Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc

shabadu84 said:
I don't think that's a particularly "liberal" problem - the same happens every time a God-fearing conservative gets caught doing similar. People wax sanctimonious and claim they had no idea but we know that's not true.

For me, this speaks more to failures as humans in agreeing on right and wrong, rather than being an issue of politics. But it never gets played that way anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true at all. Conservatives are far less hypocritical than liberals (I'm not talking about religious evangelism here, which isn't really a conservative phenomenon).

Ordinary conservative tend to present themselves in a truthful way. Liberals are hypocrites from the day they get slapped on the arse by the midwife and pretend they liked it.
 
Will Absolute said:
I don't think that's true at all. Conservatives are far less hypocritical than liberals (I'm not talking about religious evangelism here, which isn't really a conservative phenomenon).

Ordinary conservative tend to present themselves in a truthful way. Liberals are hypocrites from the day they get slapped on the arse by the midwife and pretend they liked it.
Click to expand...
:lol:...sure.
 
Buchan said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/gwyneth-paltrow-angelina-jolie-harvey-weinstein.html?referer=https://t.co/qwgJBWxhCN?amp=1
Click to expand...

Jolie and Paltrow are two of the biggest female Hollywood stars of the last couple of decades. I can understand a young actress looking for a big break being scared to publicly confront a wealthy and influential bully like Weinstein after his unwelcome advances, but those two have been around long enough and are big enough to do anything without fear of consequences. Why the feck have they been silent all these years? OK, they chose to keep their mouths shut because it helped their careers early on but afterwards, what prevented them from going public? Everybody's full of shit in this business.
 
Last edited:
Will Absolute said:
I don't think that's true at all. Conservatives are far less hypocritical than liberals (I'm not talking about religious evangelism here, which isn't really a conservative phenomenon).

Ordinary conservative tend to present themselves in a truthful way. Liberals are hypocrites from the day they get slapped on the arse by the midwife and pretend they liked it.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure in cases like the one we're discussing here, conservatives aren't going to be open and honest about what they're up to behind closed doors.
 
Will Absolute said:
I don't think that's true at all. Conservatives are far less hypocritical than liberals (I'm not talking about religious evangelism here, which isn't really a conservative phenomenon).

Ordinary conservative tend to present themselves in a truthful way. Liberals are hypocrites from the day they get slapped on the arse by the midwife and pretend they liked it.
Click to expand...
Christ alive you're tiresome.

Hypocrisy 101 has been on display from the entire conservative wing since Trump rocked up on the scene and the "family values" crowd aligned themselves with the antithesis of everything they've ever said.

How the feck is a thread about a slimey twat sex pest being turned into a liberal vs conservative discussion?

Oh wait, Buchan and Will are about.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Read the timeline on post number #154.
Click to expand...

Again, there's not enough there to suggest corruption. There's been increased scrutiny on NY politicans and attorneys in recent years (Spitzer, Weiner, Skelos) by overzealous AGs and federal prosecutors. I stand corrected if he gets hauled up on this, but I seriously doubt it.
 
antihenry said:
Jolie and Paltrow are one of the biggest female Hollywood stars of the last couple of decades. I can understand a young actress looking for a big break being scared to publicly confront a wealthy and influential bully like Weinstein after his unwelcome advances, but those two have been around long enough and are big enough to do anything without fear of consequences. Why the feck have they been silent all these years? OK, they chose to keep their mouths shut because it helped their careers early on but afterwards, what prevented them from going public? Everybody's full of shit in this business.
Click to expand...
Harvey Weinstein was and is an incredibly powerful man. He‘s connected to other incredibly important men. He has a shitload of money and he personally knows and befriended important politicians. Many politicians got donations from him. He knows many important journalists.
Also, he has dirt on many people. He controls the careers and public images of a shitload of people.
To suggest they had nothing to be afraid of is incredibly ignorant. At his very top, Weinstein could have easily crushed them with his influence. Just read the stories around him. Read how people like Matt Damon apparently helped to cover for him, or listen to the New Yorker tape and think about the fact, that this tape wasn’t enough to get him in front of a judge. Just think about the sheer amount of people relying on him who would have so much to lose if this comes out.
Jolie, Paltrow and all the others had so much to be afraid of and so little to gain by speaking out. And this doesn’t even include the difficulties and issues they would have had to face by going public. The media going crazy, the doubt they would have had to face, the uncertainty.
When you face an enemy so powerful and you get so little out of fighting him, it can be much easier to simply let go of it and try to move on. The struggle is just too much.
 
