Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

      1. GTANet 20th Anniversary
    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

Kevin Spacey Accused of Assaulting Then 14 y/o Star Trek Actor


theGTAway

Recommended Posts

You know, Spacey has always struck me as a pretentious cock with a Manhattan size ego. Don't care if I'm right or not, I just don't like him and I hope this really f*cks a day up for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it's Louis CK's turn :(

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

 

What bothers me about all this is the guilty until proven innocent culture. The networks just cut ties immediately. Let me be emphatic and say: I'm not defending guilty parties nor am I talking about Spacey's case in particular. I'm mean, generally speaking. It's just we have judicial systems in place. Evidence, facts and fair trials are crucial. Again, not defending guilty parties but if that's the way we're heading, where someone just has to point a finger, someone innocent will get accused by someone, potentially wanting to make a name for themselves and a career or two will be ruined and lives destroyed.

Edited by Mister Pink
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the case for all accusations of sex offences. It's just that it now concerns celebrities there is a spotlight put on to it. More often than not the only trial that really matters is the one in the court of public opinion, and there there is no presumption of innocence, no equality of arms, no impartiality - the accused doesn't get any procedural fairness; once someone has an allegation especially one of sexual impropriety attached to their name, it might as well be a registration in a sex offender registry right there and then. Jobs are lost, families are torn apart, livelihoods go up in smoke. Even after it has been proven in actual fact that the accused isn't guilty, the question of 'what if' will always linger on in people's minds.

 

As a sidenote, cutting Spacey out of the movie and reshooting it with a new actor is absolutely meaningless. What Spacey may or may not have done 30 years ago doesn't release Scott & Co from their contractual obligations. They will still have to pay him regardless.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The higher you are, the farther the fall I suppose. Being a public figure brings you a lot of opportunities and money and fame. But one slip is enough to cause your castle to disappear.

 

But it's a tough situation, isn't it? Because if it isn't taken seriously, then powerful people will get away with it every single time. How many women must have tried to bring a case against Bill Cosby, only to be met with shrugs and discouragement because he was so famous, popular, and no way he would have done something like that? So the victims continue to suffer.

 

But then if it's taken too seriously, you'll end up with potential innocent people getting hurt in the process by false accusations.

 

Between a rock and a hard place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it's Louis CK's turn :(

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

 

What bothers me about all this is the guilty until proven innocent culture. The networks just cut ties immediately. Let me be emphatic and say: I'm not defending guilty parties nor am I talking about Spacey's case in particular. I'm mean, generally speaking. It's just we have judicial systems in place. Evidence, facts and fair trials are crucial. Again, not defending guilty parties but if that's the way we're heading, where someone just has to point a finger, someone innocent will get accused by someone, potentially wanting to make a name for themselves and a career or two will be ruined and lives destroyed.

That's exactly what puzzles my mind as well. Sure... the situation with Weinstein was pretty obvious, and Kevin Spacey pretty much proved himself to be guilty when he went on trying to deflate this whole "sexual assault" thing. I've read a little bit of what Louis C.K said what he had to say about the allegations - Well, he sounds like a jerk. To look at the bright side of it, he is a more spontaneous jerk at least. More so, Louis' situation is pitiful, with the exact definition - bleedingly ironic because you know that the world is messed up when the humorists become what they've made fun of.

 

Now here comes the BUT...

 

When I have no doubt Hollywood is full of trash people and it's nice to see them finally catch up with the "serves-you-right" consequences, who says this won't turn into some sort of a slick "pyramid scheme" for the opportunist types to cross off anyone they want, shine through and build their careers? And now, this latest "Naughty Hollywood" ordeal is so popular that it started with bigger dominoes falling such as Harvey Weinstein who had been what Zeus was to Olympus for Hollywood. In today's world where political correctness is perceived as sacred, such the nature of victimization would become a lethal weapon in the wrong people's hands. In short, this whole thing seems to be vindictively pleasing yet also engrossingly cringey.

Edited by Rebel Yell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Louis acted like an embarrassing pervert over ten years ago, but there was nothing that was non consensual or illegal about it. But it was just very pathetic and weird what he did. It's ridiculous that he's grouped in with a serial rapist like Bill Cosby in many articles.

