Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 538

Thread: Harvey Weinstein

  1. #1 Default Harvey Weinstein 
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    This Weinstein stuff just gets worse and worse. How can Hollywood have been so head-in-the-sand?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #2  
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    28,818
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    This Weinstein stuff just gets worse and worse. How can Hollywood have been so head-in-the-sand?
    It's that 'man in a position of influence/power' scenario, again. No-one speaks up at the start, they're too scared.

    Ailes (Fox boss), Bill Cosby, Bill O'Reilly, Clinton, Trump, Saville… Weinstein's just another to be uncovered.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #3  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by DiddlerDave View Post
    It's that 'man in a position of influence/power' scenario, again. No-one speaks up at the start, they're too scared.

    Ailes (Fox boss), Bill Cosby, Bill O'Reilly, Clinton, Trump, Saville… Weinstein's just another to be uncovered.
    How many careers did he ruin as a result too. Jolie and Paltrow should've spoken out earlier, they were famous enough
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #4  
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    28,818
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    How many careers did he ruin as a result too. Jolie and Paltrow should've spoken out earlier, they were famous enough
    Paltrow said she was scared, as she was young and really just starting out. But you're right, more should've made some sort of noise right at the start.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #5  
    steviewonder87 is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    11,605
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    This Weinstein stuff just gets worse and worse. How can Hollywood have been so head-in-the-sand?
    Is anyone really surprised? Bet there's far worse **** going on in Hollywood tbh.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #6  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by DiddlerDave View Post
    Paltrow said she was scared, as she was young and really just starting out. But you're right, more should've made some sort of noise right at the start.
    Apparently Brad Pitt confronted him after that!

    That said, with him as her partner at the time, she cannot have been that 'fresh'.

    I'm sure it is quite common in every movie etc industry (been reliably told it happens a lot in bollywood too)
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #7  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by steviewonder87 View Post
    Is anyone really surprised? Bet there's far worse **** going on in Hollywood tbh.

    I could believe it happening with less successful producers (and actors), no doubt. But I am surprised with it being one of the most powerful, and the number and fame of some of the victims and it taking so long to come out.

    Unfortunately, I agree, there are likely more and worse ****s out there
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #8  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Terry Crews recent comments about this demonstrate just how ignorant people can be about such things. It isn't as simple as saying "oh they should have said something sooner". The rich and powerful are protected by that very thing; their wealth and influence. Now here's this giant of a man, successful in every profession he's undertaken, speaking about how he didnt have a clue how to deal with a situation like this. How the hell are young actors and actresses supposed to react to being put in these kinds of situations. Just look at the allegations against Honest Trailers and Screen Junkies creator Andy Signore and how Defy Media essentially had (and apparently admitted it to one of people making the complaints against him, no less) a HR department working to protect him and the companys interests.

    https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/ter...-se-1819332612

    http://variety.com/2017/digital/news...or-1202583996/
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #9  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Terry Crews recent comments about this demonstrate just how ignorant people can be about such things. It isn't as simple as saying "oh they should have said something sooner". The rich and powerful are protected by that very thing; their wealth and influence. Now here's this giant of a man, successful in every profession he's undertaken, speaking about how he didnt have a clue how to deal with a situation like this. How the hell are young actors and actresses supposed to react to being put in these kinds of situations. Just look at the allegations against Honest Trailers and Screen Junkies creator Andy Signore and how Defy Media essentially had (and apparently admitted it to one of people making the complaints against him, no less) a HR department working to protect him and the companys interests.

    https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/ter...-se-1819332612

    http://variety.com/2017/digital/news...or-1202583996/
    For many sure, but once allegations are out there, I expect someone as famous and powerful as Jolie, who is also a UN ambassador giving speeches on women rights, to say more.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #10  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    For many sure, but once allegations are out there, I expect someone as famous and powerful as Jolie, who is also a UN ambassador giving speeches on women rights, to say more.
    I think it's an ignorant view to take. You have no idea of her thought or reasoning.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #11  
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    27,390
    Quote Originally Posted by steviewonder87 View Post
    Is anyone really surprised? Bet there's far worse **** going on in Hollywood tbh.
    Tip of the iceberg, my friend.
    YNWA
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #12  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    I think it's an ignorant view to take. You have no idea of her thought or reasoning.
    No I don't know her reasoning beyond what she has said, but I think it is a fair expectation to have given her status and background. It would have to be an extraordinary circumstance for me to change that view.

