Weinstein found guilty

[Mark of Zorro]

, I'll thank you not to try to draw parallels between cases that have none.

I was not doing that. I was merely showing how hearing a story hardly makes one a proper witness.

And Hell, that was not even in reply to you!

 

[nice gaijin]

I was not doing that. I was merely showing how hearing a story hardly makes one a proper witness.

And Hell, that was not even in reply to you!

You may see it as trying to make a specific point, but in this context it looks like you're trying to weaken the value of certain testimony in the Weinstein case; bringing up an easily refuted example is the very definition of a straw man. As I said, in any case these witnesses are only allowed to testify to their direct observations, and "hearsay" objections would be heavily used to keep the "crap" out, as you put it.

First you need to clarify....are the untrue and less credible allegations directly related to the crime for which one was convicted? Perhaps an example is in order? Cause what you just described sounds like a false conviction.

The two questions are linked. I'm not looking to fantasize any more than we already are, so let's stick to the case at hand. Weinstein was a known creep that abused his power to control women; it was an open secret in Hollywood, and for many years he got away with it because he was considered untouchable. But Weinstein wasn't charged for being a creep, he was charged for specific crimes for which the prosecution believed there was sufficient evidence to convict. The other stories and rumors about Weinstein would not have been allowed in the courtroom, to avoid prejudicing the jury. There were many stories, but only so many charges were filed and victims stepping forward. There are many reasons for delayed reporting or non-reporting in rape and sexual abuse cases, including the fear of not being believed, or fear of reprisal, or a desire to move on and not be forced to relive the abuse, as the whole process is very stressful. It seems like the changing political environment of #metoo did play a role, and emboldened some of the victims to step forward to seek justice.

Due to the nature of the allegations and the timeline, there was no physical evidence available and the case hinged on testimony and the jury's ability to discern the veracity of the allegations. I know you don't like this, so how would you change things to make them more fair, both to alleged victims and the accused?

In deliberations, jurors are supposed to carefully consider each count individually; not as in a vacuum, but they are not allowed to say "if this count is true than this other count must be true," unless the two charges are indelibly linked. There were other charges for separate occasions that he was not convicted on. They didn't decide that because one charge was true therefore it was reasonable that he committed the other crime, they weighed each charge on its own and convicted on the charges they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

As you mentioned, there were emails that cast doubt on some of the allegations made, but were not permitted in court; in the recap I linked to it says that some of Mann's emails were used in court to cast doubt on her testimony; one of the two convictions were directly tied to her abuse, which means that these emails did not dissuade the jury from convicting on that charge. I'm not sure if character witnesses were used in this case to enforce or refute the testimony made, or to what extent they had influenced the decision.

Per a friend of mine who is trial lawyer, it's reasonable to say that there was immense political pressure to not appear to sweep the case under the rug. He noted that the evidence was thin, and it's difficult to convict on testimony alone. The surprising thing about this case is that that the prosecution didn't seek an indictment first and went straight to filing charges. Considering the high profile of the case, it would have been a more conservative move to seek indictment to file formal charges, in a jurisdiction less tainted by public knowledge of the case. More fodder for a future appeal, perhaps.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

but in this context it looks like

I don't care what it looks like to you. I was not doing what I was not doing, but thanks for going ahead and proving that people will judge things falsely based on what they perceive it "looks like" up in their own head.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It seems like the changing political environment of #metoo did play a role, and emboldened some of the victims to step forward to seek justice.

What gets overlooked, or unsaid due to the fear of ostracization is that it also emboldens the liars and the delusional to seek revenge for perceived wrongs, such as those who didn't get to be a star, whether because Weinstein didn't try as promised, or they just didn't have what it took despite Weinstein trying.

Weinstein was a known creep that abused his power to control women

I agree he was a creep because every man getting sex with any woman not his own wife is automatically a creep. Even men who only have sex with their own wives are labeled creeps if they "look" like they want sex with another. "Creep" is just an anti-man word at this point.

As for "abuse" his power, I don't even know what power he had to abuse except as an employer threatening to cut wages or terminate employment but that's not what I am hearing. What I am hearing is that he could make introductions and recommendations and the implied and indeed as you say "well known" exchange was sexual favors.

AFAIK the two best vaginal lubricants are money and status and that being the case, men pursue them with direct intent to get sex. Its hard for me to see how men should be blamed for their desire for sex via the means that women are most likely to give it up, generally speaking. And specifically to this case we have women seeking fame and Weinstein further had the means to possibly secure that. And so he offered the exchange he wanted and so many others had taken. Was he supposed to help them out of altruism?

I think the point is that everyone knew the deal and how could they not?

I know you don't like this, so how would you change things to make them more fair, both to alleged victims and the accused?

Its an impossible task for any true victims at this point and they have themselves to blame. I look to the future. Socio-sexual norms need a complete over-haul to protect men and women alike. But its women who are going to balk at each and every step to protect them and so they keep getting what they get and my pity for them is long gone.

