October 13, 2017

"There’s a lot of abuse in this town. Young actresses are mistreated in all sorts of ways by powerful men..."

"... who can dangle jobs or access to exciting parts of show business. I think a lot of people are mistreated and they don’t realize how badly they’re being mistreated.... People do not want to put their livelihoods at risk... That’s why people like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby get to operate like this for so many decades. The people around them — executives, assistants, drivers — they don’t want to risk everything."

Said producer and director Judd Apatow.

"Everyone knew [about Weinstein’s alleged behavior], just as they know about other high-profile people with power in the industry who get away with the exact same things. This is far-reaching, it is endemic, and we have to believe that the toppling of this mogul will lead to the toppling of others…. This is a bigger issue than taking down one person."

Said Kelly Marcel (a female screenwriter and producer).

(L.A. Times.)

Meanwhile, Rose McGowan has blown off the nondisclosure agreement and is saying that Harvey Weinstein raped her.
In a Twitter thread posted Thursday afternoon, addressed to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, McGowan said, “I told the head of your studio that HW raped me. Over & over I said it.”...

(She is reported to be the anonymous actress who pulled out of Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker story, telling him, “The legal angle is coming at me and I have no recourse.”) This week, McGowan asked if she’s “allowed to say rapist,” and in October 2016, she said she was raped by a studio executive. McGowan’s tweets come just after her account was suspended by Twitter Wednesday night.

210 comments:

1 – 200 of 210   Newer›   Newest»
chuck said...

Banned in Boston, suspended by Twitter, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

rhhardin said...

The mistreatment part is about making deals. The woman participates.

The rape part is about not making a deal. That's a different thing.

The NDA part is a deal again.

In a deal, both sides come out ahead.

rhhardin said...

One part is not the right handle to take hold of the bunch.

They want to you take hold of the bunch because there's an agenda.

Drago said...

This completely blows up the conspiracy of silence arrangement between Big Hollywood, Big Dems, Big MSM.

Lefties and "lifelong republicans" who claim to always read the MSM to be part of the "informed set" hardest hit.

Drago said...

RH: 'The rape part is about not making a deal. That's a different thing."

Oh, well. Thanks for that.

mccullough said...

No lawyer would represent Harvey for breach of the NDA. She can say what she wants.

rhhardin said...

No lawyer would represent Harvey for breach of the NDA. She can say what she wants.

The point of the lawyer is to make sure that the best argument loses, if lose it must.

Otherwise you don't have a fair loss.

AReasonableMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
whitney said...

Althouse, I really hope you talk about that Barbara Walters video telling Corey Feldman not to hurt the industry. All these people being called brave right now have nothing on him. He is The Brave One

mccullough said...

The point of the lawyer is to make money. Harvey is bad for business.

AReasonableMan said...

Mrs Althouse, tear down this Amazon portal.

Given Amazon's and Bezos' complicity in the Harvey Weinstein coverup and thus the continuance of his crimes, the only course of action that has moral clarity is to simply hand the earnings from the Amazon portal to charity, preferably to a charity that supports women who are victims of male harassment/domination, and then shut the whole thing down. Amazon is complicit in Harvey Weinstein's crimes

Paddy O said...

There's more than 2 sides.

In a situation where sexual harassment and sexual demands take place, then it creates a system where those who do not agree to harassment are locked out. If you only think it is an issue between the harassers and those who agreed to be silent about it, then that's really misunderstanding the problem. Why don't those who said no to HW come out against the system? Because they never got work or were cut out early in the process.

That's why workplace sexual abuse is an issue for all in the setting.

This isn't like a contract between two parties, it is enabling a context of abuse to dominate every aspect of the process.

robother said...

Hollywood didn't know, know just they would say that Rose McGowan wasn't rape, raped..

rhhardin said...

Oh, well. Thanks for that.

You're welcome. It would be wonderful if every aspect of cases weren't conflated all the time without prompting against it.

Drago said...

ARM: "Amazon is complicit in Harvey Weinstein's crimes"

So are all lefties.

Seek help.

rhhardin said...

In a situation where sexual harassment and sexual demands take place, then it creates a system where those who do not agree to harassment are locked out. If you only think it is an issue between the harassers and those who agreed to be silent about it, then that's really misunderstanding the problem. Why don't those who said no to HW come out against the system? Because they never got work or were cut out early in the process.

That's why workplace sexual abuse is an issue for all in the setting.

This isn't like a contract between two parties, it is enabling a context of abuse to dominate every aspect of the process.


How does it differ from an auction? The one willing to pay the most shuts out all the others.

Yet that maximizes the standard of living of the nation.

mccullough said...

The head of the Motion Picture Association of America is also a sexual assaulter. He'll be fine within a week

Bay Area Guy said...

"Tops" by the Rolling Stones (1981).

Hey, baby
Every man is the same, come on
I'll make you a star
I'll take you a million miles from all this
Put you on a pedestal
Come on, come on
Have you ever heard those opening lines?
You should leave this small town way behind
I'll be your partner
Show you the steps
With me behind your tasting of the sweet wine of success
Cause I'll, I'll take you to the top, baby
Hey baby
I'll take you to the top
I'll take you to the top, baby
I'll take you to the top

Nonapod said...

I wish people who allude to "other high-profile people with power in the industry" would just name some names. Who cares if it's rumor or hearsay? We need some good ol' fashion witch hunts. Let's burn it all down until there's nothing but a charred skeletal remnant of the Hollywood sign.

Sebastian said...

It's not just about "this town." It's about the whole prog Media-Political Complex. Until they face that, nothing will change. The abuse, the pervasive lack of ethical standards, the mistreatment of anyone who doesn't go along will just continue--not to allow pigs to do their thing, but for the sake of the larger political cause. More than Bill's sins, HW's politics gave him cover. Prog lust for power overrides their lust to rein in lust.

Oso Negro said...

Humane Hollywood acts to protect animals in film-making. Who will step up and certify that "no actresses were raped or molested in making this film"?

AReasonableMan said...

Drago said...
So are all lefties


or really anyone with an Amazon portal.

Drago said...

ARM: "or really anyone with an Amazon portal"

Or really those who enable and those who enable the enablers.

You know, like you.

Drago said...

It's not surprising that ARM is attempting, without much heart I might add, to blame-shift.

This ever expanding democrat/lefty corruption scandal isn't going anywhere.

Unfortunately for ARM and his pals, a few distraction attempts on blogs will hardly suffice for shoving this decades long dem scandal back under the rug.

rhhardin said...

The positive thing in all of this is that there's so little gunfire.

SeanF said...

"McGowan’s tweets come just after her account was suspended by Twitter Wednesday night."

That's a neat trick.

AReasonableMan said...

Drago said...
Or really those who enable and those who enable the enablers.


I denounce Harvey Weinstein and all those with Amazon portals that support this monster.

Kevin said...

or really anyone with an Amazon portal.

Why did you start there and not "anyone with a subscription to the WAPO"?

William said...

It's fair to say that market forces weren't sufficient to police the repackaging and reinsurance of risky loans among the players on Wall St. In like way it's fair to say that there are no market forces sufficient to police the granting of employment opportunities among young actresses in Hollywood. The moral hazard is unavoidable and needs to be policed.......It's one thing to say that Hollywood needs outside supervision, and quite another to say who that supervisor should be.......To my mind, there is only one person in all the world with sufficient moral authority and experience to police the sordid activities in Hollywood. That person is, of course, Hillary Clinton. I know of no young actress in Hollywood who didn't enthusiastically support her candidacy for President. Similarly, just about every known Hollywood executive and agent was on board with Hillary's brave struggle in support of women. Both the actresses and the executives support Hillary and are willing to subordinate their interests to her judgment. This is the role that all of Hillary's life has prepared her for. She's just the sheriff that Hollywood needs to clean up the town. With Hillary's guidance and moral direction, I see no reason why Hollywood will not be restored to its previous high levels of esteem and honor.

Virgil Hilts said...

Did the previous Althouse post about Oliver Stone and HW disappear?

Now I Know! said...

Ann, have you thought about getting rid of your Amazon portal? You could replace it something else like L.L. Bean.

Drago said...

rhhardin: "The positive thing in all of this is that there's so little gunfire"

Oh, there's gunfire alright.

