Guess my question to start off with is:
Have companies gone too far by cancelling/firing/suspending people who have only been accused of such things.....?
No legal charges. No civil charges. No court decisions. Just the mere accusations of one person against another "She said he said".
I have no interest in either of these people. I knew who Hardwick was from catching probably less than 5 episodes of his Talking Dead show during the first 3 seasons of TWD (so a quite some time ago). I have no idea who Chloe is. So I am not biased either way.
I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.
Ah well, see, that's the problem - a lot of people have now decided "fairness and justice" have different meanings inside and outside of a court of law, and so should also have different standards of proof.
Oh, and don't bother appealing to such people on the basis that such an attitude will generate false-positives that ruin lives & careers for no actual reason - the accusation against George Takei turned out to be a pile of nonsense(and a perfect example of why a more circumspect approach is needed to stuff like this, because his accuser wasn't actually malicious, just a normal human being subject to normal human mental processes who had allowed years of retelling a tall tale down the pub and a misunderstanding of how date rape drugs actually work to lead them to a false conclusion), and the response of some of the "#BelieveHer" style activists was to say, in so many words, that someone like George who's been a committed liberal lefty activist for decades should be willing to "take one for the team".
Guess my question to start off with is:
Have companies gone too far by cancelling/firing/suspending people who have only been accused of such things.....?
No legal charges. No civil charges. No court decisions. Just the mere accusations of one person against another "She said he said".
I have no interest in either of these people. I knew who Hardwick was from catching probably less than 5 episodes of his Talking Dead show during the first 3 seasons of TWD (so a quite some time ago). I have no idea who Chloe is. So I am not biased either way.
I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.
Thoughts?
Personally, I think this "me too" crap has gotten out of hand. It gotten to the point that I'm beginning to doubt many of the claims. I'm also beginning to believe that it's being used by some to grind some axes and bury some hatchets.
Even in the case of Cosby, it took two trials to burn him on three charges. The first ended in mistrial because of contradictory statements from Andrea Constand, and the fact that members of the jury felt that the prosecution didn't introduce no new real evidence. The time it took to prepare a new trial allowed the "court of public opinion" to further contaminate a potential jury pool, and worked to the prosecution's favor.
And now Morgan Freeman is getting flak, with CNN (go figure) leading the charge to generate a media circus around the allegations.
I'm the last person on the damned planet to defend anybody active in modern Hollyweird and it's craptastic fantasy factories. But it gets to a point where you have to stop and say "Hold on a minute", even if it involves people working in a town covered in slime and hypocracy.
One of the things I feel that is very.....telling?....in this Hardwick case is the accuser's own admission that she is "angry"....that she is actually "still angry". This relationship ended 4 years ago.
From reading some of the things she writes about, Hardwick sounds like a bit of an insensitive, narcissistic dick during their relationship.
That does not automatically make him anusive though.
To say that "My last relationship ended due to lack of intimacy" straddles the line between honesty and manipulation (which I am not sure qualifies as abuse). Is it kind of a dick move the way she describes him saying it? Sure. Is it brutally honest? Yes....though it definitely communicates his needs and desires to his partner.
TheMeanDM wrote: Have companies gone too far by cancelling/firing/suspending people who have only been accused of such things.....?
American companies in particular will have you on a contract where they can fire you for what basically amounts to "being an embarrassment" for the company. It's the same clause they use when they fire a manager who brings the media down on them by being a dick to the customers. It's just a different embarrassment today.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.
Thoughts?
In a lot of these cases there will never be a legal process, especially when the incidents happened outside of the statute of limitations. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations on sexual assault, but there is, and it lets offenders escape justice.
If people decide not to work with someone because of accusations of poor behavior, that's how freedom of association works.
Remove the statute of limitations and do not allow reporting on cases in progress. Many countries do not allow reporting on this sort of stuff for precisely this reason. The press can report the verdict.
I think the metoo movement was really important and about a lot more than Hollywood btw. Read some of the ordinary women posting about the things that have happened to them. It's sickening stuff.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.
Thoughts?
In a lot of these cases there will never be a legal process, especially when the incidents happened outside of the statute of limitations. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations on sexual assault, but there is, and it lets offenders escape justice.
If people decide not to work with someone because of accusations of poor behavior, that's how freedom of association works.
I mean, you don't see any issue with that at all? A culture in which a mere accusation, devoid of any substantial evidence, is sufficient to destroy someone's life? Because that's kind of the reason we implemented a justice system in the first place, because human beings can be both vindictive and malicious enough to accuse falsely, easily fooled enough(even by ourselves) to accuse mistakenly, and prone to making judgements about things based on entirely unrelated and often trivially petty things like "I just don't like his eyes, he seems shifty to me...".
It's exactly those kinds of tendencies that have led to sexual crimes being so hard to prosecute("she was asking for it in that dress", "he seems a fine upstanding gent to me, I can't believe he would do that" etc etc) - but you can't answer one nonspecific injustice with another and call that fair or just.
And it's not like we're just talking about people losing a few drinking buddies, we're talking about someone's livelihood and, if the media decide you'll make a profitable story you're pretty much done for life since stories about accusations linger long after retractions, assuming you ever get one.
It's monstrous that so many victims of rape and sexual assault never see justice because the nature of the crime often makes meeting the standard of proof required to overturn the presumption of innocence in a court impossible, but plenty of people who are probably criminals walk free for a myriad of awful crimes and nobody is clamouring for mere accusation to be sufficient to ruin somebody if you're accused of one of those.
To be clear - if a woman I know and trust came to me and said that someone, whether I knew them or not, had assaulted her, I would take her seriously, support her, and distance myself from the person she had accused until it was sorted out one way or another, but I would do those things because I know and trust her, not because she's a woman accusing a man of sexual assault. When someone I don't know makes an accusation against someone else I don't know, I have no basis to decide the veracity of the accusation one way or another, and neither does anybody else that doesn't know both of them well, so the idea we should default to believing either side is unjust, and the idea that one party should face actual, real-world consequences like losing their job or being plastered across newspapers and TV shows branded as a pervert as if they had been confirmed as guilty is grotesque.
I'm just glad I live(for the moment) in a place that has actual labour laws.
Da Boss wrote: Remove the statute of limitations and do not allow reporting on cases in progress. Many countries do not allow reporting on this sort of stuff for precisely this reason. The press can report the verdict.
I think the metoo movement was really important and about a lot more than Hollywood btw. Read some of the ordinary women posting about the things that have happened to them. It's sickening stuff.
It is, absolutely. But you don't fix that by shifting the injustice from one "side" to the other, you fix it by addressing the root problems - comprehensive sex and relationship education from an early age with a heavy emphasis on consent,; more extensive training for police forces and much, much heavier penalties for officers who dismiss cases out of hand or fail to properly investigate; stuff that will prompt actual cultural shifts away from this kind of horror being so prevalent in the first place, that's what will make an actual difference, not adopting a "guilty until proven innocent" standard outside of the court system to make up for the failures within it.
This whole movement stinks to high heaven, it’s one sided nature and “guilty until proven innocent” media circus does not sit well with me.
I’m still unsure why none of the accusers have been arrested for prostitution and false claims, because you know damn well that some of them used sexual favours to get roles, Male and female.
As another poster said, I don’t trust any of it anymore.
TheMeanDM wrote: So if you haven't heard, Chris Hardwick's ex gf has indirectly (last I saw) accused him of emotional abuse and sexual assault.
He has vehemently denied the accusations.
In part. He denied sexually assaulting her, which even based on her allegations seemed like a reach. (The nature of consent in long term relationships is a complex topic.) However, he did not deny trying to get her blacklisted from companies he worked with, which raises the spectre that he did, in fact, do that. I
Guess my question to start off with is:
Have companies gone too far by cancelling/firing/suspending people who have only been accused of such things.....?
No legal charges. No civil charges. No court decisions. Just the mere accusations of one person against another "She said he said".
It's possible, of course, but when you look at the grey area cases, the consequences have clearly been better than for the cases where there was corroboration or an admission. Look at Aziz Anzari or Joss Wheedon. They cruised though their accusations of various impropriety with little harm. I'm sure there is an example of somebody that lost a great opportunity solely due to an untrue accusation, but compared to the rash of genuine accusations as well as the many cases were no action was taken, it's a pretty small number.
I have no interest in either of these people. I knew who Hardwick was from catching probably less than 5 episodes of his Talking Dead show during the first 3 seasons of TWD (so a quite some time ago). I have no idea who Chloe is. So I am not biased either way.
Well... just because you aren't personally interested doesn't mean you aren't biased.
I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.
Thoughts?
Well, first, whose life and career have been ruined by accusations? The accusation here came out Thursday. Nothing has been cancelled, but there's been some talk about suspending some things. Maybe the companies do an investigation. Maybe they wait to see how public responds.
I think that for a non-criminal matter like this, when a public accusation comes up, especially one that is plausible, you look into it. If we've learned anything over the past generation, peaking in the last few years, it's that damn near anybody can some sort of sexual predator. Looking into these accusations doesn't ruin anything or anybody.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: This whole movement stinks to high heaven, it’s one sided nature and “guilty until proven innocent” media circus does not sit well with me.
I’m still unsure why none of the accusers have been arrested for prostitution and false claims, because you know damn well that some of them used sexual favours to get roles, Male and female.
As another poster said, I don’t trust any of it anymore.
that's an interesting take. I would think the sheer number of credible complaints, often confirmed by admissions from the accused, would bother you.
there are a lot of accusations of sexual misconduct because it turns out sexual misconduct is incredibly common.
Credible complaints that have been confirmed are totally different from assumed guilt from a complaint alone pol and you know it, what we have here is doubt, accusations have been thrown around so freely and quickly that it’s losing credibility, combine with that that the media are forcing people out of their jobs before anything has been proven, that’s not justice, that’s mob rule.
Formosa wrote: Credible complaints that have been confirmed are totally different from assumed guilt from a complaint alone pol and you know it, what we have here is doubt, accusations have been thrown around so freely and quickly that it’s losing credibility, combine with that that the media are forcing people out of their jobs before anything has been proven, that’s not justice, that’s mob rule.
But... how do you think you go from a complaint alone to confirmation? You have to investigate it, which takes time.
Is anybody assuming guilt here? At most, he's had his name taken off a website he no longer works at. Are there really examples of people losing jobs over false accusations?
As for credibility, I hate to break it to you, but this is a credible accusation. It's not dispositive, but it's certainly credible enough to start an investigation. If all we know is the accusation and the response, I would point out that his silence on trying to blacklist her shows that there's some meat on the bone there.
Justice is taking complaints like this seriously. By assuming they are not true, you are showing a profound bias.
