Tarantino has admitted knowing about Weinsteins misconduct towards women

"I knew enough to do more than I did,"

Is still a bit ambiguous. It appears the rumours were an open secret or at least his bullying predator character was. I expect it was difficult for any individual to stand up to him. People were scared and decided it wasnt their fight.. For those who were upset, then you do what Jolie did and choose not to work with him.

The danger for Tarantino in the holier than though bandwagon is people will point the finger at him, but he will get castigated for admitting he knew about the predatory behaviour., when many other people knew as well. The thing is they all wanted the fame and money (including actors), plus some of them were getting rich and they didnt want to destroy their own career.

This screenwriter summed it up.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/screenwriter-says-hollywood-fking-knew-about-weinsteins-sexual-misconduct_us_59e65810e4b08f9f9edb3196

Reply 4

Underscore__

21

I don’t see the point in him saying this, it just makes him look bad

Reply 5

Notoriety

Title: "Tarantino has admitted knowing about Weinsteins misconduct towards women"

First line: "Oscar winning director Quentin Tarantino has admitted to knowing for years about Harvey Weinstein's alleged miscount towards women."

There is a very big difference between knowing about misconduct and knowing that there are allegations of misconduct. The former implies complicity.

Reply 6

S.G.

Seth MacFarlane made a joke at some awards ceremony about Weinstein a few years ago and most people in the audience laughed. Most probably do know.

Reply 7

King Leonidas

21

He's not the only one who knew and could've done more, Hollywood is full of electric eyes and ears.

Reply 8

Economics Legend

4

Weinstein has been found guilty of nothing. We live in a society where feminazis and effeminate cucks denounce powerful men for their sexual success.

Reply 9

Original post by Economics Legend

Weinstein has been found guilty of nothing. We live in a society where feminazis and effeminate cucks denounce powerful men for their sexual success.

Guilty as in convicted in a curt of law? Not yet as they are still investigating the rape and sexual assault allegations. You can put those to one side.

He's also receiving criticism for being a sexual predator , bullying and harassing women to achieve that success.

Do you approve of his behaviour?

Reply 10

Economics Legend

4

Original post by 999tigger

He's also receiving criticism for being a sexual predator , bullying and harassing women to achieve that success.

Do you approve of his behaviour?

If you want to get anywhere in life then you have to do something for the gatekeepers.

I have no problem with his behaviour. Men in position of power have utilised women beneath them since the dawn of time. That is the natural way. As long as it was consensual then there is no problem.

Reply 11

Original post by Economics Legend

If you want to get anywhere in life then you have to do something for the gatekeepers.

I have no problem with his behaviour. Men in position of power have utilised women beneath them since the dawn of time. That is the natural way. As long as it was consensual then there is no problem.

Except a lot of them are saying it wasnt consensual and was most unwelcome. Thats what happens with harassment.

Do you support the alleged sexual harassment?

Reply 12

Economics Legend

4

Original post by 999tigger

Except a lot of them are saying it wasnt consensual and was most unwelcome. Thats what happens with harassment.

Do you support the alleged sexual harassment?

Making an allegation and establishing its truth are different things. The court of public opinion seems to have forgotten about innocent until proven guilty. See the bogus allegations against the late great Ted Heath.

Reply 13

Good bloke

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.

There is a very big difference between knowing about misconduct and knowing that there are allegations of misconduct. The former implies complicity.

No. You misunderstand the purpose of the word 'alleged' in that sentence. Tarantino, as an erstwhile friend and colleague, knows the truth, and he wouldn't be regretting not coming forward before now if the truth is that there is no substance to the allegations, would he? In fact, this is significant as the first independent corroboration of the claims.

The word is used purely to make sure the source you quoted does not get sued and end up in court having to prove the allegations (which it is not in a position to do) in order to defend a suit for libel.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 14

Original post by Economics Legend

Making an allegation and establishing its truth are different things. The court of public opinion seems to have forgotten about innocent until proven guilty. See the bogus allegations against the late great Ted Heath.

Ive pointed out such things on many threads. In this instance though the claims are so widespread its highly unlikely they are all lying and a lot of his behaviour he has not denied. If they were false he would be busy suing people right now instead of apologising and going into therapy.

So in theory do you support him sexually harassing these women as his rights as a gatekeeper and powerful man?

Reply 15

Notoriety

Original post by Good bloke

No. You misunderstand the purpose of the word 'alleged' in that sentence. Tarantino, as an erstwhile friend and colleague, knows the truth, and he wouldn't be regretting not coming forward before now if the truth is that there is no substance to the allegations, would he? In fact, this is significant as the first independent corroboration of the claims.

The word is used purely to make sure the source you quoted does not get sued and end up in court having to prove the allegations (which it is not in a position to do) in order to defend a suit for libel.

Tarantino, a professional storyteller and sensationalist, knew the truth. After the fact. After everyone else has made their minds up about it.

Yes, I am well aware of how libel works. The point is that, following the cognate allege, these things are allegations. Unless Tarantino were in fact in the room, he too is aware only of allegations. He had a reasonable belief only, which perhaps should have forced him to intervene in the acts he believed were happening. But that's a different story.

Reply 16

Good bloke

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.

Tarantino, a professional storyteller and sensationalist, knew the truth. After the fact. After everyone else has made their minds up about it.

No. Read the article again. He is quoted as saying:

There was more to it than just the normal rumours, the normal gossip. It wasn't second-hand. I knew he did a couple of these things

That seems pretty clear to me. Maybe Weinstein told him, maybe he was there, but he definitely claims to know first hand.

Reply 17

Notoriety

Original post by Good bloke

No. Read the article again. He is quoted as saying:

There was more to it than just the normal rumours, the normal gossip. It wasn't second-hand. I knew he did a couple of these things

That seems pretty clear to me. Maybe Weinstein told him, maybe he was there, but he definitely claims to know first hand.

And as I said, he is a sensationalist. What you understand know to mean, and what an epistemologist understands know to mean, might be different to what the director of Pulp Fiction understands know to mean.

Reply 18

limetang