Weinsteins step down as Miramax CEOs

can we not use “#me-tooed” when the article doesn’t say that, and it’s used as a shorthand by conservative pundits as a way to say “this person is a victim of mob action and he probably did nothing wrong”?

I think it's probably tactically useful to tie it to "remember that time when we decided this wasn't okay (and that time a bit later when we remembered that we decided that again)" - I agree it's not useful to over-consider conservative media's smearing of terms (or there'd be no BLM or Antifa).

the hashtag as a verb is best avoided unless you want to sound like kanye

Mh’s explanation is useful, but I’d add to it. The term puts the focus on the person being accused and inverts the actors and victims in a really perverse way, to the point that it flattens out the actual happening(s) and the pain caused by it(people talking about what has happened to them) to this very cynical sort of “so and so got targeted by these accusations”. It’s a really unhelpful term at best and I’d encourage those of you determined to use it who you think you’re doing it for.

*to ask who you think, gah

I'd see the focus being switched to the accused as a good thing though, it takes it as read that there's a preponderance of accounts against him and short-circuits any he-said-she-said.

I mean, I'll be happy if and when it gets to the point where a single accuser has more weight than the accused, but the power imbalance in the stories itt suggests that'll take more than parity.

Four women sexually harassed and bullied by Clarke on the set of Dr Who, before he began writing/directing/producing, have also given accounts to the Guuardian. His legal responses continue to be persuasive.

...another former runner on Doctor Who alleges Clarke sexually harassed her and another female coworker in a bar at the Holland House Hotel in the mid-2000s in Cardiff, following a work event. When the women rejected Clarke’s advances, she alleges, he became “rude” and “aggressive”. The following day, she said Clarke spread false rumours about both women on set.

Clarke strongly denied the allegation. His lawyers said there would have been no real need or purpose for him to be in the hotel bar because he does not drink.

I really fucking hate this. Dude was set up to be the fucking Golden Child and he wiped his ass all over the opportunity.

DJP otm

disgusting entitled toxic bullshit

when these are the "further reading" headlines about you in one week

https://i.imgur.com/bvd3fXv.jpg

your best move is probably to respond to an ex's accusation of “abusive, manipulative, and predatory” behaviour with instagram posts saying things like "do you know what’s ‘predatory behaviour’? When we were having a fuckin’ threesome with your fuckin’ weird mate from the fuckin’ bar and I was having a fuckin’ diarrhea shit on the toilet and you were trying to kick the fuckin’ door in to fuckin’ sit on my dick." and "I’m confused as to where the predatory thing is coming from. What even is the accusation?… If it’s the predatory thing, it’s false. Also, I was 29 at the time. What’s the problem with trying to find a 19-year-old?"

There has been a mini reckoning with harassment/discrimination in the beer industry in the last week. A female brewer began soliciting stories from women and POC of issues they have faced working in the industry and started receiving an avalanche of stories related mostly through Instagram. Specific bad actors were named and shit popped off:

https://www.goodbeerhunting.com/sightlines/2021/5/18/beer-industry-allegations-legal-vulnerability

wasn't sure whether to put this here or in the "shit that looks like an onion article" thread

Kevin Spacey ‘to play sex abuse investigator’ in acting comeback https://t.co/jdyLttrySq

— The Independent (@Independent) May 24, 2021

.....

Given how #metoo was received in Italy, I can't say I'm surprised.

Is this the movie/metoo thread? This is tangential, but interesting:

Does my name belong to me? My face? What about my life? My story? Why does my name refer to events I had no hand in? I return to these questions because others continue to profit off my name, face, & story without my consent. Most recently, the film #STILLWATER.

/ a thread

— Amanda Knox (@amandaknox) July 29, 2021

Nice how she gets a plug in for her podcast there

cmon she has been through total hell and then some -- for some movie to use her story and publicize it with her name without her consent is gross and very wrong imo

I think I’d have more sympathy if she hadn’t falsely accused her (black) boss at the bar she worked at of being the murderer.. and making up details to support that story. It completely wrecked the guy’s life. She was convicted of that. Is that “morally vile”? I’m going to say yes. But Patrick Lumumba doesn’t have a podcast and doesn’t do “threads”.. so who tells that story (and does Knox get final sign-off??)

I guess I forgot about that part. I can’t help but have some sympathy for her even though she’s clearly some variety of asshole.

Was this the accusation that was after days of abusive interrogation without a lawyer and that was basically concocted by the police themselves?

Hoo boy

Do enlighten me! I didn't think "it's the police who are the bad guys" was such a hot take but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

At this point we should probably create a bot that ingests all of truejustice.org and a bot that ingests all of amandaknox.com and have them collaborate on a DLC of Ace Attorney

I can’t imagine what it’s like to be her, or Monica Lewinsky, or anybody else “embroiled” in a huge public scandal. But I think people do get to make movies about your story, or based on your story, without asking your blessing probably.

Legally speaking, I think Knox has become a "public figure" and therefore has no enforceable claim over the publicly available details of her story, including use of her name, so long as it is not implied she has approved of or endorsed its use. Her only valid claim is confined to the ethics of the situation. If the film makers didn't even reach out to seek her opinion about the script, it's kind of shitty of them.

Why would they need her opinion on their script?