Formosa wrote: Credible complaints that have been confirmed are totally different from assumed guilt from a complaint alone pol and you know it, what we have here is doubt, accusations have been thrown around so freely and quickly that it’s losing credibility, combine with that that the media are forcing people out of their jobs before anything has been proven, that’s not justice, that’s mob rule.
But... how do you think you go from a complaint alone to confirmation? You have to investigate it, which takes time.
Is anybody assuming guilt here? At most, he's had his name taken off a website he no longer works at. Are there really examples of people losing jobs over false accusations?
As for credibility, I hate to break it to you, but this is a credible accusation. It's not dispositive, but it's certainly credible enough to start an investigation. If all we know is the accusation and the response, I would point out that his silence on trying to blacklist her shows that there's some meat on the bone there.
Justice is taking complaints like this seriously. By assuming they are not true, you are showing a profound bias.
you must prove something is true so by default any accusation is to be met with doubt by default, innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
And this case is indeed credible, and should be investigated in private so the media cannot do a court of public opinion as we have seen time and time again, as for the blacklist, no that just show evidence that people dont want to work with her or a myriad of other reasons, NOT supporting the accusation of sexual misconduct.
Just to reiterate, Justice is doubting any claim from anyone about anything until such a time sufficient evidence is presented for you to take it seriously and then action it, we have a distinct lack of the correct prosecution method when it comes to the #metoo movement, assuming these people are speaking the truth prior to any evidence being presented...
Formosa wrote: you must prove something is true so by default any accusation is to be met with doubt by default, innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
And again, in what way is anybody treating anybody as guilty? Sure, some people on twitter and tumblr are probably saying he's a scumbag, but how is that hurting him?
And this case is indeed credible, and should be investigated in private so the media cannot do a court of public opinion as we have seen time and time again, as for the blacklist, no that just show evidence that people dont want to work with her or a myriad of other reasons, NOT supporting the accusation of sexual misconduct.
Well, you need to show evidence if your goal is to handle something officially. But this wasn't an official complaint, it was simply a person describing their experiences. She's not even asking for action.
Just to reiterate, Justice is doubting any claim from anyone about anything until such a time sufficient evidence is presented for you to take it seriously and then action it, we have a distinct lack of the correct prosecution method when it comes to the #metoo movement, assuming these people are speaking the truth prior to any evidence being presented...
That is not really true. Nobody wants to live in a society were complaints were all met with doubt and skepticism, even prior to an investigation. "Officer, my car was stolen." "OH yeah? How do I know you didn't sell it, and are tying to rip off the insurance company? Bring me some evidence, and we'll look into it."
There is no on prosecution method for #metoo because it's not a criminal prosecution. It's a movement in which women (and some men) are sharing their stories about the sexual misconduct they've experienced in a professional context. Very little of the accusations have had a criminal element, but many would rise to the level of civil sexual harassment. The goal is twofold: expose not only the scumbags doing this, but the community which has looked the other way; and show how common it is, making it easier for other people to come forward.
Historically, accusations of sexual misconduct have been met with incredulity. Accusers were never believed. So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better.
I think, if anything, companies have been pretty conservative about cutting ties with the accused. I can't personally recall anybody that was fired over a false accusation, but it may have happened.
Formosa wrote: you must prove something is true so by default any accusation is to be met with doubt by default, innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
And again, in what way is anybody treating anybody as guilty? Sure, some people on twitter and tumblr are probably saying he's a scumbag, but how is that hurting him?
And this case is indeed credible, and should be investigated in private so the media cannot do a court of public opinion as we have seen time and time again, as for the blacklist, no that just show evidence that people dont want to work with her or a myriad of other reasons, NOT supporting the accusation of sexual misconduct.
Well, you need to show evidence if your goal is to handle something officially. But this wasn't an official complaint, it was simply a person describing their experiences. She's not even asking for action.
Just to reiterate, Justice is doubting any claim from anyone about anything until such a time sufficient evidence is presented for you to take it seriously and then action it, we have a distinct lack of the correct prosecution method when it comes to the #metoo movement, assuming these people are speaking the truth prior to any evidence being presented...
That is not really true. Nobody wants to live in a society were complaints were all met with doubt and skepticism, even prior to an investigation. "Officer, my car was stolen." "OH yeah? How do I know you didn't sell it, and are tying to rip off the insurance company? Bring me some evidence, and we'll look into it."
There is no on prosecution method for #metoo because it's not a criminal prosecution. It's a movement in which women (and some men) are sharing their stories about the sexual misconduct they've experienced in a professional context. Very little of the accusations have had a criminal element, but many would rise to the level of civil sexual harassment. The goal is twofold: expose not only the scumbags doing this, but the community which has looked the other way; and show how common it is, making it easier for other people to come forward.
Historically, accusations of sexual misconduct have been met with incredulity. Accusers were never believed. So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better.
I think, if anything, companies have been pretty conservative about cutting ties with the accused. I can't personally recall anybody that was fired over a false accusation, but it may have happened.
All accusations are met with doubt and skepticism, thats the point, when an accusation is made a quick mental judgement is made, rightly or wrongly, based upon the information the person has given, the body language of the person and appearance of the person, its at this point you need to stop, think critically, attempt to dismiss any bias you may have and then reach a fair conclusion, but it MUST start with doubt, otherwise people can and will take advantage.
And no, the pendulum should be in the middle, not favouring one side or another, thats the definition of in equality, so not only do i disagree with your statement...
" So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better."
I Know that kind of attitude is frankly dangerous....
Formosa wrote: you must prove something is true so by default any accusation is to be met with doubt by default, innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
And again, in what way is anybody treating anybody as guilty? Sure, some people on twitter and tumblr are probably saying he's a scumbag, but how is that hurting him?
And this case is indeed credible, and should be investigated in private so the media cannot do a court of public opinion as we have seen time and time again, as for the blacklist, no that just show evidence that people dont want to work with her or a myriad of other reasons, NOT supporting the accusation of sexual misconduct.
Well, you need to show evidence if your goal is to handle something officially. But this wasn't an official complaint, it was simply a person describing their experiences. She's not even asking for action.
Just to reiterate, Justice is doubting any claim from anyone about anything until such a time sufficient evidence is presented for you to take it seriously and then action it, we have a distinct lack of the correct prosecution method when it comes to the #metoo movement, assuming these people are speaking the truth prior to any evidence being presented...
That is not really true. Nobody wants to live in a society were complaints were all met with doubt and skepticism, even prior to an investigation. "Officer, my car was stolen." "OH yeah? How do I know you didn't sell it, and are tying to rip off the insurance company? Bring me some evidence, and we'll look into it."
There is no on prosecution method for #metoo because it's not a criminal prosecution. It's a movement in which women (and some men) are sharing their stories about the sexual misconduct they've experienced in a professional context. Very little of the accusations have had a criminal element, but many would rise to the level of civil sexual harassment. The goal is twofold: expose not only the scumbags doing this, but the community which has looked the other way; and show how common it is, making it easier for other people to come forward.
Historically, accusations of sexual misconduct have been met with incredulity. Accusers were never believed. So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better.
I think, if anything, companies have been pretty conservative about cutting ties with the accused. I can't personally recall anybody that was fired over a false accusation, but it may have happened.
Might not be following the line of your conversation properly, but how has it hurt him? AMC shut his show down almost immediately, and he's also lost paying gigs at Con's now as well. These accusations have had a HUGE negative impact on his life.
All accusations are met with doubt and skepticism, thats the point, when an accusation is made a quick mental judgement is made, rightly or wrongly, based upon the information the person has given, the body language of the person and appearance of the person, its at this point you need to stop, think critically, attempt to dismiss any bias you may have and then reach a fair conclusion, but it MUST start with doubt, otherwise people can and will take advantage.
There's a difference between doubting an accusation, and doubting that a crime occurred or that the accusation maps exactly with reality.
Let's look at the current case. She alleges that she was sexually assaulted, and goes on to describe her ex-bf pressuring her into sex when she clearly did not want it. I have no reason to doubt the specifics, but I have plenty of reason to doubt that she was sexually assaulted in any way that's legally meanginful. What's she's describing is a lack of positive consent, which is a really good moral framework for sex. However, that's not the legal, or even generally accepted ethical, way to judge sexual interactions. She no doubt felt sexually abused, and while plenty of people would agree with her, I think that her use of the term is a touch... over broad. That said, I don't doubt that she felt sexually victimized.
We might be using terms too loosely. When I say that you shouldn't doubt an accusation, I mean that you shouldn't immediately try to disprove it. You shouldn't immediately act on it, but you should look into it.
And no, the pendulum should be in the middle, not favouring one side or another, thats the definition of in equality, so not only do i disagree with your statement...
" So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better."
I Know that kind of attitude is frankly dangerous....
I think the pendulem is now swinging to the middle, and even then, only for higher profile accusers. In the past, accusations of sexual misconduct were simply dismissed. Nobody looked into them, nobody wanted to. Look at Louis CK or Harvey Weinsteien: their misconduct was an open secret. Hell, courtney Love joked about "not being alone with harvy Weinstien" on a red carpet. It wasn't that these accusations all came out of nowhere: it's that prior to the last few years, they went nowhere.
People are now starting to accept that these accusations could be true. They aren't all true, and even more commonly, they dont' fit neatly into a "totally true/totally false" framework. Often, they are true, but not enough to derail a career (aziz anzari).
But without media and the industry changing their attitude about accusations, then none of the well documented abusers would have been brought down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Might not be following the line of your conversation properly, but how has it hurt him? AMC shut his show down almost immediately, and he's also lost paying gigs at Con's now as well. These accusations have had a HUGE negative impact on his life.
Well, AMC actually said this (emphasis added):
“We have had a positive working relationship with Chris Hardwick for many years,” the network said. “We take the troubling allegations that surfaced yesterday very seriously. While we assess the situation, ‘Talking With Chris Hardwick’ will not air on AMC.”
So, they are going to assess. Which seems fair, right? There's an accusation against somebody you do business with. You might not fire them, but you might pull them out of public view while you investigate it, right? Also worth noting, form another article:
"Just a few hours ago, reports also surfaced that AMC was under pressure to drop the axe on season 2 of Hardwick's soon to return talk show Talking with Chris Hardwick. This pressure was being exerted by reps for Hardwick's celebrity guests, who understandably wanted to avoid being seen on TV in a friendly atmosphere with the embattled host." https://screenrant.com/chris-hardwick-denies-sexually-assaulting-chloe-dykstra/
Keep in mind that AMC has far more information than we do. If the accusation was a nothing burger, they might stand more by him. If they know it has juice, they might want to distance themselves. If nothing else, they no doubt have talked to him about this more candidly than he's talked to us. The accuser has also alluded to having evidence, but has withheld it for the time being.
