-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
James Franco accused of sexual exploitation or abuse by five women
- Thread starter Deleted member 15428
- Start date
Career over
Never liked him, in his acting and interviews there is always a smell of arrogance, same with his brother
Never liked him, in his acting and interviews there is always a smell of arrogance, same with his brother
I quoted the posted specifically for a reason, which is why my response is appropriate to that quote. I strongly disagree with what I quoted. "And watch as all the people in the last Franco thread that argued otherwise are long gone.
How many times does it need to be said before arrogant, ignorant men, especially on this board, get it? WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL ASSAULT, BELIEVE WOMEN, ALWAYS."
Sign...It's so hard having to see posters having to explain to people over and over again and to fend off these "women lie" and "witch hunt comments."
We're having a discussion here, not preparing to activate a mob to snatch James Franco and banish him into jail forever. There's a difference. And obviously when someone says believe women, it does not apply when it's about women commiting crimes. Call it "believe accusers" if it makes you feel better.
Also, no matter what word is being use, sexual assault is sexual assault. Sometimes victims might choose to use the words like "nudge" because very often you women are called bitchy and its many equvelents of the word. I'm not a woman but I am aware that women have learned how to downplay things and to smile and laugh things off because of the things people call them when they try to be firm and assertive.
Even with all these accusations, i doubt anything will happen to Franco anyway. None of the men who have been accused in the last year have suffered any dire or legal consequences except for Weistein but of course that's because there's 30 years worth of accusations behind it. I also don't doubt that some of his political enemies in Hollywood also took the chance to get rid of him.
We're having a discussion here, not preparing to activate a mob to snatch James Franco and banish him into jail forever. There's a difference. And obviously when someone says believe women, it does not apply when it's about women commiting crimes. Call it "believe accusers" if it makes you feel better.
Also, no matter what word is being use, sexual assault is sexual assault. Sometimes victims might choose to use the words like "nudge" because very often you women are called bitchy and its many equvelents of the word. I'm not a woman but I am aware that women have learned how to downplay things and to smile and laugh things off because of the things people call them when they try to be firm and assertive.
Even with all these accusations, i doubt anything will happen to Franco anyway. None of the men who have been accused in the last year have suffered any dire or legal consequences except for Weistein but of course that's because there's 30 years worth of accusations behind it. I also don't doubt that some of his political enemies in Hollywood also took the chance to get rid of him.
echo chamber
NOUN
- An enclosed space where sound reverberates.
'purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings'
- An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
'people are living in partisan and ideological echo chambers'
'within the echo chamber of social media, it only takes a few abusive messages to start a firestorm'
I'll take that ban now.
Thanks, everyone. It's been real.
I disagree with your assessment and with your command. I much prefer "take every accusation seriously."
In this case I lean strongly toward believing the accusations because of the specific nature of the accusations and the multiple accusers.
In the Michael Douglas case - as of yesterday - i have to take a wait and see approach until more surfaces.
It's not out of arrogance or ignorance, it's about wanting to treat each situation individually.
Questioning accusers isn't believing they're lying. It means figuring out what's what and getting to the bottom of it. That's why I find this whole line of discussion disingenuous. If you believe accusations, it already means you've condemned the accused. You don't get it both ways.
Conservatives LITERALLY tried to use "I Believe Women" to entrap The Washington Times on Roy Moore, except The Washington Times literally did what many people in this thread are calling for: They didn't "believe" an accuser about a claim of sexual assault. Does this mean The Washington Times doesn't support victims? No. But it means that due diligence is required so that we don't turn this into a witch hunt so that people out to exploit a social climate can hurt others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...9345ced896d_story.html?utm_term=.b841910f202c
"I can handle misogyny and rape apologism but banning people for minimising sexual assault is where I draw the line!"
So brave *wipes away tear*
No, saying hi is not enough to be called sexual assault and no one has ever pushed for it to be. Slippery slope arguments about what constitutes sexual assault are a little ridiculous because its downplaying how serious sexual assault is that you think women would make an accusation about something like that. Him feeling up students that he's in a position of power over is definitely not okay.
I don't get your point, I told you what that poster was saying when it came to that, because he's clarified it a bunch of times.
Its about going in with the assumption that they aren't liars. You believe what they're saying, but you don't have to immediately slap down consequences on the accused. You can look into it, see if the story can be corroborated, but you don't go into it with the mindset that she's a liar like people were doing in the previous thread. That's all that statement is about.
I'm not in hollywood, so I'm not going to pretend like I know how those things work. What would be interesting to know is was he only saying this to women or were the males also included in those conversation. If he was singling out the women, then that would add more evidence to his creepiness.