It's just that the dem side is being consumed by the inevitable internecine Civil War which we on the right can hear, but cannot yet see clearly. Hence, we wonder why the legal/rhetorical "levee's" have just now, at this moment, broken between the far left and left over on the dems side.

ARM is doing his part by trying, desperately, to direct fire onto the republicans but he keeps getting cut off at the pass by the SJW who are on the warpath against all those long-time "good lefty/dems" who have been systematically abusing women and children and men in a most horrific way for decades.

AReasonableMan said...

Kevin said...
Why did you start there and not "anyone with a subscription to the WAPO"?


I did not want to appear to be selectively targeting Althouse.

Ann Althouse said...

"In a deal, both sides come out ahead."

Again, you are committing the fallacy of seeing a 2-sided, 2-person transaction where there are many sides and many people involved.

You insist on committing this fallacy, though I've pointed it out before, so I am assuming you think you look cute in it.

Drago said...

We could all keep our portals if we simply remove all the democrat rapists and their direct enablers.

But that would probably decrease the available pool of democrat voters by about 75%.

Kevin said...

Why did you start there and not "anyone with a subscription to the WAPO"?

I did not want to appear to be selectively targeting Althouse.


Stating that the WAPO needed to shut itself down would not have implicated Althouse in any way.

AReasonableMan said...

Drago said...
direct enablers


Too vague, follow the money. Where does the money come from?

rhhardin said...

"In a deal, both sides come out ahead."

Again, you are committing the fallacy of seeing a 2-sided, 2-person transaction where there are many sides and many people involved.

You insist on committing this fallacy, though I've pointed it out before, so I am assuming you think you look cute in it.


The auction model didn't answer it? The high bidder, the one willing to give the most, deprives all the lower bidders of their deal, deals in which they would have come out ahead.

The standard of living of the nation is higher when the winner wins than when any other wins.

That's why you want deals and gains from trade, free of regulation.

Drago said...

In the real world (as opposed to ARM-world), Donna Karan who famously refused to dress Melania Trump has seen a 10% drop in stock price after her defense of Harvey and gang.

Just another dem/lefty who doesn't realize something has changed....and that change is that the dems have, just a little bit still, dropped the masks.

Can't wait for it all to come out. Particularly the rampant child abuse at the hands of these "fine" dems.

Drago said...

There sure do seem to be alot of photos of Weinstein with all the major dem players.

The campaign ads write themselves.

Hopefully the dems will run with the ARM campaign theme of showing small town folks purchasing a book or a doodling machine thru Amazon with the tag line "Shame" emblazoned across the screen.

If that doesn't win back the midwest for the dems, nothing will!

rhhardin said...

You (AA) want everybody else in the office to act as a union. "You can't negotiate with that woman, you have to negotiate with us."

Kevin said...

Hollywood didn't know, know just they would say that Rose McGowan wasn't rape, raped..

I would love to see this meme on a picture of Whoopi: "I might have known. But I didn't know-know."

And of course there should be a picture of Rose McGowan with the words "Nevertheless, She Persisted".

Time to start turning their own memes against them.

rhhardin said...

Time to start turning their own memes against them.

Fools' gold. It makes you accept their meme.

Produce a better meme entirely and ignore their hypocrisy on the old one, which is just PC crap anyway.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Will Rose get the Seth Rich treatment?

rhhardin said...

Arguing with men and arguing with women

https://thecustodyrecord.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/men-women-on-off-switch.jpg

AlbertAnonymous said...

Anyone else notice that the left and the media (but I repeat myself) are now repeating the "this highlights the issue of sexual harassment in all businesses and workplaces" deflection?

Seriously, do people think all or most or even a fair number of businesses have this kind of shit going on? I don't.

I've been in the business world for several decades now, and we are always being put through "sexual harassment training" (a misnomer for sure), and subject to all kinds of public scrutiny if there are even rumors of harassment or even inappropriate comments (especially publicly traded companies). HR departments do investigations at the drop of a hat, and people get disciplined and summarily fired for WAY WAY WAY less than the kind of PowerPervert (TM) BS that Weinstein was doing (and everyone knew about).

Resist the left's and the media's (but I repeat myself again) obvious attempts to insulate Hollywood/Leftists by claiming this is an indictment on all of us, or at least all of us males.

Darrell said...

Issue tranq guns to all actresses and crew. Start feeding potassium nitrate to studio execs.

rhhardin said...

It might be a phallacy. Men's thinking.

rhhardin said...

A woman's morality is based on hot buttons.

lgv said...

I'm pretty sure she can get a GoFundMe campaign to help repay the NDA agreement. Maybe the Clinton Foundation or DNC will help her out.

Kevin said...

Fools' gold. It makes you accept their meme.

No, it takes it away from them. Nevertheless she persisted then belongs to Rose and the anti-Hollywood crusaders and not Elizabeth Warren.

It becomes useless to the left and demonstrates the hypocrisy of the meme makers, limiting the power of the next meme.

Conservatives argue facts. Liberals argue memes. If you want to truly shut them down, you don't use facts against them, you show their memes are hollow and better suited against them than for them.

rhhardin said...

No, it takes it away from them.

On the contrary, they still have it because you accepted it yourself.

Drago said...

Can you imagine you are child actor or young adult actor trying to make it in Hollywood in the 90's and you are being systematically abused by multiple "good democrats" and you are thinking about maybe coming forward...and then the Clinton thing happens.

And what do you see?

The dems/left gang up to attack the victims.

The dem/left media goes full bore on "protect the dems" mode.

The entire complicit dem/left hollywood establishment goes into full defense mode, including all those "brave" "p****-hatted" lefty gals.

The entire dem/left base, as demonstrated on this very blog, goes into a "isn't it cute he did it and will get away with it?!" mode.

If you were that victim, you'd think twice and three times before coming forward, wouldn't you?

Paul said...

So somebody, Judd Apatow, speaks the truth!

But what about Washington? You know, Weiner, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, etc...

I bet they are the same kind of problem Hollywood has.

jwl said...

I was surprised this Weekly Standard article - Human Stain from Oct 9th - did not get more attention but I presume it is in very few people's interest to look more closely at Hollywood.

-----------------

Hollywood is full of connoisseurs like Weinstein, men whose erotic imaginations are fueled primarily by humiliation, who glut their sensibilities with the most exquisite refinements of shame. A journalist once told me about visiting another very famous Hollywood producer—you’d know the name—who exhibited for my friend his collection of photographs of famous female actresses—you’d know their names, too—performing sexual acts for his private viewing. As with Weinstein, this man’s chief thrill was humiliation, and the more famous the target the more roundly it was savored: Even her, a big star—these people will do anything to land a role; they’re so awful, they’ll even do it for me

Jason said...

Yeah, Patricia Arquette tried to convince me that the total, exact same thing happens in the hardware store industry.

I'm sure there are some scumbags in the hardware store industry.

Now point to the known convicted child rapists getting standing ovations and lifetime achievement awards from their adoring hardware store colleagues at industry events and conventions years after the fact.

rhhardin said...

If you were that victim, you'd think twice and three times before coming forward, wouldn't you?

Victim of what? Rape is one thing, deal-making sex is another.

If it's rape, you can discover courage. What is courage for if not that.

Jason said...

That was my point to Patty Arquette. Natch, she blocked me on Twitter.

Roughcoat said...

Rose McGowan, wow. There it is.

As we Irish like to say when a fistfight breaks out at a wake: "Now it's a party."

Rose has converted me, she's got me in her corner. She's got guts: yes, she's brave.

You go, Rose. You get some.

rhhardin said...

Ed's hardware store was a rabbit cage of sexual abuse.

Drago said...

RH: "Victim of what? Rape is one thing, deal-making sex is another."

You must have missed the child sex part of the conversation, or has Polanski dulled your senses?

Assrat said...

>Seriously, do people think all or most or even a fair number of businesses have this kind of shit going on? I don't.

Neither do I. Fields with high unemployment are really vulnerable to this sort of thing.

traditionalguy said...

Rose, Rose, she's the first real Feminist fighter . By Jove she's got it.

For some reason Rose McGowan reminds me of another redhead named Tecumseh Sherman. And she has an Army too.

Drago said...

rhhardin: "Ed's hardware store was a rabbit cage of sexual abuse."

Did "Ed" drop a cool $10k into the reelection coffers of the local DA after the "investigation" was dropped?

rhhardin said...

