Sexual harassment implosion

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Dr Zaius, Nov 2, 2017.

  1. Dr Zaius

    Dr Zaius Chief Defender of the Faith Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Everywhere you look people are breathless and outraged over the epidemic of sexual harassment claims coming out of the woodwork. Weinstein, Halperin, Michael Oreskes, Bill O'Reilly, Dustin Hoffman, Ben Affleck, Kevin Spacey, Bret Ratner. The list continues to grow daily.

    Hollywood has been especially hard hit with more accusers coming out against Spacey, who is now going into rehab with 'House of Cards' cancelled. Dustin Hoffman is at risk of being sued by multiple women. James Toback is in all kinds of trouble. John Besh has been forced to step down from his own company.

    I would say this isn't really political, but then again we all know everything is political these days. Even if something isn't political, it is...

    The question is, how much of this stuff is for real harassment that crossed a legal line, and how much of it is just information warfare and opportunism? There's nothing the media loves more than tearing down an important person (just as long as no sacred cows get caught in the crossfire).

    Particularly disturbing are the charges of pedophilia and widespread abuses of minors and younger people who are vulnerable and preyed upon by the rich and connected.

    One thing is for certain: it will be a long, long time before Hollywood gets to lecture America on, well, much of anything.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2017
  2. witchbottles

    witchbottles Well-Known Member

    Feb 26, 2010
    Rio Vista, CA
    Doubtful. Hollywood has been lecturing Americans on the evils of harassment since Mamie Van Doren and Jayne Mansfield days
     
  3. Blackcloud6

    Blackcloud6 Well-Known Member

    Apr 20, 2004
    Shangrila
    "One thing is for certain: it will be a long, long time before Hollywood gets to lecture America on, well, much of anything."

    Hah, They will never stop. They will continue to lecture with an upper body shot while their dicks are inside of a teenager at that very moment, and keep on doing so until exposed. Then they drop that person like a hot smelling turd while feigning shock and dismay. Meanwhile they hock another story to tell you how to live while doing just opposite until that one gets exposed. It's all part of the cycle of making cash in the loony bin.
     
  4. Dave68124

    Dave68124 Active Member

    May 9, 2005
    United States
    Being a father of 3 daughters, I applaud the light that is getting shown on the cockroaches in society. As with everything, it will eventually get overblown where telling a dirty joke or just making a polite statement to someone of the opposite sex will be equal to unwanted physical touching. All of sudden the noise will drown out the real acts of sexual harassment that deserve to be punished.

    I suspect this will follow the same route as the discussion of racism where it is almost impossible to find the real racists from people who disagree with a policy or idea.
     
    JimWhite likes this.
  5. Sand Bar Bill

    Sand Bar Bill Summertime

    Jul 30, 2006
    The greenhouse
    So sort of like Christians a la the Catholic Church, pastors etc.

    This type of abuse happens in all walks of life. Let's be honest. Including those who do the most moralizing.
     
  6. Dave68124

    Dave68124 Active Member

    May 9, 2005
    United States
    Yeah, but watching all of the lectureous liberal's from Hollywood twist in the wind is almost delicious. I guess the DNC will have to get its dirty money from other places now.
     
  7. Paul M. Weir

    Paul M. Weir Well-Known Member

    Apr 3, 2004
    Dublin
    First ask what categories are legitimately political. Politics per se includes anything that affects a society as a whole and the rule/control of same. I'm not talking about party politics. If something is seen as a general problem it has already entered the political sphere. Cutting down a tree or two may be just a dispute between neighbours, selling off for cutting down to a logging company of a major forest is political because it affects many in that society (flooding, soil erosion, etc). If your neighbour decides to whack you over the tree then it enters the political arena as the political consensus has long been that whacking people is a no-no.

    Laws are merely the codification of long standing consensus political decisions. Even the usual separation of the legal system and the day to day political system was a past political decision, to avoid excessive accumulation of power by whatever the current ruling entity or faction. As we well know that is not always the case even now.

    The pursuit of those who harm others or use their positions of power to manipulate others is a legitimate political decision. Personally, I would support chasing down any sexual predator whether it's the local school janitor, Weinstein or the Pussy Grabber in Chief. There are many nasty activities that have been ignored in societies, sometimes because there were far worse things to worry about but too often because the then current ruling classes knew that they or their 'class mates' were up to their necks in it.