Cheesy said:
No, I'm pretty sure in cases like the one we're discussing here, conservatives aren't going to be open and honest about what they're up to behind closed doors.
Click to expand...

There are limits to truth-telling.

But the truth is that conservatism and liberalism don't represent opposing ends of the same continuum at all. They're completely different kinds of thing.

Like religious belief and atheism, where one is the absence of the other. Conservatives are the atheists, basing their ideas on human nature, common observation and commonsense. Liberalism is much more akin to a religion, whose devotees have to subscribe to numerous dogmas which are not deducible from reason or observation, but must be accepted on faith.

This makes a liberal someone the left side of whose brain doesn't know what the right side is thinking. In many ways, hypocrisy is both the cause and the consequence of liberalism. It certainly is its ever-present handmaiden.
 
Will Absolute said:
It's not so much the liberal community's reaction now, although the fact that so many wait to jump on the condemnation bandwagon until the guy is dead in the water, and become a safe target, does them no particular credit, but their past history of embracing such a known scumbag for the sake of personal gain. It makes a mockery of their moral pretensions.
Click to expand...

Yeah everyone that is friends with him, has condoned his behaviour and maybe even enabled him are all Liberals. This is definitely a Liberal thing.
 
Will Absolute said:
It's not so much the liberal community's reaction now, although the fact that so many wait to jump on the condemnation bandwagon until the guy is dead in the water, and become a safe target, does them no particular credit, but their past history of embracing such a known scumbag for the sake of personal gain. It makes a mockery of their moral pretensions.
Click to expand...

How is it any different from conservative right? Or Donald Trump who pretty much tweeted that he is in the know about the deviant?
 
Will Absolute said:
I don't think that's true at all. Conservatives are far less hypocritical than liberals (I'm not talking about religious evangelism here, which isn't really a conservative phenomenon).

Ordinary conservative tend to present themselves in a truthful way. Liberals are hypocrites from the day they get slapped on the arse by the midwife and pretend they liked it.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I want to bitch slap you right and left and I'm a Lutheran Christian, Missouri Synod.
 
Will Absolute said:
There are limits to truth-telling.

But the truth is that conservatism and liberalism don't represent opposing ends of the same continuum at all. They're completely different kinds of thing.

Like religious belief and atheism, where one is the absence of the other. Conservatives are the atheists, basing their ideas on human nature, common observation and commonsense. Liberalism is much more akin to a religion, whose devotees have to subscribe to numerous dogmas which are not deducible from reason or observation, but must be accepted on faith.

This makes a liberal someone the left side of whose brain doesn't know what the right side is thinking. In many ways, hypocrisy is both the cause and the consequence of liberalism. It certainly is its ever-present handmaiden.
Click to expand...

I forgot you’re a boring wum. Are we supposed to get “triggered” or something? You don’t even have the intelligence to do it well.
 
Will Absolute said:
There are limits to truth-telling.

But the truth is that conservatism and liberalism don't represent opposing ends of the same continuum at all. They're completely different kinds of thing.

Like religious belief and atheism, where one is the absence of the other. Conservatives are the atheists, basing their ideas on human nature, common observation and commonsense. Liberalism is much more akin to a religion, whose devotees have to subscribe to numerous dogmas which are not deducible from reason or observation, but must be accepted on faith.

This makes a liberal someone the left side of whose brain doesn't know what the right side is thinking. In many ways, hypocrisy is both the cause and the consequence of liberalism. It certainly is its ever-present handmaiden.
Click to expand...

WTF?
Both sides are hypocrites, both sides are akin to a religion whose devotees have to subscribe etc etc et
Both sides are have the exact same flaws, problem is both sides think the other side is the one flawed and cant see they do the exact same thing.
The thing we hate the most in others are the things we hate most about ourselves but havent recognised it yet.
 