Really, I would've been much more surprised if Louis CK wasn't a disgusting pervert. He's quite open about it in his act.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Louis acted like an embarrassing pervert over ten years ago, but there was nothing that was non consensual or illegal about it. But it was just very pathetic and weird what he did. It's ridiculous that he's grouped in with a serial rapist like Bill Cosby in many articles.

 

Really, I would've been much more surprised if Louis CK wasn't a disgusting pervert. He's quite open about it in his act.

You taking the piss or am I missing something?

Masturbating in front of non-consenting individuals is not legal, nor moral for starters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Louis C.K. just got cut off from a lot of jobs after his admission. Fx, Netflix, and his publicist all severed ties with him

 

Also universal has removed him from animated film The secret life of pets 2

 

Concerning FX

The network and production company said they are "ending our association" with the comedian in a statement Friday. Louis C.K. has executive produced five series with the company over the last eight years.

In addition to canceling Louis C.K.'s overall deal with his company, Pig Newton, the companies said he will no longer serve as executive producer for any of the four shows they produce with him, including "Better Things," "Baskets," "One Mississippi" and "The Cops." He will also receive no compensation for them.

TBS, on which "The Cops" was set to air, said on Friday production on the animated series "has been suspended until further review." (TBS, like CNN, is owned by Time Warner.)

 

Man they aint f*cking around.

Edited by That Guy There
Link to post
Share on other sites

Masturbating in front of non-consenting individuals is not legal, nor moral for starters.

Supposedly he asked them first, to which they responded with laughter, after which he proceeded to continue with his act. They also consented to go to his hotel room. It's very weird what he did, but not illegal. Furthermore, I never argued it was moral. It exactly wasn't. But not every immoral act is illegal. Ethics is largely within the realm of personal responsibility.

Edited by Eutyphro
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Masturbating in front of non-consenting individuals is not legal, nor moral for starters.

Supposedly he asked them first, to which they responded with laughter, after which he proceeded to continue with his act. They also consented to go to his hotel room. It's very weird what he did, but not illegal. Furthermore, I never argued it was moral. It exactly wasn't. But not every immoral act is illegal. Ethics is largely within the realm of personal responsibility.

 

If I tell you ''let's f*ck'' in a joking manner and you laugh and then I actually try to rape you does that count as consent? them laughing made it very clear it was a joke. They were in his hotel room because they considered each other colleagues/friends.

 

Indecent exposure is a thing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's dubious whether there is such a thing as indecent exposure by him in his hotel room. They could've left. I'm also wondering whether they asked him to not do it when he proceeded with it. It doesn't seem like they did. They were awe struck by what he did I guess. But really, that doesn't even matter, and they could've left. What remains is that what he did is very weird.

Edited by Eutyphro
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's dubious whether there is such a thing as indecent exposure by him in his hotel room. They could've left. I'm also wondering whether they asked him to not do it when he proceeded with it. It doesn't seem like they did. They were awe struck by what he did I guess. But really, that doesn't even matter, and they could've left. What remains is that what he did is very weird.

....He confessed. You're just trying to play devil's advocate so you could play devil's advocate and nothing more - there isn't a hidden angle here or anything, there is no false accusation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He confessed, to a crime? He confessed to embarrassing behavior, and he was right to do so. I'm not claiming to give a 'hidden angle'. I'm making a judgement in conformity with what is known. I'm also not claiming it is a false accusation. As Louis points out, it's a true accusation. Furthermore, it's not 'playing devil's advocate'. It's common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly he asked them first, to which they responded with laughter, after which he proceeded to continue with his act. They also consented to go to his hotel room. It's very weird what he did, but not illegal. Furthermore, I never argued it was moral. It exactly wasn't. But not every immoral act is illegal. Ethics is largely within the realm of personal responsibility.

 

1. Laughter isn't consent.

2. A nightcap invitation shouldn't set the standard for indecent exposing or the ol' "they were asking for it"

 

It's dubious whether there is such a thing as indecent exposure by him in his hotel room. They could've left. I'm also wondering whether they asked him to not do it* when he proceeded with it. It doesn't seem like they did. They were awe struck by what he did I guess. But really, that doesn't even matter, and they could've left. What remains is that what he did is very weird.

