Harvey Weinstein: fall of Hollywood player they once called ‘God’

[SolarpunkFan]

This is extra sad because Takei has been one of the people leading the charge for victims to speak up. It's unfortunate that he appears to be one of the people who had been misbehaving.

I'm sad because I thought he was a funny person, and also for being a fellow gay (there's probably a named cognitive bias for that second one).

Darkest timeline indeed.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah I know what you mean. As a kid I admired Hulk Hogan (racist), the Ultimate Warrior (homophobe), Chuck Norris (Christian fundamentalist fool), Kevin Sorbo (racist and Jews control Hollywood apparently) and Nelson Mandela. Ok, Mandela still intact. John Barrowmen still seems alright.

Part of the issue is that if you pick the shittiest thing a person has literally ever done, and choose that as a representative sample of their character, you can make any person look very bad. Much worse than they'd look if you took the weighted average of everything they've ever done.

Weinstein's thing seems to be that he's been doing this constantly; he's basically set himself up as Baron of Hollywood and exercised jus primae noctis over every starlet he could get his hands on for decades. There is not a single instance, there are many. There is no sign that he has come around on this issue, he kept doing it for years and years, long after the culture as a whole had agreed that what he was doing was wrong.

...
...

Also... thinking about George Takei, going from "grope oh my" in 1981 to "people who victimize other people are douchebags" today... This may reflect some kind of change of heart on his part between, say, 1981 and 2011?

I think part of the problem is that we've had a massive sea change in "this is what it is acceptable for men in some kind of prominent or authoritative position to do" between the 1980s and the present.

I get the feeling that the norm that it is just plain never ever okay to grope people you're attracted to, even as an 'alpha male' of high social status? That seems to be a product of the last 20-40 years. The idea that as a high-status male, you can invite lower-status people to a private location and they still have a reasonable expectation that you will NOT make sexual advances, if you feel like doing so? Again, product of the last 20-40 years.

So it may well be that if we look back on the behavior of males who were high-status in 1975 or 1980, nearly all of them were sexually harassing people, because that was normative behavior by the standards they grew up under in the '50s, '60s, and '70s. If you find a prominent male in 1975 who didn't commit sexual harassment, it may well not be because they were more virtuous than their fellow high-status males. It may well just be because they had less sex drive. Or had religious hangups about sex, or a very vigilant wife who would jump up and down on them for any hint of infidelity.

And at some point, it just becomes pointless to even try to single out specific men from this era who are free of sin versus those who are to be cast into the outer darkness forever. There are very likely men now who were children or not born then, who are not guilty of sexual harassment... but among those who were famous or successful in the '70s and '80s, they seem to fall into three categories: "guilty," "guilty but not found out" and "innocent because they were never tempted, for reasons they can't take credit for."

Personally I prefer to reserve outrage for:

1) People who specifically abused a position of power.
2) People who made a pattern of unwanted sexual advances over a period of years against multiple targets
3) People who haven't learned the goddamn lesson even though we've spent the '80s, '90s, '00s, and '10s systematically hammering the lesson into everyone willing to sit still for it.

...
...

It's like, you can look back at the prominent ancient Romans who owned slaves (i.e. all of them) and say "OH MY GOD THEY WERE ALL AS BAD AS HITLER FOR BEING PRO-SLAVERY." But all this accomplishes is to give us a case of outrage fatigue. Even the most enlightened Romans were, on the whole, pro-slavery. Because by and large, it never occurred to them that slavery was a bad thing. Calling them evil in some absolute sense for this is useless because it deprives us of one of the most important reasons to even talk about good and evil: namely, the ability to clearly differentiate between the two in any given situation.

"Right" is a meaningless concept if everyone and everything is uniformly and without exception "wrong..." but by implication, so is "wrong." So saying "everyone is terrible" is meaningless. You end up needing a Moral Quotient that's sort of like IQ, in that it is normalized to the standards of the specific culture in question. You can't just relegate everyone to the outer darkness for being less than optimally good according to our best efforts to optimize for goodness.

I mean...

