If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

maybe everyone thinks you deny because you clearly fucking do. agency implies options ya doofus.

Of course it does, but it doesn't mean she has good options to choose from ya doofus. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you because we both know it won't go anywhere. I think your attitude here is moronic.

ITT Ein makes the "Just doing my job" argument for women. Didn't work in Nuremberg.

Wow. So now you, who roll your eyes when people accuse Trump of being a fascist, are accusing women in the workplace of being like Nazis?

I can't believe the sheer obtuseness and hypocrisy of such a comment.

Dude, they let generations of women walk blindly into the Weinstein trap because speaking up might have potentially harmed their careers. They deserve some shit

All I said originally was that I sympathize with not wanting to come forward, i.e. I understand why it would be a difficult and agonizing decision. I didn't say there was no responsibility on their part.

The only person I specifically said has no blame is Thompson, and that was in reference to the specific scenario of her interaction with Weinstein--not the seven years that have since transpired.

 

[The Ozzman]

Wow. So now you, who roll your eyes when people accuse Trump of being a fascist, are accusing women in the workplace of being like Nazis?

I can't believe the sheer obtuseness and hypocrisy of such a comment.

I don't think he implied that

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think he implied that

I think he implied that women who claim they're just doing their job, or want to protect their jobs, are like the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg who claimed they were just following orders and wanted to protect their own positions.

 

[rms]

Of course it does, but it doesn't mean she has good options to choose from ya doofus.

Thompson has agency but that doesn't mean she has options.

well, keep moving them goal posts, I guess.

nothing in that video makes harvey look worse based off what he admits to! in fact, it makes her seem, and seem is probably too passive, that she is lying about the encounter.

 

[CiG]

I think he implied that women who claim they're just doing their job, or want to protect their jobs, are like the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg who claimed they were just following orders and wanted to protect their own positions.

Think he implied that you are defending them in a similar way to how the Nazis defended themselves during the Nuremberg trials. Are there even women who claimed that they were just doing their jobs?

 

[Dak]

[if] she has good options to choose from

This is a Nuremberg defense, which you are providing, for women involved.

All I said originally was that I sympathize with not wanting to come forward, i.e. I understand why it would be a difficult and agonizing decision. I didn't say there was no responsibility on their part.

Sure, it would be difficult to come forward. But they could have not tried to play the game. They wanted the bennies at a cost they thought they could manage. They likely, mostly, either A. Misjudged their own abilities B. Misjudged the power people or C. Have a newfound false consciousness.

 

[Einherjar86]

Think he implied that you are defending them in a similar way to how the Nazis defended themselves during the Nuremberg trials. Are there even women who claimed that they were just doing their jobs?

There are women who claimed they wanted to protect their jobs--and their personal lives, for that matter.

The anonymous woman said that, although “I regret not being maybe stronger in the moment,” her fears that charging Weinstein publicly might change her life permanently were too great. “It’s hard to know. . . . It’s like choosing a different life path.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/weighing-the-costs-of-speaking-out-about-harvey-weinstein

The agony of coming forward has to do with masculine culture's tendency to label such women as promiscuous, untrustoworthy, "sluts," etc. It impacts their families as much as it does them, and many of them are hesitant to invite that kind of attention. I understand why you think it's better for them to come forward immediately, but that's a decision that involves more than just them.

well, keep moving them goal posts, I guess.

It's called reading comprehension. If I said she had agency, then I was admitting she has options. My comment suggested that she didn't have any good options. That's what you should have intuited.

This is a Nuremberg defense, which you are providing, for women involved.

No, it's not.

But they could have not tried to play the game. They wanted the bennies at a cost they thought they could manage.

This is the problem. You think it's normal that sexual favors/promiscuity is just simply one more potential factor in a game that women have to decide whether they can manage. I'm saying it shouldn't be a factor at all. If it is part of the game, then women are forced to comply with it if they want to play.

I don't know how else to explain this.

 

[Dak]

It's a bit mind-boggling to watch you deny making the Nuremberg defense in between doing so.

I guess German persons in Nazi Germany weren't forced to comply with the system, because all choices weren't bad.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's bit mind-boggling how you see anything I'm saying as a Nuremberg defense. I think I've explained the reasoning behind women not coming forward, and I don't think it has anything to do with what you're describing.