You must have missed the child sex part of the conversation, or has Polanski dulled your senses?

That's a crime, statutory rape, part of the movement to move in other stuff as the right handle to take hold of the bunch that's already at hand.

rhhardin said...

Ed just made a bad investment in rabbit cages. Carol Burnett show standing joke.

GF used to watch it.

Kevin said...

On the contrary, they still have it because you accepted it yourself.

You are anti-gun. You are held up by someone holding a gun. You take the gun away, hold it on the robber, and use it to keep him there until the police come and take him to jail.

Have I accepted the need to carry a gun? No. Have I shown the robber that having a gun can be used against him? Yes. Is he likely to think next time about not robbing me with a gun, because I likely couldn't hold him for the police without one? Yes.

Larvell said...

Am I the only one who thinks McGowan comes across as a bit hypocritical for criticizing everyone who enabled Weinstein, when she herself took money to keep quiet for years?

Bay Area Guy said...

People forget that LA was a mobbed up City, and that Hollywood was run, in part, by Johnny Roselli and lawyer, Sidney Korshak. (See, The Outfit, by Gus Russo).

The Outfit was the old Al Capone mob from Chicago, who took over when Al got nailed for tax evasion.

Korshak had the ability to shut down any picture with a phone call to the Teamsters for a strike, so the Studio heads played ball. Roselli was the point man.

My point?

They would have physically beaten Harvey to death for causing so much bad press and future lawsuits to the industry.

Alas, there was nobody to tell Harvey to tone it down. So, he kept it up.

Rose McGowan is practically like Joan of Arc, at this point.

William said...

As a first step, I'd like to see Hillary appoint a fact gathering commission to determine just how widespread this problem is. I think her hubby, Blill Clinton, would be a natural to head up that commission. That sort of thing is right in his wheelhouse.......One of the most disturbing things to come out is that Harvey paid $100,000 to quash a rape allegation and also paid the exact same amount as a contribution to Planned Parenthood. There should be no equivalency between quashing rape allegations and PP contributions. The fee schedule should clearly indicate twice that amount for PP goodwill. The ideal solution would be a contribution of three times that amount to the Clinton Foundation. That way the quashing of rape allegations would empower women everywhere. This is just one of the many ways that Hilary would work to straighten out Hollywood were she given sufficient standing to do so.

rhhardin said...

The robber isn't impressed by holding a gun on him, in the correct analogy. He's still holding it and so are you.

The gun is non-rivalrous, in economic talk.

It would have to be an intellectual property gun somehow, and you could license it to him or not in return for this or that consideration.

Assrat said...

>Am I the only one who thinks McGowan comes across as a bit hypocritical...

Nope! Not at all. Exposing someone else for this sort of thing is meritorious, but it doesn't make you a paragon of virtue.

Her sitting on this is a black mark, but she still seems head and shoulders above anyone else in this sordid tale.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Conservatives argue facts. Liberals argue memes. If you want to truly shut them down, you don't use facts against them, you show their memes are hollow and better suited against them than for them.

10/13/17, 1:36 PM

Exactly. They ignore or disregard facts if the facts don't help them. That is why conservatives and libertarians have been losing battles for over 50 years now.

There is a YouTube video of a SJW (who looks like Thelma from Scooby Doo, if Thelma were crazy and vicious) fighting with a young conservative guy on some campus. He is trying to argue facts with her. She repeats robotically, "I don't care what you say. I don't give a fuck about your arguments. You're ugly."

That is what the leftist "argument" now boils down to. You don't try to reason with someone like that. You mock them. And yes, you throw their memes and clichés back at them.

If SNL and late night comedians started mocking leftists - and what a rich vein of material that is! - leftism would become uncool very quickly. That's why they don't do it.

Kevin said...

The robber isn't impressed by holding a gun on him, in the correct analogy. He's still holding it and so are you.

No, because the picture of Rose would go around the world in a couple of hours and Elizabeth Warren would be ever precluded from using it again. If she did, everyone would think of Rose and Hollywood and Harvey and Hillary and the Dems.

Only one person can control a meme. Players kneeling was a symbol of social protest until it became a symbol of disrespecting the flag.

Now that disrespecting the flag has won out, social protest can't win it back. It would have to be something more powerful.

What's going to be more powerful for "persisted" than Rose McGowan taking on all of Hollywood? Probably nothing.

Mike Sylwester said...

Mrs Althouse, tear down this Amazon portal.

This is why I say we should get rid of the unwritten rule that politicians are supposed to reject donations from someone accused of an objectionable statement or act.

We should be pushing back against gotcha politics, not expanding gotcha politics.

If someone donates money to a political cause, then the civil presumption should be that the donor and the recipient want to advance their common political opinions.

The recipient should not be smeared by the donor's personal behavior.

We should be developing civil society -- which means that people are allowed to engage in personal and social activities without all of it being politicized.

rhhardin said...

I have no feeling about Rose McGowan or what she's doing, not having seen it.

Something twittered, attacking people, sounds like it's ineffective.

I'd go with zingers.

I'm unsympathetic about not attacking the flag of course, which I see as another mob action in response to the first one (hands up don't shoot). Both sides should drop it.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Best story the Entertainment Industry has produced in years.

Pianoman said...

I wonder if the Left will use the campus-approved definition of "Rape" when determining how many people have been assaulted.

"2 in 5 actresses in Hollywood will be raped at least once in their careers".

Think we'll see that stat being thrown around casually a year from now? Somehow I doubt it.

Earnest Prole said...

How does it differ from an auction? The one willing to pay the most shuts out all the others. Yet that maximizes the standard of living of the nation.

You’re conflating a free market with corruption. There’s vast economic research on how payoffs severely damage a nation’s economy. An hour’s worth of googling will cure you of your illusions (though I sense you already know your argument is psycho-sexual rather than economic).

Achilles said...

Blogger rhhardin said...
No, it takes it away from them.

On the contrary, they still have it because you accepted it yourself.

Do nihilists lose the ability to appreciate the effects of humor and mockery?

rhhardin said...

You’re conflating a free market with corruption.

Where's the corruption? Remember that actresses are interchangeable, above a certain level, so it doesn't harm the product.

Unlike paying off the city contract officer.

rhhardin said...

The only actress instance I can remember where the girl was perfect was Meg Ryan in You've Got Mail, who at certain points had just the right body language. But I don't think any other actress would have made it a worse picture.

rhhardin said...

The body langauge part being when Hanks said he could never be with anybody who liked Joni Mitchell and Ryan didn't say she liked Joni Mitchell.

n.n said...

"In a deal, both sides come out ahead."

committing the fallacy of seeing a 2-sided, 2-person transaction where there are many sides and many people involved

This is the fallacy of a Pro-Choice quasi-religious/moral and legal philosophy, or a 1-sided, 2-person transaction, where election by 1 party to abort a human life is a crime committed against the individual, society, and humanity. Also, class diversity, where the rights of one or more individuals are subordinated based on the "color of their skin".

Hari said...

What is the relationship between Amazon and Weinstein?

exiledonmainstreet said...

jwl, thanks for bringing up "The Human Stain" in the Weekly Standard. That author's answer to the question we have been asking: Why now?

"That’s why the story about Harvey Weinstein finally broke now. It’s because the media industry that once protected him has collapsed. The magazines that used to publish the stories Miramax optioned can’t afford to pay for the kind of reporting and storytelling that translates into screenplays. They’re broke because Facebook and Google have swallowed all the digital advertising money that was supposed to save the press as print advertising continued to tank.

... It has nothing to do with “raised consciousness”—or else she wouldn’t have left off that list the one name obviously missing. It’s not about raised consciousness or else the Democratic party’s 2016 presidential campaign would not have been a year-long therapy session treating a repressed trauma victim with even its main slogan—“I’m with her”—referencing a muted plea for sympathy for a woman who’d been publicly shamed by a sexual predator.

Which brings us, finally, to the other reason the Weinstein story came out now: Because the court over which Bill Clinton once presided, a court in which Weinstein was one part jester, one part exchequer, and one part executioner, no longer exists.

A thought experiment: Would the Weinstein story have been published if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency? No, and not because he is a big Democratic fundraiser. It’s because if the story was published during the course of a Hillary Clinton presidency, it wouldn’t have really been about Harvey Weinstein. Harvey would have been seen as a proxy for the president’s husband and it would have embarrassed the president, the first female president."

rhhardin said...

