Entertainment and #MeToo

[Des-Bal]

It's amazing what people might go 'amm.. oka-ayy..' to when presented with something off the wall.. as opposed to them going 'oh man, really.. totally Louis I'd love that!'

But hey.. everything's the victim's fault, they didn't walk out, they didn't say no, they wore an inappropriate dress, they effectively signed a contract saying 'it's all ok, my bad..'

Stop excusing bad behaviour.

I'm not excusing bad behavior I'm explicitly saying if you tell someone they can jerk off in front of you and then they do you aren't a victim.

[Ethel mermania]

Just going to throw this out there

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/opin ... stice.html

Also I just want to throw this out there, Louis CK asked women if he could masturbate in front of them, if they said yes he did if they said no he didn't. Every article I see mention it says he did it without their consent which is absolutely not true.

Tbh, that is not relevant to the question I am asking, which is who gets to decide when is it appropriate for him to work, and who gets to decide.

My question about that act itself is. Is he saying he asked, or are the women saying he asked?

[Des-Bal]

Tbh, that is not relevant to the question I am asking, which is who gets to decide when is it appropriate for him to work, and who gets to decide.

My question about that act itself is. Is he saying he asked, or are the women saying he asked?

I mentioned it because of the article you linked but they said he asked. Some said yes and he did some said no and he didn't. Nobody accused him of just pulling out his dick but that's what articles and jokes seem to be about.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I don't like vigilantes, kangaroo courts, trials by media, self appointed paedophile hunters - anything like that. These things should be done by the police and courts. The problem is coming up with a permanent solution to people with power, men or women, abusing people they have power over, men or women. I don't have the answer, but I doubt it involves Twitter.

[Ethel mermania]

Just going to throw this out there

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/opin ... stice.html

Well it's an opinion, and really it's asking how much.. and similar to my own earlier post asking what, exactly, constitutes an apology? Especially when carefully worded through a legal team - which I honestly can understand. Is 9 months off the comedy stage apology enough? He feels so, the people applauding his set feels so, some people don't.

Yet hey, if there's no shame in what he did then go get up there and do your stand up buddy.. Rosa Parks didn't agree with the public opinion that people have their designated seats and took her stand so if he feels he has nothing really to apologise for, other than to stave off a potential suit, then go for it.

What exactly has he done other than a statement and 9 months off.. but the whole 'let's just move on shall we' treatment of these things is exactly what allows it to continue.

I want him naked with a bell in the streets with 'Shame.. Shame' being called.. or did I just dream that punishment up?

Yet really, he's testing the waters, people are calling him on that test..

My point is directed at the idea of who gets to decide what is "enough". Or should anyone get to decide for that matter.

My own personal opinion. He should cut a check for 50 grand to each woman he whacked off on, 5 grand to each woman who he asked and said no, along with a heartfelt handwritten letter of apology to each woman.

[Ethel mermania]

I don't like vigilantes, kangaroo courts, trials by media, self appointed paedophile hunters - anything like that. These things should be done by the police and courts. The problem is coming up with a permanent solution to people with power, men or women, abusing people they have power over, men or women. I don't have the answer, but I doubt it involves Twitter.

What's the crime Louis committed?

[Hirota]

Jesus..

Shall we talk about the issue of sexual abuse in the entertainment industry?
No, it might affect whether my male boss feels safe being in a meeting with me..

I mean you hear these same talking points each time, in fact John Oliver did a piece and essentially every question by the OP and your point here are shown to be trotted out every time this happens by talking heads in the media.

Except it was never about sexual abuse in the entertainment industry, it was sexual abuse, full stop. You don't provide a platform for people to make accusations when they're not in the entertainment industry. And because of the wholesale nature of these accusations, and no method of validating them, men in positions of power are concerned. And (God forgive me for citing Vox) women are worried about the potential ramifications. Things are already in motion in some circles. To the point where women are worried that they'll lose out in corporate industries. This isn't merely something that's trotted out as a talking point, this is serious. It's serious for women. It would be naive to simply dismiss it as nonsense because it isn't.

