Alec Baldwin has a point

[Manfred Belheim]

Taken entirely from Jane Gilmore who provides the alternative corrections.

This happens with reporting of domestic violence as well as sexual crimes. All of these headlines about assault or rape or domestic violence either do one of two things: 1. They elide the attacker by presenting the attacks in a passive voice, as though they're acts of God or nature or 2. they centre aspects of the victim or their behaviour, which has the effect of suggesting those things as contributing or causative factors.

I really don't know what lens you need to view things through in order to see what you see in these, but I'm glad I don't own one.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Speaking out even at the height of their careers would not have stopped this.

That's three goalpost shifts in as many replies:

1) They're speaking out now because they have power now.
2) They were at the peak of their power decades ago, but had more to lose then.
3) They do not and never had power.

I mean you could probably make a convincing argument for any of the three position, but making all three one after another isn't the best way to go about it I don't think.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I really don't know what lens you need to view things through in order to see what you see in these, but I'm glad I don't own one.

And the answer to todays Daily Double is "What is privilege?"

Sorry MB, but that was just low hanging fruit... you left yourself wide open for that...

 

[Berzerker]

If your wife or daughter was raped because I took hush money from her attacker, how would you feel about me? If my defense was: I didn't rape them and life is unfair, what would you say? I hope prosecutors go after these former Mossad agents for criminal conspiracy, they deserve to share his jail cell.

Well no, because it isn't a damn mystery. Do you even understand that nearly all rapists "keep getting away with it"? Do you think Weinstein is a rare exception, enabled only by civil settlements with confidentiality clauses?

I know why he got away with it for so long - hush money. And more rapists will escape justice if everyone in the know takes it... In a sense, the people he paid to harass his victims were recipients, the victims at least had cause to receive 'compensation'. I dont like confidentiality clauses, but the settlements are indicative of wrong doing even if the victims 'cant' speak out. The reason we know about people like Bill O'Reilly is because of lawsuits in spite of any confidentiality clauses.

And nobody asked you to be grateful.

And they asked you to inform us our gratitude is unwelcome? I'd think they'd appreciate recognition for their sacrifice.

It's your continuous generalization of those who chose to remain silent as people who "took bribe money" that is just completely out of place. Implying that the money is the reason they chose to remain silent when in reality there is a multitude of reasons, many on the societal level, that heavily discourages them from coming forward, as the risks involved are very high.

They took money and kept quiet, is that just a coincidence? Yes, they undoubtedly had a variety of reasons... One of them was money. I dont have a problem with that, I'd happily seize Weinstein's piggy bank and turn it over to his victims. My problem is with the 'conspiracy' of silence his money bought, that enabled him to hurt even more people.

If you witness a murder and then the murderer contacts you, gives you some money and a list of the addresses of all your friends and family members, notifies you that he has contacts with the police and friends who will make sure that your friends and family members are killed off should you not remain silent, then surely, you understand that the reason people would take the money is the intimidation, yes?

Yes...and its still a bribe. It doesn't matter if the victim was going to keep quiet for other reasons, taking the money knowing its a bribe enables the criminal to continue on their evil path unabated. Refusing the money would at least make the criminal worry more about exposure.

Yeah, but again... the victims are at the end of the chain of problems, and they're the least responsible for the situation they're put into. You're asking those who have already been victimized to now also become martyrs to solve the societal problems that they are not responsible for, and that non-victims have the luxury of turning a blind eye towards. It would be nice if they did of course, but to expect that from them when instead you could be arguing for society as a whole to change their attitudes towards such things, and make it easier for future victims to come forward is pretty weak.

Thats why they deserve our gratitude for pursuing justice over self interest

If the settlement as you view it, was just to get any one not to talk, I think your are still wrong on several accounts. The first being making the settlement about "keeping silent" is putting the burden on the victim.

They have that burden already, they have to decide on silence or justice. Thats true for the victims of crime in general, its true for everyone who knows about a crime.

Secondly you are blaming the victim for being silent when it counted, and it did not seem to be completely true. Her voice was just not loud enough, until she criticized Baldwin, and he "shot back".

