[xhkkffbf]

I generally like some of his work, but I think he could have done a better job of digging up some of the problems with the accusations. When Harvey Weinstein got some of the women onto the stands, they had to admit they were sending some pretty affectionate text messages.

Farrow's reporting would have been better if he had managed to get some of the other side into the articles. It's kind of sad we had to wait until the trials to get a fuller picture.

[jdm2212]

This comment reminds me a bit about what Dave Chapelle said (jokingly) about Bill Cosby:

> Didn’t want to believe it. At first, I didn’t believe it. I said, “These people are obviously trying to destroy Dr. Cosby’s rich legacy.” Even 34 allegations into it, I was still like, “Man… he probably only raped ten or 11 of those people.”

The "other side" is that maybe there's a flimsy pretext for a few of the sexual assaults. Not all of them. Not even most. Just in some cases that women whose careers and reputations Weinstein had the power to destroy chose instead to pretend to be interested in him rather than repulsed when he threatened their livelihoods.

[xhkkffbf]

That's all well and good, but I think it's kind of a bizarre argument. First, the DA only prosecuted a few cases, almost certainly the strongest. In them, the defense came up with some pretty surprising emails and text messages.

If these women didn't like what Weinstein did, they could have endured much less of it if they went to the police right away. They would have saved themselves quite a bit of hardship-- and they would have saved many other women at the same time.

You make it seem like they had to go along with it all to keep getting Hollywood roles. Ordinarily, it sounds pretty sleezy when people say they were forced to do something bad to keep their job. The ethical thing is to quit your job because no job is worth compromising your ethics. How many other women were targeted so these women could keep their starring roles?

[jdm2212]

> The ethical thing is to quit your job

The ethical thing to do is not to rape your subordinates. If they choose to persist in their chosen profession despite rape or sexual harassment, that in no way diminishes the severity of the rape and sexual harassment.

[xhkkffbf]

Well sure. That's obvious. But Weinstein's defense is that they gave him plenty of assurances that it was all consensual. Using the word "love" is just part of the hint.

Let's put it a different way: would you work for a rapist or a sexual harrasser? Would you condone it? That's what these women chose to do. And they were more certain of this fact than anyone else.

[jdm2212]

The guy was known throughout Hollywood to be someone you wouldn't leave a friend alone with because he might well rape her. So, yeah, it's possible he was sincerely confused by affectionate text messages... but it's a lot more likely he's a manipulative sociopath who knew how to get his victims to damage their ability to accuse him in the future.

I wouldn't work for a rapist or sexual harasser, but I know plenty of people who care more about their careers and they probably would. That doesn't justify raping or sexually harassing them. And even if they tried to mitigate the damage to their careers by playing along with the abuse, that would still not justify or mitigate the abuse.

[xhkkffbf]

I just want to point out what you're in favor of:

1) Lying to a lover. 2) Lying to a boss. 3) Covering up a boss's misbehavior. 4) Doing all of this for money.

Somehow you seem to think that Weinstein's behavior makes it all acceptable to do these things. Really?

And if it was known throughout Hollywood that he was terrible, well, why did they women take the job in the first place? They certainly should have known, right?

[bpnichol]

He's Frank Sinatra's son, not Woody Allen's.