Given a cell phone in the pocket of every woman in every modern country on Earth, can you even imagine the possibilities for recording evidence? Can women be bothered? No. Will they shoot the idea down for being a mood killer, or embarrassing or some other crap? Yes. I seriously cannot be bothered anymore. You can't help them. They won't help themselves. And after the fact I am supposed to listen to them and approve of going after some guy whose deal every waif, every stray cat and every tree knew?

Well, anyway, a lot of digression, but I have read a lot of article about this and none gave me sufficient evidence to make me truly believe anything. And it seems to me that everyone posting here but me implicitly trusts the courts to have done justice, but I do not. That right there seems to be the key to the difference in opinion as no one including me can offer hard fast specifics over the man's guilt or innocence either way.

 

[nice gaijin]

Woof. Well, this conversation took a turn. I had to let this fall by the wayside for a while because there have been much more pressing things going on right now. I also wanted to take the time to write with a clear head and not from a knee-jerk response.

At this point, it's pretty clear that the two sides of this argument are determined by which party we empathize with. I've heard the arguments on both sides of the advent of #metoo. As I see it, up until recently women have fought an uphill battle against sexual harassment and misogyny, which is perpetrated by both men and women alike as it's been part of our social programming. "Boys will be boys," "locker room talk," "men only want one thing," et al. The tropes go on and on.

On the other hand, I see men that are scared that their past transgressions might come under scrutiny, and they may be accused of having crossed lines that appear to have moved. I can understand this fear, but it's kind of a weird way to fight against the shifting paradigm of sexual consent and accountability, to get so nervous about how it might affect oneself. I wouldn't want to be falsely accused of something I didn't do, but I'm also not too worried that this will happen to me, and if it does I have some faith that I'll be vindicated in the end. As I've pointed out, there are a lot of mechanisms in the justice system that try to keep things honest. It seems more like some men are worried that they'll be accused of something they did do, but at the time were unconcerned with how their actions affected others. And those cases may skirt or cross the line into illegal behavior, as it does in the Weinstein case.

Like I've said before, delayed or under-reporting happens for a number of reasons. Women can't make an accusation without being blamed for their role in their abuse, as people become captain hindsight and say "they knew what they were doing. Look at what they were wearing? What did they get out of it? They were asking for it. Men can't help themselves, that's just the way it is. If they didn't want it they would've/should've/could've ......." This happens at every level of the process. All of these arguments deny women their sexual autonomy, and their ability to draw a line and withdraw consent. It also denies men their own autonomy, and their ability to behave themselves; I'm surprised more men aren't insulted by this attitude.

So in a shifting paradigm of mantra like "I believe women," there's a fear that we'll be suckered by liars... But even the example you gave doesn't hold up, because the story quickly fell apart under scrutiny. I know of a few cases where it seems like men have paid a heavy price for doing something that used to be considered innocuous, but they are far outweighed by instances of men getting away with bad or outright criminal behavior. So if our options are either allowing rape to go unpunished so men don't have to worry about the consequences of their actions, or we start taking accusations seriously at the risk of false accusations being made (which is a crime itself with its own liabilities), I'll go with "punish rapists." They make us all look bad, and our complicity in perpetuating rape culture seems a far worse look in the history books than some people getting momentarily fooled by someone acting in bad faith.

What gets overlooked, or unsaid due to the fear of ostracization is that it also emboldens the liars and the delusional to seek revenge for perceived wrongs, such as those who didn't get to be a star, whether because Weinstein didn't try as promised, or they just didn't have what it took despite Weinstein trying.

I agree he was a creep because every man getting sex with any woman not his own wife is automatically a creep. Even men who only have sex with their own wives are labeled creeps if they "look" like they want sex with another. "Creep" is just an anti-man word at this point.

Sarcasm, cool. I'm not denying people their sexuality, but we're responsible for our own behavior. And "creepy" behavior is on the spectrum heading towards "predatory," which is how I would characterize Weinstein's actions. He had access to these young women as a part of his business. These women were his co-workers, employees, contemporaries, or associates. They weren't his personal harem. He used his power to isolate them and coerce or bully them into performing sexual favors. He also retaliated against women who didn't accept his advances. That's unprofessional, unacceptable, and illegal. It speaks to the general attitude of the industry that he was allowed to continue this behavior, and the likelihood certainty that he wasn't the only bad apple in the barrel.

That despite his reputation young actresses didn't avoid him altogether might speak to his power in the industry, and they either took the risk of being harassed or naively thought it wouldn't happen to them, or perhaps they knew that they'd probably have to put up with the same kind of behavior from whomever they dealt with. But knowing that doesn't really excuse his behavior, does it? He wasn't accused of merely asking out women he worked with, which is already unprofessional; he lured them into private situations, sometimes under the guise of some professional purpose, and violated their consent. It's telling that we shame women when they're seen as "sleeping to the top," but we approve of men who manage to bed beautiful women who work under them.

As for "abuse" his power, I don't even know what power he had to abuse except as an employer threatening to cut wages or terminate employment but that's not what I am hearing. What I am hearing is that he could make introductions and recommendations and the implied and indeed as you say "well known" exchange was sexual favors.

