If you’ve given no evidence to show it didn’t [happen,] there was a period of time for a while when you were a creeper around women
So he has to prove that he didn't do it? That's not how things work. Also who the fuck is John Oliver to call anyone creepy. Swarthy little cunt. Not that I give a shit about Dustin Hoffman.
“Do you believe this stuff you read?” Hoffman asked.
“Yes,” Oliver replied. “Because there’s no point in [an accuser] lying.”
“Well, there’s a point in her not bringing it up for 40 years,” Hoffman said.
“Oh Dustin,” Oliver said disapprovingly
Just FYI, that quote misses part of what Oliver says. Specifically that he said he believes her because she gains nothing by lying. In the context of this item, he is right unless you consider scrutiny and ridicule to be a gain.
I don't see anyone ridiculing her. What they gain's is attention and sympathy. Scrutiny seems like the appropriate response to an accusation if you ask me.
Anyone who says she is doing it just for attention or sympathy is ridiculing her.
A career boost when she's almost sixty?
Scrutiny is an appropriate response, but it's not a benefit and is one of the reasons many women don't report the actions of those in power.
I don't get that last bit. Perhaps you think because I don't share your opinion, which is a bad one, btw, that I'm going to post elsewhere to get people to brigade? Check my comment history. See for yourself if I'm that type of person or just a fellow on the Internet with his own opinion.
Using critical thinking is not the same as being dismissive. We don't have to believe her by default like Oliver suggests. I'm not laughing at sexual assault and we're not saying "haha bitch got what was coming to her". Yes, careers don't end automatically end at 60 for writers/producers/and minor celebrities; I don't know how stable those gigs are but let's assume these people don't have the job security to create a proper pension. I know being a writer is financially straining. Also this whole "Many women don't report assaults because of scrutiny" is a cop out. It is in-consequential. Accusations must face scrutiny by virtue of being accusations.
Your bias doesn't allow for this conversation to go anywhere. Use of power isn't a cop out and ignoring it in sexual harassment/assault cases and yet recognizing it in police, government, wall street, etc. is hypocritical.
My only bias is in being impartial. I don't see an accusation as a guilty verdict unless there is proof. If we can admit women can feel things such as shame and fear when coming forward, why can't we admit they can also feel envy and vindictiveness? Innocent until proven guilty.
The victim can benefit, but only the accused is damaged
I'm impartial because I wait for a verdict to make up my mind in something like this. We're only dealing with an accusation.
He is the victim until proven guilty, but nobody will see him that way because of social discourse is more inclined to believe the accuser like you suggest.
It is objectively a witch hunt if simply being accused is viewed as an omission of guilty.
Your bias is clear. I'm being impartial and waiting until he's charged.
You've called the accusation a cop out, now it's this thing that wasn't discussed which is "having" to believe the accuser, which no one but you had brought up in this discussion.
Wrong. Just utterly wrong. Lewinsky is still blamed today.
Your language is anything but impartial in tone and use, you just keep saying that to tell yourself that. You've called it a witch hunt. That's not impartial.
He is not a victim. Being accused of something doesn't make you a victim. Being accused falsely makes him a victim. Again, you are not impartial.
Again, a witch hunt and you are claiming to be impartial...
No, you are entirely biased and just don't realize it.
I did not call the accusation a cop out. I claimed believing the accusation is true by default is a cop out. Oliver did, and I thought that's what you were suggesting the whole time?
She's not blamed, she's pitied for what that predator Bill Clinton did.
My "language and tone" makes me biased? What? Only an argument is capable of bias. It is objectively a Witch hunt. A Witch hunt is a noun and is defined as "an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, often simply because of their opinions and not because they have actually done anything wrong." It's an apt description.
He is the victim at the moment.The accusation alone has damaged his career and ruined his reputation. He has not be found guilty of anything. I am being impartial.
Again, claiming something is a Witch hunt when it objectively is one is not being biased.
Oliver never said "we" should believe her, he said he believes her and explained why. There is nothing to cop to there as you're turning his opinion into public indictment of some sort. Let alone in response to an article that misquotes what Oliver actually said in response to the question, making his statement look less than it was.
Just last week there was a production out that labeled her, in the title, as the cause of the Clinton scandal and she asked it to be changed. She is blamed still.
It is not a witch hunt when a single person questions him in the allegations. You calling it a witch hunt sets the tone via your use of language of how you perceived a single person asking questions about the allegations.
He is not a victim. The ONLY way he is a victim is if her allegations are false. By calling him the victim you are defining him as the one being wronged while at the same time claiming you're impartial.
I haven't been hypocritical at all here.. I don't think you are intelligent enough to recognize your own hypocrisy.
What did he actually say then? That she had nothing to gain from making an accusation? That's not a matter of fact. Simply believing the accusation is a cop out regardless because he has not be found guilty and he's condemning an innocent person. John Oliver has influence and he's a political ideologue. He know's exactly what he's doing, he's abusing his position. He's tarnishing the reputation of a man on mere accusation in a public forum. Dustin Hoffman is the victim here.
She was part of a scandal. That's not punishment or blame, that's fact. She should contest it in court if she wants it changed. I support her.
Look back at our conversation, I said " is no possibility that the 100+ accusations since Harvey weinsten could ever been wrong? You really think this is happening organically after all these decades and this is not some type of witch hunt?" I was not referring to this single incident. I was referring to them all. Dustin Hoffman is part of this Witch hunt. You are misconstruing my argument and implying my "tone" is biased whatever that means.
