Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote: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.

Didn't see McGowan in the initial article - Linky?

PS assuming this is Rose McGowan?

Yes, Rose MacGowan. I like her work, btw. I like that she's not typical hollywood looking too.

I read most of my articles through google news. I don't have a link directly, but she is VERY active on twitter. A lot of her accusations are coming out 140 characters at a time, which isn't a great way to express yourself, imo, but I at no point thought she was lying. My quibble was based on what she said in the tweets. If there is more evidence showing Affleck and Damon complicit, burn them to the ground. The only thing I ask is that there be more than hearsay before doing it. It might already exist, I haven't read everything available on the topic. My "informed" opinion is based on MacGowan's own words up 'til now.

It is my understanding that she was preyed upon by Weinstein, and took a 100k payout to hush up about it.

A question that has been on my mind. If you take a settlement, what is your moral obligation to abide by that agreement? I mean, the crime still occurred, you've still been wronged/attacked, you're still angry/hurt/frustrated/scared/whatever else.

At what point does it become ok to talk about it in public? Not until it becomes common knowledge through other means? After enough years have passed? Right away (assuming you're willing to be sued)? Is there any moral obligation at all? If you're bought, what are the ethical ramifications, if any, of not staying bought?

THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF ANYONE. It's a genuine question that applies to literally any situation where an event occurs and then a settlement occurs.

GreenGoo wrote:A question that has been on my mind. If you take a settlement, what is your moral obligation to abide by that agreement?e bought, what are the ethical ramifications, if any, of not staying bought?

What's a 'moral obligation'?

I think if there's a settlement, that settlement will contain the terms of the settlement. In addition, I imagine there will be some language in there that specifies what happens if the parties involved don't abide by the terms.

So do what you want, talk about it or don't talk about it. If you're in violation of the agreement then you may be subject whatever penalties you agreed to.

I compare this to people walking away from a home they no longer want to pay for. I've talked to people who think there's something morally wrong with that. I disagree. That's because your contract includes parts that deal with what happens if you stop paying off the loan. The fact you may walk away from it is part of the deal, it's understood by both sides. How can it be morally wrong then?

So then, in my opinion, morality or ethics don't enter into her talking about it now. It's strictly a legal thing, either she can freely talk about it or she has legally opened herself up to some penalty by violating the signed agreement.

If there's any moral obligation to maintaining the terms of a settlement, it would have to be weighed against the moral obligation to protect others.

If it's just you, and just a one off, that's one thing. When your silence enables and perpetuates the sick fuck behavior, the moral equation changes. MacGowan has her conscience to contend with, I won't judge her at all. But fuck Damon, Affleck, and anyone else who weren't victims but were knowledgeable and silent.

Best article I could find on the Rose McGowan/Affleck/Damon angle:

“‘GODDAMNIT! I TOLD HIM TO STOP DOING THAT’ you said that to my face,” Ms. McGowan wrote in the tweet. “The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie.”

Mr. Affleck has not responded to Ms. McGowan’s tweet. He did not respond to requests for further comment.

The Times emailed Ms. McGowan to confirm that she was asserting that Mr. Affleck knew about Mr. Weinstein’s mistreatment of her because she had told him, and that she was accusing Mr. Affleck of lying because his statement did not acknowledge awareness of Mr. Weinstein’s behavior.

“I am saying exactly that,” she replied to The Times. She wrote nothing further.

GreenGoo wrote:

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?

There are perhaps few industries where a man (or woman) with power can actually ruin your career like in Hollywood. Weinstein threatened that and in some cases is accused of doing just that. It's terrible to think it still exists but this sure makes it sound like the "casting couch" is still a thing.

LawBeefaroni wrote:If there's any moral obligation to maintaining the terms of a settlement, it would have to be weighed against the moral obligation to protect others.

If it's just you, and just a one off, that's one thing. When your silence enables and perpetuates the sick fuck behavior, the moral equation changes. MacGowan has her conscience to contend with, I won't judge her at all. But fuck Damon, Affleck, and anyone else who weren't victims but were knowledgeable and silent.

I think a lot of people here are assuming facts not in evidence. For instance, let's say I was harassed and spoke up, to 'save' future victims. I only actually help or save anyone if me coming forward accomplishes anything. That is, if this guy loses his job and/or goes to jail. If I come forward, say what I have to say, everyone nods like "Yep, that's how I figured it was in Hollywood" and then life goes on, business as usual, I have done nothing but ruin my career.