    If you think it is fine for so many to have stayed silent for so long then of course it's your prerogative to give the benefit of the doubt. I think the silence, for whatever reason, contributed greatly to him committing these abuses again and again and again without fear of getting caught.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #13  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    No I don't know her reasoning beyond what she has said, but I think it is a fair expectation to have given her status and background. It would have to be an extraordinary circumstance for me to change that view.

    If you think it is fine for so many to have stayed silent for so long then of course it's your prerogative to give the benefit of the doubt. I think the silence, for whatever reason, contributed greatly to him committing these abuses again and again and again without fear of getting caught.
    There is no expected way to deal with or handle harassment from anyone. Any criticism levelled at anyone for not speaking out is entirely ignorant to their mentality.

    And laying any kind of blame at their doorstep is unfair, unjustified and again ignorant.

    All you can offer is what you would have done in that situation, which is entirely moot anyway since there is no way of putting yourself in these exact situations and because it assumes that had you "done more" it would have resulted in this abuse of power and position stopping, the perfect happy ending you have imagined as it were.
    Last edited by FIOS; 11-10-17 at 14:48.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #14  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    There is no expected way to deal with or handle harassment from anyone. Any criticism levelled at anyone for not speaking out is entirely ignorant to their mentality.

    And laying any kind of blame at their doorstep is unfair, unjustified and again ignorant.

    All you can offer is what you would have done in that situation, which is entirely moot anyway since there is no way of putting yourself in these exact situations and because it assumes that had you "done more" it would have resulted in this abuse of power and position stopping, the perfect happy ending you have imagined as it were.
    Not really, that is just justifying and defending the wall of silence. I am not laying blame on them, but saying they could have done more. The blame lies with Weinstein. That doesn't negate the fact that others could have acted.

    Your defence of them might apply if you are talking about faceless people, but we are not. Some of those with knowledge are powerful themselves and advocates for women on a global stage. It is their responsibility to speak out for those who are in a weaker position and might not feel able or willing.

    So you might think it is unfair ignorant or whatever, but i am sure it is a hollow defence for every subsequent victim.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #15  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    Not really, that is just justifying and defending the wall of silence. I am not laying blame on them, but saying they could have done more. The blame lies with Weinstein. That doesn't negate the fact that others could have acted.

    Your defence of them might apply if you are talking about faceless people, but we are not. Some of those with knowledge are powerful themselves and advocates for women on a global stage. It is their responsibility to speak out for those who are in a weaker position and might not feel able or willing.

    So you might think it is unfair ignorant or whatever, but i am sure it is a hollow defence for every subsequent victim.
    You have no idea what they "could have done". Hence why your view is ignorant.

    I don't offer a defence for them. They don't need defending. No victim of abuse requires defending for failing to speak out about those who have abused them. Again, it's an entirely ignorant view to take.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #16  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    You have no idea what they "could have done". Hence why your view is ignorant.

    I don't offer a defence for them. They don't need defending. No victim of abuse requires defending for failing to speak out about those who have abused them. Again, it's an entirely ignorant view to take.
    We both know I said you were defending people for not speaking out or doing more not defending "victims of abuse".

    You are pretending it is OK for people to turn a blind eye to abuse because "we don't know the reasons why". By that token nobody should do anything without 100% of the facts and is exactly why most sexual abuse goes unreported - because "nobody will believe unless there is 100% proof". It can be hard to stand up to power, which is why I have been clear that I am not talking necessarily about victims of abuse, but the many who knew what was going, having avoided the abuse themselves, but still did nothing (and that goes for men too). It is one thing worrying about your career, but once you have made it there is less of an excuse.

    I have the same view about all those that knew and did nothing on the Saville abuses. I think people have a general duty of care.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #17  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    We both know I said you were defending people for not speaking out or doing more not defending "victims of abuse".

    You are pretending it is OK for people to turn a blind eye to abuse because "we don't know the reasons why". By that token nobody should do anything without 100% of the facts and is exactly why most sexual abuse goes unreported - because "nobody will believe unless there is 100% proof". It can be hard to stand up to power, which is why I have been clear that I am not talking necessarily about victims of abuse, but the many who knew what was going, having avoided the abuse themselves, but still did nothing (and that goes for men too). It is one thing worrying about your career, but once you have made it there is less of an excuse.

