Originally posted by MythLord
There's enough proof to condemn Weinstein. His resistance has been reported, it's just been overwhelmed by just how much there's proof against him and too many people are coming forwards.
Some of them could be absolute cvnts who wanna take advantage of the situation and get money, but it's the assumption that every woman is doing it that helps up to 97% of rape cases having the rapist go free.It's OK to demand evidence, but when evidence, as well as an overwhelming quantity of women, come forwards and complain, people are still pushing against it for the sake of "they want attention" or "its fake" or "they're gold-digging whores".
The only concrete evidence I've seen is him admitting to a woman(who he didn't know was recording) that he had essentially groped her. Which is way way different from rape. I think he also admitted to asking people to watch him shower and stuff like that.
Originally posted by MythLord
Which is all well and good, but no reason to dismiss the allegations of a large number of women. Even if at least one of them was actually assaulted, Harvey deserves jail. And the rest of the harpies who lied deserve the same, if they lied. But I doubt most of them did.
Let me ask you this: let us say you were on the jury for this. Would you truly be comfortable sending this man to prison for the rest of his life if the only evidence of rape was the number of accusers?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Zero evidence from 100 accusers is still zero evidence.
There’s no proof he raped any of them. He ****ed them because they were desperate for roles, and they keep going back, but there’s yet to be proof of any rape.
I don’t trust these Hollywood women. After all, aren’t they the same group that applauded Roman Polanski after he raped and sodomize that little girl? Where the **** are they!?
Originally posted by Surtur
Let me ask you this: let us say you were on the jury for this. Would you truly be comfortable sending this man to prison for the rest of his life if the only evidence of rape was the number of accusers?
Coming to his house repeatedly doesn't neccessarily mean they wanted to. Harvey was very much their boss, and someone who could end their careers at the time if so he wished. He could've, and likely did, manipulate/blackmail them into that situation.
Multiple actresses have attested to being blackmailed by Harvey into maintaining silence yeah, this is common knowledge. It’s also common knowledge that Weinstein employed private intelligence agencies to do this.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies
But sure, someone who hires ex-spies to collect information on his accusers is totally innocent. 😱
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Multiple actresses have attested to being blackmailed by Harvey into maintaining silence yeah, this is common knowledge. It’s also common knowledge that Weinstein employed private intelligence agencies to do this.https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies
But sure, someone who hires ex-spies to collect information on his accusers is totally innocent. 😱
Nobody is saying he is innocent. This is more about whether he is just a creep and a groper or a full on rapist.
Originally posted by SurturI am talking about the rape yeah and those who accused him of rape he hired ex-spies to suppress. In which case, attempts to cast doubt based on the usual flimsy crap about “not speaking out” fall rather flat, wouldn’t you say?
Nobody is saying he is innocent. This is more about whether he is just a creep and a groper or a full on rapist.
Basically I'd want more evidence than accusations. So him hiring ex spies in order to try to intimidate these women would indeed be more evidence than mere accusations.
Without any other evidence a jury will have to decide if his actions with hiring people to intimidate victims is enough to believe the claims are true.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Multiple actresses have attested to being blackmailed by Harvey into maintaining silence yeah, this is common knowledge. It’s also common knowledge that Weinstein employed private intelligence agencies to do this.https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies
But sure, someone who hires ex-spies to collect information on his accusers is totally innocent. 😱
The Surtur's of the world really need to make up their minds, at first he was a "Leftist rapist!, now they're defending him. Weird.
Originally posted by Robtard
The Surtur's of the world really need to make up their minds, at first he was a "Leftist rapist!, now they're defending him. Weird.
Trying to decide what level he ranks at on the scale of sexual harassment and assault is not defending him. This is what I mean when I say it's hilarious you ever mention having intellectually honest conversations.
Nobody has said this man is a good man. Personal opinions of him are one thing, this is about the law and what kind of evidence would be needed to put him away for life.
I personally don't know how credible they are one way or the other. That has nothing to do with Harvey and everything to do with this seedy business they all existed in.
I'm sorry if that bothers you, but given that apparently a lot in Hollywood looked the other way when it came to Harvey for a long time...it's hard to trust anything anymore.
If you need to twist it into a defense of Harvey because you have no better argument, so be it 👆
Originally posted by MythLord
I have to ask: Would y'all consider being blackmailed into sex the same as rape? I mean, you technically "consented" but only because there was no other choice and you were backed into a corner.
Being coerced into sex is tantamount to rape.
eg If someone has embarrassing info on you and use that to get you to spread buttcheeks when you normally wouldn't have done so for them, that's the same as rape