|
Post by Hakumental on Nov 11, 2017 14:54:41 GMT -5
Clash said it earlier and I’m going to say it, move on from this discussion. I understand your reluctance to make an all-purpose thread, but this scandal seems to have moved beyond Harvey Weinstein now, and the last bit of noteworthy news about Weinstein thoroughly breaks the No Politics rule to talk about. At this rate, half the front page of Off-topic is going to be individual threads about the latest persons to be accused. That's a little depressing.
|
|
lionheart21
Patti Mayonnaise
Once did a thing...
Posts: 30,531
Member is Online
|
Post by lionheart21 on Nov 11, 2017 18:11:15 GMT -5
The sad thing is that, if this is true, his fanboys will still defend him and make excuses for him. Hopefully it isn't true, but if it is, then I hope he incurs the same wrath the others have As someone who has respected the work that he has done, if this is even remotely true, I'm done with him. There is no excuse for such behavior.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,919
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Nov 11, 2017 18:40:16 GMT -5
For what it’s worth, Takei has denied the allegations and said he has no clue who this person is.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,784
|
Post by hassanchop on Nov 12, 2017 2:56:12 GMT -5
www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-once-discussed-howard-stern-grabbing-men-persuade-sex-1057333?facebook_20171111George Takei Once Discussed with Howard Stern Grabbing Men to "Persuade" Them for Sex A recently surfaced piece of audio from Stern's radio program last month highlights the 'Star Trek' actor discussing sexual harassment in the wake of Harvey Weinstein allegations going public. m.youtube.com/watch?v=AJYb0Yom5UQ&ebc=ANyPxKrxnN_1ELm1SMYD-NHE3u4l_Ght7KU7qEsvKmgw73TGOSm1umuuoCZD2iN4nxx52tKnFQIivXVt5XA6J9WBuRRefqscfQA former model and actor accused Star Trek actor George Takei of sexual assault in 1981. The accuser, Scott R. Brunton, who was 23 at the time of the alleged incident, claims that Takei took advantage of him when he was most vulnerable. On Saturday, an audio clip surfaced from George Takei's appearance on Howard Stern's radio show last month. The interview was recorded less than two weeks after sexual assault accusations against fallen film mogul Harvey Weinstein were made public. Stern and Takei were discussing the "irony" of the Weinstein case and the audiotape of President Donald Trump boasting about grabbing women's genitals years ago, when Stern asked Takei whether he had ever grabbed a man's genitals against his will. Takei, a staunch opponent of the Republican president, initially was silent, then said "uh oh" and laughed. Stern asked again and Takei said, "Some people are kind of skittish, or maybe, um, uh, afraid, and you're trying to persuade." Stern and his co-host, Robin Quivers, persisted, asking Takei whether he ever held a job over somebody for sex and he said no. Quivers asked if he did "this grabbing at work." Takei said, "It was either in my home. They came to my home." In a series of tweets and in a Facebook post Saturday morning, Takei denied Brunton's allegations. "The events he describes back in the 1980s simply did not occur, and I do not know why he has claimed them now. I have wracked my brain to ask if I remember Mr. Brunton, and I cannot say I do," he said. "Right now it is a he said / he said situation, over alleged events nearly 40 years ago. But those that know me understand that non-consensual acts are so antithetical to my values and my practices, the very idea that someone would accuse me of this is quite personally painful."
|
|
|
Post by fuzzywarble, squat cobbler on Nov 12, 2017 5:43:58 GMT -5
I knew Takei was full of shit. What a low-life , scummy, piece of shit this keyboard warrior has turned out to be.
Hopefully this means he will go away forever. The world of social media will benefit immensely
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 12, 2017 6:20:48 GMT -5
If true, that's as disappointing as Spacey and CK. Though in Takei's case it's not as if he had many active projects or sphere of influence $ wise, so at least no jobs will be lost by other people etc.
