Weinstein: Guilty.

[Uber Genius]

And your attitude is why men believe they have justification to break the law.

I already said he was guilty, and an evil pig. So you are upset with me because I said that???

Why would you misrepresent what I said and attack your own misrepresentation? It makes no sense.

 

[Kaon]

So this case and the Madoff case were just grand conspiracies? Scapegoats are by definition not guilty. Is that your claim?

Conspiracy is an actual crime, not woo woo. And, scapegoats are the entities that bear all of the sick and sin of a group - that is the game being played for the public.

But, indeed, these SINGULAR people are getting the entire weight of a nation-wide problems put on them so that we exploit our myopia and resonate the feeling that there is actually justice.

Do you think Weonstein, Epstein, or Maddoff were the only ones organizing their schemes? They are presented to us as a sacrifice to satiate our questions and incredulity. This is a game to (mis)direct people and their attention, because that is what has always happenes.

In 70 years, the generation after the next will wonder how we could be so naive, and those of us alive will tell them we bought a basic lie because it made us feel better - like most things.

 

[Uber Genius]

They are presented to us as a sacrifice to satiate our questions and incredulity.

So you are claiming that the "Me Too Movement," is essentially over? That some societal secret group has ended it by over-prosecuting Harvey Weinstein?

 

[Michael]

Like Maddoff, he is being used as an "scapegoat" so that citizens will believe (because of the magnitude of his celebrity) there actually is justice for those who are abused, molested and raped by people in high places.

I agree with Uber that your use of the term 'scapegoat' is a bit unfortunate. Both Maddoff and Weinstein were guilty as charged, so I don't really see them as 'scapegoats' so much as "high profile examples".

 

[TLK Valentine]

And let's not forgetting that he is facing prosecution in other states.

True -- but NY convicted him first; normally I'd say they get first crack at his hide, and let the other states prosecute what's left...

But OTOH, Weinstein's victims need closure, which they're not going to get if he croaks before they get to testify against him.

 

[Kaon]

So you are claiming that the "Me Too Movement," is essentially over? That some societal secret group has ended it by over-prosecuting Harvey Weinstein?

How are you getting these things from what I have posted? I said exactly what I meant.

The "me too movement" is over if the people decide it. History shows citizens have a short attention span, and they only need to "see blood" from one high powered entity, or a bunch of lower level entities. It isn't conspiracy; it is about psychological organization of a population.

I would hope humans have more worth than to accept the offerings given to us, but Every time someone says humans are better than they actually are (and, thus, shouldn't take the abuses they take - ignorant of it or not) they get slammed. So, I don't care about the progress of respective paradigms, but I do care that humans, in general, have such short attention spans, such low standards of justice and such blinding prejudice that we can never agree on decency.

Which is why I said (and can say confidently) that the purpose of ONE big name from respective incidents going to prison - publically. It is to satiate us so we don't keep fighting or asking questions.

The public does most of the work for the entities that orchestrate these (in)justices with our own scoffing and ignorance.

 

[Kaon]

I agree with Uber that your use of the term 'scapegoat' is a bit unfortunate. Both Maddoff and Weinstein were guilty as charged, so I don't really seem them as 'scapegoats' so much as "high profile examples".

A SCAPEGOAT is a FALL GUY - especially for convenience. If your entire organization is guilty, and you offer up ONE (1) person to take ALL of the blame for others, that is a scapegoat.

Neither Weinstein nor Maddoff were the only entities that did wrong in their respective industries - even to the degree with which the aforementioned were charged.

(Caps not yelling; for emphasis)

 

[Uber Genius]

How are you getting these things from what I have posted? I said exactly what I meant.

The "me too movement" is over if the people decide it. History shows citizens have a short attention span, and they only need to "see blood" from one high powered entity, or a bunch of lower level entities. It isn't conspiracy; it is about psychological organization of a population.

I would hope humans have more worth than to accept the offerings given to us, but Every time someone says humans are better than they actually are (and, thus, shouldn't take the abuses they take - ignorant of it or not) they get slammed. So, I don't care about the progress of respective paradigms, but I do care that humans, in general, have such short attention spans, such low standards of justice and such blinding prejudice that we can never agree on decency.