 

They did leave. They ran away.

“We were paralyzed,” Ms. Goodman said. After he ejaculated on his stomach, they said, they fled. He called after them: “He was like, ‘Which one is Dana and which one is Julia?’”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Edited by Thugazi
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is claiming laughter is consent. Nor would it be wise to not acknowledge the grey area in which the laughter brings up. They didn't say "no" so consent wasn't denied either. And laughter is usually associated with good times and positivity. For example: If you ask someone "would you like a top-up" of their drink and rather than the respondent consenting and saying "yes" and they smiled or laughed, one might not be questioned if you continued the top up the drink. It's the principle of the social interaction I'm thinking about, in before some tries to detract from my point by saying I'm comparing sexual assault to pouring someone a drink. It's the principle of the social interaction. Another disclaimer: I'm not claiming that not denying consent equals consent either.

 

Also nobody is arguing that what he did was right. either. The point is that he didn't do anything illegal. Would Louis CK have asked those women if he could do what he did if he didn't think he had a slight chance? Probably not. Why did he have a chance? Because he had power which he acknowledges and that's the main crux of the abuse in my opinion. Is it a creepy and distasteful situation? Yes. Is it black and white? I don't think so.

 

I'm a little disappointed at some people failing to see the nuances in this situation. It reminds me of old right-wing Christians against drugs. You could try explain that not all drugs are heroin and crack cocaine and that some drugs like cannabis or MDMA are relatively harmless, when consumed correctly and in moderation to which their response is: No! It's all drugs and all drugs are terrible. It's just all drugs to them and they don't want to hear it. And if you try give some nuance to the situation, then all of a sudden you are defending crack and heroin or in this case, sexual deviancy which we know is fallacious at best.

Edited by Mister Pink
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Laughter isn't consent.

It's not. The reason I said 'nothing non consensual happened' is mainly due to the other incident, where he made an indecent proposal to a woman, who said no to him. This is all very strange behaviour, but it doesn't break the law. You can make indecent proposals to people all day without doing anything illegal. But of course that doesnt mean it's 'oke' to do so. It's absolutely horrible to do so.

 

2. A nightcap invitation shouldn't set the standard for indecent exposing or the ol' "they were asking for it"

This is completely beside anything I've said.

 

They did leave. They ran away.

Good call.

 

I'm a little disappointed at some people failing to see the nuances in this situation. It reminds me of old right-wing Christians against drugs. You could try explain that not all drugs are heroin and crack cocaine and that some drugs like cannabis or MDMA are relatively harmless, when consumed correctly and in moderation to which their response is: No! It's all drugs and all drugs are terrible. It's just all drugs to them and they don't want to hear it. And if you try give some nuance to the situation, then all of a sudden you are defending crack and heroin or in this case, sexual deviancy which we know is fallacious at best.

I'm also kind of offended by articles grouping Louis in with Cosby. There's a monumental difference between whipping it out for colleagues in your hotel room, and roofying a woman and raping their unconscious body. That shouldn't be grouped in together at all.

Edited by Eutyphro
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Laughter isn't consent.

It's not. The reason I said 'nothing non consensual happened' is mainly due to the other incident, where he made an indecent proposal to a woman, who said no to him. This is all very strange behaviour, but it doesn't break the law. You can make indecent proposals to people all day without doing anything illegal. But of course that doesnt mean it's 'oke' to do so. It's absolutely horrible to do so.

 

2. A nightcap invitation shouldn't set the standard for indecent exposing or the ol' "they were asking for it"

This is completely beside anything I've said.

 

They did leave. They ran away.

Good call.

 

I'm a little disappointed at some people failing to see the nuances in this situation. It reminds me of old right-wing Christians against drugs. You could try explain that not all drugs are heroin and crack cocaine and that some drugs like cannabis or MDMA are relatively harmless, when consumed correctly and in moderation to which their response is: No! It's all drugs and all drugs are terrible. It's just all drugs to them and they don't want to hear it. And if you try give some nuance to the situation, then all of a sudden you are defending crack and heroin or in this case, sexual deviancy which we know is fallacious at best.

