[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

All these women were so holier than thou so innocent none of them realised going up to his hotel room in the early hours could possibly lead to a kiss and a cuddle and who knows maybe a big role in a hollywood blockbuster
IF he is found guilty IN A LEGAL COURT ROOM, then by all means burn him at the stake and lock him away for a lengthy period
But clearly a load of the accusations are exaggerated politically correct drivel of events that happened years ago and taken way way out of context by a bitch slapped feminist media
IF he committed a crime then take it to the police and court and if guulty he will be arrested charged convicted
Why havent any of these so called brave women come forward in the last 30 years? probably because most were complicit in the flirting/sex that happened. I do not believe in trial by media or trial by twitter or facebook or by feminists...I believe in trial in a court room by law and innocent until proven guilty. Theres a zillion and one money grabbing kiss and tell women in hollywood as has been proven thousands of times...theres thousands fo false accusers, blackmailers, exaggerators trying to screw some money. IF some are legit then they have to do this through legit means and thats through the courts
The amount of biased out of context sanctimonious drivel spouted by the medie the luvvies, the actors trying to look oh so good all spouting the same thing without knowing any of the facts. all jumping on this mans grave now that hes sacked. whereas for the past 30 years theyve sucked at his teet. what a bunch of phonies. the people who dance on his grave are mostly sycophants and hypocrites. take ben affleck lol who the heck is he to moralise? who are any of them? go to court and shut the hell up

Why is this woman hating and rapist sympathizing scum allowed on this forum and this post to remain?

Absolutely vile.

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Why is this woman hating and rapist sympathizing scum allowed on this forum and this post to remain?

Absolutely vile.

[2]

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Why is this woman hating and rapist sympathizing scum allowed on this forum and this post to remain?

Absolutely vile.

He’s not taking the sympathising with rapists route he’s taking the innocent until proven guilty route which is perfectly legit.Nobody knows if Weinstein raped anybody yet.It’s just accusations.They could be false for his cash or he could be rapist.We dont know.
Also why would you want to ban someone for having an alternative opinion?This is’nt a Berkeley University SJW safe space.Just tell him why you think he’s wrong.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

He’s not taking the sympathising with rapists route he’s taking the innocent until proven guilty route which is perfectly legit.Nobody knows if Weinstein raped anybody yet.It’s just accusations.They could be false for his cash or he could be rapist.We dont know.
Also why would you want to ban someone for having an alternative opinion?This is’nt a Berkeley University SJW safe space.Just tell him why you think he’s wrong.

They could be untrue but a lot of the women coming forward with stories about him are rich and successful actresses like Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow, so I find it hard to believe they're doing it for the money. If anything they risk facing criticism for not coming forward sooner.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

They could be untrue but a lot of the women coming forward with stories about him are rich and successful actresses like Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow, so I find it hard to believe they're doing it for the money. If anything they risk facing criticism for not coming forward sooner.

My opinion is that many actresses will have slept with him,sucked him off and let him sniff coke off their arses over the years and many Possibly wouldn’t be where they are today if they hadn’t.
It’s likely half of Hollywood did this over the years.Marilyn Monroe was apparently well known for it.
However i think power and greed probably corrupted him and he wasn’t used to being told no.When he was told no he got angry about it and he pushed it too far and did bad things he thought he could get away with or he knocked the ‘unwilling’ones back for roles.He Possibly pissed off alot of ‘unwilling’ actresses by refusing them their big break and now everyone’s coming out to trample him so they don’t look like they condone it.There’s pictures of actresses draped all over him so many were willing.
I think it’s more than likely he will be guilty of a good few cases of inappropriate behaviour or assault.
Still,Nothing’s proven yet.
Sticking with the innocent until proven guilty view is a perfectly legitimate one and doesn’t make someone a rapist sympathiser.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

He’s not taking the sympathising with rapists route he’s taking the innocent until proven guilty route which is perfectly legit.Nobody knows if Weinstein raped anybody yet.It’s just accusations.They could be false for his cash or he could be rapist.We dont know.
Also why would you want to ban someone for having an alternative opinion?This is’nt a Berkeley University SJW safe space.Just tell him why you think he’s wrong.