Rose McGowan, if she had stepped forward way back when, was going to take down Weinstein? Come on! The police department, hearing it from his own mouth, didn't do anything. That's why I won't lay a bit of the blame on victims not coming forward. Even when there's evidence supporting your claim it doesn't guarantee anyone will do a damn thing about it.

Scuzz wrote: There are perhaps few industries where a man (or woman) with power can actually ruin your career like in Hollywood. Weinstein threatened that and in some cases is accused of doing just that. It's terrible to think it still exists but this sure makes it sound like the "casting couch" is still a thing.

It's even worse overseas. A few years ago a popular (and stunning) Korean actress killed herself because she was compelled to service studio management in order to keep her roles coming.

Jeff V wrote:

Scuzz wrote: There are perhaps few industries where a man (or woman) with power can actually ruin your career like in Hollywood. Weinstein threatened that and in some cases is accused of doing just that. It's terrible to think it still exists but this sure makes it sound like the "casting couch" is still a thing.

It's even worse overseas. A few years ago a popular (and stunning) Korean actress killed herself because she was compelled to service studio management in order to keep her roles coming.

it's really *quite bad in the Korean media industry, from what i've heard.

Ben, when asking what YOU can do to make sure this doesn't happen to others I would suggest that keeping your hands to yourself is a good start.

Makeup artist has come out against Affleck. Also there is video of him being gross with a journalist at a junket or something.

GreenGoo wrote:Makeup artist has come out against Affleck. Also there is video of him being gross with a journalist at a junket or something.

That video may be the old video of him molesting the interviewer years ago that he apologized for today. I have seen it several places on the web today.

GreenGoo wrote:Makeup artist has come out against Affleck. Also there is video of him being gross with a journalist at a junket or something.

There is a quote in one of the Justice League Trailers:

Aquaman: "What's your super power?"
Batfleck turns to him: "I'm rich"

Kinda gives that quote a new life of its own.

Scuzz wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Makeup artist has come out against Affleck. Also there is video of him being gross with a journalist at a junket or something.

That video may be the old video of him molesting the interviewer years ago that he apologized for today. I have seen it several places on the web today.

It is the same video, however his apology today was directed at another woman from an MTV show.

Seth MacFarlane has come forward to explain that his 2013 Oscar hosting joke was a direct attack on Weinstein after the actress from the Ted movies (I don't recall her name) confided to Seth that Weinstein had sexually harassed her by demanding a naked massage, which she refused to do and ran out.

So Seth is admitting he knew of at least one event.

GreenGoo wrote:

Scuzz wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Makeup artist has come out against Affleck. Also there is video of him being gross with a journalist at a junket or something.

That video may be the old video of him molesting the interviewer years ago that he apologized for today. I have seen it several places on the web today.

It is the same video, however his apology today was directed at another woman from an MTV show.

Seth MacFarlane has come forward to explain that his 2013 Oscar hosting joke was a direct attack on Weinstein after the actress from the Ted movies (I don't recall her name) confided to Seth that Weinstein had sexually harassed her by demanding a naked massage, which she refused to do and ran out.

So Seth is admitting he knew of at least one event.

The MTV woman is the woman in the video, unless there is a second video out there I am unaware of. The video doesn't show him actually touching her but there is a level of uncomfortableness (my word) on the womans face? That is the MTV woman.

I figured McFarlane must have known something to make a remark like that in that venue.

I didn't realize there was video of the MTV event.

There is also video of him with an interviewer or something sitting on his lap while he behaves like a leche and suggests she show more cleavage.

GreenGoo wrote:I didn't realize there was video of the MTV event.

There is also video of him with an interviewer or something sitting on his lap while he behaves like a leche and suggests she show more cleavage.

That particular video is with Anne-Marie Lozique and shouldn't be included in any of this. Even she came out and said to leave her out of this in regards to that interview. Anne-Marie's show and schtick at the time was to be ultra sexy with interviewees and she had every intention to try and be real sexy with him, which he obliged. I used to watch her show every week where she did these interviews. She also had a late night show that would fit right in on the Playboy channel except it was on free tv. God bless free cable sexy shows lol.

