Has the #Me Too movement gone too far? - Page 13

baron · 12th January 2018, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything.

It's obvious. If he was in my house I'd pay him a hell of a lot to **** off.

Polaris · 12th January 2018, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything.

Shouldn't be difficult to get an answer, since the guy is in ******* everything that's come out in the last few years.

Mark Wahlberg is the Renee Russo of the 2010's.

I Am The Scum · 12th January 2018, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

In the context of what he was replying to, uke2se is making theft, rape and looking down a woman's cleavage the same thing.

No. The poster is pointing out multiple types of victim-blaming. This does not equate the types of victims.

And I already pointed out the problems with concerns over #starerape in post 395.

acbytesla · 12th January 2018, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

But is the gender the important factor? I mean, Lawrence is probably paid more than the vast majority of male actors in Hollywood right now.

It's not like JLaw and Amy Adams were unknowns at the time. Lawrence had already been nominated for 2 Oscars and Adams 4 times. JLaw won for Silver Linings and she was the star of The Hunger Games, the biggest movie in America at the time. Cooper was much closer to an unknown than either of the women and yet his salary was double that of the women.

acbytesla · 12th January 2018, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything.

I'm with you there. He's a so so actor at best.

Belz... · 12th January 2018, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

It's not like JLaw and Amy Adams were unknowns at the time. Lawrence had already been nominated for 2 Oscars and Adams 4 times. JLaw won for Silver Linings and she was the star of The Hunger Games, the biggest movie in America at the time. Cooper was much closer to an unknown than either of the women and yet his salary was double that of the women.

That might be the case from your POV but I'm wondering about the actual reasons why star X is paid more than star Y. It's easy to stand on the outside, take JLaw's rant at face value without further information and feel right in our conclusion.

JoeMorgue · 12th January 2018, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm with you there. He's a so so actor at best.

He does seem like a weird outlier. Tom Hanks has actual talent. Hell even the Rock and Vin Diesel have charisma so I can get while they're worth the money to put in a good action flick.

But Whalberg? Outside of Pain and Gain....

smartcooky · 12th January 2018, 01:02 PM

Off topic

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything.

Because he is a good actor who plays his (admittedly limited range of) movie roles very well.

In the movies of his that I have seen (Shooter, Patriots Day, Deepwater Horizon, Lone Survivor, Planet of the Apes - even that he movie was a pile of steaming excrement), his performances were pretty damned good.

Put it this way... I'd have him over Nicholas Cage any day

Belz... · 12th January 2018, 01:02 PM

Yeah but he's so damned ugly.

Plus he was also in The Happening.

theprestige · 12th January 2018, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything.

He shows up, hits his mark, and delivers his lines?

Polaris · 12th January 2018, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

That might be the case from your POV but I'm wondering about the actual reasons why star X is paid more than star Y. It's easy to stand on the outside, take JLaw's rant at face value without further information and feel right in our conclusion.

It's not like JLaw has a history of spouting off without knowing what she's talking about...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0cad15e656b3f

smartcooky · 12th January 2018, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Yeah but he's so damned ugly.

Given the general tenor of this thread, that is a somewhat sexist remark

acbytesla · 12th January 2018, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

That might be the case from your POV but I'm wondering about the actual reasons why star X is paid more than star Y. It's easy to stand on the outside, take JLaw's rant at face value without further information and feel right in our conclusion.

I'm sure there is some logic to the discrepancy. But I'm convinced that at the core, the issue is related to how women are valued in our society. The number of roles for women are less and they are much more easily discarded for a younger actress even as their popularity grows. A woman unless she's Meryl Streep reaches 35 and the available roles diminish significantly. They are quickly replaced by the young cheaper injenue only to see the pattern repeated.

Belz... · 12th January 2018, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm sure there is some logic to the discrepancy. But I'm convinced that at the core, the issue is related to how women are valued in our society. The number of roles for women are less and they are much more easily discarded for a younger actress even as their popularity grows. A woman unless she's Meryl Streep reaches 35 and the available roles diminish significantly. They are quickly replaced by the young cheaper injenue only to see the pattern repeated.

I dislike the use of the highlighted word in this context because it's far too loaded; essentially it assumes a conclusion. I don't think it's about the value of women but the dynamic of how people of both genders are seen through time in this industry.

Spock Jenkins · 12th January 2018, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything.

