Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Harvey Weinstein, Fired Amongst Sexual Harassment Allegations


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

What is the point on all these people coming out with their own victim stories now and not even name the person who did it? 

 

If seems like "feel sorry for me while i assist in creating  the next Weinstein". 

 

Yea. I definitely dont understand it when it comes from someone like Terry Cruse. Like, bruh you made it. Who hurt you? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Destino said:

Discussing the power dynamic is important, but I think The discussion needs to focus on how that power works and what exists to control it.  What is in place that stops these guys from retaliating by colluding with friends to negatively impact careers?  Nothing.  What is in place that stops these guys from bribing or intimidating the press?  Nothing.  What stops the media from taking bribes?  Nothing.  What stops these guys from paying off victims and having them sigh non disclosure agreements?  Nothing.  

 

And those that don't play ball, are threatened by lawyers.  Lawyers that use the US legal system as a tool of intimidation against victims.  

 

The US system of laws allows the corruption that makes it possible for guys like Weinstein to use their wealth and power to hide their crimes.  We don't even call it corruption because it's legal.  There is nothing stopping the rich and powerful from using their wealth and power to cover up their crimes.  

 

I dont think that's an accident.  

Me and you are agreeing. That is exactly my point.

 

That is what Harvey Weinstein basically did.

13 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

What is the point on all these people coming out with their own victim stories now and not even name the person who did it? 

 

If seems like "feel sorry for me while i assist in creating  the next Weinstein". 

 

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

Yea. I definitely dont understand it when it comes from someone like Terry Cruse. Like, bruh you made it. Who hurt you? 

the people who did what they did have careers. Like Me and @Destino are talking about, there are some really powerful people there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

Also read yesterday that reporters are digging into Louis C.K.,

 

As big of a fan of him as I am, i could see this.  I have no idea why though

 

Out of curiousity where are you reading this?

 

Getcha popcorn ready

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 8:54 AM, Zazzaro703 said:

Overlooked and ignored because he champions liberal causes. Clinton held fundraisers at his house, Michelle Obama called him a great man, Malia with the internship. I really wonder when both sides will stop pointing the finger at each other ...........

 

 

this isn't really ****ing hilarious ...?  

 

right...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Destino said:

What stops these guys from paying off victims and having them sigh non disclosure agreements?  Nothing. 

 

The victims could refuse to sign nondisclosure agreements.  More cases would go to court then, but Harvey Weinstein would have been revealed for what he was  a long time ago if somebody had refused to sign a non disclosure agreement.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Right, and there goes their career. It's well known that he successfully blocked some actresses careers. 

 

He's suck.

 

Sometimes doing the right thing is not easy.

 

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  Same thing applies to women.

 

And life is definitely not fair.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The victims could refuse to sign nondisclosure agreements.  More cases would go to court then, but Harvey Weinstein would have been revealed for what he was  a long time ago if somebody had refused to sign a non disclosure agreement.

And they'd likely lose their careers, face lawsuits, and it's unlikely Weinstein would lose in court unless there was a great deal more evidence than her word against his.  Lord help them if they've made any mistakes too, because his friends in the press would make sure everyone knew them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way to stop evil (and not just sexual harassment, but also by the Pharma industry and whoever else you can imagine) if good people aren't willing to stand up and say something even if it comes at a cost to them.

 

That's just reality.  Taking the money and signing the nondisclosure agreement ensures that the evil is going to continue and again that isn't just true in the case of sexual harassment.  It is true period.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Okay, let's do some more victim blaming of young women who couldn't stand up to his power.

 

/not sarcasm

 

I'm curious of your use of couldn't here vs. there would be a cost to doing it in your previous post.

 

So in your world they had no choice but sign the non-disclosure agreement.  Or by couldn't stand up to his power, do you just mean that they weren't willing to risk their chances of being a high profile actress.  If they were really (psychologically) powerless after having gone through the process of after being assaulted to hire an attorney to start the legal proceedings to get to the point that their was a deal on the table with a nondisclosure agreement attached, then I do really feel sorry for them.

 

If they looked at the situation and decided that POSSIBLY (because really that's what you are talking about here) passing on opportunity to be a high profile actress wasn't worth publicly telling everybody he was a scum bag, then that would seem to make them slightly better than him IMO.

 

So the question is couldn't they or did they look at the money and the possible impacts on their future career and decide they didn't want to.

 

(This is a general question and point.  Have we weakened females to the point that long periods of time after something has happened and after they have involved people to look after their own interest, are they still not responsible for their decisions?

 

Did his victims have no choice but sign NDAs or did they decide that was what was best (for them)?

 

Was Rose McGowan's free will so severely impaired by his sexual assault that she was not capable of  not signing the NDA?  (I suppose it is possible, though, I'd like to know something more on the time frame of things.) or did she make a decision of her own volition and based on her own free will to sign the NDA?

