QT mentioned in one of his recent interviews that his ex gf Mira Sorvino told him (quite a few years ago) that Harvey made 'unwelcome advances and unwanted touching'. He also mentioned that another actress told him a similar story. So QT knows for sure (& not like a rumor) who Harvey is.
Harvey Weinstein fired from The Weinstein Co.
- Thread starter sfoster
- Start date
That's not quite accurate. There was a 2010 study by three psychological researchers (Michael W. Kraus, University of California, San Francisco; Stéphane Côté, University of Toronto; and Dacher Keltner, the University of California, Berkeley) that members of the upper class are less adept at reading emotions. The title of the study was paraphrased by the NYT to read "As for Empathy, the Haves Have Not", and this particular paper seems to be the "supporting authority" for the long standing "the evil rich don't care about poor people" frame of mind. However, The Association for Psychological Science found the study "fatally flawed", citing improper sampling and conclusions not supported by facts, and the authors have since retraced their study citing "further analysis required". Interestingly, their survey sampling was almost exclusively students and faculty from several liberal arts universities, raising the point among critics that it may be liberals who are less empathetic. Personally, I think there's going to be equal assholes among every group, and every political party.
Ah yes life in the misinformation age
You last point is certainly true.
The critics' point is just political blabla, because eventhough one might argue the pool was mostly in the liberal part of the spectrum, that parameter was shared by the complete pool. And if the research done properly or sloppy suggests wealth is correlated to empathy, it means that the polital bias in the pool was hardly an influence. Otherwise the complete pool would score that way.
BTW, this remark is not about politics although it comments on it.
My point is: it is silly if you have a group of Marsians and after some research you find a seemingly correlation (not to be mistaken with causality) between the amount of pancakes the own and a tendency to love Bollywood songs, it is silly to suggest that because they are all Martians, they probably all love Bollywood songs.
Because the common denominator can not be used to explain differences in a group.
At the same time the common denominator can also mean that the results can blindly be transplanted to all beings in the solar system: that would require more research.
This kind of research is called soft science because it is hard to really get reproducable results as it requires quiries filled by people or games to be played. (Which means most people know they are being tested.)
But you are right: lot of valid or crappy research gets quoted wrongly and echoed forever (like the 93% of our communication in non-verbal myth). And this one is surely among them: it didn't get retracted for nothing.
There are a-holes everywhere. That is for sure.
But what metoo has shown is that people with power can have the means to get away with it for a very long time. So when rich and powerfull people can be equally evil as the poor, changes are the poor will be hunted down much sooner. Or at least that used to be the case.
Yes. Has anyone besides the gymnastics coach been tried & sentenced?
Having a lot of money lets you pay for the best lawyers & pay settlements to victims to avoid trial.
That may be true. But the rich are in a position of power & can hurt a lot more people through their business practices & their influence on government.
A corporation has to keep increasing profits every year. At some point they have to abuse natural & human resources to sustain that growth. CEOs & their board of directors get paid a lot of money & that makes it easier for them to place a higher priority on profits over people's welfare. It lets them feel far removed from the consequences of their decisions. They don't even have to be assholes, but if they do their job well & make sure the corporation makes tons of money, they can hurt a lot of people without meaning to.
Three cases for Harvey have been sent to the DA but currently no charges have been pressed against him.
http://www.khou.com/article/news/na...rges/465-991f6d13-6503-4778-8fa0-d0d9a814d97f
Wow I am running out of energy to keep updating this. WTF!!
Karla Souza says she was violently raped on location in mexico by a director
In a curious twist - she refuses to name the director.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebr...-was-raped-by-a-director-in-mexico/ar-BBJoJS8
Karla Souza says she was violently raped on location in mexico by a director
In a curious twist - she refuses to name the director.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebr...-was-raped-by-a-director-in-mexico/ar-BBJoJS8
James franco is continuing on with season 2 of the deuce for HBO.
That's interesting because there was a seemingly damning allegation about him, perhaps the frenzy is dying down.
To me this is a signal that the metoo movement has peaked and now things will begin to stabilize into a new status quo. the hyper red alert that we've been on couldn't last forever.
That's interesting because there was a seemingly damning allegation about him, perhaps the frenzy is dying down.
To me this is a signal that the metoo movement has peaked and now things will begin to stabilize into a new status quo. the hyper red alert that we've been on couldn't last forever.
Lawsuit against Harvey "blocks the $500 million sale of the company that was about to go ahead."
http://www.newsweek.com/harvey-weinstein-threatened-kill-employees-new-york-attorney-802903
http://www.newsweek.com/harvey-weinstein-threatened-kill-employees-new-york-attorney-802903
Brendan Fraser says he was groped by the president of the Hollywood foreign press association.
