The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

[pErvinalia]

How come MisterMac hasn't posted his usual "We don't know all the facts. Most of these women are probably just out for the money. Amazing how they didn't report it at the time.."?

[mistermack]

I've done some groping in my time. But I would start with the most innocuous grope, and work my way up, if she liked it. And I'd have to be pretty sure she was interested before I even tried that.

From his admissions, I'd say that he's an asshole who's getting what he deserved very late.
Maybe knowing you have power over their career turns your head. In my case, it would make me less likely to grope. I would hate the thought of some woman just putting up with it, and not liking it.

Yeh, lynch the fucker.

Edit :

How come MisterMac hasn't posted his usual "We don't know all the facts. Most of these women are probably just out for the money. Amazing how they didn't report it at the time.."?

Because he's not denied it, he's admitting it.

[pErvinalia]

Since when has reason ever mattered to you?

[mistermack]

Since when has reason ever mattered to you?

Your version of reason rarely matters. That IS true.

[Rum]

We did we know MM was a groper. Cos we did.

[mistermack]

We did we know MM was a groper. Cos we did.

There's no fuck without grope.

I'm trying to picture how you managed without.

No, best not go there.

[Rum]

You know exactly what a 'grope' is in this context.

[mistermack]

You know exactly what a 'grope' is in this context.

Really?
I've been groped many times. Never did me any harm.
But groping by a female Weinstein would be a different matter.
It's all groping though.

[Strontium Dog]

Should get more interesting as more and more people talk, and then those people make more and more excuses for not talking earlier.

Weinstein. That's a Jewish name, isn't it? And wouldn't you think that makes him guilty?

At the last count, at least four of his accusers are Jewish too (Paltrow, Arquette, Garai, Godrèche) so you see Tyr's dilemma.

[Strontium Dog]

The outrage does seem somewhat out of proportion. He may be a slimeball, but headline news?

[sarcasm]One of the most powerful movie moguls on the planet harasses some of the most famous women on the planet... can't imagine why that's producing headlines [/sarcasm]

[Hermit]

Should get more interesting as more and more people talk, and then those people make more and more excuses for not talking earlier.

Weinstein. That's a Jewish name, isn't it? And wouldn't you think that makes him guilty?

At the last count, at least four of his accusers are Jewish too (Paltrow, Arquette, Garai, Godrèche) so you see Tyr's dilemma.

Add a sprinkling of misogyny, and his problem is solved. To wit: A pox on both their houses.

[pErvinalia]

Galaxian will have to decide this one. it will all come down to which Joo is part of the Illuminati.

[Clinton Huxley]

The Met and the NYPD joining in the baseless lynching now.

[Forty Two]

I suppose upwards of three dozen wealthy, successful women who don't need the money or the attention could be making it all up. But it has to go down as somewhat unlikely.

Well, it all depends on what the "it" is.

Everybody lies, even those that are telling the truth.

[Forty Two]

I suppose upwards of three dozen wealthy, successful women who don't need the money or the attention could be making it all up. But it has to go down as somewhat unlikely.

As far as the women pressing charges, either at the time or now, it seems he usually acted when no other witnesses were around, and that it typically involved some groping or masturbation, so no clear forensics...

It seems he's admitted to some improprieties. I think he's denying assaults and rapes.

The devil is always in the details, and there may well be a mix of consensual and non-consensual activity, and such.

Devogue is right that Weinstein deserves due process and such. However, nobody is obliged to "press charges." As much as it is rather irresponsible and mean to make up allegations, if someone is making something up, then Weinstein may sue for defamation and libel, etc. People don't lose their right to free speech, just because Weinstein's acts, or alleged acts, are criminal. He may be criticized, and people may say what they claim he did.

Some of the women performed sex acts, so the question in those cases becomes whether it was consensual at the time. Obviously, powerful men can have sex with women that report to them and it's not always rape (prime example is Billy Clinton and Monica Lewinsky).

Anyway, a lot of women reporting various incidents does lend some credibility to the stories, although it does not in and of itself constitute proof. There are examples of multiple people making allegations which turned out to be untrue. There are also possibilities that some of the allegations are true, and some are untrue. Often, the truth or recollection of the truth changes over time.

These issues are never as simple as "women have made allegations, therefore he's guilty and we need not examine anything further." If the question is whether X happened or didn't happen or whether X is the truth, then we must dig deeper. If all anyone is looking for is whether Harvey Weinstein is a sleaze, then that all depends on a person's criteria for that. Sometimes, that depends on factors other than what the person did, at least for some people - I know a lot of people who think Bill Clinton is a great guy, but he had a whole slew of women accuse him of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment and other lesser but still inappropriate conduct over many years.