Harvey Weinsteins rape conviction just got overturned.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
honest question: would it not be culturally, practically, theoretically, in all ways beneficial for us to just say it was rape, considering the very real mindrape hollywood has to force on anyone to get them to have sex with creatures like these?
"this demon roaming the earth is disgusting and deserves death, but his horned friends are right, he is innocent" just muddies the waters, IMO.
No. Look at the list of actresses that came out against him vs the ones who didn't.
Almost every one that did was older, past her prime, and had nothing to lose by pulling this bridge up after her, like Susan Sarandon for example.
Meanwhile you have Jennifer Lawrence who not only said nothing but also just dropped off the fucking map for a few years after this happened because she was no longer being fed roles.
The whole thing was a group of post wall, middle-aged and older women making sure their younger competition wouldn't have the same opportunities as they did, no matter what it might have taken to get the roles. When various male actors came out with their own tales of sexual assault being made against them, like Terry Crews, they were told to shut up and let the women talk, it had nothing to actually do with whatever abuse was going on in Hollywood, certain groups just wanted to retain leverage over others.
I think what this misses is the responsibility of the fame-chasing whores (of both sexes, although my understanding is that this particular pimp was only into women) for accepting the deal.
Exactly. This displaces scrutiny from the actual problem (Hollywood is, and always was, run by degenerates yet we teach our kids to tale lessons from them) to a convinient scapegoat.
so these women were taught to take lessons from the men who later taught them they had to suck dick to get ahead, and this is purely their fault (read: our fault)?
if someone attacks me or my people i don't really care who believed in what and when, i just want to kill the attacker before he can do harm. why is it so hard for people on this forum to think like this without kvetching about how actually the attackers were right to take advantage of some dumb whores (read: our kindred women)?
It's his fault for offering the deal, and also [his/her] fault for taking it. The whole transaction is repugnant, and everyone involved should be viewed with disgust for participating.
You aren't wrong to say that Harvey Weinstein should probably get some punishment for offering. You are wrong to say that the women have no agency in accepting. You draw the analogy of an "attacker," but he did not "attack" anyone. These people walked into the office, they were offered "fame and fortune for your body," and they said "yes."
Realistically, the whole thing is closest to prostitution, except that in this case the john and the pimp are essentially one guy. Ergo, the prostitute and the john/pimp should both be punished. Unfortunately, we are not operating under that system, and the substitute system we have, of lying about what actually occurred to displace all the blame onto one party, is not good. When you call Weinstein an "attacker," who "forces mindrape" on people, you are siding with that system, because you are also displacing agency and thus culpability from the women who willingly took the deal.
The real issue is that guys like Weinstein ensure that rather than getting the best actresses, we instead get the actresses who were willing to be used as holes for roles, while the actresses with self-respect and integrity forgo fame and the big bucks in favor of starring in obscure indie films.
Since Weinstein was the gatekeeper, he should be considered primarily responsible, but I don't think of talentless actresses getting multimillion dollar roles that they clearly don't deserve as victims. Had Hollywood been run by men with integrity, no one would know these womens' names.
And if any women could be considered "victims" of this process, it would be the talented women who deserve the big roles but had too much integrity to prostitute themselves for it.
Stop defending the absurdly irresponsible. They aren't victims.
The land is planted thick with man's laws, not god's, and if the devil himself were to appear in that courtroom, I would give him the benefit of the law.
If he is guilty of something, then he is guilty of it. Charge him for propagandizing and psyops against his own peoples. Oh wait, Obama legalized that back in the early 2010s. He broke no laws, he gets no charges. If he broke civil prostitution laws, then fine him for being involved in purchasing a ton of sex, and charge all the hollywood whores who slept with him on the prostitution charges that they are.
If there should be laws against what he has done, then those laws should be made, voted on, approved, and enforced. But what he did was be a John for a bunch of Hollywood prostitutes, not rape.
this is a rather bleak outlook. where does Man get any of his ideas from if not from God?
if you reject God's laws, what prevents the devil from making the very ones you will apply to him later? he is not an idle fellow. if you leave the chess set alone, he will move the pieces in his favor when you're not looking.
there is rape and then there is quid pro quo.
I'm not going to be bias and lie when it is convenient for my side. If I do, I am no better than the people on the left.