So?
Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
So?
Physical features have a bigger role than you think. The notion “omg, you’re comparing it to prostitution” isn’t wildly crazy. It’s a dirty business with incredibly narrow minded people occupying powerful positions.
Physical features giving people an advantage in the job market are completely different from a female actress being coerced into sex (or actually physically forced) by a rich and powerful male. One is an annoying way of the world and the other is a sex crime.
Get off your high horse. We are all aware of the difference. I️ was merely pointing out to the nature of this industry and nothing more. Monroe was treated like garbage and she was only the most famous woman in Hollywood at that time. You think they didn’t know it was a sex crime back then?
Don't even know what you guys are arguing about anymore.
I really don't know why people are so shocked about these revelations or how Hollywood is supposed to be some beacon of morality. Immorality drives this industry, I reckon if we take out out ALL the men and women of questionable character out of Hollywood then 80% of all the movies we know and love won't have been made. The powerful men/women in that industry have a plethora of the most beautiful people in the world willing to do anything to get famous and the perverted ones of course take advantage of it. I for one don't delude myself that any decent person with high moral standards can make it to the highest echelons of that industry, and don't believe for a second that any of the top Hollywood actors/actresses( especially the most attractive ones) have not been taken advantage of or used their good looks to take advantage of someone at some point, I don't honestly, that's probably the most competitive industry in the world. People are acting all shocked and outraged like what the feck do you think has been going on all this while?
Last edited:
Both in many cases. Where the power imbalance is so big it is not a free choice. The reason teachers can't date their adult students.
Bribery is a crime everywhere. Assuming you can prove it.
And employer action and police action aren't mutually exclusive.
Often crosses the line into criminality IMO. Although proving it beyond a reasonable doubt in court is another thing entirely. That said we need to stop equivocating about such behavior. It is morally and ethically corrupt to the point of criminality in many many cases but we as a society have let it slide for far too long.
Last edited:
I don't think it was considered a crime at all back then. Or far more recently.
Treat such behavior with the seriousness it deserves or you legitimise it. In this case in an industry that specialises in legitimising it.
Who is shocked or surprised in a general sense?
Start imprisoning people for their crimes and this shit will reduce to the same levels as we see in all walks of life and I'll guarantee the films and TV that get made won't change in quality.
I thought the reason teachers couldn't date students was because they are technically in their care, not necessarily because it would be an abuse of power, which it still is of course. But that sort of thing does happen, my current girlfriend was once under me at work (pun not intended) which many might see as an abuse of power. Some companies have a policy on it and some don't, hence my curiousity about it being a company issue rather than a legal one.
Ever heard of Jimmy Saville?
I️ am pretty sure majority of the posters here are treating it as a serious crime. You just need to curb your enthusiasm and stop rushing to lecture us at every turn.
Bless 
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...nton-are-credible_us_5a0ca041e4b0c0b2f2f76f79
Bonus psychology:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...nton-are-credible_us_5a0ca041e4b0c0b2f2f76f79
Bonus psychology:
Those Trump numbers fecking hell
fecking hellThat was ages ago. But yeah, Yewtree got to a lot of them first.
But according to @Buchan, it's the left who are hypocrites?Bless
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...nton-are-credible_us_5a0ca041e4b0c0b2f2f76f79
Bonus psychology:
I think I need to have a lie down, this is just too much for me to handle.
6% are open about thinking that Donald Trump sexually harassed women and still voted for him to be their president...
That's 6% more than I'd be comfortable with.
That's 6% more than I'd be comfortable with.
Sums them up.
There's at least one important difference.
Bill Clinton is no longer active in politics. The votes cast for him are all in the past and cannot be taken back. His former voters can now acknowledge his sins without consequence, patting themselves on the back for 'integrity' on such a hot button liberal issue without suffering any present pain.
Donald Trump is president of the US. Rejecting him would most definitely have consequences for the implementation of the conservative agenda.
Bill Clinton is no longer active in politics. The votes cast for him are all in the past and cannot be taken back. His former voters can now acknowledge his sins without consequence, patting themselves on the back for 'integrity' on such a hot button liberal issue without suffering any present pain.
Donald Trump is president of the US. Rejecting him would most definitely have consequences for the implementation of the conservative agenda.
I expected the Trump numbers. I was pleasantly surprised by the Clinton numbers. I was shocked by the o'Reilly numbers.
How do they square with your theory? He is a fired TV anchor who has been replaced by another popular conservative.
Trump being a sex pest was known before people voted for him. Not that "he's President so it's ok to ignore it" is a valid argument anyway.
I also like how you suggest sexual assault is just a liberal issue.
This isn't about who the president is, it's about the credibility of the claims of sexual abuse against the accused.
Not really sure what liberalism even has to do with this, since Weinstein is/was a prominent democrat supporter? And even outside of that, this is much bigger than politics.
Fair enough, basically Conservatives are hypocrites as long as they get a tax plan that suits them, sexual assault doesn’t matter.