Regardless of the intentions, it's difficult not to find some of the unintended consequences to be almost as harmful as that which metoo is currently focused on bringing attention to.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I don't like vigilantes, kangaroo courts, trials by media, self appointed paedophile hunters - anything like that. These things should be done by the police and courts. The problem is coming up with a permanent solution to people with power, men or women, abusing people they have power over, men or women. I don't have the answer, but I doubt it involves Twitter.

What's the crime Louis committed?

I have no idea whether he has committed any crime or not.

[Ethel mermania]

What's the crime Louis committed?

I have no idea whether he has committed any crime or not.

That's the problem, it is not a slam dunk that he did anything illegal. If there is no crime there is no criminal court involvement. There really is no formal way of saying ok Louis can't w9rk today, but your suspension ends next Thursday.

Interestingly generally we try and get former criminals back into the work force as quickly as possible. This appears to be the opposite.

[Chestaan]

People that get mildly handsy should not be lumped together with actual rapists.

Frankly I feel it's as much about people who get mildly handsy.. it's really not that hard to not make people uncomfortable with your behaviour.. it's not asking for the world here. I don't think we need to say it's all the same but it's the toleration of everyday 'mild' stuff that is the general issue over the relatively rarer issue of worse behaviour. I mean we're all generally pretty agreed that rape is bad, although god knows there's victim blaming there.. but everyday behaviour is often excused.

I was at a company where a senior manager was a complete creep, I wouldn't work for him, 'yeah he's a bit weird', I'd hear, 'but he knows some important clients' - I'd get this from HR in talks with why I wouldn't work with him. Eventually he had to leave for sexually assaulting a colleague in a lift on a business trip.

Who saw that fucking happening.. the guy was a clear fucking creep but his everyday was excused, and I feel he was emboldened in his actions by the excuses provided for him.

Anyway, I think #metoo has generally been okay in raising the point for many people that those they know, their sisters, friends and colleagues have been through all this.

I agreed mostly with you, up until your last sentence. Really just the implicit assumption with including the word "sister" but not brother. #metoo unfortunately fell into the reactionary social norms narrative of men as abusers and women as victims. Several of the posts asking for those to share their experience asked explicitly for women to share their experiences. The larger problems with this can be seen when you look at the recent case where a female college lecturer was accused of sexual assault under Title IX and some of the lecturers colleagues cried foul, because Title IX was being used against an alleged female abuser where it was only supposed to be against men.

I guess my point is that I wish #metoo had been more open to discussing male victims and the unique position male victims, who are usually laughed at or disbelieved, are put in.

[USS Monitor]

but the whole 'let's just move on shall we' treatment of these things is exactly what allows it to continue.

No, it isn't. What allows it to continue is "let's not confront this guy in the first place because he's a big shot" or "let's not say anything because we don't want to make a scene."

Being able to accept people's repentance after they've been called out is a separate thing from giving them a pass for ongoing behavior. If they keep giving half-assed apologies then immediately going back to the same behavior, then you can stop accepting their apologies once that becomes an established pattern. But otherwise, what are you accomplishing by refusing to accept apologies?

[Bombadil]

Frankly I feel it's as much about people who get mildly handsy.. it's really not that hard to not make people uncomfortable with your behaviour.. it's not asking for the world here. I don't think we need to say it's all the same but it's the toleration of everyday 'mild' stuff that is the general issue over the relatively rarer issue of worse behaviour. I mean we're all generally pretty agreed that rape is bad, although god knows there's victim blaming there.. but everyday behaviour is often excused.

I was at a company where a senior manager was a complete creep, I wouldn't work for him, 'yeah he's a bit weird', I'd hear, 'but he knows some important clients' - I'd get this from HR in talks with why I wouldn't work with him. Eventually he had to leave for sexually assaulting a colleague in a lift on a business trip.

Who saw that fucking happening.. the guy was a clear fucking creep but his everyday was excused, and I feel he was emboldened in his actions by the excuses provided for him.