He is the victim, he's the one who's had his legacy ruined by an accusation without proof and had it trampled by the media and John Oliver. He's innocent until proven guilty. He would still be the victim if her accusations were found false. I am impartial.
You edit your posts after our exchange so I can't address your points. What am I proving myself wrong with?
no one is hiring people because they were harassed or assaulted, that's unwanted type of pr)
When your industry is so public and on board with social issues, hiring a victim would be good PR.
mentioning an actor and then having other actresses say similar about that person.
So there is no possibility that the 100+ accusations since Harvey weinsten could ever been wrong? You really think this is happening organically after all these decades and is not some type of witch hunt?
Both guys look pretty bad. Oliver is being extremely weaselly and Hoffman looks like he's making shit up as he goes along because he knows he did something.
Dustin Hoffman is an 80 year old man. Do you really expect him to have memorized the exact circumstances surrounding an offhand comment that he made 40 fucking years ago?
then say that. "oliver i honestly can't even remember what i had to eat this day last year, how the fuck do you expect me to remember what i did 40 years ago, I'm pretty sure i didn't rape someone though, as for your wife i saw her riding lamar right before i got on stage with you right now"
(Deep sigh) Yeah, that's a tough one, man. On the one hand, I really hate John Oliver. He's another smug left demagogue cashing in on the "cultural enlightenment" era. On the other, I respect him for at least saying something to the guy's face, if he really believes it.
Hoffman really does seem like a smarmy douche and I generally believe these broads that he did this stuff. But you also have to think this was 30 something years ago, he's an international celebrity, and probably met literally millions of people since that main accuser chick. How's he gonna actually remember any of this.
I don't know what to say, all these big shots. Get my container a coffee, punch the clock at the job site. What the hell do I know.
There's that element too. But when it's corroborated by other women on set, or there's a pattern/history of it with person after person coming out and describing the same things, you have to start thinking of that, too. Some of the thing these broads are admitting is horribly embarrassing to/about them, and don't really stand to gain much by coming out. I don't think they'd come forward unless it was simply to alleviate the emotional burden of carrying that shit around all that time.
Of course then it's gotta segue into "hashtag me too," which is a virtual celebration of anything from a sideways glance from an uncle to a homeless derelict pinning you down and giving you "the shocker." So who knows.
I know what you're saying but who has ever heard of these women who accused Dustin Hoffman until now? Their names now have some notoriety, even if briefly mentioned. Why are we treating being a victim of sexual assault like a badge of honor? This looks like just another moral panic. That #meetoo thing really illustrated to me how many unfuckable pigs were making up stories that "totally happened" too. I remember seeing how much they were getting off describing what happened to them and how many retweets and facebook likes they were getting.
What i notice about these women is that there actually is no pattern. One person said he hit on them the other says he told a dirty joke and another says she saw his penis.
This is the female version of rape. This is as close as they can get cause they're not strong and It's hard to take sex from a passed out man. But in terms of what they get out of it, it's power and It's dominence and the sexual humiliation of their victim. So when people ask why they would make it up I would say that there's absolutely nothing I've seen about female pathology that makes me think they are fundamentally better or nicer than men and they will take whatever opportunity at their disposal to do the same harm as men if they are just shitty people.
I think we also have to be mindful of the pathologies that skew more towards females like Munchausen syndrome and borderline personality disorder. Why would women lie about sexual assault? Well, why would women lie about their children being sick so that they take the kid to the doctor 80 times a year? Attention, need for connection and emotional support and other bs.
They get attention and have other women and male feminist fags call them a brave hero.
I'm not saying he didn't do it, because he probably did. But it clearly wasn't a huge deal to them. They probably used it as their funny life story all those years, the night that weird jew Dustin Hoffman pulled his dick out in front of me. But seeing a chance for 15 minutes of social media fame, the story is reframed as something terrible that nearly ruined their life.
I love how this sub hates Jimmy for being middle of the road considering how literally everyone here was like "I really fucking hate proudboys, but the people that the proudboys hate are just as horrible, its a tough one man" for the past year and a half
Being I Hate Everybody Guy is hacky and boring. Especially when you're just saying it to fit in and get up votes from fellow autistic homosexuals. I SAID DOUG STANHOPE WAS NEVER THAT GREAT BOW TO MY EDGY SUPERIORITY!
Of course. But this is like when Jim would shit on any music that wasn't Ozzy related trying to look cool as Hates Everything Guy. We all know that was stupid but yet here they are acting like Norm was the last good comedian.
I'm not saying stop hating those. Hate anything that deserves it. But when it turns into "I want to be the first guy to say this actually sucks, or this was actually nevery good" it's hacky.
To be fair, most of the pile-ons with Stanhope were from faggoty christian truckers who get their feelings hurt by doug's atheism shtick. You're acting like this sub is one entity whose opinions keep swaying, it's a whole bunch of assholes that hate different thing.
Eh, some of it was salty christians, they just didn't lead with it. I specifically recall being called a muslim apologist, or some other dumb shit like that. It was around the time there was an anti-doug post daily.
I never said that. I've said I clearly take their side over Antifa, but would never want to be associated with them because they're gay. But still you have a clear choice.