His social media posts may take a hit if he lays low/is tarnished; which if he did it he'd deserve. I enjoyed most of those posts. He was right the vast majority of the time
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Nov 12, 2017 7:40:56 GMT -5
I knew Takei was full of shit. What a low-life , scummy, piece of shit this keyboard warrior has turned out to be. Hopefully this means he will go away forever. The world of social media will benefit immensely You were already told to move on from this discussion. Keep it up and you're going to be formally warned.
|
|
|
Post by Hakumental on Nov 12, 2017 12:37:24 GMT -5
I knew Takei was full of shit. What a low-life , scummy, piece of shit this keyboard warrior has turned out to be. Hopefully this means he will go away forever. The world of social media will benefit immensely You were already told to move on from this discussion. Keep it up and you're going to be formally warned.You're going to have to be clearer: is only Fuzz supposed to not be openly disgusted with Takei's hypocrisy, or are all of us? If so, you might have to issue me a warning, too. Because the truth is George Takei did use his social platforms for decrying rape culture and calling for action against the accused, and now he stands accused of exactly the same crime he was slamming Kevin Spacey for a week ago. Understand that is not "my opinion as a poster and a person." That is a fact. If he is truly guilty of this charge, then he IS, in fact, a raging hypocrite. Worse than a raging hypocrite - a predator who manipulated the trust and good faith of the public, who gave him plenty of Facebook Likes and Twitter Hearts and accolades for Saying The Right Things. A creep who played the part of the compassionate social advocate to deflect from what he did in private. Which is the only thing that counts. Martin Luther King Jr.'s (a man whose rhetoric I do feel comfortable referring to) most famous speech envisions a world where we are judged not for our appearance but the content of our character. Character, as they say, is what you do when you think nobody is looking. Let me tell you a story. About ten to twelve years ago, I had a teacher in college who I truly admired and many of his arguments struck a chord with me. It turned out a few years ago that it, too, was all a veneer. A total facade. Following an accusation, this man finally had a huge public meltdown where he admitted that he only did that to get closer to female students and his younger female peers (possibly including one of my own classmates) and seduce them. It was a huge scandal, and when the story was brought to light and he confessed, it caused a severe rift in the community that had supported him. The fact that he had been allowed to inhabit this field for so long did real, lasting damage to the causes he claimed to believe in, because it showed everyone that the standards for integrity in that field were horribly vulnerable. Predictably, many tried to argue "Well, what he wrote on his blog is still valid, despite his crimes of sleeping with his students, cheating on his wife, showing a young girl in his rehab class how to burn herself with cigarettes as an alternative to cutting, and having tried to murder his ex-girlfriend in the 90s." You can imagine how well that went over. For my part? Everything I read from this guy is now poisoned, because I acknowledge that however resonant or honeyed his rhetoric, the rhetoric was weaponized. It was not the talk of a man who firmly and honestly believed in the rights of women. It was bait laid by a hunter. All those words were written only to camouflage himself and lure prey. I've seen firsthand what having sickos and monsters on your side does to a cause you believe in. Never welcome their contributions, no matter what direction your social views run on the radio dial. I am not going to say "Well, he might be a terrible sex predator, but while he was pretending to be something else, he was right." It is my experience that statements like that do serious injury to the integrity of the causes people claim to stand for. I'm not incorporating such a sentiment into my worldview. It would be a relief (though given the nature of the charge, not the sort that leads one to rejoice) if this turned out to be untrue. But I have no more faith of that being the case. I'm prepared to see one more person I respected turn out to be exactly the sort of creature he preached against. If that happens, there will once again be damage to causes I believe in. I'm prepared for that, too. I'm confident enough in what I believe to admit it's truly sad, but unavoidable. But ultimately, we're much better off without wolves in sheep's clothing - or Starfleet uniforms.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Nov 12, 2017 13:31:15 GMT -5
