Octopus Overlords

I don't think RIP is appropriate in this case.

I kept getting him mixed up with Harvey Fierstein and kept wondering how a gay guy was mixed up with sexual harassment.

This sure sounds like it was criminal, pathological behavior. And I assume the floodgates will open up wider in the coming weeks and months.

tjg_marantz wrote:That first audio clip will chill you. Fucking hell man.

Damn, you ain't kidding. That's creepy as hell.

malchior wrote:This sure sounds like it was criminal, pathological behavior. And I assume the floodgates will open up wider in the coming weeks and months.

Days, hours, minutes.

The veneer is gone. No one is afraid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41567216

dbt1949 wrote:I kept getting him mixed up with Harvey Fierstein and kept wondering how a gay guy was mixed up with sexual harassment.

I'm pretty sure there is gay sexual harassment going on. It's just that as difficult as this sort of thing is to report when it involves conventional male/female harassment, imagine how difficult it would be when homosexuality gets thrown into the mix. There is still a stigma attached to that. I doubt there are many actors out there who are eager to talk about their experiences with gay producers or studio execs, not because they fear those guys but because they fear the damage that might be done to their careers if people thought they were gay.

There are still plenty of people who think in terms of 'she wanted it', what do you suppose they'd say if it was two men instead of a man and a woman involved?

MacGowan has implicated both Affleck and Damon as having full knowledge of this behaviour and doing nothing about it.

Unless she has something more damning on them, I'm not sure why the hatred. They aren't his keepers, they aren't police officers, and it seems to me there is a WIDE array of victims with more first hand knowledge than the two guys would ever have, assuming they didn't participate in it directly. MacGowan herself was bought off with hush money while Weinstein continued his reign of terror on young hollywood starlets. By her logic, she is similarly complicit, imo.

I'm not defending Affleck or Damon, and the idea that they knew Weinstein was a scumbag (they almost certainly did, based on comments from various people, but then again, anyone near him would have known, considering how blatant he was about it) is awful. I'm just not sure they are as deserving of MacGowan's anger as she seems to think. Weinstein gave all 3 of them their starts in the industry, but only assaulted one of them. That could be the source of her anger, which while irrational, would at least make some sort of sense.

Weinstein has been at it for awhile. I'm sort of shocked that suddenly now it has bitten him, because as far as I can tell, he should have been charged years ago. Not sure what makes today special, even with the NYT article. It's not like the article is news for anyone near to him.

Apparently Affleck grabbed a show's female host's breast. Obviously that is not ok. Not knowing the context, I find it hard to imagine this has caused lasting emotional harm to the young woman. I mean, we all watched Scarlett Johansson get publicly groped on the red carpet, which was abhorrent, but she seems to have survived it. At no point am I saying this behaviour is ok or should be tolerated. Affleck should be held accountable for his behaviour. I'm just not sure sinking him along with Weinstein because he once grabbed a woman's breast and knew about Weinstein is a proportional response or just.

In any case, hopefully this will keep another predator away from potential victims. Barring jailtime though, I fully expect to hear about his next assault in the future. The man sounds pretty damaged.

No doubt it's a medical condition and we should feel pity and compassion for him.

Hurray for Hoolllywoood!

Hollywood is, and always has been, a land of hypocrisy. They condemn things in public they know damn well is being committed by their peers (the same peers they'll praise during one of their frequent self congratulatory awards ceremonies in which they get to tell each other just how special they are), or even worse, that they themselves are committing. There are some who try to speak up, but they usually end up drinking the kool aid in order to get ahead, or they just disappear from the public eye as they find themselves locked out of any career.

We put WAY too much stock in what these people tell us. Accepting some false belief that they know better because they're on TV or the silver screen. The truth of the matter is, a child can walk in off the street and do their job just as well in many cases.

I love film, don't get me wrong. But I don't worship it.

LawBeefaroni wrote:No doubt it's a medical condition and we should feel pity and compassion for him.

Hurray for Hoolllywoood!

He's certainly pretending it is, having checked into a medical facility.

I wouldn't expect him back soon (on the job) but a guy with that much success is bound to show up again. Assuming he's not in jail, which is where he should be.

MacGowan is accusing Damon of helping hush up an event in 2004. He denies it, of course.

Just read an article that blames all Hollywood men for Weinstein. So there's that.