I suppose we shouldn't stray too far deep into an Ayn Rand textbook and get back to the fat American sexual predator with a lot of power.
 
Stack said:
WTF?
Both sides are hypocrites, both sides are akin to a religion whose devotees have to subscribe etc etc et
Both sides are have the exact same flaws, problem is both sides think the other side is the one flawed and cant see they do the exact same thing.
The thing we hate the most in others are the things we hate most about ourselves but havent recognised it yet.
Click to expand...
Bingo
 
Will Absolute said:
There are limits to truth-telling.

But the truth is that conservatism and liberalism don't represent opposing ends of the same continuum at all. They're completely different kinds of thing.

Like religious belief and atheism, where one is the absence of the other. Conservatives are the atheists, basing their ideas on human nature, common observation and commonsense. Liberalism is much more akin to a religion, whose devotees have to subscribe to numerous dogmas which are not deducible from reason or observation, but must be accepted on faith.

This makes a liberal someone the left side of whose brain doesn't know what the right side is thinking. In many ways, hypocrisy is both the cause and the consequence of liberalism. It certainly is its ever-present handmaiden.
Click to expand...
I hope one day in the future you come back to read this and feel as much cringe as I do now.
 
K2K said:
I think that's the point.

Both sides are the same and both are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

That isn't what William is suggesting though

Will Absolute said:
I don't think that's true at all. Conservatives are far less hypocritical than liberals (I'm not talking about religious evangelism here, which isn't really a conservative phenomenon).

Ordinary conservative tend to present themselves in a truthful way. Liberals are hypocrites from the day they get slapped on the arse by the midwife and pretend they liked it.
Click to expand...
 
Will Absolute said:
There are limits to truth-telling.

But the truth is that conservatism and liberalism don't represent opposing ends of the same continuum at all. They're completely different kinds of thing.

Like religious belief and atheism, where one is the absence of the other. Conservatives are the atheists, basing their ideas on human nature, common observation and commonsense. Liberalism is much more akin to a religion, whose devotees have to subscribe to numerous dogmas which are not deducible from reason or observation, but must be accepted on faith.

This makes a liberal someone the left side of whose brain doesn't know what the right side is thinking. In many ways, hypocrisy is both the cause and the consequence of liberalism. It certainly is its ever-present handmaiden.
Click to expand...

:lol:

The feck are you talking about?
 
Will Absolute said:
Like religious belief and atheism, where one is the absence of the other. Conservatives are the atheists, basing their ideas on human nature, common observation and commonsense. Liberalism is much more akin to a religion, whose devotees have to subscribe to numerous dogmas which are not deducible from reason or observation, but must be accepted on faith.
Click to expand...

:lol: Complete non sense but the mental gymnastics displayed must be commended.
 
HTG said:
Harvey Weinstein was and is an incredibly powerful man. He‘s connected to other incredibly important men. He has a shitload of money and he personally knows and befriended important politicians. Many politicians got donations from him. He knows many important journalists.
Also, he has dirt on many people. He controls the careers and public images of a shitload of people.
To suggest they had nothing to be afraid of is incredibly ignorant. At his very top, Weinstein could have easily crushed them with his influence. Just read the stories around him. Read how people like Matt Damon apparently helped to cover for him, or listen to the New Yorker tape and think about the fact, that this tape wasn’t enough to get him in front of a judge. Just think about the sheer amount of people relying on him who would have so much to lose if this comes out.
Jolie, Paltrow and all the others had so much to be afraid of and so little to gain by speaking out. And this doesn’t even include the difficulties and issues they would have had to face by going public. The media going crazy, the doubt they would have had to face, the uncertainty.
When you face an enemy so powerful and you get so little out of fighting him, it can be much easier to simply let go of it and try to move on. The struggle is just too much.
Click to expand...

What did they have to be afraid of? They're wealthy and powerful Hollywood stars. What was he going to do, order them killed for speaking out? Yes, they kept their mouths shut because they were probably afraid of him due to his power and influence, but they also profited from remaining silent by advancing their careers. They could have done something about it, but they chose not to and Weinstein kept doing what he was doing.
 
antihenry said:
What did they have to be afraid of? They're wealthy and powerful Hollywood stars. What was he going to do, order them killed for speaking out? Yes, they kept their mouths shut because they were probably afraid of him due to his power and influence, but they also profited from remaining silent by advancing their careers. They could have done something about it, but they chose not to and Weinstein kept doing what he was doing.
Click to expand...