So, yes, his career has clearly taken a hit, but he hasn't lost his job or been fired yet. The dude had a talk show, and a talk show that nobody wants to appear on isn't going to be worth putting on the air.
And the reason no one wants to be on the show is BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGATIONS.
As someone that has been falsely accused of misconduct I may be biased, but this reeks of a spurned, jealous ex trying to extend revenge and stretch out her 15 minutes of fame.
The only reason I passed my trial by fire is that half a dozen of my female coworkers stood up for me and called out the BS lies that were being told. Even after it became apparent that I was beyond any doubt innocent my accuser was never reprimanded in any way for fear of a lawsuit.
I am trying to understand why people are so worried about this now? People in the entertainment industry have always been affected by rumors. Your image is everything and it's part of what you are selling. It you are abusive in private, it can and will affect your career if it gets out.
Chris Hardwick was known to be a jerk and the allegations sound plausible. People who worked with him are not surprised. And now it's being voted in the court of public opinion.
cuda1179 wrote: And the reason no one wants to be on the show is BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGATIONS.
Right, but not the media or the "mob justice." These are people all making judgments based on what's good for them. These guests aren't defending him, which isn't exactly uncommon in these cases. In fact, there seems to be some silence from colleagues and friends.
As someone that has been falsely accused of misconduct I may be biased, but this reeks of a spurned, jealous ex trying to extend revenge and stretch out her 15 minutes of fame.
The only reason I passed my trial by fire is that half a dozen of my female coworkers stood up for me and called out the BS lies that were being told. Even after it became apparent that I was beyond any doubt innocent my accuser was never reprimanded in any way for fear of a lawsuit.
So you're saying that you were accused, and an investigation cleared you. So, you know, it worked. And you can't reprimand somebody for filing a complaint of sexual (or racial) harassment, as that's a violation of federal law. It's called retaliation. I work in management, and I deal with my share of discrimination claims. It's a very employee friendly system, but it's a gun with one bullet. While you can't officially reprimand or publically punish the person, people that file complaints (even valid ones) rarely see their careers advance.
As for her motives, I think that is your bias. I think it's more likely that this is the result of a lot of therapy ,and deciding that she was a victim. I would guess that he treated her about as lousy as she detailed, but that most people wouldn't put up with it. She did, and she likely internalized the blame for that. While she shouldn't have accepted that treatment, he also shouldn't have treated her that way, or anywhere close to it. So it's a catharsis, a way of telling the world that she was wronged, even if she seemed to bring it on herself.
I'm not a mental health professional, so I don't know how effective that is. It's a lot of dirty laundry to air, but nothing about the accusations triggers any warning bells that they are fabricated. There were a lot of details, and few sweeping statements. She seemed to acknowledge a lot of her enabling of his behavior. If it's fake, it's a really thorough job. It also is fairly simple to disprove. It's not going to be hard for reporters to check to see if employers did blacklist her. Will her friends confirm that she dropped out of their lives? Does she have receipts?
And then there is his side of the story. Apparently their 3 year relationship wasn't made to last, and for the last year there was a lot of back and forth yelling.
He finally dumped her after he caught her in an affair (I seem to remember that in the news) and she begged to come back.
Did he blacklist her? I don't know, and if he did it's a pretty prick thing to do.
I do have a problem with people's careers ending because of mere accusation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: [
So you're saying that you were accused, and an investigation cleared you. So, you know, it worked. And you can't reprimand somebody for filing a complaint of sexual (or racial) harassment, as that's a violation of federal law. It's called retaliation. I work in management, and I deal with my share of discrimination claims. It's a very employee friendly system, but it's a gun with one bullet. While you can't officially reprimand or publically punish the person, people that file complaints (even valid ones) rarely see their careers advance.
The system worked for me by chance and luck. My accuser made many claims. Some of them couldn't be disproven in a he-said she-said way, luckily she was careless and made claims about things I (hadn't) said in public, and that's where my coworkers helped me out. Had I been accused by someone a little craftier, my career may have been over.
And quite frankly, I think anti-retaliation laws NEED to be rewritten. I do believe every case needs to be taken seriously and looked into. However, if someone makes a claim that is ridiculously over the top and disprovable, THEY are the harasser and deserve to be reprimanded.
I also find it funny that many feminist groups are actively fighting AGAINST some of these retaliation laws. The number of boys in college claiming sexual assault has increased noticeably in the last few years. Basically, if a couple has drunk sex, the first to accuse the other is the "victim" according to how many colleges treat accusations. Many guys have figured out the system, and if there is any doubt at all that a girl they were with the night before might try to make a claim against them, they beat them to the punch.
Formosa wrote: you must prove something is true so by default any accusation is to be met with doubt by default, innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
And again, in what way is anybody treating anybody as guilty? Sure, some people on twitter and tumblr are probably saying he's a scumbag, but how is that hurting him?
And this case is indeed credible, and should be investigated in private so the media cannot do a court of public opinion as we have seen time and time again, as for the blacklist, no that just show evidence that people dont want to work with her or a myriad of other reasons, NOT supporting the accusation of sexual misconduct.
Well, you need to show evidence if your goal is to handle something officially. But this wasn't an official complaint, it was simply a person describing their experiences. She's not even asking for action.
Just to reiterate, Justice is doubting any claim from anyone about anything until such a time sufficient evidence is presented for you to take it seriously and then action it, we have a distinct lack of the correct prosecution method when it comes to the #metoo movement, assuming these people are speaking the truth prior to any evidence being presented...
That is not really true. Nobody wants to live in a society were complaints were all met with doubt and skepticism, even prior to an investigation. "Officer, my car was stolen." "OH yeah? How do I know you didn't sell it, and are tying to rip off the insurance company? Bring me some evidence, and we'll look into it."
There is no on prosecution method for #metoo because it's not a criminal prosecution. It's a movement in which women (and some men) are sharing their stories about the sexual misconduct they've experienced in a professional context. Very little of the accusations have had a criminal element, but many would rise to the level of civil sexual harassment. The goal is twofold: expose not only the scumbags doing this, but the community which has looked the other way; and show how common it is, making it easier for other people to come forward.
Historically, accusations of sexual misconduct have been met with incredulity. Accusers were never believed. So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better.
I think, if anything, companies have been pretty conservative about cutting ties with the accused. I can't personally recall anybody that was fired over a false accusation, but it may have happened.
cuda1179 wrote: And then there is his side of the story. Apparently their 3 year relationship wasn't made to last, and for the last year there was a lot of back and forth yelling.
He finally dumped her after he caught her in an affair (I seem to remember that in the news) and she begged to come back.
Did he blacklist her? I don't know, and if he did it's a pretty prick thing to do.
I do have a problem with people's careers ending because of mere accusation.
I think most people outside of the crunchier corners of Tumblr agree with you. That's why it hasn't really happened, as far as I can tell. If this blows over, he'll go back to his NBC game show and his other projects as normal.
The system worked for me by chance and luck. My accuser made many claims. Some of them couldn't be disproven in a he-said she-said way, luckily she was careless and made claims about things I (hadn't) said in public, and that's where my coworkers helped me out. Had I been accused by someone a little craftier, my career may have been over.
Yeah, that's not all that lucky. Most people that file unsupported harassment claims aren't exactly criminal masterminds. Generally speaking, they are acting out of fear or panic. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's a lot harder to create a viable harassment claim out of whole cloth than many people think.
It's incredibly frustrating that a person can basically allege anything they want, with no repercussions. Hopefully, over time the system figures out a better way to balance the right to complain with the rights of the accused.
And quite frankly, I think anti-retaliation laws NEED to be rewritten. I do believe every case needs to be taken seriously and looked into. However, if someone makes a claim that is ridiculously over the top and disprovable, THEY are the harasser and deserve to be reprimanded.
I agree, but its' a lot harder in practice than it seems. You have all kinds of constitutional issues, rights to work, etc. It's a freaking mess.
And then for stuff like this, this isn't even a complaint. It's just a public accusation. There's nothing official about it.
I also find it funny that many feminist groups are actively fighting AGAINST some of these retaliation laws. The number of boys in college claiming sexual assault has increased noticeably in the last few years. Basically, if a couple has drunk sex, the first to accuse the other is the "victim" according to how many colleges treat accusations. Many guys have figured out the system, and if there is any doubt at all that a girl they were with the night before might try to make a claim against them, they beat them to the punch.
The college sexual assault system is a completely different animal. It's beyond terrible. If you want to find an example of how big government is creating a mess, that's exhibit one in my book. And I'm a big government liberal!
cuda1179 wrote: And then there is his side of the story. Apparently their 3 year relationship wasn't made to last, and for the last year there was a lot of back and forth yelling.
He finally dumped her after he caught her in an affair (I seem to remember that in the news) and she begged to come back.
Did he blacklist her? I don't know, and if he did it's a pretty prick thing to do.
I do have a problem with people's careers ending because of mere accusation.
I think most people outside of the crunchier corners of Tumblr agree with you. That's why it hasn't really happened, as far as I can tell. If this blows over, he'll go back to his NBC game show and his other projects as normal.
The system worked for me by chance and luck. My accuser made many claims. Some of them couldn't be disproven in a he-said she-said way, luckily she was careless and made claims about things I (hadn't) said in public, and that's where my coworkers helped me out. Had I been accused by someone a little craftier, my career may have been over.
Yeah, that's not all that lucky. Most people that file unsupported harassment claims aren't exactly criminal masterminds. Generally speaking, they are acting out of fear or panic. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's a lot harder to create a viable harassment claim out of whole cloth than many people think.
It's incredibly frustrating that a person can basically allege anything they want, with no repercussions. Hopefully, over time the system figures out a better way to balance the right to complain with the rights of the accused.
And quite frankly, I think anti-retaliation laws NEED to be rewritten. I do believe every case needs to be taken seriously and looked into. However, if someone makes a claim that is ridiculously over the top and disprovable, THEY are the harasser and deserve to be reprimanded.
I agree, but its' a lot harder in practice than it seems. You have all kinds of constitutional issues, rights to work, etc. It's a freaking mess.
And then for stuff like this, this isn't even a complaint. It's just a public accusation. There's nothing official about it.
I also find it funny that many feminist groups are actively fighting AGAINST some of these retaliation laws. The number of boys in college claiming sexual assault has increased noticeably in the last few years. Basically, if a couple has drunk sex, the first to accuse the other is the "victim" according to how many colleges treat accusations. Many guys have figured out the system, and if there is any doubt at all that a girl they were with the night before might try to make a claim against them, they beat them to the punch.