Indeed the company went along with that deal-making. They just didn't want settlements for deals that didn't go well. Regret sex and stuff.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Oh, here's a link to "The Human Stain." Well worth a read:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-human-stain-why-the-harvey-weinstein-story-is-worse-than-you-think/article/2009995

Earnest Prole said...

Unlike paying off the city contract officer.

Actually, it's exactly like paying off the city contract officer. By your rationale our nation's economy would be maximized if every building permit and parking ticket required a blowjob along with the required fees.

n.n said...

Young actors, too. There is evidence of a Church-like scandal involving transgender/homosexuals in Hollywood preying (pun not intended) on young actors. Given the current priorities of political congruence ("=") activism, this is even more likely to be shunted under a layer of privacy to the twilight fringe.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"AReasonableMan said...
Mrs Althouse, tear down this Amazon portal."

For the second time in my adult life we find the the Democrat mainstream eagerly enabling rapists.

Kevin said...

We should be developing civil society -- which means that people are allowed to engage in personal and social activities without all of it being politicized.

OK, but the money we're taking about was political donations to politicians, political parties and political campaigns. It's already politicized.

And the point of returning the money was to show good faith. You might not have known Harvey was a creep. Or you might have known and didn't care as long as he was on your side. Or you might have heard a few things but didn't check them. You give back the money as a sign of good faith that you are not the kind of person who would take money from a known creep.

If someone donates money to a political cause, then the civil presumption should be that the donor and the recipient want to advance their common political opinions.

That is the presumption - until new facts come to light. If Harvey made his money smuggling cocaine or human trafficking does that make a difference? If he got it robbing banks? Or though a pyramid scheme that robbed little old ladies of their life savings?

You seem to be saying that it's none of our business where our politicians get their money. But we're not only judging their stated policy positions, but their character in determining whether they would fulfill their promises to carry them out.

Hillary's failure to do so just validates that she really didn't care what he did as long as the checks kept coming to her account.

tim in vermont said...

William has it right. Trump should appoint Hillary to head a blue dress, err blue ribbon commission to investigate the whole mess!

Bay Area Guy said...

What do Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein have against blue dresses and potted plants?

tim in vermont said...

TCMCA has it right, it's funny how the calls to defund the blog come from the same people who want Althouse to shut up about HW and WJC and their predilection for humiliating powerless women.

tim in vermont said...

They could make the blue ribbons out of that dress!

FullMoon said...

Virgil Hilts said...

Did the previous Althouse post about Oliver Stone and HW disappear?
10/13/17, 1:09 PM

Yep, right around the time Stone recanted, and was accused of honking a tit.

Jupiter said...

Ann Althouse said...

"Again, you are committing the fallacy of seeing a 2-sided, 2-person transaction where there are many sides and many people involved."

There are always many people involved, in every transaction. Governmental intervention tends to deliver benefits to small groups at the expense of large ones. The market tends to do the opposite.

I began to see the flaw in Libertarianism when I realized that if slavery were legal, there are people who would sell themselves into slavery. Because for them, it is the best option. Their kid is dying, and needs an operation, for example. But I think the best way for governments to use their power without abusing it is by limiting the contracts they will enforce. NDAs, for example.

Jupiter said...

Of course, an NDA does not prevent the signer from testifying in court. The government will not respect an NDA when its own interests are at stake. So, the NDA is really a defense against being tried as HW is being tried, in the court of public opinion.

AReasonableMan said...

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...
For the second time in my adult life we find the the Democrat mainstream eagerly enabling rapists.


Reading comprehension is weak in this one.

Mike Sylwester said...

rhhardin at 2:17 PM

... actresses are interchangeable, above a certain level, so it doesn't harm the product.

I write a blog about the movie Dirty Dancing. The movie was made for $6 million and has earned a quarter of a billion dollars and will earn money forever and ever.

The movie almost was not made. The producers knew that making a profit would depend on Patrick Swayze agreeing to play the male lead, but they could not pay him more than (as I recall right now) $200,000. The producers had three ways to sweeten their offer:

1) Put one of Swayze's songs into the movie and let him collect royalties.

2) Allow Swayze to change the script practically as much as he wanted.

3) Hire his wife Lisa to play the role of Penny Johnson (the female dancer who gets the abortion).

Ultimately, the first two sweeteners sealed the deal.

Swayze's song "She's Like the Wind" surely has earned him more than the money he earned for acting the role, and his estate will continue to earn royalties for decades.

Swayze's changes to the script made the movie much better.

In his autobiography, Time of My Life, Swayze wrote that he did not insist on his wife getting the Penny role, because he thought the producers never would agree. Later he learned, however, that he could have gotten that third sweetener too, if he had insisted on it.

I don't know why the producers did not want to give that role to Lisa Swayze. She is a superb dancer and competent actress who had acted some small roles in other films. Maybe she had developed a bad reputation for being troublesome during filming.

My best guess is that movie producers have learned from long experience that casting both spouses in leading roles in a movie probably will cause nepotism problems. Therefore the producers (and director) were reluctant on principle to including her.

If so, then this case illustrates that that there is a nepotism exception to the idea that all actresses are interchangeable.

By the way, I have enjoyed reading rhhardin's challenging comments in all these threads about the Weinstein scandal.

https://dirty-dancing-analysis.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-speculations-about-script-changes.html

tim in vermont said...

"
Reading comprehension is weak in this one"

Reading comprehension is only the first step to critical thinking. Whatever you may be writing, the effect of it is an attempt to shut up a critic of rapists, WJC and HW.

Jupiter said...

When a court agrees to seal the records of a settlement, it does so because the two parties before it have requested it. Perhaps it favors one party, and the other party has agreed to it for consideration received. No other interests are considered. Indeed, for a law prof to complain that someone else is conducting a two-party analysis of a multi-party transaction is -- for once, words fail me. Even Althouse nods.

Mike Sylwester said...

Kevin at 2:38 PM

If Harvey made his money smuggling cocaine or human trafficking does that make a difference? If he got it robbing banks? Or though a pyramid scheme that robbed little old ladies of their life savings?

Harvey Weinstein earned his money by producing movies.

If someone else made his money by smuggling cocaine, etc., then the judicial system can claw back money that he gave away.

In a civil society, the recipient of political donations should enjoy a presumption of innocence.

In our political discourse, there is way too much ugly smearing of people who advocate political opinions. A common smear is to smear a political advocate with the personal behavior of his donors -- such as is happening way too much in this Weinberg scandal.

I recognize that Democrats themselves do these smears all the time. I am not outraged that, for example, Hillary Clinton now is getting smeared by a similar smear method.

However, we all should be pushing back on this gotcha politics, not encouraging it.

People should be allowed to advocate political opinions -- an activity that depends largely on donations -- without being smeared all the time.

tim in vermont said...

I love the reasons the Clintons gave that Broaddrick's five contemporaneous witnesses were all lying. ARM, you will like the last one, tha she was lying because her husband gave her the fat lip. "

tim in vermont said...

Slate: "Clinton Is Innocent: The friends' testimony isn't trustworthy. Kelsey and her sister have a grudge against Clinton because, as governor, he commuted the life sentence of the man who murdered their father. Broaddrick's current husband might lie on her behalf. Moreover, even if the friends are telling the truth, Broaddrick might have been lying 21 years ago. There is limited evidence that her first husband was abusive, so maybe she cooked up the story to explain a bloody lip he had given her.

Amadeus 48 said...

Meryl Streep is so good with accents I expected her to do Sgt. Schultz when she shouted, "I know nothing! I know nothing!!"

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The media deflection is because harvey is part of Hillarywood and both the media and Hillarywood are part of the Democrat party.

Therefore, Harvey's sexual assault = blame, Trump, blame you, blame anyone but HW.

Mike Sylwester said...

Kevin at 2:38 PM

... the money we're taking about was political donations to politicians, political parties and political campaigns. It's already politicized.

Hillary Clinton, for example, is a politician advocating political opinions and running for political office. That activity depends on political donations.

Harvey Weinstein, for example, is a partisan Democrat who is able to donate lots of money to political campaigns, such as Clinton's campaign. He has donated lots of money to many candidates for many years.