Anyway, I think #metoo has generally been okay in raising the point for many people that those they know, their sisters, friends and colleagues have been through all this.

I agreed mostly with you, up until your last sentence. Really just the implicit assumption with including the word "sister" but not brother. #metoo unfortunately fell into the reactionary social norms narrative of men as abusers and women as victims. Several of the posts asking for those to share their experience asked explicitly for women to share their experiences. The larger problems with this can be seen when you look at the recent case where a female college lecturer was accused of sexual assault under Title IX and some of the lecturers colleagues cried foul, because Title IX was being used against an alleged female abuser where it was only supposed to be against men.

I guess my point is that I wish #metoo had been more open to discussing male victims and the unique position male victims, who are usually laughed at or disbelieved, are put in.

Sure, I'm normally quite careful to be non-gender specific in these things and poor behaviour is poor behaviour no matter who.

but the whole 'let's just move on shall we' treatment of these things is exactly what allows it to continue.

No, it isn't. What allows it to continue is "let's not confront this guy in the first place because he's a big shot" or "let's not say anything because we don't want to make a scene."

Being able to accept people's repentance after they've been called out is a separate thing from giving them a pass for ongoing behavior. If they keep giving half-assed apologies then immediately going back to the same behavior, then you can stop accepting their apologies once that becomes an established pattern. But otherwise, what are you accomplishing by refusing to accept apologies?

The science of just saying sorry is.. I mean you can say 'I'm sorry' far too often, and it can indicate issues of self-worth and in more severe cases indicate early abuse in childhood for example. Or it can be a mechanism to stop you feeling bad. Saying 'I'm sorry' is equated with moving past the specific incident without addressing the overall problem.

One might argue we teach 'I'm sorry' too early with children. It takes time for children to even perceive a sense of 'other' and so making them say 'I'm sorry' is internalised as a reaction rather then external empathy to whoever or whatever was transgressed.

Regardless, just 'I'm sorry' is rarely enough, it should be followed by clear action that shows the person understands the wrong, empathises with the victim and changes behaviour.

Fun things to think about with 'I'm sorry.. imagine you arrange a call at a specific time but the other person doesn't answer or doesn't make the call to you at that time. A couple of hours later they call you but you're away from the phone and miss the call. When you speak to them they go 'hey, you missed my call..!'

A lot of people in that instance will say 'sorry, I was [doing whatever].. but wait, why are they apologising at all.. the other person should be apologising for not making a call at the specified time. There's loads of examples like this that show 'sorry' is more often than not a mechanism and reaction rather than any particular 'sorry' being behind it. It's a device we were trained from an early age to use to move past an issue when blame is directed our way, whether justified or not.

EDIT: Actually online behaviour might be interesting to explore in the context of less compulsion to ever say 'I'm sorry'..

[Ethel mermania]

I agreed mostly with you, up until your last sentence. Really just the implicit assumption with including the word "sister" but not brother. #metoo unfortunately fell into the reactionary social norms narrative of men as abusers and women as victims. Several of the posts asking for those to share their experience asked explicitly for women to share their experiences. The larger problems with this can be seen when you look at the recent case where a female college lecturer was accused of sexual assault under Title IX and some of the lecturers colleagues cried foul, because Title IX was being used against an alleged female abuser where it was only supposed to be against men.

I guess my point is that I wish #metoo had been more open to discussing male victims and the unique position male victims, who are usually laughed at or disbelieved, are put in.

Sure, I'm normally quite careful to be non-gender specific in these things and poor behaviour is poor behaviour no matter who.

No, it isn't. What allows it to continue is "let's not confront this guy in the first place because he's a big shot" or "let's not say anything because we don't want to make a scene."

Being able to accept people's repentance after they've been called out is a separate thing from giving them a pass for ongoing behavior. If they keep giving half-assed apologies then immediately going back to the same behavior, then you can stop accepting their apologies once that becomes an established pattern. But otherwise, what are you accomplishing by refusing to accept apologies?