But yes, there's lots of FUCK BOTH SIDES MAAAAHN! faggotry from people who thint this makes them cool af rebels. Like the Owen Benjamin thread a week ago. After spending 2 years bitching that political correctness has ruined comedy, you get a comic talking about it in his act, but some fag there says "well, if he's doing bits about it complaining then he's just as big of a hack as the PC comics, MAAAAHN!" Wow, edgy take.
I always thought of him as a 3rd-rate Marcus Brigstock back then. Not that I was a fan of him they just seemed to have similar vibes but Oliver was more weasely.
If that Wise owl looking motherfucker didn’t put his crumpet eating paws all over some makeup artist 6 I’ll eat my hat. Oliver is only adding stories to the tower he’ll fall from.
Even the left must have some uncomfortable feelings towards this weasel. I wouldn't mind if he was in any way funny but he's not. He's just a mouth piece for all that's wrong with the world today.
Having a go at old man Dustin Hoffman for something he may or may not have done 40 years ago is pathetic and virtue signalling at it's ugliest.
His show is for people who don't like America. Same with Trevor Noah. They like watching foreigners come to their country and explain how shitty it is, and the fact that they're outsiders gives them extra credibility.
I think it's more a replacement for church; you tune in to John Oliver's Sunday Sermon and you get told what horrible, sinful worms you and everybody else is.
I don't know why he doesn't just pass the collection plate around every episode, give people a financial outlet for all that guilt.
I think it's the opposite; in church people are told they are imperfect and they need to improve to make the world a better place. These nerds rely on "we're the smart ones, everyone else is stupid, innit?"
In church there's discussion of some sort of ideal of human behavior, but the ideal version of the world for these assholes is... Canada? Really? Canada's the perfect country America should try to be? Canada is their fucking God?
I think it's more like Original Sin - you didn't do it yourself, but you're tainted by association due to being American. And it's not really "we're so smart", because the audience has tuned in to learn about the inner workings of Puerto Rico corruption, or whatever. They're there to be lectured-to, it's not stuff they're smart enough to know already.
They're there to be lectured-to, it's not stuff they're smart enough to know already.
Yeah but that's still the tone. Being told you're smart and "woke" doesn't mean they literally know everything. They can still tune into a show to learn something while also believing they are more enlightened and intelligent than the people not watching the show.
I remember someone posting in this subreddit like two years ago saying that John Oliver's show was brilliant and it got over 25 upvotes. You were all faggots until very recently
He has the rhythm and volume of a funny man, but that's it. He could read the Bible with those inflections of his and goofy smug grin and some would laugh.
I like Oliver's logic that the accusers had no incentive to lie. Because no one has ever made shit up for little discernible reason, right? There's not entire subreddits dedicated to it or anything...
He has two "accusers" and all he did was make what they deemed to be inappropriate comments. One of them had 2 meetings with him, and in the 2nd one Hoffman invited her back to his hotel, she said no, so he left alone.
That was in 1991 and she's had 4 total writing credits in her entire career. Maybe she just wasn't that good and he was trying to score a date. What a shocker. Fuck the current social climate.
And he apologised to the intern at the FUCKING TIME. An Oscar winning legendary actor apologises to an INTERN, in the EIGHTIES, rather than getting her fired. Suggests remorse to me.
Both Katerine Ross and Meryl Streep now both say that Dustin Hoffman grabbed thier breasts or acted like a pig to them. That makes four women who say that Dustin was an agreesive molster
Welcome to reddit sockcucka! New users are able to submit posts after 2 days. If you think your post is a fair contribution to the subreddit, message the moderators for a faster approval.
Oliver said that he considered not addressing the subject at what was intended as a genial chat but then decided he bore an obligation. “I can’t leave certain things unaddressed,” the host said. “The easy way is not to bring anything up. Unfortunately that leaves me at home later at night hating myself. ‘Why the…didn’t I say something? No one stands up to powerful men.’”
Except you right? It's all about you John and what a virtuous hero you are. Standing up to such a powerful 80 year old actor, that no one else would dare too, blindsiding him onstage over a 40 year old incident he doesn't remember. What a hero!
If you didn't know the story John Oliver was talking about and you just saw this in isolation, you'd think Dustin had fingered a teen while she begged for mercy.
Oliver, though, said he felt it was imperative to talk about it. “This isn’t fun for me,” the TV personality noted.
"I know I'm destroying your reputation by being a virtue signalling cunt, but this is hard for me too Dustin! Just because I ambushed you doesn't give you the right to act like an ill tempered asshole."
"It is reflective of who you were," said the HBO host. "You've given no evidence to show that it didn't happen. There was a period of time when you were creeping around women. It feels like a cop-out to say, 'Well, this isn't me.' Do you understand how that feels like a dismissal?"'
What evidence does this grandstanding poser expect Dustin to have that he didn't touch a butt 40 years ago? There is no evidence it did happen either. And who the fuck made him judge and jury? Dustin should sue this arrogant British twat for slander.
There's two glaring problems with the whole #metoo thing:
The standard for what is considered #metoo-worthy is way too lenient and abstract. Inappropriate comments and "weird" situations are not tantamount to rape, and if any of these broads went to a rape survivor/battered women-esque meeting and talked about their experience of being catcalled, passing it around with the same gravity as someone who is too afraid to go home because the person who raped her knows where she lives; she would/should rightfully be glared out of the room of that meeting. The stakes in their story is simply not risky enough to warrant group therapy to cope; it is simply NOT THE SAME AS RAPE, which is serious business. More over; if women are supposed to be as "strong" and as capable as men, then there has to be an element of "WALK IT OFF" that feminists and female identitarians have to embrace. Because that's what men do with every little tick and infraction on a daily basis. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't work through those feelings, or find a proper outlet, but there's a difference between coping and not coping and people who cant cope find everything problematic.