In 1965, a man being enlightened on gender issues might mean, say, that he thought women should have a chance to prove themselves in the workplace. By 1965 standards, that was a cutting-edge view. But that exact same man might still mistake the one female executive in his building for a secretary and order her to make coffee on a single occasion, because everything was terrible. No one existed outside the terrible-ness. There was no "unmoved mover" who could derive from principles the 'one true stance on gender issues' and adhere to that in all things.

Singling out the man I'm talking about as terrible over him treating a female executive like a secretary that one time is just counterproductive, because it robs you of the ability to tell the difference between the people who helped society make progress, and those who delayed that progress.

Revising:

Everything boils down to Bayesian priors, it is usually a safer bet to believe the accuser (92-98% of rape and sexual assault accusations are true, if not in the exact details, then in the fact that it happened. Hell, sometimes they even get the perp wrong for various psychological reasons). In some cases, that doesn't hold true.

Celebrities tend to draw in...interesting people (the guy who shot Reagan thought Jodi Foster told him to do it). That is a factor. The Werther Effect is another factor (when an event happens that is under human control like a publicized suicide or mass shooting, it will tend to repeat as people are inspired to do the same thing. True accusations can be followed by false ones, or more true ones). Plus, this just...doesn't seem like something George would do.

Does that cancel out the 92-98% odds that a general-case accusation is true? I don't know. Those other effects are not quantified as well.
Ways to resolve it would be things like additional independent accusations that move the probability slider toward Yes, or disinterested witnesses who remember an interaction between the two men that would demonstrate that Takei is being dishonest or has an unreliable memory.

Well, personally I think the prior on believing the accuser is a bit lower than some, but higher than others (say, your 92% figure? Maybe 90%? Factor in the Werther Effect and the delusional people around celebrities and I tend to dial it down to, say, 60-70% for a single isolated accusation. Sometimes lower or higher, depending on the celebrity or other factors.

Time elapsed is one of them. It's a lot easier to misremember something that happened literally half a lifetime ago, even if it's a big event seared into your memory as something you'll "never forget."

Power levels is another. I ask myself, how much trouble would this person actually get in for going public? The first woman to recently accuse Weinstein must have had ovaries of steel, because Weinstein is tremendously powerful. Nobody would take the risk of crossing him without a reason, at least not until there was a LOT of safety in numbers. As in, after 50 women had truly accused Weinstein, a false accuser might take the risk of being #51... but she sure as hell wouldn't have taken the chance of being #2. George Takei doesn't have that kind of muscle and never has, so far as I know...

...

Does this translate into my not reacting to true accusations sometimes? Yes, but it also means I won't automatically buy into every character assassination attempt that comes down the pike. As I said last time, none of this EVER, ever means that people who have been (or say they were) sexually harassed should EVER be treated with anything other than decency, dignity, and support... But at the same time, the accused is still a human being and they still have some reasonable claim to be treated as such, at least until clear evidence that they are a mass of foul lascivious slime in a skinsuit comes to light.

I'd be lying if I said that the fact that I've admired George Takei for a long time is not coloring my judgement. It is. If this accusation is true, I will have lost a hero and a big part of me doesn't want to confront that. If it is true, I'll accept it and likely become more bitter and cynical about the world, if that were even possible.

But right now, I am leaning toward what I like to call Provisional Non-Disbelief. Have fun parsing that. I'm certainly not.

If it IS the sort of thing the George Takei of 1981 would have done, it's pretty clearly not the sort of thing the George Takei of 2011 or 2016 would do, and not just because he's slowed down in his old age. Compare and contrast to, say, Donald Trump; I suspect if he gropes less today, it's because he has lower testosterone than in 1981, and for no other reason.

At some point, we have to allow for the idea that people are not permanently sullied and discredited forever by an action. That a bad person can become adequate, that an adequate person can become good. Otherwise, we're all left hating each other for that one nasty thing we did to somebody in high school and it never stops.

At least the late Carl Sagan was not a sexual predator...

He wasn't, right?

We'll never know. He died long enough ago that any women (or for that matter men) he groped in, say, 1960 may themselves be dead of old age.

I think we may have to figure out a way to come to terms with this kind of shit cropping up.

