I don't know the allegations against Hoffman, but I think everybody who has done a little acting/theater knows it's not a normal working environment.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Liam Neeson says harassment allegations are now 'a witch-hunt'
- Thread starter Deleted member 15428
- Start date
I don't know the allegations against Hoffman, but I think everybody who has done a little acting/theater knows it's not a normal working environment.
A lot of people are assuming that what Neeson describes happening to Garrison Keillor is in any way an accurate portrayal of events. He's simply reitertaing the official denial that Keillor released following his dismissal. That doesn't make it true and as a narrative it feels like there are a lot of details missing.
Stories can't be proof when each one is highly publicized and shared. Maybe if multiple women came forward individually with no knowledge of other accusations.
Goddamn it. I thought you were supposed to be a good one. Since your wife died I know things are still stuff but what the fuck is this "Witch pursuit"?
Fuck off, Liam.
Fuck off, Liam.
Especially considering he doesn't seem to know or care what Hoffman was accused of.
When more then one woman come forward with a allegation the chances they are lying decreases. Like the 5 women coming forward about Franco the changes they are lying is basically 0%
He's not the first person to say something like this though. I worry the extreme binary reaction to every allegation will eventually turn people off.
User banned for 7 days: For ignoring a warning in the thread and doubling down on painting women as liars as well as suggesting that it is wrong for victims to come forward.
If you had at least a minimum knowledge of crimonology you would know that when too many people tell the same thing with every tiny details matching, that story is made up. It's hoax.
Ignorance is the problem. Hypocrisy too.
Accusing and condemning people without real proof is wrong, always, no exceptions.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but inappropriate sexual conduct is fairly standard in the professional theatrical world. There are so many desparate young people and just as many exploitative actors, directors, producers, agents, casting directors etc.
Exposing himself to a minor and assaulting a couple of women. Bizzarre that he would frame it that way, talking about superstition. I don't even know how his mind connects the two ideas, and thinks that's the excuse to go with. It's the sort of out of left field comment that makes me question someone's sanoty.
Neesons always been weird, especially since his wife passed.
I remember him on the daily show trying to convince Jon Stewart that the horses in central park love being treated cruelly and it's actually worse to ban them and deny the animals such pleasure. Just total shite, but he seemed pretty convinced.
But Witches being female is a very modern thing, I mean someone already linked to The Crucible in this thread. John Proctor was a man accused of being a witch and practicing Witchcraft.
I remember him on the daily show trying to convince Jon Stewart that the horses in central park love being treated cruelly and it's actually worse to ban them and deny the animals such pleasure. Just total shite, but he seemed pretty convinced.
But Witches being female is a very modern thing, I mean someone already linked to The Crucible in this thread. John Proctor was a man accused of being a witch and practicing Witchcraft.
How's that?
My understanding of the phrase is trying to assign blame on people who's opinions or actions are counter to your own.
Sexually assaulting people isn't a morally subjective act.
1 week ban: history of sexism, downplaying sexual assault and disingenuous arguments. You were active in the Franco thread and you know there was more to it than that.
James Franco paying low rates for nudity as some kind of career ending thing is the definition of a witch hunt.
James Franco removing nudity guards isn't without the actors consent isn't.
That's not how this works. These women aren't even corroborating the same story. At best it's character evidence, which is usually not grounds for anything for good reason.
If a number of sources came forward saying the Clintons were conspiring with Russians it would certainly warrant investigation but it wouldn't provide proof that such activity happened. If multiple came forward to an independent authority with details about the same exact incident that had not been published, we'd be talking.
Now educate me on this, Did he personally remove them? Did he call for them to be removed? The article I read gave no indication one way or the other.
Also Ashley Judd has praised Franco's "I am happy to be made an example of" response to the allegations.
http://people.com/movies/ashley-judd-james-franco-praises-response-to-sexual-misconduct-allegations/
But so far, there's no legal stuff happening, right? Not even to Weinstein, let alone all these 'lesser' instances.
It seems very unlikely that Franco will face any sort of legal action. It'll hurt his career, which obviously if the claims are untrue is very unfortunate, but it's not 'innocent until proven guilt' within the court of popular opinion. For better or worse.
So what is it?
Collins states "A witch-hunt is an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, often simply because of their opinions and not because they have actually done anything wrong."
Cambridge "an attempt to find and punish people whose opinions are unpopular and who are said to be a danger to society".
I.E. the person or group is not objectively wrong, hence the use of the term 'witch'.
Last edited:
There is often no proof due to how long ago allegations happen. Due to how women are treated when they do come forward. When women come forward they are often doubted and shouted down by mostly men. Why so many victims do not come forward. As soon as there are more then one woman coming forward about being abused etc about a individual the chances they are lying goes down
I watched the interview, and I wasn't aware of the example he gave, but that sounds like a miscarriage of justice if it happened as he described. Now, he seemed rather uncomfortable answering to the other charges, like he had walked into an argument he couldn't win. Bringing up the farm workers at the end was very indicative to me that he just wanted to talk about something else.