It's a courtesy, not a "need". If she objected to some aspect that wasn't vital to the story, they could alter it easily enough. When you're dropping $100 million on a film project where every detail is scrutinized from every angle, it's not hard to include that step.

xpost They don't, but in her epic thread she quotes a story that claims McCarthy said he "couldn’t help but imagine how it would feel to be in Knox’s shoes" and asked "Who are the people that are visiting (her), and what are those relationships? Like, what’s the story around the story?” And she's basically saying, dude, I'm right here, you could have asked me rather than just riffing on my life. It's kind of like that crazy Cat Person tale: a ton of very specific stuff was lifted directly from this stranger's life, but a bunch of stuff was totally made up, too.

I assume this movie has the usual disclaimer "The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred," but that's weird if the writer/director said he started the movie with Knox in mind but then didn't contact her and ask her for permission. Is that disclaimer not on biopics and projects that *are* based on persons, living or deceased?

This just strikes me as a ‘ripped from the headlines’ Law and Order type deal where I sincerely doubt the writers did a lot of calling up of the fictionally portrayed people

Theatrical release films spend a lot more time in pre-production than that kind of television episode.

New Tao Lin novel came out today, and probably a revival of his likely past abuses will follow.

suddenly tao lin is everywhere again, including granta. once again the publishing industry/literary world is happy to ignore credible accounts of his abuse

— charlotte geater (@tambourine) July 29, 2021

The difference is now there’s not enough ilxors left to get a clusterfuck going about whether his books are good I guess

https://www.thedailybeast.com/saturday-night-live-alum-horatio-sanz-groomed-assaulted-17-year-old-fan-lawsuit-alleges

My first thought was “maybe they’ll drop the very annoying closing up the plug bag theme bit on comedy bang bang”

Bob Dylan sued for allegedly grooming, sexually abusing 12-year-old girl in 1965

This is a complicated situation, defined as grooming but with no sexual intent, that will probably create more definitive boundaries between performers and younger fans.

In light of the allegations against Alice Ripley, a conversation about interactions between theatre artists and fans has erupted online.

But there are aspects to this story that many seem to be missing, especially within the theatre communities.

— OnStage Blog (@OnstageBlog) August 24, 2021

I love Alice Ripley. this is rough :(

spend any time on social media following any kind of celebrity and the mental instability of lots of young people who interact with those celebrities will make you shudder. This is probably more pronounced these days with legions of weirdo 'stans' who frankly should be jettisoned into the sun; but even back then, from what I just read, Ripley should have known better and not engaged.

Alice Ripley seems to have exercised very bad judgment and relished the attention of these young “fans,” but “grooming without sexual intent” seems like a weird charge

I’m glad the victims came forward though. This is a more ambiguous type of abuse but one that is probably common.

i've been following the story and that was a really interesting article that helped clarify a lot of questions I had.

Alice Ripley seems to have exercised very bad judgment and relished the attention of these young “fans,” but “grooming without sexual intent” seems like a weird charge

― treeship., Wednesday, 25 August 2021 00:52 (eleven hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

In the initial accusations against Ripley, she was accused of grooming, which is a term commonly used for manipulative behaviors that abusers use to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught.

I think this makes sense as a definition of grooming that doesn't necessarily have to include sexual intent, it could cover e.g. getting someone to keep stolen goods in their home, or lend large sums of money - there is an ulterior motive to the efforts to form an emotional relationship, and the motive is to get the other person to do something damaging to themselves that they wouldn't otherwise be willing to do - but I don't think the article really makes a good case that this is what's happening in this situation?

Did Alice Ripley allegedly groom these young people in hopes of sexually abusing them? It doesn’t appear that way. Did she apparently use the tool of grooming for other purposes with these fans? That’s an entirely different discussion.

what exactly are the "other purposes" that Ripley was allegedly using the tool of grooming for? what was her ulterior motive? the article implies that she formed these relationships with fans to gratify her ego, but that seems hazy as a justification for calling it grooming. In the definition above the 'abuse' is delineated as something distinct from the 'grooming', the grooming is to facilitate the abuse, but in this case it seems like the accusers are arguing that what they call the grooming was in itself 'abusive'?

Yeah “grooming” might be the wrong word. It sounds like she might be emotionally immature and talked to these kids as if they were her peers. I can definitely see how they felt violated by this as she was ignoring boundaries.

the article makes it pretty clear that she would unceremoniously 'dump' them after long, emotionally intimate relationships. imo both the emotionally intimate relationships and the dumping are abuses of the power she holds as an adult over children ffs.

and when i say abuses i mean like, proper, full-on emotional damage that it could take years to recover from

Yeah as I said earlier it is a kind of abuse—just one we haven’t seen discussed much in the metoo era.

play whatever sick ego games you want with other adults - though you probably shouldn't! - but imagining my, i dunno 13-y-o as having identity questions and then latching onto a revered celebrity who actually texts them and invites them over, it's unthinkable really

Ugh

finished the Daily Beast article just now, seems pretty clear that Ripley is not being truthful in her denial that she only met fans briefly at the stage door or very occasionally had dinners with them, when DB has seen photos of her with one of these women in San Diego and SF (the woman lived in NYC). I was thinking about what kind of pathology made sense of this and decided that Ripley just sounds like a terrible person, no pathology needed.

Ron Jeremy indicted on 34 counts of sexual assault.

Seems like this should spark a reckoning with the porn industry. There are massive abuses there but people don’t like to think about it.