mdk

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Well it looks like they found the smoking gun on Russia.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

accurate?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk you told me that the_donald speaks the truth that no where else will, and now they are re-posting stories from the NEW YORKER? SAD!

@Dynamo Frokane

Correction: The New Yorker is finally catching up to the T_D events of six months ago and realizing that Hollywood is full of rapey freaks.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk the new yorker and new york times are fake news, so if they broke the story, it didnt happen

#logicked

@Dynamo Frokane

fuc.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Thanks for giving the rundown. I'd not heard the full story of it. Mostly because it's a sexual harassment scandal and I couldn't care less since that seems to pop up so much these days. But still.

@POOHEAD189

I usually try to stay away from celebrity bullshit, but at least on my preferred platforms (BBC, Fox, and Gizmodo in that order), the story's been inescapable all week, and probably gonna keep on growing.

in hindsight, that's probably deserved.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>

I am not aware of the full ramifications of this, is there a lot of sexual abuse in hollywood that isn't protested or is this a reference to "made up" sexual abuse cases?

@Andreyich

So last week, news broke that one of the biggest and most influential figures in Hollywood, producer Harvey Weinstein, was a serial sexual abuser. New York Times was the first to report, and if that had been the end of it, I mean, that would've been bad enough -- Weinstein has always been pretty politically active, so there are some black-eyes to pass around on that account. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. It turns out the reporter who broke the story tried to take it to NBC first, and the execs killed the story on sight. "You're not reporting that here" sort of story-killing. The journalist, Ronan Farrow, didn't take that lying down, and suddenly here's NBC in the spotlight for trying to smother the bad press (the exec who did the smothering had Hollywood ambitions). Once the story was posted on NYT, dozens more credible allegations started streaming in about Harvey, and he admitted to almost all of it pretty early on.

But then things got crazier. A bunch of actors, including gigantic names like Ben Affleck, voiced their predictable condemnations of Weinstein's despicable behavior in that virtue-signal-y way they always do. Perhaps feeling emboldened by the traction on Weinstein, some folks started sharing their experiences with those very same virtue-signal-y actors. Bunches and bunches. They admitted it -- these weren't just attention-seekers capitalizing on a spotlight. And the circle just keeps getting wider. Studio execs, actors, producers, lawyers, directors, friends, family, etc etc etc. It's not just NBC and the Weinstein Company anymore, it's Disney, it's Amazon, and the list just keeps on growing.

By all the best assessments, it's a real, massive, actual scandal.

So the meme is a meme because (a) lots of these people wrapped up in / at the heart of the story are big-time donors to the Democrats, lots of them are so-called feminists, lots of them spent all sorts of time and money attacking Trump while they were actively complicit in covering up sexual harassment, assault, rape, and blackmail of like a TON of women. (b) Even now that so much is out in the open (probably not "all" out in the open yet because let's be honest, if it's this rampant, it's more rampant than this), people in Hollywood are still covering for Weinstein. (c) There were massive demonstrations in like every major city in the US over Trump getting elected, called the "Women's March." Whoever made the meme finds that hypocritical (posted on T_D, so I just presume that was the point)

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

must be trick photography or something

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

The Israel vs. Palestine debate is something I'm not too familiar with, at least for awhile, so I can't really comment. But I just read the top article. It's very contentious stuff, though it would be easy to look at it as the U.S. wanting out because they owe money, and don't feel like developing countries deserve their funding.

@POOHEAD189

I'm probably jumping off again on a random insignificant word choice here, but.... Why would developing countries "deserve" our money anyway? I don't even like paying taxes to my local government.

Anywho.

To me, there are two reasonable positions on Israel v. Palestine. The first is that Israel has every right to protect itself, and until there's real actual progress on not randomly firing rockets into Jerusalem, shitty solutions like occupying the West Bank are justified. That's reasonable to me. The other reasonable position is that both Israel and Palestine are being shitty in equal measures, there's no "good guy," and the U.S. should back Israel only as far as its alliance can be considered prosperous. That, too, is a reasonable assessment in my book. What's unreasonable to me, and this is just how I see it.... it's unreasonable to say that the PLO and Hezbollah and all their terror-buddies are the "good guys" in the story, and that if we're gonna back anybody at all we should really be on THEIR side. That, to me, is crap. But where I see some truth in A and B, UNESCO's actions are between B and C. In an effort, I think, to advance a cause of peace -- the best of intentions -- it's just, ya know, I'm perfectly fine withdrawing from a group that says "Gosh, know who we should be listening to? Mahmoud Abbas." Obama (reluctantly) cut that shit off and I thank him for it.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

lulz

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Let's hope we get Roy Moore after that.

@Dark Wind

It's gonna be Kanye and you know it.