Check out "The Basketball Diaries" from when he and DiCaprio (sp?) were younger. It was made back in the 1990's. It was pre-Titanic for DiCaprio and not long after Marky-Mark and the Funky Bunch for Wahlberg. I though he was good in "The Perfect Storm" too.

I don't know about ugly. He was a Calvin Klein model back years ago. Besides. That said, not all people are perfect looking. I have no problem with a "real" looking actor.

I'm not saying you have to like him, just suggesting that there are some things that could possibly give you a broader picture of his appeal.

Pterodactyl · 12th January 2018, 01:27 PM

Isn't an actor/actress's pay largely a function of what their particular presence in a film is likely to draw in profits?

Adam Sandler is, at this point, a terrible actor in terrible films.
Yet films he is in make money.

Basically any film actor or actress you can think of are more talented. Yet he makes more money than most.

rustypouch · 12th January 2018, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl

Isn't an actor/actress's pay largely a function of what their particular presence in a film is likely to draw in profits?

Adam Sandler is, at this point, a terrible actor in terrible films.
Yet films he is in make money.

Basically any film actor or actress you can think of are more talented. Yet he makes more money than most.

Yep.

For an old example, look at Dumb and Dumber. Jeff Bridges was paid $50k, compared to Carrey's $7 million.

Pterodactyl · 12th January 2018, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by rustypouch

Yep.

For an old example, look at Dumb and Dumber. Jeff Bridges was paid $50k, compared to Carrey's $7 million.

Crazy.
What did they pay Jeff Daniels?

sadhatter · 12th January 2018, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by The Don

My 2c....

As a middle-aged, middle-class, white man, it's not really my prerogative to say whether or not #MeToo has gone too far. I have never been subject to the kind of institutional abuse and/or discrimination that women have suffered and so it would be a bit rich for me to say "OK ladies, you've had your bit of a whine - now shut up".

If Catherine Deneuve thinks things have gone too far then she is perfectly entitled to say so, I'm sure that you can find at least one contrary view to any point within an heterogeneous group of individuals. She's also perfectly entitled to receive any criticism coming her way if that view isn't supported.

"clumsy flirting is not an offense", but then again the line between clumsy flirting and sexual assault and/or bullying isn't a clean one and to a certain extent is also dependent on the parties involved and the relationship between them. Making clumsy advances towards a single person of about the same age in a nightclub may be interpreted by that person very differently than making the same clumsy advances towards a much younger, married, subordinate who really, really, needs the job, in the workplace.

I certainly find the #MeToo movement uncomfortable because it exposes some very ugly truths. Of course there's a danger that it might get hijacked to a certain extent but at the core is the unacceptable treatment of a lot of women by a lot of men. There is a real incentive to play this down which is one of the reasons why Ms Deneuve's comments have been so eagerly seized upon.

Just one point is like to make.

Why don't you get an opinion? If a Christian tells you how persecuted they are, do you tale the same route?

Honest question but where is the line of what we are "allowed" to have an opinion on? I can't see a way to actually follow your philosophy ( versus just do it wily nilly , which will tend to be the same thing one was doing before but branded different) without not being able to challenge people, or just being a hypocrite.

What do I know of being a conspiracy theorist? Can't have an opinion.

What do I know of being a ghost hunter? Can't have an opinion.

Etc etc.

For my two cents, I often just see people saying they follow this philosophy, but it only seems to come up in regards to acceptable groups. I have little faith in this philosophy for that very reason. Either one needs to take statements of hardship by groups they are not a part of at face value, or it is okay and beneficial to debate opinions with all groups. These are incompatible with each other as philosophical standpoints but I have never seen someone who professes to follow this philosophy actually use it beyond a way of saying "I'm inclusive".

Tldr : why is this philosophy impossible to actually apply? I've never seen anyone apply it for anyone other than groups they support.

rustypouch · 12th January 2018, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl

Crazy.
What did they pay Jeff Daniels?

Bah.

That's what I get for mixing up Jeffs.

smartcooky · 12th January 2018, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

No. The poster is pointing out multiple types of victim-blaming. This does not equate the types of victims.

That isn't what I took from the post, nor was it what mike81 or, I think, 3point14 took from it, so its not just me!

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

And I already pointed out the problems with concerns over #starerape in post 395.

