Harvey Weinstein
Discussion
Colonial said:
superlightr said:
Disgraceful, pathetic, worse,......
so if someone doesn't have the same level of empathy or compassion what are you going to do?
make it a crime not to show empathy, lock them up?
be outraged that someone else is not as outraged as you?
Or maybe just shut up? You don't need to make everything about you. so if someone doesn't have the same level of empathy or compassion what are you going to do?
make it a crime not to show empathy, lock them up?
be outraged that someone else is not as outraged as you?
you are welcome to feel outrage, show empathy and compassion.
Others may not feel the same way because they are not connected or are simply not wired that way - doesn't mean they are psychopaths or wrong because they are not as outraged as you are and equally doesn't mean you should feel offended because others don't "feel" the same way as you.
I'm not belittling sexual assault.
Edited by superlightr on Monday 16th October 12:23
Edited by superlightr on Monday 16th October 12:24
superlightr said:
like ?????
I've lived the mightmare. It is a topic of intense personal interest. The worst part wasn't the abuse. It was minor in the scheme of things and therapy helps. It was the lack of support and the excuses being made by people that should have been there. And being blamed. That hurts. That really hurts
This has cropped up before. It does seem that some people seem only to have the emotional capacity to empathise with people they know.
Luckily, there are plenty of people in the world who can actually empathise with total strangers - otherwise not much good would be done in life. Think of all those charities that do such good work.
Luckily, there are plenty of people in the world who can actually empathise with total strangers - otherwise not much good would be done in life. Think of all those charities that do such good work.
Colonial said:
superlightr said:
like ?????
I've lived the mightmare. It is a topic of intense personal interest. The worst part wasn't the abuse. It was minor in the scheme of things and therapy helps. It was the lack of support and the excuses being made by people that should have been there. And being blamed. That hurts. That really gur5ts
I think with the topic - perhaps posters are having trouble understanding and giving compassion when it does not appear clear cut as to the abuse that may have occurred or arguable if it was abuse. Some will see it 100% as abuse others will have different levels of the same and some none at all. Hence why its for a court to decide on law and facts, the whys and why nots of the timings and not disclosing/calling out at the time if genuine.
Edited by superlightr on Monday 16th October 12:44
Edited by superlightr on Monday 16th October 12:46
Eric Mc said:
This has cropped up before. It does seem that some people seem only to have the emotional capacity to empathise with people they know.
Luckily, there are plenty of people in the world who can actually empathise with total strangers - otherwise not much good would be done in life. Think of all those charities that do such good work.
I think that is correct. I would also hazard a guess that most of those working in charities have direct experience of whatever that charity is helping with. Luckily, there are plenty of people in the world who can actually empathise with total strangers - otherwise not much good would be done in life. Think of all those charities that do such good work.
There is more than one type of empathy. Cognitive, emotional and compassionate empathy are three. Just because you're not wailing and self-flagellating at the thought of someone you don't know being attacked there's no reason for others to haul out the psychopath label or condemn them as being "part of the problem".
superlightr said:
Colonial said:
superlightr said:
Disgraceful, pathetic, worse,......
so if someone doesn't have the same level of empathy or compassion what are you going to do?
make it a crime not to show empathy, lock them up?
be outraged that someone else is not as outraged as you?
Or maybe just shut up? You don't need to make everything about you. so if someone doesn't have the same level of empathy or compassion what are you going to do?
make it a crime not to show empathy, lock them up?
be outraged that someone else is not as outraged as you?
you are welcome to feel outrage, show empathy and compassion.
Others may not feel the same way because they are not connected or are simply not wired that way - doesn't mean they are psychopaths or wrong because they are not as outraged as you are and equally doesn't mean you should feel offended because others don't "feel" the same way as you.
I'm not belittling sexual assault.
Edited by superlightr on Monday 16th October 12:23
Edited by superlightr on Monday 16th October 12:24
Some people are psychopaths but many do have empathy and emotional responses but choose not to show them. Being a old school bloke type it's the sort of background I grew up in.
For example many people have empathy for animals but some people are happy slitting the throat of them all day long, people are just different.
superlightr said:
Eric Mc said:
This has cropped up before. It does seem that some people seem only to have the emotional capacity to empathise with people they know.
Luckily, there are plenty of people in the world who can actually empathise with total strangers - otherwise not much good would be done in life. Think of all those charities that do such good work.
I think that is correct. I would also hazard a guess that most of those working in charities have direct experience of whatever that charity is helping with. Luckily, there are plenty of people in the world who can actually empathise with total strangers - otherwise not much good would be done in life. Think of all those charities that do such good work.
superlightr said:
I think that is correct. I would also hazard a guess that most of those working in charities have direct experience of whatever that charity is helping with.
