I'll let the Monarchy stuff go, I think the thing that upsets me is that he's just going to pay money (that he didnt earn if I were an English Taxpayer I'd be right pissed) to sweep away his misdeeds.
To a point I think thats alright for the victim. That probably helps her live a better life moreso than tossing Prince Whatshisface into the clink.
However, from a more socially-oriented standpoint it just re-affirms that the wealthy, famous and powerful can do whatever they want and pay their way out of the consequences.
And that isnt right.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
I just don’t understand how you can commit a crime and be allowed to pay the person off. Like if someone committed murder here, you wouldn’t be able to give the victim’s family a wad of cash to stave off charges.
I'll let the Monarchy stuff go, I think the thing that upsets me is that he's just going to pay money (that he didnt earn if I were an English Taxpayer I'd be right pissed) to sweep away his misdeeds.
To a point I think thats alright for the victim. That probably helps her live a better life moreso than tossing Prince Whatshisface into the clink.
However, from a more socially-oriented standpoint it just re-affirms that the wealthy, famous and powerful can do whatever they want and pay their way out of the consequences.
And that isnt right.
Agreed. On one hand, if Giuffre -- as the victim -- is satisfied with the conclusion then that's really the most important thing, but you nailed the latter about the rich and powerful dodging the consequences of their actions.
I just don’t understand how you can commit a crime and be allowed to pay the person off. Like if someone committed murder here, you wouldn’t be able to give the victim’s family a wad of cash to stave off charges.
Paging MBates!
The difference is that when you want to get away with murder the money goes to the police, judge and lawyers, instead of the victim.
I'll let the Monarchy stuff go, I think the thing that upsets me is that he's just going to pay money (that he didnt earn if I were an English Taxpayer I'd be right pissed) to sweep away his misdeeds.
To a point I think thats alright for the victim. That probably helps her live a better life moreso than tossing Prince Whatshisface into the clink.
However, from a more socially-oriented standpoint it just re-affirms that the wealthy, famous and powerful can do whatever they want and pay their way out of the consequences.
And that isnt right.
I am going to suggest "being a part of a bloodline chosen by God" adds to this sense of being able to do whatever you want without consequences.
So yeah, #### the Monarchy and the concept of Monarchs.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
I watched part 1 of Rising Phoenix (I think it’s called??).
About Evan Rachel Wood. Makes me despise Marilyn Manson even more. He’s a groomer and a sadistic rapist. Gross.
Only watched part 1. I assume part 2 is next week or something. I’ll keep an eye out for it. The Hollywood machine really is something and I can’t help but lay some serious blame on her parents and other figures (who they never speak about) who guides a child thru Hollywood stardom and let her end up a victim like she was. Like how the #### do you let your child effectively get kidnapped by a psycho rapist and just go along with it? And I don’t just mean her mom, I mean every person in a position of authority. Even Manson’s people. It really seems like they knew and just let him do as he pleased because he was famous. It’s ####ing gross.
I just don’t understand how you can commit a crime and be allowed to pay the person off. Like if someone committed murder here, you wouldn’t be able to give the victim’s family a wad of cash to stave off charges.
Paging MBates!
Late to the party but this was always a civil lawsuit. There was never any chance of Andrew ending up in prison as a direct result of the trial. Criminally, had it been pursued at all, he had already passed the statute of limitation for the alleged crimes (which Canada thankfully does not have).
It was because of the New York Child Victims Act that extended the civil timeframe that gave her the opportunity to pursue the trial. Further the requirements of civil litigation are much less onerous, the 50%+1 idea where the juror or judge only needs to be convinced on a balance of more likely than not, unlike criminally where it's beyond a reasonable doubt.
And this happens with murder too. OJ Simpson being the most notable. Found not guilty criminally but lost civilly.
There was a big story in Rolling Stone a while back about Brian Warner and I think there's still an investigation ongoing. It sounds like he could be in a lot of trouble and facing jail time.
Makes me despise Marilyn Manson even more. He’s a groomer and a sadistic rapist. Gross.
As a youth Marilyn Manson was like my gold standard of not judging a book by a cover.
Bowling for Columbine especially had Manson come off as this well spoken thoughtful and intelligent individual. Particularly sticking with me was his response about what he would say to the shooters; "I wouldn't say a single word to them; I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did."