Well, you might see problems, I don't

theprestige · 12th January 2018, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

That isn't what I took from the post, nor was it what mike81 or, I think, 3point14 took from it, so its not just me!

Intentionally misunderstanding something so that you can have outrage instead of discussion is indeed a popular thing to do.

But appealing to the popularity of a bad behavioral doesn't actually excuse the bad behavior.

fuelair · 12th January 2018, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by rustypouch

Bah.

That's what I get for mixing up Jeffs.

It's generally not that hard to do!!!!!

fuelair · 12th January 2018, 03:54 PM

And when you add Geoffs it's even easier!!!!!

I Am The Scum · 12th January 2018, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

That isn't what I took from the post, nor was it what mike81 or, I think, 3point14 took from it, so its not just me!

Company or no company, the poster did not say that rape and leering are morally, legally, or otherwise equivalent.

Quote:

Well, you might see problems, I don't

By all means, point out my errors. Let's weigh the evidence and form a rational conclusion.

smartcooky · 12th January 2018, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Company or no company, the poster did not say that rape and leering are morally, legally, or otherwise equivalent.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Intentionally misunderstanding something so that you can have outrage instead of discussion is indeed a popular thing to do.

Because comprehension is out of fashion and reading between the lines is wrong.

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

By all means, point out my errors. Let's weigh the evidence and form a rational conclusion.

Who said anything about errors

You saw problems with #starerape, I didn't. Perhaps that could be because you "honestly couldn't find any non-sarcastic examples after browsing through 30 or so tweets"

YMMV

I Am The Scum · 12th January 2018, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

You saw problems with #starerape, I didn't. Perhaps that could be because you "honestly couldn't find any non-sarcastic examples after browsing through 30 or so tweets"

YMMV

I'll lay out my case as clearly as I possibly can.

If you click here you will see every use of the #starerape hashtag on Twitter, organized by date. I looked at every single post over the past year. The vast majority of users are not being serious. Others are asking if "stare rape" is real. A handful of tweets are not in English (to be clear, I did not translate them, so I have no idea what they're actually saying). There is not a single accusation against another person of committing "stare rape." There is not a single instance of an individual claiming to be a victim of "stare rape."

We must also consider the fact that the #metoo campaign started last year, so if there is any overlap on Twitter, we would have seen it in our search. From this, we can draw several conclusions:

1. #metoo has absolutely nothing to do with "stare rape." As such, nothing about "stare rape" can possibly indict the #metoo campaign.
2. Given that there are people who seem to be actually concerned that there are "stare rape" accusations, even though there are not, the concern heavily outweighs the object of the concern. It's essentially the same as people complaining that they're not allowed to say "Merry Christmas" any more.
3. Anyone stating that the existence of #starerape is a cause of concern is allowing their beliefs to be influenced by baseless rumor-mongering, in a most unskeptical fashion.

If you find a flaw in any of my conclusions, please point it out.

smartcooky · 12th January 2018, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

I'll lay out my case as clearly as I possibly can.

If you click here you will see every use of the #starerape hashtag on Twitter, organized by date. I looked at every single post over the past year. The vast majority of users are not being serious. Others are asking if "stare rape" is real. A handful of tweets are not in English (to be clear, I did not translate them, so I have no idea what they're actually saying). There is not a single accusation against another person of committing "stare rape." There is not a single instance of an individual claiming to be a victim of "stare rape."

We must also consider the fact that the #metoo campaign started last year, so if there is any overlap on Twitter, we would have seen it in our search. From this, we can draw several conclusions:

1. #metoo has absolutely nothing to do with "stare rape." As such, nothing about "stare rape" can possibly indict the #metoo campaign.
2. Given that there are people who seem to be actually concerned that there are "stare rape" accusations, even though there are not, the concern heavily outweighs the object of the concern. It's essentially the same as people complaining that they're not allowed to say "Merry Christmas" any more.
3. Anyone stating that the existence of #starerape is a cause of concern is allowing their beliefs to be influenced by baseless rumor-mongering, in a most unskeptical fashion.

If you find a flaw in any of my conclusions, please point it out.

Maybe victims don't report stare rape because they realize they will get dogpiled. I would not be surprised... I'd be right there dogpiling on them myself.

Who cares anyway? The fact remains that there are people drawing an inference that staring at a woman's cleavage is sexual abuse every bit a serious as rape and therefore should be considered to be the same thing.