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you missed my post where I said that I overlooked plenty of sexual harassment in all of the industries I worked in SO I COULD CONTINUE TO WORK.  And in some cases, the men knowing that I was a Lesbian was a huge turn on for them. I didn't say that I succumbed, I didn't. But I didn't report it either.

 

Unless you have gone through this, you can't get all high and mighty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Maybe you missed my post where I said that I overlooked plenty of sexual harassment in all of the industries I worked in SO I COULD CONTINUE TO WORK.  And in some cases, the men knowing that I was a Lesbian was a huge turn on for them. I didn't say that I succumbed, I didn't. But I didn't report it either.

 

Unless you have gone through this, you can't get all high and mighty.

 

I didn't say anything about you or your situation.  I've talked about signing NDAs. and while I've never been sexually harassed, I have certainly been in situations where doing the right thing was not the easy thing.

 

And sometimes I've failed to do the right thing and sometimes I have done the right thing.

 

Are we really going to go to the idea that because I've never been sexually harassed that I can't point out that preventing evil things from happening (and sexual harassment is evil) requires good people to point out when evil things have happened even if there might be negative consequences to them?

 

And that's the antithesis of singing an NDA.

 

Would it be okay if I pointed it out in a thread related to medical malpractice even though I've never been a victim of medical malpractice?

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites

You, sir, are victim blaming by continuing to insist that these women should have just sucked it up and reported the sexual assault. 

 

Women get terrified in these power differential situations. And since you're not a woman who's terrified, please stop victim blaming, and insisting that women step up to do the right thing. 

 

How about men step up and call out this behavior? We already know that the authorities don't pay attention in he said she said situations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

You, sir, are victim blaming by continuing to insist that these women should have just sucked it up and reported the sexual assault. 

 

Women get terrified in these power differential situations. And since you're not a woman who's terrified, please stop victim blaming, and insisting that women step up to do the right thing. 

 

How about men step up and call out this behavior? We already know that the authorities don't pay attention in he said she said situations.

 

Based on what I know, the only men that knew what was happening was 2nd hand because a woman told them in private.

 

I don't know of any women that are claiming the sexual assault happened in front of other men.

 

Do you want men going out and making public things told them in private to denounce men that have committed sexual harassment?

 

Should Brad Pitt have publicly denounced Weinstein after his then girlfriend (Paltrow) told him about what happened?  Does what she wanted matter?

 

Plenty of men are willing to and do condemn sexual harassment and when given specific public information denounce specific sexual harassment.

 

(Again, based on what I know, the only people defending Weinstein are females (e.g. Lindsey Lohan).)

 

(And if men did and were silent, especially if they signed an NDA, I've got no problem saying the same thing about them.  If Terry Crews isn't naming who sexually assualted him because at the time he looked at the situation and decided that settling and signing an NDA and the associated money and the potential affect on his future career wasn't worth ending the evil, then everything I've said should be equally applied to him.)

 

Evil exist when good people fail to denounce it.  That's the truth.  It doesn't matter what the evil is or what sex you are.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindsay Lohan is a huge disappointment for a lot of reasons, this being the latest.

 

Pitt protected his girlfriend, then did his own movies with this guy. If he was serious, he could have refused to do any business with him, right? Wouldn't that be doing the right thing? 

 

What about all the other men who knew what Weinstein was about, they could have refused to do business with him, right?

 

But they didn't, did they? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Lindsay Lohan is a huge disappointment for a lot of reasons, this being the latest.

 

Pitt protected his girlfriend, then did his own movies with this guy. If he was serious, he could have refused to do any business with him, right? Wouldn't that be doing the right thing? 

 

What about all the other men who knew what Weinstein was about, they could have refused to do business with him, right?

 

But they didn't, did they? 

 

I don't know the timeline.  Did Pitt continue to do movies with Weinstein after the fact?

 

If, yes, I'd agree.

 

Does the same thing apply to Paltrow?

 

It isn't clear to me how many knew, but yes I'd agree.

(

http://people.com/movies/inside-story-how-brad-pitt-threatened-harvey-weinstein-with-a-missouri-whooping-after-gwyneth-paltrow-incident/

 

The source notes that Pitt was not yet a major star at the time, and was “taking a big risk” by confronting Weinstein: “He was a young guy in Hollywood taking a chance.”

Still, the source says, “He’s one of the only men in Hollywood who stood up and said something. That’s a fact.”)

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming forward and not being believed may actually hurt as much as the real thing. That’s why the wait for the band wagon, there is power in numbers. Hell, I think it took like 30+ ladies before people started believing what Bill Cosby did.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yohan said:

Coming forward and not being believed may actually hurt as much as the real thing. That’s why the wait for the band wagon, there is power in numbers. Hell, I think it took like 30+ ladies before people started believing what Bill Cosby did.

 

But somebody still has to be first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...