“If we were persecuted for the amount of shit that’s been said about us that’s not true, our lives would be over.”
— Kristen Stewart
Speaking at a public Q&A for the 20th anniversary of the film Wag The Dog, self-appointed guardian of the moral galaxy John Oliver decided to scream that he has seen Dustin Hoffman speaking with the devil.
Wrapping himself in a bloody tampon Oliver began by announcing that his sense of shame required him to publicly confront someone about a he said she said incident that is said (by one party) to have occurred over 40 years ago.
Basing his outrage on the notion that one must believe women because being equal under the law requires men to believe women because they have a special protected status that places them both beneath and above the law (and no longer requires them to provide evidence before we destroy people’s reputations and cost them their jobs) Oliver said he hated Hoffman’s denial because he (Oliver) believed the woman who claimed Hoffman harassed her.
Oliver then pulled the McCarthyesque trick of waving a symbolic list in the air and screaming he knows there are creepers hiding under Hoffman’s bed. How does he know? Because someone said it and Oliver believes them. Responding to Hoffman’s denial Oliver in full if he floats, he’s a harasser, mode said: “If you’ve given no evidence to show it didn’t [happen],” you must be guilty.
What exactly would satisfy Oliver’s desire for evidence? Sworn testimony? Video? Audio? A birth certificate?
Someone must have traduced Dustin Hoffman and perhaps Oliver can explain it while adjusting the knife to the accused’s throat?
And then consider the following as an example of not just Oliver’s hypocrisy and his sanctimony but his catastrophic shallowness and rank stupidity:
“Do you believe this stuff you read?” Hoffman asked.
“Yes,” Oliver replied. “Because there’s no point in [an accuser] lying.”
No point in lying? Really? Because Hollywood is not a petty vindictive narcissism festival fueled by sex, money, drugs, degradation, self-loathing, organized crime and a bacchanal of neurosis and illicit affairs that would make Freud eat a box of cigars? No sir Hollywood is an arcadia of artists, a peaceful zen garden where women are not predatory bulimic and anorexic harpies and men are not viagra and coke fueled predatory pripusian beasts who periodically drug and sodimize under age girls.
And we note that Oliver & Co would cite the above as proof that the accusers should be believed. To which we say it is proof that no one should be believed without evidence because no one is guilty until proven otherwise and precisely because Oliver is dead wrong to say that there’s no reason to lie. There are a thousand reasons for people to lie and they do it all of the time. And Hollywood is a cesspool of lies, half truths, distortions and corruption. For which people are routinely paid a pirate’s treasure.*
So, curb your fucking enthusiasm Oliver. And grow the fuck up.
And make no mistake, not only will Saint Oliver of the torches not get the lacerations he deserves from the liberal hypocrites, he will bathe in his own hypocrisy and go on pointing out how hypocritical everyone else is. Your sanctimony is well played sir.
Is it true? Did Hoffman harass the woman making the accusation? We know two things. One, that we don’t know and two, sure as fuck neither does John Oliver. And demanding that the accused prove the accusation is false, and that they do it to the satisfaction of a third party is the stuff of tyrannical wet dreams.
The collapse of the liberals into a sickening Orwellian parody of every cliché by which the neo-fascist bund ridicules them continues. And it continues at an accelerated pace.
Next up, John Oliver declares everyone is equal; it’s just that some entertainers are more equal than others.
Read about the incident here:
We note that neither The Guardian nor The Washington Post included Hoffman’s comments reported in the link below. Here Hoffman makes the crucial points about being innocent until proven guilty and the if she floats she’s a witch quality to Oliver’s actions.
*We note, without confirming or denying its veracity, that several people have recently stated they believed that Amber Heard lied about being assaulted, we note the resonance of L.A. Confidential, any number of Raymond Chandler stories, the power of gossip columnists, PR hacks, and a hundred years worth of scandals involving lies, bribes, blackmail, and perversity. No reason to lie? Someone tell that to Othello.
The complicit Media.
Today’s Guardian has a story headlined: Dustin Hoffman accused of ‘abusive’ sexual harassment on Broadway.
It is not until the fifth paragraph that the story quotes the stage manager of the production in question to the effect that the accusations don’t ring true because of the way they cast a shadow of depravity on the rest of the crew and that the stage manager says he would not allow it and is not type of person who would. This of course is exactly the dilemma created by a roaring celebration of innuendo – namely that it all comes down to who can scream the loudest or has the biggest media friends. We also note that there is a sidebar story that is headlined: Dustin Hoffman needs to understand it’s not about how he feels.
Welcome to the new McCarthyism.
The Guardian could just as easily have posted a story about Hoffman being defended and/or a story about how the fragile idea of being innocent until proven guilty is under attack but instead we get innuendo, hysteria, toxic hypocrisy and unsubstantiated accusations.
