Tesseract
Banned
alleged victims, harvey is now cleared of those suits, and all liability
thanks for playing
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Harvey Weinstein 'to settle with accusers for $44m'
- Thread starter AV
- Start date
alleged victims, harvey is now cleared of those suits, and all liability
thanks for playing
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Just blatantly trolling at this point like a child lol I'm done wasting time on you
Tesseract
Banned
damn dude, you got absolutely destroyed in this thread
like, i 360 no scoped you
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
I suggest you step out of your own delusional fantasy and try the real world for a change. Particularly looking into a legal thing called a "Settlement Agreement".
The "IF"s are back. I wonder how long they'll last this time..
Well, what a surprise!
The "IF"s have vanished.
The agency has been removed from one party.
And instead of a valid argument based in reality we simply double down on emoting disbelief.
Shall I tell you the definition of insanity?
Last edited:
Jon Neu
Banned
Dude, those women weren't giving him blowjobs to survive, they were giving him blowjobs to be famous.
They are not victims, they played along when it suited them and now play the victim card because it suits them more.
Weiji
Banned
While there has been plenty of evidence to suggest that this POS very much pressures women into sex by dangling movie rolls in front of them, that's not against the law.
To the question: "Is he a sleazy POS who takes advantage of people and uses his position inappropriately?" the answer is obviously a resounding "yes."
To the question: "Is this person a criminal who committed non-consensual sexual acts on women?" the answer is "who the fuck knows.... maybe."
It's an open secret in Hollywood that producers all act like this chode. It's also an open secret that women throw themselves at these men to get their shot.
So we're just supposed to believe, no questions asked, that these women were victims of sexual violence because they say so? Even though they waited until he was down to kick him? What year is this?
Nobody_Important: If you want to postulate on the reason people are leary of believing all women, look in the mirror. You're the one who has spend countless hours trying to convince the world that these men are monsters in every instance. You're the one whose willingness to throw absolutely anyone under the bus with no evidence has lead us to a place where people no longer believe in those that "Cry Wolf".
Congrats on your contribution to the conversation.
To the question: "Is he a sleazy POS who takes advantage of people and uses his position inappropriately?" the answer is obviously a resounding "yes."
To the question: "Is this person a criminal who committed non-consensual sexual acts on women?" the answer is "who the fuck knows.... maybe."
It's an open secret in Hollywood that producers all act like this chode. It's also an open secret that women throw themselves at these men to get their shot.
So we're just supposed to believe, no questions asked, that these women were victims of sexual violence because they say so? Even though they waited until he was down to kick him? What year is this?
Nobody_Important: If you want to postulate on the reason people are leary of believing all women, look in the mirror. You're the one who has spend countless hours trying to convince the world that these men are monsters in every instance. You're the one whose willingness to throw absolutely anyone under the bus with no evidence has lead us to a place where people no longer believe in those that "Cry Wolf".
Congrats on your contribution to the conversation.
Dontero
Banned
I don't see a reason why he should be in jail. At best he should be fired and paid some money to his company.
People act like he was some rapist going from model to model raping them but so far from what i have read he just ask them for sex and they said yes or no.
These women perfectly knew what they are doing. If your carrier is worth more than your ass then don't complain later that you sold your ass. And let us not forget that they didn't do that because they were threatened. They were doing this for money. They perfectly knew that sleeping with him is ticket to stardom precisely because Weinstain is one of the key people behind most of oscar movies.
Last edited:
notkeylime
Spoiler Tag Abuser
There seems like a weird debate between legal victim status and moral(?) victim status.
One side says
The alleged victims have agreed to a settlement, which in turn declares the accused as free of all potential charges. The "victims" in this case have agreed to not pursue legal judgement, thus removing both the accused and the accusers of any special designation or accountability...legally.
The other side says
Just because someone agrees to settle, does not mean that there wasn't a disgraceful act that was commit. A settlement doesn't declare innocence in the eyes of the public, just in the eyes of the court. Everyone should obviously understand that settlement is often agreed to for a variety of reasons, and is not really an indicator of social guilt, just legal.
...
I think if you guys just stopped jabbing each other and instead tried speaking on each other's terms, there could be some kind of actual discussion going on in here...you may still not see to eye (I imagine you wouldn't), but at least you wouldn't be talking past one another.
I think the legal angle is clear considering there is an actual settlement. Regardless of what happened or how or why...Harvey is not guilty in the eyes of the law.
Now whether you think this was an abuse of power, whether the actresses were coerced or forced....there's some valid discussion to have there. It's uncomfortable, as obviously none of us really know what went on, what the state of mind or awareness was of these actresses... we're only able to guess based on how much of a piece of shit we imagine Weinstein is, or how opportunistic the actresses are...etc.