[LadyTevar]

ComicalStorm, please provide more details on this. Simply posting a link is not kosher, as you well know, especially to a site that is a known Alt-Right fanbase.

Steven Spielberg was accused of molesting boys (including Michael Jackson?) in the past. That accusation is now brought back into the light.

https://squawker.org/culture-wars/a-200 ... oung-boys/

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, an Alt. Reich site accusing a prominent Left-leaning celebrity of being a gay child molester? I'm going to take that with all the salt in the world.

False accusers may be rare, but fabricated Alt. Reich defamation and conspiracy theorism is... pretty much the basis of the entire ideology. Hillary Clinton runs a pedophile pizza joint, anyone?

Meanwhile, of course, Milo, Donald, and Roy Moor are A-Okay.

[Simon_Jester]

Obvious cases of a poo-flinging monkey swinging around flinging poo aside...

...

What do people think about my "you have to forgive people sometimes" thought?

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that a person who has ever committed clear-cut sexual harassment ever gets a pass for it... But at the same time, the alternative is to stick ourselves in the situation of hating all the ancient Romans because they all owned slaves. Or hating all the 19th century industrialists for not being way ahead of the curve on the dangers of industrial pollution. Or hating all the '60s male executives including the ones who most strongly promoted women in the workforce because on some level they were all part of the culture of sexism and none of them entirely stood outside it.

You can live that way, but it creates massive moral myopia if one actually believes that. It's hard to analyze or learn from the past if one decides it's a huge undifferentiated mass of evil and primitive darkness, on account of how far it diverges from one's own ideas about how the world ought to work.

[AniThyng]

Meanwhile, of course, Milo, Donald, and Roy Moor are A-Okay.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to say that is the right wing position since the apparent left position is it's never okay except when the accused is a liberal, in which case it must be a conspiracy. Sounds more like the right is gleefully harping on what's good for the goose.

[The Romulan Republic]

I was not aware that "Its okay when our sides does it" was the Left's general view on sexual predation. Not these days, anyway. I certainly hope you're not suggesting that that's my attitude, because I think I've made my views on Bill Clinton, for example, quite clear.

As to Simon_Jester's point, I think that you can condemn the act without considering the person utterly irredeemable. Especially if they appear to have made a sincere effort to change and atone for their mistakes. And that we need to recognize that their are degrees of offense- a Louis C.K. or a George Bush Sr., while sleazy, is not on the same level as a Spacey or a Weinstein or a Polanski or a Trump or a Cosby.

We also don't want to go back to normalizing, ignoring, and dismissing this shit though, obviously. So I understand those who feel that its better to err on the side of condemnation, so to speak.

[AniThyng]

I was not aware that "Its okay when our sides does it" was the Left's general view on sexual predation. Not these days, anyway. I certainly hope you're not suggesting that that's my attitude, because I think I've made my views on Bill Clinton, for example, quite clear.

As to Simon_Jester's point, I think that you can condemn the act without considering the person utterly irredeemable. Especially if they appear to have made a sincere effort to change and atone for their mistakes. And that we need to recognize that their are degrees of offense- a Louis C.K. or a George Bush Sr., while sleazy, is not on the same level as a Spacey or a Weinstein or a Polanski or a Trump or a Cosby.

We also don't want to go back to normalizing, ignoring, and dismissing this shit though, obviously. So I understand those who feel that its better to err on the side of condemnation, so to speak.

It's not so much "it's okay when our side does it", it's "the same excuses/deflections are ok for us to use". Takei has every opportunity not to use disingenuous weasel words or attack the credibility of the accusor to respond to the accusation and I think he failed there. He tried the Russian bot angle too but deleted the tweet a couple hours later.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, presuming he is actually guilty (how many accusers against Takei?), then fuck him for that.

Especially since the Russian bot thing is real, but when people use it to ass cover for shit like this, the charge will lose its credibility.

[AniThyng]

https://m.mic.com/articles/186033/georg ... gainst-him

Source on that, for completeness.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I was not aware that "Its okay when our sides does it" was the Left's general view on sexual predation. Not these days, anyway. I certainly hope you're not suggesting that that's my attitude, because I think I've made my views on Bill Clinton, for example, quite clear.

