If Mort Divine ruled the world

[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.

 

[Einherjar86]

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?

There you go. There's the center of this whole thing. That you think these two things happen as though in a vacuum and are of equal value.

I'm not saying it's acceptable that women use sex to get things they want. You're misunderstanding me over and over again. I don't think it's acceptable at all that they're forced to make a decision on whether to risk their bodies or bow out completely. Sexuality shouldn't be on the table in the first place, but because it is victims are forced to work within a set of narrow options. The acceptability and reprehensibility of sexuality, as we're discussing them, take place on two different hierarchical levels. They can't be judged equally.

For what it's worth, I think it's reprehensible that Avital Ronell used her position to get sex, and that it's acceptable for Reitman to have gone along with it.

 

[Dak]

There you go. There's the center of this whole thing. That you think these two things happen as though in a vacuum and are of equal value.

I'm not saying it's acceptable that women use sex to get things they want. You're misunderstanding me over and over again. I don't think it's acceptable at all that they're forced to make a decision on whether to risk their bodies or bow out completely. Sexuality shouldn't be on the table in the first place, but because it is victims are forced to work within a set of narrow options. The acceptability and reprehensibility of sexuality, as we're discussing them, take place on two different hierarchical levels. They can't be judged equally.

If I'm misunderstanding you it's because of statements like this:

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.

No one is forced to get a job in entertainment, or "Hollywood". No one is forced to go to people like Weinstein for buy in. The hierarchy of power is much less clear than in an academic case, or a military case, etc. Who-whom becomes muddy. One could argue pretty women are preying on wealthy men.

For what it's worth, I think it's reprehensible that Avital Ronell used her position to get sex, and that it's acceptable for Reitman to have gone along with it.

I would say that it's understandable for Reitman rather than acceptable. Just like we can say it's understandable when all these teen boys getting predated by middle and high school teachers go along with it, but it's not acceptable.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think it's convincing that pretty women are preying on healthy men. For the sake of avoiding pure speculation, I won't say any more.

I would say that it's understandable for Reitman rather than acceptable. Just like we can say it's understandable when all these teen boys getting predated by middle and high school teachers go along with it, but it's not acceptable.

Exactly. I'm sorry if my choice of the word "acceptable" caused some misunderstanding.

I'm saying that it's understandable that women go along with this; it's not acceptable in any broader sense. It's entirely unacceptable, in fact. I was using acceptable in place of understandable, i.e. if sexual favors are part of the deal, then I understand why (or accept that) women concede to such demands.

But it shouldn't be part of the transaction to begin with. And that's where the legal onus lies.

 

[CiG]

I don't think it's convincing that pretty women are preying on healthy men.

*wealthy

That's the game. The reverse is just as true.

 

[Einherjar86]

hahaha, I was just watching that Bill Hicks skit where he talks about the "health nut who died while jogging," and wrote "healthy" instead of "wealthy."

If an opportunistic woman in the workplace is able to seduce a male higher-up into sexual misconduct and then take him to court, I have no sympathy for that man. If you're work colleagues, keep your dick in your pants. It's not that fucking hard (that's what she said).

Just like I said about Avital Ronell: it doesn't matter if you thought your student/employee was consenting. In that situation, there's no way for you to gauge that accurately. So avoid it altogether.

 

[CiG]

hahaha, I was just watching that Bill Hicks skit where he talks about the "health nut who died while jogging," and wrote "healthy" instead of "wealthy."

If an opportunistic woman in the workplace is able to seduce a male higher-up into sexual misconduct and then take him to court, I have no sympathy for that man. If you're work colleagues, keep your dick in your pants. It's not that fucking hard (that's what she said).

Just like I said about Avital Ronell: it doesn't matter if you thought your student/employee was consenting. In that situation, there's no way for you to gauge that accurately. So avoid it altogether.

Peak sex-negative leftism, but fair enough. I actually do agree that Men Should Go Their Own Way and avoid all these honey pots and traps and legal grey areas. I just find it amusing that you seem to lay zero shit on the women engaging in these practices, this is where the feeling that you constantly deny women (and other "minorities" TBH) agency and heap all the agency and power on whites and males.

Ironically very white male chauvinist of you.

 

[Einherjar86]

What can I say, I'm a pig.

 

[CiG]

We all have our faults comrade.

 

[Einherjar86]

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Adult men cannot attain consent from non-inebriated female work partners actively seeking sex, but newborn boys do not not to give their consent before having their penises mutilated. Makes sense.