Facebook shares your personal information with larger organizations that have nothing to do with your or your relative/subjective experience in life. It's over-stepping boundaries of privacy on a daily basis. Something as traumatic as your own personal story of surviving sexual assault is now data that Facebook owns and can commodify and use to - at best- sell you shit. Who knows what sharing this data on a forum like that could do to you in the long run. It's definitely not something to laugh off: You've just shared a supposedly traumatic story on a public forum that collects your data and uses it against you: If it's that traumatic, then only a select amount of people should know about it. If it's really affecting your life, then seek professional help. But you're at least KEEPING IT PRIVATE, which is the right thing to do. Sharing a very personal story on a data-collecting site that seeks to contain and use your data is way too insane to even morally conceive.
Yeah, it's got to the point where I (a guy) could now list off scores of girls who have acted inappropriately to me. What I mean is I didn't find them attractive and rejected their advances, and only on two occasions did they not take no for an answer, but still it's 2017
Being I Hate Everybody Guy is hacky and boring. Especially when you're just saying it to fit in and get up votes from fellow autistic homosexuals. I SAID DOUG STANHOPE WAS NEVER THAT GREAT BOW TO MY EDGY SUPERIORITY!
To be fair, most of the pile-ons with Stanhope were from faggoty christian truckers who get their feelings hurt by doug's atheism shtick. You're acting like this sub is one entity whose opinions keep swaying, it's a whole bunch of assholes that hate different thing.
101 comments
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
So he has to prove that he didn't do it? That's not how things work. Also who the fuck is John Oliver to call anyone creepy. Swarthy little cunt. Not that I give a shit about Dustin Hoffman.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
I would swing punches at this cunt.
1 EstherKuhn 2017-12-05
I'd have just accuse him of touching my dick backstage. Then when he denies it I'd just repeat 'Why would an accuser lie?'
That limey cunt needs his shit kicked in though.
1 TriangleDimes 2017-12-05
"Why would a woman ever lie?"
1 MissingLincoln 2017-12-05
Yeah the patronizing "Oh Dustin" should have earned that smug cunt a punch to the face.
1 ChildishGenius 2017-12-05
No you wouldn't. You would make angry comments on a subreddit made for angry sad manchildren like you're doing right now.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
1v1 me IRL right now faggot
1 ChildishGenius 2017-12-05
Not disproving me at all right now. You live a miserable life.
1 Anarox 2017-12-05
It enraged me too, Hoffman should have stood up and left
1 Loki_d20 2017-12-05
Just FYI, that quote misses part of what Oliver says. Specifically that he said he believes her because she gains nothing by lying. In the context of this item, he is right unless you consider scrutiny and ridicule to be a gain.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
I don't see anyone ridiculing her. What they gain's is attention and sympathy. Scrutiny seems like the appropriate response to an accusation if you ask me.
1 Loki_d20 2017-12-05
Anyone who says she is doing it just for attention or sympathy is ridiculing her.
A career boost when she's almost sixty?
Scrutiny is an appropriate response, but it's not a benefit and is one of the reasons many women don't report the actions of those in power.
I don't get that last bit. Perhaps you think because I don't share your opinion, which is a bad one, btw, that I'm going to post elsewhere to get people to brigade? Check my comment history. See for yourself if I'm that type of person or just a fellow on the Internet with his own opinion.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
Using critical thinking is not the same as being dismissive. We don't have to believe her by default like Oliver suggests. I'm not laughing at sexual assault and we're not saying "haha bitch got what was coming to her". Yes, careers don't end automatically end at 60 for writers/producers/and minor celebrities; I don't know how stable those gigs are but let's assume these people don't have the job security to create a proper pension. I know being a writer is financially straining. Also this whole "Many women don't report assaults because of scrutiny" is a cop out. It is in-consequential. Accusations must face scrutiny by virtue of being accusations.
1 Loki_d20 2017-12-05
Your bias doesn't allow for this conversation to go anywhere. Use of power isn't a cop out and ignoring it in sexual harassment/assault cases and yet recognizing it in police, government, wall street, etc. is hypocritical.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
My only bias is in being impartial. I don't see an accusation as a guilty verdict unless there is proof. If we can admit women can feel things such as shame and fear when coming forward, why can't we admit they can also feel envy and vindictiveness? Innocent until proven guilty.
1 Loki_d20 2017-12-05
It's a cop out.
The victim only benefits.
I'm impartial even though I stand for the accuser and only have opinions against the accuser and not towards the accused.
Hiring a victim is good PR but isn't Hoffman the victim here by your statement?
Witch Hunt.
Your words paint your bias.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
It is a cop out
The victim can benefit, but only the accused is damaged
I'm impartial because I wait for a verdict to make up my mind in something like this. We're only dealing with an accusation.
He is the victim until proven guilty, but nobody will see him that way because of social discourse is more inclined to believe the accuser like you suggest.
It is objectively a witch hunt if simply being accused is viewed as an omission of guilty.
Your bias is clear. I'm being impartial and waiting until he's charged.