He's not simply said innocent until proven guilty though?

Read his full posts. Misogyny and victim blaming as per.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

He's not simply said innocent until proven guilty though?

Read his full posts. Misogyny and victim blaming as per.

He’s not victim blaming in the post you quoted he’s saying he doesn’t know if there are any actual victims because nothing’s been proven yet.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

He’s not victim blaming in the post you quoted he’s saying he doesn’t know if there are any actual victims because nothing’s been proven yet.

I agree that it's fine to take the 'innocent until proven guilty' route and I generally agree with what you're saying about what probably led to his abuse (if it happened), but I think Marsh is right about The Truth's intention with his post.

All these women were so holier than thou so innocent none of them realised going up to his hotel room in the early hours could possibly lead to a kiss and a cuddle and who knows maybe a big role in a hollywood blockbuster

This is victim blaming

clearly a load of the accusations are exaggerated politically correct drivel of events that happened years ago and taken way way out of context by a bitch slapped feminist media

Claiming to know the facts of the case and that the accusers are in the wrong, without the court process being followed first... this doesn't fit in with 'innocent until proven guilty' at all.

Why havent any of these so called brave women come forward in the last 30 years? probably because most were complicit in the flirting/sex that happened.

More victim blaming (and in doing so also answers the very question he's asking)

Theres a zillion and one money grabbing kiss and tell women in hollywood as has been proven thousands of times...theres thousands fo false accusers, blackmailers, exaggerators trying to screw some money

There's also a hell of a lot of men who sexually assault women and men in power who abuse their positions, so if this ^ is an argument for why women should be discredited, then the counter argument of why they should be believed is just as valid.


The Truth isn't simply saying 'let's not judge until we know the facts', he's trying to discredit the women coming forward and he's making generic statements that put fault on women who find themselves in these situations. He's assuming the women are in the wrong without knowing the full facts and then in the next breath saying we shouldn't be judging the man involved because we don't know the full facts.
Yes he's also saying that the court process should be followed which is true and 'innocent until proven guilty' is valid, but it's very hypocritical to say that and then position the women as either liars or partly to blame - that's taking a side, so you can't do that and then complain that you feel other people are taking a side too.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I agree that it's fine to take the 'innocent until proven guilty' route and I generally agree with what you're saying about what probably led to his abuse (if it happened), but I think Marsh is right about The Truth's intention with his post.




This is victim blaming



Claiming to know the facts of the case and that the accusers are in the wrong, without the court process being followed first... this doesn't fit in with 'innocent until proven guilty' at all.



More victim blaming (and in doing so also answers the very question he's asking)



There's also a hell of a lot of men who sexually assault women and men in power who abuse their positions, so if this ^ is an argument for why women should be discredited, then the counter argument of why they should be believed is just as valid.


The Truth isn't simply saying 'let's not judge until we know the facts', he's trying to discredit the women coming forward and he's making generic statements that put fault on women who find themselves in these situations. He's assuming the women are in the wrong without knowing the full facts and then in the next breath saying we shouldn't be judging the man involved because we don't know the full facts.
Yes he's also saying that the court process should be followed which is true and 'innocent until proven guilty' is valid, but it's very hypocritical to say that and then position the women as either liars or partly to blame - that's taking a side, so you can't do that and then complain that you feel other people are taking a side too.

He’s not victim blaming he’s using sarcasm to throw doubt that these women weren’t complicit in any sexual activity and it’s his OPINION that they knew what they were getting into.
You can’t victim blame if you don’t think there are victims in the first place.
He can have the opinion that the guy is innocent until proven guilty which is a legal fact and have the opinion that the women are lying to stitch Weinstein up.The two don’t necessarily clash.He can think both these things at the same time.I bet many of these celebrities on Twitter believe in innocent until proven guilty too but still have opinions on what a monster Weinstein is.It’s ok to take a side and believe in due process apparently.
But none of this warrants someone being banned for their opinions.Imo.