I despise this widening of the target zone to include such stuff, because it takes a away from the seriousness of REAL rape, you know, when a person uses their power, whether physical strength, or position of control and influence, to force another person to have a sexual encounter with them, whether it be actual intercourse or other sexual contact (keeping in mind, of course, that rape is not about sex so much as it is about power and control)

These people cheapen and demean the experiences of real rape victims, and make it less likely that those victims will come forward. I applaud the #metoo and #timesup movements for doing what they have done in outing some real ratbags, but I hate what they have become thanks to SJW's and feminazi bandwagon jumpers turning a geniuine movement for change into a witch hunt.

Civet · 12th January 2018, 07:00 PM

Aw man, not Steven Seagal. Anyone but Steven Seagal. I just don't know what to believe in anymore. Shut it down. Just shut it all down.

sadhatter · 12th January 2018, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by uke2se

Makin the other person uncomfortable. It's not as hard to say "I'm sorry" as the song says, and it makes everyone a little less sad.

Dude, if I apologized to everyone I made uncomfortable I'd spend half my day saying sorry just walking through the mall wearing a misfits shirt.

But I'm gonna read the future and assume that fussy Christians are okay to bother in your book. Which isn't too say I don't think that, but I also don't hypocritically and arbitrarily decide groups that I do care if I offend.

Personally I expect everyone, myself included to have the fortitude to put up with a bit of other people's ****. It's how society doesn't turn into the stumble **** of people being scared ******** over making minor social faux pas people like you seem to want.

sadhatter · 12th January 2018, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

See, that's exactly the problem, men are emphatically not "any less creeps" than they used to be. The difference is, now women are realizing that they don't have to tolerate men being creeps anymore, that they can actually do something about it; and creeper men are getting all butthurt that they can't sleaze on women anymore without being called on their ****** behaviour and treated like the pieces of **** they are.

Creeper men don't care, and are actively laughing at you on reddit as we speak, or finding you online to rule you up. It's what gets them off.

The people complaining are generally those caught in the crossfire that some den acceptable losses in the social war.

sadhatter · 12th January 2018, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

You were sexually harassed. How you felt about those events is irrelevant to that point.

Your opinion over rules the victim, that's very progressive.

By your logic anyone committing sex acts you wouldn't like is being assaulted.

Your philosophy is unrealistic and makes no sense.

Polaris · 12th January 2018, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Your opinion over rules the victim, that's very progressive.

By your logic anyone committing sex acts you wouldn't like is being assaulted.

Your philosophy is unrealistic and makes no sense.

Just don't.

sadhatter · 12th January 2018, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Polaris

Just don't.

Great point.

Notice you didn't show I was wrong, but great point.

Polaris · 12th January 2018, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Great point.

Notice you didn't show I was wrong, but great point.

I mean just don't indulge Bob.

I Am The Scum · 12th January 2018, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Polaris

I mean just don't indulge Bob.

This is good life advice from a wise sage.

I Am The Scum · 12th January 2018, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The fact remains that there are people drawing an inference that staring at a woman's cleavage is sexual abuse every bit a serious as rape and therefore should be considered to be the same thing.

Evidence?

Skeptic Ginger · 12th January 2018, 08:15 PM

It's one thing to not blame the woman with cleavage showing because some ass took it as an invitation. That's a given.

But why are women wearing cleavage revealing clothes if they don't want to be admired?

smartcooky · 12th January 2018, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Evidence?

Read the whole thread from Post #1. I'm not doing your homework for you

smartcooky · 12th January 2018, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

But why are women wearing cleavage revealing clothes if they don't want to be admired?

Because they only want to be admired by a specific subset of men. You see, men are supposed to be mind-readers; they are expected to know whether or not the display of knockers is targeted at them. If they are not in the privileged subset of men to which the display is directed, they are also supposed to know.

It is of course ALWAYS the man's fault for not knowing!

12th January 2018, 12:42 PM	#481
baron Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,307	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything. It's obvious. If he was in my house I'd pay him a hell of a lot to **** off.
baron Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,307	__________________ "I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"

12th January 2018, 12:46 PM	#482
Polaris Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 11,242	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything. Shouldn't be difficult to get an answer, since the guy is in ******* everything that's come out in the last few years. Mark Wahlberg is the Renee Russo of the 2010's.
	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.