The science of just saying sorry is.. I mean you can say 'I'm sorry' far too often, and it can indicate issues of self-worth and in more severe cases indicate early abuse in childhood for example. Or it can be a mechanism to stop you feeling bad. Saying 'I'm sorry' is equated with moving past the specific incident without addressing the overall problem.

One might argue we teach 'I'm sorry' too early with children. It takes time for children to even perceive a sense of 'other' and so making them say 'I'm sorry' is internalised as a reaction rather then external empathy to whoever or whatever was transgressed.

Regardless, just 'I'm sorry' is rarely enough, it should be followed by clear action that shows the person understands the wrong, empathises with the victim and changes behaviour.

Fun things to think about with 'I'm sorry.. imagine you arrange a call at a specific time but the other person doesn't answer or doesn't make the call to you at that time. A couple of hours later they call you but you're away from the phone and miss the call. When you speak to them they go 'hey, you missed my call..!'

A lot of people in that instance will say 'sorry, I was [doing whatever].. but wait, why are they apologising at all.. the other person should be apologising for not making a call at the specified time. There's loads of examples like this that show 'sorry' is more often than not a mechanism and reaction rather than any particular 'sorry' being behind it. It's a device we were trained from an early age to use to move past an issue when blame is directed our way, whether justified or not.

Which gets back to my point, nothing says I am sorry and helps make a victim whole, more than a large was of cash out of the pocket of the perpertrator.

[Bombadil]

Sure, I'm normally quite careful to be non-gender specific in these things and poor behaviour is poor behaviour no matter who.



The science of just saying sorry is.. I mean you can say 'I'm sorry' far too often, and it can indicate issues of self-worth and in more severe cases indicate early abuse in childhood for example. Or it can be a mechanism to stop you feeling bad. Saying 'I'm sorry' is equated with moving past the specific incident without addressing the overall problem.

One might argue we teach 'I'm sorry' too early with children. It takes time for children to even perceive a sense of 'other' and so making them say 'I'm sorry' is internalised as a reaction rather then external empathy to whoever or whatever was transgressed.

Regardless, just 'I'm sorry' is rarely enough, it should be followed by clear action that shows the person understands the wrong, empathises with the victim and changes behaviour.

Fun things to think about with 'I'm sorry.. imagine you arrange a call at a specific time but the other person doesn't answer or doesn't make the call to you at that time. A couple of hours later they call you but you're away from the phone and miss the call. When you speak to them they go 'hey, you missed my call..!'

A lot of people in that instance will say 'sorry, I was [doing whatever].. but wait, why are they apologising at all.. the other person should be apologising for not making a call at the specified time. There's loads of examples like this that show 'sorry' is more often than not a mechanism and reaction rather than any particular 'sorry' being behind it. It's a device we were trained from an early age to use to move past an issue when blame is directed our way, whether justified or not.

Which gets back to my point, nothing says I am sorry and helps make a victim whole, more than a large was of cash out of the pocket of the perpertrator.

Well technically yes, that's a form of sacrifice that indicates recognition of wrong though nothing heals better than for someone to feel you truly empathise with them.. that or time of course.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Do I, I don't know anything about you so I can only read the words you write, and you wrote.. 'Is it acceptable for the digital mob to dictate when a man can resume his art and livelihood?'.

So I responded to that.



Here's the thing, seems everyone knew about Harvey Weinstein..

