Harvey Weinstein allegations; who's next when it comes to allegations? (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I think you're absolutely correct in this, and it's also a horrible and sad thing. It's not surprising that a victim of sexual abuse went on to abuse another, it's a sad consequence. The Argento story isn't fucked up, it's a horrible fucking tragedy. And men like Weinstein are ground zero

Who's to say that Weinstein wasn't sexually abused as a child. We've seen it before that such predators were created by their own childhood experiences.

 

[Ruz-El]

Who's to say that Weinstein wasn't sexually abused as a child. We've seen it before that such predators were created by their own childhood experiences.

who's to say Weinstein isn't a great guy and all the women are liars?

There's been zero indication that Weinstein had any abuse in his life as far as I've seen, I guess we'll find out when/if the trial happens.

But I guess in the mean time we'll give him and teh other accused the benefit of the doubt over the women. He produced some good movies, right?

 

[Robert Crawford]

who's to say Weinstein isn't a great guy and all the women are liars?

There's been zero indication that Weinstein had any abuse in his life as far as I've seen, I guess we'll find out when/if the trial happens.

But I guess in the mean time we'll give him and teh other accused the benefit of the doubt over the women. He produced some good movies, right?

Now, you're being snarky. My point is that we don't know if any of these animals were also abused in their childhood. It doesn't excuse their behavior nor actions, but child abuse is one of the core reasons we have adult predators.

 

[JohnMor]

Now, you're being snarky. My point is that we don't know if any of these animals were also abused in their childhood. It doesn't excuse their behavior nor actions, but child abuse is one of the core reasons we have adult predators.

True. It’s more often the case than not. Same with serial killers. There’s almost always severe childhood abuse in these cases. Monsters are rarely born; they are made. Step by step. And like you said, it does not excuse their actions, but it does help explain how they came to be.

Abuse may or may not be at the root of Weinstein’s or Moonves’ actions. It could be the horribly unfortunate convergence of a misogynistic, patriarchal society with someone suffering from narcissistic personalty disorders and given unfettered power and money. But the lack of empathy in an abuser usually indicates some abuse or trauma in the childhood, not always sexual.

 

[Jason_V]

But I guess in the mean time we'll give him and teh other accused the benefit of the doubt over the women. He produced some good movies, right?

Isn't that what our justice system is built on? Innocent until proven guilty? That's why they are alleged crimes. While the court of social media has come down on the side of guilty, has any actual, legitimate court ruled the same way?

 

[Ruz-El]

Isn't that what our justice system is built on? Innocent until proven guilty? That's why they are alleged crimes. While the court of social media has come down on the side of guilty, has any actual, legitimate court ruled the same way?

That's the Catch 22 and why abuse has become a standard part of Hollywood history since it's inception. You're only guilty if charged, right?.

 

[Jason_V]

That's the Catch 22 and why abuse has become a standard part of Hollywood history since it's inception. You're only guilty if charged, right?.

Absolutely true. But it stands in all areas of life. When the first inkling of a problem come out, everyone jumps on the guilty train without due process. This is SOP in the world.

If I write something here that rubs you the wrong way, you (or others) likely assume I meant to throw a barb at you. When, in reality, it is far more likely it was a poor choice of words on my part and there was no ill intent. So we have this fictional acrimony instead of getting to the bottom of what's really going on. I'm guilty in the court of public opinion without my "due process."

 

[Ruz-El]

I

Absolutely true. But it stands in all areas of life. When the first inkling of a problem come out, everyone jumps on the guilty train without due process. This is SOP in the world.

If I write something here that rubs you the wrong way, you (or others) likely assume I meant to throw a barb at you. When, in reality, it is far more likely it was a poor choice of words on my part and there was no ill intent. So we have this fictional acrimony instead of getting to the bottom of what's really going on. I'm guilty in the court of public opinion without my "due process."

I'm not sure we should be comparing targeted harassment with a "poor choice of words".

 

[Jason_V]

I was making an example of the guilty until proven innocent concept.

 

[Ruz-El]

I was making an example of the guilty until proven innocent concept.

i know, but it's not so simple. Chris Hardwick isn't guilty of anything other than taking a bad break up badly.She cheated on him, so of course he shouldn't be happy. Any controlling behavior claimed by Chloe is debatable, who knows what went on between two people in a relationship? Numerous people though have claimed that they know Hardwick advised others them to not hire Chloe, basically blacklisting her as professionally unreliable, which is a gross abuse of his power. But it's not proven/can't really be proven in a court of law and he's back on TV. Should he be? I don't know. Chloe herself says she didn't want him to lose his job. That's nice of her, but is she right? Can we expect an alleged victim to know what's best or fair?

I'm of the "if you abuse your position, you don't get to go back", and that would fall under it.