12th January 2018, 12:50 PM	#484
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 18,914	Originally Posted by Argumemnon But is the gender the important factor? I mean, Lawrence is probably paid more than the vast majority of male actors in Hollywood right now. It's not like JLaw and Amy Adams were unknowns at the time. Lawrence had already been nominated for 2 Oscars and Adams 4 times. JLaw won for Silver Linings and she was the star of The Hunger Games, the biggest movie in America at the time. Cooper was much closer to an unknown than either of the women and yet his salary was double that of the women.
	__________________ “ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ” ― David Hume

12th January 2018, 12:51 PM	#485
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 18,914	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything. I'm with you there. He's a so so actor at best.
	__________________ “ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ” ― David Hume

12th January 2018, 12:52 PM	#486
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 74,385	Originally Posted by acbytesla It's not like JLaw and Amy Adams were unknowns at the time. Lawrence had already been nominated for 2 Oscars and Adams 4 times. JLaw won for Silver Linings and she was the star of The Hunger Games, the biggest movie in America at the time. Cooper was much closer to an unknown than either of the women and yet his salary was double that of the women. That might be the case from your POV but I'm wondering about the actual reasons why star X is paid more than star Y. It's easy to stand on the outside, take JLaw's rant at face value without further information and feel right in our conclusion.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness

12th January 2018, 12:49 PM	#483
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,454	Originally Posted by smartcooky In the context of what he was replying to, uke2se is making theft, rape and looking down a woman's cleavage the same thing. No. The poster is pointing out multiple types of victim-blaming. This does not equate the types of victims. And I already pointed out the problems with concerns over #starerape in post 395.

12th January 2018, 01:00 PM	#487
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 12,964	Originally Posted by acbytesla I'm with you there. He's a so so actor at best. He does seem like a weird outlier. Tom Hanks has actual talent. Hell even the Rock and Vin Diesel have charisma so I can get while they're worth the money to put in a good action flick. But Whalberg? Outside of Pain and Gain....
	__________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

12th January 2018, 01:02 PM	#488
smartcooky Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 9,155	Off topic Originally Posted by Argumemnon Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything. Because he is a good actor who plays his (admittedly limited range of) movie roles very well. In the movies of his that I have seen (Shooter, Patriots Day, Deepwater Horizon, Lone Survivor, Planet of the Apes - even that he movie was a pile of steaming excrement), his performances were pretty damned good. Put it this way... I'd have him over Nicholas Cage any day
	__________________ _{As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920} Last edited by smartcooky; 12th January 2018 at 01:03 PM.

12th January 2018, 01:02 PM	#489
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 74,385	Yeah but he's so damned ugly. Plus he was also in The Happening.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness

12th January 2018, 01:11 PM	#490
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 29,587	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything. He shows up, hits his mark, and delivers his lines?

12th January 2018, 01:11 PM	#491
Polaris Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 11,242	Originally Posted by Argumemnon That might be the case from your POV but I'm wondering about the actual reasons why star X is paid more than star Y. It's easy to stand on the outside, take JLaw's rant at face value without further information and feel right in our conclusion. It's not like JLaw has a history of spouting off without knowing what she's talking about... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0cad15e656b3f
	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.

12th January 2018, 01:12 PM	#492
smartcooky Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 9,155	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Yeah but he's so damned ugly. Given the general tenor of this thread, that is a somewhat sexist remark
	__________________ _{As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920}

12th January 2018, 01:14 PM	#493
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 18,914	Originally Posted by Argumemnon That might be the case from your POV but I'm wondering about the actual reasons why star X is paid more than star Y. It's easy to stand on the outside, take JLaw's rant at face value without further information and feel right in our conclusion. I'm sure there is some logic to the discrepancy. But I'm convinced that at the core, the issue is related to how women are valued in our society. The number of roles for women are less and they are much more easily discarded for a younger actress even as their popularity grows. A woman unless she's Meryl Streep reaches 35 and the available roles diminish significantly. They are quickly replaced by the young cheaper injenue only to see the pattern repeated.
	__________________ “ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ” ― David Hume

12th January 2018, 01:17 PM	#494
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 74,385	Originally Posted by acbytesla I'm sure there is some logic to the discrepancy. But I'm convinced that at the core, the issue is related to how women are valued in our society. The number of roles for women are less and they are much more easily discarded for a younger actress even as their popularity grows. A woman unless she's Meryl Streep reaches 35 and the available roles diminish significantly. They are quickly replaced by the young cheaper injenue only to see the pattern repeated. I dislike the use of the highlighted word in this context because it's far too loaded; essentially it assumes a conclusion. I don't think it's about the value of women but the dynamic of how people of both genders are seen through time in this industry.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness

12th January 2018, 01:27 PM	#495
Spock Jenkins Muse Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 735	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Someone's going to have to explain to me why anyone would want to pay Mark Whalberg for anything. Check out "The Basketball Diaries" from when he and DiCaprio (sp?) were younger. It was made back in the 1990's. It was pre-Titanic for DiCaprio and not long after Marky-Mark and the Funky Bunch for Wahlberg. I though he was good in "The Perfect Storm" too. I don't know about ugly. He was a Calvin Klein model back years ago. Besides. That said, not all people are perfect looking. I have no problem with a "real" looking actor. I'm not saying you have to like him, just suggesting that there are some things that could possibly give you a broader picture of his appeal.
Spock Jenkins Muse Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 735

12th January 2018, 01:27 PM	#496
Pterodactyl Muse Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 990	Isn't an actor/actress's pay largely a function of what their particular presence in a film is likely to draw in profits? Adam Sandler is, at this point, a terrible actor in terrible films. Yet films he is in make money. Basically any film actor or actress you can think of are more talented. Yet he makes more money than most.
Pterodactyl Muse Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 990

12th January 2018, 01:39 PM	#497
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 6,713	Originally Posted by Pterodactyl Isn't an actor/actress's pay largely a function of what their particular presence in a film is likely to draw in profits? Adam Sandler is, at this point, a terrible actor in terrible films. Yet films he is in make money. Basically any film actor or actress you can think of are more talented. Yet he makes more money than most. Yep. For an old example, look at Dumb and Dumber. Jeff Bridges was paid $50k, compared to Carrey's $7 million.
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 6,713

12th January 2018, 01:44 PM	#498
Pterodactyl Muse Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 990	Originally Posted by rustypouch Yep. For an old example, look at Dumb and Dumber. Jeff Bridges was paid $50k, compared to Carrey's $7 million. Crazy. What did they pay Jeff Daniels?
Pterodactyl Muse Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 990

12th January 2018, 01:46 PM	#499
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,071	Originally Posted by The Don My 2c.... As a middle-aged, middle-class, white man, it's not really my prerogative to say whether or not #MeToo has gone too far. I have never been subject to the kind of institutional abuse and/or discrimination that women have suffered and so it would be a bit rich for me to say "OK ladies, you've had your bit of a whine - now shut up". If Catherine Deneuve thinks things have gone too far then she is perfectly entitled to say so, I'm sure that you can find at least one contrary view to any point within an heterogeneous group of individuals. She's also perfectly entitled to receive any criticism coming her way if that view isn't supported. "clumsy flirting is not an offense", but then again the line between clumsy flirting and sexual assault and/or bullying isn't a clean one and to a certain extent is also dependent on the parties involved and the relationship between them. Making clumsy advances towards a single person of about the same age in a nightclub may be interpreted by that person very differently than making the same clumsy advances towards a much younger, married, subordinate who really, really, needs the job, in the workplace. I certainly find the #MeToo movement uncomfortable because it exposes some very ugly truths. Of course there's a danger that it might get hijacked to a certain extent but at the core is the unacceptable treatment of a lot of women by a lot of men. There is a real incentive to play this down which is one of the reasons why Ms Deneuve's comments have been so eagerly seized upon. Just one point is like to make. Why don't you get an opinion? If a Christian tells you how persecuted they are, do you tale the same route? Honest question but where is the line of what we are "allowed" to have an opinion on? I can't see a way to actually follow your philosophy ( versus just do it wily nilly , which will tend to be the same thing one was doing before but branded different) without not being able to challenge people, or just being a hypocrite. What do I know of being a conspiracy theorist? Can't have an opinion. What do I know of being a ghost hunter? Can't have an opinion. Etc etc. For my two cents, I often just see people saying they follow this philosophy, but it only seems to come up in regards to acceptable groups. I have little faith in this philosophy for that very reason. Either one needs to take statements of hardship by groups they are not a part of at face value, or it is okay and beneficial to debate opinions with all groups. These are incompatible with each other as philosophical standpoints but I have never seen someone who professes to follow this philosophy actually use it beyond a way of saying "I'm inclusive". Tldr : why is this philosophy impossible to actually apply? I've never seen anyone apply it for anyone other than groups they support.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,071

