiliate (wacking off in a hallway) are something else. I think they are two parts of the same problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 18:28:49 GMT -5
I think Weinstein's actions are going past the "casting couch." Promising roles for sexual favors is one thing, rape and actions designed to humiliate (wacking off in a hallway) are something else. I think they are two parts of the same problem. I'm with the pup.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 11, 2017 19:13:27 GMT -5
I guess I'm not following.
I'm not saying the first is not such a big deal. Both are bad and both can be occurring with the same person and even the same time, but sloughing off the Weinstein stuff because "this stuff happens all the time in Hollywood" doesn't make sense to me and I don't agree that actual, forcible rape is occurring all the time. Whether or not that is a part of the same problem as other sex-related transgressions doesn't--in my mind--mean all such things are equally bad. Because frankly, I know people--women and men--who have specifically offered themselves to others to get roles/sales/jobs. That's wrong, too.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2017 19:14:25 GMT -5
Sure, it's possible he never did anything to her. So... everyone else is lying?
I suppose I'd find this more outrageous if Lindsay Lohan wasn't such a pitiful attention-seeking trainwreck of a human being.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2017 19:25:10 GMT -5
I guess I'm not following. I'm not saying the first is not such a big deal. Both are bad and both can be occurring with the same person and even the same time, but sloughing off the Weinstein stuff because "this stuff happens all the time in Hollywood" doesn't make sense to me and I don't agree that actual, forcible rape is occurring all the time. Whether or not that is a part of the same problem as other sex-related transgressions doesn't--in my mind--mean all such things are equally bad. Because frankly, I know people--women and men--who have specifically offered themselves to others to get roles/sales/jobs. That's wrong, too. I don't think anyone is sloughing off the Weinstein stuff - if you are referring to my post, it wasn't that I think it's no big deal or just "how things are" in Hollywood and no one should be appalled by it. More like, I am feeling very, very cynical about all the people professing to be shocked that this is, in fact, how things are in Hollywood. Especially people who are in Hollywood, or closely associated with it. If there was really a will to change it, it would require fundamentally altering the entertainment industry. Which I don't see happening.So in that respect, I see Weinstein as a sacrificial goat, who maybe touched one too many women, or the wrong woman, or (more likely) isn't quite as powerful and influential as he once was, and so was perceived as weak enough that it was now safe to bring the knives out. He is not an aberration or anything at all unusual in Hollywood, is what I'm saying. There are producers and directors and executives still fucking underage boys and girls and sniffing cocaine off the stomachs of willing starlets and unwilling victims, and a whole ton of A-list stars came up through that system and aren't going to say shit about it. Roman Polanski is still admired and defended. Woody Allen and Bryan Singer are still getting work. Billy Cosby will probably never work again, but after he pays off all his lawsuits, he still won't need to. So what, Weinstein is just that much worse because he might have actually "rape-raped" someone, as Whoopi Goldberg might say? Yeah, no. He's just one Dirty Old Man who got caught at the wrong moment in the news cycle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 19:34:45 GMT -5
I'm with the...Amadan, what is your avatar, anyway?
Anyway. I agree with Amadan.
I don't think anyone here is shrugging off Weinstein. He's a swine. Unfortunately, he's got a lot of company in his sliminess.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 11, 2017 19:50:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 11, 2017 20:02:45 GMT -5
He's a swine. Unfortunately, he's got a lot of company in his sliminess. Granted. But that's true of every slime who gets caught for being slime: they all have plenty of company, no? But that doesn't everyone else who is slime is necessarily as bad as Weinstein (and in fact, some could be worse, imo). The sense I'm getting here is that no one should be surprised at this and it's really not worth it to keep coming down on Weinstein, because he's just one of many. But I disagree with that. Because I don't think he represents what is "usual" in Hollywood. I don't think the typical producer/director/actor is a serial rapist or serial sexual predator. Weinstein no more represents what is usual than does Bill Cosby. There may be others like him, but that doesn't mean most everyone is like him. Moreover, Weinstein--like Cosby--is not some two-bit player. He is--was--a major force, not only in the industry, but also in politics.* And the idea that Weinstein's antics were actually not all that unknown is troubling, as well, given who was rubbing elbows with him. A lot of people--many of them outside of Hollywood--can fairly be classed as enablers, imo. * And I don't remember people talking about how Bill Cosby represented the typical Hollywood star, at all.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2017 20:16:05 GMT -5
The sense I'm getting here is that no one should be surprised at this and it's really not worth it to keep coming down on Weinstein, because he's just one of many. No one said that. And I'm sure most directors, producers, and stars do not commit sexual abuse. The point is stop pretending to be shocked. Be appalled, sure. Hang Weinstein out to dry, sure. Pretend that it's shocking and only a select few (other than his victims) knew about it, or aren't continuing to keep silent about other abusers? Hah. Yes, I do think a huge number of people in and out of Hollywood are enablers.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 11, 2017 20:17:53 GMT -5