Um... how about we don't try to smear his brother too. Is that cool?
This is just sad.
Reset is not a news organization. If we were held to the standards of actual reporting, there wouldn't be a forum. "Believe women" is something for everyday people in everyday life. Nobody here is advocating for publishing stories or hit pieces without anything to back it up. This is being pedantic.
no, it's creepy either way, and I work and live in Hollywood.
edgy. I'm sure your impending mini ban will let you see the errors of your ways.
Is this really the hill you wanna die on?
I don't get it. This is what's most important to you in a thread about five women accusing a powerful white male of sexual harassment/assault/misconduct? The definition of echo chamber and sticking up for people who were banned for downplaying blatant manipulation and sexual assault? You're passionate enough about this to risk your account?
Bizarre
Last edited:
lmao
Yeah, what a terrible echo chamber. One must be open to all opinions on whether or not sexual harassment and abuse is bad.
Next we can talk about whether white people are smarter than black people. /s
These posts ain't fooling anyone.
Member warned for ignoring reports act wasn't consensual. Downplaying accusations of sexual assault.
I agree with everything you're saying. But many people skip the assumption that the women aren't liars and go straight to the "I always knew Franco was a scumbag."
The issue, in this case, is about 1) low pay for nudity 2) types of roles offered: hookers 3) a consensual blowjob. That's what at stake here. And to a lot of people that isn't damning enough for the kind of vitriol that's being thrown around here which is what's leading to the witch-hunt accusations.
Last edited:
Theres a difference in saying you can only do those things and if you were willing to do those things you would get more parts. It seems logical that if you limit what you are willing to do, then less things would be available for you to choose from. Again, I'm not in hollywood so I have no idea what I'm talking about.
What is the relationship dynamic between an actor and an acting studio? I'm picturing it as just a school, but do they act as an agent as well? Can they give out parts to actors?
Your first response to me did not say anything about that poster clarifying his point. "read the thread some". I did. I did not read every post, there are a lot of posts. If he said he no longer agree with this, fine. I did not see that as I did not read every post. You don't get my point? My point is I don't agree with this quote. "WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL ASSAULT, BELIEVE WOMEN, ALWAYS."
I second this Nigga What, but NOT because I don't KINDA agree. WarLox is correct in his thinking that nude roles for women, and thuggish, Drug Dealer, Gang bangers roles aren't COMPLETELY beneficial for women and Black men. Where he gets MY "Nigga what?!!!!" is him not thinking it's racist. It's COMPLETELY racist. And sexist. Fuck that shit.
Oh yeah, because a smear on here would really take effect...........................lol
Where do you think you are, Washington Post newsroom?
Simply stated that the both of them irritate me
Can this gif also be embedded into the logo as a response to this whole website?
If you're not trying to have a discussion, why reply?
Most of us here don't work in hollywood, the conversation isn't limited to only those that do.
I can't tell if you're just arguing for semantics or are you really fighting for the right to downplay sexual assault.
It's 100 percent racist if they only want you, a black actor, to play the role of drug dealers or drug addicts.
Consensual? Is that what you got from "I didn't want to do it and told him I didn't, he nudged me down and I had to make up an excuse to get out of it midway"? What vitriol is there besides people being frustrated at the people coming in to tell us about how women could be liars constantly? You can feel they're not a big deal, and that's your prerogative. But just because others do see them as a big deal doesn't mean that they're overreacting or starting a witch hunt.
Okay, you don't have to read the whole thread. Just read what I say to you.
Its just about believing victims without going in with the assumption that they're lying, which people were doing with the James Franco story already. Its about going in with the assumption that they aren't liars. You believe what they're saying, but you don't have to immediately slap down consequences on the accused. You can look into it, see if the story can be corroborated, but you don't go into it with the mindset that she's a liar like people were doing in the previous thread. That's all that statement is about.
That's precisely want my initial reaction was saying.
"Hey man, you're a great actor and all but no one really believes a nigger can be Nick Fury. Listen, there are a lot of great, open parts out there that fit people's perception of a darkie. I've got some friends who need parts filled for thugs, drug dealers, and amateur rappers. What do you say? Remember, I'm not racist. I'm just telling you your own limitations within the industry which I partially control."
Yeah that Colbert interview was very telling - the victims' statements are grim, christ.
So fucking weird that he's seemingly doing an apology tour
So fucking weird that he's seemingly doing an apology tour
Coming in here to whine about the plight of those who defend those poor rapists and sex assaulters. Real fucking nice.