One side says
The alleged victims have agreed to a settlement, which in turn declares the accused as free of all potential charges. The "victims" in this case have agreed to not pursue legal judgement, thus removing both the accused and the accusers of any special designation or accountability...legally.
The other side says
Just because someone agrees to settle, does not mean that there wasn't a disgraceful act that was commit. A settlement doesn't declare innocence in the eyes of the public, just in the eyes of the court. Everyone should obviously understand that settlement is often agreed to for a variety of reasons, and is not really an indicator of social guilt, just legal.
...
I think if you guys just stopped jabbing each other and instead tried speaking on each other's terms, there could be some kind of actual discussion going on in here...you may still not see to eye (I imagine you wouldn't), but at least you wouldn't be talking past one another.
I think the legal angle is clear considering there is an actual settlement. Regardless of what happened or how or why...Harvey is not guilty in the eyes of the law.
Now whether you think this was an abuse of power, whether the actresses were coerced or forced....there's some valid discussion to have there. It's uncomfortable, as obviously none of us really know what went on, what the state of mind or awareness was of these actresses... we're only able to guess based on how much of a piece of shit we imagine Weinstein is, or how opportunistic the actresses are...etc.
I think we all get a sense that regardless of whether Weinstein committed any crimes, he SEEMS like a sleazy piece of shit.
notkeylime
Spoiler Tag Abuser
Very true. Forgot that detail in my reply.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
And awaiting trial for sexual abuse
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Hollywood morality on display, folks.
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
The moral argument (in the context that it being applied in this thread) only stands up when you purposefully remove agency from one of the two involved parties.
A third party purposefully removing agency is a questionably immoral act in itself.
Tellingly, nobody pushing the moral argument has addressed the issue of removing agency - either in the context of the original alleged act, or in making an agreement after the case.
A third party purposefully removing agency is a questionably immoral act in itself.
Tellingly, nobody pushing the moral argument has addressed the issue of removing agency - either in the context of the original alleged act, or in making an agreement after the case.
Last edited:
Insane Metal
Member
What a piece of shit.
Pejo
Member
A few random thoughts here:
This basically undermines the entire purpose and original movement of #metoo, doesn't it? It was supposedly about sending a message that this type of thing is not ok. Instead, now, it's basically "It's not ok until you give me money. Then it's ok".
Also, 44 million is not a lot considering all of the accusations. I have two thoughts about this - either the accusers were heavily hoping public opinion could sway the case, and had very little proof, or the "real" amount is being paid behind the scenes by Weinstein in an effort to make it look like the accusations weren't so severe. Either way this whole thing feels cheapened to me personally.
To be clear, I 100% believe he sleazed his way into a bunch of panties, I'm just disappointed how this turned out.
This basically undermines the entire purpose and original movement of #metoo, doesn't it? It was supposedly about sending a message that this type of thing is not ok. Instead, now, it's basically "It's not ok until you give me money. Then it's ok".
Also, 44 million is not a lot considering all of the accusations. I have two thoughts about this - either the accusers were heavily hoping public opinion could sway the case, and had very little proof, or the "real" amount is being paid behind the scenes by Weinstein in an effort to make it look like the accusations weren't so severe. Either way this whole thing feels cheapened to me personally.
To be clear, I 100% believe he sleazed his way into a bunch of panties, I'm just disappointed how this turned out.
LegendOfKage
Member
I believe the argument is that consent and agency are severely compromised when you have a threat hanging over you. It's like the real life version of "the implication" scene in It's Always Sunny.
And that wasn't an unfounded concern. Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino both likely lost roles in The Lord of the Rings, because the director was told by Weinstein's company that the women were nightmares to work with. As Jackson himself explains:
"At the time, we had no reason to question what these guys were telling us - but in hindsight, I realize that this was very likely the Miramax smear campaign in full swing."
And that's just one example.
And as far as settlements go, I'm sure there's no physical evidence in most if not all of these cases. The audio recording from that one woman is probably some of the only real proof that this happened. When faced with either the all but certainty of getting no compensation for having your career likely ruined or severely damaged, or at least getting something out of the crap hand you've been dealt, I can't blame most of these women for taking a settlement. Especially when they know his reputation is already ruined, and that he's facing actual rape charges.
Last edited:
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
Unless these people were tied up and agency was actually removed from them, then they had agency.
Basing arguments that rely on the absence on agency is simply not sound reasoning. Nor is it honest.
