The left hides and goes silent… they are total hypocrites!
-
More trouble for Hillary, the Osamas, and the left…
Weinstein was OK.. but then became corrupted by hanging around deplorable crooked Hillary.
-
More trouble for Hillary, the Osamas, and the left…
Weinstein was OK.. but then became corrupted by hanging around deplorable crooked Hillary.
He was a sleaze long before he met them. I lived in Hollywood. Film was my major and so I did a lot of internships. The rumors in office/set were always that you could use sex to advance with certain people. Brian Singer was often talked about in the club scene way back in the 90's, too. This doesn't surprise me. I'm wondering who had the balls to start this – that man has a lot of power.
-
More trouble for Hillary, the Osamas, and the left…
Weinstein was OK.. but then became corrupted by hanging around deplorable crooked Hillary.
He was a sleaze long before he met them. I lived in Hollywood. Film was my major and so I did a lot of internships. The rumors in office/set were always that you could use sex to advance with certain people. Brian Singer was often talked about in the club scene way back in the 90's, too. This doesn't surprise me. I'm wondering who had the balls to start this – that man has a lot of power.
Whenever evaluating a dispute, one should look at both sides of the issue. Far too often, there is a rush to judgement which favors the most obvious explanations. For instance, in the murder case I sometimes refer to, that case was not just a one night affair.. it was a case of framing a man that began 12 years before the murder - slowly grew - until the ultimate event. In fact, there was one image posted 5 months before the murder which clearly shows how the framed man was… framed. Again, I probably would have missed that proof.. except that the actual killer (who committed suicide a few months later) contacted me in live chat with yahoo messenger, and pointed out something in a certain photo. I later found out much more about that photo, and even found the SOURCE photo from which the fake photo was made.
Anyway.. while I am sure that there are hollywood moguls who use their power to get sex (Bill Cosby for example), I am sure that there have been many actresses who have seduced powerful movie makers to get cast in movies, etc. (Madonna for example - who married Sean Penn and Guy Ritchie).
-
Whenever evaluating a dispute, one should look at both sides of the issue. Far too often, there is a rush to judgement which favors the most obvious explanations.
Anyway.. while I am sure that there are hollywood moguls who use their power to get sex (Bill Cosby for example), I am sure that there have been many actresses who have seduced powerful movie makers to get cast in movies, etc. (Madonna for example - who married Sean Penn and Guy Ritchie).I think I'm the last American who believes in Bill Cosby.
Cosby was convicted because a whole lot of women came forward with similar stories but no proof outside from their word. We saw something similar after Pussy Gate. Everything I read about Cosby's case suggests his case is at the intersection of pissing off the black community for telling them to be better and the idea that every woman must be believed no matter what.
Why are you sold on Rapist Bill, excuse me, not that Bill, Rapist Cosby?
-
From what I've seen in the legal systems, I too believe in Bill Cosby. In Canada, one must be "guilty beyond reasonable doubt"… Funny thing about that is that a "reasonable doubt" is defined as "an alternative explanation of the events that the evidence supports that is not outside the realm of possibility". To be more specific, no matter how likely, as long as there is a POSSIBILITY that there is another explanation (i.e. they lied for their own gain), then you MUST acquit.
The most poplar case that comes to mind is OJ Simpson. Ever heard the saying "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!" ?
The case dates back to a reexamination of the evidence, where there was a glove that was found that was covered in OJ's wife's blood. It boiled down to whether or not the glove fit OJ's hand. Now... Understand that when you get leather wet like that, once it dries, it will shrink. More than likely, the glove did not fit his hand at the trial for this very fact, however the jury acquitted him because of the theoretical POSSIBILITY that the glove did not fit his hand because the glove was too small to begin with.
Having been on the defence side of the bench in court under damn near identical circumstances and seeing the jury wrongfully convict ME, I wholeheartedly would have forced a hung jury vote due to the glaring contradictions in testimony, despite the way they were delivered, and there would be a very OBVIOUS motive for such a lie.... MONEY!!!