I'm also kind of offended by articles grouping Louis in with Cosby. There's a monumental difference between whipping it out for colleagues in your hotel room, and roofying a woman and raping their unconscious body. That shouldn't be grouped in together at all.

 

 

I mean, I understand the distinction between the two acts in terms of severity, but they can indeed be grouped together. If you shoot someone in the face or punch them in the eye, they're both massively different levels of force and malice, but both are grouped as "assault" because it is an action that causes injury upon another person through violence. So yeah I see the distinction you're getting at, but it starts to question whether flashing a woman your penis should be considered "sexual assault". I don't think that in many jurisdictions it actually would be ( depending on the age ) but rather indecent exposure, lewd conduct, etc. On the other hand, in a lot of places he'd still need to register as a sex offender if charged with those crimes as well. So while I agree it's a stretch to class it as sexual assault, it's still glaring sexual misconduct.

 

On the other hand, if someone points a gun in your face and threatens you, that is still classed as an assault in many jurisdictions because of the perceived and implied threat of violence and the trauma that can be associated with that. So while just whipping your dick out may seem juvenile and harmless to some, the possibility that it can be perceived as a threat of looming sexual assault is too profound to simply dismiss. So even though the law may not see this as sexual assault, I could see why some people would group it as such.

 

But I think the similarities are more troubling than the distinctions. He's done this to many women, they've stayed quiet only until feeling like they can come forward about it now, and it's an action that's similar to patterns of other abusers. I wonder if Harvey Weinstein started out jacking off into potted plants or if he just whipped it out first an built up to that, before graduating to textbook rape.

 

I mean I get what you're saying... Flashing someone your dick can be a pretty innocuous thing. I mean, it's still a larf in comedy routines, there's old classic movies bits like "pressed ham" where guys stick their asses on car windows as they pass by motorists, etc. But all that is drastically different than being alone with another woman in what was a potentially romantic situation and just whipping it out. Yes it's not pulling a Cosby, but it's definitely not sophomoric humor and good times either. So if we're going to be drawing the distinctions between what he did and what Cosby did, we have to draw the line between what he did and just juvenile/moronic behavior as well.

 

Honestly I think the best way to think about this in any situation is to imagine it was your sister, or mother or someone like that, out on a first date with a guy. If she came home and told you that at some point he pulled his dick out, what would you think of him? I mean I have friends who have told me stories about this, and my general reaction is to feel sorry for both parties. My friends for having to deal with it, and the schmuck who thinks that pulling his ding-dong out isn't a universally bad move. On the surface, it's a bit comical, but then it always gets a little darker when you start to examine the feelings of, "Yeah, I felt like I was about to get raped," which they've all told me they felt at that moment.

 

So bottom line... If you do things that make a girl think, "Yeah, I felt like I was about to get raped," then that should definitely be behavior that we discourage unabashedly. If he had just pressed his ass up on a car window passing by a car full of people I'd say, "Oh yeah, he's just being a joker," but once you upgrade that to being alone with a woman and facilitating the "Oh crap am I about to get raped" response, it's clearly not laughs and games. Even if it were intended as a joke, it doesn't matter what his intent actually was, because a reasonable person would have known that behavior would raise that response in a woman, and he chose to do it anyway.

 

tl;dr

pointing a gun in someone's face makes them fear they're about to be physically assaulted; pointing a dick in someone's face makes them fear they're about to be sexually assaulted

 

 

But I have to agree the pace at which the court of public opinion concludes they're guilt is troubling. The probability is perhaps low, but it's entirely possible now for a person to wreck another's career if they have the money to slosh around. I mean, Weinstein was employing a network of spies to dig up dirt on his accusers, hiring former CIA members and everything. How hard do you think it would be for someone in Hollywood to do a little bit of research into a person, find a few people that have met or worked with them, and then pay them off to make accusations? It would instantly ruin that person's career, and in most cases the people involved could be paid off, or the lucrative incentives of publicity are their own pay-off as they're often actors themselves. I mean, it probably is a coincidence that Rose McGowan has a book coming out, and Anthony Rapp's debut series of Star Trek is airing as they've come forward, but every element to draw up some kind of conspiracy is there.