As to Simon_Jester's point, I think that you can condemn the act without considering the person utterly irredeemable. Especially if they appear to have made a sincere effort to change and atone for their mistakes. And that we need to recognize that their are degrees of offense- a Louis C.K. or a George Bush Sr., while sleazy, is not on the same level as a Spacey or a Weinstein or a Polanski or a Trump or a Cosby.

We also don't want to go back to normalizing, ignoring, and dismissing this shit though, obviously. So I understand those who feel that its better to err on the side of condemnation, so to speak.

It's not so much "it's okay when our side does it", it's "the same excuses/deflections are ok for us to use". Takei has every opportunity not to use disingenuous weasel words or attack the credibility of the accusor to respond to the accusation and I think he failed there. He tried the Russian bot angle too but deleted the tweet a couple hours later.

Well, to be fair, the exact same response is to be expected from a guilty and innocent person. Namely:

"I didn't do it." which necessarily implies that the person making the accusation is lying or somehow mistaken. To determine whether or not the person is lying requires us to assess their credibility. The way in which credibility is assessed matters. Spotting a reason someone might have to lie (say, a political grudge) is different from bandying about their sexual history, for instance.

There is no defense for these sorts of charges without doing that unless you can prove you were somewhere else at the date and time specified. Ans when you do that...you're calling the accuser a liar.

I would also expect anyone who is...under that amount of stress... to react perhaps a bit erratically.

[Dragon Angel]

Seems like a bit of a stretch to say that is the right wing position since the apparent left position is it's never okay except when the accused is a liberal, in which case it must be a conspiracy. Sounds more like the right is gleefully harping on what's good for the goose.

I was not aware that "Its okay when our sides does it" was the Left's general view on sexual predation.

Yeah, this seems like a flying unicorn problem. Weinstein himself tried to use the "I'm Liberal!" excuse, and the progressive left exploded on him for that. It's not an excuse that's widely accepted as far as I know.

[Simon_Jester]

I was not aware that "Its okay when our sides does it" was the Left's general view on sexual predation. Not these days, anyway. I certainly hope you're not suggesting that that's my attitude, because I think I've made my views on Bill Clinton, for example, quite clear.

Easy there, pardner...

It's not so much "it's okay when our side does it", it's "the same excuses/deflections are ok for us to use". Takei has every opportunity not to use disingenuous weasel words or attack the credibility of the accusor to respond to the accusation and I think he failed there. He tried the Russian bot angle too but deleted the tweet a couple hours later.

I think one thing we're going to learn from watching this, or should learn, is that the dynamics of a scandal can look pretty much the same even when very different people are targeted. The reasons different people fall into similar patterns may be complicated, but they're still there.

As Alyrium notes, anyone will start behaving erratically under this kind of pressure, regardless of whether they are a good person, an evil person, or somewhere in between. The only people who will avoid making a fool of themselves one way or another are those with the very steeliest of nerves and the best of public relations advisors.

[Patroklos]

Seems like a bit of a stretch to say that is the right wing position since the apparent left position is it's never okay except when the accused is a liberal, in which case it must be a conspiracy. Sounds more like the right is gleefully harping on what's good for the goose.

I was not aware that "Its okay when our sides does it" was the Left's general view on sexual predation.

Yeah, this seems like a flying unicorn problem. Weinstein himself tried to use the "I'm Liberal!" excuse, and the progressive left exploded on him for that. It's not an excuse that's widely accepted as far as I know.

That's sounds good, except his crimes were an open secret. And the people keeping that secret stretch into the rarified heights of liberal celebrities and public figures.

The craziest think about Weinstein isn't Weintsein himself. History is full of powerful people doing awful things with their power. Its the expanding constellation of people around him that either outright knew what he was doing or at least had a very good idea and not just didn't say anything but merrily included him wholeheartedly in their circle without circumscribing his influence in the slightest. Including people equally, if not more,powerful than him. Most of these people are not his actual victims.