    I have the same view about all those that knew and did nothing on the Saville abuses. I think people have a general duty of care.
    You said Jolie and Paltrow should have done more, that you expected more from them. These are victims of abuse. No victim of this should be criticised for not speaking out, not "doing more" to stop it. My point was very simple. I didn't pretend anything, and nor did I construe your comments to mean anything other than exactly what you have said. You named specific people who have personal, direct and explicit experience of this subject with this man. I offered the view that it is both unfair and unjustified to level any criticism at these people subjected to and affected by abuse from this man for not speaking out sooner or trying to stop it.
    Last edited by FIOS; 11-10-17 at 15:51.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #18  
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    9,108
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    You said Jolie and Paltrow should have done more, that you expected more from them. These are victims of abuse. No victim of this should be criticised for not speaking out, not "doing more" to stop it. My point was very simple. I didn't pretend anything, and nor did I construe your comments to mean anything other than exactly what you have said. You named specific people who have personal, direct and explicit experience of this subject with this man. I offered the view that it is both unfair and unjustified to level any criticism at these people subjected to and affected by abuse from this man for not speaking out sooner or trying to stop it.
    Didn’t Dante say he expected more from Jolie now being who she is, not the 22 year old Jolie at that time? (That’s how I read his comment)
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #19  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    You said you Jolie and Paltrow should have done more, that you expected more from them. These are victims of abuse. No victim of this should be criticised for not speaking out, not "doing more" to stop it. My point was very simple. I didn't pretend anything, and nor did I construe your comments to mean anything other than exactly what you have said. You named specific people who have personal experience of this subject. I offered the view that is both unfair and unjustified to level any criticism at these people, people who encountered abuse by this man, for not speaking out sooner or trying to stop it.
    The term "victims of Harvey Weinstein" is not synonymous with "women Harvey Weinstein abused/assaulted".

    Jolie and Paltrow were just two different examples being spoken of. I repeatedly, from the start and probably in every post said I expected people who had attained power of their own to have spoken out and done something sooner. As an example, I singled out that I was especially disappointed in Jolie in particular because she actively promotes and advocates women rights and was powerful in her own right. I admitted she had not divulged the exact reason why she was silent, and I said it would have to be extraordinary for me to think differently (not impossible), but with the huge amount that we do know it is reasonable to expect more from her.

    As for Paltrow, my point was only that she was not as alone as made out. We know she was dating a superstar in Brad Pitt who was also informed. We know Emma Thompson called Weinstein a well known predator. Kate Winslet has spoken of the rumours. Ashley Judd. At some point the executives, authorities, many more could have done something because what he was dong was wrong and if true there would be a long conveyor belt of victims to come.

    I couldn't care less if you think that is ignorant or whatever, I disagree. We are not talking about the usual victim and perpetrator scenario, but an abuse of power that was widely known and ignored. Many might have reasons why they couldn't do more but I cannot believe that so many that knew could not and did not. Sometimes you have to just say the community collectively ********** up here and we must ensure it doesn't happen again.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #20  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by WinterPoolStark View Post
    Didn’t Dante say he expected more from Jolie now being who she is, not the 22 year old Jolie at that time? (That’s how I read his comment)
    I think it's also why people like Meryl Streep have come out and said they knew nothing about the rumours, because as a titan, she would have been expected, even of herself, to do something.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #21  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by WinterPoolStark View Post
    Didn’t Dante say he expected more from Jolie now being who she is, not the 22 year old Jolie at that time? (That’s how I read his comment)
    What difference does that make? Look at Terry Crews talking about his experience, which happened only last year. He specifically stated that he didn't want to be ostracised for speaking out and fear of reprisal prevented him taking action. He also talked about how he wanted to react physically and how that would look for him, a guy his size, to assault the guy who molested him. Again, you cannot criticise anyone for not talking about what happened to them and not "doing more", whatever that is supposed to entail, to prevent it happening to others.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #22  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    What difference does that make? Look at Terry Crews talking about his experience, which happened only last year. He specifically stated that he didn't want to be ostracised for speaking out and fear of reprisal prevented him taking action. He also talked about how he wanted to react physically and how that would look for him, a guy his size, to assault the guy who molested him. Again, you cannot criticise anyone for not talking about what happened to them and not "doing more", whatever that is supposed to entail, to prevent it happening to others.
    Nonsense. You are taking one specific victim-perpetrator scenario and applying it across the board to all that might have known about Weinsteins behaviour without limits to the persons involvement, power or a timeframe.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #23  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    The term "victims of Harvey Weinstein" is not synonymous with "women Harvey Weinstein abused/assaulted".