12th January 2018, 01:47 PM	#500
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 6,713	Originally Posted by Pterodactyl Crazy. What did they pay Jeff Daniels? Bah. That's what I get for mixing up Jeffs.
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 6,713

12th January 2018, 03:16 PM	#501
smartcooky Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 9,155	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum No. The poster is pointing out multiple types of victim-blaming. This does not equate the types of victims. That isn't what I took from the post, nor was it what mike81 or, I think, 3point14 took from it, so its not just me! Originally Posted by I Am The Scum And I already pointed out the problems with concerns over #starerape in post 395. Well, you might see problems, I don't
	__________________ _{As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920} Last edited by smartcooky; 12th January 2018 at 03:18 PM.

12th January 2018, 03:34 PM	#502
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 29,587	Originally Posted by smartcooky That isn't what I took from the post, nor was it what mike81 or, I think, 3point14 took from it, so its not just me! Intentionally misunderstanding something so that you can have outrage instead of discussion is indeed a popular thing to do. But appealing to the popularity of a bad behavioral doesn't actually excuse the bad behavior.

12th January 2018, 03:53 PM	#503
fuelair Suspended Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,679	Originally Posted by rustypouch Bah. That's what I get for mixing up Jeffs. It's generally not that hard to do!!!!!
fuelair Suspended Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,679

12th January 2018, 03:54 PM	#504
fuelair Suspended Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,679	And when you add Geoffs it's even easier!!!!!
fuelair Suspended Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,679

12th January 2018, 04:35 PM	#505
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,454	Originally Posted by smartcooky That isn't what I took from the post, nor was it what mike81 or, I think, 3point14 took from it, so its not just me! Company or no company, the poster did not say that rape and leering are morally, legally, or otherwise equivalent. Quote: Well, you might see problems, I don't By all means, point out my errors. Let's weigh the evidence and form a rational conclusion.

12th January 2018, 05:39 PM	#506
smartcooky Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 9,155	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum Company or no company, the poster did not say that rape and leering are morally, legally, or otherwise equivalent. Originally Posted by theprestige Intentionally misunderstanding something so that you can have outrage instead of discussion is indeed a popular thing to do. Because comprehension is out of fashion and reading between the lines is wrong. Originally Posted by I Am The Scum By all means, point out my errors. Let's weigh the evidence and form a rational conclusion. Who said anything about errors You saw problems with #starerape, I didn't. Perhaps that could be because you "honestly couldn't find any non-sarcastic examples after browsing through 30 or so tweets" YMMV
	__________________ _{As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920}

12th January 2018, 06:29 PM	#507
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,454	Originally Posted by smartcooky You saw problems with #starerape, I didn't. Perhaps that could be because you "honestly couldn't find any non-sarcastic examples after browsing through 30 or so tweets" YMMV I'll lay out my case as clearly as I possibly can. If you click here you will see every use of the #starerape hashtag on Twitter, organized by date. I looked at every single post over the past year. The vast majority of users are not being serious. Others are asking if "stare rape" is real. A handful of tweets are not in English (to be clear, I did not translate them, so I have no idea what they're actually saying). There is not a single accusation against another person of committing "stare rape." There is not a single instance of an individual claiming to be a victim of "stare rape." We must also consider the fact that the #metoo campaign started last year, so if there is any overlap on Twitter, we would have seen it in our search. From this, we can draw several conclusions: 1. #metoo has absolutely nothing to do with "stare rape." As such, nothing about "stare rape" can possibly indict the #metoo campaign. 2. Given that there are people who seem to be actually concerned that there are "stare rape" accusations, even though there are not, the concern heavily outweighs the object of the concern. It's essentially the same as people complaining that they're not allowed to say "Merry Christmas" any more. 3. Anyone stating that the existence of #starerape is a cause of concern is allowing their beliefs to be influenced by baseless rumor-mongering, in a most unskeptical fashion. If you find a flaw in any of my conclusions, please point it out.