Which is why I said (and can say confidently) that the purpose of ONE big name from respective incidents going to prison - publically. It is to satiate us so we don't keep fighting or asking questions.

The public does most of the work for the entities that orchestrate these (in)justices with our own scoffing and ignorance.

But, indeed, these SINGULAR people are getting the entire weight of a nation-wide problems put on them so that we exploit our myopia and resonate the feeling that there is actually justice.

This sounds like the goal is to misdirect the public, so what is the point of that misdirection?

This is a game to (mis)direct people and their attention, because that is what has always happenes.

Same question as above? What is the point of the misdirect, so that others can continue to get away with sexual misconduct?

In 70 years, the generation after the next will wonder how we could be so naive, and those of us alive will tell them we bought a basic lie because it made us feel better - like most things.

What is the lie? Is the lie that these guys are guilty? Is the lie that they are the only ones committing these crimes? I keep asking questions and you ask me where I'm getting these things...your style of communication contains several loaded and ambiguous terms. I'm willing to parse them and get to your claims, but be patient, I'm not sure what the misdirection actually is meant to accomplish, or the game, or where we are naive, or who or whom are these individuals scapegoats for. I am not making any assessment yet about your claim. I am still trying to understand it so I don't misrepresent you and attack a straw man.

 

[Kaon]

This sounds like the goal is to misdirect the public, so what is the point of that misdirection?

To keep people ignorant, and dependent. It isn't as "crazy" as many people make it out; the end game is simple: make money, and control the flow of it and social paradigms. This is just repeating history, but since this is the most recent generation in which everyone had access to basic education and literature, we tend to believe we know better and cannot make the same mistakes as the ones before us.

That is also part of the deception. We may not learn from our history, but the ones that seek to exploit us learn from the times in history when the plebs rose up against their overseers. We still do the same things expecting profound results, when all we get is much of the same thing.

For example, to misdirect our anger over the $1.3 Trillion bailout, and the myriad of financiers who swindled people out of their investments and saving, a high-profile scapegoat is presented as an offering to satiate our disdain and probing.

It worked; people are back on their phones and on Instagram/Twitter behaving as expected. And, anyone who brings up more information about the 2008 correction will be ridiculed as presenting woo, or ridiculous arguments.

Then, we will cry when it all catches up with us, and wonder why no one warned us...

Same question as above? What is the point of the misdirect, so that others can continue to get away with sexual misconduct?

It goes beyond sexual misconduct; it is to subconsciously show us that we don't actually have any power or influence over anything: that it is all controlled beyond our power.

We were given scapegoats to satiate our righteous indignation for a hand full of humans stealing billions of dollars from Americans. We let $1.3T be passed to bail out these same entities. The joke is always on us.

What is the lie? Is the lie that these guys are guilty? Is the lie that they are the only ones committing these crimes? I keep asking questions and you ask me where I'm getting these things...your style of communication contains several loaded and ambiguous terms. I'm willing to parse them and get to your claims, but be patient, I'm not sure what the misdirection actually is meant to accomplish, or the game, or where we are naive, or who or whom are these individuals scapegoats for. I am not making any assessment yet about your claim. I am still trying to understand it so I don't misrepresent you and attack a straw man.

I said before the lie is that these are the only people responsible for crime of their respective industries

A SCAPEGOAT is a FALL GUY - especially for convenience. If your entire organization is guilty, and you offer up ONE (1) person to take ALL of the blame for others, that is a scapegoat.

Neither Weinstein nor Maddoff were the only entities that did wrong in their respective industries - even to the degree with which the aforementioned were charged.

(Caps not yelling; for emphasis)

Yes, our naivete is being exploited. Yes, we are supposed to be led to believe these scapegoats are the justice we are looking for. We accept it and move on, because it satisfies our carnal desire for someone to take responsibility. It is an exploitation of our humanity (all of its facets).

 

[Michael]

A SCAPEGOAT is a FALL GUY - especially for convenience. If your entire organization is guilty, and you offer up ONE (1) person to take ALL of the blame for others, that is a scapegoat.

Neither Weinstein nor Maddoff were the only entities that did wrong in their respective industries - even to the degree with which the aforementioned were charged.