Sometimes life gives you tough or undesirable choices, where none of the options appeal. Where there are high stakes of risk and reward. Action and consequence.
Agency is agency - no matter how hard people try to pretend it something else.
I am not blaming people for exercising agency.
I am, however, stating that to argue that agency vanished and so only one party is responsible for their actions and choices is bullshit.
But that's the game that's always played. Tell people to "rise up" and "you have the power" and all that affirming tweet-ready soundbite virtuous waffle. But then it magically evaporates and becomes "Be the victim", "You are helpless", "You had no say" when it suits.
Agency was there. For both parties.
Unless anyone can use due process and provide evidence to the contrary, no-one capable of rational and critical thought can argue otherwise with any degree of merit.
Basing arguments that rely on the absence on agency is simply not sound reasoning. Nor is it honest.
Sometimes life gives you tough or undesirable choices, where none of the options appeal. Where there are high stakes of risk and reward. Action and consequence.
Agency is agency - no matter how hard people try to pretend it something else.
I am not blaming people for exercising agency.
I am, however, stating that to argue that agency vanished and so only one party is responsible for their actions and choices is bullshit.
But that's the game that's always played. Tell people to "rise up" and "you have the power" and all that affirming tweet-ready soundbite virtuous waffle. But then it magically evaporates and becomes "Be the victim", "You are helpless", "You had no say" when it suits.
Agency was there. For both parties.
Unless anyone can use due process and provide evidence to the contrary, no-one capable of rational and critical thought can argue otherwise with any degree of merit.
Last edited:
Mohonky
Member
That's my issue with it. In the civil case, the woman felt coerced into it but continued to go forth with what happen to better there situation. They had an opportunity to prevent this happening by, at the very least, sending a message to others about Weinstein. They didn't. They then had a second chance to take a stance on it, and again, they choose the monetary benefit.
Weinstein might be a sleazy pig, but the women were fine with the arrangement while they got something out of it. Being a sleaze that essentially trades some form of benefit for sexual favours makes you look bad, but ultimately it wasn't against the law.
The rape charges however, are a totally different thing.
LegendOfKage
Member
Why does agency matter with this situation in the first place? I think we're getting caught up in semantics. To use an extreme example, if you hold a gun to someone and say "I'm going to shoot you in the leg now, do you want me to shoot your right or left leg?" the person responsible for that violence is the person holding the gun. That's not a "choice," even if it could be argued that the person "agreed" to be shot.
The same is true for "fuck me, or I'll do everything I can to ruin your career" whether said or heavily implied.
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
Agency still applies in both those cases.
It's not about semantics at all.
It absolutely is a choice. Just a choice with shitty options. Such is life.
Choices made earlier in life bring people to new choices. Choices and options change, agency is constant.
Shitty options don't negate the fact agency still exists.
I've already outlined the manufactured one-sided nature of the argument when trying to say that one of the two parties has no agency.
Unless these people are completely braindead or totally incapacitated then they have, and used, agency.
Show me the evidence that demonstrates they were braindead or totally incapacitated.
The fact that so much of this argument relies on the idea of one party having no agency shows how reductive it is.
Last edited:
Alfen Dave
Member
So many white knights here, there's no point arguing to be honest.
Cosby and Weinstein are different case.
Cosby admitted HIMSELF that he voluntarily put chemical product in their drink to drug women and then proceed to sexually molest them while they had lost full consciousnesses.
Most of the Harvey Weinstein allegations were him bribing some women, promising career in the industry in favor of sexual acts. Some women accepted while others refused.
Total respect to the ladies who refused and stood their ground and eventually went to file, but I make no consideration of those who did accept sucking his weewee and then complained later on when the heat came up; it just proves a lack of integrity.
Zog
Banned
Money makes people forget sexual assault? More money = less memory?
Last edited:
LegendOfKage
Member
Let me try a different approach to the discussion. You're essentially arguing that because these women have agency (however compromised I'd argue that agency was) then they're not blameless in what happened to them. Is that a fair representation of your opinion?
If so, what level of blame would you assign these women in both potential examples of them "accepting" Weinstein's "fuck me or I'll hurt your career" ultimatum? What percent for each?
After denying his sexual advances, she's ___ percent responsible for him doing harm to her career?
After reluctantly accepting his sexual advances to protect her career, she's ___ percent responsible for having disgusting sex with this gross manipulative slob?
What numbers would you put here, and why? What level of responsibility for these situations would Weinstein have?
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
Blame is a loaded word and, for the sake of the easily agitated, I prefer to say that agency directly sets a level of accountability. You have responsibility for the choices you make.