For the record, I don't blame MacGowan for being assaulted or taking hush money. I just have concerns about her throwing people under the bus for behaviour that she herself engaged in. She's not wrong, those in the know should have acted on that knowledge. That said, men aren't any less vulnerable to getting their careers trashed by powerful people.

If women get a pass on staying silent (and many spoke up to no avail, or cash settlements), and I think they do, I'm not sure why men don't get the same pass.

As an aside, it is said that Pitt did confront Weinstein when he harassed Paltrow, who Pitt was dating at the time.

I enjoy reading quotes from people like Clooney and Hillary Clinton about either their SHOCK at the allegations or how they had heard rumors, but never had first hand knowledge. We get it, he was a powerful Hollywood producer and big Democratic campaign donor. You have to both explain your past inaction and willingness to take his money.

Moliere wrote:I enjoy reading quotes from people like Clooney and Hillary Clinton about either their SHOCK at the allegations or how they had heard rumors, but never had first hand knowledge. We get it, he was a powerful Hollywood producer and big Democratic campaign donor. You have to both explain your past inaction and willingness to take his money.

Really? Really really?

Ok, everything I said, never mind then. In fact anyone who's spoken to him is complicit.

tjg_marantz wrote:That first audio clip will chill you. Fucking hell man.

The whole article chilled me. What is just as bad, is that this was just "known" in the company, and Hollywood for so long. It was very easy to condemn Trump, and rightly so, by many in Hollywood, but this shows the hypocrisy that existed when it came to one of their own.

Moliere wrote:I enjoy reading quotes from people like Clooney and Hillary Clinton about either their SHOCK at the allegations or how they had heard rumors, but never had first hand knowledge. We get it, he was a powerful Hollywood producer and big Democratic campaign donor. You have to both explain your past inaction and willingness to take his money.

Clooney is in the industry, so I expect that he did hear rumours, at the very least. I don't see any reason why a politician would be in the know, if the rest of us weren't. At any rate, if you're going to go all proud boy on the issue, you should probably take it to P&R.

GreenGoo wrote:If women get a pass on staying silent (and many spoke up to no avail, or cash settlements), and I think they do, I'm not sure why men don't get the same pass.

The devil's in the details, and said details are unknown to me. However, in general, I don't believe the same set of rules should be applied to enablers and victims alike.

That's like blaming your neighbour for a burglary spree, just because he wasn't hit and did nothing, while you were hit and agreed to a bribe to keep it quiet.

Shrug. Anyone with explicit knowledge should have done something, no question. Should people be hung out to dry just because "everyone just knew"?

I'm just not sure.

Max Peck wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:If women get a pass on staying silent (and many spoke up to no avail, or cash settlements), and I think they do, I'm not sure why men don't get the same pass.

The devil's in the details, and said details are unknown to me. However, in general, I don't believe the same set of rules should be applied to enablers and victims alike.

I can somewhat understand the male silence and for the same reason as women. At best, men on the edges of this heard about things happening. They have careers and a lot of money riding in an extremely fickle industry, just like women do, and probably didn't want to throw themselves under a bus because of second and third-hand rumors.

Over time, a reputation is built and people start warning others to avoid certain people, but no one wants to be the first to step out and have an axe fall on them for being wrong.

You would have thought that after Bill Cosby was aired out as a vile wretch, this would have popped right up - but both men and women remained silent.

GreenGoo you don't know what kind of emotional stress or trauma the woman experienced and to presume you do is disrespectful to her. I had my breasts and butt grabbed at work when I first started working for JPL and it was horrible. It demeans you, it leaves you feeling powerless in the face of a situation you feel totally helpless in.

That statement is totally unacceptable to me, GreenGoo. I respect your opinions as I do most people's here, but that crosses a line when you speak to responses of experiences you've never had.

GreenGoo wrote:That's like blaming your neighbour for a burglary spree, just because he wasn't hit and did nothing, while you were hit and agreed to a bribe to keep it quiet.

Shrug. Anyone with explicit knowledge should have done something, no question. Should people be hung out to dry just because "everyone just knew"?

I'm just not sure.

If your neighbor watched the burglary and provided the thief (who was his buddy) with an alibi, would you say he deserves some blame?