If there was really a will to change it, it would require fundamentally altering the entertainment industry. Which I don't see happening.So in that respect, I see Weinstein as a sacrificial goat, who maybe touched one too many women, or the wrong woman, or (more likely) isn't quite as powerful and influential as he once was, and so was perceived as weak enough that it was now safe to bring the knives out. He is not an aberration or anything at all unusual in Hollywood, is what I'm saying. There are producers and directors and executives still fucking underage boys and girls and sniffing cocaine off the stomachs of willing starlets and unwilling victims, and a whole ton of A-list stars came up through that system and aren't going to say shit about it. Roman Polanski is still admired and defended. Woody Allen and Bryan Singer are still getting work. Billy Cosby will probably never work again, but after he pays off all his lawsuits, he still won't need to. So what, Weinstein is just that much worse because he might have actually "rape-raped" someone, as Whoopi Goldberg might say? Yeah, no. He's just one Dirty Old Man who got caught at the wrong moment in the news cycle. As I just noted in my reply to Cass, I disagree with your point of view. And it's not about Weinstein being that much worse, it's about what I see as minimizing Weinstein's antics by suggesting that they aren't out of the ordinary. Come on. We're not talking about one or two incidents here. We're talking about a pattern that apparently has been going on for decades. I think Polanski is scum, but he doesn't have the same number of incidents that Weinstein has. Rape is rape, sure. But I think raping mutiple people is worse than raping one person. I mean, I'd probably be okay with life sentences in both cases, but ruining two lives is certainly worse than ruining one. But for me the long and short of it is this (and the same holds true for politicians who get caught doing bad things): it doesn't matter if a given bad behavior is widespread; when you can burn someone down for it, you burn them down. Weinstein--like Cosby--is getting exposed for his bad behavior, and he deserves all of the criticism he is getting. And then some. If a story breaks tomorrow that George Lucas has been doing the same stuff for decades, then he'll deserve the same treatment. Barring such a story with actual people willing to come forward, Weinstein is what we have before us right now.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 11, 2017 20:20:02 GMT -5
The sense I'm getting here is that no one should be surprised at this and it's really not worth it to keep coming down on Weinstein, because he's just one of many. No one said that. And I'm sure most directors, producers, and stars do not commit sexual abuse. The point is stop pretending to be shocked. Be appalled, sure. Hang Weinstein out to dry, sure. Pretend that it's shocking and only a select few (other than his victims) knew about it, or aren't continuing to keep silent about other abusers? Hah. Yes, I do think a huge number of people in and out of Hollywood are enablers. Okay, no one said that. By the same token, I never said I was "shocked," did I? And I don't think only a "select few" knew about it. ETA: And again, I don't remember the above line of thinking when the Cosby stuff was in the news.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 11, 2017 20:28:42 GMT -5
Okay, no one said that. By the same token, I never said I was "shocked," did I? And I don't think only a "select few" knew about it. ETA: And again, I don't remember the above line of thinking when the Cosby stuff was in the news. You may not be shocked, but you seem to think Weinstein is some unusually deviant case. Polanski "only" committed one rape? Actually, he was known for having a thing for young girls (and still does, IIRC). Maybe we only know about one case that was legally rape, but I seriously doubt that was his only transgression. And I seriously doubt that Weinstein's "body count" is the highest in Hollywood. (It might not even be as high as Donald Trump's.) As for Cosby, I don't think anyone was shocked that a huge Hollywood star would turn out to be a serial rapist with a decades-long history of abuse. People were shocked that it was Bill Cosby. His image was so contrary to what emerged, and while there had been stories floating around, he was not, as far as I can tell, ever known as "That Guy." Whereas Weinstein was apparently known to be That Guy for years.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 12, 2017 7:48:10 GMT -5
I don't think Weinstein is necessarily "unusually deviant," but I think we have a lot of completely believable accounts coming in from some fairly high profile sources, while we also have a lot of "I had no idea"s coming in from other high profile sources. And I think that suggests there was a lot of enablers in this latter group.
But regardless, we do have a bunch of apparent actual victims of Weinstein, victims who--imo--should be believed, since they had (have) little to gain from coming forward.
And yeah, I doubt that was Polanski's only transgression, but my doubt, even if completely reasonable, is still just that. So I really don't get this "but it's Hollywood" angle at all. It's no better--imo--than ignoring outright corruption in politics with a "but it's DC." And usually, the latter has a strong ideological bent, i.e. it's only "but it's DC" for people when it's someone on their side catching flak.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 12, 2017 8:48:11 GMT -5
And yeah, I doubt that was Polanski's only transgression, but my doubt, even if completely reasonable, is still just that. So I really don't get this "but it's Hollywood" angle at all. It's no better--imo--than ignoring outright corruption in politics with a "but it's DC." And usually, the latter has a strong ideological bent, i.e. it's only "but it's DC" for people when it's someone on their side catching flak. I think you are confusing dismissal with cynicism. Dismissal is accepting that this is the way things are (especially when it's your side). Cynicism is doubting the professed shock of others. There is a difference, in other words, between defending Bill Clinton because "that's what politicians do," and saying ORLY? when someone says they're shocked and appalled and can't believe what a horrible pervert Bill Clinton is.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 12, 2017 10:06:19 GMT -5
I don't think Weinstein is necessarily "unusually deviant," but I think we have a lot of completely believable accounts coming in from some fairly high profile sources, while we also have a lot of "I had no idea"s coming in from other high profile sources. And I think that suggests there was a lot of enablers in this latter group. But regardless, we do have a bunch of apparent actual victims of Weinstein, victims who--imo--should be believed, since they had (have) little to gain from coming forward. And yeah, I doubt that was Polanski's only transgression, but my doubt, even if completely reasonable, is still just that. So I really don't get this "but it's Hollywood" angle at all. It's no better--imo--than ignoring outright corruption in politics with a "but it's DC." And usually, the latter has a strong ideological bent, i.e. it's only "but it's DC" for people when it's someone on their side catching flak. A few things to understand. In this case, Hollywood and Washington have a lot in common. The powerful often get away with this sort of things for a long time because of the structure. Even going beyond those things, power often = immunity. It's harder to hold someone accountable if they have $, power and powerful friends. And here, there's a lot of hypocrisy because many of the people who were silent are the first to condemn sexual assault in other cases. But not when it's one of their own.
|
|