Two people, both with agency. 50% each. (Or, if you prefer, each party is 100% accountable for the choices they made that resulted in the episodes under discussion).
The distraction is that you're mixing accountability and moral positions. Ugly options don't diminish the accountability of the choices you made.
And, as I edited into my earlier post: earlier choices lead you to new choices.
Even morally, as others have pointed out, the options were known beforehand and the choices were still made. They were unsavoury - but they weren't made without knowledge or agency. Trying to go back on a bad choice, or realise that your choice to be complicit helped perpetuate immoral behaviour and now re-frame that choice you made because the ripples of it might come back on you in more ways than you anticipated - that's not very moral either.
Yet here we are.
Two people, both with agency. 50% each. (Or, if you prefer, each party is 100% accountable for the choices they made that resulted in the episodes under discussion).
The distraction is that you're mixing accountability and moral positions. Ugly options don't diminish the accountability of the choices you made.
And, as I edited into my earlier post: earlier choices lead you to new choices.
Even morally, as others have pointed out, the options were known beforehand and the choices were still made. They were unsavoury - but they weren't made without knowledge or agency. Trying to go back on a bad choice, or realise that your choice to be complicit helped perpetuate immoral behaviour and now re-frame that choice you made because the ripples of it might come back on you in more ways than you anticipated - that's not very moral either.
Yet here we are.
Last edited:
Tesseract
Banned
not about to go into speculation territory about what harvey may or not have done, what percent of agency these people had, who exactly we blame, guessing how disgusting a pig man piece of shit he is, when we have no (virtually) details on these matters
right now he's in stasis awaiting trial for rape, after which his fate will be sealed
right now he's in stasis awaiting trial for rape, after which his fate will be sealed
Last edited:
Texas Pride
Banned
So in the end those who take the money are no more than prostitutes while an upgrade from a whore is still a pretty low bar. While the cycle of money buying yourself out of shit continues. There are no winners in this story. The dude had a rep in Hollywood. If you were a woman who put yourself in a situation where you were alone with him to advance your career you knew exactly what you were doing.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Well, it can get a little more complicated than that...
Turn cheek (grooming madams?) everywhere. Yet they only focus on Tarantino for it.
This also happens to men in Hollywood as well (according to an actress friend of mine), but social stigmas and all... somebody check on Alyssa Milano, or is she still too busy being Biden's apologist for his unwanted touching?
Hollywood is a cesspool of freaky deaky power grabbing hypocritical shit.
Texas Pride
Banned
Well, it can get a little more complicated than that...
The people who associated with the guy and steered women his way were no more than pimps and madams imo. It's not as simply as I put it but to me it's not without merit. The victims who didn't know and were put in that situation are actual victims. But you gotta wonder how many people actually got caught up in predatory situations given he had a rep for this kind of creepy shit.
iconmaster
Banned
King of Foxes
Banned
Whores
LegendOfKage
Member
Disregarding all emotional appeals, this just doesn't logically make sense to me. If a person decides to put another individual in a position where they are forced to choose between two very unpleasant outcomes, the person being forced to accept one of those outcomes doesn't share half the accountability for that situation they find themselves in.
Allow me to use a real life example I know of. A guy starts to date a woman. Things are going alright for a while, and the two get engaged. Guy gets second thoughts because he starts to see the woman isn't who he thought she was. When he tries to break it off, she literally does physical harm to herself and says if he leaves her she's going to tell everyone he was physically abusive and ruin his life.
If he stays, he's stuck in an unhappy and emotionally abusive marriage. If he leaves, she's going to do her best to ensure he has a criminal record for domestic violence, and has difficulty even getting a job. You would tell this man he's just as responsible for his situation as she is? That either outcome is half his fault?
If that's the case, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. There's plenty of other topics we see eye to eye on, so that's fine with me. I think I do see where you're coming from. Once I noticed that the goals of feminism range from promoting equality, promoting the specific celebration of women, and promoting women as a protected class, I decided those objectives are often at odds with one other, and I stopped considering myself a feminist. So I do understand the whole agency argument. I just don't think it matters in situations like this.
ComptonJapan
Banned
That or gold diggers that can't trap a man will falsely accuse one of rape. Gotta become a millionaire somehow, right?
triplestation
Member
This is exactly right. Slimy fucking creatures out there. All it takes is a pouty face and you have an army of soy soldiers armed with edible & biodegradable pitchforks.
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
That's cool. Let's agree to disagree then.
I really appreciate your demeanor during our exchange - even moreso given the sensitivity of the topic.
Apologies if I came over too heavy on things.
