The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

[Forty Two]

If you read the tabloids at the supermarket checkout line, it's pretty clear that in Hollywood, if everyone got what they deserved, there wouldn't be many left in Hollywood.

If people believe what they read in supermarket tabloids, they're credulous blockheads.

Indeed, it's part of the rumor mill. Some of those allegations in the tabloids, however, turn out to be quite true. But, we don't know which, and neither would Clooney or Damon. Much of it isn't their business either. We're not all deputies out investigating allegations. If I heard from a coworker that a female colleague of ours was apparently harassed by a manager, what are we to do with that information? Go to HR and says that we heard hearsay about a sexual harassment incident that we neither saw nor have any relevant information about? Quit? Go confront the boss and demand that he quit because we believe our colleague?

[Forty Two]

That isn't to say she's not "telling the truth." It's a recognition of the reality of proving a criminal case.

Great, so we're agreed that for all we know Prince was drugged and raped, but proving that in a criminal court is problematic.

Indeed, for all we know she was drugged and raped, and for all we know she had consensual sex after having consumed a drink.

[Svartalf]

This thread needs a split.

I think it needs a spliff...

nope, it's already on speed, that does not go with weed at all.

[JimC]

If you read the tabloids at the supermarket checkout line, it's pretty clear that in Hollywood, if everyone got what they deserved, there wouldn't be many left in Hollywood.

If people believe what they read in supermarket tabloids, they're credulous blockheads.

Indeed, it's part of the rumor mill. Some of those allegations in the tabloids, however, turn out to be quite true. But, we don't know which, and neither would Clooney or Damon. Much of it isn't their business either. We're not all deputies out investigating allegations. If I heard from a coworker that a female colleague of ours was apparently harassed by a manager, what are we to do with that information? Go to HR and says that we heard hearsay about a sexual harassment incident that we neither saw nor have any relevant information about? Quit? Go confront the boss and demand that he quit because we believe our colleague?

Doing nothing about it is also a decision, and one that has been all too common. Most organisations who are serious about stopping workplace abuse (not all of them are by any means, but more than in the past) would have mechanisms in place for people to pass on information, which can then be further checked before any action is taken. Ignoring such rumours and hoping they go away is one of the barriers to exposing and dealing with workplace abuse.

[L'Emmerdeur]

That isn't to say she's not "telling the truth." It's a recognition of the reality of proving a criminal case.

Great, so we're agreed that for all we know Prince was drugged and raped, but proving that in a criminal court is problematic.

Indeed, for all we know she was drugged and raped, and for all we know she had consensual sex after having consumed a drink.

I agree here as well. So what motive would she have to lie about it now, knowing as she certainly does that she will be impugned as a mendacious trollop? You say, "How the story benefits her or doesn't benefit her is not the issue," but if she is to be accused of lying it's reasonable to inquire regarding her motive. Without a motive the 'mendacious trollop' hypothesis has no support.

[devogue]

George HW Bush is now guilty as well.

[Hermit]

That isn't to say she's not "telling the truth." It's a recognition of the reality of proving a criminal case.

Great, so we're agreed that for all we know Prince was drugged and raped, but proving that in a criminal court is problematic.

Indeed, for all we know she was drugged and raped, and for all we know she had consensual sex after having consumed a drink.

I agree here as well. So what motive would she have to lie about it now, knowing as she certainly does that she will be impugned as a mendacious trollop? You say, "How the story benefits her or doesn't benefit her is not the issue," but if she is to be accused of lying it's reasonable to inquire regarding her motive. Without a motive the 'mendacious trollop' hypothesis has no support.

To be fair, 42 repeatedly mentioned that Prince may just be remembering the events differently, which is nowhere near accusing her of lying. That sort of thing happens, and it is well documented that memories sometimes have very little in common with whatever actually happened.

[Brian Peacock]

His big mistake was admitting that he'd paid some. He should have just denied it.

Yeah, that was his mistake, not the assaulting of women. God, your mind is fucking gross.

I don't feel the need to state the obvious. I leave that to those who like to make themselves feel righteous.
There are plenty about. And good luck to them.

Are you wishing serial abusers and sexual predators good luck there?

[Rum]

I'm going to copy and paste this entire thread at Atheism+



..well I would but I think it is dead now.

[mistermack]

So what motive would she have to lie about it now, knowing as she certainly does that she will be impugned as a mendacious trollop? You say, "How the story benefits her or doesn't benefit her is not the issue," but if she is to be accused of lying it's reasonable to inquire regarding her motive. Without a motive the 'mendacious trollop' hypothesis has no support.

That really is absurdly naive. I've been lied to many times in my life, from people who have no reasonable motive.
That's the greatest weapon of habitual liars. The reaction of naive people who ask, why on Earth would he lie about it?
If it was as simple as that, life would be a lot easier. But the fact is, people lie for no good reason. Some people do it constantly. I have one friend who never stops lying. I know what to expect now, and so do people who know him. But I was really taken in when I first met him. He doesn't lie to gain anything. He just lies and lies.
I told a friend what he'd told me, and he said, that's just Steve. He lies all the time. For absolutely no reason.
He's a nice guy, but he just keeps lying.
Other people are less extreme. Still more only lie occasionally, for what reason, it's often impossible to fathom.

[Forty Two]

That isn't to say she's not "telling the truth." It's a recognition of the reality of proving a criminal case.

Great, so we're agreed that for all we know Prince was drugged and raped, but proving that in a criminal court is problematic.

