Hollywood and Sexual Misconduct

I understand what you are saying.

My point is no one should be the god of judge in moralities. What if Keven Spacey commits suicide tomorrow due to excessive guilt, would people take a moment and think maybe we have done too much or maybe everyone just claps and says it is the right karma?

Kevin and those other aholes are already stained and punished, righteously. I think there needs to be a stop before it is getting out of control.

__________________
You talkin' to me?

I agree that people should approach issues of morality and judgment with humility, but I'd also make a distinction between excessive criticism, and just criticism. We can't refuse to criticize abhorrent behavior just to avoid seeming judgmental. And, frankly, I'm glad that many people are turning away from the "kindness/tolerance is the only virtue" school of thought that seemed predominate just a few years ago. Justice and mercy must temper each other.

I'm not sure the mere hypothetical possibility of suicide should inform behavior here, either. Technically any criticism or judgment carries that risk with it, but it's obviously not tenable or wise to avoid them entirely, and in most cases I'd say opting to end one's life in response to criticism pretty strongly suggests issues that transcend and predate that criticism.

Besides, it's just as likely (probably moreso, in aggregate) for the victim of Spacey's brand of abuse to want to end their lives, so it's possible even seemingly excessive shaming would, in a purely pragmatic sense, ultimately reduce the risk of suicide, if considering all people together.

Exactly! What about all the men, women and children of predators who before have had to suffer their PTSD in silence. Maybe predators should have thought that one day it was all going to be blown open. Especially in an industry like the hollywood machine where there are so many outspoken people.

This one breaks my heart...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-nurses.html

Now it breaks my heart if it's true as Stan has always been somewhat of a personal hero of mine, just based on his originality, what he's accomplished in his life, and the joy his creations have brought to people over the decades.

The question is: is it true or is it part of the "me too" bandwagon where any man with notability & money becomes a potential target? As I said in past posts - I'm all for justice, but this trend is a double edged sword as it can just as easily be used for revenge, personal gain or just the avarice of destroying people's lives.

For the record, Lee denies the accusations and his lawyers accuse the women of blackmail and defamation.

Just some things to note: Stan is a WWII vet, he's 95 years old, he just lost his wife Joan last year to whom he was faithfully married for 70 years! Personally, I give a certain amount of leeway to the behaviors of recently widowed, 95 year-old war vets as their actions may be a result of failing faculties & grief.

What? I dont recall anything about the #metoo campaign being about any man with notability and money...

What are you saying?
Of course that is not the intention of the campaign, but is it possible that the trend has the potential to be used by unscrupulous people (in addition to actual victims) to target innocent men to try to obtain money via blackmail, to get revenge for past slights or rejections, or achieve some sense of fame or power for being involved in bringing someone who's rich and famous down, ruining their career or smearing their name?

I asked you what you were saying.

That people can abuse this trend with frivolous or false accusations.

The problem is that there is no way of knowing who is telling the truth (unless there's sound evidence) and numbers can both lend credence to claims OR can indicate a bandwagon effect where others are just jumping on for their own reasons.

The suggestion is that victims need to speak up and they need to be listened to - which is good - and the sooner the better as we have things called statutes of limitations (and it seems some people will only speak up years or decades later when it becomes somehow financially or politically advantageous for them to do so - thus suggesting their quest for justice was never as important as some kind of pay off). But unscrupulous people will use the trend to pose as victims for reasons other than seeking true justice.

And then we've had people in high ranking positions who claim to support the trend while they themselves used their wealth & position to stifle and smear victims if the accused happened to be their husband so that the accusations wouldn't interfere with their political aspirations. And we currently have others who were well aware of the crimes being committed within certain industries, but did nothing about them except deliver more victims to the perpetrators because it was advantageous for them to do so, but who now come out in waves of hypocrisy, being the loudest voices claiming to champion the "me too" campaign.

This is why sticking to the rule of law and utilizing the justice system (while steering away from the "court of public opinion") is so important. It's not perfect, but it is a system that tries to weed through who has a genuine claim and who doesn't.