The college sexual assault system is a completely different animal. It's beyond terrible. If you want to find an example of how big government is creating a mess, that's exhibit one in my book. And I'm a big government liberal!
To take it a step even further the entire title ix system, sexual misconduct etc not the sports and scholarship portion, is a joke
I hear people counter the #metoo movement with "it goes too far and innocent people have their lives ruined" but I rarely if ever see said people raise examples of that happening. But actual victims of sexual harassment hit the news every single day that the same individuals are very quick to brush off. I go back to my phrase on the matter:
"The difference between rape of a child and rape of an adult is people try to make excuses for the second one."
Yodhrin wrote: Ah well, see, that's the problem - a lot of people have now decided "fairness and justice" have different meanings inside and outside of a court of law, and so should also have different standards of proof.
Oh, and don't bother appealing to such people on the basis that such an attitude will generate false-positives that ruin lives & careers for no actual reason
There are different standards of proof. This isn't something some people just decided recently, it is a staggeringly obvious universal constant. If you really truly don't understand this, ask yourself if you two children said the man in the house two doors down from yours tried to molest them, would you continue to let that man babysit your kids? By your argument, it would be wrong to cancel him as a babysitter, because he hasn't been proven guilty of anything in a court of law. Which is ridiculous. Staggeringly, absurdly, depressingly ridiculous, and about the clearest example you will ever get of a person just steadfastly deciding that he will not apply any form of common sense or reason to a very straight forward reality.
Anyhow, now we've got that distraction out the way and recognised we use different standards of evidence for different things, we can start to talk about a two very different issues here which are not all that related but often get thrown in to the pot together.
1) there is a big difference between a single accusation with no supporting witnesses, and multiple accusations from many victims who were all telling their stories for years before they knew of any other people also telling stories. The former is weak and it would take extreme circumstances to be considered strong enough to act on, while the latter is very strong and would require extreme circumstances to be discarded.
2) companies don't really give a gak whether or not an accusation against one of their staff is true or isn't. They don't 'believe her', but they also don't believe in standards of evidence. They believe in avoiding bad headlines. When an accusation breaks they're gonna look at whether that person is so uniquely valuable that it's worth the cost, and move from there. FOX News tried to keep O'Reilly long after the multiple payments to multiple women had been revealed because the guy dominated ratings and was the channels most recognisable face. Whereas this Hardwick guy, near as I can tell, ran one of those after the show chat segments that are typically staffed with b- and c-list talent. So of course he got booted straight away.
That latter is a serious issue. In this very media conscious age of social media mobs, it really doesn't take much to get someone fired. Forget an accusation of firing someone for being accused of domestic abuse, we've seen people fired for posting off-colour jokes. But that is an issue of trying to use the mechanics of modern corporate society in place of the justice system, it is not an issue with people making a judgement over the standard of evidence. And that is it's own mess we need to spend a long time studying and unwinding.
But that doesn't mean the answer is to stop believing multiple, credible witnesses, because they haven't taken their issues to court and gone through the painful, ugly and protacted mess of the modern legal system just to get people to believe they were telling the truth.
There is a weird, maybe confused but also maybe kind of disenguous pushback against #metoo that is mixing those two things up. It is picking up on the genuine concern that some companies are acting with immediate terminations, but instead of talking about the power that companies have, instead they're using it to attack the core of #metoo, the idea that a woman speaking out shouldn't be treated with a default position of disbelief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: To be clear - if a woman I know and trust came to me and said that someone, whether I knew them or not, had assaulted her, I would take her seriously, support her, and distance myself from the person she had accused until it was sorted out one way or another, but I would do those things because I know and trust her, not because she's a woman accusing a man of sexual assault. When someone I don't know makes an accusation against someone else I don't know, I have no basis to decide the veracity of the accusation one way or another
This is genuinely the worst process of assesing truth I have ever seen in my life. And I've been on the internet, so I've seen some things.
Anyhow, 'because I know them and trust them' is a hopeless standard. People we know lie. Everyone who lies will have friends who know them and trust them. So ignore that junk because it's nonsense.
Instead, actually read the accusation. See if it is just one person or if it multiple accusers. See if the accusation makes sense, and fits with what know about how people act. See if there's evidence supporting supporting either the accuser or the accused, such as supporting witnesses, photos etc.
So, you know, learn the basics of the accusation and apply judgement. Or don't and stay quiet, if it isn't something you want to get involved in. But don't ever think the way to figure it out is 'do I know her and trust her, if so it is true, if not it is automatically he said she said' because holy crap that is such an awful pile of nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: The Morgan Freeman accusation was laughably bad. I watched the video of that "harassment" and thought "that's what she's complaining about"?
One of two things is happening here. 1) You have absolutely no idea of what Freeman was actually accused of. 2) You know what he was accused of, and after reading that Freeman repeatedly tried to lift up a girl's skirt while asking if she was wearing any underwear while being told to stop, you thought there was nothing wrong with that.
I really hope it's #1. Can you please confirm it's #1, because if not, holy crap.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Is anybody assuming guilt here? At most, he's had his name taken off a website he no longer works at. Are there really examples of people losing jobs over false accusations?
AMC has pulled further episodes of his show, so there has been immediate blow back for Hardwick, which is an issue. But as I said above that's more an issue with corporate power and how easily they can end a career, combined with an interest in nothing but their brand, than it is with #metoo.
Afterall, AMC made their move before most people even heard this story about a c-list nerd culture commentator/comedian. Arguing that it was done because thousands believed her accusation and pressured AMC is the narrative a few people in this thread have invented in their heads, which is weird because none of that happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I hear people counter the #metoo movement with "it goes too far and innocent people have their lives ruined" but I rarely if ever see said people raise examples of that happening.
If you ever need to see an example of how power dynamics work, just look at the reaction to #metoo. People have spilled gallons of ink worrying about men who might lose their careers to this, but almost nothing has been written about the women who's careers were destroyed after refusing to submit, or for speaking out afterwards. And there is now vast concern given to the chance that a man might be falsely accused and then penalised, and while that is a legitimate concern, it is telling that there is no similar concern for the women who were attacked after making their accusations, and who still suffer consequences even after their claims were proven true.
cuda1179 wrote: Had I been accused by someone a little craftier, my career may have been over..
Don't you own a restaurant? How does that work - they make you hand over your spatula and pad, forever?
I currently own a restaurant. Like many people I've had a career change in my life. After going to college for Mechanical Engineering I got a pretty decent job. However, many factors, including an economic downturn and the previously mentioned incident, soured me on the field and I reevaluated my life and decided the salary wasn't worth it. However, thanks for trivializing a rather traumatic part of my life, greatly appreciated.
cuda1179 wrote: However, thanks for trivializing a rather traumatic part of my life, greatly appreciated.
If you want to get precious about people trivialising other people's lives, maybe you want to think twice before putting harassment in mocking quotations, when describing a man trying to lift a girl's skirt repeatedly while asking if she's wearing underwear, and claiming surprise that there was nothing to complain about.
One of the things about a callous culture where people ignore or mock other's worst moments is that it has a habit of coming back around.
cuda1179 wrote: The Morgan Freeman accusation was laughably bad. I watched the video of that "harassment" and thought "that's what she's complaining about"?
One of two things is happening here.
1) You have absolutely no idea of what Freeman was actually accused of.
2) You know what he was accused of, and after reading that Freeman repeatedly tried to lift up a girl's skirt while asking if she was wearing any underwear while being told to stop, you thought there was nothing wrong with that.
I really hope it's #1. Can you please confirm it's #1, because if not, holy crap.
If you ever need to see an example of how power dynamics work, just look at the reaction to #metoo. People have spilled gallons of ink worrying about men who might lose their careers to this, but almost nothing has been written about the women who's careers were destroyed after refusing to submit, or for speaking out afterwards. And there is now vast concern given to the chance that a man might be falsely accused and then penalised, and while that is a legitimate concern, it is telling that there is no similar concern for the women who were attacked after making their accusations, and who still suffer consequences even after their claims were proven true.
The Morgan Freeman incident I was referring to (as I did say video) was the incident involving a pregnant reporter interviewing Freeman and Michel Caine about one of their movies. THAT incident was oddly overblown. I did not hear about Freeman lifting skirts. Was that a recent incident or something from decades past? (not that it excuses such behavior)
As to whether or not to believe an accuser, I'm not saying you should dismiss an accusation. I believe they should always be taken seriously and investigated. I am saying that they should never be thought of as either a lie or the truth. It should be a neutral system until more evidence is presented.
There was a significant backlash towards accusers after that whole Rolling Stone incident. Especially when in the aftermath of it a number of prominent reporters and feminists LITERALLY stated that if some men are falsely accused it's okay because it furthers an agenda. I mean, let's face it, you know someone has gone too far when their antics get mocked on an episode of Law and Order: SVU.
In the end it's quite a balancing act. There is that old adage that it's better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be imprisoned.
cuda1179 wrote: However, thanks for trivializing a rather traumatic part of my life, greatly appreciated.
If you want to get precious about people trivialising other people's lives, maybe you want to think twice before putting harassment in mocking quotations, when describing a man trying to lift a girl's skirt repeatedly while asking if she's wearing underwear, and claiming surprise that there was nothing to complain about.
One of the things about a callous culture where people ignore or mock other's worst moments is that it has a habit of coming back around.
You post ninja'ed me on this, but I did address that I wasn't aware of the skirt lifting. I was referring to the alleged on-video harassment during an interview.
Formosa wrote: This whole movement stinks to high heaven, it’s one sided nature and “guilty until proven innocent” media circus does not sit well with me.
And if you dare to suggest that maybe even one of them might have got it wrong, you're an evil victim-blaming misogynist.
Formosa wrote: This whole movement stinks to high heaven, it’s one sided nature and “guilty until proven innocent” media circus does not sit well with me.
And if you dare to suggest that maybe even one of them might have got it wrong, you're an evil victim-blaming misogynist.
Overall the amount of false allegations made is only a very small percentage. While a one versus one allegation is a lot harder to approach than multiple independent ones, in this case it seems plausible (some writers at his place of work backing her up?). The only thing that is possibly verifiable in this case seems to be his efforts to get her blacklisted.
Overall the MeToo movement is important to try and breach a culture of inaction. If innocent people get caught up in it then that is lamentable and they should be publically cleared. However to disparage the entire movement for the actions of a few liars goes to far. If that was the case everything has the same issues with dishonest people.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.
Thoughts?
In a lot of these cases there will never be a legal process, especially when the incidents happened outside of the statute of limitations. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations on sexual assault, but there is, and it lets offenders escape justice.
If people decide not to work with someone because of accusations of poor behavior, that's how freedom of association works.
