Actually, you don't, and since Quentin's a man, it's unlikely HE ever had to take Weinstein's kind of "bad".

It kills me because I really like his movies.

Hollywood men --producers, directors, etc -- have always had a sleazy reputation.

As for Tarantino, I've always disliked his films, so it doesn't bother me bit.

And then I watched some interviews on YouTube with a very young QT and I suddenly felt like I "got" where he was coming from. Can't exactly explain it, but I watched them again with a different perspective and started to like them. I actually looked forward to "Hateful 8". But believe me, I understand not liking them.

"you will take the bad, so I can take the good". It reeks of male entitlement.

What?..New Yorkers are sacrosanct?

Have a feeling the women on the show and many of the writers don't appreciate his actions/comments. Wonder what next Saturday is going to look like?

We are, or at least were, at the point wheresuch behavior is so unacceptable that it was criminalized. Now it all falls under "locker room bantor". It is a complete, and unacceptable, breakdown of social norms we have come to adapt over many years of sweat and progress.

Women and progressive men are beginning to call these apes out. And most importantly, women are uniting and using our own power of numbers to insist on accountability. It's always been there under a "boys will be boys" guise.

So much worse than on the right because of the hypocracy.

I respectfully disagree that one is worse than the other. Republican hypocrisy is just as bad as that behavior by Democrats.

The cases of Mike Tyson, Bill Cosby, and the sex abuse allegations against a number of wealthy athletes of color seems to suggest that.

Harvey Weinstein is a pig and it's all good that he's being skewered and investigated and fired.

But Lorne Michael's comment that "It's a New York thing" is being used out of context. This paragraph from the linked article explains:

Weinstein is not particularly well-known outside of the entertainment business. The average person doesn't know who he is. Here's an example: Do you know who Scott Rudin is? (He's an incredibly successful movie and theater producer.) If I made a joke about Mr. Rudin, it would likely not make sense if you don't know who he is.

The SNL jokes fell flat during the rehearsal probably because of two reasons. One, the story had only just broken and hadn't built up enough public knowledge to be understandable. Two, after all of the sexual predation stories in the past several years, what new jokes could there be? After Cosby, O'Reilly, Weiner, Trump and all the others, that particular well of humor must be pretty dry.

A third reason SNL cut the jokes could be simply that they weren't funny. After all, much of SNL isn't that clever or funny.

There are serious issues in this story and Weinstein is going to be under a legal microscope for years to come. He's probably finished in the film business. Saturday Night Live's choice of targets for its humor seems relatively unimportant when compared to the larger issues facing our society.

Since the story is clearly national, and not limited to "local" New York interest, this explanation seems especially lame.

Mr. Michaels must go, too.

Enablers aren't quite as guilty as those they enable, but they're not far behind.