 

Again it's not that I'm saying the probability of that is high, and that it's more likely these men are just guilty of misconduct, but the court of public opinion moving so fast and hastily is what makes the above scenario even able to be entertained. If you were as powerful as Harvey Weinstein and didn't like what someone else in Hollywood was doing, you'd now have every ability to launch a smear campaign that would basically be like a nuclear weapon.

 

Obviously though the solution shouldn't be to start investigating the victims as if they're liars and conspirators, but for networks (Netflix, HBO) and business associates not to drop them like a hot potato the moment accusations are made. Unfortunately, it's a matter of self-preservation because the court of public opinion will judge them guilty by association if they choose to stick behind them or even to delay their response until investigations are completed. It's a complete catch .22 for them, except not really because even if someone like Spacey was found completely innocent these kinds of accusations have such lasting effects that people would still suspect he simply bought off witnesses or something like that. An actual trial in the court of law is completely separate than one in the public court. They will still probably be accused of "knowing about it."

 

So yeah, it's really a compounded problem. There are creeps being creeps behind the scene, but the general public is acting as judge, jury and executioner in terms of their careers.

Edited by Saggy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The probability is perhaps low, but it's entirely possible now for a person to wreck another's career if they have the money to slosh around.

 

When has this never been the case, though? People with money can do whatever they want with little fear of repercussions. Or go even further, and essentially bury other people with little fear of repercussions.

 

Not just in movies, but in anything in life. People with power and money are above common folk. They get their get out of jail free* (or with some favour pulling here and there) card, and are free to do whatever they want, free to ruin someone's career, someone's life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

The probability is perhaps low, but it's entirely possible now for a person to wreck another's career if they have the money to slosh around.

 

When has this never been the case, though? People with money can do whatever they want with little fear of repercussions. Or go even further, and essentially bury other people with little fear of repercussions.

 

Not just in movies, but in anything in life. People with power and money are above common folk. They get their get out of jail free* (or with some favour pulling here and there) card, and are free to do whatever they want, free to ruin someone's career, someone's life.

 

 

I just don't think it's ever been this easy. How much would you have to pay someone to simply lob accusations? That's all it would really take and then they'd be fired, lose contracts, etc. Even if no criminal charges came of it they'd be ruined. Especially for actors and celebrities, since their "power" relies pretty heavily on their money and we've seen how that rug has been swept out from under their feet. Meanwhile, you have politicians like Roy Moore who are being defended by their party members.

 

I mean all I'm saying is that if I was someone involved in Hollywood with even a moderate amount of money with enemies, I'd be digging up dirt and paying people to make accusations, and just like that my competition would be gone. How much do you really think it would cost just to make someone come forward with false accusations, and with the swiftness that public opinion moves at, how convincing would they even need to be.

 

That's a legitimate question. I wish there was a way to run an actual social experiment, but just look at things like the Richard Gere gerbil rumor...

https://www.snopes.com/risque/homosexuality/gerbil.asp

 

Yeah it's all funny and everything because it's a gerbil, but look how many people believed it, and then imagine it was about something a little more nefarious than abuse of a rodent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the case for all accusations of sex offences. It's just that it now concerns celebrities there is a spotlight put on to it. More often than not the only trial that really matters is the one in the court of public opinion, and there there is no presumption of innocence, no equality of arms, no impartiality - the accused doesn't get any procedural fairness; once someone has an allegation especially one of sexual impropriety attached to their name, it might as well be a registration in a sex offender registry right there and then. Jobs are lost, families are torn apart, livelihoods go up in smoke. Even after it has been proven in actual fact that the accused isn't guilty, the question of 'what if' will always linger on in people's minds.

 

As a sidenote, cutting Spacey out of the movie and reshooting it with a new actor is absolutely meaningless. What Spacey may or may not have done 30 years ago doesn't release Scott & Co from their contractual obligations. They will still have to pay him regardless.

 

This is pretty accurate, I remember last year when Freddie Gibbs got hit with a rape charge in Austria a year after it supposedly happened, the guy was extradited and spent time in jail for the duration of his process where he was found innocent because he wasn't even there at the time of the incident. His career is still intact but it's ridiculous just how much people sh*t all over him even after the charges were dropped.