Then if the accusation was pointless lie then that needs to come down REAL hard. The accusers life needs to be brought down. Jail time. Fines(though sometimes their full wealth might not be enough...But maybe life prison would be sufficient deterrant).
If there's false charges laid that ruin peoples lives just by accusation because nobody bothers waiting for checking whether they are true or not then only way that can work is make sure penalty for false accusations are so damn high people don't make those for personal vendettas.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Overall the amount of false allegations made is only a very small percentage. While a one versus one allegation is a lot harder to approach than multiple independent ones, in this case it seems plausible (some writers at his place of work backing her up?). The only thing that is possibly verifiable in this case seems to be his efforts to get her blacklisted.
Overall the MeToo movement is important to try and breach a culture of inaction. If innocent people get caught up in it then that is lamentable and they should be publically cleared. However to disparage the entire movement for the actions of a few liars goes to far. If that was the case everything has the same issues with dishonest people.
The problem is that when someone get's smeared with even so much as an allegation of being a rapist or sex offender, then they carry that stigma for the rest of their lives. It doesn't matter if they are found innocent of wrong doing in a court of law, or the accuser fesses up that they were lying. There are plenty of people who either believe that they are guilty by accusation alone, or they wormed their way out of it like a shifty rat. Others will take a "better safe than sorry" approach and avoid/stigmatize the accused, thanks in large part to the number of actual sex predators lurking about and the problem of repeat offenders.
This so-called "movement" reeks of BS to me. And it's easy enough for people to jump on the bandwagon, not caring or thinking of the long term consequences to those not guilty. We live in a society of vindictive people, brain dead idiot followers, self-centered attention whores, and digital shut-ins that don't have to face the consequences of up somebody's life and/or livelyhood due to BS claims.
And if anything, this kind of crap actually HURTS the efforts to combat sex crimes and make the public aware of how serious the problem can be.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Overall the amount of false allegations made is only a very small percentage. While a one versus one allegation is a lot harder to approach than multiple independent ones, in this case it seems plausible (some writers at his place of work backing her up?). The only thing that is possibly verifiable in this case seems to be his efforts to get her blacklisted.
Overall the MeToo movement is important to try and breach a culture of inaction. If innocent people get caught up in it then that is lamentable and they should be publically cleared. However to disparage the entire movement for the actions of a few liars goes to far. If that was the case everything has the same issues with dishonest people.
The problem is that when someone get's smeared with even so much as an allegation of being a rapist or sex offender, then they carry that stigma for the rest of their lives. It doesn't matter if they are found innocent of wrong doing in a court of law, or the accuser fesses up that they were lying. There are plenty of people who either believe that they are guilty by accusation alone, or they wormed their way out of it like a shifty rat. Others will take a "better safe than sorry" approach and avoid/stigmatize the accused, thanks in large part to the number of actual sex predators lurking about and the problem of repeat offenders.
This so-called "movement" reeks of BS to me. And it's easy enough for people to jump on the bandwagon, not caring or thinking of the long term consequences to those not guilty. We live in a society of vindictive people, brain dead idiot followers, self-centered attention whores, and digital shut-ins that don't have to face the consequences of up somebody's life and/or livelyhood due to BS claims.
And if anything, this kind of crap actually HURTS the efforts to combat sex crimes and make the public aware of how serious the problem can be.
That's an issue on the side of society as well. While the stigma is regretable what can you do against it? Its as problematic an issue (if not in size) as a culture of silence. Its an issue regardless of the existence of the movement. There is no easy solution to that issue, but it is only a single issue in the wider problem. But even with that stigma, false allegations are still rare, they are employed by terrible people regardless of how society acts around sexual assault (they would only stop working in an uncaring society).
The movement is important for breaking through a culture of public silence. Any movement is going to suffer from dishonest people, writing off the entire movement goes too far. What if people had done that in the past to movements like the anti-war movement or civil rights? The issue is, this kind of "crap" wouldn't have surfaced a few years ago because nobody in the industry really cared about tackling sexual assault. The dishonest people are only coming out of the woodwork because the movement is making waves, using that to push back against the movement is seriously flawed.
Witch hunt. Innocent until proven otherwise is the only rule worth to live by here.
If anyone here has ever been bullied in school, you will know that the court of popular opinion is a primeval pit of nastiness.
Episode from Ammianus Marcellinus work Res Gestae:
Numerius, the governor of Narbonensis, was on trial [for embezzlement] before the Emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, “a passionate man,” seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, “Oh, illustrious Caesar! If it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?” to which Julian replied, “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?”
Disciple of Fate wrote: [. But even with that stigma, false allegations are still rare, they are employed by terrible people regardless of how society acts around sexual assault (they would only stop working in an uncaring society).
.
Not really doubting that false allegations are in the minority. I'd just like some kind of verifiable statistic with citation.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That's an issue on the side of society as well. While the stigma is regretable what can you do against it?
Not go for a public hunt based on accusations but convictions? You know, whole innocent until proven guilty. Juristical standard west is so proud of...
Don't hunt by accusations but instead come down like wrath of god(figuratively) for those proven guilty.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [. But even with that stigma, false allegations are still rare, they are employed by terrible people regardless of how society acts around sexual assault (they would only stop working in an uncaring society).
.
Not really doubting that false allegations are in the minority. I'd just like some kind of verifiable statistic with citation.
It still shocks me the excuses people will come up with to defend sexual assault. Because if you are going to straw-man and say 'you're an evil victim-blaming misongynist' for suggesting a false accusation happened, or that obviously a 'carefully worded resppnse is wrong' then you are defending sexual assault. You deliberately decided to exagerrate things in order to delegitimize a massive problem (never mind accusers who's lives are ruined even when their allegations are TRUE) so you've officially taken that side. Not to mention de-legitimizing the concern you SUPPOSEDLY have. So defend the rapists, but history will not remember you fondly.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That's an issue on the side of society as well. While the stigma is regretable what can you do against it?
Not go for a public hunt based on accusations but convictions? You know, whole innocent until proven guilty. Juristical standard west is so proud of...
Don't hunt by accusations but instead come down like wrath of god(figuratively) for those proven guilty.
Well duh, if only someone had thought of that sooner! You and I don't control society, a lot of things could be done a lot better but there just isn't enough of a control measure in a free society for that.
Another issue is that the system doesn't catch everyone, plenty of people will never get convicted over it, thinking about people like O'Reilly and Ailes. You need to have a solution somewhere in the middle to be able to tackle it.
Are you people going to ignore that people that bring up allegations ruin their lives too? Likely fired from their job, forever blacklisted by other businesses because no one likes a whistle-blower, and constantly harassed by regressives, internet trolls, and donkey caves in general. The idea that this is one sided is a bold faced lie.
And it's pathetic that THIS is only thing people seem to clutch the pearls of "Innocent until proven guilty" and denounce the court of public opinion when comming out for being gay can still ruin your career, or having a funny name get you treated like a wanted criminal by security and police. There are so many more abortions of justice being committed by our actual legal system but people having the gall to support investigations into sexual assault is apparently the thing that's going to lead to the fall of justice.
The investigation itself is not the problem, cannot be the problem. Someone getting fired before he has even been proven guilty or innocent IS the problem. It's systemic and not an isolated incident.
There are indeed many more problems with justice, but those are not the topic on hand here: This topic is about accusations and guilt. Please stay on track.
But going by just what the court says is just creating a different issue. What about all those cases that won't go to trial or when someone that is guilty walks? Its an impossible standard. As a public company your image means a lot, that's why you fire people like this, its bad for business (unless of course they bring in the ratings, then they close ranks). That's not a false allegation problem, thats a business issue.
Karak Norn Clansman wrote: The investigation itself is not the problem, cannot be the problem. Someone getting fired before he has even been proven guilty or innocent IS the problem. It's systemic and not an isolated incident.
There are indeed many more problems with justice, but those are not the topic on hand here: This topic is about accusations and guilt. Please stay on track.
But someone being fired for speaking out as the victim repeatedly fails to be worth mentioning.
Not to mention that courts are not infallible, things that are immoral are not necessarily illegal (and vice-versa), plea bargains are a thing, there's a lot of problems with basing one's sense of right and wrong purely on legality case.
As for criminal charges against accusers, you can already bring a civil case against defamation, making it criminal just worsens the problem of burying rightful claims under fear and legal debt
I don't want to believe it but suspect its mostly true, and whilst I'm not defending him I don't think 'geek' culture is any more or less prone to this kind of behaviour and have a mild urge to inappropriately touch the next forker who declares us all toxic, most likely with a crowbar
Karak Norn Clansman wrote: The investigation itself is not the problem, cannot be the problem. Someone getting fired before he has even been proven guilty or innocent IS the problem. It's systemic and not an isolated incident.
There are indeed many more problems with justice, but those are not the topic on hand here: This topic is about accusations and guilt. Please stay on track.
This does not only apply to this. Politicians, when accused of corruption, are always forced to step aside until things have been cleared in a proper investigation. Why is this different?
Believe me, man. I heard you. I didn't know who this guy even was without Google, but that's exactly how I felt about Louis CK.
The problem is when you take the leap from "I don't want to believe" to "I refuse to believe because I like this person", because that's how this keeps going.
Karak Norn Clansman wrote: The investigation itself is not the problem, cannot be the problem. Someone getting fired before he has even been proven guilty or innocent IS the problem. It's systemic and not an isolated incident.
There are indeed many more problems with justice, but those are not the topic on hand here: This topic is about accusations and guilt. Please stay on track.
This is somewhat complicated by the times it's an open secret that som men, such as Weinstein and Cosby, have been raping people for decades.
'Why did they not come forward sooner".
"False claims"
"Tired of #MeToo"
"How dare X be suspended by Y" followed by "Trial without jury,No rule of law!"
"Blacklisted? never heard of her, can't be that good."
"Stating you may have been abused actually hurts the good cause".
Not sure what else can be said in this thread. I don't think Hardwick will go on trial, but I don't doubt that the contents of Chloe Dykstras article are true.
It's not wrong that Hardwick has been suspended or had shows suspended.
I'm not entirely sure the court of public opinion is a real issue here?
So, are we starting to see the (inevitable) backlash against #MeToo movement surfacing now or has it always been there, just at a different Noise-to-Signal ratio?
Disciple of Fate wrote: [. But even with that stigma, false allegations are still rare, they are employed by terrible people regardless of how society acts around sexual assault (they would only stop working in an uncaring society).
.
Not really doubting that false allegations are in the minority. I'd just like some kind of verifiable statistic with citation.