AFAIK the two best vaginal lubricants are money and status and that being the case, men pursue them with direct intent to get sex. Its hard for me to see how men should be blamed for their desire for sex via the means that women are most likely to give it up, generally speaking. And specifically to this case we have women seeking fame and Weinstein further had the means to possibly secure that. And so he offered the exchange he wanted and so many others had taken. Was he supposed to help them out of altruism?

I think the point is that everyone knew the deal and how could they not?

Yikes. I'm not sure where to start. There are plenty of examples of Weinstein flexing his power to stymie careers, or to benefit women that accepted his advances. You may see this as being part of some kind of transaction, but is that how you want the industry to be run? Your concept of what motivates people is simplistic and insulting, generally speaking. Who hurt you, @Mark of Zorro?

He was a businessman; he was supposed to help these women out because that was his business, and their talent and success helped make money for his business. Him being a predator is his own personal failing, it's not an acceptable aspect of the industry ("accepted," you might say, but not acceptable), and it's not necessarily what his victims signed up for. We don't tolerate sexual favors as a form of bribery either.

Its an impossible task for any true victims at this point and they have themselves to blame. I look to the future. Socio-sexual norms need a complete over-haul to protect men and women alike. But its women who are going to balk at each and every step to protect them and so they keep getting what they get and my pity for them is long gone.

This is such a disappointing non-answer. I asked how you would change things, and you can't even offer a specific suggestion for how you could bring men and women to equal footing? And again, you blame women, and say that they wouldn't protect themselves if it meant giving up this sweet deal of trading their sexual autonomy to get ahead in a rigged game. While at the same time you call them opportunists that are getting what they signed up for...

Given a cell phone in the pocket of every woman in every modern country on Earth, can you even imagine the possibilities for recording evidence? Can women be bothered? No. Will they shoot the idea down for being a mood killer, or embarrassing or some other crap? Yes. I seriously cannot be bothered anymore. You can't help them. They won't help themselves. And after the fact I am supposed to listen to them and approve of going after some guy whose deal every waif, every stray cat and every tree knew?

It's good to have some kind of evidence to demonstrate enthusiastic, ongoing consent... but are you talking about recording sex tapes as evidence? Revenge porn is a thing, and the double standard ensures that women are on the short end of that stick. You're speaking in platitudes, but there are a lot of ways that women are trying to "protect" or "help" themselves. Is it too much to ask that men consider their own behavior might be a part of the problem, or to suggest that they should be held accountable for their behavior?

Well, anyway, a lot of digression, but I have read a lot of article about this and none gave me sufficient evidence to make me truly believe anything. And it seems to me that everyone posting here but me implicitly trusts the courts to have done justice, but I do not. That right there seems to be the key to the difference in opinion as no one including me can offer hard fast specifics over the man's guilt or innocence either way.

You're welcome to be skeptical of the efficacy of our courts. I spent a lot of time trying to explain the mechanisms that try to keep things honest. You claimed that not having sat on a trial jury didn't mean you were ignorant of how they work, but you've shown a clear lack of interest in the process because you have made an emotional foregone conclusion about the people involved. I gave it a shot.

I don't care what it looks like to you. I was not doing what I was not doing, but thanks for going ahead and proving that people will judge things falsely based on what they perceive it "looks like" up in their own head.

OK, thanks for clearing that up. We don't get to dictate how our arguments are interpreted, and if people misinterpret what we say, maybe we aren't phrasing them too well. You started by claiming there was no way to know what really happened, but at least you finally dropped your façade. I won't waste my time further on this subject.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I won't waste my time further on this subject.

Well I sure am glad I skipped to the end of that monster post before reading the whole thing. In that case, I won't bother reading or addressing it. I literally have better ways of wasting my own time.

Skimming though, I see this:

"You may see this as being part of some kind of transaction, but is that how you want the industry to be run? Your concept of what motivates people is simplistic and insulting, generally speaking. Who hurt you, @Mark of Zorro?"

Don't ask me questions if you are not going to "waste your time further on this subject". Just horrifically inconsiderate of you.

 

[nice gaijin]

OK glad I could provide you with an excuse to write me off. Be well.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

OK glad I could provide you with an excuse to write me off. Be well.

Its not an excuse and you wrote yourself off.

Next time just ask me to work an 8 hour a day job for you for free. Maybe the excuse can be "work is its own reward".

 

[nice gaijin]

I wrote a lot to try to ensure that my position was understood, but OK; if you want to get worked up over one sentence and ignore the rest of it, that's your own trip. I've clearly taken you and this topic too seriously.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

You asked me questions then said you were out of here. How do you three not comprehend the crappiness of that?

 

[nice gaijin]

I don't care what it looks like to you. I was not doing what I was not doing, but thanks for going ahead and proving that people will judge things falsely based on what they perceive it "looks like" up in their own head.

Throwing a fit because I seem inconsiderate after your own obstinance, and holding me to your double standard because you can't be bothered to address the substance of the discussion really drives the point home.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

because you can't be bothered to address the substance of the discussion

I won't waste my time further on this subject.