Fraser says that he reported the incident and around the same time all of his career opportunities went away.
https://www.gq.com/story/what-ever-happened-to-brendan-fraser
Fraser says that he reported the incident and around the same time all of his career opportunities went away.
https://www.gq.com/story/what-ever-happened-to-brendan-fraser
This case reminds me of what George Carlin said in "the Big Club" monologue about the owners of media telling you what to think, what to believe.
The #MeToo movement is a cover for what has been revealed to be systemic exploitation of women (something Rachel Weisz mentioned in 2002 or so--she said women (especially those of European heritage) were seen as whores by the owners of Hollywood). This is not a society problem--it is a Hollywood media problem.
Weinstein was shown to be a serial rapist and abuser of women, as well as a massive hypocrite-since he made films on female empowerment. But beyond that, all of Hollywood knew, and did nothing--except make jokes like the "five women who no longer have to pretend they are attracted to Weinstein." If you think about it, the joke is that the women are powerless to do anything about the abuse.
In the late 80s Lysette Anthony went to UK police about a rape by Weinstein and it did nothing.
The Italian model in 2015 who helped get a wiretap on Weinstein achieved nothing-the New York DA dropped the case. Given Weinstein's political connections, if an election had gone differently, would the mass media have even talked about it?
Basically Hollywood is the Handmaid's Tale for real-it is just the perpetrators are not of the heritage described in the book or movie or tv show.
Even more alarming, we know that Weinstein had assistants helping him set up victims-so that means he was totally protected from exposure.
And perhaps the most important fact to come to light? Hollywood is not supply and demand business--it is a cabal or mafia with deep pockets. The Big Club.
Think about it. Peter Jackson confirmed that Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino were on a blacklist for disobeying Weinstein. What does that mean? It means a) Weinstein's business could fire employees they had spent money building up marquee value for and b) he could go to his "rivals" and "competitors" and get them to honor the blacklist.
This is an incredible admission. Imagine if it was a clothing business and Weinstein fires one of his main seamstresses and then tells the other clothes makers in town not to hire her. Why would they agree? The only reason they would is because they all share the same family background and they are not really running a supply-demand for profit business. They have money. The question then becomes, why are they in the media business? For fun? Or because they see it as a way of controlling society's information, or for social engineering?
Also has to be mentioned that such behavior was never reported to exist at Walt Disney under its founder so it isn't like "powerful men = Weinstein."
Special situation. This type of serial abuse has not been reported at Exxon or any other major business.
The solution is to have diversity in media ownership. Or something like SIMMP: http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/index.htm
Hollywood is in collapse anyway-it has alienated most of the traditional audiences--it claims to care more about Asia but I think that is just more PR nonsense. You have people with no financial limits who have little talent, a lack of respect for audiences, and they have a stranglehold on media ownership in the US, Canada, England, etc.
Back in the days of Walt Disney, John Ford, Howard Hawks or John Huston, the filmmakers mostly came from the same heritage as the audience. But these days, Hollywood wants to hire people across the globe to make content for all audiences. This makes no sense. There has never been such a thing as "global art." Art always reflected the customs and beliefs of a particular audience. Film was invented in Europe and much of the dramatic structure comes from Europe as well.
In the 1960s when cheap film stock came on the market, there was an explosion in content--from Japan to England, and the least interesting content was being done by the Hollywood majors on their backlots.
Then in the 70s, rather suddenly, all the independent film production companies started to dry up and major Hollywood was supreme-claiming that audiences didnt want variety-they just wanted the blockbuster.
We've seen the shrinking of content and the dumbing down of ideas ever since.
The only reason Hollywood is still in operation is because they are above supply and demand rules.
This was not the case for Walt Disney-he was operating a supply-demand business, but he wasn't of the same heritage as the big studios.
He would be so pissed if he saw what has been done to his company. Modern Disney has contempt for the traditional audience that Walt Disney catered to.
We need new media business badly. If audiences were allowed to select their own content, most of big Hollywood would be left behind. And performers wouldnt have to worry about being blacklisted. The only reason there is such a threat is because of the monopoly.
Not to mention, then you would probably have better performers too since how many would be actresses never went into it because they didnt want to be prostitutes?
Digital and the internet promise hope, but the big internet companies are also connected to major Hollywood corporations and seek to keep a stranglehold over content creation and distribution.
The #MeToo movement is a cover for what has been revealed to be systemic exploitation of women (something Rachel Weisz mentioned in 2002 or so--she said women (especially those of European heritage) were seen as whores by the owners of Hollywood). This is not a society problem--it is a Hollywood media problem.
Weinstein was shown to be a serial rapist and abuser of women, as well as a massive hypocrite-since he made films on female empowerment. But beyond that, all of Hollywood knew, and did nothing--except make jokes like the "five women who no longer have to pretend they are attracted to Weinstein." If you think about it, the joke is that the women are powerless to do anything about the abuse.
In the late 80s Lysette Anthony went to UK police about a rape by Weinstein and it did nothing.