What voice? I dont think Baldwin shot back, he made his comment and tried to back away.

The 3rd point which is being ignored is the settlement was not just about the money, but more importantly, for the point of discussion, that no criminal charge would be forthcoming. This is where the tyrant wins, because the victim can be as loud as possible, but has no power to change the ongoing situation. The legal system, has in the short term failed the victim. And many victims to come. And in the long term though, it does set a president of behavior that unfortunately takes time to work out, before the guilty party is eventually held accountable.

Seems to me a criminal investigation and prosecution should be triggered by any settlement - the criminal can get a victim to agree to keep quiet but the legal system should still go after him if he's admitting the wrong doing in civil court. Yes, the system needs reform and more rape victims speaking out will help that cause...now, not in 20 or 40 years.

Nobody took hush money, this is just a blatant mischaracterization.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/28/us/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein.html

Because the women speaking out now are powerful in their own right, owing to their fame and success. Are you really too dense to understand how an actress just starting out is going to have a much different impact from speaking out, than Rose McGowan and Ashley Judd?

I'm not too dense to understand how their self interest was in conflict with the pursuit of justice.

She not only took 100k 20 years ago, she was trying to get 6 million more recently

In 1997, Ms. McGowan had reached a $100,000 settlement with Mr. Weinstein, but that agreement, she learned this summer, had never included a confidentiality clause.

She didn't even have to keep quiet

“I had all these people I’m paying telling me to take it so that I could fund my art,” Ms. McGowan said in an interview. She responded by asking for $6 million, part counteroffer, part slow torture of her former tormentor, she said. “I figured I could probably have gotten him up to three,” she said. “But I was like — ew, gross, you’re disgusting, I don’t want your money, that would make me feel disgusting.”

So 100k wasn't disgusting but 6 million was? I'd argue the opposite, 100k was a drop in his wallet.

She said she told her lawyer to pull the offer within a day of The New York Times publishing an article that detailed decades of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged sexual harassment, aggression and misconduct toward women, as well as at least seven other settlements he had reached with accusers.

And the article portrays her as a feminist hero... I wonder if the NYT exposure of Weinstein was bittersweet, she was trying to get more money for her continued silence.

Mr. Weinstein, his accusers say, built his long history of abusing women on a risky gamble that worked for him over and over — the assumption that money or threats could buy women’s silence on a subject so intimate and painful that most would prefer not to go public anyway.

The hush money worked for decades

On Friday, at the inaugural Women’s Convention in Detroit, she was a featured speaker — a new, combative face of feminism, endowed with Hollywood charisma yet anything but slick. “I have been silenced for 20 years,” she told the gathering. “I have been slut-shamed. I have been harassed. I have been maligned. And you know what? I’m just like you.”

"I have been silenced for 20 years"... Tell that to Weinstein's other victims. The denial in this one is strong.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If your wife or daughter was raped because I took hush money from her attacker, how would you feel about me? If my defense was: I didn't rape them and life is unfair, what would you say?

Was that question directed at me? I don't want to answer if you weren't talking to me specifically.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

If your wife or daughter was raped because I took hush money from her attacker, how would you feel about me?

This is framed so, so badly. They were not raped BECAUSE you took hush money, they were raped because some dude was/is a rapist.

 

[Berzerker]

Was that question directed at me? I don't want to answer if you weren't talking to me specifically.

no

This is framed so, so badly. They were not raped BECAUSE you took hush money, they were raped because some dude was/is a rapist.

The rapist was free to rape again BECAUSE I took their money in exchange for my silence.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The rapist was free to rape again BECAUSE I took their money in exchange for my silence.

The rapist is free to rape again because victims aren't believed, convictions are nearly impossible, and because he's... a rapist.

 

[Lexicus]

The rapist was free to rape again BECAUSE I took their money in exchange for my silence.

See, singling this out as THE important causal factor just says a lot more about you than about any of the people you're talking about.