The link worked fine for me. I don't want to be the fly in the ointment, but you are slightly misquoting the statistics. 5-6% of those are PROVEN false. The number proven false + the number proven true doesn't really equal 100%. There are a number of cases where there is a lot of grey area where we really don't know the truth. To simply assume they are all true isn't quite logical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: It still shocks me the excuses people will come up with to defend sexual assault. Because if you are going to straw-man and say 'you're an evil victim-blaming misongynist' for suggesting a false accusation happened, or that obviously a 'carefully worded resppnse is wrong' then you are defending sexual assault. You deliberately decided to exagerrate things in order to delegitimize a massive problem (never mind accusers who's lives are ruined even when their allegations are TRUE) so you've officially taken that side. Not to mention de-legitimizing the concern you SUPPOSEDLY have. So defend the rapists, but history will not remember you fondly.
It's not a strawman when those things actually happen.
Hardwick was called out for releasing a carefully worded statement. Can people not even defend themselves from accusations anymore?
Disciple of Fate wrote: [. But even with that stigma, false allegations are still rare, they are employed by terrible people regardless of how society acts around sexual assault (they would only stop working in an uncaring society).
.
Not really doubting that false allegations are in the minority. I'd just like some kind of verifiable statistic with citation.
The link worked fine for me. I don't want to be the fly in the ointment, but you are slightly misquoting the statistics. 5-6% of those are PROVEN false. The number proven false + the number proven true doesn't really equal 100%. There are a number of cases where there is a lot of grey area where we really don't know the truth. To simply assume they are all true isn't quite logical.
The issue is that there are no strict guidelines as to what constitutes a 'false' report, the actual number might also be lower. You don't have to assume that they are all guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt either, grey area is exactly why few reports actually end up in convictions. Just know that this is the percentage proven false, its a small amount if you take into account that perhaps as much as half or even more never gets reported (some going as low as only 3 out of 10 going to the police). Do malicious people exist who throw around false allegations? Sure. Do they make up a significant part of all allegations? Incredibly doubtful. Letting the idea of false allegations direct the main line of debate on sexual assault is unhelpful at best and destructive at its worst.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: Hardwick was called out for releasing a carefully worded statement. Can people not even defend themselves from accusations anymore?
Can anyone actually find his statement? I was trying for a bit and its a merry-go-round of pages linking to each other.
cuda1179 wrote: I believe that the actual quote was in the link I provided.
"As a husband, a son, and future father, I do not condone any kind of mistreatment of women."
Yeah but its just a single line from the whole, following the links ends up nowhere and googling statement inevitably ends up with all his business partners statements instead of his.
But to be fair, that line is pretty terrible. All men are someone's son, most men end up as someone's husband and/or father, its a pretty bad defense as far as trying to reject allegations go, seeing as those three criteria overlap with most male perpetrators of sexual assault. I guess(?) from reading that opinion piece the carefully crafted part feels insulting to the writer because it comes off as gaslighting, in essence the writer believes her and as such finds the statement hostile (maybe some other word). Hard to say without the whole thing.
Chris Hardwick wrote: wrote:These are very serious allegations and not to be taken lightly which is why I’ve taken the day to consider how to respond,” said Hardwick in a statement Friday night. “I was heartbroken to read Chloe’s post. Our three year relationship was not perfect—we were ultimately not a good match and argued—even shouted at each other—but I loved her, and did my best to uplift and support her as a partner and companion in any way and at no time did I sexually assault her.”
“When we were living together, I found out that Chloe had cheated on me, and I ended the relationship,” Hardwick asserts. “For several weeks after we broke up, she asked to get back together with me and even told me she wanted to have kids with me, ‘build a life’ with me and told me that I was ‘the one,’ but I did not want to be with someone who was unfaithful,” he added in the carefully crafted response. “I’m devastated to read that she is now accusing me of conduct that did not occur. l was blindsided by her post and always wanted the best for her. As a husband, a son, and future father, I do not condone any kind of mistreatment of women.”
Chris Hardwick wrote: wrote:These are very serious allegations and not to be taken lightly which is why I’ve taken the day to consider how to respond,” said Hardwick in a statement Friday night. “I was heartbroken to read Chloe’s post. Our three year relationship was not perfect—we were ultimately not a good match and argued—even shouted at each other—but I loved her, and did my best to uplift and support her as a partner and companion in any way and at no time did I sexually assault her.”
“When we were living together, I found out that Chloe had cheated on me, and I ended the relationship,” Hardwick asserts. “For several weeks after we broke up, she asked to get back together with me and even told me she wanted to have kids with me, ‘build a life’ with me and told me that I was ‘the one,’ but I did not want to be with someone who was unfaithful,” he added in the carefully crafted response. “I’m devastated to read that she is now accusing me of conduct that did not occur. l was blindsided by her post and always wanted the best for her. As a husband, a son, and future father, I do not condone any kind of mistreatment of women.”
Yeah I saw that, but it felt like parts were cut out, it that really the full statement? Feels a bit incoherent as opposed to carefully crafted.
Easy E wrote: So, are we starting to see the (inevitable) backlash against #MeToo movement surfacing now or has it always been there, just at a different Noise-to-Signal ratio?
I think it’s more the #metoo movement is losing some steam, and we’re starting to see the last sputterings against nobodies and literally-who’s.
Chris Hardwick wrote: wrote:These are very serious allegations and not to be taken lightly which is why I’ve taken the day to consider how to respond,” said Hardwick in a statement Friday night. “I was heartbroken to read Chloe’s post. Our three year relationship was not perfect—we were ultimately not a good match and argued—even shouted at each other—but I loved her, and did my best to uplift and support her as a partner and companion in any way and at no time did I sexually assault her.”
“When we were living together, I found out that Chloe had cheated on me, and I ended the relationship,” Hardwick asserts. “For several weeks after we broke up, she asked to get back together with me and even told me she wanted to have kids with me, ‘build a life’ with me and told me that I was ‘the one,’ but I did not want to be with someone who was unfaithful,” he added in the carefully crafted response. “I’m devastated to read that she is now accusing me of conduct that did not occur. l was blindsided by her post and always wanted the best for her. As a husband, a son, and future father, I do not condone any kind of mistreatment of women.”
Yeah I saw that, but it felt like parts were cut out, it that really the full statement? Feels a bit incoherent as opposed to carefully crafted.
That is all I have been able to find. I agree, I would like to see if anything was omitted.
I was taking the "carefully crafted" to mean Hardwick's response was "carefully" not discussing some of the accusations while denying others. I could be wrong on that, though. He clearly denies the sexual assault, but the blacklisting is ignored.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [. But even with that stigma, false allegations are still rare, they are employed by terrible people regardless of how society acts around sexual assault (they would only stop working in an uncaring society).
.
Not really doubting that false allegations are in the minority. I'd just like some kind of verifiable statistic with citation.
The link worked fine for me. I don't want to be the fly in the ointment, but you are slightly misquoting the statistics. 5-6% of those are PROVEN false. The number proven false + the number proven true doesn't really equal 100%. There are a number of cases where there is a lot of grey area where we really don't know the truth. To simply assume they are all true isn't quite logical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: It still shocks me the excuses people will come up with to defend sexual assault. Because if you are going to straw-man and say 'you're an evil victim-blaming misongynist' for suggesting a false accusation happened, or that obviously a 'carefully worded resppnse is wrong' then you are defending sexual assault. You deliberately decided to exagerrate things in order to delegitimize a massive problem (never mind accusers who's lives are ruined even when their allegations are TRUE) so you've officially taken that side. Not to mention de-legitimizing the concern you SUPPOSEDLY have. So defend the rapists, but history will not remember you fondly.
It's not a strawman when those things actually happen.
Hardwick was called out for releasing a carefully worded statement. Can people not even defend themselves from accusations anymore?
It's the internet; no matter what there will be thousands of people with an irrationally extreme reaponse. It's a straw man because it was presented as if such a response was standard practice, and because it was presented as a significant issue with the movement when the incidents are a tiny fraction of events. It's a straw man when a flaw that happens a tiny fraction of the time is presented as common or de-legitimizing while the overwhelming majority of valid cases aren't mentioned.
Again, I say that if it were accusations against children the standard would be different, but the same crime against adults suddenly warrants all sorts of excuses. At least have some integrity and make the same excuses for child rape.
I'll fully admit that I'll meet accusations from children with equal amounts of neutrality, barring some other evidence or collaboration. Anyone remember when day cares stated to become mainstream? All the sudden there was a string of daycare providers being charged (sometimes repeatedly) with child molestation, running Satanic cults, pornography, and other vial acts. It didn't really matter that they were innocent. Kids were happy to make stuff up, the public was eager to accept it, prosecutors eager to make a name for themselves, and these people still have their lives ruined 30 years later.
AdeptSister wrote: This is the entertainment industry: allegations have always been enough.
There's that too ofc, but before this the stars and movers had to be careful they weren't branded a communist or homosexual. You were shut out for being a communist even if that wasn't a criminal thing to be, and the stars would be "encouraged" to marry to get rid of any rumors of unseemly behavior. In a way it was just the same as the sexual harassment of today - if you were valuable enough to the company they protected you even if it meant paying someone to marry you (cold hard cash or a movie role can convince many).
Weinstein's company set aside cash to pay off accusers for years, and when faced with an uncertain lawsuit (he said, she said) many saw fit to take the cash and run instead of publicly accusing a guy with cash and lawyers.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It still shocks me the excuses people will come up with to defend sexual assault. Because if you are going to straw-man and say 'you're an evil victim-blaming misongynist' for suggesting a false accusation happened, or that obviously a 'carefully worded resppnse is wrong' then you are defending sexual assault. You deliberately decided to exagerrate things in order to delegitimize a massive problem (never mind accusers who's lives are ruined even when their allegations are TRUE) so you've officially taken that side. Not to mention de-legitimizing the concern you SUPPOSEDLY have. So defend the rapists, but history will not remember you fondly.
I'm stunned anybody can defend persecuting people who aren't proven guilty. What has happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Is it now somebody claims something and it's allright to ruin targets life? So I could make sexual assault claim against YOU and make public witch hunt against you resulting you becoming jobless and I would get no trouble from it and that's allright for you?
Somebody makes sexual assault that needs to be punished. Hard. And for that somebody makes accusation that needs to be investigated. And then judged. BUT what cannot be allowed to happen is that mere accusation leading to witch hunt before even it's been investigated is it true. Just here in Finland there's been several cases where rape accusation was later admitted to be false.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Until proven guilty accusation should result in just authorities investigating. Now if found guilty then all hell can fall upon the guilty person.