(Caps not yelling; for emphasis)

I realize how *you personally* are using the term which is a more "modern" (urban) use of the term, but it's not entirely congruent with it's actually meaning, particularly it's root (original) meaning. For instance:

Definition of SCAPEGOAT

Definition of scapegoat
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur
2a : one that bears the blame for others
b : one that is the object of irrational hostility

Scapegoat (disambiguation) - Wikipedia

A scapegoat is a person unfairly blamed for some misfortune.

Scapegoat or The Scapegoat may also refer to:

• Scapegoating, the practice of singling out any party for unmerited negative treatment or blame as a scapegoat
• An actual goat used in a Jewish Azazel ritual

The original (symbolic) meaning was related to an "innocent" animal having someone's "sins" unfairly (irrationally/symbolically) placed upon it, and then slaughtered for those sins. The goat clearly wasn't sinful, so it's ultimately blameless for such sins. In the second link they use the terms "unfairly blamed", and "unmerited negative treatment".

In this particular case however Weinstein was not blameless, nor was the hostility toward him that was felt by this victims "irrational", and his jail time was not "unmeritied'. Weinstein was the (a) original sinner, he was "rationally" convicted of his own sin. His own personal conviction was merited.

The fact that others commit the very same sin/crime is ultimately irrelevant. It's akin to a tu quoque fallacy.

It's also not the case the *every* man behaves as he did, so it's not valid to suggest that *everyone* deserves that sort of outcome.

I do understand how you're using the term (more colloquially), but IMO it's an imprecise and somewhat unfortunate way to use the term in this particular instance. Your mileage may vary of course, but I think that's why others are having a negative reaction to that term in this particular case.

 

[Kaon]

I realize how *you personally* are using the term which is a more "modern" (urban) use of the term, but it's not entirely congruent with it's actually meaning, particularly it's root (original) meaning. For instance:

Definition of SCAPEGOAT



Scapegoat (disambiguation) - Wikipedia



The original (symbolic) meaning was related to an "innocent" animal having someone's "sins" unfairly (irrationally/symbolically) placed upon it, and then slaughtered for those sins. The goat clearly wasn't sinful, so it's ultimately blameless for such sins. In the second link they use the terms "unfairly blamed", and "unmerited negative treatment".

In this particular case however Weinstein was not blameless, nor was the hostility toward him that was felt by this victims "irrational", and his jail time was not "unmeritied'. Weinstein was the (a) original sinner, he was "rationally" convicted of his own sin. His own personal conviction was merited.

The fact that others commit the very same sin/crime is ultimately irrelevant. It's akin to a tu quoque fallacy.

It's also not the case the *every* man behaves as he did, so it's not valid to suggest that *everyone* deserves that sort of outcome.

I do understand how you're using the term (more colloquially), but IMO it's an imprecise and somewhat unfortunate way to use the term in this particular instance. Your mileage may vary of course, but I think that's why others are having a negative reaction to that term in this particular case.

A person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency.
​

Scapegoat | Definition of Scapegoat by Lexico

​

That's the definition I am using. Maddof was absolutely not the only financier to steal billions from Americans - but he was used as the symbol taking on all the responsibility of the financial crisis.

Likewise, Weinstein is absolutely not the only producer or entity in Hollywood that is involved in sexual abuse - but he is being used as the symbol to take on all responsibility of the Me Too movement.

It is a minor issue of connotation.
Both of them may be guilty, bu the attention on them is a distraction from a much larger problem we tend to ignore.

 

[JackRT]

I would not call Weinstein a scapegoat so much as he is a cause celebre.

 

[Desk trauma]

I would not call Weinstein a scapegoat so much as he is a cause celebre.

I recall a thread here where some one was seriously arguing that the secret sauce of the Weinstein companies success America preferred actresses who have been sexually exploited. That's the kind of insanity that keeps me coming back here.

 

[JackRT]

That's the kind of insanity that keeps me coming back here.

You are correct --- there is a morbid fascination with some of the insanity here.

 

[Cimorene]

I would not call Weinstein a scapegoat so much as he is a cause celebre.