1 Loki_d20 2017-12-05
You've called the accusation a cop out, now it's this thing that wasn't discussed which is "having" to believe the accuser, which no one but you had brought up in this discussion.
Wrong. Just utterly wrong. Lewinsky is still blamed today.
Your language is anything but impartial in tone and use, you just keep saying that to tell yourself that. You've called it a witch hunt. That's not impartial.
He is not a victim. Being accused of something doesn't make you a victim. Being accused falsely makes him a victim. Again, you are not impartial.
Again, a witch hunt and you are claiming to be impartial...
No, you are entirely biased and just don't realize it.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
I did not call the accusation a cop out. I claimed believing the accusation is true by default is a cop out. Oliver did, and I thought that's what you were suggesting the whole time?
She's not blamed, she's pitied for what that predator Bill Clinton did.
My "language and tone" makes me biased? What? Only an argument is capable of bias. It is objectively a Witch hunt. A Witch hunt is a noun and is defined as "an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, often simply because of their opinions and not because they have actually done anything wrong." It's an apt description.
He is the victim at the moment.The accusation alone has damaged his career and ruined his reputation. He has not be found guilty of anything. I am being impartial.
Again, claiming something is a Witch hunt when it objectively is one is not being biased.
Is your hypocrisy lost on you?
1 Loki_d20 2017-12-05
Oliver never said "we" should believe her, he said he believes her and explained why. There is nothing to cop to there as you're turning his opinion into public indictment of some sort. Let alone in response to an article that misquotes what Oliver actually said in response to the question, making his statement look less than it was.
Just last week there was a production out that labeled her, in the title, as the cause of the Clinton scandal and she asked it to be changed. She is blamed still.
It is not a witch hunt when a single person questions him in the allegations. You calling it a witch hunt sets the tone via your use of language of how you perceived a single person asking questions about the allegations.
He is not a victim. The ONLY way he is a victim is if her allegations are false. By calling him the victim you are defining him as the one being wronged while at the same time claiming you're impartial.
I haven't been hypocritical at all here.. I don't think you are intelligent enough to recognize your own hypocrisy.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
What did he actually say then? That she had nothing to gain from making an accusation? That's not a matter of fact. Simply believing the accusation is a cop out regardless because he has not be found guilty and he's condemning an innocent person. John Oliver has influence and he's a political ideologue. He know's exactly what he's doing, he's abusing his position. He's tarnishing the reputation of a man on mere accusation in a public forum. Dustin Hoffman is the victim here.
She was part of a scandal. That's not punishment or blame, that's fact. She should contest it in court if she wants it changed. I support her.
Look back at our conversation, I said " is no possibility that the 100+ accusations since Harvey weinsten could ever been wrong? You really think this is happening organically after all these decades and this is not some type of witch hunt?" I was not referring to this single incident. I was referring to them all. Dustin Hoffman is part of this Witch hunt. You are misconstruing my argument and implying my "tone" is biased whatever that means.
He is the victim, he's the one who's had his legacy ruined by an accusation without proof and had it trampled by the media and John Oliver. He's innocent until proven guilty. He would still be the victim if her accusations were found false. I am impartial.
"I'm not a Hypocrite! You are!" Hot take.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
You edit your posts after our exchange so I can't address your points. What am I proving myself wrong with?
When your industry is so public and on board with social issues, hiring a victim would be good PR.
So there is no possibility that the 100+ accusations since Harvey weinsten could ever been wrong? You really think this is happening organically after all these decades and is not some type of witch hunt?
1 edfromla 2017-12-05
Why don’t you slurp Hoffman off then!
1 chickenfan1 2017-12-05
Prove a negative, America current year plus 2
1 TinKnockinMoroccan 2017-12-05
Both guys look pretty bad. Oliver is being extremely weaselly and Hoffman looks like he's making shit up as he goes along because he knows he did something.
1 littlepeteferguson 2017-12-05
Dustin Hoffman is an 80 year old man. Do you really expect him to have memorized the exact circumstances surrounding an offhand comment that he made 40 fucking years ago?
1 SWIMsfriend 2017-12-05
then say that. "oliver i honestly can't even remember what i had to eat this day last year, how the fuck do you expect me to remember what i did 40 years ago, I'm pretty sure i didn't rape someone though, as for your wife i saw her riding lamar right before i got on stage with you right now"
1 [deleted] 2017-12-05
[removed]
1 TinKnockinMoroccan 2017-12-05
Then just say you don't remember. Or say it happened but that you have changed. And stick to that story.
1 TriangleDimes 2017-12-05
You're right he should say one of two totally contradictory things.
1 Muted_Post-Horn 2017-12-05
charlie...
1 Doc_McCoyXYZ 2017-12-05
(Deep sigh) Yeah, that's a tough one, man. On the one hand, I really hate John Oliver. He's another smug left demagogue cashing in on the "cultural enlightenment" era. On the other, I respect him for at least saying something to the guy's face, if he really believes it.
Hoffman really does seem like a smarmy douche and I generally believe these broads that he did this stuff. But you also have to think this was 30 something years ago, he's an international celebrity, and probably met literally millions of people since that main accuser chick. How's he gonna actually remember any of this.
I don't know what to say, all these big shots. Get my container a coffee, punch the clock at the job site. What the hell do I know.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
Why though? Coming forward now clearly isn't about virtue, they kept quiet for decades. These people are opportunists.
