So, Harvey Weinstein is a sexual harasser

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Posts: 21821
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 343 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: So, Harvey Weinstein is a sexual harasser

Post by gnome » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:34 am

ed wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 2:32 pm
Missed this .. sorry.

"it should be" implies a higher order of "rightness". Is there one? It seems to me that ages ago we all sorta agreed that relations between consenting adults were no ones business. Now we are saying that "consent" is fluid.

In any agreement there are always non-objective factors at work. I have read, for example, that successful business people tend to be taller than average. Does that give them an edge in negotiations? Implicit in a negotiation is agreement or consent. How do you factor that in? Or is it that "consent" is only (for the moment at least) open to examination in sexual relations? I can see RCC weighing in, saying that there is always some level of interpretation when it comes to consent for anything. For example, if I say that either your brains or or signature will be on a document, can one say that you have really "consented"? Well, yes, but under duress.

Is the potential of withholding career advancement "duress"? And if it is a private enterprise, who has the right to gainsay the way negotiations are conducted? Ultimately it is a quid pro quo and one is not physically forced to submit or participate or even be in the same room. "But", you may say, "the person's career". So? Is one entitled to that career so that withholding it is a form of theft?

There is shitty behavior and there is illegal behavior and they are not always coincident. People knew about Weinstein. Brad Pitt evidently threatened him (with what one wonders) yet no one said a word, even Her Turn. That tells me that the deal was worth it for those involved. You may not like it but tough shit.

If I were Brad, I would have publicly beat the shit out of the guy. But I'm not Brad.
I think the disconnect is that it may be unclear whether we are talking about morals or legality. It sounds like morally speaking we're on the same page. Legally speaking from a criminal context, Weinstein is accused of using actual force, not merely abusing power. As far as "who has the right to gainsay the way negotiations are conducted"--the answer would include the ownership of the organization, yes? Which is why he got fired.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2