I wouldn't go so far. Some would - some wouldn't. It depends on the type of charity I would expect. But there are genuinely a lot of really good and nice people out there - thank goodness.Not-The-Messiah said:
This^ you could argue things would be better if everyone had a high level of empathy. But they don't and never will do.
Some people are psychopaths but many do have empathy and emotional responses but choose not to show them. Being a old school bloke type it's the sort of background I grew up in.
For example many people have empathy for animals but some people are happy slitting the throat of them all day long, people are just different.
We aren't talking about people "choosing not to show their feelings". I have no problem with that. There is no compulsion to state how bad you feel about a situation.Some people are psychopaths but many do have empathy and emotional responses but choose not to show them. Being a old school bloke type it's the sort of background I grew up in.
For example many people have empathy for animals but some people are happy slitting the throat of them all day long, people are just different.
I was referring to those who seem to posses a need to actively castigate the victims and blame them for the bad things that have happened top them. That is not "curtailing their feelings",. It is in fact, the opposite i.e. demonstrating different types of feelings - and not very nice ones at that.
BlackLabel said:
The Independent has a solution to this problem.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk...
That’s like the KKK telling black people they have the policies that will improve their lot.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk...
Zod said:
BlackLabel said:
The Independent has a solution to this problem.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk...
That’s like the KKK telling black people they have the policies that will improve their lot.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk...
There are two distinct questions here.
1) who did HW assault etc when and how can he be prosecuted for this.
2) Who went along with his request in return for career advancement.
Question 1 is important as it will send a message to others they are not safe and this is not acceptable
Question 2 will allow the wider world to more clearly see who is making hay out of these events when in reality they accepted it was part of the job.
Victims need a voice but so do we need to be clear who might just take the moral high ground now but were happy to profit from the situation eh your not a great actress but you made HW feel all warm an fuzzy so you got a good role maybe an Oscar down the line. An you then kept quiet till now about this. You say its abhorent but at the time you were more than happy to get ahead.
1) who did HW assault etc when and how can he be prosecuted for this.
2) Who went along with his request in return for career advancement.
Question 1 is important as it will send a message to others they are not safe and this is not acceptable
Question 2 will allow the wider world to more clearly see who is making hay out of these events when in reality they accepted it was part of the job.
Victims need a voice but so do we need to be clear who might just take the moral high ground now but were happy to profit from the situation eh your not a great actress but you made HW feel all warm an fuzzy so you got a good role maybe an Oscar down the line. An you then kept quiet till now about this. You say its abhorent but at the time you were more than happy to get ahead.
Gecko1978 said:
There are two distinct questions here.
1) who did HW assault etc when and how can he be prosecuted for this.
2) Who went along with his request in return for career advancement.
Question 1 is important as it will send a message to others they are not safe and this is not acceptable
Question 2 will allow the wider world to more clearly see who is making hay out of these events when in reality they accepted it was part of the job.
Victims need a voice but so do we need to be clear who might just take the moral high ground now but were happy to profit from the situation eh your not a great actress but you made HW feel all warm an fuzzy so you got a good role maybe an Oscar down the line. An you then kept quiet till now about this. You say its abhorent but at the time you were more than happy to get ahead.
The problem with your Point 2 is the assumption that "going along with something" seems to excuse his behaviour and not take into account the fact that he was abusing his position.1) who did HW assault etc when and how can he be prosecuted for this.
2) Who went along with his request in return for career advancement.
Question 1 is important as it will send a message to others they are not safe and this is not acceptable
Question 2 will allow the wider world to more clearly see who is making hay out of these events when in reality they accepted it was part of the job.
Victims need a voice but so do we need to be clear who might just take the moral high ground now but were happy to profit from the situation eh your not a great actress but you made HW feel all warm an fuzzy so you got a good role maybe an Oscar down the line. An you then kept quiet till now about this. You say its abhorent but at the time you were more than happy to get ahead.
Even if someone, in the end, benefits from an abuse they suffered, that does not mean it wasn't abuse.
Eric Mc said:
The problem with your Point 2 is the assumption that "going along with something" seems to excuse his behaviour and not take into account the fact that he was abusing his position.
Even if someone, in the end, benefits from an abuse they suffered, that does not mean it wasn't abuse.
Indeed. Sadly, some people are just desperate to make victims suffer twice.Even if someone, in the end, benefits from an abuse they suffered, that does not mean it wasn't abuse.
rover 623gsi said:
Eric Mc said:
The problem with your Point 2 is the assumption that "going along with something" seems to excuse his behaviour and not take into account the fact that he was abusing his position.
Even if someone, in the end, benefits from an abuse they suffered, that does not mean it wasn't abuse.
Indeed. Sadly, some people are just desperate to make victims suffer twice.Even if someone, in the end, benefits from an abuse they suffered, that does not mean it wasn't abuse.
