BERIGAN

Harvey Weinstein story in New Yorker...truly shocking

166 posts in this topic

Hats off the the New Yorker and Ronan Farrow for this story. Reads like some bad 90's made for cable film....scummy producer gets a young, inexperienced woman to come  to a seemingly innocuous meeting in conference room with several female staffers that after making the actress feel they are safe, then one by one...they leave, leaving Harvey all alone with the young actress...or a meeting/party then finding out it's a one man "party" in Harvey's   hotel room, with him in robe, wanting a massage....and Harvey is a man that doesn't even begin to understand the meaning of the word no...in fact, it probably turns him on....you'll feel the need to shower after reading this story, if you can get thru it all. So many people unwilling to stop him cuz....career > than doing the right thing....audio link of Italian actress that recorded him with help of the NYPD after the article (amazingly, Harvey was somehow able to put that investigation on ice too)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Producer bedding starlets...shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dmitry said:

Producer bedding starlets...shocking.

not that part, the part  that from 1990s til 2017 that NO ONE was willing to try to stop him. just 2 people with hidden cameras in their glasses (You know, what they did on 20/20 and Dateline decades ago) and they would have toppled a very disliked monster, and become heroes.  Instead, much gnashing of teeth, soulda/coulda/woulda.

But didn't career before everything....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I really have to tell you why noone did anything about it? You're a pretty sharp guy.

OK, I'll say it. The only reason this is all coming out now is because Hillary is not in the White House. There.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dmitry said:

Do I really have to tell you why noone did anything about it? You're a pretty sharp guy.

OK, I'll say it. The only reason this is all coming out now is because Hillary is not in the White House. There.

"OK, I'll say it. The only reason this is all coming out now is because Hillary is not in the White House. There."

Guess I'm not that sharp, but I don't get your thinking here. Could you amplify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're getting deep into politics here but the point is, negative reporting on someone so closely associated with a President Hillary would be seen as an attack on Hillary, and therefore, totally unacceptable to the mainstream media. Or does no one else see that Weinstein and Bill share a certain "passion"?  (At least Bill wasted his seed on the dress, not into a potted plant.)

I think the lurking issue is the decline of print journalism. When media mattered, no one was going to care about Weinstein's horrid acts because of his power. 

BTW, does anyone doubt that Weinstein is the one who raped Rose McGowan?  She's said she was raped by a major studio exec; She took $100,000 hush money; and now she's all over twitter on this story.

And Dmitry this is not producer bedding starlets. For way too many, its forcible rape, replete with efforts to destroy those who didn't submit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point Dan, but I think it's more that none of his victims dared/chose to (the latter in part because of the settlements they'd received and the likely terms of those settlements) come forward until now -- especially victims, like Ashley Judd, who are not "starlets" but quite well known. If Judd or someone like her had spoken up in a Hillary administration or before, the mainstream media would have taken a pass? I don't think so. Haven't been following the course of all this that closely, but I think it has been more a matter of momentum/tipping point than who is or isn't in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weinstein's behavior is despicable and sounds quite possibly criminal.  We're hearing about it because the New York Times is an excellent investigative newspaper.  (Curious as to why this particular story is getting posted here... what about Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, or for that matter, Donald Trump?  Equal time for all sexual predators, say I!)  I don't care what party you give money to or what causes you support, treating women in the manner of ALL of the above-named is disgraceful and morally abhorrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Predators know no political affiliation. It's a pathology, not a philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JSngry said:

Predators know no political affiliation. It's a pathology, not a philosophy.

Yes -- but Dan's point, which I don't agree with, is that Weinstein was a predator of one political affiliation who was or would have been given a pass by the MSM because of that affiliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, mods, what the hell? This thread turned blatantly political with Dmitry's second post.

Does this mean I get to rant about Trump being a lunatic and unfit to even tend my lawn?

Edited by lipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Dan may or may not be right, not sure, truthfully, we have levels of different evolutions occurring simultaneously, and maybe a further empowered female/sympathetic male environment calls this pig out now that "that type of thing" is no longer acceptable. "Locker room", still acceptable, apparently, but let's see how that goes.

Calls for speculation on the part of the witness, your honor.

As for "shocking", no, not really. The difference between "casting couch" and "rape" may be as much the perception of the victim as it is anything. Times have changed, perceptions of aggression have evolved, thankfully, and women are waking up as they do.

I'm evolved, I can very much compartmentalize. Weinstein's a pig. Fuck him. And I still vote for Hillary, given the choices (and yeah, I get that there are others who went the other way for the same reason) . And Bill, too, given those choices, but yeah, fuck him too, Fuck anybody of any gender who utilizes their genitals as weapons of diminishment, whenever the time befalls. Whatever lens it is that sees all that as incompatible, I still ain't looking through it.