Now looking back on it, it was probably more of a guy who knew how to manipulate emotions and say what his audience wanted. And I guess a guy who chooses his stage name after the most notorious murderous cult leader isn't going to be a stand-up fellow afterall. Almost like a cynical lesson of growing up and realizing that you can sometimes judge people by their covers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
who guides a child thru Hollywood stardom and let her end up a victim like she was. Like how the #### do you let your child effectively get kidnapped by a psycho rapist and just go along with it? And I don’t just mean her mom, I mean every person in a position of authority.
I'll have to watch the series but was she not like in her mid 20s when she dated Manson?
Last edited by OptimalTates; 03-16-2022 at 10:54 AM.
As a youth Marilyn Manson was like my gold standard of not judging a book by a cover.
Bowling for Columbine especially had Manson come off as this well spoken thoughtful and intelligent individual. Particularly sticking with me was his response about what he would say to the shooters; "I wouldn't say a single word to them; I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did."
Now looking back on it, it was probably more of a guy who knew how to manipulate emotions and say what his audience wanted. And I guess a guy who chooses his stage name after the most notorious murderous cult leader isn't going to be a stand-up fellow afterall. Almost like a cynical lesson of growing up and realizing that you can sometimes judge people by their covers.
People are complicated. Well-spoken, thoughtful, and intelligent don't necessarily preclude someone from also being good at emotional manipulation.
We've been watching the Playboy documentary. There's an overwhelming amount of smoke around the alleged fire that Hef was all sorts of awful. There are a whole lot more people backing up the claims being made than refuting them. In the most recent episode we watched, it talks about a Playmate who contracted HIV. His response to that -- supporting the woman, paying for her treatments, and championing her to educate the masses about HIV/AIDS, to combat the stigmatization of HIV-positive people, the stigmatization of sex from the religious right -- was all a positive thing. None of that negates all the exploitative sh-t he did in the past (and would go on to do in the future). But again, people are complicated.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
People are complicated. Well-spoken, thoughtful, and intelligent don't necessarily preclude someone from also being good at emotional manipulation.
We've been watching the Playboy documentary. There's an overwhelming amount of smoke around the alleged fire that Hef was all sorts of awful. There are a whole lot more people backing up the claims being made than refuting them. In the most recent episode we watched, it talks about a Playmate who contracted HIV. His response to that -- supporting the woman, paying for her treatments, and championing her to educate the masses about HIV/AIDS, to combat the stigmatization of HIV-positive people, the stigmatization of sex from the religious right -- was all a positive thing. None of that negates all the exploitative sh-t he did in the past (and would go on to do in the future). But again, people are complicated.
If anyone in this thread hasn't so far, check out the mini docuseries We Need to Talk About Cosby. It's available through Crave.
Does a lot to highlight exactly what you're talking about regarding the complex nature of these abusers and how we reconcile the damage with their contributions to social change.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
As a youth Marilyn Manson was like my gold standard of not judging a book by a cover.
Bowling for Columbine especially had Manson come off as this well spoken thoughtful and intelligent individual. Particularly sticking with me was his response about what he would say to the shooters; "I wouldn't say a single word to them; I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did."
Now looking back on it, it was probably more of a guy who knew how to manipulate emotions and say what his audience wanted. And I guess a guy who chooses his stage name after the most notorious murderous cult leader isn't going to be a stand-up fellow afterall. Almost like a cynical lesson of growing up and realizing that you can sometimes judge people by their covers.
I'll have to watch the series but was she not like in her mid 20s when she dated Manson?
She had just turned 18 when they met.
Her intro to Hollywood was creepy in general. Like she’s always been groomed as a Lolita. She was 14 when they filmed Thirteen and she made out with a 23 year old as part of the role.
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 03-16-2022 at 01:27 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
There are several reasons this stuff is so rife in the entertainment industry.
* Hundreds of thousands of talented, attractive, desperately ambitious people competing to become among the handful who become stars. And unlike other hyper-competitive fields like sports, there’s no clear or objective way to sort the few from the many.
* This means personal relationships become the avenue to the top of the pyramid, giving gatekeepers tremendous power and tremendous opportunity for exploitation of people who will do almost anything for a chance to grasp the golden rung.
* This dynamic operates in a licentious atmosphere where casual sex, alcohol, and drug use among peers and colleagues is common.
Identifying the most egregious exploitation by gatekeepers is a welcome corrective. But it will only go so far to reduce abuse as long as the systems and incentives in the industry remain in place.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I watched part 1 of Rising Phoenix (I think it’s called??).
