Alec Baldwin has a point

[Berzerker]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/alec-baldwin

He's no saint when it comes to the treatment of women (so I hear), but he recently got in trouble for 'victim blaming' when he accused Rose McGowan et al of delaying justice by taking $$$ from Harvey Weinstein for their silence. He's right... right?

So now he's accused of blaming the victims... But he aint blaming them for being raped or sexually harassed, he's calling them out for remaining silent in exchange for cash. Their silence allowed Weinstein to continue on his path leaving more victims in his wake.

Well, Baldwin's comments have some people very upset... I can understand why an actress would take $$$ to keep quiet, get money, keep the career moving forward, dont make waves, etc. But on the other hand their silence ensured future victims.

And my god the list of Weinstein's victims is looong... I just saw a photo compilation of all the women who've come out to accuse him and it looked like a HS yearbook with dozens of faces.

What do you think? Should these women feel at all guilty for allowing this rapist to continue on his merry way?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The dude hired ex-Mossad agents and was arguably the single most powerful producer in Hollywood. He could have destroyed their careers, livelihood, privacy, everything if they didn't take the money. Alec made a horsehockey point.

 

[Synobun]

What value do you ascribe to the victims feeling guilt in this scenario, Berzerker? I am very interested in hearing how you think these women feeling guilty would change the situation.

 

[BvBPL]

Alec Baldwin doesn’t have a point because he’s making a dumb point about something he wasn’t involved in for the sake of making a dumb point. Which, even though he might be right, is pointless. Also pointless is attacking him for making a dumb point. As is talking about how dumb his point is.

 

[metalhead]

He has a really poorly thought out and wrong point. The most likely result of coming out and saying something, to anyone else in the business, is not being believed and having your career ended.

So the victims had choices - one is to stay silent, take a settlement, and live with the guilt of knowing they didn't say something while others were victimized. Another is to say something, be ignored and/or not believed, have your career ruined and livelihood destroyed, and then have to live with the thought of women continuing to be victimized.

With no legitimate reason to believe they could stop it by speaking out, you can't legitimately say they contributed to allowing this to go on for so long by accepting settlements and staying quiet.

 

[OldBoomer]

I thing Alec Baldwin has a revolting personality, however I do see his point here. I wouldn't go as far as to agree with him, but it does make for an interesting point of conversation. If these women really wanted to do something about the abuse, doesn't hush money totally defeat that purpose?

Now that being said I understand why they'd take the money and it isn't because they were greedy, self-interested and didn't care about having the perpetrator punished. Given the situation and the power and influence that someone like Weinstein has they probably thought that this was the best they could do to punish him and recieve some sort of compensation for what he put them through. I also have the feeling that this latter part is where someone like Alec Baldwin would disagree with me and that's why I find him to be a disgusting human being.

 

[Berzerker]

The dude hired ex-Mossad agents and was arguably the single most powerful producer in Hollywood. He could have destroyed their careers, livelihood, privacy, everything if they didn't take the money. Alec made a ****ty point.

But is he right?

What value do you ascribe to the victims feeling guilt in this scenario, Berzerker? I am very interested in hearing how you think these women feeling guilty would change the situation.

If I was attacked by a wealthy person and kept quiet for cash, I'd feel guilty upon learning the same person attacked more people. I'd be worried about that even before learning of more attacks. Wouldn't you? Isn't that why some attackers are brought to justice? Their victims go public because their silence makes them feel guilt. They know their silence allows the perpetrator to continue hurting people.

He has a really poorly thought out and wrong point. The most likely result of coming out and saying something, to anyone else in the business, is not being believed and having your career ended.

So the victims had choices - one is to stay silent, take a settlement, and live with the guilt of knowing they didn't say something while others were victimized. Another is to say something, be ignored and/or not believed, have your career ruined and livelihood destroyed, and then have to live with the thought of women continuing to be victimized.

With no legitimate reason to believe they could stop it by speaking out, you can't legitimately say they contributed to allowing this to go on for so long by accepting settlements and staying quiet.

Plenty of people talked about Weinstein, but the victims didn't press charges. How would you feel if you took $$$ to remain silent?

