[Aptorian]

What is that from? How does that work? I'm assuming it's a body suit but I can't tell where it begins or ends. I mean, look at his arms and legs. The arms have a bit too much mass for a normal woman but he actually looks like a "real" woman.

[Gust Hubb]

Garrison Keillor?! FML

https://www.npr.org/...blic-radio-says

[Malankazooie]

Alternative Goose, on 29 November 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:

What is that from? How does that work? I'm assuming it's a body suit but I can't tell where it begins or ends. I mean, look at his arms and legs. The arms have a bit too much mass for a normal woman but he actually looks like a "real" woman.

It's from The Today Show. They go all out for their Halloween episodes each year. I never watch it myself, but the year he did that it was all over the place. I thought he was creepy as hell the way he looked and how he really go into playing the role.

[worry]

http://variety.com/2...men-1202625959/

Quote

As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified. On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.

Quote

Several women told Variety they complained to executives at the network about Lauer’s behavior, which fell on deaf ears given the lucrative advertising surrounding “Today.” NBC declined to comment. For most of Lauer’s tenure at “Today,” the morning news show was No. 1 in the ratings, and executives were eager to keep him happy.

Burn em all.

[worry]

Not a huge name, but @LanaDelRaytheon, a writer and popular & growing voice on at least Left Twitter and news commentary, admitted to patterned harassment and predatory behavior of people online and off.

This post has been edited by worry: 01 December 2017 - 01:23 AM

[amphibian]

Bigger news is that Greg Howard, a sports writer most recently for the NY Times, has a public accusation of sexual assault.

I followed Lana Del Raytheon before this came to light. They (non binary person) were good at riffing and very clearly mostly into interacting with women. It stinks to find out a person of color with very left leaning tendencies and a burgeoning platform still is a person who sexually assaulted and coerced other people.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Everyone is flawed.

[Tsundoku]

Geoffrey Rush? WTF?

EDIT: changed news website source based on Macros' feedback

http://www.abc.net.a...haviour/9210196

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 01 December 2017 - 10:41 AM

[Macros]

Have to register to read article sombra.

But heard that one too this morning

[worry]

John Oliver just confronted Dustin Hoffman about his gross behavior during a Wag the Dog anniversary panel thing (not in an ambush way, but as host).
https://deadline.com...ity-1202220185/

What a coward Hoffman is. I mean, come to your own conclusions, but he even tries the "it was another time" excuse. It's relatively easy for Oliver to be 'fearless' on his own show, with no oppositional guests and a sympathetic audience, so I'm very happy to see him be so sharp and astute and right in a riskier setting.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Quote

“The so-called, alleged comments that are made are truth now,” Hoffman fumed. “And if you try to defend it, you’re guilty.”

[Aptorian]

I mean, he's not wrong. It's like the Michael Jackson accusations and trials. We still have no idea what is fact and what are false accusations, but the stories will always follow Jackson's legacy.

Reading through the quotes in Worry's article I don't know what to think. Oliver attacks Hoffman's official response but as Hoffman states, he had to give some kind of apologetic/humble statement to try to curtail the media shit storm. Now, because of something that happened decades ago, the man he is today is being questioned. And it's a he said, she said situation. It must be shitty for the people who (themselves believe they -) are innocent and/or don't recognize the allegations.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 05 December 2017 - 02:02 PM

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Alternative Goose, on 05 December 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

I mean, he's not wrong. It's like the Michael Jackson accusations and trials. We still have no idea what is fact and what are false accusations, but the stories will always follow Jackson's legacy.

Reading through the quotes in Worry's article I don't know what to think. Oliver attacks Hoffman's official response but as Hoffman states, he had to give some kind of apologetic/humble statement to try to curtail the media shit storm. Now, because of something that happened decades ago, the man he is today is being questioned. And it's a he said, she said situation. It must be shitty for the people who (themselves believe they -) are innocent and/or don't recognize the allegations.

You adequately captured what I was trying to imply with my quote.

Even if these people are guilty as sin, trying them solely in the court of public opinion is not right. I understand that many of those who were (or felt) victimized didn't feel that they had legal recourse for many reasons — money, career, reputation, lack of evidence, and so on. And I think it's important for their stories to be heard, both as warning and exposé.

