HOLLYWOOD: What in the everliving fuck is going on in Hollywood?

Why are these stories and accusations coming out suddenly by the wheelbarrow load? Is there something bigger being hidden? Or is it to be used as a future excuse to start purging all media (((they))) don't like from existence?

Other urls found in this thread:

nbcnews.com/storyline/harvey-weinstein-scandal/weinstein-here-s-growing-list-men-accused-sexual-misconduct-n816546
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Well basically every single dude getting taken down by this is a liberal or a jew so i don't know what you think (((they))) have to gain.

It proves that many of the conspiratards are totally wrong, cause these guys like Weinstein are totally not protected and everyone else is shitting their pants. This guy was an oligarch a matter of months ago. He has done more for the liberal cause than almost anyone, creating dozens of propaganda films, and now he's destroyed.

In the long run it will be bad for the feminists cause every studio/company is going to be deeply paranoid, one single accusation being enough to ruin an entire business. In the case of House of Cards, thousands of people lost their jobs all cause of one faggot.

This is wonderful. It's a harbinger of the fall of Hollywood and it will make libs realize how dangerous the monster they created truly is.

Yes its something bigger user. The hand in in waistcoat method. You see sexual harassment, because its less objectiobable than the other.

It's Hollywood vs Online streaming for the future of the entertainment dollar.
They are taking out each other's most profitable stuff

>still thinking that that there is only one camp of (((them)))
jews love to jew jews

oligarch is not quite right. a band of oligarch carrying insurance on oneanother is only as good as the underwriter and secrecy. Trump broke the club up. Now, like thieves without real loyalty, they turn on each other.

I'm not fully sure why the women do it. Perhaps they want acknowledgement. A lot of these women had in some way tried to talk about it, but they were just brushed off. Perhaps them talking about it now makes them feel like they will be vindicated.

I do know why the journalists do it though: clicks and views. Drama gives lots and lots of clicks and views. This means that they get to make more money.

pizzagate is real

yup and howie rubin

The term you are looking for is "position of authority." This is why teachers can't bang their students, why employers can't bang their employees, and Presidents can't bang their interns.

Higher tier actors, producers, directors, and even agents can make or break an actor's career. You keep your mouth shut or you get blacklisted by a dam of involved parties who risk their careers getting ruined by exposing the truth. Let it happen long enough and that dam grows into a culture of collusion and complacency where it's an open secret within the industry.

The dam cracked. The valley is flooding. Drown them all and let god sort them out.

the left is sacrificing some of their own to normalize the idea that accusations equate to guilt.
Notice how none of the people accused are even bothering to deny it? They just automatically get fired/reprimanded.
So now they've created the atmosphere that the accused are guilty until proven innocent.
Which is why they've now started accusing people on the right.
Whether the people on the right are guilty or not, doesn't even matter, since the accusations are calculated to arrive JUST PRIOR to elections, and therefore sabotage the reputation of the candidate.

>why employers can't bang their employees
They can though. Happens all the time.

>The term you are looking for is "position of authority."
The problem with this is that these lefties are taking it too far. They view as being slightly more successful in the industry as "a position of authority". The example case here being Louis C.K.

>Higher tier actors, producers, directors, and even agents can make or break an actor's career.
So you're saying that young actors get the choice of trying it the hard way based on their own merits, or to sleep around to get a better deal? There are many people that vie for those positions.

>It proves that many of the conspiratards are totally wrong,

The people who have known about all this shit for the last 20 years are totally wrong?

They WERE protected and now they're not. We predicted that too, fucker. Don't you fucking dare try to spin this into anything but us being right and YOU being fucking wrong.

No, they don't. Weinstein was an arch-jew. He was being protected by Mossad and jews in the New York Times, but it soon became impossible for them to remain silent.

He was a king kike, this is not some little jew squabble. The guy was a pervert and got taken down, simple as that. Maybe if he hadn't fostered so much feminism in the public mind he'd still be on top.

LOL. He was the head of the largest studio in Hollywood. He's a deca-millionaire with deep political ties and investments all over the planet. He produced some of the most influential liberal propaganda films. He was an oligarch.

There was no "insurance" you dipshit. The pervert was jacking off in flower pots and trying to fuck feminist starlets. He was a reckless kike high on power and he got away with it for awhile and then got burned.

There is no "insurance" and was likely never any need for it. These guys all fuck the same whores and have the same agenda. It's an open secret, stop acting like there is some mystery here.

Is it because trumps president?

Brubaker Box props!

Well it resoundingly proves that you're wrong if you think they're protected cause, well, they're not. In fact, they're getting even more severe treatment than if an average joe were accused.