If these women really wanted to do something about the abuse, doesn't hush money totally defeat that purpose?

its a deal with the devil

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

But is he right?

No. Weinstein victimized people, threatened to destroy their lives, their testimony would have been doubted (particularly in previous decades)... they made a choice they thought was the best for anyone involved at the time. Get some money from him and call it good. For many people, the other result could have been no money, no punishment, nothing happened. At least this way they got at his wallet. It's really murky to blame victims for not doing more, particularly at the time of the crime when they are under such mental duress. I'm sure many of them question themselves over it too.

 

[OldBoomer]

its a deal with the devil

If they have no other reasonable form of recourse what else can you expect them to do? It's seems quite evident to me that this kind of rape culture is endemic in Hollywood. Everyone working with these predators either knew what was going on, or had a pretty good idea of what was happening and they all chose to continue working with them and did nothing about it. Weinstein and others were also clearly preying on aspiring actresses who weren't already established because they knew they could easily victimize them and there really wasn't much of anything they could do about it.

I personally blame the moguls and the already established actors/actresses that knew what was going on and chose to continue with business as usual. They're the only one's who really could of done anything significant about it, but they all kept quite so they could keep on making bank.

 

[Synobun]

If I was attacked by a wealthy person and kept quiet for cash, I'd feel guilty upon learning the same person attacked more people. I'd be worried about that even before learning of more attacks. Wouldn't you? Isn't that why some attackers are brought to justice? Their victims go public because their silence makes them feel guilt. They know their silence allows the perpetrator to continue hurting people.

This does not answer my question, and I think you didn't answer it because you know that it would require admission on your part of an understandably vile viewpoint. You've made the claim that it's the fault of the victims that Weinstein could predate so many. You are blaming his victims instead of blaming the perpetrator. It is a classic belief of the immoral.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The dude hired ex-Mossad agents[...].

In case anyone hasn't heard, this isn't a joke. Harvey Weinstein isn't some grabby schlub who makes inappropriate jokes in the lunchroom; he's a friggin' gangster.

The New Yorker, Nov 6, 2017 - Harvey Weinstein's Army of Spies

 

[Berzerker]

No. Weinstein victimized people, threatened to destroy their lives, their testimony would have been doubted (particularly in previous decades)... they made a choice they thought was the best for anyone involved at the time. Get some money from him and call it good. For many people, the other result could have been no money, no punishment, nothing happened. At least this way they got at his wallet. It's really murky to blame victims for not doing more, particularly at the time of the crime when they are under such mental duress. I'm sure many of them question themselves over it too.

They made the choice that benefited themselves, but your first response contradicts your last - if they're questioning that choice its because deep down they know their deal with the devil allowed for more victims, so the point is right.

If they have no other reasonable form recourse what else can you expect them to do?

press charges...thats what crime victims do everyday

Like I said in the OP, I can understand taking $$$ for silence. But thats the selfish me speaking, not the me in pursuit of justice. Kinda like these two men down in Texas chasing down the killer... It was the right thing to do. They could have been killed, but they also knew if they did nothing and the killer escaped to kill more people, they'd be feeling guilty for doing nothing.

 

[Ryika]

A person who is silent about their victimization is complicit in any future acts the perpetrator commits. The level of that complicity depends on the situation of course, a person who has to fear serious consequences, or was traumatized by the thing that happened to them, only has very little complicity, probably so little that it is not worth mentioning.

A person who does not carry away any severe consequences and just sees the benefits they expect to gain from saying silent should be condemned for that decision. Of course their overall share in the future acts is still very small, because... well, they're not the person doing the act, but they do share some of the blame, as they chose not to act. It's like seeing a car roll down a hill towards a group of people and instead of trying to alert them, you draw your smart phone to film what happens. Not acting on information you have makes you part of the problem.