Rumors of Harvey Weinstein's "casting couch" practices circulated in Hollywood for years, and entertainment figures at times alluded to them.[5] As early as 1998, Gwyneth Paltrow said on Late Show with David Letterman that Weinstein "will coerce you to do a thing or two".[5] In 2005, Courtney Love advised young actresses in an interview, "If Harvey Weinstein invites you to a private party in the Four Seasons, don't go."[6] In 2010, an article titled "Harvey's Girls"[7] for Pajiba alluded to Weinstein's "casting couch" reputation: "Every few years, Harvey picks a new girl as his pet".[5] In 2012, a character on the TV series 30 Rock said: "I'm not afraid of anyone in show business, I turned down intercourse with Harvey Weinstein on no less than three occasions, out of five."[5] While announcing the 2013 nominees for the Best Supporting Acress Academy Award, Seth MacFarlane joked: "Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein."[5] After the allegations were published, director Quentin Tarantino said that he had known about Weinstein harassing actresses for decades, and had confronted him about it.[8] Ivana Lowell wrote in her book Why Not Say What Happened?, published in 2010, about misbehavior by Weinstein when she worked for the books division of Miramax. The incidents described were in her office when she was alone with Harvey Weinstein, and in her home when a female friend of hers was present. She wrote that she "knew about Harvey's reputation as a womanizer; tales of his trying to seduce every young actress in town were infamous."

Link

Everyone knew but he was influential so no one did anything, no one stood up, no one voiced out or if they did it was by allusion only, and so he was able to carry on and more and more people were affected.

Being sexually harassed is shaming to the person being harassed. It's not easy to talk about it. It's also not easy when you think you're alone and perceive that this behaviour is just part of the business. So to allow for people to feel they can speak out, and also for people to think this behaviour shouldn't be tolerated is a 'tangible good'.

No criminals brought down?

Criminal investigations into complaints from at least six women are ongoing in Los Angeles, New York City, and London. On May 25, 2018, Weinstein was arrested in New York, charged with rape and other offenses, and released on bail.[1]

Well let's see.

As for Louis CK, he thought it was fine to invite people to his hotel room and then masturbate in front of them.. is it the most heinous thing in the world.. no? But for fuck's sake..

I mean to take it worse this thing of not speaking out against celebrity leads to Jimmy Saville being able to abuse hundreds of kids for years and nothing happens.

Yet for me it's as much about the ordinary everyday low level inappropriate behaviour.

So the answer is no.

For all your frantic scrambling, you fail to demonstrate a single conviction. No criminals have been convicted, no one has had their dayincourt and found guilty.

But, was #metoo started as an empowering tool for victims of sexual harassment or for the purpose of bring people up to justice?

[Costa Fierro]

But, was #metoo started as an empowering tool for victims of sexual harassment or for the purpose of bring people up to justice?

No.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

#metoo... Man this is a tough one.

In concept I like it. If people are harassed and abused then yes they have the right to speak out about it. The #metoo concept has done good things and that is good.

However, the way that some people frame it and defend it can be rather one sided.

Yes, your story of harassment is bad and I'm sorry that you went thru it. If your story is true. We can not assume the other guy is guilty just by your story. We need to know the other side and conduct a full impartial investigation first. Only then can we get him/her to a court and then decide that the person is guilty or not.
ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”)

#metoo could be used theoretically as a witch hunting tool. Hunting down unpopular people and charging them with false crimes could happen.

This is what people are afraid of. Sadly the defense of #metoo has mostly been "You don't believe me? YOU ARE A SEXIST PIG AND YOUR ARE EVIL!"

The defence of #metoo should include the fact that people have to respect Innocent until proven guilty.

With all that said, I still support the idea of #metoo and for people who have been abused to speak out. I encourage you to speak out if you have been hurt.

But do respect that people are Innocent until proven guilty and there not believing you comes not from misogynistic ideas, but from skepticism.

People don't know if you are lieing from just a youtube video or a tweet explaining your story. As to them it could just be a story spread around to defame and hurt someone that you don't like.

With all of that said, I don't mean to offend anyone who has used #metoo to vent legitimate grievances. If sexual abuse did happen to you, I'm sorry. It shouldn't have happened to you or anyone else. I only wish you the best and for that person who did sexuality hurt you to go step on a lego. Again, only if it really happened. As I can
not tell from just your story or your side of the coin.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I remember when people targeted Weinstein's friends. At the time when it was uncertain whether they were guilty or not, I knew that Me too was a witch hunt. The Salem and McCathyism of our time.

[Sovaal]

I for one gladly await our extinction.

