Thursday, October 19, 2017

Who blew Harvey Weinstein?

You know, for all the explosive coverage of Harvey Weinstein, I notice there's one question no one - and I mean no one - is asking.

What actresses blew Harvey Weinstein to get ahead in the business?

I'm not asking "What girls did Harvey Weinstein force himself onto."  Nor am I denying that happened - in fact, that's part of the point here.

I'm asking, "Which girls eagerly blew this guy, thinking that it would do wonders for their career?" Which girls blew the guy that everyone knew was a grabby and at least workplace-dangerous pervert?

Reminder: Weinstein's turn to pariah status is extraordinarily recent, not to mention sudden. As of a few weeks ago, he was a powerful Hollywood figure. There's no shortage of pictures of women smiling happily as they glom onto him. No shortage of video clips of actresses praising him or thanking him. No shortage of quotes to the same effect.

And we've got every reason to believe that his behavior wasn't exactly a secret. Actors and actresses knew. They talked.  They excused, and they even went to bat for him.

So, how many girls did Harvey a favor - jumped at the chance to do him a favor - to get ahead?

And what should we think of any self-described feminist who eagerly played this game, with a guy like this, if they in fact did so?

15 comments:

Mike said...

Didn't you get a memo that any woman who chooses to use her sexuality as a tool to get ahead is a victim because men should never accept what a woman is willing to trade to get where she wants to be? If you think these women are any different from a 15 year old starlet cornered by a producer, you sir are a misogynist.

Crude said...

Haha, yeah, I got the memo. And trashed it.

I know you're being sarcastic, but that is one of the biggest problems we're facing in the West now. Even (really, especially) on the abortion topic, this comes up. The terror of telling a woman she did something wrong.

Vand83 said...

Hey, just a heads up. Your "I Don't Give a Damn" apologetics link leads to a porn site.

Crude said...

Thanks Vand. Funny stuff, I wonder what happened there.

Will Worrock said...

Mr. Crude, have you read Dusty's recent comments on Feser's review of Dennett's book? What's your take on them? Because to me they are just bizarre and incoherent.

Crude said...

Didn't even look. Really, he never says anything intelligent - at best he just asserts 'Materialism is true, science proves it' and is very light on details.

I'd say he was Linton Redux, but Linton probably is in an old folks home or succumbed to a heart attack or the like by now.

Will Worrock said...

His comments are on the post where Feser reviews Dennett's new book, "From Bacteria to Bach and Back". Can you tell me what you think is wrong with those particular comments, because I don't know how they can be refuted.

Crude said...

You can ask me whatever questions you like about it, here. Feel free to explain the problems you have with what he's saying, what his argument is supposed to be, etc.

Will Worrock said...

He says that feser misunderstands what Dennett means by illusory when saying that consciousness is an illusion. What Dusty says is an illusion is not a fantasy divorced from reality, but instead an illusion is a simplification of reality, hence all our sciences and meaning that we derive from other things are technically "illusions". I dont know if I explained it right so I think you should read his comments to see what he actually says.

Crude said...

He says that feser misunderstands what Dennett means by illusory when saying that consciousness is an illusion.

That does nothing to answer the charge against Dennett. If by 'illusory' he simply means 'a simplification', then it's still an intentional concept, and what Dennett was trying to get across by saying consciousness is an illusion remains incoherent (or, if he fleshes it out, an abandonment of materialism.)

Even in The Last Superstition, Ed's charge about Dennett was that he continued to help himself to intentional concepts even while insisting he was 'naturalizing' consciousness. Saying that Dennett's "illusions" just mean "simplifications" does nothing to refute Ed's criticisms, or salvage Dennett, so I'm not sure what the concern would be.

Will Worrock said...

What Dusty says is that illusions help us track reality, for example our sense of temperature helps us track reality by illusions of feeling hot or cold.

Crude said...

What Dusty says is that illusions help us track reality, for example our sense of temperature helps us track reality by illusions of feeling hot or cold.

Who is this 'we'? A self? Who is 'tracking'? That's yet more intentional language, the very thing that Dennett makes use of, and precisely the point on which his 'illusion' quote caught him hell, from Feser and others.

To say consciousness is an illusion is absurd, since an illusion is a thing a self experience, and the experiential IS consciousness. Saying 'yes well illusions just means rough approximations and rough approximations are helpful' is a non-sequitur - we're still left with experience, thought, and the intentional. Even the change of subject is intentional.

I already went over this exact subject with Dusty, and he fled. He'll flee again, because there's nothing to him.

Will Worrock said...

Perhaps I didn't phrased it. Probably you zhould read his comments and tell me what's the problem because I am never going to be able to tell you what he says.

Crude said...

Well, if you don't know what he's saying, why be upset at it? He's apparently not saying anything of value, as usual - he's just there, objecting.

I've got bigger fish to fry than a guy who's probably living in his mom's basement.

Will Worrock said...

I do know what he's saying, I guess I'm just interested in how you would respond to him.