If you ask me, if there is a person being falsely accused of sexual harassment, they should be defended. However, a celebrity shouldn't use their false accusation to disparage the movement of women coming forward.
If you ask me, if there is a person being falsely accused of sexual harassment, they should be defended. However, a celebrity shouldn't use their false accusation to disparage the movement of women coming forward.
Why should he? He can feel both things. Just because he thinks it's a 'witch hunt doesn't mean he doesn't feel ire towards Weinstein et al. Life isn't black and white and neither are people's views.
Just because he gets support from a actor like Judd doesn't mean he didn't harass or abuse women.
And here:
On Thursday, Tither-Kaplan told the LA Times that Franco participated in an "abuse of power" on film sets designed to create a "culture of exploiting non-celebrity women".
She added that during a sex scene filmed three years ago with Franco and several women, the actor had removed plastic guards covering the actresses' genitalia while simulating oral sex.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42653242
to say "there are no witches" is misunderstanding his (very stupid) point. he's implying that people are looking for villains (witches) who don't exist. this is wrong because the "witches" (sex abusers) very much do exist. a witch hunt is a hysterical search for an evil that isn't there, not a hunt carried out by witches.
Was the nudity agreed to between both parties in their contract? If not, it's pretty bad. If it was, the only thing we have is the abuse of power culture argument. Franco's argument seemed to be that Tither-Kaplan had agreed via contract and had taken the money to do the nude scenes.
I was NOT talking about his opinion about Hoffman.
I was talking about the rest.
One can be wrong about something while being right about something else.
Don't dismiss an entire argumentation because of a bad point in it.
Thank you.
If you don't understand the modern way that the term witch hunt is used in regards to social issues, then thats your problem. everyone else in the thread seems to have a firm grasp on the very simple usage of this.
Well Sarah obvious thinks otherwise. When you add that to the other women coming forward a pattern starts to emerge. It's why when there are multiple women coming forward the percentage of the guy being innocent goes down
That's pretty damn good.
I'd say it's a witch hunt when innocent men start getting named, has there been any inkling of that happpening yet?
I can very much dismiss his argument due to how bad the shit he said is
Thank you
because someone asked in an interview, it's just an off the cuff remark. Also you're kinda proving his point with your other comment. That sort of thinking doesn't help anyone.
Honestly, even if there was an aspect of 'witch hunt' to some of this on the public's side of things, it's still worth outing people who deserve to be outed.
A few people being vilified for lesser sins like innaproppriate touching (which is still gross) is nothing compared to the misery women have suffered in silence at the hands of powerful men in the film industry. If people hadn't worked so hard to cover it up for so many years we wouldn't be in this situation. Everybody is complicit.
A few people being vilified for lesser sins like innaproppriate touching (which is still gross) is nothing compared to the misery women have suffered in silence at the hands of powerful men in the film industry. If people hadn't worked so hard to cover it up for so many years we wouldn't be in this situation. Everybody is complicit.
No doubt there are problems with how individual women are treated when they come forward. Multiple women coming forward does make things start to smell. It does not, as you originally stated, mean that allegations are 100% true.
For better or worse is kind of the point here and why I think Liam would make a statement like this. You see the posters I've been quoting and numerous others instantly taking allegations as truthful or proven once they've spread, much like would happen in a witch hunt. Whether the person is actually a witch or not is irrelevant.
That's the problem with lack of evidence, we don't know who's innocent and who's not.
We can make an educated guess based on the number of accusations against a person, but it's still just a guess.
Yeah....no. There isn't some secret cabal of women that plan attacks on men. Also like people say "Well why didn't all these women come out and speak up years ago?!" and the answer to that is right in your own post people hand wring about "proof" so much that nobody bothers to believe women when they do speak up. So why would they especially since the women who have spoken out against their attackers will continue to be victims of harassment for having the "audacity" to speak out. Fuck that shit. I'd rather believe the women every time.
My most generous take is that he has a poorly formed perspective and hasn't fully followed the allegations against Hoffman (i say this because of how he described what Hoffman did — I also didn't follow the latest about Hoffman beyond the initial video encounter between him and John Oliver).
So in my mind i categorize him as ignorant and protective of his in-group. It tarnishes his luster with me, though I won't be actively avoiding his work.
So in my mind i categorize him as ignorant and protective of his in-group. It tarnishes his luster with me, though I won't be actively avoiding his work.
User warned: dismissing sexual assault accusations; plenty of them have had evidence.
Kind of hard to say isn't it? Every one of these allegations are he said she said without a shred of proof. For all we truly honestly without a doubt know every allegation could be true or every allegation could be false. Now common sense should tell you that most are probably true but that doesn't mean that there isn't some bullshit in there.
McCarthyism was done by the government and involved actual black lists and people being put in prison. It's not as *much* of an exaggeration to call this McCarthyism, but it's still a clear exaggeration. The people who have questionable accusations against them haven't suffered much at all. The people who have suffered are the people who have either got piles of evidence against them, or who have admitted to some or all of the allegations against them. How many former convicts continue to work in Hollywood? I'd say odds are pretty good that, for example, that Jeremy Piven's life and career isn't destroyed.