Does it seem unreasonable? Would you be okay with an admitted, registered sex offender to go back to work in your school? Louie CK has admitted to sexually harassing those women, but he'll serve no time, has no demand to be registered as a sex offender, and a vocal support group that think he should be allowed back to work since what he did "isn't that bad." I mean, he stopped numerous stand-up careers right in their tracks, but he didn't actually penetrate anyone so, it's okay?

The whole situation is ugly beyond belief, I'm going to side with the women and I don't see any reason to give Weinstein and the others the benefit of the doubt until there's a really good reason too. I've seen nothing of their behavior post accusations/admittance to do so.

 

[Jason_V]

Never said it was so simple. And I never, ever said it was "okay" in any way, shape or form.

However, we have online lynch mobs going after people, demanding they lose their jobs and livelihoods without getting the "service" of due process. Am I saying this is right? No. However, this is the concept our justice system is built on.

When a murder occurs, the suspect is the "alleged suspect," not "the murderer" until the trial is over, right? Sure, it's semantics to a lot of people, but it's really not. Words are important.

Unless there is evidence-direct, concrete and irrefutable evidence-I'm not in the "lynch mob" camp. Because, you know what? At some point in all our lives, we're going to encounter a situation where someone accuses us of something-big, little, illegal, immoral, etc. And I want to be given the same courtesy of my side being heard and explored before I lose my job, my house, my family, my life.

If, at that point it's determined I'm in the wrong, fine. Then you get to punish me. But the punishment doesn't come before the investigation. And if it can't be proven to a legal standard, there might be a clause in a contract allowing a person to be fired for conduct detrimental to their employer. You can fire them on those grounds for dragging the ER's name through the mud.

The news is full of stories of alleged victims of any kind of crime who then retract and say they were lying. Sorry, I don't trust quite so blindly anymore.

 

[Malcolm R]

The news is full of stories of alleged victims of any kind of crime who then retract and say they were lying. Sorry, I don't trust quite so blindly anymore

I agree. People lie constantly for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is revenge and retribution.

 

[Ruz-El]

Can someone please remind me of all the false accusations and lies that have happened to men post-Weinstein?

 

[Jason_V]

Can someone please remind me of all the false accusations and lies that have happened to men post-Weinstein?

Here's one. Only took 37 years...

 

[WillG]

Can someone please remind me of all the false accusations and lies that have happened to men post-Weinstein?

There was a recent case in CT where a college girl accused two other students of raping her, and later admitted she lied (I think it was one of those things where she wanted to hold on to another relationship so she claimed she was raped). Was sentenced a few weeks ago to a paltry year (which means she'll probably be out in 3 months).

It does happen.

 

[jcroy]

There's been zero indication that Weinstein had any abuse in his life as far as I've seen, I guess we'll find out when/if the trial happens.

I suspect this is the kind of information that many people would want to keep buried and hidden, largely to reduce trauma and/or embarrassment. If their doctors/psychiatrists know anything about such abuse, they usually can't say anything about it due to doctor-patient confidentiality type regulations (or laws).

So if such childhood abuse issues are eventually revealed, most likely it will be from Weinstein himself and/or somebody who grew up with him who knew about it (such as childhood friends, family, etc ...).

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, this is pretty bizarre. I guess Mel Gibson has been telling people for a while that Harvey Weinstein has "no penis" which I assumed was just some sort of insult Mel was tossing Harvey's way. Yesterday I am listening to an episode of the podcast "The Movies that Made Me" and this topic actually comes up on the show and basically they say this is true, that Weinstein has some condition that resulted in him not having or having severely deformed genitalia. Josh Olsen says on the show that this came out in testimony by one of his victims and that one woman actually felt sorry for Harvey's condition. Joe Dante actually says he finds it hard to believe that one of the world's most famous sexual predators does not actually have the equipment. Now, I've been afraid to google this as there are said to be photos and I do not want to see something I can not un-see.

Is this a true story or some sort of myth?

If it is true it is kind of fitting in a way that he would be stuck with this situation.

 

[Citizen87645]

Google-ing will turn up reports of the testimony, but no pictures. You're safe from visuals, but the terminology used may still scar you.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Google-ing will turn up reports of the testimony, but no pictures. You're safe from visuals, but the terminology used may still scar you.

Wow, well I think I will pass on the Google search. It does present some confusing issues in terms of some of the accusations against him as one woman claimed that Weinstein pulled out his penis and masturbated in front of her into a nearby plant. How could he have done this if he has no penis or whatever he has is not recognizable as a penis?

This is one seriously weird story!

 

[Ruz-El]

Having a deformed or micro-penis doesn't mean it's not an operational penis. It might also explain the pathology of the assaults.