Conspiratards seem to think they have some magic info. It is a well known fact that Hollywood is full of perverts and whores. Do you really think the public isn't aware of that?

These people in places of power generally don't need "human trafficking" rings for anything cause they already have harems of sluts and millions of dollars and power that makes women wet and straight dudes suck dick.

>>why employers can't bang their employees
>They can though. Happens all the time.

True enough. It's super common in shitholes like Russia and China. Sleep with the boss or get fired. Good luck paying for an attorney.

>The problem with this is that these lefties are taking it too far. They view as being slightly more successful in the industry as "a position of authority". The example case here being Louis C.K.
>So you're saying that young actors get the choice of trying it the hard way based on their own merits, or to sleep around to get a better deal? There are many people that vie for those positions.

I'm saying that 99% of actors are waiters. 10% of whom get the chance for a big role, with more than half of them getting that chance because someone with connections thinks they're hot. Because Hollywood has been doing this shit for so long, probably half of those auditions involve implied requests for sexual favors and maybe 10-20% are explicit requests.

You can turn them down and go back to the restaurant. Or you can let them take advantage of you to get ahead in a cutthroat industry. Just sleeping around with celebrities and producers are easy, you just need to show up to the party. These are people facing a hard decision and being rationale. The fucked up thing is that they're being offered a choice like that. It's Russia/China-tier shitbaggery.

Louis CK is kind of emblematic of the culture of collusion and complacency, I think. No, he's not the hollywood bigwig, but he was the bigger star on the set. He knew that if the women he approached made a stink about it, he had an extremely low-risk of losing the gig over it. And he knew that they knew, that making a stink about it would most likely send them back to the restaurant.

People are rationale. That's why it's so easy to exploit us. That doesn't make exploitation a good thing, it just shows we need the rule of law to not be unceasingly dickish to each other.

It's called political trashing.

Eh, it took several weeks for that to happen. Leftists are just taking advantage of the situation, like they always do because they believe themselves morally supreme. It's the same reason leftists looked the other way on Bill Clinton. So what if Lewinsky couldn't say no? She said yes and Bill is alright alright alright.

...

delusional.

Kevin Spacey was grabbing underage boys asses in front of their mothers.

Weinstein tried to fuck/rape dozens of sluts.

They tried to keep the lid on it, but at a certain point there was no way to stop it. They foolishly imagined that fessing up would make it better. We all know that is the very worst strategy.

There is this delusion on the right that you think libs are protected somehow. They're not. They're actually in an even more vulnerable position, cause their people have no loyalty.

Allegations of misconduct are rampant in political campaigns and happen every single election. The only thing different about these allegations is that jew oligarchs and arch-faggots are getting taken down.

They were being protected but things have changed.

>I'm saying that 99% of actors are waiters. 10% of whom get the chance for a big role, with more than half of them getting that chance because someone with connections thinks they're hot. Because Hollywood has been doing this shit for so long, probably half of those auditions involve implied requests for sexual favors and maybe 10-20% are explicit requests.
>You can turn them down and go back to the restaurant.
Exactly. I don't see a problem with this. If you want to sleep around to get ahead then do so. What I have a problem with are the cases where there's backlash for saying "no". As long as that doesn't happen I don't see a problem. The competition in Hollywood is big enough that I don't see there being much of a reason to blacklist people over something like this, you simply don't give them an advantage.

>He knew that if the women he approached made a stink about it, he had an extremely low-risk of losing the gig over it.
But it's not about the risk of losing the gig, it's about the risk of the court of public opinion. This shit happens and has happened all the time. Do you consider this kind of power by women to be part of the "power dynamic"? I very much hope you don't, but it undeniably exists.

>True enough. It's super common in shitholes like Russia and China. Sleep with the boss or get fired. Good luck paying for an attorney.
This and that are a different situation. A boss can sleep with their subordinate in employment, but they can't have negative consequences come from saying "no". That one is discrimination.

By who? What is this delusion?

The obvious answer is that the witch hunts created by lib media have now gotten so large they're coming full circle and eating their own.

Do you realize how many accusations are made against powerful men and how often they get damaged by that? It's constant. There is just a larger wave happening now for the above mentioned reasons.

Polanski, a fugitive. Cosby, ruined by accusations. Countless politicians ruined themselves with misconduct. Look at this list, it's a cast of kikes and perverts and libs. Every single one of these people is pro-establishment, pro-corporate, pro-lib. So where is the fucking "protection."