That donor-recipient relationship is legitimate and socially beneficial. Such relationships are necessary for a democratic society to operate.

So far, I have not seen any evidence that Weinstein's sexual activities have anything at all to do with his donations to Clinton's political campaigns.

When people demand that Clinton reject his political donations, then those people are acting uncivilly. They are presuming without evidence that Clinton has done something wrong. They are using Weinstein to smear Clinton in an ugly, uncivil manner.

It reminds me of the Democrats using David Duke to smear Republican candidates in every Presidential election.

rhhardin said...

Actually, it's exactly like paying off the city contract officer. By your rationale our nation's economy would be maximized if every building permit and parking ticket required a blowjob along with the required fees.

The difference is that Weinstein isn't causing the company to get an inferior product for the price paid, and the city contract officer is. One has a princpal-agent problem and the other doesn't, in econ talk.

Earnest Prole said...

I have enjoyed reading rhhardin's challenging comments in all these threads about the Weinstein scandal.

I’ve read only a couple of the Harvey Weinstein threads, having said most of what I wanted to say about the subject in Althouse’s Roger Ailes posts, but I can tell you the economic theories rhhardin presents in this post most closely resemble the way capitalism works in Arab countries.

MadisonMan said...

As a first step, I'd like to see Hillary appoint a fact gathering commission to determine just how widespread this problem is. I think her hubby, Bill Clinton, would be a natural to head up that commission.

This is what would have happened in a Clinton Presidency.

Mike Sylwester said...

The biggest reason why these Weinstein threads have been interesting to read is rhhardin's challenging, thought-provoking comments.

AReasonableMan said...

tim in vermont said...
Whatever you may be writing, the effect of it is an attempt to shut up a critic of rapists, WJC and HW.


Reading comprehension is weak in this one.

Jupiter said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
Oh, here's a link to "The Human Stain." Well worth a read:

"A journalist once told me about visiting another very famous Hollywood producer—you’d know the name—who exhibited for my friend his collection of photographs of famous female actresses—you’d know their names, too—performing sexual acts for his private viewing."

SO, I would know their names. If they were printed here in this article. But of course, they aren't. Nor is the name of the journalist. Just one big, cozy family, these folks.

Earnest Prole said...

One has a princpal-agent problem and the other doesn't, in econ talk.

Here, let me convert that to plain-speak: “Who does it hurt?” is the standard third-world defense of a bribe.

Paul Ciotti said...

One thing to note here--not all these sweet young virgins are equally innocent. Many years ago I visited the set of a movie for which I had written the screenplay. A young actress there made it clear to me, a mere writer, that she would make her charms available if I could get her more screen time. I didn't avail myself of her offer but I did mention her request to the producer who did give her (slightly) more screen time. Attractive young women are always aware of the power of their sexuality and many of them use that power in business affairs.

traditionalguy said...

Fortunately so much is recorded and memory stored today that it is harder and to lie to the public successfully. Unless the FBI investigates you, and then nothing is allowed to be released and no one will give interviews until the investigation is concluded...50 years later.

You have to feel for the Las Vegas Sheriff.

madAsHell said...

What is the relationship between Amazon and Weinstein?

I think ARM has conflated two events. One, the Weinstein affair which should boil over onto Disney, and two, the Amazon exec that was fired for offering anal sex to the lesbian daughter of Phillip K. Dick. I don't recall her name.

....and then he chastises us for reading comprehension.

rhhardin said...

"One has a princpal-agent problem and the other doesn't, in econ talk."

Here, let me convert that to plain-speak: “Who does it hurt?” is the standard third-world defense of a bribe.


Who does it hurt doesn't matter so long as it doesn't hurt the principal.

The principal-agent problem is that the agent is hired by the principal to work in the principal's interests, and the agent instead has an incentive to work in his own interest, costing the principal. This turns up all over in corporations. Managers work in their own interests. To combat it the corporation tries to get incentives right so that the agents' interests correspond with the corporation's interests.

In Weinstein's case, the interchangeability of actresses prevents it from costing the principal.

AReasonableMan said...

madAsHell said...
I think ARM has conflated two events.


Wrong.

Rose McGowan calls out Amazon's Jeff Bezos, as head of Amazon studio suspended over sex harassment claims

buwaya said...

" the interchangeability of actresses"

This is the point on which your argument rests.

This may be true, to some degree, but that is a judgement call.
Its not a universally accepted principle.
The principal may not agree on this matter with the agent.

And then there are externalities consequent to the agents behavior that affect the principals interests independent of the specific transaction. Reputational damage for instance.

buwaya said...

"Attractive young women are always aware of the power of their sexuality and many of them use that power in business affairs."

Which explains why they are so often hired as manufacturers reps even in technical firms.

rhhardin said...

This is the point on which your argument rests.

This may be true, to some degree, but that is a judgement call.
Its not a universally accepted principle.
The principal may not agree on this matter with the agent.


The principal more or less explicitly agreed, by putting in fines for hanky-panky that goes wrong, but not hanky-panky that goes okay.

Earnest Prole said...

Who does it hurt doesn't matter so long as it doesn't hurt the principal.

And there we have it in a single sentence.

If you can’t disclose the full terms of an economic agreement because portions of it are a bribe, the agreement doesn’t even meet the vulgar libertarian free-market standards you are proposing.

But beyond that, society of course has an interest in "who it hurts." By your logic, if a hotel could fill its rooms solely with white people each night, our society would have no interest if it banned blacks, since "it doesn't hurt the principal."

Bad Lieutenant said...

PM
Drago said...
ARM: "Amazon is complicit in Harvey Weinstein's crimes"

So are all lefties.

Seek help.
10/13/17, 12:57 PM


Gee, maybe Althouse has to been all lefties in order not to be complicit with the left-wing evils.

Tom_Ohio said...

Like Ann says, there are many sides to the dice in the description of not only the problems but also the players involved.
Not 50 shades of gray but 50,000 shades of gray, with Smoke Master Harvey whirling this way and that, pleading, wheeling, dealing, the smoke circles are light and dark and the darkness creeps out in places that HW and that ilk hides.
Even though none are blameless there are people at the outer edges who got hit by the dark smoke and did not know what to do, how to handle it, could not turn on the fan of truth at the time, and HW took full advantage at every opportunity to hide in the swirls and move on.
It's complicated

rhhardin said...

But beyond that, society of course has an interest in "who it hurts." By your logic, if a hotel could fill its rooms solely with white people each night, our society would have no interest if it banned blacks, since "it doesn't hurt the principal."

So long as it's not a monopoly market. Blacks have money, hotels are anxious for money, the market will work it out. It's the same with gay wedding bakers.

The civils rights law got that wrong.

tcrosse said...

How wide do we spread the net of complicity ? Does buying stuff from Amazon, or paying money to see a movie make me complicit in the Sins of Weinstein ? Well, that's where the money and power come from, tiny bit by tiny bit. Mass Guilt, anybody ?

buwaya said...

"The principal more or less explicitly agreed, by putting in fines for hanky-panky that goes wrong, but not hanky-panky that goes okay."

But that agreement was not necessarily with the "principal" in this case, given that the Weinstein organization itself was an agent for others who put up financing for films. The Weinstein Co. was an agent, not just its lead "agent".

And besides which the other stakeholders in the enterprise with future income depending on the success of the film should also be seen as "principals". An agreement made between segments of an agency is not properly seen as one between the agent and the principal, or the whole of what constitutes the "principal"

rhhardin said...

In the south, N-S trains had to stop and move black passengers to black cars when they crossed the line. Do you think they wanted to do that?

They had to because of state enforced monopoly. Nice business you have here it would be a shame if anything happened to it if you served blacks.

The civil rights law forced them to do what they wanted to do anyway but were afraid to.

So monopoly markets ought to be the test, to override freedom of association.

buwaya said...

" It's the same with gay wedding bakers."

The wedding bakers are sole proprietors or partners and presumably constitute the whole of the principals in these cases, besides also serving as agents. They can assume the risk of externalities without conflict.

A hotel management represents a mass of owners and have to look to fiduciary responsibilities, and have to consider externalities in a different light.

rhhardin said...

I don't think the Weinstein Co had any stake in hanky panky or not, so long as it wasn't a problem. You sort of take their judgment that it doesn't matter.