You were already told to move on from this discussion. Keep it up and you're going to be formally warned.You're going to have to be clearer: is only Fuzz supposed to not be openly disgusted with Takei's hypocrisy, or are all of us? If so, you might have to issue me a warning, too. Because the truth is George Takei did use his social platforms for decrying rape culture and calling for action against the accused, and now he stands accused of exactly the same crime he was slamming Kevin Spacey for a week ago. Understand that is not "my opinion as a poster and a person." That is a fact. If he is truly guilty of this charge, then he IS, in fact, a raging hypocrite. Worse than a raging hypocrite - a predator who manipulated the trust and good faith of the public, who gave him plenty of Facebook Likes and Twitter Hearts and accolades for Saying The Right Things. A creep who played the part of the compassionate social advocate to deflect from what he did in private. Which is the only thing that counts. Martin Luther King Jr.'s (a man whose rhetoric I do feel comfortable referring to) most famous speech envisions a world where we are judged not for our appearance but the content of our character. Character, as they say, is what you do when you think nobody is looking. Let me tell you a story. About ten to twelve years ago, I had a teacher in college who I truly admired and many of his arguments struck a chord with me. It turned out a few years ago that it, too, was all a veneer. A total facade. Following an accusation, this man finally had a huge public meltdown where he admitted that he only did that to get closer to female students and his younger female peers (possibly including one of my own classmates) and seduce them. It was a huge scandal, and when the story was brought to light and he confessed, it caused a severe rift in the community that had supported him. The fact that he had been allowed to inhabit this field for so long did real, lasting damage to the causes he claimed to believe in, because it showed everyone that the standards for integrity in that field were horribly vulnerable. Predictably, many tried to argue "Well, what he wrote on his blog is still valid, despite his crimes of sleeping with his students, cheating on his wife, showing a young girl in his rehab class how to burn herself with cigarettes as an alternative to cutting, and having tried to murder his ex-girlfriend in the 90s." You can imagine how well that went over. For my part? Everything I read from this guy is now poisoned, because I acknowledge that however resonant or honeyed his rhetoric, the rhetoric was weaponized. It was not the talk of a man who firmly and honestly believed in the rights of women. It was bait laid by a hunter. All those words were written only to camouflage himself and lure prey. I've seen firsthand what having sickos and monsters on your side does to a cause you believe in. Never welcome their contributions, no matter what direction your social views run on the radio dial. I am not going to say "Well, he might be a terrible sex predator, but while he was pretending to be something else, he was right." It is my experience that statements like that do serious injury to the integrity of the causes people claim to stand for. I'm not incorporating such a sentiment into my worldview. It would be a relief (though given the nature of the charge, not the sort that leads one to rejoice) if this turned out to be untrue. But I have no more faith of that being the case. I'm prepared to see one more person I respected turn out to be exactly the sort of creature he preached against. If that happens, there will once again be damage to causes I believe in. I'm prepared for that, too. I'm confident enough in what I believe to admit it's truly sad, but unavoidable. But ultimately, we're much better off without wolves in sheep's clothing - or Starfleet uniforms. Where did I say that people shouldn't feel disgusted about what's happening?
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Nov 12, 2017 13:51:47 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the warning was more about trying to use the accusation against Takei as a potshot against the SJW boogeyman than anything else.