You're delusional.

nbcnews.com/storyline/harvey-weinstein-scandal/weinstein-here-s-growing-list-men-accused-sexual-misconduct-n816546

you're the delusional one if you can't see that there was a concerted, organized effort in the accusations in Hollywood.
Hollywood was literally eating its own, but why now? The rumors and accusations had been around FOR DECADES, why did Hollywood suddenly decide to do something about it?
Because they were going to weaponize the hysteria, normalize it, then turn it against the right.

>Exactly. I don't see a problem with this. If you want to sleep around to get ahead then do so. What I have a problem with are the cases where there's backlash for saying "no".

It's my understanding that the accusers are all alleging, maybe with a couple of exceptions, that they did say no and where unwilling participants who faced backlash for saying no.

>but they can't have negative consequences come from saying "no".
What makes you think there aren't? Or maybe you are saying that first the victim must pay the consequences of saying no? Sexual assault victims routinely decline to press charges because they think the consequences of saying no will outweight the consequences of being abused. This is rational behavior. Male victims face this even more than female victims.

>But it's not about the risk of losing the gig, it's about the risk of the court of public opinion.
Maybe if you are looking at it from the perspective of Weinstein and Schneider. I don't know how it is in Estonia, but until very recently women in the US faced the court of public opinion for making accusations of sexual assault. It's endemic in our legal system. See the case where Hillary Clinton, before she was anybody of note, defended a rapist by alleging that the 12 year old victim wanted it and was just seeking attention by pressing charges. She famously laughed about it in an interview years later.

The really sickening thing about that story is that the mud-raking was entirely unnecessary. The rapist was acquitted because of a procedural error by a medical technician. This is pretty standard in US rape trial defenses, which is why Clinton did it before even bothering to examine the forensic evidence.

Haha! It's a critical mass. And the allegations have been floating around, the mood has just changed. These things tend to happen in groups due to human psychology.

And Hollywood kikes have been getting taken down for this shit for decades, perhaps you're just noticing it now cause it's a larger wave of accusations.

I don't get what you think is a conspiracy? Random journalists? random sluts accusing people? The New York Times holding on to the story is sketchy but they do that literally all the time to protect their own people, it's common practice.

This shit is spreading like a wildfire.

Bart de Pauw, belgian actor, television maker, scriptwriter has know been accused by dozens of women.

#MeToo kek

I just saw an article about another british actor that got accused.

It's fucking amazing watching hollyniggers get BTFO'd one by one. All these "holier than thou" faggots turning out to be complete degenerates.

>It's my understanding that the accusers are all alleging, maybe with a couple of exceptions, that they did say no and where unwilling participants who faced backlash for saying no.
Oh yeah, I can totally understand those cases. I agree, this should absolutely be looked into, particularly by law enforcement. However, in the most recent case, Louis C.K., this was not the case.
>What makes you think there aren't? Or maybe you are saying that first the victim must pay the consequences of saying no?
There sometimes are, but in the example you gave there weren't. I'm saying that Hollywood has so much competition that there's likely little need to put somebody on a blacklist for something like this as the competition will thin it out anyway.
>Maybe if you are looking at it from the perspective of Weinstein and Schneider. I don't know how it is in Estonia, but until very recently women in the US faced the court of public opinion for making accusations of sexual assault. It's endemic in our legal system. See the case where Hillary Clinton, before she was anybody of note, defended a rapist by alleging that the 12 year old victim wanted it and was just seeking attention by pressing charges. She famously laughed about it in an interview years later.
It obviously shouldn't be that way. However, in both cases the court of public opinion is bad news for fairness, because public opinion is a flimsy thing.

I want victims to be able to go to law enforcement when something like this happens, and then evidence is weighed. I don't want twatter fights to happen over this, because those twatter fights ruin people's lives regardless of the evidence.

Not sure but they always like to give us distractions like Nov 4 Antifa.

But what they really did was take our class action law suits away

Weinstein was just a mogul. He was not ultimately the one pulling the strings. Money will flow into producing propaganda in Hollywood just as before. They will just find someone who isn't a total fuckwit about public appearances to carry the reigns. For all we know this could just be part of cleaning house.

It is pretty interesting. Imagine getting fired after carrying a television channel for 30y over a few spicy texts.

The comments on social media gave me some hope

So you're problem this is mainly happening on Twitter and not in courts?

Yeah, there is a serious problem in the culture of collusion, complacency, and silence around sexual assault in this country. Victims need to bring these to court.

Really, it's a broader problem affecting all kinds of crimes except murder, but it's especially strong with sexual assault. I know tons of people who wouldn't press charges on theft, vandalism, fraud, rape, unlicensed business, professional negligence, unlawful collection, identity theft, the list goes on. People here "don't want to make a fuss." There used to even be a "no snitching" movement, don't tell the police, just man up and live with the loss. It's terrible.