Read the story here:
Additionally see the following for a borderline delusional and completely Orwellian spin on the issue:
Amid a wave of new allegations against Dustin Hoffman and the firing of Tavis Smiley we note that there is a reason if not several reasons why evidence is required before finding someone guilty of a crime the least of which is to ensure due process. We also note and ask at what point is the media required to refrain from printing or broadcasting a claim when there is no evidence to support it and at what point is the media guilty of libel and defamation? Or just being fear-mongering, irresponsible and utterly sleazy?
Here’s what appears to be the majority of Oliver’s and Hoffman’s confrontation at the 20th anniversary panel on Wag The Dog. Notice Hoffman at approximately 1:10 mentioning that his original accuser is writing a book thus raising the question of motivation and answering Oliver’s question as to why she (or anyone) would lie?.
Here’s Matt Damon’s former girlfriend, actor Minnie Driver, holding forth on the limits of men’s abilities as well as rejecting both the legal spectrum and the ethical one in regards to forms of assault. As one wit put it, Driver is saying in effect, let’s start locking people up for jaywalking.
“I don’t understand why Matt would defend Louis CK,” she said. “It seems to me that he thinks that because he didn’t rape somebody – so far as we know – that what he did do wasn’t as bad.”
We would assume because Damon is being thoughtful and is aware that misdemeanors and assault and rape are in fact all not the same nor should they be.
And then in a delightful if worrisome burst of irony Driver adds:
“I felt that what Matt Damon was saying was an Orwellian idea, we are all equal except that some us are more equal than others,” she said. “Put abuse in there … that all abuse is equal but some is worse.”
Then doubling down on her calls to eliminate the legal code and to silence men in what one assumes would be the establishment of some sort of misandrist police state she adds this:
“She added: “There is no hierarchy of abuse – that if a woman is raped [it] is much worse than if woman has a penis exposed to her that she didn’t want or ask for…you cannot tell those women that one is supposed to feel worse than the other.”
Sure you can.
Here you go: One is far worse than the other.
See the article here:
It’s hard to know if there’s more to this or not but as it is reported, Oliver’s arrogance continues unabated.
A thoughtful look at the issue and something Oliver might consider:
Ah, La Deneuve:
We note that the linked article below demonstrates that as always arguments follow the same pattern and descend almost instantly into opposing camps from which consensus either never emerges or does but missing a limb. As a result things will continue limping along as they always do.
So it goes.
For an example of a smug lack of self-awareness and a sense of both sanctimony and superiority see the following:
“The reason the exchange lasted for an agonizing 20 minutes, he said, “was that his responses were pretty bad. I wanted to try get him to a point of self-reflection, to try to get something out of the conversation at all. That didn’t happen.”
It apparently hasn’t occurred to Oliver nor has anyone close to him pointed out that Hoffman is not required to provide self-analysis to John Oliver, that John Oliver is not in charge of provoking “self awareness” and most importantly that his definition of self-awareness may not be the same as Dustin Hoffman’s and that just because John Oliver believes it is a good idea doesn’t mean that it’s objectively true that Hoffman is in need of participating in some sort of ersatz high tech mashup of an Oprah style intervention and a Maoist show trial. Of course since Oliver and others have already decided that accusing Hoffman of something is synonymous with finding him guilty of something it should come as no surprise that Oliver and his enablers would demand that Hoffman participate in his own auto-da-fe.
As an illustration of government and bureaucratic cynicism and systemic stupidity we offer the following example, in which the government of France decides to build a new Maginot Line except all the guns are pointing backwards.
The problem(s) with the new law are so obvious we can only conclude that the government knows it’s a cock-up but felt the need to do something and then let the lawyers sort it out while they go begging for votes.
The new law is designed to stop men from harassing women on the streets.
All well and good except of course for everything that’s problematic if not downright stupid.
The law, for example, makes it a punishable offense to follow someone. That’s going to be an interesting one to enforce.
It also qualifies itself by adding that following someone (it’s assumed that it’s a man following a woman) and repeatedly asking them (her) for their phone number, when “it’s clear they don’t want to give the number” will be illegal.
Exactly how many times is too many is not spelled out nor is it clear how the cops are going to be able to tell if someone is telling the truth.
He asked me 100 times!
I asked twice and walked away when she said no.
Cops: Goodbye, we have better things to do.
And of course it assumes that women never tease, that seduction is not a swamp, and that people communicate in explicit ways.
As to the very real issue of aggression and threats and the fear of assault, one assumes French law is already designed to deal with those issues and is only as capable as the will of the people charged with enforcing the law. Which we assume is at best, so-so.
Of course the lawyers know this, and so do the cops and the politicians so it’s really just a cynical ploy by the government and the rest of the system but that doesn’t mean it isn’t also a potential disaster.
The number of lawsuits it will bring are in effect a government subsidy for the lawyers and the cops who can collect overtime.
We note that a jury, convened for a trial, replete with lawyers and a judge, has found Bill cosby guilty of multiple felonies. Or to put it another way, actual evidence was presented, it was examined, rights were respected and a verdict was reached. See the details here:
Ah, La Deneuve part Deux:
you have to wade through a fair amount of faux journalism but it’s worth it to get to the paragraphs where Sean Penn make several interesting points about #MeToo.