    I view the bringing to attention of any similar pervasive problems as being good for society, whether it's trigger happy and brutal police or sexual preditation. Those things are legitimately in the political sphere. In an ideal world all political factions should act together to quash such activities. Where it becomes party political is when one faction attempts to ignore such problems or actively opposes groups that try to fix the problem. Such a response means that the do-nothing faction itself becomes part of the problem. Of course the other factions will jump on it for political gain, they would be crazy not to. The only way the do-nothing party will eliminate that advantage is to disarm that weapon by being part of those who would stamp out such reprehensible activities. In US terms the Ds, very belatedly, gradually dumped their slave owning heritage and squeezed out the worst of the racists. Better late than never, though that's not saying much. If the Rs, for electoral gain, degraded themselves with their "Southern Strategy". If the Rs don't like being labelled racist, misogynist, etc then they will have to be in the front ranks against racism, misogyny, etc. In the end political parties will be judged by what they do or don't do, not what verbiage they spout.

    As for the media? Scandal sells. As long as they are uncovering wrong doing then they are welcome to their extra revenue. They may have a political axe to grind or not, but if it exposes wrong, then bring it on. The only problem is the risk of wrongful accusations or grossly exaggerating what was a very minor or at best a marginal infraction. Reporting must be both true and proportionate.
     
  8. Dr Zaius

    Dr Zaius Chief Defender of the Faith Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Agreed. Except for the part that there's no evidence whatsoever that Trump ever harassed anyone.

    I have two daughters and consider myself to be a good role model and a good father. That said, if someone had secretly recorded all the private locker room conversations I've ever had about women with other men, lord, it wouldn't be pretty. In my day I've certainly said much worse things than anything Trump said on that tape. And dumping those private conversations on the Internet, with no context, as if they're indicative of who I am and how I conduct myself, would itself be a crime.

    As Dave pointed out above, weeding out sexual predators is good and proper. But eventually, the left will ensure the conversation goes off the rail until the signal to noise ratio makes it impossible to distinguish actual criminal behavior from imagined injustices. Not to put too fine a point on it, but as your post so amply demonstrates.
     
    bendizoid likes this.
  9. Blackcloud6

    Blackcloud6 Well-Known Member

    Apr 20, 2004
    Shangrila
    So you picked on Christians why?
     
  10. Paul M. Weir

    Paul M. Weir Well-Known Member

    Apr 3, 2004
    Dublin
    Eh, T confessed on the Billy Bush tape? I don't know whether he was as bad as Weinstein, I suspect not, but still he said it was a regular pattern with him. Whether it was "locker room talk" or not he still confessed. Nothing in his behaviour, before or after, would lead anyone to dismiss his words as uncharacteristic or an empty boast. If I remember correctly, his confession to intruding into women's dressing rooms was confirmed by others.
    I can't speak for Bill, but I suspect it was the large number who were accused and convicted that prompted his comment. We had the same problem in Ireland.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2017
    Grumblejones likes this.
  11. Blackcloud6

    Blackcloud6 Well-Known Member

    Apr 20, 2004
    Shangrila
    "I can't speak for Bill, but I suspect it was the large number who were accused and convicted that prompted his comment. We had the same problem in Ireland."

    Well, from what I've gathered, the numbers of such episodes in the church are pretty much consistent with those in other work-force domains. But there are usually three reasons to make the Church THE target: 1. It is a Church and the clergy should know better (but some forget they are broken humans like everyone else.) 2. The appearance of cover up. Some such accusations are valid, some are misunderstanding how it was handled. 3. Hatred towards the religious and religious institutions. Thus an easy target.
     
  12. Sand Bar Bill

    Sand Bar Bill Summertime

    Jul 30, 2006
    The greenhouse
    Seems to me your original post was full of hate. Come on, you should be loving the sinners, e.g. Harvey Weinstein, even more. This to me is a message of hate:

    They will continue to lecture with an upper body shot while their dicks are inside of a teenager at that very moment, and keep on doing so until exposed. Then they drop that person like a hot smelling turd while feigning shock and dismay. Meanwhile they hock another story to tell you how to live while doing just opposite until that one gets exposed. It's all part of the cycle of making cash in the loony bin.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2017
  13. Marty Ward

    Marty Ward Active Member

    Feb 17, 2006
    Maryland
    He didn't 'confess' to anything on the tape. As far as I know there is not a line of women coming forward saying he grabbed them by their pussy.

    He just said that being rich and powerful that you could do it. And current events are proving him right, that if you are rich enough or powerful enough you can sexually abuse women.
     
  14. Paul M. Weir

    Paul M. Weir Well-Known Member

    Apr 3, 2004
    Dublin
    Your points:
    0) I don't know how bad it was in the US, but in Ireland the C church and its offshoots was by far, far the worst offender.

    1) Hypocrisy? That's so common that though annoying, often even nauseating, was not the real problem. Sure I'll call it out if too egregious, but I won't loose sleep over it.