The Italian model in 2015 who helped get a wiretap on Weinstein achieved nothing-the New York DA dropped the case. Given Weinstein's political connections, if an election had gone differently, would the mass media have even talked about it?
Basically Hollywood is the Handmaid's Tale for real-it is just the perpetrators are not of the heritage described in the book or movie or tv show.
Even more alarming, we know that Weinstein had assistants helping him set up victims-so that means he was totally protected from exposure.
And perhaps the most important fact to come to light? Hollywood is not supply and demand business--it is a cabal or mafia with deep pockets. The Big Club.
Think about it. Peter Jackson confirmed that Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino were on a blacklist for disobeying Weinstein. What does that mean? It means a) Weinstein's business could fire employees they had spent money building up marquee value for and b) he could go to his "rivals" and "competitors" and get them to honor the blacklist.
This is an incredible admission. Imagine if it was a clothing business and Weinstein fires one of his main seamstresses and then tells the other clothes makers in town not to hire her. Why would they agree? The only reason they would is because they all share the same family background and they are not really running a supply-demand for profit business. They have money. The question then becomes, why are they in the media business? For fun? Or because they see it as a way of controlling society's information, or for social engineering?
Also has to be mentioned that such behavior was never reported to exist at Walt Disney under its founder so it isn't like "powerful men = Weinstein."
Special situation. This type of serial abuse has not been reported at Exxon or any other major business.
The solution is to have diversity in media ownership. Or something like SIMMP: http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/index.htm
Hollywood is in collapse anyway-it has alienated most of the traditional audiences--it claims to care more about Asia but I think that is just more PR nonsense. You have people with no financial limits who have little talent, a lack of respect for audiences, and they have a stranglehold on media ownership in the US, Canada, England, etc.
Back in the days of Walt Disney, John Ford, Howard Hawks or John Huston, the filmmakers mostly came from the same heritage as the audience. But these days, Hollywood wants to hire people across the globe to make content for all audiences. This makes no sense. There has never been such a thing as "global art." Art always reflected the customs and beliefs of a particular audience. Film was invented in Europe and much of the dramatic structure comes from Europe as well.
In the 1960s when cheap film stock came on the market, there was an explosion in content--from Japan to England, and the least interesting content was being done by the Hollywood majors on their backlots.
Then in the 70s, rather suddenly, all the independent film production companies started to dry up and major Hollywood was supreme-claiming that audiences didnt want variety-they just wanted the blockbuster.
We've seen the shrinking of content and the dumbing down of ideas ever since.
The only reason Hollywood is still in operation is because they are above supply and demand rules.
This was not the case for Walt Disney-he was operating a supply-demand business, but he wasn't of the same heritage as the big studios.
He would be so pissed if he saw what has been done to his company. Modern Disney has contempt for the traditional audience that Walt Disney catered to.
We need new media business badly. If audiences were allowed to select their own content, most of big Hollywood would be left behind. And performers wouldnt have to worry about being blacklisted. The only reason there is such a threat is because of the monopoly.
Not to mention, then you would probably have better performers too since how many would be actresses never went into it because they didnt want to be prostitutes?
Digital and the internet promise hope, but the big internet companies are also connected to major Hollywood corporations and seek to keep a stranglehold over content creation and distribution.
I have to disagree with your logic here.
The reality is that it's incredibly common for employers to get references from someones resume and contact their former employer for questions. It's called due diligence.
James Woods
"I recommend this interview highly. I, too, was blacklisted by that individual at #HFPA after nine Golden Globe nominations," "During a press junket with HFPA, he asked if I would support Hillary Clinton if she ever ran for president. Never nominated again."
"For the record, however, he was never physically 'sketchy' with me in any way similar to that alleged by Brendan Fraser in GQ. He was probably aware I might have knocked his teeth out, had he tried. Final note: I'm so glad Brendan Fraser is back entertaining us. I'm a big fan."
So Brendan says former Hollywood Foreign Press president Philip Berk caused his depression & eventual career downturn by groping his taint at a luncheon in 2003. I feel bad for Brendan. The mind is powerful. If you believe you are worthless, you'll do things that will eventually bring your life down. There's an interview on YouTube that Brendan did a couple years ago for The Affair, he looked like a broken man.
I'm guessing Berk felt safe in doing that because he'd observed Brendan was insecure & non-aggressive. If Berk was comfortable enough to do that in a crowded room, he probably did it to others. If Brendan's telling the truth, he should've punched Berk out right then, he could've prevented him from harassing more people.
I'm guessing Berk felt safe in doing that because he'd observed Brendan was insecure & non-aggressive. If Berk was comfortable enough to do that in a crowded room, he probably did it to others. If Brendan's telling the truth, he should've punched Berk out right then, he could've prevented him from harassing more people.
Interesting theory.
What could their social engineering be trying to make people do?
Conform to their beliefs