I would love to see the Secret Service's file on the Weinstien Group given one of their recent interns. Do you honestly think that wasn't captured even if just as rumor?

[AniThyng]

I think one thing we're going to learn from watching this, or should learn, is that the dynamics of a scandal can look pretty much the same even when very different people are targeted. The reasons different people fall into similar patterns may be complicated, but they're still there.

As Alyrium notes, anyone will start behaving erratically under this kind of pressure, regardless of whether they are a good person, an evil person, or somewhere in between. The only people who will avoid making a fool of themselves one way or another are those with the very steeliest of nerves and the best of public relations advisors.

True, the point is taken. And absent any other evidence, only they can know what really happened. Maybe he genuinely does not remember - perhaps it was apt to call it a he said / he said situation... Which again calls back to how AFAIK the type of liberal persona takei had would have said is an irredeemable excuse were he not the one using it.

[Dragon Angel]

That's sounds good, except his crimes were an open secret. And the people keeping that secret stretch into the rarified heights of liberal celebrities and public figures.

The craziest think about Weinstein isn't Weintsein himself. History is full of powerful people doing awful things with their power. Its the expanding constellation of people around him that either outright knew what he was doing or at least had a very good idea and not just didn't say anything but merrily included him wholeheartedly in their circle without circumscribing his influence in the slightest. Including people equally, if not more,powerful than him. Most of these people are not his actual victims.

I would love to see the Secret Service's file on the Weinstien Group given one of their recent interns. Do you honestly think that wasn't captured even if just as rumor?

Oh, so since Weinstein and the higher elite of Hollywood who kept his crimes mum were liberals, then that means ALL OF THE LEFT IS GUILTY OF DOING IT.

Let's be fair then, since corporate culture of Fox News excuses the rampant sexual assaults and rapes from Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly, then that means everyone on the Right in the United States excuses sexual assault and rape.

I'll give you a news flash that will blow your mind buddy: Weinstein and Hollywood's liberals are just one section of leftism. And just because some celebrity does something (by the way, celebrities are also mocked when they do something stupid since you don't pay attention to these things) does not mean they suddenly represent the whole of the Left. This was just idiotic.

[Dragon Angel]

Since the edit window is gone: I also like it how the Left now simultaneously has the problems of "you cannibalize yourselves by attacking your leaders over the slightest accusations!!!" and "you excuse the crimes of your leaders and keep them quiet!!!"

Please choose which one you'd like to attack the Left with and be done. This is not just directed at Patroklos, but anyone who wishes to use his "reasoning".

[Patroklos]

That's sounds good, except his crimes were an open secret. And the people keeping that secret stretch into the rarified heights of liberal celebrities and public figures.

The craziest think about Weinstein isn't Weintsein himself. History is full of powerful people doing awful things with their power. Its the expanding constellation of people around him that either outright knew what he was doing or at least had a very good idea and not just didn't say anything but merrily included him wholeheartedly in their circle without circumscribing his influence in the slightest. Including people equally, if not more,powerful than him. Most of these people are not his actual victims.

I would love to see the Secret Service's file on the Weinstien Group given one of their recent interns. Do you honestly think that wasn't captured even if just as rumor?

Oh, so since Weinstein and the higher elite of Hollywood who kept his crimes mum were liberals, then that means ALL OF THE LEFT IS GUILTY OF DOING IT.

Let's be fair then, since corporate culture of Fox News excuses the rampant sexual assaults and rapes from Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly, then that means everyone on the Right in the United States excuses sexual assault and rape.

I'll give you a news flash that will blow your mind buddy: Weinstein and Hollywood's liberals are just one section of leftism. And just because some celebrity does something (by the way, celebrities are also mocked when they do something stupid since you don't pay attention to these things) does not mean they suddenly represent the whole of the Left. This was just idiotic.

Your overreaction and not addressing anything I actually said just validates my position. The right has its own versions of moral preening and circling its wagons, but celebrity worship of the glitsy Hollywood type is very much a Left vice in modern times. Specifically we are talking about a group whose elite for a long time has been lecturing the nation from every high horse available about this particular topic, including this abuser who was one of the most powerful of their number, and all along they were knowingly coddling a particularly heinous repeat offender. This was not a dusty skeleton in a closet, this was an ongoing thing. Tolerated at ever level and by every flavor of the Lefts formal and informal banner bearers.