    Jolie and Paltrow were just two different examples being spoken of. I repeatedly, from the start and probably in every post said I expected people who had attained power of their own to have spoken out and done something sooner. As an example, I singled out that I was especially disappointed in Jolie in particular because she actively promotes and advocates women rights and was powerful in her own right. I admitted she had not divulged the exact reason why she was silent, and I said it would have to be extraordinary for me to think differently (not impossible), but with the huge amount that we do know it is reasonable to expect more from her.

    As for Paltrow, my point was only that she was not as alone as made out. We know she was dating a superstar in Brad Pitt who was also informed. We know Emma Thompson called Weinstein a well known predator. Kate Winslet has spoken of the rumours. Ashley Judd. At some point the executives, authorities, many more could have done something because what he was dong was wrong and if true there would be a long conveyor belt of victims to come.

    I couldn't care less if you think that is ignorant or whatever, I disagree. We are not talking about the usual victim and perpetrator scenario, but an abuse of power that was widely known and ignored. Many might have reasons why they couldn't do more but I cannot believe that so many that knew could not and did not. Sometimes you have to just say the community collectively ********** up here and we must ensure it doesn't happen again.
    Why should you expect victims of abuse to act in one specific and particularly way, purely on the basis that you think they they have attained their own sufficient wealth and influence? Where has this sense of entitlement to criticise someone who doesn't meet your own arbitrarily decided criteria of where and when it's expected of them to talk about something that affected them? Any criticise is moot. Your entitlement extends to nothing more than "this is what I think I would have done in their position ". Because beyond that point, every criticism raised is one born of ignorance.
    Last edited by FIOS; 11-10-17 at 16:58.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #24  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    Nonsense. You are taking one specific victim-perpetrator scenario and applying it across the board to all that might have known about Weinsteins behaviour without limits to the persons involvement, power or a timeframe.
    How in Gods name is that nonsense? I gave an explicit and specific account from one person talking about their experiences in the movie industry to support my view that it isn't as simple as saying "these are wealthy and powerful people now. they should do more". This is the most recent comment on this subject, and one of the most recent examples of an abuse of power and influence. I couldnt have given a better example to support the view.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #25  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Why should you expect victims of abuse to act in one specific and particularly way, purely on the basis that you think they they have attained their own sufficient wealth and influence? Where has this sense of entitlement to criticise someone who doesn't meet your own arbitrarily decided criteria of where and when it's expected of them to talk about something that affected them? Any criticise is moot. Your entitlement extends to nothing more than "this is what I think I would have done in their ". Because beyond that point, every criticism raised is one born of ignorance. Criticism of these women for
    More rephrasing my point to construct a straw man? I mentioned people who are not victims and men.

    And expecting people with power to have responsibility to protect their peers who are weak is not some notion that I have constructed, nor is it extraordinary. It is perfectly right and proper to place expectations on people so no, I don't recognise the surprise you show with these "who are you to judge" type of questions. We are going in circles now, no more to be said. You think I am ignorant and unjustified for expecting more. I can live with that.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #26  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    How in Gods name is that nonsense? I gave an explicit and specific account from one person talking about their experiences in the movie industry to support my view that it isn't as simple as saying "these are wealthy and powerful people now. they should do more". This is the most recent comment on this subject, and one of the most recent examples of an abuse of power and influence. I couldnt have given a better example to support the view.
    It is nonsense because you are taking that specific example and applying it across the board to all that might have known about Weinsteins behaviour without limits to the persons involvement, power or a timeframe. The sheer number and variety of people that are involved in the Weistein scandal means the example is only relevant to some and putting it forward as the only example misses the point and majority of people who had chance to act.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #27  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    More rephrasing my point to construct a straw man? I mentioned people who are not victims and men.

