Yeah, no. And from a Roman Polanski defender, so really no surprise there.
Well Meryl Streep and half of Hollywood (including many of new #metoo crusaders) have praised Polanski as well. No surprises there either. A good number of them, including the sainted Streep, turned away from the behaviour of the likes of Weinstein of decades. Then they had the temerity to do that pious and fake display at the Golden Globes. Turn over any stone in Hollywood and there's a decent chance you'll find a sexual harasser. But you'll definitely find hypocrisy under all of them.
And you are wrong for continuously focusing on how this is affecting men. It's the underlying theme of most of your posts on this matter and quite telling.
And what does it tell you? That there's another POV on this other than your own? That the issue is more complex than the message you can convey in a Tweet? Wow...all I did was say the letter made sense (though yes, being from a celebrity, I gave it the weight is deserved).
And I disagree with your characterisation that I "continuously" and only focus on how this effects men. But even if I did, after all, men are half the population. If we're going to have a conversation (not a lecture, not a monologue) about this issue and the range of ways men and women interact, and what's acceptable, unacceptable, and those grey areas we're going to have to sort out, that
necessarily involves how all that affects men.
Of course it does. It won't work without men. You won't have lasting social change without considering how all this affects men because men are part of society. Only talking about one side works great when you're creating a meme, not when you want real solutions. I think the people who truly want change and don't simply want to jump on the hashtag of the moment understand that. I'm assuming
you understand that, and if you nonetheless "continuously" only focused on how all this affected women, I wouldn't assume that you're uninterested in how sweeping social change impacts the other half of the population (though perhaps I'm wrong about that).
We've discussed everything from gun control to the nature of the American electorate on here, and I've always taken it as a given, anitram, that when you disagree with me on an issue you're doing it in good faith. I don't see the need to preface every comment I make on this issue with "sexual assault and harassment is wrong". Just as I don't see the need to preface every second amendment discussion with "it's wrong to shoot people." I hope you'd take it as a given that I condemn and deplore those things...as I've said I do. I've sent men inside for decades for rape and sexual assault, I understand the issues. How many people here have done that? (have
you, Cobbler?)
But when you say it's "telling" that I'm apparently looking at this issue in a way you don't approve of, it makes me wonder if you're not only disagreeing with my opinion, but my motivation for having it (and you seem to be making assumptions on what my opinion is). This is when these kind of discussions fall apart.
if you sit any more on the fence it's going to disappear up your arse
What's wrong with sitting on the fence? I like fences.
Walking on one gives you balance. Stand on top of one and you can see both sides. Paint one and you learn karate. And if you get tired of all that, as you said you can sit on one.
The other uses you've imagined for one, I leave to your good offices.