About Evan Rachel Wood. Makes me despise Marilyn Manson even more. He’s a groomer and a sadistic rapist. Gross.
Only watched part 1. I assume part 2 is next week or something. I’ll keep an eye out for it. The Hollywood machine really is something and I can’t help but lay some serious blame on her parents and other figures (who they never speak about) who guides a child thru Hollywood stardom and let her end up a victim like she was. Like how the #### do you let your child effectively get kidnapped by a psycho rapist and just go along with it? And I don’t just mean her mom, I mean every person in a position of authority. Even Manson’s people. It really seems like they knew and just let him do as he pleased because he was famous. It’s ####ing gross.
I have seen it as well. I have also read a lot of the articles and what the police found and I think Evan Rachel Wood is a jilted ex gf who when she was young wanted the bad boy and when it ended she decided to destroy the guy because he was an easy target and it would further her career. Manson has never been discreet about being weird, the guy made sings like Cake and Sodomy for Christ's sake. Do I think MM did weird sexual stuff with these women crying foul now? Yes. Do I think those women were totally infatuated with him at the time and agreed to those things? Yes. I am not victim shaming here, just a lot of this smells rotten to me given what I have read and heard.
If anyone in this thread hasn't so far, check out the mini docuseries We Need to Talk About Cosby. It's available through Crave.
Does a lot to highlight exactly what you're talking about regarding the complex nature of these abusers and how we reconcile the damage with their contributions to social change.
I am a bit conflicted after watching that. Not sure if they helped reconcile anything. It seemed like most of the time they were pumping Cosby’s tires, and then they would superimpose that with the acts he committed against these women. Was the documentary really needed? Do we need to hear about all of the positive contributions by Weinstein / Spacey / Polanski?
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
There are several reasons this stuff is so rife in the entertainment industry.
* Hundreds of thousands of talented, attractive, desperately ambitious people competing to become among the handful who become stars. And unlike other hyper-competitive fields like sports, there’s no clear or objective way to sort the few from the many.
* This means personal relationships become the avenue to the top of the pyramid, giving gatekeepers tremendous power and tremendous opportunity for exploitation of people who will do almost anything for a chance to grasp the golden rung.
* This dynamic operates in a licentious atmosphere where casual sex, alcohol, and drug use among peers and colleagues is common.
Identifying the most egregious exploitation by gatekeepers is a welcome corrective. But it will only go so far to reduce abuse as long as the systems and incentives in the industry remain in place.
I think the one big positive thing that has come out of technologies like Netflix, Prime etc. is that the opportunities for actors and actresses, and people in the film industry has expanded exponentially. Hopefully this will help reduce, or eliminate to a large degree, the exploitation that has gone on in the movie industry in the past.
Last edited by flamesfever; 03-16-2022 at 07:27 PM.
I think the one big positive thing that has come out of technologies like Netflix, Prime etc. is that the opportunities for actors and actresses, and people in the film industry has expanded exponentially. Hopefully this will help reduce, or eliminate to a large degree, the exploitation that has gone on in the movie industry in the past.
Cynically, it will just mean less money for said actors with the same culture surrounding the industry. It's not like it eliminated the fact there are thousands upon thousands trying to get into hundreds of spots.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
I have seen it as well. I have also read a lot of the articles and what the police found and I think Evan Rachel Wood is a jilted ex gf who when she was young wanted the bad boy and when it ended she decided to destroy the guy because he was an easy target and it would further her career. Manson has never been discreet about being weird, the guy made sings like Cake and Sodomy for Christ's sake. Do I think MM did weird sexual stuff with these women crying foul now? Yes. Do I think those women were totally infatuated with him at the time and agreed to those things? Yes. I am not victim shaming here, just a lot of this smells rotten to me given what I have read and heard.
I am a bit conflicted after watching that. Not sure if they helped reconcile anything. It seemed like most of the time they were pumping Cosby’s tires, and then they would superimpose that with the acts he committed against these women. Was the documentary really needed? Do we need to hear about all of the positive contributions by Weinstein / Spacey / Polanski?
I've been watching it when I have the stomach for it. I've seen 3 so far.
I haven't really felt that way. I think they have done a good job showing what he had meant to the black community and why his fall would have been so devastating for that group in general. I think it's also been used to highlight that this was not creepy old man Cosby. That he had been doing this from day one and during his prime and basically considered it normal. I found that generally once it seemed like Cosby was at a "peak" in the show, they would pivot to stories from that era of his abuse. Overall I've felt it's been well done.