So yeah, this in no way means to say Ben is an upstanding guy but this particular incident is a non-starter. This was completely consensual and out in the open, unlike the MTV interview which was out in the open but the boob grab was not consensual.

Fair enough.

Just so you know, it's being held up as an example of Affleck's lecherous ways in some circles, so good luck convincing those who are already equating Affleck with Weinstein.

My apologies for bringing it up.

Oh yeah for sure it is. Not surprising that outlets only report what jives with their narrative and do half research at best. Just thought I'd elucidate since I've got more info on that one incident. All good.

Moliere, Thank you for the link into Casting Couch in Wiki.

Goo, I want to believe if anyone in your family or close circle had an encounter along the lines of any Weinstein story coming forth, you would express your opinions differently. Many times until something happens to you, one never really knows how the situation would be handled. Deleting and reposting "Never mind" is not cool unless you are reconsidering those statements.

https://youtu.be/0I3VUxiyaSE

Ugh

KKBlue wrote:Moliere, Thank you for the link into Casting Couch in Wiki.

Goo, I want to believe if anyone in your family or close circle had an encounter along the lines of any Weinstein story coming forth, you would express your opinions differently. Many times until something happens to you, one never really knows how the situation would be handled. Deleting and reposting "Never mind" is not cool unless you are reconsidering those statements.

Being villified for suggesting women are tough wasn't cool either.

The idea that I am not sympathetic to the plight of women being sexually preyed upon is ridiculous. That I need to "change my position" if it were to happen to my family is offensive. Stats report that at least one in 3 women have been subject to some form of harassment. Who's family hasn't been touched by this?

Lorini said something like "that statement crossed the line". You say I should reconsider my position.

Let me ask you this. What position do I hold that you feel should change, just so we're clear?

It hasn't been mentioned in this thread I don't think, but MacGowan has implicated Ben Casey Affleck too, and the rumours are that he is the worse of the two.

So it's possible we'll hear from more victims in the near future.

MacGowan's Twitter account has been suspended for 12 hours.

MacGowan is on record suggesting it's a conspiracy to silence her.

Another headline taking the interview tjg explained, wildly out of context.

Yet another with interviewer explaining how the interview is being taken wildly out of context.

Battle of the rags.

I'm posting from my phone which is why no links.

Perhaps apropos of the subject matter in this thread, a Briton faces up to 3 years in jail in Dubai, for touching a man in a bar. He's also charged with raising his middle finger.

Edit:. Apparently the touch was to the man's hip, to prevent the two colliding in a crowded bar and spilling a drink.

tjg_marantz wrote:https://youtu.be/0I3VUxiyaSE

Ugh

I watched this in an admittedly noisy environment. What did I miss that merits the "ugh"?

GreenGoo wrote:
Let me ask you this. What position do I hold that you feel should change, just so we're clear?

The position (which you deleted, so I'm having to paraphrase, although I quoted part of it earlier) that being grabbed isn't all that traumatic, thus people complaining are overreacting. It completely ignores the context in which the grabbing often occurs. The impact of the grab is 90% context, 10% hands-on-bits.

gameoverman wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:If there's any moral obligation to maintaining the terms of a settlement, it would have to be weighed against the moral obligation to protect others.

If it's just you, and just a one off, that's one thing. When your silence enables and perpetuates the sick fuck behavior, the moral equation changes. MacGowan has her conscience to contend with, I won't judge her at all. But fuck Damon, Affleck, and anyone else who weren't victims but were knowledgeable and silent.

I think a lot of people here are assuming facts not in evidence. For instance, let's say I was harassed and spoke up, to 'save' future victims. I only actually help or save anyone if me coming forward accomplishes anything. That is, if this guy loses his job and/or goes to jail. If I come forward, say what I have to say, everyone nods like "Yep, that's how I figured it was in Hollywood" and then life goes on, business as usual, I have done nothing but ruin my career.

Rose McGowan, if she had stepped forward way back when, was going to take down Weinstein? Come on! The police department, hearing it from his own mouth, didn't do anything. That's why I won't lay a bit of the blame on victims not coming forward. Even when there's evidence supporting your claim it doesn't guarantee anyone will do a damn thing about it.