Weinstein's an incredibly powerful figure within Holywood - they may not have been in danger physically but he'd have likely done all he could to drag them through the mud nevertheless and make it an incredibly difficult process for them. Perhaps they should've spoken out beforehand, but we don't really know the full internal circumstances as to why they haven't.
 
Rado_N said:
Christ alive you're tiresome.

Hypocrisy 101 has been on display from the entire conservative wing since Trump rocked up on the scene and the "family values" crowd aligned themselves with the antithesis of everything they've ever said.

How the feck is a thread about a slimey twat sex pest being turned into a liberal vs conservative discussion?

Oh wait, Buchan and Will are about.
Click to expand...

Hold on a second, mate: where did I make this a liberal v. conservative discussion? Politics were mentioned long after my initial postings on the matter at hand. My only comments on Clinton et al were replies to points others made, too.

To paraphrase another poster earlier: this isn't about right and left; it's about right and wrong.
 
antihenry said:
What did they have to be afraid of? They're wealthy and powerful Hollywood stars. What was he going to do, order them killed for speaking out? Yes, they kept their mouths shut because they were probably afraid of him due to his power and influence, but they also profited from remaining silent by advancing their careers. They could have done something about it, but they chose not to and Weinstein kept doing what he was doing.
Click to expand...
You are saying it yourself. They had to be afraid he‘d destroy their careers. If that is not enough I really don‘t know. By the way, I urge you to try to imagine being a woman being threatened by this powerful, 1,83 meters tall, strong and simply creepy man. Alone with him in a room, no witnesses, no help. Imagine how traumatic it must be to be at the beginning of your career and this ever so powerful man molests you and you are not only alone with your accusations, but have nobody in the whole business to turn to for help, because they all know anyway and have no reason to help you.
You‘re constantly surrounded and working with people, depending on people who are supporting him.
To even suggest that someone going through this shitfest and who certainly live through hell after going public with those accusations is at fault or carries any guilt whatsoever, is part of the problem and a reason so many people suffering like that don‘t go public.
The fact that you are actively criticizing the motives of those speaking out and are blaming them for what happened to others is what it makes so difficult for those people.


But yeah, Gwyneth Paltrow should just have said something along the lines of: „Harvey Weinstein, maybe the most powerful man in Hollywood, molested me. I was able to fight him of. I have no proofs or witnesses whatsoever. Something needs to be done about him.“
Wonder how that would have turned out for her.
 
Buchan said:
Hold on a second, mate: where did I make this a liberal v. conservative discussion? Politics were mentioned long after my initial postings on the matter at hand. My only comments on Clinton et al were replies to points others made, too.

To paraphrase another poster earlier: this isn't about right and left; it's about right and wrong.
Click to expand...

You seen as bothered about lambasting "liberals" for not having spoken out (or not having done it quick enough) as anything else.

I'm not interested in a left/right debate, it's pointless irrelevant attempted point scoring that distracts from the issue at hand.

That other tiresome wum has been far worse, I'll grant you.
 
Who was it that was accused of/alleged to have molested Culkin and other young boys?

Haim was another that was supposedly molested, think Feldmen mentioned that.

Have heard there's a plethora of that going on in Hollywood.
 
Let's not politicise this matter, eh? ;)
 
Rado_N said:
Hypocrisy 101 has been on display from the entire conservative wing since Trump rocked up on the scene and the "family values" crowd aligned themselves with the antithesis of everything they've ever said.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing hypocrisy and expediency. Trump's conservative supporters are not in denial about his character. They support him as the best practical hope of advancing their agenda. Which is what politics is all about, after all.
 
fishfingers15 said:
As for your last line, isn't it true for everyone? I just don't see why you go on rambling about 'liberals'. Everybody is up for criticism, whether it's Obama, Clinton, Sanders or Trump.
Click to expand...

I know you clarified later in the thread that you mixed me up with another poster re: the 'liberals' thing, but you are spot on with everything else here.