1 Doc_McCoyXYZ 2017-12-05
There's that element too. But when it's corroborated by other women on set, or there's a pattern/history of it with person after person coming out and describing the same things, you have to start thinking of that, too. Some of the thing these broads are admitting is horribly embarrassing to/about them, and don't really stand to gain much by coming out. I don't think they'd come forward unless it was simply to alleviate the emotional burden of carrying that shit around all that time.
Of course then it's gotta segue into "hashtag me too," which is a virtual celebration of anything from a sideways glance from an uncle to a homeless derelict pinning you down and giving you "the shocker." So who knows.
1 czarcy 2017-12-05
I know what you're saying but who has ever heard of these women who accused Dustin Hoffman until now? Their names now have some notoriety, even if briefly mentioned. Why are we treating being a victim of sexual assault like a badge of honor? This looks like just another moral panic. That #meetoo thing really illustrated to me how many unfuckable pigs were making up stories that "totally happened" too. I remember seeing how much they were getting off describing what happened to them and how many retweets and facebook likes they were getting.
1 SirWallaceII 2017-12-05
Can u cut and paste the finger blast story. I wanna fap to it lolz
1 SWIMsfriend 2017-12-05
someone never read the crucible
1 Doc_McCoyXYZ 2017-12-05
somebody get me the Ghostbustiz
1 TriangleDimes 2017-12-05
What i notice about these women is that there actually is no pattern. One person said he hit on them the other says he told a dirty joke and another says she saw his penis.
This is the female version of rape. This is as close as they can get cause they're not strong and It's hard to take sex from a passed out man. But in terms of what they get out of it, it's power and It's dominence and the sexual humiliation of their victim. So when people ask why they would make it up I would say that there's absolutely nothing I've seen about female pathology that makes me think they are fundamentally better or nicer than men and they will take whatever opportunity at their disposal to do the same harm as men if they are just shitty people.
1 BarryMcCaulkener 2017-12-05
I think we also have to be mindful of the pathologies that skew more towards females like Munchausen syndrome and borderline personality disorder. Why would women lie about sexual assault? Well, why would women lie about their children being sick so that they take the kid to the doctor 80 times a year? Attention, need for connection and emotional support and other bs.
1 bonniesretardsister 2017-12-05
They get attention and have other women and male feminist fags call them a brave hero.
I'm not saying he didn't do it, because he probably did. But it clearly wasn't a huge deal to them. They probably used it as their funny life story all those years, the night that weird jew Dustin Hoffman pulled his dick out in front of me. But seeing a chance for 15 minutes of social media fame, the story is reframed as something terrible that nearly ruined their life.
1 Doc_McCoyXYZ 2017-12-05
Yeah, that's a good point.
1 SWIMsfriend 2017-12-05
I love how this sub hates Jimmy for being middle of the road considering how literally everyone here was like "I really fucking hate proudboys, but the people that the proudboys hate are just as horrible, its a tough one man" for the past year and a half
1 xyniphis 2017-12-05
Except Jimmy tries to get everyone to like him, and this sub hates everyone but Denny and Colin
1 bonniesretardsister 2017-12-05
Being I Hate Everybody Guy is hacky and boring. Especially when you're just saying it to fit in and get up votes from fellow autistic homosexuals. I SAID DOUG STANHOPE WAS NEVER THAT GREAT BOW TO MY EDGY SUPERIORITY!
1 xyniphis 2017-12-05
Fair, still better than the wants mainstream love spineless jellyfish Jim has become
1 bonniesretardsister 2017-12-05
Of course. But this is like when Jim would shit on any music that wasn't Ozzy related trying to look cool as Hates Everything Guy. We all know that was stupid but yet here they are acting like Norm was the last good comedian.
1 xyniphis 2017-12-05
I get it. But so many people and things are so enjoyably hateable.
1 bonniesretardsister 2017-12-05
I'm not saying stop hating those. Hate anything that deserves it. But when it turns into "I want to be the first guy to say this actually sucks, or this was actually nevery good" it's hacky.
1 FoetusCorruptus 2017-12-05
To be fair, most of the pile-ons with Stanhope were from faggoty christian truckers who get their feelings hurt by doug's athiesim shtick.
1 FoetusCorruptus 2017-12-05
To be fair, most of the pile-ons with Stanhope were from faggoty christian truckers who get their feelings hurt by doug's atheism shtick. You're acting like this sub is one entity whose opinions keep swaying, it's a whole bunch of assholes that hate different thing.
1 bonniesretardsister 2017-12-05
Religion had nothing to do with it. It was "Doug hasn't been good for years" type stuff. Like saying he hasn't been funny since 2012.
1 FoetusCorruptus 2017-12-05
Eh, some of it was salty christians, they just didn't lead with it. I specifically recall being called a muslim apologist, or some other dumb shit like that. It was around the time there was an anti-doug post daily.
1 bonniesretardsister 2017-12-05
That was probably just trolling. Why the fuck would a Christian come here or like Opie, Anthony and Jim Norton: two sodomites and a pathological liar.
1 FoetusCorruptus 2017-12-05
Well, like I said, truckers, but that kinda falls in the sodomite catagory
1 bonniesretardsister 2017-12-05
The O&A truckers were the "I pick up meth whores at truck stops" type and not the "I drive a truck to support my family" type.
1 Billyassman 2017-12-05
Fuck Doug and his band of Manson wanna bees.