But the way in which society takes these stories and treats the word of one as a judgement is sickening. It's McCarthyism in pursuit of progressive values. These are witch trials, and it doesn't change anything if the accused are abusers or wealthy — they still deserve to be given the benefit of doubt.

If you disagree with me, then you're a stinkin' red Commie, and I'm gonna string you up before HUAC.

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 05 December 2017 - 02:35 PM

[Abyss]

Here's the thing about trial by public opinion in modern western society tho'... it (sort of) works when it deals with the truth.




Let's suppose the entire Kevin Spacey thing was an utter fabrication... all of it... Anthony rapp, subsequent revelations, the toxic atmosphere on the set thing, all of it.

Yet Netflix, without any more than the public 'revelations' and outcry, does what they did.

Spacey lawyers up, sues like god's own wrath of firey angels, and is exonerated. Moves on with his life.

Not a fullproof system - a loose example, but the Gian Gomeshi thing shows how even the Court aspect can be uncertain - but it does show that much of the sound and fury is just that.




It's telling that so many of the alleged perpetrators, from Weinstein on, are keeping a low profile and slinking out of sight... THAT is closer to proof than any number of tweets and blogs. You don't see Matt Lauer crying 'smear campaign' and demanding gazillions of dollars in compensation for his damaged rep.

Ditto Louis CK, who basically fessed up and crawled underground.




I am curious tho how some of the more foggy accusations like George Takei play out tho'.

[Macros]

I'd take issue with the wacko jacko analogy too.
Members of the jury came out and said they were fairly sure he had touched children, they just couldn't convict on the evidence presented on that case

[worry]

The "trial by public opinion" metaphor is kinda dumb anyway. It's nothing like a trial. The consequences to finding him "guilty" are that you're duly disgusted by his awful actions. That's a normal thing that happens in life when people do awful things. In fact I wish it were more normal.

And we all know how ghoulish referencing "witch hunts" is here, I hope, since those were about a society -- particularly powerful men in that society -- murdering innocent women to avoid disturbing the status quo. Dustin Hoffman and Harvey Weinstein ain't the witches in that twisted analogy, that's for sure.

[QuickTidal]

Like abyss eluded to, what bothers me is that I see people commenting on this on social media saying shit like "We don't know what happened, why does everyone assume that it's true without seeing the result of actual lawful trials?"....and I'm sitting here like "Does everyone just think that (for example) an entity like Netflix is stupid enough to fire Danny Masterson over "court of public opinion" results, and not having ACTUALLY LOOKED INTO THE MATTER before firing him? You can bet they have ESPECIALLY since he's a scientologist and they are litigious as hell." Make no mistake, that fucker did those things.

It's like everyone just a assumes that accusations are made, and the powers that be in charge above them (whoever they be, NBC, Netflix ect.) just fire people because it sounds bad. No, you numpty...they OBVIOUSLY investigated internally and found the subjects of the accusations wanting enough to terminate their employment. No one is being fired over court of public opinion....that's just the face of this that WE as the readers of this news see from the outside. We don't know what is going on behind closed doors, but sufficed to say that HR and lawyers are working in overdrive.

[worry]

Good point. Worth noting that the agent who sexually assaulted Terry Crews was suspended for like one month from WME and is already back at work.

[Mentalist]

In the US, like all common law jurisdictions, the standard of proof in a criminal case is ridiculously high- "proof beyond reasonable doubt of all elements of the crime" - which would be both the guilty act, and the guilty mind.

Meanwhile a counter-suit for damages from libel or slander would be a civil action with the standard of proof being "balance of probabilities" - that is, "more likely than not" .

Which would tacitly indicate that if the people who are accused aren't launching a flurry of counter-suit, there's probably reasons.

On the other hand, to counter QT's point a bit, the big companies are probably driven by math more than anything. Once a figure comes in the public eye, any prolonged association with them may become a financial liability, in terms of loss of popularity, ratings, etc.

It becomes an exercise in risk management. While I'm sure facts still play a role in it, they may not be the deciding factor.

[QuickTidal]

worry, on 05 December 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

Worth noting that the agent who sexually assaulted Terry Crews was suspended for like one month from WME and is already back at work.

That's brutal. Especially because if anyone at my work (or any other normal job) did that, they would be fired that same day.