Your reasoning isn't clear to me.

 

[CiG]

Like how the 1%ers in Hollyweird treating their workplaces like a personal playground and their wealthy victims choosing cash and careers over integrity and their safety and helping young women avoid the casting couch is somehow the fault of masculine culture. Woke take.

 

[Dak]

It's bit mind-boggling how you see anything I'm saying as a Nuremberg defense. I think I've explained the reasoning behind women not coming forward, and I don't think it has anything to do with what you're describing.

Your reasoning isn't clear to me.

There's not coming forward, and there's actively participating in the system. I'm talking about the latter. I'm not saying every woman who has come forward about some predation is guilty of this, but many of these stories have something along the lines of "I went to his private [domicile etc] at night to talk about a script". Sure. And Netflix & Chill at 10pm means watch a movie keeping one arm's distance at all times.

Absolving these women of any culpability because the system in Hollywood was such that those who "play" get payed/cast is the Nuremberg defense. The system was and is predacious; the men implicated in most cases likely are scum. But many of these women were willing to play the game until it didn't pay.

 

[Dak]

I'm not really getting that kind of vibe from it honestly. There are direct correlations to Buchanan's ideas and the Koch Brother's actions.

The Koch brothers and George Soros are mirror bogeymen, and all close to death. They both have their hands/money in a lot of shit but probably get overhyped. I'm assuming you mean Pat Buchanan but not sure what he has to do with anything. The man is on the political fringe, and has no power whatsoever.

 

[Matt]

No, I'm talking about the economist that has shaped the Koch's influence. James McGill Buchanan.

 

[Dak]

No, I'm talking about the economist that has shaped the Koch's influence. James McGill Buchanan.

Ah, had to wiki the guy. Never heard of him but looks like I've come to many similar conclusions through other writings/writers. The wiki also says the book has been heavily criticized for it's slant in reporting.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...s-james-buchanan-intellectual-history-maclean

 

[Einherjar86]

There's not coming forward, and there's actively participating in the system. I'm talking about the latter.

This entire conversation has been about the former. All your criticisms and jabs at my position have been in error because I've never been talking about the latter. Women who knew information and did nothing are still in a difficult position, but I never said they should be absolved of not having spoken out in defense of others.

All of my comments have been directed at Thompson's situation, or at the very least at other women in highly similar situations: i.e. victims of direct abuse who kept quiet about their own victimization out of fear of retaliation, either against them or their families.

It's heartbreaking to hear about the women in Hollywood who knew of others being victimized and did nothing. They're not my subject of attention here.

Absolving these women of any culpability because the system in Hollywood was such that those who "play" get payed/cast is the Nuremberg defense. The system was and is predacious; the men implicated in most cases likely are scum. But many of these women were willing to play the game until it didn't pay.

I've never been talking about others who simply let abuse happen. Surely there's crossover in that category; and in that case, I agree there's blame to go around.

I absolve women in situations akin to Thompson's of culpability--that is, in situations of direct abuse that impacted them personally. I'm saying any responsibility that she had in what happened to her has no bearing in assigning legal or social blame. I don't blame her one bit for what happened to her, even if she had a choice, in the most basic sense, of avoiding the situation entirely. Let women act promiscuous if they think it might help their business deals. Let them meet for a drink at 5:30 if they think doing so might lead to closing the deal. But as soon as someone in a position of institution power accepts sex as part of the deal, then I'm sorry, but the blame falls to them. That goes for Harvey Weinstein and Avital Ronell.

Like how the 1%ers in Hollyweird treating their workplaces like a personal playground and their wealthy victims choosing cash and careers over integrity and their safety and helping young women avoid the casting couch is somehow the fault of masculine culture. Woke take.

Woke interpretation.

 

[CiG]

Woke interpretation.

Broke response.

Women "slutshame" other women as much if not more than men do. Dunno if you know this but men tend to like sluts buddy, especially in liberal (porn)hubs like California.

 

[Dak]

This entire conversation has been about the former. All your criticisms and jabs at my position have been in error because I've never been talking about the latter. Women who knew information and did nothing are still in a difficult position, but I never said they should be absolved of not having spoken out in defense of others.