That's why I said for her, it's her own decison, between her and her conscience. I'm not her cinscience. I was just talking in general, settlements aren't sacrosanct and any moral obligation to keep them needs to be weighed against other moral obligation.


I did mean fuck Affleck and Damon when I said that though.

Freyland wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:https://youtu.be/0I3VUxiyaSE

Ugh

I watched this in an admittedly noisy environment. What did I miss that merits the "ugh"?

David Letterman asking if Harvey coerced Paltrow to show up.

An Paltrow saying that Weinstein is good at coercing people to do things.

Blackhawk wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
Let me ask you this. What position do I hold that you feel should change, just so we're clear?

The position (which you deleted, so I'm having to paraphrase, although I quoted part of it earlier) that being grabbed isn't all that traumatic, thus people complaining are overreacting. It completely ignores the context in which the grabbing often occurs. The impact of the grab is 90% context, 10% hands-on-bits.

Deleting it was pretty eye rolling, at least stand by what you say and if you didn't mean it then say so.

Blackhawk wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
Let me ask you this. What position do I hold that you feel should change, just so we're clear?

The position (which you deleted, so I'm having to paraphrase, although I quoted part of it earlier) that being grabbed isn't all that traumatic, thus people complaining are overreacting. It completely ignores the context in which the grabbing often occurs. The impact of the grab is 90% context, 10% hands-on-bits.

I never, ever held that position or said anything like that. I said I couldn't imagine any lasting emotional damage/scarring from such an event, given the facts as presented.

The context is available on video.

@ Ralph-Wiggum and Moliere: Thanks. A bit too circumstantial for me to find condemning but I can certainly see people fitting that to the present narrative.

Freyland wrote:@ Ralph-Wiggum and Moliere: Thanks. A bit too circumstantial for me to find condemning but I can certainly see people fitting that to the present narrative.

How Brad Pitt Threatened Harvey Weinstein After He Allegedly Harassed Gwyneth Paltrow

Paltrow is one of dozens of women coming forward to accuse Weinstein of sexual misconduct, telling the New York Times that the movie mogul made unwanted advances towards her in a hotel room when she was 22. The encounter, which she says occurred after Weinstein hired her for the lead role in Emma, allegedly ended with him placing his hands on her and suggesting a massage.

Pitt, who was dating Paltrow at the time, confronted Weinstein about the incident at a Hollywood party around 1995, a source tells PEOPLE.

“Brad threatened Harvey,” says the source. “He got right in his face, poked him in the chest and said, ‘You will not ever do this to Gwyneth ever again.’ “

The source adds that Pitt “made it clear there would be consequences” if Weinstein tried anything again, and “described it as giving Harvey a ‘Missouri whooping.'” (Pitt grew up in Springfield, Missouri.)

Lorini wrote:

Blackhawk wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
Let me ask you this. What position do I hold that you feel should change, just so we're clear?

The position (which you deleted, so I'm having to paraphrase, although I quoted part of it earlier) that being grabbed isn't all that traumatic, thus people complaining are overreacting. It completely ignores the context in which the grabbing often occurs. The impact of the grab is 90% context, 10% hands-on-bits.

Deleting it was pretty eye rolling, at least stand by what you say and if you didn't mean it then say so.

Oh for fuck's sake. I've spent 13 years on this board and owned everything I've ever said. I deleted my comments in a fit of pique because I recognize when I situation is untenable because people "feel" something is true and no amount of explanation, rephrasing, or debate will change that. Every single comment since then has been in support of my position. I do stand by my position, which is not the position that Blackhawk believes I hold, but no one gives a shit and have decided I'm a bad person, because they feel like I'm a bad person, so it must be true. It can't be the words I wrote, because they don't say what Blackhawk thinks they say, so what else is there?

As Blackhawk has illustrated, I am now viewed as someone who callously disregards the emotional impact of sexual assault (ALL sexual assault) based on words that have been interpreted in a way that I did not mean, about a specific event the details of which continue to be ignored by those who want to judge me and even though I've clarified repeatedly, no one has believed me, and now I'm being criticized for deleting my comments, even though as Blackhawk points out, they were quoted and aren't going anywhere, which I knew when I deleted them.

I think most women can survive having their boob grabbed in the circumstances illustrated in the mtv video without permanent emotional scarring. Obviously that means that I think women are overreacting in all harrassments and assaults.