Will's been trying to use this thread to tarnish people he disagrees with constantly anyway so it's hardly a surprise to see him doing it again.
Very well put, agree 100%.
My memory might fail me, but wasn't the whole Clinton scandal about infidelity?
The Lewinsky one was but he's had a lot of allegations regarding sexual misconduct in the past as well. Most infamously Trump brought some of his accusers to the second Presidential debate last year.
Yes, the O'Reilly numbers are more surprising.
Looking at the Weinstein (an outspoken Hollywood liberal of all things) numbers it seems that conservatives are less inclined to rush to judgement on this issue. Whether out of lack of interest in the story, wariness about too hasty condemnation of people publicly accused without proof, or scepticism about these kind of accusations in general, large numbers of them jump into the 'don't know' box. Combine that with O'Reilly's status as a much-liked conservative personality, one of the few voices of conservatism on TV, and most definitely the victim of a liberal media hatchet job, and it's maybe not so surprising that conservatives have been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not that there's much doubt.
An Ohio Dem candidate has misjudged the mood somewhat.
I was going to respond with sarcasm about how these divine skeptics have very different rates of rushing to judgement with different people, but carry on, your post is hilarious in itself.
There were allegations against Clinton other than Lewinsky scandal. Even for the latter, while Lewinsky always claimed that consent was never an issue, 50+ year old President having an affair with a young white house intern is not something that would be tolerated in current atmosphere IMO. Not to mention, Lewinsky was horribly harassed and targeted by liberal crowd after the scandal went public.
Of course they do. As you would, if you had something in the pot.
Not quite linked to the title but imagine acting so badly that you end up being banned for life from the sexual harrassment central of Fox News
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/nov/17/gene-simmons-fox-news-kiss
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/nov/17/gene-simmons-fox-news-kiss
Your original hypothesis was this, that the gap can be explained since Trump mattered in a way Clinton doesn't. Which fails at o'Reilly, a fired TV anchor who is at absolute best equally relevant as a popular 2-term president and party mascot.
So you decided that its to do with skepticism, an apparently inherent conservative trait(?). But then the rates of skepticism were so different you had to go back to how much the people matter to the movement. Which means we go to o'Reilly again, and....
I mean, all those things are possible - conservatives will take longer to believe an allegation, and that people with more relevance will be more protected by their side.
None of them can account for the gap: 11-23 (HRC voters disbelieving Clinton's women; Trump voters doing the same for o'Reilly's.)
Gloria Steinem in particular.
A little more coherence in your presentation would help.
In my first post I said there was 'at least one important difference'.
The passage of time is another one. The Clinton story is old hat and everybody has come to terms with it at this stage. The accusations against Trump and O'Reilly are new and hot from the fire, and, as such, more likely to evoke purely partisan responses.
There's also the obvious divergence in the way conservatives and liberals view this whole issue. Conservatives see it in a more commonsense light. An inevitable consequence of human imperfection, dating from the expulsion from the Garden. Men and Women, trees and apples, attraction and repulsion. Liberals see it in the light, if it can be so called, of ideological feminism. Something to make speeches about, and pass laws, and institute enlightened programs.
Simplistic conclusions about the supposedly greater 'open-mindedness' of one group are not warranted.
So, the power differential, which, again, cannot account for o'Reilly, is "one" of the ways.
Now you have introduced time to explain his numbers. The Clinton allegations were old but were mostly gone from all coverage till Trump brought them up. In terms of publicity, I'd date them mid-2016. o'Reilly's allegations have been (similarly) reported off-and-on for more than a decade, with a lot of reports in 2016 and his firing in April 2017.
It has been about a year since both men were prominently in the news for the same reasons. Interestingly, it has been about a month since Weinstein was in the news. Yet 59% of Trump voters are uncertain about o'Reilly (>7 months) but only 22% are uncertain about Weinstein (2 months). That is a big gap, like many of the others in this poll.
(Let's try again with a 3rd factor: importance, time, and?)
Also, my incoherent brain is having a hard time with the bolded part. How does accepting harrasment as part of a supernatural program of human imperfection lead to skepticism regarding some allegations?
Because the various accusations are not all of the same degree. Conservatives will see some of them as part of the inevitable abrasions of relations between the sexes, and judge them differently. A lot of the stuff O'Reilly is tasked with, for instance, might fall into the category of him acting like a jerk. Conservatives might be less ready to end his career for that.
Perception of bias in the reporter will also factor in. Conservatives hardly take everything the mainstream media say as gospel. But they figure that if the media is condemning a well-known liberal, it's probably overdue, and based on plenty of evidence.
I've noticed that when I read Will's post in a Gorka voice-over it makes far more sense.
Teachers are a special case due to the imbalance of power part due to the nature of the relationship making it virtually impossible for there to be true consent. The legal treatment of this varies from country to country. We recognise that power imbalance can get in the way of free choice decisions and where there is no true informed consent to sexual activity it is (or should be) a crime when a reasonable person would know that they were coercing someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't do of their own free will.