All of my comments have been directed at Thompson's situation, or at the very least at other women in highly similar situations: i.e. victims of direct abuse who kept quiet about their own victimization out of fear of retaliation, either against them or their families.

It's heartbreaking to hear about the women in Hollywood who knew of others being victimized and did nothing. They're not my subject of attention here.

I've never been talking about others who simply let abuse happen. Surely there's crossover in that category; and in that case, I agree there's blame to go around.

I wasn't following along specifically with this particularly case or your argument with rms. I was responding to general comments I saw. Upon reviewing the article/situation in question and it's clearly an instance of the latter (with overlap in that she didn't report it).

She makes a pitch at the office, Weinstein acts like a chad. She then later goes to his hotel "thinking it was safer". Um, what? She "thought she could handle it". What that means is she thought she could use sex on her terms to get non-sex related benefits. Weinstein was using non-sex related benefits to get sex on his terms. They were playing the same game. Someone was going to lose. She lost. The game is a bad one.

Let women act promiscuous if they think it might help their business deals. Let them meet for a drink at 5:30 if they think doing so might lead to closing the deal. But as soon as someone in a position of institution power accepts sex as part of the deal, then I'm sorry, but the blame falls to them.

So now you think it's not a bad game? This sounds like you're fine with the game, you only have a problem with women losing. You're also saying the people calling the shots get all the blame, not those beneath them who are complicit in the behaviors. It's not precisely the Nuremberg defense, but it manages to be worse where it deviates.

 

[Einherjar86]

The vocabulary we're both using is inappropriate and really distracting. I don't think it's a game at all, for starters. And no, I'm not saying it's not a bad game; but I am saying that there is a double standard, generally speaking. Part of my objection is that women can't always be blamed for acting in accordance with the double standard. Demanding otherwise is asking them to deny themselves the opportunities afforded to others (by and large, men).

Furthermore, stop talking about my defense as "deviating" from the Nuremberg defense. It's not Nurembergian in the first place, that's your perception and imposition. I've already said that I'm not talking about the people you assumed I was. My defense of Thompson specifically isn't a Nuremberg defense. Yet you keep returning to this like a broken record.

She makes a pitch at the office, Weinstein acts like a chad. She then later goes to his hotel "thinking it was safer". Um, what? She "thought she could handle it". What that means is she thought she could use sex on her terms to get non-sex related benefits. Weinstein was using non-sex related benefits to get sex on his terms. They were playing the same game. Someone was going to lose. She lost. The game is a bad one.

Just... no. Did you actually read the article? He asked her to meet him in the lobby of his hotel. Men meet in lobbies all the time. This is what I mean by double standard. When Weinstein then asked her to follow him, she thought they were going to a conference room. Nice hotels have many conferences where people conduct interviews. There's nothing shady about this.

 

[rms]

Just... no. Did you actually read the article? He asked her to meet him in the lobby of his hotel. Men meet in lobbies all the time. This is what I mean by double standard. When Weinstein then asked her to follow him, she thought they were going to a conference room. Nice hotels have many conferences where people conduct interviews. There's nothing shady about this.

did you even watch the video? I can't believe you're still this far on the naive woman train after seeing it

 

[Dak]

I don't think I can restate whats been quoted and restated over the last 3 pages in some new way which is going to clarify the matter, but I'll give it a try.

I think everyone is in agreement that Weinstein etc. are terrible persons who exhibited terrible, absolutely unacceptable behavior. The sexual quid pro quo has no place in a civilized society. What I see you denying here is that there's not a problematic flip side to this, which is the system requires supply. If it didn't ever work, it wouldn't be arguably systemic in Hollywood. It's not systemic in academia because it doesn't/wouldn't work (or no longer does), and there are clear rules against it. Plenty of women have been open about using sex to move up in entertainment. You seem fine with this.....unless men go along with it? This doesn't even make sense. And as an aside, I can't imagine you suggesting this be the state of affairs in academia. Why is it completely acceptable for women to use sex to get things they want, but it's absolutely reprehensible for men to use things to get sex? Now, I'm not talking a lock-the-door-and-hold-you-down event here, I'm talking about the sex-for-career-boost quid pro quo arrangement in entertainment.

As far as Thompson's story in particular goes, that you buy this bullshit naivety is something that obviously you aren't going to be talked out of so I won't spend more time there.