This particular manifestation It is not unheard of on the Right, and it certainly has a lot to do with celebrities themselves gravitating Left, but you can't deny Hollywood is lefty land. And I will also note its the new hobby of the Left to elevate all of their favorites to celebrity status. From jurists to CEOs to two bit has been kid show fake scientists, everyone who is anyone in the pantheon of popular leftist figures is given the celebrity treatment. On purpose. And if you think Weistien's circle is limited to Hollywood or celebrities you are delusional.

Now get on with it and call me a Nazi so we can skip a dozen turgid posts of your virtue signalling and impotent frustration at the splinter in your eye. What, did you think Lefty shit didn't stink?

[The Romulan Republic]

I was not aware that "Its okay when our sides does it" was the Left's general view on sexual predation. Not these days, anyway. I certainly hope you're not suggesting that that's my attitude, because I think I've made my views on Bill Clinton, for example, quite clear.

Easy there, pardner...

With all due respect, I don't need you taking it upon yourself to chide me every time I object to or question something. Truth be told, while your intentions are probably good, I find it rather patronizing. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

[Dragon Angel]

Your overreaction and not addressing anything I actually said just validates my position. The right has its own versions of moral preening and circling its wagons, but celebrity worship of the glitsy Hollywood type is very much a Left vice in modern times. Specifically we are talking about a group whose elite for a long time has been lecturing the nation from every high horse available about this particular topic, including this abuser who was one of the most powerful of their number, and all along they were knowingly coddling a particularly heinous repeat offender. This was not a dusty skeleton in a closet, this was an ongoing thing. Tolerated at ever level and by every flavor of the Lefts formal and informal banner bearers.

If you knew anything of "Lefty" analysis, you'd know the Left tends to be rather wary of people in the upper class, no matter their political affiliation. Class struggle is such a central tenet of the Left that I wonder what strawman your mind constantly creates when you talk to a leftist.

But nah, since Hollywood liberals are big and popular and have loads of money they obviously are backed by the whole of the Left. Or will you now admit that Donald Trump was also a huge Hollywood star? I guess Trump's a liberal now, and I guess Hollywood conservatives don't exist.

Maybe Trump was in on the Weinstein scandals too. Since he's a rapist also I imagine they got along quite nicely.

This particular manifestation It is not unheard of on the Right, and it certainly has a lot to do with celebrities themselves gravitating Left, but you can't deny Hollywood is lefty land. And I will also note its the new hobby of the Left to elevate all of their favorites to celebrity status. From jurists to CEOs to two bit has been kid show fake scientists, everyone who is anyone in the pantheon of popular leftist figures is given the celebrity treatment. On purpose. And if you think Weistien's circle is limited to Hollywood or celebrities you are delusional.

You're trying to be a troll, but you're sucking at it.

Instead, you come off as such a conspiracy nut that it makes me wonder how you're put next to anything resembling a heavy weapon. I guess our military has been slipping up. Please tell me what Alex Jones has been saying lately, I can't keep up with it all. What's the latest in the War on Reptilians?

I like how you also pretend each of those examples you cited wholly belong to the Left and that the Right is totally immune to it. Not like 95% of the trash right wing and "classical liberal" YouTubers, podcasters, pundits, 'news' writers, bloggers, etcetera exist, you know. Milo just sprung up out of a vacuum, you see, he certainly didn't become popular by appealing to the far right demographic! There is totally no echo chamber when it comes to discussions about feminism, about violence against people of color, about police abuse, about ...

Celebrity worship is a human issue, not a specifically Left or Right issue. I can't help it though if you're a monumental partisan who thinks The Enemy represents all that is Bad whereas My Side is actually Totally Pure. Maybe you're just a monumental moron.

Now get on with it and call me a Nazi so we can skip a dozen turgid posts of your virtue signalling and impotent frustration at the splinter in your eye. What, did you think Lefty shit didn't stink?