There's so many questions though. Define 'went along with' - did they feel they'd have a choice, what did he say he'd do if they didn't, what position were these women in at the time in terms of being able to walk away - these are all things we don't know. Can't possibly know - but are still relevant
When you aren't in the situation it's always easy to say what you would have done...
These issues are seldom simple.
The temptation is strong to treat them that way as it makes sense of what is arguably senseless and our minds will always want to makes sense of it.
Just a suggestion.
Eric Mc said:
Gecko1978 said:
There are two distinct questions here.
1) who did HW assault etc when and how can he be prosecuted for this.
2) Who went along with his request in return for career advancement.
Question 1 is important as it will send a message to others they are not safe and this is not acceptable
Question 2 will allow the wider world to more clearly see who is making hay out of these events when in reality they accepted it was part of the job.
Victims need a voice but so do we need to be clear who might just take the moral high ground now but were happy to profit from the situation eh your not a great actress but you made HW feel all warm an fuzzy so you got a good role maybe an Oscar down the line. An you then kept quiet till now about this. You say its abhorent but at the time you were more than happy to get ahead.
The problem with your Point 2 is the assumption that "going along with something" seems to excuse his behaviour and not take into account the fact that he was abusing his position.1) who did HW assault etc when and how can he be prosecuted for this.
2) Who went along with his request in return for career advancement.
Question 1 is important as it will send a message to others they are not safe and this is not acceptable
Question 2 will allow the wider world to more clearly see who is making hay out of these events when in reality they accepted it was part of the job.
Victims need a voice but so do we need to be clear who might just take the moral high ground now but were happy to profit from the situation eh your not a great actress but you made HW feel all warm an fuzzy so you got a good role maybe an Oscar down the line. An you then kept quiet till now about this. You say its abhorent but at the time you were more than happy to get ahead.
Even if someone, in the end, benefits from an abuse they suffered, that does not mean it wasn't abuse.
Why would she turn up? She is ultra famous and he couldn't destroy her career, there would always be good parts for her. He could only assist her.
So either Kidman didn't know about Weinstein, or she played the game. Her most recent Oscar nomination came in a Weinstein production.
Samantha Panagrosso said:
Ms Panagrosso said that previously Weinstein had tried to force himself on her in the pool at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc and boasted he could easily ‘get what he wanted’ from another model who was also there. That model later went to his room for a ‘screen test’, Ms Panagrosso claimed.
She said Weinstein later ‘named several A-list actresses he claimed had willingly slept with him’. ‘I told him I didn’t believe him, so he said “OK, I’ll prove it”, took out his phone and called Nicole Kidman,’ she revealed.
‘It was late at night, but he asked her to come to the boat, and she did. They walked off by themselves and when they returned, he told me they’d kissed.
She said Weinstein later ‘named several A-list actresses he claimed had willingly slept with him’. ‘I told him I didn’t believe him, so he said “OK, I’ll prove it”, took out his phone and called Nicole Kidman,’ she revealed.
‘It was late at night, but he asked her to come to the boat, and she did. They walked off by themselves and when they returned, he told me they’d kissed.
Edited by hyphen on Monday 16th October 15:15
Interesting tax case being reported today regarding how one party can control another.
HMRC levied massive penalties, interest and back taxes amounting to almost £200,000 on a woman over incorrect returns, false expense claims, late tax payments etc etc. It turned out that her partner was completing all the returns and dictating what figures were included in them. All she did was sign them off.
HMRC lost the case because the court adjudged they should have penalised the partner, not the woman.
These cases seem to be completely illogical - and that is true, they are. But logic and sense don't come into it when you are in the power of a control freak.
HMRC levied massive penalties, interest and back taxes amounting to almost £200,000 on a woman over incorrect returns, false expense claims, late tax payments etc etc. It turned out that her partner was completing all the returns and dictating what figures were included in them. All she did was sign them off.
HMRC lost the case because the court adjudged they should have penalised the partner, not the woman.
These cases seem to be completely illogical - and that is true, they are. But logic and sense don't come into it when you are in the power of a control freak.
Can we get some relativism here?
In my job I choose the suppliers and individuals I work with and these contracts can be worth initially well into 5 figures with ongoing productionisation going into many millions.
If I allowed a supplier to influence my decision through sexual acts it is me at fault, me abusing my position and me who would be morally bankrupt as a married man.
It's amazing that people are looking at the effects of a person abusing their position as a justification for the abuse.
Cause and effect. Please try and understand how it works here.
In my job I choose the suppliers and individuals I work with and these contracts can be worth initially well into 5 figures with ongoing productionisation going into many millions.
If I allowed a supplier to influence my decision through sexual acts it is me at fault, me abusing my position and me who would be morally bankrupt as a married man.
It's amazing that people are looking at the effects of a person abusing their position as a justification for the abuse.
Cause and effect. Please try and understand how it works here.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff