Weinstein: Guilty.

[TLK Valentine]

Harvey Weinstein found guilty in landmark #MeToo moment

NEW YORK (AP) — Harvey Weinstein was convicted Monday at his sexual assault trial, sealing his dizzying fall from powerful Hollywood studio boss to archvillain of the #MeToo movement.

He was found guilty of criminal sex act for assaulting production assistant Mimi Haleyi at his apartment in 2006 and third-degree rape of a woman in 2013. The jury found him not guilty on the most serious charge, predatory sexual assault, that could have resulted in a life sentence.

Acquitted of the biggest charge, but still going to prison.

Thoughts?

 

[solid_core]

My thoughts are - what was she doing in his appartment?

 

[pleinmont]

I hope they send that evil man down for a good long time.

 

[Ophiolite]

My thoughts are - what was she doing in his apartment?

Really? That was your thought? In your world someone who visits the apartment of a friend, family member, business associate, or colleague is implicitly responsible for what said friend, etc. does to them while they are there? How are things for you in the 19th century?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

My thoughts are - what was she doing in his appartment?

Seriously? your first thought is blame the victim?

 

[solid_core]

Seriously? your first thought is blame the victim?

Would you allow your wife to go to the private appartment of her boss, alone?

 

[solid_core]

Really? That was your thought? In your world someone who visits the apartment of a friend, family member, business associate, or colleague is implicitly responsible for what said friend, etc. does to them while they are there? How are things for you in the 19th century?

Every wise judge must consider all things, not just blindly follow the words of one side.

 

[Ophiolite]

Every wise judge must consider all things, not just blindly follow the words of one side.

The only judgement I have made is upon your seeming tendency to indulge in victim blaming. If that is not what you were doing I advise you write more clearly. If that is what you were doing then my condemnation of your views remains.

 

[Ophiolite]

Would you allow your wife to go to the private appartment of her boss, alone?

Certainly. I don't have trust issues.

 

[solid_core]

Certainly. I don't have trust issues.

You obviously do not have trust issues... but what about wisdom?

 

[Ophiolite]

You obviously do not have trust issues... but what about wisdom?

I'll answer that when you provide a convincing justification for your victim-blaming. Or you could demonstrate your own wisdom by acknowledging your original post was ill-conceived.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Would you allow your wife to go to the private appartment of her boss, alone?

Oh, you’re one of those. Ok, conversation terminated.

 

[solid_core]

Oh, you’re one of those. Ok, conversation terminated.

Thanks God!

 

[solid_core]

I'll answer that when you provide a convincing justification for your victim-blaming. Or you could demonstrate your own wisdom by acknowledging your original post was ill-conceived.

I do not need to give you any justification. You are not my judge.

If you want to censor my thoughts, I live in a free country, so try, good luck.

 

[jayem]

Off-topic a bit: After serving his sentence, I’m sure his career as a movie producer is over. But there are other jobs for a man who behaves badly around women. Like being a Supreme Court justice.

 

[Ophiolite]

I do not need to give you any justification.

No. Of course you do not. I, however, gave you the opportunity to provide a justification, or - upon reflection - to concede that your position, at least as you have expressed it, is insensitive, patriarchal and archaic. It was an opportunity. You had every right to decline the opportunity and you did so. That was informative.

You are not my judge.

Certainly not in the Biblical sense, and yet I have judged your espoused views on the matter and found them, as noted, insensitive, patriarchal and archaic.

If you want to censor my thoughts, I live in a free country, so try, good luck.

Have I expressed any desire to censor your thoughts? Certainly not. I encourage you to express them. It is helpful to be able to identify those who hold such views.

Thank you for your time. I think we're done.

 

[solid_core]

No. Of course you do not. I, however, gave you the opportunity to provide a justification, or - upon reflection - to concede that your position, at least as you have expressed it, is insensitive, patriarchal and archaic. It was an opportunity. You had every right to decline the opportunity and you did so. That was informative.

Certainly not in the Biblical sense, and yet I have judged your espoused views on the matter and found them, as noted, insensitive, patriarchal and archaic.

Have I expressed any desire to censor your thoughts? Certainly not. I encourage you to express them. It is helpful to be able to identify those who hold such views.

Thank you for your time. I think we're done.

You know what is interesting, the OP said "thoughts"? And instead of simply giving your thoughts about the OP, you are trying to create a witch hunt just because I asked "my thoughts are: what was she doing in his private appartment".

Do you know why was she in his private appartment? Is it standard for young women to go to their boss' private appartments in the USA?

 

[Ophiolite]

You know what is interesting, the OP said "thoughts"? And instead of simply giving your thoughts about the OP, you are trying to create a witch hunt just because I asked "my thoughts are: what was she doing in his private appartment".

Do you know why was she in his private appartment? Is it standard for young women to go to their boss' private appartments in the USA?

You really don't get it, do you? You don't see that by asking why she was in his apartment - as your first thought - you are implying that she had a share of the blame for what then happened to her. In your world we are to accept as normal that if you visit your boss at his home, or hotel room, you are than at serious risk of being assaulted. Nonsense! The blame here is on the man now found guilty of sexual assault, not on the victim. Your remarks implicitly blame the victim. That stinks.

So, there is no witch hunt. I am just highlighting your adherence to an outdated, sick worldview.

Now, in the interest of forum decorum, feel free to respond, but this time my side of the conversation is really at an end.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The OP asked for thoughts, someone gave theirs, made no blame, only something to consider, and something viable at that.

 

[Cimorene]

My thoughts are - what was she doing in his appartment?

Apartment is spelled with one p, and going to someone's apartment doesn't justify sexual assault.