|
|
Dukect
Don Corleone
A person who tries to make sense of the senseless
Posts: 1,568
|
Post by Dukect on Nov 12, 2017 14:14:23 GMT -5
You were already told to move on from this discussion. Keep it up and you're going to be formally warned.You're going to have to be clearer: is only Fuzz supposed to not be openly disgusted with Takei's hypocrisy, or are all of us? If so, you might have to issue me a warning, too. Because the truth is George Takei did use his social platforms for decrying rape culture and calling for action against the accused, and now he stands accused of exactly the same crime he was slamming Kevin Spacey for a week ago. Understand that is not "my opinion as a poster and a person." That is a fact. If he is truly guilty of this charge, then he IS, in fact, a raging hypocrite. Worse than a raging hypocrite - a predator who manipulated the trust and good faith of the public, who gave him plenty of Facebook Likes and Twitter Hearts and accolades for Saying The Right Things. A creep who played the part of the compassionate social advocate to deflect from what he did in private. Which is the only thing that counts. Martin Luther King Jr.'s (a man whose rhetoric I do feel comfortable referring to) most famous speech envisions a world where we are judged not for our appearance but the content of our character. Character, as they say, is what you do when you think nobody is looking. Let me tell you a story. About ten to twelve years ago, I had a teacher in college who I truly admired and many of his arguments struck a chord with me. It turned out a few years ago that it, too, was all a veneer. A total facade. Following an accusation, this man finally had a huge public meltdown where he admitted that he only did that to get closer to female students and his younger female peers (possibly including one of my own classmates) and seduce them. It was a huge scandal, and when the story was brought to light and he confessed, it caused a severe rift in the community that had supported him. The fact that he had been allowed to inhabit this field for so long did real, lasting damage to the causes he claimed to believe in, because it showed everyone that the standards for integrity in that field were horribly vulnerable. Predictably, many tried to argue "Well, what he wrote on his blog is still valid, despite his crimes of sleeping with his students, cheating on his wife, showing a young girl in his rehab class how to burn herself with cigarettes as an alternative to cutting, and having tried to murder his ex-girlfriend in the 90s." You can imagine how well that went over. For my part? Everything I read from this guy is now poisoned, because I acknowledge that however resonant or honeyed his rhetoric, the rhetoric was weaponized. It was not the talk of a man who firmly and honestly believed in the rights of women. It was bait laid by a hunter. All those words were written only to camouflage himself and lure prey. I've seen firsthand what having sickos and monsters on your side does to a cause you believe in. Never welcome their contributions, no matter what direction your social views run on the radio dial. I am not going to say "Well, he might be a terrible sex predator, but while he was pretending to be something else, he was right." It is my experience that statements like that do serious injury to the integrity of the causes people claim to stand for. I'm not incorporating such a sentiment into my worldview. It would be a relief (though given the nature of the charge, not the sort that leads one to rejoice) if this turned out to be untrue. But I have no more faith of that being the case. I'm prepared to see one more person I respected turn out to be exactly the sort of creature he preached against. If that happens, there will once again be damage to causes I believe in. I'm prepared for that, too. I'm confident enough in what I believe to admit it's truly sad, but unavoidable. But ultimately, we're much better off without wolves in sheep's clothing - or Starfleet uniforms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 14:16:08 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the warning was more about trying to use the accusation against Takei as a potshot against the SJW boogeyman than anything else. To be fair I legitimately don't see what wrong with my or anyone post. If anything I think it more or less people disagreeing with Crash personal/political views then people actually breaking the rules of the sites. Because I actually read the rules and I don't see how my earlier post was breaking them unless someone want to point it out to us.
|
|
|
Post by Georgina's Fancy Water on Nov 12, 2017 14:35:57 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the warning was more about trying to use the accusation against Takei as a potshot against the SJW boogeyman than anything else. For real, lol. It's so skeevy.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Nov 12, 2017 14:42:23 GMT -5
Fred Rogers and Bob Ross. If you want wholesome, that's the list. Maybe Tom Hanks. Bob Ross was a drill instructor in the military, it's probably fair to say he was a professional asshole during those years and he admitted the entire reason he got into painting and became the person he became was because he never wanted to scream at another human being again after his service was over.