In either case it is very difficult to tell _how_ complicit a person really was, because while a person may seem very confident on the outside, they may very well have feared for their existence when they chose to stay silent. That's why I think it makes little sense to accuse a specific person of being complicit, but still, when talking about the broader issue one should definitely be honest about that complicity, as it is to the benefit for everybody to make people speak up against things that happen to them whenever they can, and making people see the consequences that they might otherwise rationalize away is a big step in making more people step forward, so the perpetrators can be stopped from doing what they do.

 

[OldBoomer]

press charges...thats what crime victims do everyday

Have you ever gone to court after you've pressed charges on someone? Because I have, not for something like this, but because of that experience I fully understand why people choose to take a settlement instead.

 

[Berzerker]

This does not answer my question, and I think you didn't answer it because you know that it would require admission on your part of an understandably vile viewpoint. You've made the claim that it's the fault of the victims that Weinstein could predate so many. You are blaming his victims instead of blaming the perpetrator. It is a classic belief of the immoral.

I didn't say Weinstein is blameless, his guilt is already quite apparent - the OP is about Baldwin's observation regarding all the people who did nothing - and I answered your question

What value do you ascribe to the victims feeling guilt in this scenario, Berzerker?

The value I ascribe is the feeling of guilt I'd have if I did nothing but take $$$ from an attacker to keep quiet. I'm sure some are in that boat, they took $$$ and let a rapist stay free and he raped again. Yeah, I'd feel guilty. Lets see what I said:

If I was attacked by a wealthy person and kept quiet for cash, I'd feel guilty upon learning the same person attacked more people. I'd be worried about that even before learning of more attacks. Wouldn't you? Isn't that why some attackers are brought to justice? Their victims go public because their silence makes them feel guilt. They know their silence allows the perpetrator to continue hurting people.

Yup, I answered your question... But you didn't answer mine. Would you feel guilty if the person who attacked you bought your silence and they kept attacking people? Why didn't you answer?

Wanna bet Weinstein's more recent victims are wishing he was brought to justice before they became his victims? I imagine they're asking "why" people didn't do something sooner... Cash!

 

[Samson]

These women are should have stood up to Weinstein in the same way we should all mount an armed resistance to Trump / May.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

They made the choice that benefited themselves, but your first response contradicts your last - if they're questioning that choice its because deep down they know their deal with the devil allowed for more victims, so the point is right.

You're treating this like it's an either/or situation, or as if everyone had perfect info on what the response would be. It wasn't. Most of them did what they did because they were under the impression that it was the best choice for getting some form of restitution for what had been done, and that not doing it would have been even more limited a result. Questioning this doesn't at all preclude the result or counter their original decision.

 

[innonimatu]

You're treating this like it's an either/or situation, or as if everyone had perfect info on what the response would be. It wasn't. Most of them did what they did because they were under the impression that it was the best choice for getting some form of restitution for what had been done, and that not doing it would have been even more limited a result. Questioning this doesn't at all preclude the result or counter their original decision.

This is a good observation. Each victim probably did not knew that he did that kind of thing serially. Their choice of taking hush money (calling things for what it is) is wrong imho, but I can excuse that wrong decision given the circumstances. Others simply stayed silent, no money taken, because they were afraid, so it is believable that even those who took money kept silent also in part out of fear.

 

[Synobun]

Yup, I answered your question... But you didn't answer mine. Would you feel guilty if the person who attacked you bought your silence and they kept attacking people? Why didn't you answer?

You're assuming those who took settlements lack guilt.

But no, I wouldn't feel guilty. The crimes of another are not my fault and we live in a world that is unfair. There are times when you are powerless to enact fruitful change, especially when you are up against an authority, and someone accepting money doesn't make them complicit in future crimes nor does it mean they are simply shaking their hands out for a stimulus package.

Wanna bet Weinstein's more recent victims are wishing he was brought to justice before they became his victims? I imagine they're asking "why" people didn't do something sooner... Cash!

Yes, but I don't believe your accompanying commentary. His more recent victims are in the same position as his older victims, and the only reason his crimes are coming to distinctive light now is due to evidence and an overwhelming surge of testimony. Do you genuinely believe Weinstein would have been deterred in his crimes if his very first victim had jumped up and down and shouted to the moon and back about his sexual assault?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Take his money and then press charges.