So if there is no physical material evidence that can validate, you simply CANNOT prove beyond reasonable doubt that something happened when there is no material evidence that can prove or disprove the allegation, other than verbal testimony IMHO.
-
Yep, because the current president and his family have NEVER been ANYWHERE near Harvey Weinstein, right? Only those on the left have EVER been around him and have possibly invested in anything related to him, meaning there's NO evidence of our current president ever being in the same circle as Weinstein and probably doesn't even know him, right? TRY AGAIN!
Can you prove that Harvey Weinstein has NEVER given money to ANYONE in #45's family or to #45 himself? If you have the president's tax returns and can prove that he has never invested in The Weinstein Company, any of the films or shows produced by said company and/or hasn't received money from Harvey Weinstein, then you should probably produce those tax returns or it's perfectly logical for someone to assume the president is financially tied to Weinstein also. The president had a successful TV show and has been given money by many different banks around the world as well as individuals who have invested in his brand from time to time. We have access to every other president's financial records going all the way back to Nixon, with the exception being the current president. So no sir, YOU are the hypocrite for supporting a blatant liar and coward who has yet to prove to the Americans that he is supposed to serve that he is not a corrupt, immoral, lunatic bigot.
-
Yep, because the current president and his family have NEVER been ANYWHERE near Harvey Weinstein, right? Only those on the left have EVER been around him and have possibly invested in anything related to him, meaning there's NO evidence of our current president ever being in the same circle as Weinstein and probably doesn't even know him, right? TRY AGAIN!
Can you prove that Harvey Weinstein has NEVER given money to ANYONE in #45's family or to #45 himself? If you have the president's tax returns and can prove that he has never invested in The Weinstein Company, any of the films or shows produced by said company and/or hasn't received money from Harvey Weinstein, then you should probably produce those tax returns or it's perfectly logical for someone to assume the president is financially tied to Weinstein also. The president had a successful TV show and has been given money by many different banks around the world as well as individuals who have invested in his brand from time to time. We have access to every other president's financial records going all the way back to Nixon, with the exception being the current president. So no sir, YOU are the hypocrite for supporting a blatant liar and coward who has yet to prove to the Americans that he is supposed to serve that he is not a corrupt, immoral, lunatic bigot.
I'm relatively new to these forums and with the exception of the occasional "moonbat" and "Oasama" for "Obama" the tone in these threads has been civil, productive, and interesting. This is the first time I've read something openly antagonistic like this and it's a turn-off.
I'd like to see people interact on these boards but if anyone were to come here and see badly written shouting, they're not staying. Tone it down. There's an actual human on the other end of your computer.
Personally, I don't care if you like or dislike Trump, you're reasoning is flawed. You're mad that he didn't show his tax returns – he doesn't have to, and this thread isn't about his tax returns. It's not even about POTUS. It's a fact, a solid fact that Weinstein has given money to the DNC for decades. It's solid fact that the leftist, leftists were all around him. And those left-leaning celebrities are only now coming out against him, only now telling their decades-old stories. The point is that these very same celebrities were sitting on real evidence of a scumbag (Weinstein) while virtue signaling.
-
Yep, because the current president and his family have NEVER been ANYWHERE near Harvey Weinstein, right? Only those on the left have EVER been around him and have possibly invested in anything related to him, meaning there's NO evidence of our current president ever being in the same circle as Weinstein and probably doesn't even know him, right? TRY AGAIN!
Can you prove that Harvey Weinstein has NEVER given money to ANYONE in #45's family or to #45 himself? If you have the president's tax returns and can prove that he has never invested in The Weinstein Company, any of the films or shows produced by said company and/or hasn't received money from Harvey Weinstein, then you should probably produce those tax returns or it's perfectly logical for someone to assume the president is financially tied to Weinstein also. The president had a successful TV show and has been given money by many different banks around the world as well as individuals who have invested in his brand from time to time. We have access to every other president's financial records going all the way back to Nixon, with the exception being the current president. So no sir, YOU are the hypocrite for supporting a blatant liar and coward who has yet to prove to the Americans that he is supposed to serve that he is not a corrupt, immoral, lunatic bigot.