 

[Berzerker]

Well well, the house of cards is collapsing all over the place... Judge Roy Moore has been accused of molesting a 14 year old girl and Louis CK is in hot water while Roman Polanksi's list of victims grew to four.

The rapist is free to rape again because victims aren't believed, convictions are nearly impossible, and because he's... a rapist.

I believe them, I took money from the rapist to keep quiet. Well, I didn't... Why dont you believe them? Is it because nobody else is supporting them because the people who do know took hush money? Reminds me of a scene in "The Family Guy", Mr Brady of the Brady Bunch beats his wife and the maid sees it. So he asks how much of that did you see? Enough to know I'm getting a raise.

See, singling this out as THE important causal factor just says a lot more about you than about any of the people you're talking about.

What does it say? I know you're trying to insult me (what else is new?) but you'll have to lead me down Logic Lane... I singled out my role as a factor because my role was limited to what I had control over, taking hush money to enable a rapist or reporting their crime. In the former a rapist remains free to rape again...and you dont think I was factor in those rapes? In the latter the cops investigate possibly preventing those rapes. Yeah, my hush money resulted in more women being raped. And you deny this?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I believe them, I took money from the rapist to keep quiet. Well, I didn't... Why dont you believe them? Is it because nobody else is supporting them because the people who do know took hush money? Reminds me of a scene in "The Family Guy", Mr Brady of the Brady Bunch beats his wife and the maid sees it. So he asks how much of that did you see? Enough to know I'm getting a raise.

Hush money has nothing to do with it. People don't believe victims for all sorts of reasons. Many of them are cops who are hearing the story before anyone else. Some are co-workers or HR or bosses. If a few people taking 'hush money' was really enough to distort people's acceptance, than their capacity to believe victims was never really there in the first place.

 

[Senethro]

Berzerker, if you were to put responsibility on the parties of the rapist, rapists conspirators, the police and rapists other victims, then what sort of %ages would you put on them?

 

[metalhead]

It's pointless to ask him questions. I'm still waiting on an answer as to how you can put responsibility on people for not speaking out, when speaking out wouldn't stop the rapist from continuing to rape women.

The answer I keep getting is "they took HUSH MONEY." As if that's all there is to it.

 

[rah]

I don't see how you can say that speaking out won't diminish some future transgressions.
The outpouring now is going to have some effect on this. Do you not think it will?

 

[Ryika]

It's pointless to ask him questions. I'm still waiting on an answer as to how you can put responsibility on people for not speaking out, when speaking out wouldn't stop the rapist from continuing to rape women.

The answer I keep getting is "they took HUSH MONEY." As if that's all there is to it.

It's a meaningless and malformed question.

First of all, responsibility for what exactly? For the act of rape? Well, the perpetrator obviously has all of the responsibility for that. I doubt anybody would argue against that, but it's also not a meaningful statement, as the perpetrator clearly has no interest in stopping himself.

So the real question seems to be about the responsibility of not stopping the rapist from future acts, and here it is simply impossible to really "cut" the responsibility into parts and put a percentage on it. Not only because this situation is a damn mess of inter-connected factors that all influence each other, but also because that is not how responsibility works.

Think about this simplified example:

If you have a mother who is inattentive, and doesn't realize that the buggy with her baby starts rolling towards a cliff, and near that cliff you have a person who sees what's happening but does not step in and instead pulls out their phone to film what happens, who is responsible for the death of the baby if it rolls down the cliff?


What percentages would you put on that? 50/50? 70/30? I don't think you'd manage to boil that down to numbers, because it's literally impossible to "cut" responsibility into pieces like that. All you can say is that if only one of the two parties here acted differently, then the tragedy would not have happened. So in a way, both parties are "100%" responsible at the same time, but that in itself is of course a nonsensical statement.

The example of the rapist is again a lot more complex as there are so many factors involved that all influence each other (aside from the ones mentioned there are also false claims of rape that push people towards disbelief, people who argue that the accused should be assumed to be guilty, which also creates a counter-reaction, etc.), but that does not change that asking somebody to assign percentages is silly and meaningless.