[Saiwania]

I'm a huge supporter of the anti-MeToo movement. It is supposedly called #PoundMeToo. The reason why is because I've found that more often than not, Feminist claptrap just isn't true. A woman on Discord has truly helped me see this as the case.

[Albrenia]

So apparently there's some new footage of Weinstein being a rapey letch or something.

[The Two Jerseys]

It's a lynch mob. They do their best to turn male celebrities into nonpersons based on nothing but unproven accusations, and apparently now also for committing past crimes for which they have already been punished.

[Costa Fierro]

So apparently there's some new footage of Weinstein being a rapey letch or something.

A little bit of it was shown. We're not privy to the rest of the footage, and what we do see is of him getting overly touchy with someone (although she seems to be receptive to it). Although one does have to question why she was recording in the first place, or why only now is the footage coming out.

There's a lot of unanswered questions.

[Albrenia]

So apparently there's some new footage of Weinstein being a rapey letch or something.

A little bit of it was shown. We're not privy to the rest of the footage, and what we do see is of him getting overly touchy with someone (although she seems to be receptive to it). Although one does have to question why she was recording in the first place, or why only now is the footage coming out.

There's a lot of unanswered questions.

Indeed. We'll have to see what the full story is as it comes out.

[Bombadil]

A little bit of it was shown. We're not privy to the rest of the footage, and what we do see is of him getting overly touchy with someone (although she seems to be receptive to it). Although one does have to question why she was recording in the first place, or why only now is the footage coming out.

There's a lot of unanswered questions.

Indeed. We'll have to see what the full story is as it comes out.

Well in the meantime we can put up what is out..

A video of Harvey Weinstein shows him appearing to proposition and repeatedly stroking the arm of a woman who later accused him of rape.

Melissa Thompson, who sued Weinstein in June, said she made the recording, shown by Sky News, while demonstrating video technology for the movie mogul at his New York City office in 2011.

Weinstein is seen on the video rejecting a handshake from Thompson and then hugging her instead and rubbing her back. He touches her shoulder as they sit side by side in front of her laptop computer.

At one point he tells her: “Let me have a little part of you. Can you give it to me?”

Thompson says that after agreeing to use the technology to promote his movies, Weinstein put his hand up her dress. The video only captures the two from the waist up but does show Thompson reacting with discomfort and telling Weinstein: “That’s too high. That’s too high.”

It also shows her joking about his advances, saying that “data is hot”.

Sky News aired only portions of the video. Weinstein’s lawyer said the full video “demonstrates that there is nothing forceful” and shows “casual, if not awkward, flirting from both parties”.

“Anything short of that is intended to make Mr Weinstein appear inappropriate and even exploitative,” lawyer Ben Brafman said. “It was produced by Ms Thompson to bolster her position in a civil lawsuit seeking money. This is a further attempt to publicly disgrace Mr Weinstein for financial gain and we will not stand for it. Facts do matter.”

In an interview with Sky News, Thompson said Weinstein’s behaviour was distracting and she struggled to stay “on script” with the product pitch. She said his affect changed from the start of the meeting, his eyes darkened and he “looked like a predator”.

Thompson said she later met Weinstein at a nearby hotel bar where she expected to close the technology deal. She said Weinstein led her to a hotel room and raped her.

Along the way, she said, he rebuffed her attempts to fight or get away. “If I would try to fight myself away from him, he would then move around to where he could block me in somewhere, and he’s a big individual,” Thompson told Sky News. “I constantly felt trapped, no matter where I turned.”

Weinstein has been charged in New York with sexually assaulting three women. Thompson is not among them. Separately, a federal judge in Manhattan is deciding whether a civil lawsuit brought by six women against both Weinstein and men on the board of his film company should go forward.

Thompson, who had previously worked on Wall Street, rejected suggestions that she encouraged Weinstein’s behaviour. She told Sky News she wanted to keep the conversation professional and politely pushed back at his advances while also trying to preserve the deal.

“I never met anyone that I couldn’t handle until Harvey Weinstein,” she said. “We don’t have to live with being raped when we think we’re going to a business meeting.”

Fascist link Requirement