I'm relatively new to these forums and with the exception of the occasional "moonbat" and "Oasama" for "Obama" the tone in these threads has been civil, productive, and interesting. This is the first time I've read something openly antagonistic like this and it's a turn-off.
I'd like to see people interact on these boards but if anyone were to come here and see badly written shouting, they're not staying. Tone it down. There's an actual human on the other end of your computer.
Personally, I don't care if you like or dislike Trump, you're reasoning is flawed. You're mad that he didn't show his tax returns – he doesn't have to, and this thread isn't about his tax returns. It's not even about POTUS. It's a fact, a solid fact that Weinstein has given money to the DNC for decades. It's solid fact that the leftist, leftists were all around him. And those left-leaning celebrities are only now coming out against him, only now telling their decades-old stories. The point is that these very same celebrities were sitting on real evidence of a scumbag (Weinstein) while virtue signaling.
I've seen some of your actual titles and while you have been civil, I see no signs of a few others being civil. The main point of my post in this thread is about hypocrisy. It is widely known that the president and his family are also friends of Weinstein, yet you all have painted the left as his only friends. Well, once upon a time the president was a frequent leftist and whether he was a fake leftist or not; we do not know if he ever received money or gave money to Weinstein at any point because he is the first president to not release his tax returns. That's the point of my post and I do not appreciate you coming at me with some phony accusation as if this forum hasn't turned into a conservative echo chamber. And "badly written" makes you sound close to being a "grammar Nazi" so be careful.
-
Yep, because the current president and his family have NEVER been ANYWHERE near Harvey Weinstein, right? Only those on the left have EVER been around him and have possibly invested in anything related to him, meaning there's NO evidence of our current president ever being in the same circle as Weinstein and probably doesn't even know him, right? TRY AGAIN!
Can you prove that Harvey Weinstein has NEVER given money to ANYONE in #45's family or to #45 himself? If you have the president's tax returns and can prove that he has never invested in The Weinstein Company, any of the films or shows produced by said company and/or hasn't received money from Harvey Weinstein, then you should probably produce those tax returns or it's perfectly logical for someone to assume the president is financially tied to Weinstein also. The president had a successful TV show and has been given money by many different banks around the world as well as individuals who have invested in his brand from time to time. We have access to every other president's financial records going all the way back to Nixon, with the exception being the current president. So no sir, YOU are the hypocrite for supporting a blatant liar and coward who has yet to prove to the Americans that he is supposed to serve that he is not a corrupt, immoral, lunatic bigot.
I'm relatively new to these forums and with the exception of the occasional "moonbat" and "Oasama" for "Obama" the tone in these threads has been civil, productive, and interesting. This is the first time I've read something openly antagonistic like this and it's a turn-off.
I'd like to see people interact on these boards but if anyone were to come here and see badly written shouting, they're not staying. Tone it down. There's an actual human on the other end of your computer.
Personally, I don't care if you like or dislike Trump, you're reasoning is flawed. You're mad that he didn't show his tax returns – he doesn't have to, and this thread isn't about his tax returns. It's not even about POTUS. It's a fact, a solid fact that Weinstein has given money to the DNC for decades. It's solid fact that the leftist, leftists were all around him. And those left-leaning celebrities are only now coming out against him, only now telling their decades-old stories. The point is that these very same celebrities were sitting on real evidence of a scumbag (Weinstein) while virtue signaling.
I've seen some of your actual titles and while you have been civil, I see no signs of a few others being civil. The main point of my post in this thread is about hypocrisy. It is widely known that the president and his family are also friends of Weinstein, yet you all have painted the left as his only friends. Well, once upon a time the president was a frequent leftist and whether he was a fake leftist or not; we do not know if he ever received money or gave money to Weinstein at any point because he is the first president to not release his tax returns. That's the point of my post and I do not appreciate you coming at me with some phony accusation as if this forum hasn't turned into a conservative echo chamber. And "badly written" makes you sound close to being a "grammar Nazi" so be careful.