No reasonable person can defend public witch hunts based on mere accusation.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It still shocks me the excuses people will come up with to defend sexual assault. Because if you are going to straw-man and say 'you're an evil victim-blaming misongynist' for suggesting a false accusation happened, or that obviously a 'carefully worded resppnse is wrong' then you are defending sexual assault. You deliberately decided to exagerrate things in order to delegitimize a massive problem (never mind accusers who's lives are ruined even when their allegations are TRUE) so you've officially taken that side. Not to mention de-legitimizing the concern you SUPPOSEDLY have. So defend the rapists, but history will not remember you fondly.
I'm stunned anybody can defend persecuting people who aren't proven guilty. What has happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Is it now somebody claims something and it's allright to ruin targets life? So I could make sexual assault claim against YOU and make public witch hunt against you resulting you becoming jobless and I would get no trouble from it and that's allright for you?
Somebody makes sexual assault that needs to be punished. Hard. And for that somebody makes accusation that needs to be investigated. And then judged. BUT what cannot be allowed to happen is that mere accusation leading to witch hunt before even it's been investigated is it true. Just here in Finland there's been several cases where rape accusation was later admitted to be false.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Until proven guilty accusation should result in just authorities investigating. Now if found guilty then all hell can fall upon the guilty person.
No reasonable person can defend public witch hunts based on mere accusation.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It's the internet; no matter what there will be thousands of people with an irrationally extreme reaponse. It's a straw man because it was presented as if such a response was standard practice, and because it was presented as a significant issue with the movement when the incidents are a tiny fraction of events. It's a straw man when a flaw that happens a tiny fraction of the time is presented as common or de-legitimizing while the overwhelming majority of valid cases aren't mentioned.
Again, I say that if it were accusations against children the standard would be different, but the same crime against adults suddenly warrants all sorts of excuses. At least have some integrity and make the same excuses for child rape.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sources? I would honestly like to read about it, sonce that was before my time.
Evidently, you've never heard of the "Satanic Panic" back in the 1980's. It even hit my area. And it was all based on kids starting rumors, and them getting out of control.
Oh, and as for your earlier comments about us skeptics blaming the victim and making excuses for rapists and sex offenders? I've been on calls that involved sexual assault that later turned out to be bunk, either done out of malice or to cover up something that somebody did. And I've had a cousin whom I was close to at one time, and an ex-in-law, that both suffered bull accusations that more or less ruined their lives despite the claims turning out to be lies. So, before you go on a bleeding heart, emotional rant, I suggest you had better read what others post before you start accusing people of such BS.
And I have yet to witness, or hear of, a case where the people who come out with such claims suffer the same stigma and ruination that those falsely accused go through.If anything nowadays, they are celebrated for being "brave" (to name a commonly overused word in the media today).
And for those that speak of how "rare" that false accusations are, please excuse me if I don't buy into the philosophy of "you have to break a few eggs to make an omellet" in this case. I don't give a good goddamned if it's 6% or a gazillion percent of cases, any is too much. Period. Just ask my cousin and the former in-law in question (who sufferes from mild mental retardation, which makes what he went through even worse). They would likely agree with me.
cuda1179 wrote: The Morgan Freeman incident I was referring to (as I did say video) was the incident involving a pregnant reporter interviewing Freeman and Michel Caine about one of their movies. THAT incident was oddly overblown. I did not hear about Freeman lifting skirts. Was that a recent incident or something from decades past? (not that it excuses such behavior)
The skirt incident happened in 2017. It's a lot bigger deal than the pregnant reporter thing, as are the 7 other accusations against Freeman.
I think it goes to show there's a lot of detail in a lot of these accusations that isn't common knowledge, despite having been publically made (in the Trump age there's little space left in the news for things that aren't Trump).
As to whether or not to believe an accuser, I'm not saying you should dismiss an accusation. I believe they should always be taken seriously and investigated. I am saying that they should never be thought of as either a lie or the truth. It should be a neutral system until more evidence is presented.
But there is evidence presented with the accusation. In the case of Freeman, for instance, there is 8 women's statements, as well as 8 corroborating witnesses. That isn't a certain conviction in itself, but it's more than enough for the public to say there's definitely something going on there.
I think this touches on the issue above, with people often not knowing the details of the case. I understand people not knowing, there's hardly a civic duty to read up allegations against famous people. But the problem comes when people don't learn the details, and then assume there are no such details to know and claim others are mistaken for judging too quickly.
In the end it's quite a balancing act. There is that old adage that it's better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be imprisoned.
Definitely, but that's a legal standard. But it's not the standard for the rest of public life. Al Franken was never convicted, but after convincing testimony from multiple women, should Democrats have accepted him remaining in the senate?
You post ninja'ed me on this, but I did address that I wasn't aware of the skirt lifting. I was referring to the alleged on-video harassment during an interview.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sources? I would honestly like to read about it, sonce that was before my time.
Since you asked nicely, here you go. This is only the tip of the iceberg though. What some of these people went though even decades later was simply a tragedy. Oh, and watch out! Tabletop gamers and roleplayers will eat your children. LOL
Karak Norn Clansman wrote: Witch hunt. Innocent until proven otherwise is the only rule worth to live by here.
Yeah, so when your babysitter is accused by three different kids of molestation, you're still book them for Saturday night because 'innocent until proven otherwise is the only rule...'
Come on. This is so much more complicated than that.
Karak Norn Clansman wrote: Witch hunt. Innocent until proven otherwise is the only rule worth to live by here.
Yeah, so when your babysitter is accused by three different kids of molestation, you're still book them for Saturday night because 'innocent until proven otherwise is the only rule...'
Come on. This is so much more complicated than that.
Bit of a different thing though. Having someone loose customers because there is a possibility of eminent harm is a long way from "kill his TV show career, even though there is absolutely no risk anything could happen because it's still running".
Automatically Appended Next Post: While looking at some Satanic Panic cases (trying to refresh my memory about the McMartin case) I stumbled upon this jem.
And for those that speak of how "rare" that false accusations are, please excuse me if I don't buy into the philosophy of "you have to break a few eggs to make an omellet" in this case. I don't give a good goddamned if it's 6% or a gazillion percent of cases, any is too much. Period. Just ask my cousin and the former in-law in question (who sufferes from mild mental retardation, which makes what he went through even worse). They would likely agree with me.
Actually its you who is employing the philosophy of breaking a few eggs to make an omelet. False allegations happen because people remain people, but treating every single case with suspicion because a few turn out false is only going to drive down the reporting rate. Its actively harmful to have it lead the debate on sexual assault.
And for those that speak of how "rare" that false accusations are, please excuse me if I don't buy into the philosophy of "you have to break a few eggs to make an omellet" in this case. I don't give a good goddamned if it's 6% or a gazillion percent of cases, any is too much. Period. Just ask my cousin and the former in-law in question (who sufferes from mild mental retardation, which makes what he went through even worse). They would likely agree with me.
Actually its you who is employing the philosophy of breaking a few eggs to make an omelet. False allegations happen because people remain people, but treating every single case with suspicion because a few turn out false is only going to drive down the reporting rate. Its actively harmful to have it lead the debate on sexual assault.
There is a vast gulf between outright disbelief of a victim's story and verification of the story before publicly dragging the accused through the proverbial mud. These allegations don't just go away even when proven false. There has to be a better way of handling this, otherwise I have to ask, why is one potential victim more worthy of defense than another? If you are acknowledging that some people are falsely accused, and are then victimized by the process, why are they less of a concern? Because it is just numbers game and you just want to protect the majority? That isn't a satisfying answer and doesn't actually get us, as a society, any closer to justice for the victims in these cases.
And for those that speak of how "rare" that false accusations are, please excuse me if I don't buy into the philosophy of "you have to break a few eggs to make an omellet" in this case. I don't give a good goddamned if it's 6% or a gazillion percent of cases, any is too much. Period. Just ask my cousin and the former in-law in question (who sufferes from mild mental retardation, which makes what he went through even worse). They would likely agree with me.
Actually its you who is employing the philosophy of breaking a few eggs to make an omelet. False allegations happen because people remain people, but treating every single case with suspicion because a few turn out false is only going to drive down the reporting rate. Its actively harmful to have it lead the debate on sexual assault.
There is a vast gulf between outright disbelief of a victim's story and verification of the story before publicly dragging the accused through the proverbial mud. These allegations don't just go away even when proven false. There has to be a better way of handling this, otherwise I have to ask, why is one potential victim more worthy of defense than another? If you are acknowledging that some people are falsely accused, and are then victimized by the process, why are they less of a concern? Because it is just numbers game and you just want to protect the majority? That isn't a satisfying answer and doesn't actually get us, as a society, any closer to justice for the victims in these cases.
Yes, its the same as the line between talking about false accusations and waiting to see what other info gets revealed before shouting false. The OP began with an allegation and it took less than two posts to go to the false allegations corner as somehow being the dominant trend of MeToo.
And no, there is no better way of handling this, welcome to a free society, this is what happens, it sucks but its unavoidable. Even China with all their censorship has not solved the issue of the "human flesh search engine". The amount of censorship in the press and internet you would have to institute makes the public court unavoidable. The amount of societal changes you would have to push through to get rid off this effect is impossible. You know what would help though? Improving the prosecution of real sexual assault. All to frequently sexual assault is still seen as a crime without punishment (and in a sense it is), tackle that issue and the demand for public justice might be reduced. You're always going to have the public court of opinion on (pseudo) celebrities, regardless of what they do.
They aren't of less concern, the issue is that when we talk about sexual assault is that bringing up false allegations is incredibly misleading. Its an entirely different issue than sexual assault that requires an entirely different approach to tackle. Think about the entire legal system, people that are innocent might get convicted and spend years in prison, standards are being improved to avoid this but at the end of the line its not a number you're ever going to reduce to zero. Does this mean the entire system is flawed then? Does it mean you have to reduce sentences across the board or make it harder for people to go to prison to avoid them being victimized by the process? As a society we have to accept in the end that whatever we do, we can't reduce the number of sexual assaults or the number of false allegations completely to zero, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't bother at all or both issues regardless of size are worthy of and can demand equal attention. Does a movement on a single issue (sexual assault) have to spend equal amounts of time on every other issue that gets brought up? That's what its being dragged to, MeToo was about sexual assault, now its rapidly being dragged into the false allegations swamp completely ignoring that its a parasite on the larger movement and not an expression of the movement.
Don't get me wrong, I'm supportive of most aspects of the Me Too movement. Keeping silent about predatory scumbags is not a good thing. They should be exposed.
What I'm not down for is metaphorical summary executions or burning down a house to take out the cockroaches.
But that isn't an expression of the movement, its just an expression of society. The actions of fringe elements doesn't dictate how good or bad the movement is, because if it does, almost everything in society is tainted by association. We shouldn't let the debate be dictated by the fringe. The court of public opinion has always played its part, it didn't suddenly come into being with the MeToo surge.