    2) Appearance? Ptahh! There was massive, deliberate and systemic concealment of the crimes, right through the all the rank levels of the clergy and by the Vatican bureaucracy. The church as an institution and many of its officers were accessories both before and after the fact. Of that there can be absolutely no doubt. NONE!

    3) The C church was one of the most powerful institutions in Ireland and was, during my childhood, one of the most respected, trusted and beloved institutions. While my attitude to the church is one of mild disdain, roughly along the lines of "How can grown men believe such fairy stories in this day and age", allied with some resentment at their attempts to control the sexual lives of non believers, I didn't hate it. Assuming you are a US citizen, your constitution had provisions to try to prevent similar unelected institutions gaining political power. What hatred and contempt that may be part of the pursuit of the offenders did not come from nowhere, the C church earned it. It was precisely the betrayal of such deep trust, not simply by individuals, but by the whole institution, that led to such a backlash. It was not the power but the abuse of the power allied with arrogance that angered so, so many here. Easy target, they made themselves an unmissable target.

    The power of the church was in decline since the '60s, too much unbelievable dogma and outdated attitudes contributed to that. But when the crap came out it dropped like a lead brick. Maybe with less profane power and cleaning out of its Augean stables it can become a force for good, but it will be some time.
     
  15. bendizoid

    bendizoid Official ***** Dickweed

    Sep 11, 2006
    Viet Nam
    Maybe you can go back to church now that they have a commy pope.
     
  16. Paul M. Weir

    Paul M. Weir Well-Known Member

    Apr 3, 2004
    Dublin
    I don't believe, so no point. A commie pope, mmmmhhh? Just like commie "The meek shall inherit the earth." Jesus?
     
  17. bendizoid

    bendizoid Official ***** Dickweed

    Sep 11, 2006
    Viet Nam
    No, meek is a state of mind not communist.
     
  18. Paul M. Weir

    Paul M. Weir Well-Known Member

    Apr 3, 2004
    Dublin
    In current usage it is purely a state of mind, in that you are correct, its older usage also included "lack of power", often the act of restraining your power for others.

    Maybe I am hallucinating but wasn't he supposed to have said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."?
    Wasn't it he who chased the money changers (bankers) out of the temple?
    His views on the Pharisees was not too positive either and they seemed to be the equivalent of today's lawyers.

    We can quote ancient tales all day long, but he seems to have had fairly progressive views, even by today's standards.
     
  19. bendizoid

    bendizoid Official ***** Dickweed

    Sep 11, 2006
    Viet Nam
    The eye of the needle thing simply says ya can't take it with you. He kicked the money changers out because they don't belong in a temple, not 'they don't belong anywhere' or 'they are inherently evil.'
    He also said there will always be poor.
    Nowhere did Jesus ever say give me the money and I'll give it out as I see fit.
     
  20. Paul M. Weir

    Paul M. Weir Well-Known Member

    Apr 3, 2004
    Dublin
    WOW! That's the strangest interpretation of the needle passage, I have ever hear of. All interpretations, that I heard from clerics, of that phrase is that wealth is an impediment to the development of a worthy soul. When asked how to get around the problem, he said give it away and follow him.

    As for the money changers, it was in part as you said, but consider that the early and medieval church banned usury (IE charging interest on loans), there is good reason to believe he did not like bankers or banking.

    I may be an anarcho-socialist libertarian, but I did study religion. Much of the philosophy and moral attitude did stick, the ghost stories and (post Jesus) misogyny didn't. While he might be behind current progressive thinking, he seemed to be far ahead of his time with regard to women, his followers much less so.

    Now that the subject of Jesus's views on social issues has come up let us ponder some facts. The earliest written accounts seem to have been put down between 70 and 110 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#New_Testament), long after his death. Allied to the fact that many elements of the christian faith were thrashed out under the orders of the Roman Emperor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) who viewed the church as a unifying force for the empire, which it couldn't be if it was itself divided. Various documents, trends and theological varieties were thus suppressed by the Roman state. So we really have no idea of what was the full picture of Jesus' ideas, anything that would run contrary to the Roman state's interests would have been crushed. The miracle is that anything even vaguely progressive has survived in scripture. So Jesus could well have been far more progressive than the New Testament hints at, we will never know. The fact that he died by crucifixion, a Roman punishment, rather than stoning, a Jewish punishment, is a very strong hint that the Romans viewed him as a political agitator rather than a schismatic Jew.

    The more I think about Jesus, the more I view modern christianity as having as much to do with Jesus as "The Life Of Brian".
     

Share This Page