What nonsense. Being a billionaire and major TV personality in New York City, Trump has been photographed with just about everybody that one could think of including Harvey Weinstein. I tried, but could not find even one photo of Trump with Weinstein. The closest I could find was some social gathering in which Weinstein is standing in front of the camera, and a few feet behind him is Trump standing with his wife on one side, some other woman on his other side
In fact, Weinstein hates Trump. Weinstein hates all people who aren't leftists or have big tits. Weinstein produced several shlockumentaries with leftist pig Michael Moore including "Fahrenheit 9/11"
http://uproxx.com/movies/harvey-weinstein-donald-trump-hands-of-stone/
-
Yep, because the current president and his family have NEVER been ANYWHERE near Harvey Weinstein, right? Only those on the left have EVER been around him and have possibly invested in anything related to him, meaning there's NO evidence of our current president ever being in the same circle as Weinstein and probably doesn't even know him, right? TRY AGAIN!
Can you prove that Harvey Weinstein has NEVER given money to ANYONE in #45's family or to #45 himself? If you have the president's tax returns and can prove that he has never invested in The Weinstein Company, any of the films or shows produced by said company and/or hasn't received money from Harvey Weinstein, then you should probably produce those tax returns or it's perfectly logical for someone to assume the president is financially tied to Weinstein also. The president had a successful TV show and has been given money by many different banks around the world as well as individuals who have invested in his brand from time to time. We have access to every other president's financial records going all the way back to Nixon, with the exception being the current president. So no sir, YOU are the hypocrite for supporting a blatant liar and coward who has yet to prove to the Americans that he is supposed to serve that he is not a corrupt, immoral, lunatic bigot.
I'm relatively new to these forums and with the exception of the occasional "moonbat" and "Oasama" for "Obama" the tone in these threads has been civil, productive, and interesting. This is the first time I've read something openly antagonistic like this and it's a turn-off.
I'd like to see people interact on these boards but if anyone were to come here and see badly written shouting, they're not staying. Tone it down. There's an actual human on the other end of your computer.
Personally, I don't care if you like or dislike Trump, you're reasoning is flawed. You're mad that he didn't show his tax returns – he doesn't have to, and this thread isn't about his tax returns. It's not even about POTUS. It's a fact, a solid fact that Weinstein has given money to the DNC for decades. It's solid fact that the leftist, leftists were all around him. And those left-leaning celebrities are only now coming out against him, only now telling their decades-old stories. The point is that these very same celebrities were sitting on real evidence of a scumbag (Weinstein) while virtue signaling.
I've seen some of your actual titles and while you have been civil, I see no signs of a few others being civil. The main point of my post in this thread is about hypocrisy. It is widely known that the president and his family are also friends of Weinstein, yet you all have painted the left as his only friends. Well, once upon a time the president was a frequent leftist and whether he was a fake leftist or not; we do not know if he ever received money or gave money to Weinstein at any point because he is the first president to not release his tax returns. That's the point of my post and I do not appreciate you coming at me with some phony accusation as if this forum hasn't turned into a conservative echo chamber. And "badly written" makes you sound close to being a "grammar Nazi" so be careful.
What nonsense. Being a billionaire and major TV personality in New York City, Trump has been photographed with just about everybody that one could think of including Harvey Weinstein. I tried, but could not find even one photo of Trump with Weinstein. The closest I could find was some social gathering in which Weinstein is standing in front of the camera, and a few feet behind him is Trump standing with his wife on one side, some other woman on his other side
In fact, Weinstein hates Trump. Weinstein hates all people who aren't leftists or have big tits. Weinstein produced several shlockumentaries with leftist pig Michael Moore including "Fahrenheit 9/11"
http://uproxx.com/movies/harvey-weinstein-donald-trump-hands-of-stone/I attached that photo of him with Weinstein and also a photo of Ivanka and Jared with Weinstein in my first post on this topic; therefore, they have been in photos with him. I'll concede the point that it's not proven if Weinstein has ever given money to or received money from #45 but only because #45's finances are being kept secret from the American people. If Weinstein releases proof that #45 has given him money or has received money from him, would you call it fake news even though he has been photographed with #45 and also with Ivanka and Jared?
Also, I should've stated this before but Harvey Weinstein should be condemned more by those on the left than what I've seen so far. President Obama waited way too long to speak out which is highly suspicious to me. It is comparable to what we've seen on the right regarding #45's admission of sexual assault and it's wrong. Republicans immediately condemned the taped admission of sexual assault/harassment by the president but still support him to this day. All acts should be condemned, especially when there is video evidence of the person admitting they used their power to grab women by their genitals.
-
The picture you posted which includes Trump and Weinerstein is interesting. Trump has a LARGE head, but look at that photo you posted.. Trump's head is tiny compared to that of Weinstein, because he is standing about 5 feet behind him. Hardly and warm embrace.. not any friendship there.. more like a photo bombing on the part of Weinstein.
The photo you posted reminds me of a guy that said he met Frank Sinatra and is friends with him. I found out later from the guy's son that what really happened is they went to a Frank Sinatra concert - and his dad WAVED to Frank from 20 feet away.By the way, I'd bet money that Weinstein is in that photo because he's interested in the woman in the black dress that is next to him.. NOT Trump - whom he hates.
-
I've seen some of your actual titles and while you have been civil, I see no signs of a few others being civil.
(cough, cough) …be the change you want to be... (cough, cough)
"badly written" makes you sound close to being a "grammar Nazi" so be careful.
Or what? Your reasoning is flawed and non-persuasive. You're throwing accusations by calling everyone a liar by using you instead of singling out the person or persons to whom you are referring.
If your goal is to understand, then begin by stating clearly what you want to say – don't shout it. It would help if you actually made an attempt to listen to the people with whom you are attempting a speech act. Had you listened to me instead of react to me we would already be in conversation.
I do not appreciate you coming at me with some phony accusation as if this forum hasn't turned into a conservative echo chamber.
If you think this has become an echo chamber and your solution is to scream and shout to change that, then you're gonna have a bad day.
You should be thinking, "how can I help bring more people into the conversation?". Hint: Talking down to people, shouting, generalizing about everyone in these forums is NOT how you do that.
:spank2:
Now, to the topic in the thread.
The title is "The Left…They are Hypocrites". You want to change this to the left vs Donald Trump. Fine. Trump met with Weinstein. That's a fact. Everything else you wrote is speculation. That conversation is now done.
The left vs the right, that's open season.
My problem with the left is that, in general, they signal their virtues by kneeling, supporting BLM, give lip service to ideas like white privilege and Islamaphobia, and call people out for sexism while – and this is key -- having sat on decades of sexual harassment experiences with Weinstein. Moreover, they only come out against Weinstein when there's a mass movement against the man. There's no courage in that.
These past years of claiming they, the Ben Aflics of Hollywood, are morally superior to the common folk is false and hypocritical. Prove that wrong.
-
@cteavin, you claim to be new to these parts of the forum so I won't go deep into the reason why I have no patience for a lot of those who take up for the right on here. I had a long, popular thread about civility on here and basically everyone who takes up for the right spat in my face repeatedly. I was called many, many childish names and after over 2 months of trying to find middle ground with people who would rather deflect and derail the attempts of me and others, I gave up. I'm done with that. If I agree with someone, that's fine. If not, that's also fine. But my days of finding something to agree on are pretty much over and I am not the blame for that. I practically begged everyone to please tone down the rhetoric and let's agree on simple courteous measures and like I said, they spat in my face. Childish name calling (moonbat, cuck, etc.) is perfectly fine with you so once again, you have no right coming at me accusing me of being uncivil when you're fine with worse behavior.
-
@cteavin, you claim to be new to these parts of the forum so I won't go deep into the reason why I have no patience for a lot of those who take up for the right on here. I had a long, popular thread about civility on here and basically everyone who takes up for the right spat in my face repeatedly.
Childish name calling (moonbat, cuck, etc.) is perfectly fine with you so once again, you have no right coming at me accusing me of being uncivil when you're fine with worse behavior.
-
Did you spit back? If you spat back, then you are as much to blame. If you lose your patience, then you become part of the problem.
-
I am not a fan of name calling and do not like terms like moonbats and Osama for Obama or even Kim Jung Dung. I sometimes call it out. The solution isn't a tirade but compromise and patience and time.
:poorthing:
Now, what say you to my comments on the left and their virtue signaling vis a vie sitting on real sexual harassment?
-
-
@cteavin, you claim to be new to these parts of the forum so I won't go deep into the reason why I have no patience for a lot of those who take up for the right on here. I had a long, popular thread about civility on here and basically everyone who takes up for the right spat in my face repeatedly.
Childish name calling (moonbat, cuck, etc.) is perfectly fine with you so once again, you have no right coming at me accusing me of being uncivil when you're fine with worse behavior.
-
Did you spit back? If you spat back, then you are as much to blame. If you lose your patience, then you become part of the problem.
-
I am not a fan of name calling and do not like terms like moonbats and Osama for Obama or even Kim Jung Dung. I sometimes call it out. The solution isn't a tirade but compromise and patience and time.
:poorthing:
Now, what say you to my comments on the left and their virtue signaling vis a vie sitting on real sexual harassment?
I spat back once I got called out of my name multiple times after trying to be reasonable to people who had no plan on being childish and constantly derailing discussions. I didn't create a tirade, I simply made a civility post with a poll and I was attacked endlessly. It was truly disgusting what they did. It wasn't like I gave up overnight, I gave up after a good while of it.
As for your comments on what the left has been doing, it is wrong. They've obviously known about this for a very long time and sat on it because of the power they themselves gave Weinstein. That's what a culture of rape and sexual assault does, it's no different than many other instances including the one surrounding the president. I don't understand what you're getting at because I clearly stated in this very thread that President Obama took too long to say something and that's suspicious to me. I feel the same way about Hillary Clinton and others. What more do you want me to personally say about this? That the left are hypocrites for saying they're for women's rights and then helping to cover up something like this? I'm not going to agree to that based off of this incident because I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who had no idea this was going on. You seriously cannot be arguing that every single person who identifies as a liberal, including those outside of Hollywood, knew what Harvey Weinstein was doing. What about the people he didn't donate money to? What about the people he did donate money to but who have never been anywhere near him? Are you a wizard? Do you know every single person who has personally received donations from him and/or every single person who knew what he was doing?
-
-
@cteavin, you claim to be new to these parts of the forum so I won't go deep into the reason why I have no patience for a lot of those who take up for the right on here. I had a long, popular thread about civility on here and basically everyone who takes up for the right spat in my face repeatedly.
Childish name calling (moonbat, cuck, etc.) is perfectly fine with you so once again, you have no right coming at me accusing me of being uncivil when you're fine with worse behavior.
-
Did you spit back? If you spat back, then you are as much to blame. If you lose your patience, then you become part of the problem.
-
I am not a fan of name calling and do not like terms like moonbats and Osama for Obama or even Kim Jung Dung. I sometimes call it out. The solution isn't a tirade but compromise and patience and time.
:poorthing:
Now, what say you to my comments on the left and their virtue signaling vis a vie sitting on real sexual harassment?
Labels get applied to things that stand out, as a very short way of characterizing something. The left do it ad nauseum. Anybody they don't like is "Hitler", "Racist", etc. I sometimes call Kim Jun Un things like Kim Dumb Dung because he is such a low life evil turd that he doesn't deserve to be dignified by his proper name. Same situation with "Crooked Hillary" and "Lying Ted" and "Don Sourpuss Lemon".
Another way to put things in perspective in an instant without having to spend months re-stating and examining the past posts of this forum is to glance at this image..
-
-
As for your comments on what the left has been doing… What more do you want me to personally say about this? That the left are hypocrites for saying they're for women's rights and then helping to cover up something like this? I'm not going to agree to that based off of this incident because I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who had no idea this was going on. You seriously cannot be arguing that every single person who identifies as a liberal, including those outside of Hollywood, knew what Harvey Weinstein was doing. What about the people he didn't donate money to? What about the people he did donate money to but who have never been anywhere near him? Are you a wizard? Do you know every single person who has personally received donations from him and/or every single person who knew what he was doing?
My problem with the left is that, in general, they signal their virtues by kneeling, supporting BLM, give lip service to ideas like white privilege and Islamaphobia, and call people out for sexism while – and this is key -- having sat on decades of sexual harassment experiences with Weinstein. Moreover, they only come out against Weinstein when there's a mass movement against the man. There's no courage in that.
These past years of claiming they, the Ben Aflics of Hollywood, are morally superior to the common folk is false and hypocritical. Prove that wrong.
Look at the bold in your text an mine. I'll wait.
I specifically used the words in general in the first paragraph then went on to signal in the second paragraph that I was talking about the Ben Aflicks of the world, meaning the people in Weinsteins orbit. Now, reading back, I can see that I was not clear enough in the first.
Let me fix it so my meaning is clearer.
My problem with the left is that, in general, they signal their virtues by kneeling, supporting BLM, give lip service to ideas like white privilege and Islamaphobia, and call people out for sexism. While at the same time – and this is key -- Hollywood elites have sat on decades of sexual harassment experiences with Weinstein. Moreover, they (these elites) only come out against Weinstein when there's a mass movement against the man. There's no courage in that.
Now is my meaning clearer?
The topic is hypocrisy. The people in Hollywood have been standing up to pee on the average person thinking themselves the vanguards of decency and morality while these people have been complicit because they don't want to lose their fat paychecks.
-
Labels get applied to things that stand out, as a very short way of characterizing something. The left do it ad nauseum. Anybody they don't like is "Hitler", "Racist", etc.
Yup. That's absolutely true. And you know I've told you, Federick, directly I don't like it (fistbump) and we're still friendly with one another (fistbump). I'm not going to police someone's speech. It's not my place. To have a tantrum everytime someone does something I disagree with isn't a blanket endorsement.
I simply want people to play nicely so I have a place to come to for discussion and different points of view.
I also want the country to heal and the only way to do that is for us, each and every individual, to have civil discourse.
-
As for your comments on what the left has been doing… What more do you want me to personally say about this? That the left are hypocrites for saying they're for women's rights and then helping to cover up something like this? I'm not going to agree to that based off of this incident because I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who had no idea this was going on. You seriously cannot be arguing that every single person who identifies as a liberal, including those outside of Hollywood, knew what Harvey Weinstein was doing. What about the people he didn't donate money to? What about the people he did donate money to but who have never been anywhere near him? Are you a wizard? Do you know every single person who has personally received donations from him and/or every single person who knew what he was doing?
My problem with the left is that, in general, they signal their virtues by kneeling, supporting BLM, give lip service to ideas like white privilege and Islamaphobia, and call people out for sexism while – and this is key -- having sat on decades of sexual harassment experiences with Weinstein. Moreover, they only come out against Weinstein when there's a mass movement against the man. There's no courage in that.
These past years of claiming they, the Ben Aflics of Hollywood, are morally superior to the common folk is false and hypocritical. Prove that wrong.
Look at the bold in your text an mine. I'll wait.
I specifically used the words in general in the first paragraph then went on to signal in the second paragraph that I was talking about the Ben Aflicks of the world, meaning the people in Weinsteins orbit. Now, reading back, I can see that I was not clear enough in the first.
Let me fix it so my meaning is clearer.
My problem with the left is that, in general, they signal their virtues by kneeling, supporting BLM, give lip service to ideas like white privilege and Islamaphobia, and call people out for sexism. While at the same time – and this is key -- Hollywood elites have sat on decades of sexual harassment experiences with Weinstein. Moreover, they (these elites) only come out against Weinstein when there's a mass movement against the man. There's no courage in that.
Now is my meaning clearer?
The topic is hypocrisy. The people in Hollywood have been standing up to pee on the average person thinking themselves the vanguards of decency and morality while these people have been complicit because they don't want to lose their fat paychecks.
Once again, I will agree those who knew and continued to provide shelter for Weinstein because of the power they themselves gave him while also claiming they have some sort of moral authority is textbook hypocrisy. For those who did not, I'm not going to blanket them as knowing because I'm not an all-knowing wizard. My argument which I clearly stated is that a situation like this is proof that just like rape, sexual harassment is a culture with agents who keep it going no matter their justification for keeping the culture going. I didn't make that argument to counter what you're saying but to simply add to what you are saying. You asked me to stick to the topic instead of bringing up other instances of rape and sexual harassment situations and that's what I am now doing. I am not defending what many people on the left have done in this situation. For the women who were harassed by Weinstein, some who are also leftists, are you blaming them for remaining quiet instead of going against an entire culture? Who would have believed them? The current president himself suspected Weinstein of being a perv but didn't say anything. I have a suspicion that President Obama also knew and didn't say anything. If presidents were unwilling to call him out, that gives me no confidence that anyone would have believed the victims which is devastating. That's what cultures of rape and sexual harassment do, they create shelter and safety for the perv in exchange for favors and as a result, the victims themselves are often blamed.
As for other matters you brought up such as BLM and football players kneeling, I would rather not make this post longer than it needs to be. My stance on BLM is complex and I do not–-nor anyone in my family or circle of friends---wholly supports them; therefore, I don't follow which people on the left endorse them or ignores them. If someone on the left endorses BLM but also participates in racist practices against black people then yes, they are a hypocrite.
And no, there is no courage in participating in crowd condemnation which is why once again I condemned the way President Obama spoke out about it. He waited until it was "popular" to call out Weinstein and that's wrong.
-
Labels get applied to things that stand out, as a very short way of characterizing something. The left do it ad nauseum. Anybody they don't like is "Hitler", "Racist", etc.
Yup. That's absolutely true. And you know I've told you, Federick, directly I don't like it (fistbump) and we're still friendly with one another (fistbump). I'm not going to police someone's speech. It's not my place. To have a tantrum everytime someone does something I disagree with isn't a blanket endorsement.
I simply want people to play nicely so I have a place to come to for discussion and different points of view.
I also want the country to heal and the only way to do that is for us, each and every individual, to have civil discourse.
You were not here several months ago when the moniker battle was going on. The moonbats were tearing into Trump with every derogatory word and slanderous bullshit that they could conjure up. I needed a word to apply to the people I now refer to as "moonbats". I didn't want to use the broad term "liberals" because just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they are a complete idiot or bad person. I needed a word to distinguish the "moonbats" from the liberals. Let me use an example applied to my own race so I don't get attacked for being "racist". All rednecks are white, but not all white people are rednecks. It would be bad for me to criticize white people when my target for derision was actually rednecks. Likewise, I prefer to limit my criticism to moonbats instead of to all liberals. I even went so far as to repeatedly ask the members of the group for suggestions on a word I could use that they would approve of. I got no responses. Finally I suggested several words myself, and "moonbat" got approved. I also pull no punches in criticizing police - which is in contrast to Trump who consistently praises them. I think of the bad police as being stormtroopers.
That is why I posted the image of the reputations earlier. People earn their good and bad reputations.. which is why RaphJD and myself have mega long green lines.. whilst the bad bad boys have long red lines.