It could be of course that it makes a huge difference who the actress is and that's why all the films are bombing, but I don't think so.

Freeman Hunt said...

"How does it differ from an auction? The one willing to pay the most shuts out all the others.

"Yet that maximizes the standard of living of the nation."

It's not like an auction. It's like a person at a company who is in charge of selecting one bid for a job among many who selects a bid based on personal bribes paid to him without the company's knowledge. That does not maximize living standards.

rhhardin said...

The gay baker case is about hurting others, not principal-agent.

Earnest Prole said...

The civils rights law got that wrong.

Once again, there we have it in a single sentence.

A society where blacks are banned from staying in motels, eating in restaurants, and sharing drinking fountains and restrooms with whites.

We settled this question fifty years ago. Your position is so archaic that I doubt it could get a single vote in the House or Senate today.

Your position on Harvey Weinstein's bribe-taking is equally eccentric.

rhhardin said...

It's not like an auction. It's like a person at a company who is in charge of selecting one bid for a job among many who selects a bid based on personal bribes paid to him without the company's knowledge. That does not maximize living standards.

Right, and that's how (and not anti-sexual harassment law) a woman should respond to being forced to bribe the boss. Namely go to his boss, or his boss's boss, all the way to the top, and point out that this guy is taking sexual bribes against the company's interests. Also complain to his wife and his mother. Women used to know this.

In Weinstein's case, though it is an auction because actresses are interchangeable. It doesn't hurt the company. At least not that way. The mob is an expected problem.

rhhardin said...

an unexpected problem.

rhhardin said...

We settled this question fifty years ago. Your position is so archaic that I doubt it could get a single vote in the House or Senate today.

It's Richard Epstein's position, and he points out that it's what disqualifies him for any PC job today.

Screwing up freedom of association has created a million problems in the law that needn't be there.

buwaya said...

The Weinstein Co. obviously had a stake in the hanky panky.
Some of its people obviously did not approve of what their senior executive was up to, else they would not even have attempted to control his behavior.

However, the power imbalance within Weinstein Co. does not seem to have permitted them to create an agreement with H. Weinstein that sufficiently protected their interests from the consequences of externalities.

This will make a really good case for an MBA class btw.

"It could be of course that it makes a huge difference who the actress is and that's why all the films are bombing"

It does not matter if this is factually true or not, or the degree to which it is true, merely the possibility that it is true suffices. And besides which the behavior of the agent introduces externalities independent of the matter of hiring the actress.

rhhardin said...

There aren't millions of people eager to ban blacks from their businesses. They'd like the business, and wish blacks well.

The civil rights law removed the force of state and private violence as a threat against businesses wanting to serve blacks. By forcing businesses to do what they want to do anyway.

Only in monopoly markets is civil rights law inforcement appropriate.

buwaya said...

"The gay baker case is about hurting others, not principal-agent.'

It is principal-agent, if you compare their case vs a hotel manager.

The bakers have no agent problem, the hotel manager does.

Earnest Prole said...

I've always been curious just how conservative Althouse's commentariat is, so for the record is there anyone else here besides rhhardin who thinks Jim Crow was okay?

rhhardin said...

Well Weinstein Co. didn't anticipate the mob but certainly knew about the hanky panky and developed a pay and fine schedule for it when it went wrong. I don't know that approval or disapproval is quite right. They just thought were avoiding the fallout.

Freeman Hunt said...

"In Weinstein's case, though it is an auction because actresses are interchangeable."

This is not at all true.

Not only does the company not get the best actress for the part, it creates incentives that make the consumer worse off. You have a diversion in interest from being the best actress to being the person who will offer the largest personal bribes.

rhhardin said...

Neither the hotel manager nor the hotel chain wants to ban blacks. If the manager does, they'll fire the manager.

It's not a principal-agent problem, at least one that's not easily fixed.

The externality queston though is the same, that blacks in the hotel, and gays in the baker, are hurt; but they have recourse by going across the street. So it's a really minor externality.

rhhardin said...

This is not at all true.

Not only does the company not get the best actress for the part, it creates incentives that make the consumer worse off. You have a diversion in interest from being the best actress to being the person who will offer the largest personal bribes.


Well, it's the heart of my argument, as has been pointed out. My personal experience is that I can't tell actresses apart. They're completely generic. Just speaking as a consumer.

So the outrage hinges on whether you can tell actresses apart.

Assrat said...

> so for the record is there anyone else here besides rhhardin who thinks Jim Crow was okay?

Can't speak for anyone else, but fuck no.

rhhardin said...

I also can't tell newsbabes apart.

rhhardin said...

Jim Crow was maintained by state and private violence. That was not okay. Absent that violence, businesses offer services to blacks and the problem disappears.

Monopoly market becomes nonmonopoly market.

Sebastian said...

"Screwing up freedom of association has created a million problems in the law that needn't be there."

Actually, screwing up the lives of blacks has created a million problems, in the law and otherwise, that needn't be there, screwing up freedom of association being just one. The fallout continues.

AReasonableMan said...

Earnest Prole said...
for the record is there anyone else here besides rhhardin who thinks Jim Crow was okay?


Poorly framed question. Should have also asked who is neutral on the issue.

Sebastian said...

"I can't tell actresses apart."

If true, that is very odd. I watch few movies, but I can tell within 3 seconds if an actress is Meryl Streep or not. If she is, I let out a primal scream and stop watching.

Earnest Prole said...

It's Richard Epstein's position, and he points out that it's what disqualifies him for any PC job today.

Legal scholars are paid to say whatever the hell they want, but the real world runs on different principles.

You know the old saying about libertarianism: In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.

Ken B said...

Virgil
Yes it did. I asked the same thing. I did ask on that post how she could say she opposed a lynch mob while puffing McGowan who was openly fomenting one.

AReasonableMan said...

Ken B said...
I did ask on that post how she could say she opposed a lynch mob while puffing McGowan who was openly fomenting one.


That's the problem with lynch mobs, one minute they are denouncing all leftists and the next they want to take away your Amazon portal.

AReasonableMan said...

Hollywood Thanked Harvey As Much As They Thanked God

Freeman Hunt said...

"My personal experience is that I can't tell actresses apart. "

I have a relative with the same thing about actors. This relative found The Departed especially confusing as Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, and Mark Wahlberg all appeared to be the same person.

William said...

In the fullness of time, perhaps most actresses become as interchangeable as Carole Lombard and Carole Landis, but certainly not all. I'm not a romcom fan, but I don't think any other actress but Audrey Hepburn could have carried Roman Holiday.. She was not just a new star, but a new archetype, a new way of being a woman. I think that picture would have suffered if, say, Sandra Dee had offered the producer a blow job and had landed the role instead of Audrey........I'm more into sci-fi than rom cons. I note that Signourey Weaver owns the role of Lt. Ripley. You may note the strides in women empowerment by the increasing butchness of her portrayal. In the first film, she defeats the Alien whilst wearing white cotton panties. No such luck in the later films, although she does wear a tight shirt in some of them. Anyway, she's not interchangeable with the other stars of that generation........Ditoo with Jennifer Lawrence. She was terrific in the first few Hunger Games movies. I don't think any other star would have been anywhere near so convincing in that role,. Not every pretty young woman can look convincing whilst saving the world.

Birkel said...

The problem with lynch mobs is that they always turn on the Leftist Collectivists who thought they were in charge.

Bug? Feature? Who can say?

AReasonableMan said...

Having worked all her life in large institutions I think it is fair to call Althouse a Collectivist, not sure she is a leftist.

Night Owl said...

RE: rhhardin at 2:17 pm

"Where's the corruption?"

Really? Are you unaware that prostitution is illegal everywhere in this country except Nevada? Creating a system where young women must prostitute themselves to get ahead is corrupting them. And it's corrupt even if the young woman is willing or initiates the offer, because unlike an auction that is open to the public, this auction is only open to women willing to sell their -- well you get the idea. It's a system open only to women willing to break the law.

(I haven't yet read all the comments so forgive me if someone already addressed this.)

SDaly said...

rhhardin -

The best laws conform to how humans actually behave, not the inhuman fantasy-libertarian world you inhabit. Turn your processors to thinking about actual behavior, incentives, and human nature.

Very few people want to live in a world where they turn their kids loose expecting or encouraging them to be the biggest whores in the office to get a promotion.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Earnest Prole said...
for the record is there anyone else here besides rhhardin who thinks Jim Crow was okay?