Edited by Lazerface
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we really contemplating a false accusation conspiracy? this SO would not be on the table if people didn't like CK's/Kevin Spacey's material.

 

No, I've said it a bunch of times (like two or three) that I don't think it's very likely, but I'm just trying to point out why it's problematic for society to be so quick to act as judge and jury in these matters. I never really liked CK much, and I mean, Harvey Weinstein is a producer so I can't really be a "fan", and I already acknowledged how blindsided the accusations about Spacey left me, but I didn't deny it.

 

I mean you might wonder, 'Well what's the point?' if it's not to somehow defend these people, but I'm just saying I can see why it's fair to point out that it's problematic, and borderline inappropriate, for the general public to be so quick to judge and accept that people can just lose their jobs and have their careers ruined at the first accusation. Not just for the simple altruism of presuming people innocent until proven guilty ( because in this instance they've even admitted guilt), but more because it gives a false sense of justice. It's borderline vigilatneism, and I think people settle for it because they don't think they'll ever be held accountable in a court of law, so a systemic ostracization is the next best thing; but does it really serve the actual victims or just the gawkers.

 

Then I already mentioned the the crazy dynamic it could have of letting people basically launch smear campaigns against their enemies, but that wasn't throwing shade to suggest that's what's been done. Again, it just fosters a situation that's not actually good for anyone except people who are merely spectators. I mean, however unlikely it is that any such conspiracy has happened, it's crazy because if it did we'd never really know for sure, since this same kind of mass-consciousness tries to deem it inappropriate to even cast doubt on allegations, which in turn would just make false accusations that much easier to make. It's really a cycle that could happen but people are just kind of like, "So what?" because they like the instant gratification of feeling like, "Well, the court of law can't hold Weinstein/CK/Spacey accountable, but at least their production-companies/agents/colleagues have snubbed them."

 

If nothing else, as demonstrated, it makes it a lot easier to conjure up conspiracy theories about it. Which isn't something I think shouldn't be scoffed at given society's love for them. I can't really suggest what should happen ( I mean, besides legitimate criminal investigations into the accusations ), but this current situation just seems precarious.

Edited by Saggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

ah what a c*nt. it's not a f*cking one off you moron. it's not like his victims have forgotten so why should we?

 

 

Bryan Cranston Thinks Hollywood's Sexual Abusers Could Make A Comeback

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bryan-cranston-thinks-hollywoods-sexual-abusers-might-get-a-second-chance_us_5a0b43c8e4b0bc648a0e5fcd

 

they haven't even touched the surface of what's going on......just watch them gloss over it

Edited by theGTAway
Link to post
Share on other sites

ah what a c*nt. it's not a f*cking one off you moron. it's not like his victims have forgotten so why should we?

 

 

Bryan Cranston Thinks Hollywood's Sexual Abusers Could Make A Comeback

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bryan-cranston-thinks-hollywoods-sexual-abusers-might-get-a-second-chance_us_5a0b43c8e4b0bc648a0e5fcd

 

they haven't even touched the surface of what's going on......just watch them gloss over it

Nah that ain't never going to happen. Hollywood is unforgiven and with that said they're careers are already over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hollywood is unforgiven and with that said they're careers are already over.

 

If you meant unforgiving which I think you did, it's anything but. Mel's starring in a comedy film, Woody Allen still makes movies and Polanksi never faced any real consequences. They're real good at forgiving their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hollywood is unforgiven and with that said they're careers are already over.

 

If you meant unforgiving which I think you did, it's anything but. Mel's starring in a comedy film, Woody Allen still makes movies and Polanksi never faced any real consequences. They're real good at forgiving their own.

 

 

What Spacey has supposedly done is worst than all of those put together easily. There are 20 complains from his tenure of the Old Vic alone!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a perfect way to completely misconstrue the point I was making, good job.

 

I also suggest you look up a bit more about Polanksi and Allen retrospectively.

 

Lol right.

 

Oh and go check out what Pete Townshend was up to a few years ago while doing a "research" project...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.