Let me ask you this. Go watch the video. Come back here and tell me, just guess obviously, what percentage of women would need therapy after that event. I'm curious how our opinions of women's mental toughness differs.

GreenGoo wrote:

Blackhawk wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
Let me ask you this. What position do I hold that you feel should change, just so we're clear?

The position (which you deleted, so I'm having to paraphrase, although I quoted part of it earlier) that being grabbed isn't all that traumatic, thus people complaining are overreacting. It completely ignores the context in which the grabbing often occurs. The impact of the grab is 90% context, 10% hands-on-bits.

I never, ever held that position or said anything like that. I said I couldn't imagine any lasting emotional damage/scarring from such an event, given the facts as presented.

The context is available on video.

Like you said, you deleted the post, so I'm having to go entirely on memory. If I've misrepresented you, I apologize. I do think that is how you came off, though, and may be why people were reacting so strongly.

Again, though, it has nothing to do with getting your naughty bits grabbed, and everything to do with someone with significant power over your career showing you that you're theirs to use, putting you, instantly, into a position of choosing to go along with something abhorrent or having your dreams and your future end on the spot. It wouldn't just be shocking, it would be a terrifying situation with no choice that wouldn't be devastating to your life. That is what the trauma comes from.

/edit - quoted and was typing before your most recent reply, above. I do think it was just a case of misinterpretation of intent. You were talking about the Bat-boob. We were talking about the whole 'casting couch' and Weinstein issue.

GreenGoo wrote: Let me ask you this. Go watch the video. Come back here and tell me, just guess obviously, what percentage of women would need therapy after that event. I'm curious how our opinions of women's mental toughness differs.

In the context of only that video? Maybe. But I think your comments were being viewed in the larger context of the thread.

And we haven't all decided you are a horrible person. You've been here too long. Such an attitude would have shown up a long, long time ago. I think something you posted got misinterpreted as often happens in fast moving threads - a comment on post A ends up after post E and changes its apparent intent. It's happened to every one of us at one time or another.

GreenGoo wrote:

Lorini wrote:

Blackhawk wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
Let me ask you this. What position do I hold that you feel should change, just so we're clear?

The position (which you deleted, so I'm having to paraphrase, although I quoted part of it earlier) that being grabbed isn't all that traumatic, thus people complaining are overreacting. It completely ignores the context in which the grabbing often occurs. The impact of the grab is 90% context, 10% hands-on-bits.

Deleting it was pretty eye rolling, at least stand by what you say and if you didn't mean it then say so.

Oh for fuck's sake. I've spent 13 years on this board and owned everything I've ever said. I deleted my comments in a fit of pique because I recognize when I situation is untenable because people "feel" something is true and no amount of explanation, rephrasing, or debate will change that. Every single comment since then has been in support of my position. I do stand by my position, which is not the position that Blackhawk believes I hold, but no one gives a shit and have decided I'm a bad person, because they feel like I'm a bad person, so it must be true. It can't be the words I wrote, because they don't say what Blackhawk thinks they say, so what else is there?

As Blackhawk has illustrated, I am now viewed as someone who callously disregards the emotional impact of sexual assault (ALL sexual assault) based on words that have been interpreted in a way that I did not mean, about a specific event the details of which continue to be ignored by those who want to judge me and even though I've clarified repeatedly, no one has believed me, and now I'm being criticized for deleting my comments, even though as Blackhawk points out, they were quoted and aren't going anywhere, which I knew when I deleted them.

I think most women can survive having their boob grabbed in the circumstances illustrated in the mtv video without permanent emotional scarring. Obviously that means that I think women are overreacting in all harrassments and assaults.

Let me ask you this. Go watch the video. Come back here and tell me, just guess obviously, what percentage of women would need therapy after that event. I'm curious how our opinions of women's mental toughness differs.

Unlike you, i don't presume to speak for other women. I said that for ME, that could be a traumatic event. Since I don't know all other women I don't presume to speak for their reactions to any given event, unlike you. Having a very personal part of your body handled without your permission and reacting strongly to it I could see as traumatic as it was traumatic for me. But for all I know 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999l of women wouldn't care. But also 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 of women might care+/be traumtized. You don't know and I don't either. But only one of us asserts that he does know.

I'm done with this discussion. Men telling people how women should react is so old it's not even worth bothering with anymore.