1 bonniesretardsister 2017-12-05
I never said that. I've said I clearly take their side over Antifa, but would never want to be associated with them because they're gay. But still you have a clear choice.
But yes, there's lots of FUCK BOTH SIDES MAAAAHN! faggotry from people who thint this makes them cool af rebels. Like the Owen Benjamin thread a week ago. After spending 2 years bitching that political correctness has ruined comedy, you get a comic talking about it in his act, but some fag there says "well, if he's doing bits about it complaining then he's just as big of a hack as the PC comics, MAAAAHN!" Wow, edgy take.
1 Toss__Pot 2017-12-05
John Oliver was a low-rent occasional panel show guest in UK.
1 TenguBuranchi 2017-12-05
i honestly dont remember him at all before he became the limey gimp on the daily show
1 Jungies 2017-12-05
He was on Mock the Week, briefly.
1 TenguBuranchi 2017-12-05
I hate British panel shows. Thats why I probably missed it.
1 puzzleddaily 2017-12-05
98% of British TV is panel shows.
1 Tom_Stall 2017-12-05
I always thought of him as a 3rd-rate Marcus Brigstock back then. Not that I was a fan of him they just seemed to have similar vibes but Oliver was more weasely.
1 knitro 2017-12-05
If that Wise owl looking motherfucker didn’t put his crumpet eating paws all over some makeup artist 6 I’ll eat my hat. Oliver is only adding stories to the tower he’ll fall from.
1 decmcg 2017-12-05
Who the fuck likes John Oliver?
Even the left must have some uncomfortable feelings towards this weasel. I wouldn't mind if he was in any way funny but he's not. He's just a mouth piece for all that's wrong with the world today.
Having a go at old man Dustin Hoffman for something he may or may not have done 40 years ago is pathetic and virtue signalling at it's ugliest.
Cunt.
1 Renewed_RS 2017-12-05
I love John Oliver
1 decmcg 2017-12-05
I bet you love dick even more.
1 TenguBuranchi 2017-12-05
You like John, oliver your back and ass crack. ]
Yeah its a semen joke
1 TriangleDimes 2017-12-05
His show is for people who don't like America. Same with Trevor Noah. They like watching foreigners come to their country and explain how shitty it is, and the fact that they're outsiders gives them extra credibility.
1 Jungies 2017-12-05
I think it's more a replacement for church; you tune in to John Oliver's Sunday Sermon and you get told what horrible, sinful worms you and everybody else is.
I don't know why he doesn't just pass the collection plate around every episode, give people a financial outlet for all that guilt.
1 TriangleDimes 2017-12-05
I think it's the opposite; in church people are told they are imperfect and they need to improve to make the world a better place. These nerds rely on "we're the smart ones, everyone else is stupid, innit?"
In church there's discussion of some sort of ideal of human behavior, but the ideal version of the world for these assholes is... Canada? Really? Canada's the perfect country America should try to be? Canada is their fucking God?
1 Jungies 2017-12-05
I think it's more like Original Sin - you didn't do it yourself, but you're tainted by association due to being American. And it's not really "we're so smart", because the audience has tuned in to learn about the inner workings of Puerto Rico corruption, or whatever. They're there to be lectured-to, it's not stuff they're smart enough to know already.
1 TriangleDimes 2017-12-05
Yeah but that's still the tone. Being told you're smart and "woke" doesn't mean they literally know everything. They can still tune into a show to learn something while also believing they are more enlightened and intelligent than the people not watching the show.
1 laurens_tits 2017-12-05
You also get fucked in the ass in church.
1 bc74sj 2017-12-05
He did start a church one episode.
1 RapistWithAIDS 2017-12-05
I remember someone posting in this subreddit like two years ago saying that John Oliver's show was brilliant and it got over 25 upvotes. You were all faggots until very recently
1 SWIMsfriend 2017-12-05
Most of Reddit likes him apparently
1 puzzleddaily 2017-12-05
He has the rhythm and volume of a funny man, but that's it. He could read the Bible with those inflections of his and goofy smug grin and some would laugh.
1 bbtech 2017-12-05
Like a white Chris Rock?
1 JMueller2012 2017-12-05
Here’s video
1 Kim_Jung_pUn 2017-12-05
John is Oliver is so smart and brave to blindside an 80 year old man about maybe being a pervert 40 years ago.
1 FoetusCorruptus 2017-12-05
I like Oliver's logic that the accusers had no incentive to lie. Because no one has ever made shit up for little discernible reason, right? There's not entire subreddits dedicated to it or anything...
1 drakenthegreat 2017-12-05
He has two "accusers" and all he did was make what they deemed to be inappropriate comments. One of them had 2 meetings with him, and in the 2nd one Hoffman invited her back to his hotel, she said no, so he left alone.
That was in 1991 and she's had 4 total writing credits in her entire career. Maybe she just wasn't that good and he was trying to score a date. What a shocker. Fuck the current social climate.
1 theGRONKSwillRISE 2017-12-05
And he apologised to the intern at the FUCKING TIME. An Oscar winning legendary actor apologises to an INTERN, in the EIGHTIES, rather than getting her fired. Suggests remorse to me.
1 Billyassman 2017-12-05
More importantly, Fuck Peta,I loved that show Luck.bleeding heart cunts
1 TossyMcSalad 2017-12-05
This limey cocksucker goes after the dead now? Not enough living people to shame with social justice horseshit?! Sad.