As I vaguely understand it, Damon is accused of actively covering up for Weinstein in some way. That's not the same as being molested and being afraid to speak up or even being paid off not to speak up, or "knowing" the rumours and not taking action to stop it based on no direct first-hand knowledge. That being said, being accused of something and having done it aren't necessarily the same thing. Everyone deserves their day in court (literally and metaphorically) before being hung (out to dry).

Lorini wrote:GreenGoo you don't know what kind of emotional stress or trauma the woman experienced and to presume you do is disrespectful to her. I had my breasts and butt grabbed at work when I first started working for JPL and it was horrible. It demeans you, it leaves you feeling powerless in the face of a situation you feel totally helpless in.

That statement is totally unacceptable to me, GreenGoo. I respect your opinions as I do most people's here, but that crosses a line when you speak to responses experiences you've never had.

Right on.

Thank you Lorini for a voice, representing.

I too agree the RIP should be removed.

Democrats look to shed their donations from Harvey Weinstein

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, received funds from Weinstein most recently, in April. His campaign has pledged to donate Weinstein's $5,400 contribution to Community against Violence, a nonprofit group in his state.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, received $5,000 from Weinstein in 2012, and plans to donate that money to Casa Myrna, a nonprofit group in Massachusetts.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, received $5,100 from Weinstein between 2010 and 2016, and plans to donate the contributions to the Women's Fund at the Vermont Community Foundation.

Weinstein donated $7,800 to Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, During the 2014 election, and Booker plans to donate it to the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, will donate all $14,200 he received from Weinstein to several charities supporting women.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York has received more than $10,000 from Weinstein through the years, and plans to donate the funds to RAAIN.

This is turning into a windfall for charity donations. So, that's a good thing, I guess.

Crap, I stumbled into R&P again.

This has been an open secret for years. Glad it is finally catching up to him.

Moliere wrote:Democrats look to shed their donations from Harvey Weinstein

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico, received funds from Weinstein most recently, in April. His campaign has pledged to donate Weinstein's $5,400 contribution to Community against Violence, a nonprofit group in his state.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, received $5,000 from Weinstein in 2012, and plans to donate that money to Casa Myrna, a nonprofit group in Massachusetts.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, received $5,100 from Weinstein between 2010 and 2016, and plans to donate the contributions to the Women's Fund at the Vermont Community Foundation.

Weinstein donated $7,800 to Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, During the 2014 election, and Booker plans to donate it to the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, will donate all $14,200 he received from Weinstein to several charities supporting women.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York has received more than $10,000 from Weinstein through the years, and plans to donate the funds to RAAIN.

This is turning into a windfall for charity donations. So, that's a good thing, I guess.

I would think the "donations from slimy people = complicity" line of thinking would get very problematic very quickly for politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The next big revelation is when people come out and support the allegations made by Corey Feldman and others about how children are treated in Hollywood.
Even Terry fucking Crews was groped by an asshole Hollywood executive.

GreenGoo wrote:MacGowan has implicated both Affleck and Damon as having full knowledge of this behaviour and doing nothing about it.

Unless she has something more damning on them, I'm not sure why the hatred. They aren't his keepers, they aren't police officers, and it seems to me there is a WIDE array of victims with more first hand knowledge than the two guys would ever have, assuming they didn't participate in it directly. MacGowan herself was bought off with hush money while Weinstein continued his reign of terror on young hollywood starlets. By her logic, she is similarly complicit, imo.

I'm not defending Affleck or Damon, and the idea that they knew Weinstein was a scumbag (they almost certainly did, based on comments from various people, but then again, anyone near him would have known, considering how blatant he was about it) is awful. I'm just not sure they are as deserving of MacGowan's anger as she seems to think. Weinstein gave all 3 of them their starts in the industry, but only assaulted one of them. That could be the source of her anger, which while irrational, would at least make some sort of sense.

Weinstein has been at it for awhile. I'm sort of shocked that suddenly now it has bitten him, because as far as I can tell, he should have been charged years ago. Not sure what makes today special, even with the NYT article. It's not like the article is news for anyone near to him.

Apparently Affleck grabbed a show's female host's breast. Obviously that is not ok. Not knowing the context, I find it hard to imagine this has caused lasting emotional harm to the young woman. I mean, we all watched Scarlett Johansson get publicly groped on the red carpet, which was abhorrent, but she seems to have survived it. At no point am I saying this behaviour is ok or should be tolerated. Affleck should be held accountable for his behaviour. I'm just not sure sinking him along with Weinstein because he once grabbed a woman's breast and knew about Weinstein is a proportional response or just.