Poorly framed question. Should have also asked who is neutral on the issue.



That's one of the more interesting remarks you've ever made on this blog, arm. I'd invite you to flesh out your thinking on that. Oh oh, am I consorting with a lefty? I denounce myself.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Blogger Earnest Prole said...
I've always been curious just how conservative Althouse's commentariat is, so for the record is there anyone else here besides rhhardin who thinks Jim Crow was okay?
10/13/17, 5:36 PM


Nice job of trying to own the terms of debate.

Night Owl said...

The problem with the free market argument is that many (most?) people refuse to consider the sex act -- especially when it involves themselves-- a commodity to be bought and sold. People will sell their time and freedom and energy, even their image and their sexuality but draw the line at the sex act itself. It's the reason we have sexual harassment laws. It prevents bosses from turning every job into a blowjob.

Drago said...

AReasonableMan: "Having worked all her life in large institutions I think it is fair to call Althouse a Collectivist, not sure she is a leftist"

All leftists are collectivists.

Not all liberals are collectivists.

Drago said...

AReasonableMan: "Hollywood Thanked Harvey As Much As They Thanked God"

Sometimes Hollywood cut out the middleman and simply declared Harvey a "god", as well as a "punisher, old testament style.

Ooh, so very edgy Meryl. So very, very edgy.

Please lecture us some more on morality. We so need it.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Sexual harrassment issues are hilarious. While I can imagine an egregiously sexually oppressive workplace, the simple fact of the matter is that people will make overtures, they may be awkward or poorly received and the only reason people make a big deal of it in the workplace is because Americans think that money is waaaaay more important than sex, fraternization or taking a risk on something that will later be a faux pas. (Or of course way worse in Harvey's case).

How did Mika and Joe tie the knot if they hadn't initially taken a gamble on something that could have just as easily been construed as "sexual harassment?"

How does someone know if something is "unwanted" unless they ask whether the person does or does not want it.

So many fucking presumptions. What a pity that Marie and Pierre Curie did not realize that they were sexually harassing each other before discovering radium, polonium, roentgenography and other things that are way less important than whether one hormonally healthy American adult makes another American feel uncomfortable. Oooooh! What a sin! Discomfort! Oh no!

Fuck that. Maybe if Americans were allowed (or smart enough) to be more open about their feelings then they wouldn't goddamn worry all the time about something so trivial as "awkwardness." And you wouldn't have workplaces that take advantage of it to the nth degree as Miramax did. Who wouldn't want to see what they can get away with when money is everything?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

All leftists are collectivists.

Not all liberals are collectivists.


Run across any conservative non-conformists, lately? Or ever?

That whole "market" thing that they worship so ardently IS a collective. Conservatives just prefer it because it's a hierarchical and cruel one.

narciso said...

Is his category error, the market is a agglomeration of individuals, making individual decisions. A collective is a group subzumong individuals.

Since traditional morality was deemed cri e think, sexual haradsnent law chose to impose an external repression of traditional male female relations. Co course we see with weinstein those rules can be held in abeyance.

wildswan said...

Every woman who resisted Harvey Weinstein was cast out of the Miramax world. So most of the actresses we see are women willing to put up with the most vile treatment and humiliation, many of them starring in movies about women who had a lot of self respect and courage. Perhaps that is why feminism has become so unreal. It is immersed in "narratives" from modern media and these narratives are written and acted by a group out of touch with self respect and courage. Inevitably, the feminist "narrative" has become more and more unreal. In those "narratives", by now, it often seems that someone snarky and edgy, like Tina Fey, has all the virtues needed to be a feminist. But cheap laughs weren't enough to stop Weinstein. I think Ronan Farrow is the only real "feminist" for the last ten or fifteen years. And he's only a feminist because he stood up for the women in his family and then other women in Hollywood - in other words, because he was a man, a ronin warrior, on behalf of the weak.
Ronin the Brave in the Land of the Zeroes.

tcrosse said...

Are you unaware that prostitution is illegal everywhere in this country except Nevada?

And that it is practiced everywhere.

Ray said...

No other industry is as sexually corrupt as Hollywood is. I am surprised at how pervasive things are per the weekly standard article. Ultimate power corrupts, and these top Hollywood men felt they had the ultimate power. Being compared to God?

Politics you could claim used to be pretty bad. Yes, you got Clinton, Weiner, but compared to how it was with Ted Kennedy, Frank Dodd, Packwood, etc it's so much cleaner. And Bill Clinton is old.

Industry with the fear of sexual harassment lawsuits is pretty tame. A few idiots, but relatively tiny. Wall Street I think is much tamer than it was. The Mad Men era is gone years ago.

Birkel said...

In which TTR underlines the point that conservatives can argue the Leftist position but Leftists have no ability to argue the conservative position.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

The only thing Birkel ever argued was why people are mean to him.

Earnest Prole said...

Nice job of trying to own the terms of debate.

What I did is technically called "pwning the terms of the debate," but I appreciate your appreciation.

Night Owl said...

"And that it is practiced everywhere."

Well, yes, but not by everyone... Hmmm... On the other hand, this IS Hollywood we're talking about.

narciso said...

Chris 'friend of angelo' Dodd, frank was a longtime serial killer in the dead zone, well we know about julianne moores bonafides from boogey nights, she has become mo recwraithlike in recent years, her part in seventh son want that far of a stretch

her series with deniro, will likely go dead parrot, then there accounts of John wells. Blocking telling of harassmemt on the set of Er, the whole Roy price affair that Mrs bloom seems to be a part of, two years ago.

Lem said...

is this why Anthony Bourdain tweeted... "Can we use the word “rapist” now? #Weinstein".

I didn't get it.

https://twitter.com/Bourdain/status/917771376647376896

openidname said...

"Earnest Prole said...

"I've always been curious just how conservative Althouse's commentariat is, so for the record is there anyone else here besides rhhardin who thinks Jim Crow was okay?"

Well, I've always been curious just how stupid Althouse's trolls are, so for the record, is there anyone here who really believes that's what rhhardin said?

P.S. I'm another reader who has been enjoying rhhardin's contributions on the Weinstein threads, even when I don't agree.

Achilles said...

Earnest Prole said...
I've always been curious just how conservative Althouse's commentariat is, so for the record is there anyone else here besides rhhardin who thinks Jim Crow was okay?

At the core the CRA and Jim Crow were the state asserting the same power, just in different directions. You could have eliminated Jim Crow without eliminating freedom of association.

Personally I think we needed the CRA to break up the control racist southern democrats had on society. In the present day I think the CRA causes more problems than it solves just like race based gerry-mandering.

Achilles said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Run across any conservative non-conformists, lately? Or ever?

There is a much broader diversity of thought on the right than on the left. There is infinitely more tolerance for dissenting opinions on the right than on the left as well.

That whole "market" thing that they worship so ardently IS a collective. Conservatives just prefer it because it's a hierarchical and cruel one.

Not being able to describe the opposing viewpoint accurately makes you look stupid. Willfully describing it inaccurately makes you dishonest.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Rhhardin is full of crap on this topic because he wants to talk about casting couch deals, and that is simply off topic. Weinstein is accused of using trickery to maneuver women into situations where he then raped them or put them in fear of being raped. That is no deal or auction, that's take what you want even if it is not up for sale. Tresspass requires punitive redress beyond market value compensation, or there will be insufficient economic incentive not to commit the trespass.

Now, if we want to talk about the separate topic of consensual casting couch deals, the women who said yes to the sex in Althouse parlance, that is also interesting, and Weinstein probably has made more than a few of those deals. One of those was with his current wife, Georgina Chapman. What she got was promotion of her fashion label Marchesa, as Weinstein is said to have forced actresses to wear his wife's label to Hollywood award shows.

Rhhardin has stated here many times that he is a big fanboy of Anne Hathaway, the only actress he can tell apart from the rest, he has sometimes said. It turns out that she is one of the women rumored to have had a quid pro quo arrangement with Weinstein. The Weinstein joke Seth MacFarlane made at the 2013 Academy Awards nomination announcement may have been partially aimed at slut-shaming her, she was one of the 5 nominees for best supporting actress referred to in his joke about them no longer having to pretend to be sexually attracted to Weinstein. (Not that Althouse would object, and she would want to observe that Hathaway did go on to win the Oscar that year for her portrayal of the prostitute Fantine In Les Miserables.)