> Everyone Calls Me a Nazi
> "virtue signaling" (with one L, by the way. Now you can call me a [Spelling] Nazi!)

I'm surprised you didn't call me a cuck too. Or is SJW still widely used in your social circle? You should get with the times man.

Or wait, do you think I'm going to call you a Nazi because I called cosmicalstorm a Nazi? When cosmicalstorm linked a blog that spouts literal Nazi propaganda? Makes me wonder now hmmm.....

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think one thing we're going to learn from watching this, or should learn, is that the dynamics of a scandal can look pretty much the same even when very different people are targeted. The reasons different people fall into similar patterns may be complicated, but they're still there.

As Alyrium notes, anyone will start behaving erratically under this kind of pressure, regardless of whether they are a good person, an evil person, or somewhere in between. The only people who will avoid making a fool of themselves one way or another are those with the very steeliest of nerves and the best of public relations advisors.

True, the point is taken. And absent any other evidence, only they can know what really happened. Maybe he genuinely does not remember - perhaps it was apt to call it a he said / he said situation... Which again calls back to how AFAIK the type of liberal persona takei had would have said is an irredeemable excuse were he not the one using it.

All that means is that there is no other evidence but the claim. "You did X"/"No, I did not do X".

At that point, all anyone can do is this:

1)What are the baseline odds that the event occurred?
2)Use circumstantial factors (prior interactions between the two people) and an assessment of credibiklity to determine who is more likely to be telling the truth.
3) Adjust probability accordingly

This is why there is a statute of limitations on rape. After a certain point, all evidence is gone, witness memories are unreliable etc etc etc.

In the case of rape and sexual assault, the baseline odds are highly in favor of an accusation being true. So believing the accuser should be your start point... but it isn't the end point. It can't be.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's sounds good, except his crimes were an open secret. And the people keeping that secret stretch into the rarified heights of liberal celebrities and public figures.

The craziest think about Weinstein isn't Weintsein himself. History is full of powerful people doing awful things with their power. Its the expanding constellation of people around him that either outright knew what he was doing or at least had a very good idea and not just didn't say anything but merrily included him wholeheartedly in their circle without circumscribing his influence in the slightest. Including people equally, if not more,powerful than him. Most of these people are not his actual victims.

I would love to see the Secret Service's file on the Weinstien Group given one of their recent interns. Do you honestly think that wasn't captured even if just as rumor?

Oh, so since Weinstein and the higher elite of Hollywood who kept his crimes mum were liberals, then that means ALL OF THE LEFT IS GUILTY OF DOING IT.

Let's be fair then, since corporate culture of Fox News excuses the rampant sexual assaults and rapes from Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly, then that means everyone on the Right in the United States excuses sexual assault and rape.

I'll give you a news flash that will blow your mind buddy: Weinstein and Hollywood's liberals are just one section of leftism. And just because some celebrity does something (by the way, celebrities are also mocked when they do something stupid since you don't pay attention to these things) does not mean they suddenly represent the whole of the Left. This was just idiotic.

Your overreaction and not addressing anything I actually said just validates my position. The right has its own versions of moral preening and circling its wagons, but celebrity worship of the glitsy Hollywood type is very much a Left vice in modern times. Specifically we are talking about a group whose elite for a long time has been lecturing the nation from every high horse available about this particular topic, including this abuser who was one of the most powerful of their number, and all along they were knowingly coddling a particularly heinous repeat offender. This was not a dusty skeleton in a closet, this was an ongoing thing. Tolerated at ever level and by every flavor of the Lefts formal and informal banner bearers.

This particular manifestation It is not unheard of on the Right, and it certainly has a lot to do with celebrities themselves gravitating Left, but you can't deny Hollywood is lefty land. And I will also note its the new hobby of the Left to elevate all of their favorites to celebrity status. From jurists to CEOs to two bit has been kid show fake scientists, everyone who is anyone in the pantheon of popular leftist figures is given the celebrity treatment. On purpose. And if you think Weistien's circle is limited to Hollywood or celebrities you are delusional.