It's also not really the discussion that was happening, when we decode the discussion, it's really about "Where do we best start to change this self-upholding cycle?"

Can we stop potential perpetrators by shaming them, or by using education? Can we create change by asking people to be vigilant about the friends? Can we change societal attitudes to a point where victims can come forward without fear of negative responses? Do we need victims to come forward and break the cycle as martyrs?

Berzerker clearly believes in the latter, you don't, but instead of really addressing each others points, you're just condemning each other for the approach they've chosen.

 

[metalhead]

I don't see how you can say that speaking out won't diminish some future transgressions.
The outpouring now is going to have some effect on this. Do you not think it will?

Yes, but the situation has changed, drastically, in the last few months. The hope is obviously that this becomes permanent, and pervasive beyond merely the conduct of famous men.

But 20 years ago, do you really think an actress who was early in her career speaking out on her own about how Harvey Weinstein assaulted her would have had any effect whatsoever to diminish future transgressions? That's the question here. There was an entire culture and power structure in place to stack the deck against anyone who dared speak out against such things. Given that reality, I see no other logical conclusion one could draw, other than that speaking out then, as a single voice, would have had absolutely no effect whatsoever on Harvey Weinstein's ability to keep assaulting women with impunity.

So the real question seems to be about the responsibility of not stopping the rapist from future acts, and here it is simply impossible to really "cut" the responsibility into parts and put a percentage on it. Not only because this situation is a damn mess of inter-connected factors that all influence each other, but also because that is not how responsibility works.

I didn't ask about percentages, so I'm not sure why this was a reply to me, but impossibility is a pretty simple reason to say someone is not responsible for something. If one has no power to stop something, that person cannot be said to be responsible for that thing happening. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp. It's really not that complicated.

Also, courts divide responsibility all the time, so it is inaccurate to say that you can't split responsibility into percentages. Obviously this is an inexact science, but it's done all the time and under complex circumstances.

 

[Ryika]

I didn't ask about percentages, so I'm not sure why this was a reply to me, but impossibility is a pretty simple reason to say someone is not responsible for something. If one has no power to stop something, that person cannot be said to be responsible for that thing happening. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp. It's really not that complicated.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, it's just a nonsensical statement that ignores reality on your part. Victims absolutely has the power to stop future acts by coming forward and pursuing the case in the legal system. That's not always going to be successful and often the balance of power is stacked against them, but to suggest that victims can not ever stop future acts of rape from happening is ridiculous.

 

[rah]

Yes, but the situation has changed, drastically, in the last few months. The hope is obviously that this becomes permanent, and pervasive beyond merely the conduct of famous men.

If all these women came forward then, it would have had an effect. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
Any moral judgments are immaterial, it would have had an effect. That's the only point i want to make.
I also think the genie is out of the bottle as every day we see more an more accusations as more women feel empowered.
Too bad it took so long but it still a great thing.

 

[metalhead]

to suggest that victims can not ever stop future acts of rape from happening is ridiculous.

I agree, which is why I didn't say that. You love to strawman. I'm addressing a specific situation, not tossing out generalities. Please try to keep up.

If all these women came forward then, it would have had an effect. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
Any moral judgments are immaterial, it would have had an effect. That's the only point i want to make.
I also think the genie is out of the bottle as every day we see more an more accusations as more women feel empowered.
Too bad it took so long but it still a great thing.

But again - "all these women?" Maybe, if they all came out then like they have now. Maybe. But they had no way to know who else may have been victimized. Weinstein used to track his victims and use intimidation and threats to prevent that from ever happening. Just as a lone victim speaking out would have done nothing other than further hurt the victim speaking out, poking around and asking questions would have had the exact same effect.

 

[rah]

But they had no way to know who else may have been victimized.

That was also the case now. There had to be a first now just like there would have had to been in the past. So I see no difference.
The first few always take the risk. There had to be a few of the first to accuse priests also. And that was awhile ago. How many incidence do you think didn't happen because of that?

I'm not saying those women were evil because they didn't say anything. Regardless though, additional assaults occurred because of it.