|
|
|
Post by Hakumental on Nov 12, 2017 14:44:35 GMT -5
Where did I say that people shouldn't feel disgusted about what's happening? Dude. You told a forum member to "move on from the discussion*" or get an account warning for a post where he called Takei a keyboard warrior who's been lying to everyone the entire time, which if the charges are true is exactly what he is. (The least of what he is, in fact.) My take from Fuzz's post is that he is obviously, obviously fed up with the hypocrisy of people masquerading as moralists when their private lives utterly countervail what they preach. As am I. You disregarded that and threatened action against a board member because he used the words "keyboard warrior" to convey that. I think that's wrong, and I could easily envision myself in exactly the same position - this is a subject I care about and I want the freedom to use the words I want to. So again, you might want to clarify what you meant. If you can't, then either you're not making your point as well as you can, or I'm not understanding it at all. * By the way, what does that mean? I thought the "discussion" was George Takei, not the validity or invalidity of the term "SJW" or "keyboard warrior." If it's about the former, we have a right to be disgusted with his hypocrisy and your reply to me suggests you agree with that, so what is the issue? If it's the latter, then this is a different matter about acceptable vocabulary on the forum, in which case that policy needs to be communicated to the membership at large, so just go ahead and make a mod post telling us we're not allowed to use either term anymore, under penalty of suspension or banning, as that is exactly the grounds you're using to justify threatening action on Fuzz's account. But I'm sure you'd understand why I would find that a shocking and contemptible change in this forum's nature, and why I need to believe it's not the choice any of the moderators would make. Onyx, you know where I stand on matters social and political. It is my experience that the more people bridle at the term "SJW", the more effective the term becomes. I'm not saying you and Clash shouldn't find it annoying. You have a right to be annoyed about anything. But for my part, I don't f***ing care what people call me when I say what I believe in and don't believe in. I've been called an SJW and a dangerous right-wing reactionary. I've also been called a "closet faggot", a sheep, a warhawk, and an enabler. One guy on GameFAQs called me a heretic back in the day - don't know that I ever told you that story, FF Tactics had a funny community - and my solution was to shrug it off. Eventually, when they realized it wasn't making me tilt emotionally or budge on my position, they either ran out of gas or stopped using it. Without fail. Just something to think about. I'm not an active contributor by any means, so you have no reason to take my advice. But I see a very worrying shift in the tone of this thread from where it was yesterday. I certainly don't think anyone's said anything that requires action on their account.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Nov 12, 2017 14:47:09 GMT -5
I'm not projecting or trying to push any sort of viewpoint on anybody. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Nov 12, 2017 14:48:14 GMT -5
Everyone better knock it the f*** off right now. This thread henceforth will ONLY deal with the Weinstein situation, NOTHING ELSE.
I am not even close to joking about handing out suspensions.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 12, 2017 14:48:21 GMT -5
Fred Rogers and Bob Ross. If you want wholesome, that's the list. Maybe Tom Hanks. Bob Ross was a drill instructor in the military, it's probably fair to say he was a professional asshole during those years and he admitted the entire reason he got into painting and became the person he became was because he never wanted to scream at another human being again after his service was over. Right, but I mean post afro/paints.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 12, 2017 17:04:24 GMT -5
The sad thing is that everything that has come out post Weinstein accusations just brings out a lot of ugly discussions. Everyone is going to have a different opinion, some will be more passionate and intense about it than others. But it's definitely something that should be discussed. It's an ugly circumstance about perversions and we simply can't ignore it.
I guess what I am saying is perhaps it's best to just wait until the facts come out. We can obviously express our feelings, however, we shouldn't stress about what "we know", when we don't know anything about the accusations at hand because all of that detailed information might not be privy to us. In end, we've heard these stories about Hollywood, celebrities, executives, and even politicians for years. At this point it's really not even a surprise when things like this are revealed.
I just hope for Takei's sake or anyone else that is accused that the information is revealed to be false.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 12, 2017 18:14:20 GMT -5
In the present climate it's also essential to be careful about allegations and objectivity. It's entirely possible they can be weaponised to simply kill reputations and careers for cynical reasons. It's a delicate balance between taking allegations seriously, while also not immediately jumping to a presumption of them being true.
|
|