A Simple Formula

If the women blowing Weinstein are doing nothing wrong, neither is Weinstein.

If Weinstein is doing something wrong by getting girls to blow him for roles, then the women blowing him are also doing something wrong.

It’s that simple.

Rape, of course, is something different entirely.

Keep in mind that I have nothing but disgust and contempt for Harvey Weinstein and the morally repugnant sludgepool that is Hollywood.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to A Simple Formula

  1. Chad says:

    Anything in particular bring this back up?

  2. GRA says:

    Speaking of Hollywood, have you seen any movies lately? I saw The Shape of Water in which I have some mix feelings about. I laud the genre-bending aspects, the surface narrative of “the princess with no voice” and her romance (beastiality?), Desplat’s score and cinematography (e.g., wonderful shades of green, blues and turquoise). But the undercurrent of social commentary was somewhat off putting. Though my next movie, Lady Bird, seems to be much less patronizing.

    • I saw “The Disaster Artist” recently, which was excellent, but that’s it.

      I looked at one review of “Lady Bird” and could tell immediately it would probably annoy me when they talked about the scene where she was sent to the principal’s office for objecting to the logic used by an anti-abortion presenter at a school assembly.

      I went to Catholic school. If somebody did what she did, then she would be responded to and there would be a dialogue. People disagreed with the teacher in my theology class ALL THE TIME. It wasn’t some sort of intellectual prison.

      • GRA says:

        I do think Lady Bird is a quasi-autobiography of Greta Gerwig, set a year after 9/11, so I’m not sure how parochial schools dealt with such questioning ‘back then.’ I heard there are some “redeemable” scenes that put Catholicism in a semi non pathetic light.

      • Yeesh. Just looked up the plot on Wikipedia. I would HATE this movie. My advice: Virtue signalling, do not recommend.

      • I mean, 9/11 wasn’t all that long ago. I guess there are probably some schools that would dare to send someone to the principal’s office for making a mildly okay debate point during an assembly, but that simply doesn’t ring true to me, I’m afraid.

      • John says:

        People disagreed with the teacher in my theology class ALL THE TIME. It wasn’t some sort of intellectual prison.

        Really? And they were all fellow conservative Catholics?

        If that is so, then this right there really goes to show how shallow and mistaken the usual objections to Christianity – about how it stiffles critical thinking and rational discourse – really are, because these things are not only allowed by Christianity, but were actually even INVENTED by it!

        I guess somewhere in there is also an argument for Christianity as well.

      • Some were Catholic. Some were not. I learned a ton in my high school theology classes. I had an excellent teacher.

      • John says:

        Some were Catholic. Some were not.

        But I take it that they were all Christians though? And did the other conservative Catholic students also disagree and thus participate in the discussion as well?

        If so, that still makes my point.

      • Most were Christians. You have to remember this was a high school, and a Catholic one, no less. The trendy thing was to be an atheist and pretend you knew better.

        But yeah, everyone was involved in the discussion. I particularly became infamous for engaging in long discussions with the theology teacher in the middle of class and staying after class with him so I could continue the discussion.

      • He used to show us a super pro-immigration propaganda video where they were actually referring to ICE and those sorts as Nazis, painting this picture of Saintly Mexicans and Central Americans just escaping gang life.

        At the end of the video instead of waiting for us to all go on about how wonderful it was he let us all give our reactions, and even asked us about the more extreme lines and sections of it. He was the rare teacher who really was trying to spark discussion and debate.

      • John says:

        He was the rare teacher who really was trying to spark discussion and debate.

        So he was a conservative Catholic theology teacher who wanted to stimulate intellectual development and thought exercise. That alone is excellent and illustrative enough to show the old stereotype of Christians stifling thinking to be horrendously wrong and misguided, because Christianity really did invent critical thinking and intellectual stimulation, amongst it’s other accomplishments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s