 

 

1 hour ago, lipi said:

OK, mods, what the hell? This thread turned blatantly political with Dmitry's first post.

Does this mean I get to rant about Trump being a lunatic and unfit to even tend my lawn?

Yeah, I think we're hinging on deletion, but let's give everybody a quick minute to get it all out before we do that. I'll be back in a few. Carpe diem, defensive liberals and paranoid conservatives, have at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lipi said:

OK, mods, what the hell? This thread turned blatantly political with Dmitry's second post.

Does this mean I get to rant about Trump being a lunatic and unfit to even tend my lawn?

I think we're skirting the edge of the political here in that we're talking about the effect that politics might or might have or have had on the Weinstein mess, not (to this point) significantly damning or praising a particular party or figure. But you can be sure the mods are keeping their eyes open for over-the-edge behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lipi said:

OK, mods, what the hell? This thread turned blatantly political with Dmitry's second post.

Does this mean I get to rant about Trump being a lunatic and unfit to even tend my lawn?

Trump can tend my lawn. I might even tip him if he does a good job. But that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd grab him by his balls if he ever came onto my yard. Just because, you know, I'm a star on my yard, and he'll let me do that. Precedent, your honor.

If Weinstein comes onto my yard, I shoot him, because he's not president. But not to kill, killing is bad, just because this is Texas and I can probably get by with it because again, I'm a star on my yard.

No offense anybody, this is just locker room talk. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, either this thread should find itself on the business end of Master Kart's accidental shitcan finger, or we should petition Mr. Alfredson to reinstate the political subforum of this site. 

Edited by Scott Dolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JSngry said:

I'd grab him by his balls if he ever came onto my yard. Just because, you know, I'm a star on my yard, and he'll let me do that. Precedent, your honor.

If Weinstein comes onto my yard, I shoot him, because he's not president. But not to kill, killing is bad, just because this is Texas and I can probably get by with it because again, I'm a star on my yard.

No offense anybody, this is just locker room talk. :)

 

Oh, I like you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lipi said:

Oh, I like you!

Yeah, many people do at first...

1 hour ago, Scott Dolan said:

IMO, either this thread should find itself on the business end of Master Kart's accidental shitcan finger, or we should petition Mr. Alfredson to reinstate the political subforum of this site. 

I prefer the former option, because political discussions around here tend to be everybody hunkering down to the corners of their choice and not too much more.

Larry, edit us outta here! :g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Jim, but I'm not sure what you want me to do. Delete the whole thread or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop wasting your time, there's only one thing that will work - Delete the whole board! Make a fresh start for a new generation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

geez...

Politics , is a fairly small part of this....he did this during all administrations since the early 90s, correct? 

 

2 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

IMO, either this thread should find itself on the business end of Master Kart's accidental shitcan finger, or we should petition Mr. Alfredson to reinstate the political subforum of this site. 

no, don't bring back the political forum, anything but that! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BERIGAN said:

geez...

Politics , is a fairly small part of this....he did this during all administrations since the early 90s, correct?

IMO, the only part of "this" that is truly relevant is the issue of sexually predatory behavior. "Politics" is the lens through which opinions are formed and actions taken. To the extent that they obscure the root of this evil (imo) "politics" are merely excuses for whatever you want to project onto the act itself once encountered. To a woman who has had an unwelcome dick pulled out on her, and then, for whatever reason, feels unable or unwilling to tell the guy to go fuck himself (with his own dick, if need be), I really don't think politics enter into it, nor do I think does it enter into the thinking of the owner of said unwelcome dick.

Now, what everybody does about it, that's all about power, and sure, that's going to be political. And politics pretty much demands either blindzombieloyalty or some kind of relativist compromise, even/especially within one's own self. But the act itself, sheeet, that's not political, that's just some unevolved caveman thug shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While its still up ...

The Times spiked an article in 2004. The writer claims that Weinstein and various actors exerted influence to see to it. Now they are saying the article wasn't much to begin with, and 13 years later they got all the important stuff on the record, but what else are they going to say? The author of the piece has a very different recollection.

I will continue to believe that Weinstein's politics gave him a pass for far too long. It's been described as the worst kept secret in Hollywood. But he supported the right causes and candidates so ... It's possible that part of this coming out now is a result of Trump's own statements, acts, and/or accusations against him, and Ailes and the other Fox a-hole getting shit-canned. There is less and less tolerance for it and that's to be applauded.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.