The campaign had nothing to do with your implication of shaking down anyone. I'm pretty sure you know exactly what it was about but here you go

Keep the two issues separate. That's not a grab for money, a name and shame or even a call for what Evan Rachel Wood suggesed for the GGs which I dont agree with. It was simply a 5 word social media update.

You can't tell me you haven't seen how the whole thing got intertwined with politics.

I agree the intention is noble, but my point is that the noble intentions can be abused. The campaign has helped expose some "old boy" networks (which is good), but at the same time it has given more unintentional power and credence to false claims. i.e. Bringing down some perpetrators who deserved to be brought down has shown how effective a weapon this campaign can be, so it's not a stretch to understand that unscrupulous people would also be apt to try to take advantage of such power. And we've seen recently so many cases where it's been used politically and in other ways.

While the campaign may have done a good job of exposing crime and corruption, it also lends itself to establishing an attitude & system of "j'accuse" (when accusations become a power unto themselves and begin to be used & abused as a means of social indictment, whether true or not, beyond the rule of law).

The #MeToo campaign is first and foremost about giving victims of abuse the opportunity to disclose that they were abused. The vast majority of people who have used that hash tag havent even named anyone. But the feeling of community and acceptance and legitimacy this movement creates is what is most important. This isnt about "naming names" and burning men at the stake. Its about freeing millions of women (and men) from the burden of shame theyve been carrying because of whats happened to them. The accusations are a completely separate thing. People have always been able to make false accusations. This isnt something that just became possible in the last few months.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

I'm not even talking about that but what the hashtag campaign on twitter was about. You implied otherwise.

Well said, Rex!

Conversely, is the campaign the only thing that allowed victims to speak out? Except for the perpetrators and their complicitors, what stopped victims before? We've have a justice system in place for a couple centuries now where anyone is free to make accusations, charge another with a crime or sue. Support groups and the Internet have been around for a while now, where people can unburden themselves anonymously or by name.

I already know the answers to these questions, and as legitimate as they are (no one's denying there's been a male-dominated culture of sexual abuse in various industries), they will support my argument that the campaign, as well intentioned and effective as it is for its purpose, is and can be a double edged sword.

Keep in mind, I'm not attacking the campaign - I'm only attacking the criminals and those who would use the campaign to facilitate false accusations.

My point is, the campaign has probably helped give rise to more false claims (when the unscrupulous saw the kind of power it could wield when used as a weapon) in addition to true claims. Can that be denied?

It's the nature of anything that has power (or has power assigned to it) - it can be used for good or for evil.

It's been discussed since the weinstein scandal broke. Why are you asking if you already know the answer?

Name them. More false claims? So you're still erring on the side of everyone's a liar until proven otherwise. That's what victims of this hollywood culture are fighting against.

And while you're busy pointing the finger with the Why didnt the victims speak out issue, why dont you ask yourself why Queen Oprah didnt speak up about her mate Weinstein.

That's quite a conclusion to jump to.

If you're asking if I embrace the general legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty" then yes. That, in no way means that everyone's a liar until proven otherwise, it only means that in order to prosecute and convict someone you have to prove them guilty. Under our legal system, the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt. It's a necessary burden that protects all of us from punishment or imprisonment if falsely accused.

I didnt ask that. I asked you to clarify the 'more false claims' statement. As far as I'm aware, nothing of the sort has been shown.

Meanwhile, back in the sleazy culture actors have all had to put up with, the lead of Rocky Horror Picture Show stage production here is currently in the dirt. Immediate howling of the same sort of thing - it's for the money. The howlers missed the glaring fact that the actors who made the claims had criminal charges filed, not demands for money. It seems to be a kneejerk reaction - oh the poor guy is just being attacked by gold diggers.

I'm sure you're the kind of woman that all day thinks about a dog, standing on its hind legs, one paw on his chest, proclaiming in an upper-class British accent: "He doesn't get that from MY side of the family."

What? My dogs dont speak with a British accent, thanks very much.