The whole cohort of them are self-centred hypocrites who wilfully remain silent on issues until it's politically advantageous to do speak up or change their stance: Obama (same-sex marriage), Clinton (same-sex marriage & feminist issues), Sanders (gun manufacturer liability) and Trump (religion and gun control). Popular opinion dictates everything these people are 'passionate' about and they'll do just about anything to remain popular. That is the case for the political elite and the Hollywood elite, two groups conveniently intertwined in this scandal, it must be noted.
 
Buchan said:
I know you clarified later in the thread that you mixed me up with another poster re: the 'liberals' thing, but you are spot on with everything else here.

The whole cohort of them are self-centred hypocrites who wilfully remain silent on issues until it's politically advantageous to do speak up or change their stance: Obama (same-sex marriage), Clinton (same-sex marriage & feminist issues), Sanders (gun manufacturer liability) and Trump (religion and gun control). Popular opinion dictates everything these people are 'passionate' about and they'll do just about anything to remain popular. That is the case for the political elite and the Hollywood elite, two groups conveniently intertwined in this scandal, it must be noted.
Click to expand...

Again I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the actual issue at hand, or if there's any indication that those whom Weinstein donated to had any prior knowledge of the shadier shite that surrounded him. No doubt the political elite are incredibly corrupt but I'm struggling to see how they've been particularly involved in this one.
 
MrMarcello said:
Who was it that was accused of/alleged to have molested Culkin and other young boys?

Haim was another that was supposedly molested, think Feldmen mentioned that.

Have heard there's a plethora of that going on in Hollywood.
Click to expand...

Yeah it’s a huge huge story that will be blown open when all the main players are dead. Feldman has said that he would love to blow it open but it would litereally destory him and likely every victim too as the guilty parties are all unimaginably rich and powerful and due to the statute of limitations they can’t be tried anyway.
 
Rado_N said:
You seen as bothered about lambasting "liberals" for not having spoken out (or not having done it quick enough) as anything else.

I'm not interested in a left/right debate, it's pointless irrelevant attempted point scoring that distracts from the issue at hand.

That other tiresome wum has been far worse, I'll grant you.
Click to expand...

I don't think I mentioned the word 'liberal' in this thread until it was put to me first. I singled out the likes of Emma Watson and Jennifer Lawrence etc., two vocal feminists who seem to enjoy their roles as feminist royalty but are strangely silent on this issue, an issue and scandal which both affects their own industry and the very members of society they claim to want to protect. It's a very strange position they've adopted, which begs the question: are they implicated in Weinstein's cover-up, or did they allow him carte blanche with their bodies in order to progress their own careers?
 
Last edited:
Cheesy said:
Again I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the actual issue at hand, or if there's any indication that those whom Weinstein donated to had any prior knowledge of the shadier shite that surrounded him. No doubt the political elite are incredibly corrupt but I'm struggling to see how they've been particularly involved in this one.
Click to expand...

You're right, it doesn't. I was just replying to a poster who specifically mentioned Obama, Clinton, Sanders and Trump, to name a few, possessing similar topsy-turvy traits when the mood suits.

This isn't a liberal v. conservative matter.
 
Last edited:
Buchan said:
I don't think I mentioned the word 'liberal' in this thread until it was put to me first. I singled out the likes of Emma Watson and Jennifer Lawrence etc., two vocal feminists who seem to enjoy their roles of feminist royalty but are strangely silent on this issue, an issue and scandal which both affects their own industry and the very members of society they claim to want to protect. It's a very strange position they've adopted, which begs the question: are they implicated in Weinstein's cover-up, or did they allow him carte blanche with their bodies in order to progress their own careers?
Click to expand...

Both have spoken out. It's the male actors and directors who have been strangely silent on the issue.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Both have spoken out. It's the male actors and directors who have been strangely silent on the issue.
Click to expand...

They may have since, but they hadn't when I made my original posts.

As for the still-silent male actors, or anyone else for that matter: their non-action won't be forgotten. It's high-time for solidarity in cases like this.
 
Buchan said:
They may have since, but they hadn't when I made my original posts.
Click to expand...

Which is why you need to give people time, both had worked with Weinstein and for all we know may have been directly harassed themselves. It may not be something they want to relive directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.