12th January 2018, 06:54 PM	#508
smartcooky Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 9,155	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum I'll lay out my case as clearly as I possibly can. If you click here you will see every use of the #starerape hashtag on Twitter, organized by date. I looked at every single post over the past year. The vast majority of users are not being serious. Others are asking if "stare rape" is real. A handful of tweets are not in English (to be clear, I did not translate them, so I have no idea what they're actually saying). There is not a single accusation against another person of committing "stare rape." There is not a single instance of an individual claiming to be a victim of "stare rape." We must also consider the fact that the #metoo campaign started last year, so if there is any overlap on Twitter, we would have seen it in our search. From this, we can draw several conclusions: 1. #metoo has absolutely nothing to do with "stare rape." As such, nothing about "stare rape" can possibly indict the #metoo campaign. 2. Given that there are people who seem to be actually concerned that there are "stare rape" accusations, even though there are not, the concern heavily outweighs the object of the concern. It's essentially the same as people complaining that they're not allowed to say "Merry Christmas" any more. 3. Anyone stating that the existence of #starerape is a cause of concern is allowing their beliefs to be influenced by baseless rumor-mongering, in a most unskeptical fashion. If you find a flaw in any of my conclusions, please point it out. Maybe victims don't report stare rape because they realize they will get dogpiled. I would not be surprised... I'd be right there dogpiling on them myself. Who cares anyway? The fact remains that there are people drawing an inference that staring at a woman's cleavage is sexual abuse every bit a serious as rape and therefore should be considered to be the same thing. I despise this widening of the target zone to include such stuff, because it takes a away from the seriousness of REAL rape, you know, when a person uses their power, whether physical strength, or position of control and influence, to force another person to have a sexual encounter with them, whether it be actual intercourse or other sexual contact (keeping in mind, of course, that rape is not about sex so much as it is about power and control) These people cheapen and demean the experiences of real rape victims, and make it less likely that those victims will come forward. I applaud the #metoo and #timesup movements for doing what they have done in outing some real ratbags, but I hate what they have become thanks to SJW's and feminazi bandwagon jumpers turning a geniuine movement for change into a witch hunt.
	__________________ _{As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920}

12th January 2018, 07:00 PM	#509
Civet Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,613	Aw man, not Steven Seagal. Anyone but Steven Seagal. I just don't know what to believe in anymore. Shut it down. Just shut it all down.
Civet Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,613

12th January 2018, 07:08 PM	#510
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,071	Originally Posted by uke2se Makin the other person uncomfortable. It's not as hard to say "I'm sorry" as the song says, and it makes everyone a little less sad. Dude, if I apologized to everyone I made uncomfortable I'd spend half my day saying sorry just walking through the mall wearing a misfits shirt. But I'm gonna read the future and assume that fussy Christians are okay to bother in your book. Which isn't too say I don't think that, but I also don't hypocritically and arbitrarily decide groups that I do care if I offend. Personally I expect everyone, myself included to have the fortitude to put up with a bit of other people's **. It's how society doesn't turn into the stumble of people being scared ****** over making minor social faux pas people like you seem to want.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,071

12th January 2018, 07:16 PM	#511
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,071	Originally Posted by luchog See, that's exactly the problem, men are emphatically not "any less creeps" than they used to be. The difference is, now women are realizing that they don't have to tolerate men being creeps anymore, that they can actually do something about it; and creeper men are getting all butthurt that they can't sleaze on women anymore without being called on their **** behaviour and treated like the pieces of ** they are. Creeper men don't care, and are actively laughing at you on reddit as we speak, or finding you online to rule you up. It's what gets them off. The people complaining are generally those caught in the crossfire that some den acceptable losses in the social war.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,071

12th January 2018, 07:20 PM	#512
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,071	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward You were sexually harassed. How you felt about those events is irrelevant to that point. Your opinion over rules the victim, that's very progressive. By your logic anyone committing sex acts you wouldn't like is being assaulted. Your philosophy is unrealistic and makes no sense.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,071

12th January 2018, 07:23 PM	#513
Polaris Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 11,242	Originally Posted by sadhatter Your opinion over rules the victim, that's very progressive. By your logic anyone committing sex acts you wouldn't like is being assaulted. Your philosophy is unrealistic and makes no sense. Just don't.
	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.

12th January 2018, 07:25 PM	#514
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,071	Originally Posted by Polaris Just don't. Great point. Notice you didn't show I was wrong, but great point.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,071

12th January 2018, 07:39 PM	#515
Polaris Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 11,242	Originally Posted by sadhatter Great point. Notice you didn't show I was wrong, but great point. I mean just don't indulge Bob.
	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.