In any case, hopefully this will keep another predator away from potential victims. Barring jailtime though, I fully expect to hear about his next assault in the future. The man sounds pretty damaged.

Affleck supposedly told her he thought he could "control" Weinstein, or something like that. Damon and someone I have forgotten supposedly helped keep a story out of the news several years ago about Weinstein's "problem". If the allegations are true both knew Weinstein was doing things and both chose to defend Weinstein over the victim. Maybe that is fine when there is one victim but when you have dozens it makes you look pretty bad.

Moliere wrote:The next big revelation is when people come out and support the allegations made by Corey Feldman and others about how children are treated in Hollywood.

Even Terry fucking Crews was groped by an asshole Hollywood executive.

Yeah read that yesterday.

Not defending Affleck or Damon because I don't know the full details around that aspect of the case, but I do think it's easy in hindsight to say "somebody should have done something."

Example:

Had this creepy guy I worked with. I had heard rumors that he got flirty every time he had to go fix a PC at a female's desk or whatever. Never saw it firsthand, that was just the water cooler gossip. I had seen him firsthand make some non-work appropriate sexual comments in general (not towards anyone I worked with).

At some point he got put on leave, and a female co-worker confided in me that he had made some advances towards her on a work trip and she had gone to HR.

Now in hindsight, do I wish I had told my boss "Hey this guy's a fucking Chester the Molester - he needs to go" well before it got to that point? Sure. But all I had was hearsay and gut feeling. And I'm not the guy's boss. Those are serious accusations. What if I had been wrong? And I wasn't even in a position where any sort of retaliation could come back to burn me - unlike celebrities whose entire careers were on the line.

Obviously it's silly to compare small office politics with Hollywood, but I can understand the mentality that would keep someone from blowing the whistle.

Never mind.

Hollywood has a long history, dating back to its origins, where studio heads, directors, and producers treated aspiring actors and actresses like prostitutes. There's no reason to think any of that has changed.

GreenGoo wrote:That said, it's extremely difficult to imagine needing therapy because a part of your body was grabbed.

There was no history of oppression or intimidation, it wasn't an ongoing activity.

Women can't be that fragile.

Wow, when you're on the wrong side of something, you really go full Rip.

Moliere wrote:Hollywood has a long history, dating back to its origins, where studio heads, directors, and producers treated aspiring actors and actresses like prostitutes. There's no reason to think any of that has changed.

Eh? So even though society in general has moved to a less prejudiced, less sexist position, you feel that the movie industry has simply stood still over the decades?

How many Weinsteins are out there, in your opinion? All of them?

Never mind.

GreenGoo wrote:I'm comfortable with mine. Affleck was completely in the wrong, and should have suffered the full effects of the law.

That said, it's extremely difficult to imagine needing therapy because a part of your body was grabbed.

There was no history of oppression or intimidation, it wasn't an ongoing activity.

Women can't be that fragile.

"Women" are not a singular entity. The effect an action has on one person can be entirely different than what it does to someone else.

Even moreso when that action isn't done in a vacuum, and may be just the latest in a long line of harassment and inappropriate behavior.

Never mind.

Skinypupy wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I'm comfortable with mine. Affleck was completely in the wrong, and should have suffered the full effects of the law.

That said, it's extremely difficult to imagine needing therapy because a part of your body was grabbed.

There was no history of oppression or intimidation, it wasn't an ongoing activity.

Women can't be that fragile.

"Women" are not a singular entity. The effect an action has on one person can be entirely different than what it does to someone else.

Even moreso when that action isn't done in a vacuum, and may be just the latest in a long line of harassment and inappropriate behavior.

Some women might be able to take that. But to imply something is wrong with her reaction is simply chutzpah. Goes with Real Men Don't Cry and all the other sexist beliefs people repeat. She is entitled to her emotional reaction for having her body touched in a way she didn't want.

Bailed on the conversation, as it's clearly not going to end well for me.

Enjoy your sex offender convo.

GreenGoo wrote:How so? If I grabbed your crotch, would you need therapy?

Nope. In fact, I've had it happen.

On the other hand, if you were one person who could, with a single call, either make or break my career and future depending on your disposition toward me? Maybe, and it wouldn't have much of anything to do with having my crotch grabbed.