Indeed, for all we know she was drugged and raped, and for all we know she had consensual sex after having consumed a drink.

I agree here as well. So what motive would she have to lie about it now, knowing as she certainly does that she will be impugned as a mendacious trollop? You say, "How the story benefits her or doesn't benefit her is not the issue," but if she is to be accused of lying it's reasonable to inquire regarding her motive. Without a motive the 'mendacious trollop' hypothesis has no support.

There are many motives people have to lie. Revenge? Was she upset at David Blaine and has harbored bad feelings ever since they had sex and things did not work out? Jealousy? Passion? Gain? Notoriety? Sympathy? Hate?

I do not agree that women who accuse men of things are "impugned as mendacious trollops." Has anyone impugned her as a mendacious trollop? Absolutely not. The opposite, actually. Often, women are lauded as "brave" and "courageous."

I have already explained that she doesn't have to be "lying" in order to be wrong. She could be recounting the facts as she now remembers them.

This is not something that is peculiar to sex crimes. In every crime the memory and narration of the witnesses are at issue, not just the veracity. And, it is not some specially standard being applied to sex crimes that memory, narration and veracity are issues with witness testimony. When a person reports any crime, their recitation of events is examined. Heck, in a car accident, the cop takes down witness statements from both sides, and then looks to see what makes the most sense. If a person says that they were crossing the intersection in their car and the light was yellow as they went through, but then some length of time later they say, no, actually the light was green at the time, then people will question their story. The other driver may say that the light was definitely green in his direction as he was coming through. Is either of them lying? Maybe. Maybe they are both telling the truth as they remember it, but one is wrong.

In the movie Twelve Angry Men, one of the supposed witnesses to the murder is an old man who lived downstairs from where the stabbing took place. He claimed to have identified as an eyewitness the accused, who apparently stabbed his father in the chest with a switchblade knife. The question became why would the old man lie? And, one jury notes "He wouldn't really lie. But perhaps he'd make himself believe that he heard those words and recognized the boy's face." The motive was that this was an old, inconsequential old man, who was being asked to take part in an important event - the trial of someone for murder. The facts cast some doubt as to whether it would have been possible for the old man to have seen and heard what he says he saw and heard. But, he testified unequivocally to hearing important things and seeing the accused running from the scene just after the murder was committed -- just after he heard the thump of the body hitting the floor. He had no monetary motive to lie. But he did have the natural tendency of eyewitnesses to bollocks it up, and the normal behavior of people to shade and massage their memories.

[Forty Two]

That isn't to say she's not "telling the truth." It's a recognition of the reality of proving a criminal case.

Great, so we're agreed that for all we know Prince was drugged and raped, but proving that in a criminal court is problematic.

Indeed, for all we know she was drugged and raped, and for all we know she had consensual sex after having consumed a drink.

I agree here as well. So what motive would she have to lie about it now, knowing as she certainly does that she will be impugned as a mendacious trollop? You say, "How the story benefits her or doesn't benefit her is not the issue," but if she is to be accused of lying it's reasonable to inquire regarding her motive. Without a motive the 'mendacious trollop' hypothesis has no support.

Indeed. And, there is no reason to assume she isn't lying either. She's human, isn't she? Why would we expect her to be any better, purer, and veracious as any Tom, Dick or Harry?

You want to know how two chemicals interact, do you ask them? No, they're going to lie through their lying little teeth. Throw them in a beaker and apply heat. — Dr. Gregory House, House, M.D.

That's why we look to the evidence.

[Animavore]

There's a "debate" on IGN about Weinstein with commentators trying to cast aspersions on or blame the victims. Basically saying if they let this go for years they are also at fault.

I've been responding in basic variations of "You're a victim blamer". Not really much else. And the amount of stuff I'm learning from their massive "counter-arguments" to my one line retorts is eye-opening.

[Rum]

There's a "debate" on IGN about Weinstein with commentators trying to cast aspersions on or blame the victims. Basically saying if they let this go for years they are also at fault.

I've been responding in basic variations of "You're a victim blamer". Not really much else. And the amount of stuff I'm learning from their massive "counter-arguments" to my one line retorts is eye-opening.

You obviously have not been following this thread. The amount of victim blaming here from some quarters is pretty fucked up too.

[devogue]

There's a "debate" on IGN about Weinstein with commentators trying to cast aspersions on or blame the victims. Basically saying if they let this go for years they are also at fault.

I've been responding in basic variations of "You're a victim blamer". Not really much else. And the amount of stuff I'm learning from their massive "counter-arguments" to my one line retorts is eye-opening.

You obviously have not been following this thread. The amount of victim blaming here from some quarters is pretty fucked up too.

I'm uneasy that all of the accusors have bern arbitrarily designated as victims.

This brings us back to the OP - it's not good enough to weep at a press conference and relate a story, it's not good enough to give your emotional account to journalists and expect a free pass. These situations can create items of value - exposure, fame, money, copy for journalists. The alleged victim can stand up and walk away - does anyone really expect a journalist to forgo victim bias and really, properly interrogate and question the alleged victim? Of course not - the guilt has been presumed, not proven, and it would be extremely bad form to question the alleged victim, especially as she has been decreed to be brave.

The real deal will be the prosecution of Weinstein in a court of law - dispassionate, objective and with decisions made on the weight of evidence, not emotion.

It's just not good enough to say there's dozens of stories so he must be guilty - individually they are anecdotal evidence, and that's not enough. Let's see real, hard proof in a court of law bring the bastard down.