We don't know, perhaps Hathaway only traded the appearance of being Weinstein's girlfriend in public, which Weinstein may have valued more than getting sexual favors in private. He seems to have perfected a diabolical way to monetize name-dropping actresses he's aided in his rape pitch. Or maybe there was nothing going on between them. I notice rhhardin failed to mention Hathaway in today's comment about actresses being interchangeable. Hypocrite?



Unknown said...

> Rose McGowan is practically like Joan of Arc, at this point.

Exactly! Joan took the part, took the hush money, then tweeted up mob by smearing associates of the person she received both from.

Achilles said...

rhhardin said...

In Weinstein's case, the interchangeability of actresses prevents it from costing the principal.

Does the Weinstein company need to expense the services rendered to Weinstein by the women on the casting couch? What is the value of a blowjob to Weinstein? How much is it worth for him to masturbate at a plant while the woman watches? Anal Sex? Rape? Sounds like he raped some women and these women got money from somewhere in exchange for NDA's.

Is that value $0.00 because the women were interchangeable?

I don't think you can make the argument that the value is zero because there are many men and women who would pay to have sex with these women.

My point would be, if I have a point, is that if you can't openly claim the value of the transaction as a service or a cost or revenue there will be problems.

This might be voided if you make prostitution legal though.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

There is a much broader diversity of thought on the right than on the left.

I think what you meant to say was a diversity of non-thought. A diverse array of thoughtlessness!

There is infinitely more tolerance for dissenting opinions on the right than on the left as well.

No, just more tolerance for indecent opinions. Sentiments that are beyond the pale of decent society.

"That whole "market" thing that they worship so ardently IS a collective. Conservatives just prefer it because it's a hierarchical and cruel one."

Not being able to describe the opposing viewpoint accurately makes you look stupid.


I'll leave it to you to worry about "looks." I'll worry about reality.

Name that quote:

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances,
as though they were realities, and are often more influenced
by the things that seem than by those that are."


Willfully describing it inaccurately makes you dishonest.

Whatever you say, mind-reader. Defend the characterization. Or stop pretending that you're a conservative. I don't think you really look into these things deeply enough to really have much of an ideology, honestly. You just go with what's in your feelings.

Achilles said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
Rhhardin is full of crap on this topic because he wants to talk about casting couch deals, and that is simply off topic. Weinstein is accused of using trickery to maneuver women into situations where he then raped them or put them in fear of being raped.

I stopped reading here because you can't read what rhhardin is arguing and comprehend it functionally. It just looks like you spent several hundred words being dumb.

Achilles said...

TTR said...

nothing.

Literally nothing. You are boring tonight. You have been boring for a long time actually. I would mock you but that gets boring too.

StephenFearby said...

It's getting close to Halloween and I don't see any Harvey Weinstein masks for sale yet.

Except for a semi-respectable looking one in molded cardboard on eBay offered by a UK seller.

It doesn't look anything like the creepy "Producer, Predator, Pariah" monster on the cover of the 10/23 Time Magazine.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DL75zeqWkAAu2kr.jpg

With a little touching up (to make it look like the Che Guevara posters) a Weinstein mask like this could become iconic.

If someone decides to make them, I could really scare people watching the NYC Haloween day parade by wearing it with a Trump wig.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The NDA deal is another topic. What's clear is that the amount Weinstein paid McGowan when she was 24 was not enough to keep her quiet at age 44. But we don't know who broke the deal first - Weinstein may have been trading on her name in his rape pursuits, or he may have broken the deal by denying that any of his sexual liaisons were not consensual. Why should be we allow use of the coercive power of the state to enforce deals like that? And isn't also clear from the financial carnage he is now about to suffer, that in money and contrition Weinstein didn't offer enough.

Night Owl said...

I don't always understand rhhardin-- which may be my fault since I don't view the world through an abstract lens -- but my takeaway from reading his comments over the past few days is that he is concerned that the mob mentality surrounding Weinstein's actions will lead to attempts to outlaw typical masculine behavior; that the mob will view all men as potential Harvey's, and normal male/female interactions will suffer as a consequence. Not an unfounded fear given how hysterical SJW types are these days with their talk of "toxic masculinity." He can correct me if my interpretation is wrong.

But people who are not hysterical SJWs recognize a difference between consensual flirtation, sexual harassment and rape. So asking people to do thought experiments where Harvey is a good guy or good at seduction comes across as wacky, because if he's guilty of what he stands accused of, his behavior is not typical male behavior -- outside of Hollywood anyway-- and, assuming this ever goes to trial, he would end up in jail.

And talking as if there's nothing corrupt about a system that treats young women like prostitutes is offensive, because as someone pointed out above, it ignores how people act and are motivated in the real world-- (even if I accept that Hollywood is chock full o' whores and the majority are just a bunch of hypocrites regarding Weinstein, I'm not cynical enough to think there are no genuine victims of sexual predation in Hollywood. Especially among the very young and powerless who probably get preyed upon the most.)

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

TTR said...

nothing.

Literally nothing. You are boring tonight. You have been boring for a long time actually. I would mock you but that gets boring too.


Sounds like your wife is the one who's boring you.

Just like life itself, I have no duty to entertain your stupid ass. This is how you flunked the 5th, 7th and 9th grades and went on to be a low-earner. Don't fucking address my comments if you're too stoned to know what you're saying or what the arguments are, shit-for-brains. You are literally incapable of doing anything right. Go get high and roided out, elsewhere.

Typical Trump incompetent. If you don't like reality, then leave it. Take yourself out like the other gun nuts do.

Stop thinking you have any say in how the country's run. You can't even govern your own attention span, retard.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

When the retard Achilles can't understand something (which is often) he blames his confusion on your unwillingness to entertain him. As if he was paying you!

He needs some Ritalin, a Colt and a silencer.

Just totally useless to society. And he knows it.

His mother was so boring that the most she could come up with was him.

The guy can't even add or do basic math, but thinks he knows what's right for the country. What a fuckface!

Joke's on him. Trump's basically jerking him off, and he's stupid enough to think King Orange is a showgirl.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I stopped reading here because..

because your brain stopped working.

Anything that lacks fireworks, sparks, explosions or WWE leads to brain shutdown for you.

Which is why you're about as fit to make decisions about what's right for America as a donkey.

Seriously, it's like a four-year old in the Oval Office. No wonder you identify with that big baby Trump.

Does it feel nice when he jerks you off?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I stopped reading.... It just looks like you spent several hundred words being dumb.

A guy who can't read (and admits it) calls someone who obviously can, "dumb."

Ironic. Achilles is the epitome of self-parody.

0_0 said...

>Mike Sylwester said... The biggest reason why these Weinstein threads have been interesting to read is rhhardin's challenging, thought-provoking comments.

10/13/17, 4:19 PM

Dude, you said that already. You are on your way to being as repetitive as rhhardin, who is posting the same clueless view with modified wording over and over and over.

It makes me wonder a bit if you (and openidname) are just sock puppets.

Etienne said...

If Hollywood had more Catholics, it would be a different kind of Hell.

By definition though, Hell is non-denominational.

rhhardin said...

Radio Derb today

So, a shrug of acceptance from society at large for decade after decade … Then, suddenly, everyone is outraged.

Harvey Weinstein is the human equivalent of a Robert E. Lee statue: accepted unthinkingly by well-nigh everyone for well-nigh ever, then suddenly, overnight, a monstrous outrage against decency, humanity, and the American Way.

Human societies are prone to these sudden moral panics; but in American society recently, the peaceful periods between moral panics seem to have been getting shorter and shorter.

Personally I think moral panics are all damn silly, which is why I left this segment to the end. I like the steady, common-sense acceptance of human imperfection. Perhaps this is wrong of me; perhaps the moral panics serve some improving purpose; perhaps I am deficient in some aspect of the moral sense; I don't know. I just think this stuff is silly.

Assrat said...

>No, just more tolerance for indecent opinions. Sentiments that are beyond the pale of decent society.

It's just so you don't need to think, isn't it? Believe what you're told, parrot it like a sheep, and people will like you.

Revolutionaries are mindless conformists, you know.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 210   Newer› Newest»