1 TossyMcSalad 2017-12-05
John Oliver is just lucky that all the people he has molested are dead...
1 ErockIsReallyFat 2017-12-05
I'm not dead!
1 TossyMcSalad 2017-12-05
should be though
1 DemenicHand 2017-12-05
Both Katerine Ross and Meryl Streep now both say that Dustin Hoffman grabbed thier breasts or acted like a pig to them. That makes four women who say that Dustin was an agreesive molster
1 bonniesretardsister 2017-12-05
Meryl Streep has tits?
1 DemenicHand 2017-12-05
NO, thats what makes her such an incredible actress
1 CellularPeptideCake 2017-12-05
Hoffman comes across as mildly senile, but at least he's not being a bitch like every other one of these guys.
1 [deleted] 2017-12-05
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2017-12-05
Welcome to reddit sockcucka! New users are able to submit posts after 2 days. If you think your post is a fair contribution to the subreddit, message the moderators for a faster approval.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 MissingLincoln 2017-12-05
Except you right? It's all about you John and what a virtuous hero you are. Standing up to such a powerful 80 year old actor, that no one else would dare too, blindsiding him onstage over a 40 year old incident he doesn't remember. What a hero!
1 Throwaway98709860 2017-12-05
The John Oliver is the kind of dude who wants to molest his interns but doesn't because he's too much of a pussy
1 laurens_tits 2017-12-05
If you didn't know the story John Oliver was talking about and you just saw this in isolation, you'd think Dustin had fingered a teen while she begged for mercy.
1 cabaretcabaret 2017-12-05
Oh Dustin, I'm John Oliver I understand what it like to be a woman
1 UltraLegion3 2017-12-05
Good for Oliver, fuck Hoffman
1 MissingLincoln 2017-12-05
"I know I'm destroying your reputation by being a virtue signalling cunt, but this is hard for me too Dustin! Just because I ambushed you doesn't give you the right to act like an ill tempered asshole."
1 Anarox 2017-12-05
Oliver you fucking pussy, Jesus it was 40 fucking years ago.
1 Billyassman 2017-12-05
Rats eating Rats.I'm cuming.
1 MissingLincoln 2017-12-05
What evidence does this grandstanding poser expect Dustin to have that he didn't touch a butt 40 years ago? There is no evidence it did happen either. And who the fuck made him judge and jury? Dustin should sue this arrogant British twat for slander.
1 InHell1979 2017-12-05
There's two glaring problems with the whole #metoo thing:
The standard for what is considered #metoo-worthy is way too lenient and abstract. Inappropriate comments and "weird" situations are not tantamount to rape, and if any of these broads went to a rape survivor/battered women-esque meeting and talked about their experience of being catcalled, passing it around with the same gravity as someone who is too afraid to go home because the person who raped her knows where she lives; she would/should rightfully be glared out of the room of that meeting. The stakes in their story is simply not risky enough to warrant group therapy to cope; it is simply NOT THE SAME AS RAPE, which is serious business. More over; if women are supposed to be as "strong" and as capable as men, then there has to be an element of "WALK IT OFF" that feminists and female identitarians have to embrace. Because that's what men do with every little tick and infraction on a daily basis. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't work through those feelings, or find a proper outlet, but there's a difference between coping and not coping and people who cant cope find everything problematic.
Facebook shares your personal information with larger organizations that have nothing to do with your or your relative/subjective experience in life. It's over-stepping boundaries of privacy on a daily basis. Something as traumatic as your own personal story of surviving sexual assault is now data that Facebook owns and can commodify and use to - at best- sell you shit. Who knows what sharing this data on a forum like that could do to you in the long run. It's definitely not something to laugh off: You've just shared a supposedly traumatic story on a public forum that collects your data and uses it against you: If it's that traumatic, then only a select amount of people should know about it. If it's really affecting your life, then seek professional help. But you're at least KEEPING IT PRIVATE, which is the right thing to do. Sharing a very personal story on a data-collecting site that seeks to contain and use your data is way too insane to even morally conceive.
1 theGRONKSwillRISE 2017-12-05
Yeah, it's got to the point where I (a guy) could now list off scores of girls who have acted inappropriately to me. What I mean is I didn't find them attractive and rejected their advances, and only on two occasions did they not take no for an answer, but still it's 2017
1 bonniesretardsister 2017-12-05
Being I Hate Everybody Guy is hacky and boring. Especially when you're just saying it to fit in and get up votes from fellow autistic homosexuals. I SAID DOUG STANHOPE WAS NEVER THAT GREAT BOW TO MY EDGY SUPERIORITY!
1 xyniphis 2017-12-05
Fair, still better than the wants mainstream love spineless jellyfish Jim has become
1 FoetusCorruptus 2017-12-05
To be fair, most of the pile-ons with Stanhope were from faggoty christian truckers who get their feelings hurt by doug's athiesim shtick.
1 FoetusCorruptus 2017-12-05
To be fair, most of the pile-ons with Stanhope were from faggoty christian truckers who get their feelings hurt by doug's atheism shtick. You're acting like this sub is one entity whose opinions keep swaying, it's a whole bunch of assholes that hate different thing.
1 puzzleddaily 2017-12-05
98% of British TV is panel shows.
1 Billyassman 2017-12-05
Fuck Doug and his band of Manson wanna bees.
1 Doc_McCoyXYZ 2017-12-05
somebody get me the Ghostbustiz