Let's not act like that's not an EXACT quote somewhere. Ol' Liberal Hollywood. Always at the forfront of progressiveness. They gave an oscar to Hattie McDaniel. In the 30's! Playing a slavish maid. NOICE!!!!!!
He nudged. She consented. She changed her mind and stopped. You can paint this as assault. Some will agree with you. Others won't. Franco is still clearly inside the statue of limitations so Violet Paley can take it to the police. For me it was consensual.
I agree with her statements that the power dynamics was off and that is the overarching issue with James Franco. He took leveraged power dynamics. Not that he was guilty of sexual assault. Not unless something else breaks that we don't know about yet.
This post is a great example of the difference of "going in with the assumptions they aren't liars" and taking their word as gospel.
The persons statement I quoted isn't remotely like what you just stated. If he/she clarified later, fine (he never did to me and I didn't dig around for a follow up) but I hope you see the massive difference in the two.
I don't know either person so I have no basis to automatically have a mindset to believe or disbelieve what they are saying from either side.
One thought within a social group is all it takes for an idea to start to take hold.
And Dave Franco should not be associated with what his brother has or has not done simply because you don't like the look of him.
That's not how consent works. If you feel you have to do it, that's not consent. The fact that she would today tell him to fuck off should show you that she was not consenting and that she didn't want to do it.
They're banned, they can't respond to you right now. I told you they clarified this in the first response.
How is that even remotely close to what I said?
Takes off moderator hat.
Here's the thing. This statement: 'BELIEVE WOMEN ALWAYS. PERIOD. NO QUESTION.' completely underserves what the #believewomen hashtag was meant to represent, and just sets it up for a cheap retort. That's what you get with hashtags, though I guess.
Really, for everyone scratching their head (or losing it) at a statement like that, what we're talking about is 'take the accusations seriously.'
This shouldn't be remotely controversial. When a work place or the police receive an accusation of sexual assault, they don't shrug their shoulders and go 'they might be lying.' No. They take it seriously, and look into the report to see if it can be substantiated. If people don't do this when a woman comes forwards with accusations, it just aids the accused to get away with it. It won't prevent people who are lying from getting caught out, but it might stop people afraid of coming forwards and having people presume they're lying from staying silent.
It isn't saying a woman's word is good enough to prosecute someone. It's saying we shouldn't brush off and ignore the allegations, which has been far too common in the past.
Would you rather marginally hurt someone's career and public image, or make it easier for people who commit sexual assault to get away with it? That's the dilemma here. Do you value the one in ten (say) innocent men who go through a period of trial via media over however many innocent women will be assaulted if we don't change the way we talk and think about cases like this?
Here's the thing. This statement: 'BELIEVE WOMEN ALWAYS. PERIOD. NO QUESTION.' completely underserves what the #believewomen hashtag was meant to represent, and just sets it up for a cheap retort. That's what you get with hashtags, though I guess.
Really, for everyone scratching their head (or losing it) at a statement like that, what we're talking about is 'take the accusations seriously.'
This shouldn't be remotely controversial. When a work place or the police receive an accusation of sexual assault, they don't shrug their shoulders and go 'they might be lying.' No. They take it seriously, and look into the report to see if it can be substantiated. If people don't do this when a woman comes forwards with accusations, it just aids the accused to get away with it. It won't prevent people who are lying from getting caught out, but it might stop people afraid of coming forwards and having people presume they're lying from staying silent.
It isn't saying a woman's word is good enough to prosecute someone. It's saying we shouldn't brush off and ignore the allegations, which has been far too common in the past.
Would you rather marginally hurt someone's career and public image, or make it easier for people who commit sexual assault to get away with it? That's the dilemma here. Do you value the one in ten (say) innocent men who go through a period of trial via media over however many innocent women will be assaulted if we don't change the way we talk and think about cases like this?
Absofuckinglutely. Allowing this shit to fester damages Eta.
If you have any kind of empathy AT ALL I think you quickly realize that lying about sexual assault allegations against an incredibly powerful individual just doesn't make any sense. That seems like one of the worst things you could do to yourself, for basically no reason.
The consent is not yours to decide, it was hers to give or take away. If she felt forced into the act, that is not consent, that's an assault.
If you feel you like not doing something and do it anyway, courts will usually regard that as consent. That isn't an attempt to downplay sexual assault but is representative of why taking these cases to court is so damn tricky and why there is so much grey area in getting convictions. "I didn't feel like shooting someone, but did it anyway" doesn't fly in a courtroom and typically they try to hold consistent standards in situations like this so when someone says something like this, getting convictions is very difficult. In ERA and more progressive circles this example would still be considered sexual assault and I 100% respect that analysis of the scenario.