    And expecting people with power to have responsibility to protect their peers who are weak is not some notion that I have constructed, nor is it extraordinary. It is perfectly right and proper to place expectations on people so no, I don't recognise the surprise you show with these "who are you to judge" type of questions. We are going in circles now, no more to be said. You think I am ignorant and unjustified for expecting more. I can live with that.
    It isn't straw man in the slightest. I am discussing specific points you made. Specific people you named. Those are the comments I was interested in discussing. That's why I have been explicit and specific in my view of those comments. These people you named absolutely are victims of his abuse. That's why my comment has focused on your criticisms of them. Those criticisms born of ignorance.

    These people of influence you place expectations on are also victims of abuse. That is in no way at all an attempt to rephrase your view. There is entirely no need to. You have expectations of how a victim of abuse should react because they have attained a certain position of wealth, celebrity, influence. That's that you have said. And you believe you are entitled to criticise those victims for not living up to your measure of expectation of how they should react to said abuse. I haven't construed your comments to mean anything other than what you have presented. Jolie, Paltrow, etc were victims of abuse, and you believe you are entitled to criticise them for not acting how you want them to act based on the positions they hold now or held then. Your criticisms are invalid. No victim of abuse, by it mental, physical, sexual, deserves to be criticised for not speaking out sooner because such criticisms absolutely are born of ignorance.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #28  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by DantesShadow View Post
    It is nonsense because you are taking that specific example and applying it across the board to all that might have known about Weinsteins behaviour without limits to the persons involvement, power or a timeframe. The sheer number and variety of people that are involved in the Weistein scandal means the example is only relevant to some and putting it forward as the only example misses the point and majority of people who had chance to act.
    No, I applied it to one case in Jolie? I used that example as a rebuttal to the suggestion that Jolie is now in a position where she "should have done something about it" to demonstrate that it isn't that simple. It was the perfect example.

    It isn't remotely nonsensical.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #29  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    No, I applied it to one case in Jolie? I used that example as a rebuttal to the suggestion that Jolie is now in a position where she "should have done something about it" to demonstrate that it isn't that simple. It was the perfect example.

    It isn't remotely nonsensical.
    That example and Jolie's are not the same despite your claim it is the perfect example. A 'rebuttal' for Jolie was not even necessary as I said there is a possibility there is an extraordinary reason, as yet unheard, that makes Jolie's silence understandable. That doesn't mean that all things considered I cannot expect more from her (at this moment in time). And at this point we do not know is Jolie was a victim of abuse, just a victim of Weinstein. It is also debatable if Paltrow was 'abused' either (harassment for sure).
    Last edited by DantesShadow; 11-10-17 at 18:39.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #30  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    It isn't straw man in the slightest. I am discussing specific points you made. Specific people you named. Those are the comments I was interested in discussing. That's why I have been explicit and specific in my view of those comments. These people you named absolutely are victims of his abuse. That's why my comment has focused on your criticisms of them. Those criticisms born of ignorance.

    These people of influence you place expectations on are also victims of abuse. That is in no way at all an attempt to rephrase your view. There is entirely no need to. You have expectations of how a victim of abuse should react because they have attained a certain position of wealth, celebrity, influence. That's that you have said. And you believe you are entitled to criticise those victims for not living up to your measure of expectation of how they should react to said abuse. I haven't construed your comments to mean anything other than what you have presented. Jolie, Paltrow, etc were victims of abuse, and you believe you are entitled to criticise them for not acting how you want them to act based on the positions they hold now or held then. Your criticisms are invalid. No victim of abuse, by it mental, physical, sexual, deserves to be criticised for not speaking out sooner because such criticisms absolutely are born of ignorance.
    If you are picking out only the comments you are interested in discussing rather than the whole, and rephrasing my point and your responses accordingly (skewed) then that is as near to the definition of creating a straw man argument that you can get. You then go on to repeat the same argument against your own constructed definition of what I was saying. All the while making an assumption of a supposed unheard of defence without evidence, while slating me for assuming they were in a position to do more taking all things considered.

    What will it take for you to think more could have been done? What if Jolie, for your favoured example, says she wasn't abused by weinstein?

    And again, not everybody who knew was a victim. What do you say to the victims of his abuse who have spoken out to say more should have been done and too many were silent?

    EDIT: don't bother answering (actually get the last word if you must), but I don't want to wast any more time on this.
    Last edited by DantesShadow; 11-10-17 at 18:34. Reason: cba
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •