5 ms·
Weinstein was far more powerful and thus dangerous to his potential denouncers. His fall is a signal that abuse isn't tolerated anymore from people with his st
by pygy_ 9y ago
Weinstein was far more powerful and thus dangerous to his potential denouncers.
His fall is a signal that abuse isn't tolerated anymore from people with his stature.
- briandear 9y agoNO. His fall is a signal that abusers that get caught won’t be tolerated. Everyone knew about this. They even joked about it on the Oscar stage a few years back. Had that news story not come out, nothing would be happening to Harvey right now. We ought to ask why The NY Times let Matt Damon, Russel Crowe and George Clooney influence their decision to spike the story ten years ago. And we ought to ask why those actors are not being demonized for contributing to Harvey’s continued predatory behavior.
- Chris2048 9y ago> we ought to ask why those actors are not being demonized There's as yet no suggestion that those actors were aware of the context of their endorsements.
- eternalban 9y ago> Weinstein was far more powerful and thus dangerous to his potential denouncers. Really. Interesting. So you claim that e.g. The New York Times was weaker than a studio head? Sexual deprevity in Hollywood has never been a "secret", but it doesn't help if your "stars" -- which are then promoted to soft politics propaganda work -- are shown to be individuals that tolerate anything for fame and riches. And equally, it doesn't help advancing various social engineering projects if the heads of studios that push JUNK to your children are shown to be sexual predators. The actual question of interest here is what is being covered up that throwing Weinstein under the bus got the green light.