Now get on with it and call me a Nazi so we can skip a dozen turgid posts of your virtue signalling and impotent frustration at the splinter in your eye. What, did you think Lefty shit didn't stink?

Your argument is absolute fucking trash, and the way you are putting it forth is coming off as smug trolling. I'm going to give you one chance to make an argument that isn't garbage and to do so in a manner that respects your opponent, or I am going to start flushing your posts.

[Simon_Jester]

> Everyone Calls Me a Nazi
> "virtue signaling" (with one L, by the way. Now you can call me a [Spelling] Nazi!)

The sad thing is, "virtue signaling" is a real concept and refers to a real thing people do; it's a valid idea. It just gets... abused.

"Political correctness" is in the same boat. It is a good thing, on the whole, for us to have a word for the oppressive culture of mind-your-tone and follow-the-thousand-rules-exactly that CAN emerge when efforts to stand up for minorities start turning into witch hunts. But it then gets used by the far right to include everything up to and including "why can't I drunkenly shout blatant racial slurs" and "why are people upset that I grabbed that woman's ass?"

Because of the inability to differentiate between "I'm being oppressed" and "I lost an argument."

[Patroklos]

Oh, so since Weinstein and the higher elite of Hollywood who kept his crimes mum were liberals, then that means ALL OF THE LEFT IS GUILTY OF DOING IT.

Let's be fair then, since corporate culture of Fox News excuses the rampant sexual assaults and rapes from Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly, then that means everyone on the Right in the United States excuses sexual assault and rape.

I'll give you a news flash that will blow your mind buddy: Weinstein and Hollywood's liberals are just one section of leftism. And just because some celebrity does something (by the way, celebrities are also mocked when they do something stupid since you don't pay attention to these things) does not mean they suddenly represent the whole of the Left. This was just idiotic.

Your overreaction and not addressing anything I actually said just validates my position. The right has its own versions of moral preening and circling its wagons, but celebrity worship of the glitsy Hollywood type is very much a Left vice in modern times. Specifically we are talking about a group whose elite for a long time has been lecturing the nation from every high horse available about this particular topic, including this abuser who was one of the most powerful of their number, and all along they were knowingly coddling a particularly heinous repeat offender. This was not a dusty skeleton in a closet, this was an ongoing thing. Tolerated at ever level and by every flavor of the Lefts formal and informal banner bearers.

This particular manifestation It is not unheard of on the Right, and it certainly has a lot to do with celebrities themselves gravitating Left, but you can't deny Hollywood is lefty land. And I will also note its the new hobby of the Left to elevate all of their favorites to celebrity status. From jurists to CEOs to two bit has been kid show fake scientists, everyone who is anyone in the pantheon of popular leftist figures is given the celebrity treatment. On purpose. And if you think Weistien's circle is limited to Hollywood or celebrities you are delusional.

Now get on with it and call me a Nazi so we can skip a dozen turgid posts of your virtue signalling and impotent frustration at the splinter in your eye. What, did you think Lefty shit didn't stink?

Your argument is absolute fucking trash, and the way you are putting it forth is coming off as smug trolling. I'm going to give you one chance to make an argument that isn't garbage and to do so in a manner that respects your opponent, or I am going to start flushing your posts.

I am responding to someone who just called a poster a Nazi, yet I am some how the troll? My argument is on topic, logical and stands on its own, do as you will.

[Dragon Angel]

The sad thing is, "virtue signaling" is a real concept and refers to a real thing people do; it's a valid idea. It just gets... abused.

Yeah, there really is a discussion to be had about people in big positions who talk big about improvements for the marginalized and lower classes, etc. but never actually do much more than talk. The tech sector for example really needs to be horsewhipped often or they take an eternity to follow through with improvements they promise.

Much like SJW though, virtue signaling just gets abused so much it means more or less nothing. So, no catchy term is available to describe the phenomenon for now...

I am responding to someone who just called a poster a Nazi, yet I am somomehow the troll? My argument is on topic, logical and stands on its own, do as you will.

I guess calling someone who regularly links far right trash what they are is too much nowadays. What's the Right's politically correct term for someone like cosmicalstorm then?