I'm glad his Wikipedia entry has been updated to call him what he is, a former film producer and convicted sex offender. He is a rapist. That is what he needs to be called.

 

[Kaon]

I would not call Weinstein a scapegoat so much as he is a cause celebre.

By design.

That is my point: he is not innocent, but people are distracted by the act of making Weinstein the "fall guy" for rape and sexual assault in Hollywood. That way, the public will ignore the plethora of other Hollywood insiders that do what he does, and worse.

That is the point of placing all of the "energy" on Weinstein. Sure, he may be guilty and he should go away for it - but so should all the others. The point of a fall guy is to divert attention away from others who are complicit in the same crimes.

Should we demand most, or all people who rape and molest people in Hollywood be put to justice, or are we just fine with ONE person taking the blame for others? In other words, a high profile conviction made public is meant to exploit the human desire for justice, and satiate our desire to dig deeper - while at the same time exploiting our short attention spans, and impeccable ability to be distracted by "sensation".

 

[Michael]

A person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency.
​

Scapegoat | Definition of Scapegoat by Lexico

​

That's the definition I am using. Maddof was absolutely not the only financier to steal billions from Americans - but he was used as the symbol taking on all the responsibility of the financial crisis.

Likewise, Weinstein is absolutely not the only producer or entity in Hollywood that is involved in sexual abuse - but he is being used as the symbol to take on all responsibility of the Me Too movement.

It is a minor issue of connotation.
Both of them may be guilty, bu the attention on them is a distraction from a much larger problem we tend to ignore.

I agree that this is ultimately a minor issue of connotation, but even that definition of scapegoat doesn't directly apply to this case because Weinstein was *not* blamed for the wrongdoings or faults of others, he was blamed for his own wrongdoings and faults. I think JackRT got it right. He's not so much of a scapegoat so much as he's a cause celebre.

To be sure he's not the *only* person who's guilty of this type of behavior, but while they might be making an example out of him, he's not really a scapegoat in the conventional sense.

 

[Kaon]

I agree that this is ultimately a minor issue of connotation, but even that definition of scapegoat doesn't directly apply to this case because Weinstein was *not* blamed for the wrongdoings or faults of others, he was blamed for his own wrongdoings and faults. I think JackRT got it right. He's not so much of a scapegoat so much as he's a cause celebre.

To be sure he's not the *only* person who's guilty of this type of behavior, but while they might be making an example out of him, he's not really a scapegoat in the conventional sense.

He is a cause celebre for the public, perhaps. But he is Hollywood's scapegoat - specifically because people won't ask for anything else to e done even though they may know there are more that re responsible. Hollywood also knows this, which is why they offered him up to us.

He is being sacrificed to the public so that the lot of them stay clean. They do not have to explicitly say he is blamed for the wrongdoings of others because mechanics of the spectacle ensure that no one else will be "blamed" for it - he is the blame. As said, the same sacrifice was done to Maddof: FiDi knows the people will accept him as a sacrifice if they sensationalize it - and that the people won't look further at others who may be more responsible.

Even though Weinstein may be guilty (and, has been judged as such), the rest of the Hollywood pedophile and molestation lot have cast their sins upon him by making him a cause celebre - precisly because we will accept it as such.

I am saying don't accept him as a scapegoat despite his guilt. His arrest and conviction doesn't mean a "win" for me too, or the victims. It means Weinstein is the fall boy for their activities.

 

[JackRT]

Even though Weinstein may be guilty (and, has been judged as such), the rest of the Hollywood pedophile and molestation lot have cast their sins upon him by making him a cause celebre - precisly because we will accept it as such.

That remains to be seen.

 

[Michael]

He is a cause celebre for the public, perhaps. But he is Hollywood's scapegoat - specifically because people won't ask for anything else to e done even though they may know there are more that re responsible. Hollywood also knows this, which is why they offered him up to us.

Who (specifically) are you categorizing as "they" when you say "they offered him up to us"? AFAIK "they" are his victims who had the courage to come forward and offer to testify against him.

I don't think this is going to placate the MeToo movement, rather I think it's likely to have the opposite effect and be a source of encouragement. I seriously doubt that Weinstein will be the last high profile figure in Hollywood to be accused of this kind of behavior.