Breaking the culture of silence is a good thing indeed. But for how many allegations we have heard on the national level, how many more have just dissapeared in an ocean full of them, whether true or false? The idea that false allegations are the main line of the movement is a terrible idea, because it requires a significant investment into making up something believable that you would directly benefit from and then having the 'fortune' to be picked up out of a crowd. We have had millions of women speak up about there personal experiences with sexual assault across the world, can you without googling name more than a handful of them? The idea that people are lining up to benefit from the movement with false allegations (I mean how would one benefit even? If its local you really only have a limited circle) Is just incredulous given the scope of what were talking about.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sources? I would honestly like to read about it, sonce that was before my time.
Evidently, you've never heard of the "Satanic Panic" back in the 1980's. It even hit my area. And it was all based on kids starting rumors, and them getting out of control.
Oh, and as for your earlier comments about us skeptics blaming the victim and making excuses for rapists and sex offenders? I've been on calls that involved sexual assault that later turned out to be bunk, either done out of malice or to cover up something that somebody did. And I've had a cousin whom I was close to at one time, and an ex-in-law, that both suffered bull accusations that more or less ruined their lives despite the claims turning out to be lies. So, before you go on a bleeding heart, emotional rant, I suggest you had better read what others post before you start accusing people of such BS.
And I have yet to witness, or hear of, a case where the people who come out with such claims suffer the same stigma and ruination that those falsely accused go through.If anything nowadays, they are celebrated for being "brave" (to name a commonly overused word in the media today).
And for those that speak of how "rare" that false accusations are, please excuse me if I don't buy into the philosophy of "you have to break a few eggs to make an omellet" in this case. I don't give a good goddamned if it's 6% or a gazillion percent of cases, any is too much. Period. Just ask my cousin and the former in-law in question (who sufferes from mild mental retardation, which makes what he went through even worse). They would likely agree with me.
I wasn't born then, so thank you for the reference. At any rate, what I mean is that the concern over false accusations miraculously becomes a huge issue for people in sexual assault when they don't murmer a peep in discussions of other crimes. It's an obvious straw man to deflect from sexual assault because the concern is false; a double standard where the issue is only deemed worth discussion because sexual assault needs to be delegitimized. In no other crime is false accusation brought up as readily or as thoroughly. Zero concern is demonstrated for victims who have their lives ruined just for speaking out, something that's even worse. False accusations are a real problem that people like you are making it harder to deal woth by using it as a mere tool to defend rapists. I speak out against it being used this way because I actually believe it is a real issue, rather than claiming to.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And no, there is no better way of handling this, welcome to a free society, this is what happens, it sucks but its unavoidable. Even China with all their censorship has not solved the issue of the "human flesh search engine". The amount of censorship in the press and internet you would have to institute makes the public court unavoidable. The amount of societal changes you would have to push through to get rid off this effect is impossible. You know what would help though? Improving the prosecution of real sexual assault. All to frequently sexual assault is still seen as a crime without punishment (and in a sense it is), tackle that issue and the demand for public justice might be reduced. You're always going to have the public court of opinion on (pseudo) celebrities, regardless of what they do.
This is not just about celebrities. This is about a growing acceptance in society to instantly and uncritically believe one group, potential victims of assault, over another group, the potential perpetrators of the crime. That fundamentally goes against how the law should work, and while we are talking about public opinion and that is not constrained by the rules of law, there is still a gross injustice done to alleged criminals despite no evidence presented of their crimes having been committed. And people seem to be fine with that.
Disciple of Fate wrote: They aren't of less concern, the issue is that when we talk about sexual assault is that bringing up false allegations is incredibly misleading. Its an entirely different issue than sexual assault that requires an entirely different approach to tackle.
It is absolutely relevant in cases like Hardwick's where the claim of sexual assault is made, but no action is taken on the alleged victim's part to pursue legal recourse. As stated in the OP, there have been no legal or civil charges filed, and yet in some peoples minds Hardwick is now a sexual predator. That is the problem at hand. If Dykstra had filed a police report or even gone after Hardwick in civil court it would make her claims appear less spurious because she was actively pressing her case. Instead, she eluded to Hardwick through a public essay and now he has to defend himself against her claims. That is the problem. A person being able to randomly post something online gets another person sidelined from their jobs until an investigation is conducted. And regardless of how that investigation concludes, sexual assault or no, Hardwick will carry this stigma with him.
Just like my favorite MeToo problem case involving "Grace" and Aziz Ansari. There was no attempt to properly deal with a any "crime" that took place on that horrid date night. Instead, an article was published. That isn't the actions of someone seeking justice for an inflicted wrong. That is someone with an agenda capitalizing on a social movement to get attention.
Disciple of Fate wrote: MeToo was about sexual assault, now its rapidly being dragged into the false allegations swamp completely ignoring that its a parasite on the larger movement and not an expression of the movement.
Because when you have high profile misfires with MeToo, like Ansari or George Takei, it shines a light on how overzealous we have become in dealing with this issue.
Look at how rabidly Matt Damon was attacked for suggesting that there are gradations to sexual assault and that nuance is needed in dealing with these issues. He was shouted down and attacked, and it wasn't until months later that Juliana Marguiles bravely defended him. I say bravely because there is a group think present with this issue that is gendered and extremely anti-male. The idea that men can't speak out on this, that they only have to shut up and listen, and that they are automatically guilty is no way to move forward as a society.
Trying to make the whole issue about false accusations is what keeps destroying male credibility. Those who want to offer a measured viewpoint are lumped in with those who only care about innocents getting their lives ruined when it is useful to defend sexual assault. Which is too bad because there are a lot of males who care just as much as women do. Fortunately the majority will still hear them out, though a secondary issue is some men pointing to feminazis to try and disregard the whole thing as sexism.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And no, there is no better way of handling this, welcome to a free society, this is what happens, it sucks but its unavoidable. Even China with all their censorship has not solved the issue of the "human flesh search engine". The amount of censorship in the press and internet you would have to institute makes the public court unavoidable. The amount of societal changes you would have to push through to get rid off this effect is impossible. You know what would help though? Improving the prosecution of real sexual assault. All to frequently sexual assault is still seen as a crime without punishment (and in a sense it is), tackle that issue and the demand for public justice might be reduced. You're always going to have the public court of opinion on (pseudo) celebrities, regardless of what they do.
This is not just about celebrities. This is about a growing acceptance in society to instantly and uncritically believe one group, potential victims of assault, over another group, the potential perpetrators of the crime. That fundamentally goes against how the law should work, and while we are talking about public opinion and that is not constrained by the rules of law, there is still a gross injustice done to alleged criminals despite no evidence presented of their crimes having been committed. And people seem to be fine with that.
And the above comment wasn't only directed at celebrities. The celebrities part was added because celebrities are particularly vulnerable to the whims of their industry regardless. The idea that this is something new and growing is patently ridiculous, McCarthy got a good sized chunk of public support for his witch hunts, regardless of "how the law should work". People have always worked this way. I think you're also vastly overstating how many instantly and uncritically believe it when you go down to the average man or woman. Where do you think the backlash is coming from?
People should not be fine with that, but people are fine with lots of things, as I said, its an unavoidable side effect of a free (and even repressive) society. You're trying to argue that the MeToo movement is somehow unique in this or that this is a problem that can even be tackled in society, its simply untrue and impossible.
Disciple of Fate wrote: They aren't of less concern, the issue is that when we talk about sexual assault is that bringing up false allegations is incredibly misleading. Its an entirely different issue than sexual assault that requires an entirely different approach to tackle.
It is absolutely relevant in cases like Hardwick's where the claim of sexual assault is made, but no action is taken on the alleged victim's part to pursue legal recourse. As stated in the OP, there have been no legal or civil charges filed, and yet in some peoples minds Hardwick is now a sexual predator. That is the problem at hand. If Dykstra had filed a police report or even gone after Hardwick in civil court it would make her claims appear less spurious because she was actively pressing her case. Instead, she eluded to Hardwick through a public essay and now he has to defend himself against her claims. That is the problem. A person being able to randomly post something online gets another person sidelined from their jobs until an investigation is conducted. And regardless of how that investigation concludes, sexual assault or no, Hardwick will carry this stigma with him.
Just like my favorite MeToo problem case involving "Grace" and Aziz Ansari. There was no attempt to properly deal with a any "crime" that took place on that horrid date night. Instead, an article was published. That isn't the actions of someone seeking justice for an inflicted wrong. That is someone with an agenda capitalizing on a social movement to get attention.
You missed my point. I was talking about the wider issue of sexual assault in the context of the MeToo movement. The Hardwick thing could be totally separate from that and still occur the same way. And no, no charges were filed,why? We don't know, but to assume its only plausible to people if charges are filed is simply naive. A good majority of cases of sexual assault never gets filed and the conviction rate is even far lower. There are many reasons why they don't file charges, but filling charges doesn't suddenly make the story more plausible. Nobody made charges against Weinstein when this all began either, that only came later.
You do realize this is an industry problem right? Not a MeToo or the culture around sexual assault problem? People get fired for racist tweets, political views or any other reason under the sun in the industry. Its how the business works, once you're bad for business you're out. Its a societal problem. On the flip side, we have people being blacklisted and/or sidelined for being victims. Note that this is exactly what Dykstra alleges, that Hardwick did the same to her as you accuse her of doing right now.
The idea that people only speak out to capitalize is also thoroughly discouraging to read. Is the only acceptable way to file a police report in silence and hope you're the lucky minority who actually get a trial?
Disciple of Fate wrote: MeToo was about sexual assault, now its rapidly being dragged into the false allegations swamp completely ignoring that its a parasite on the larger movement and not an expression of the movement.
Because when you have high profile misfires with MeToo, like Ansari or George Takei, it shines a light on how overzealous we have become in dealing with this issue.
Look at how rabidly Matt Damon was attacked for suggesting that there are gradations to sexual assault and that nuance is needed in dealing with these issues. He was shouted down and attacked, and it wasn't until months later that Juliana Marguiles bravely defended him. I say bravely because there is a group think present with this issue that is gendered and extremely anti-male. The idea that men can't speak out on this, that they only have to shut up and listen, and that they are automatically guilty is no way to move forward as a society.
Do we though? You're talking about high profile misfires and those are terrible. But how many names can you even remember without googling, the millions of women who have shared their stories of sexual assault that were never picked up in the media? Shining a light on sexual assault when perhaps more than half go unreported is overzealous? The only alternative is going back to a culture of silence, where people are victimized but don't feel free to speak out, because of a few mistakes in a sea of stories. What would your choice be?
Also you seem to be missing the point behind the attacks (still wrong to attack someone) on Matt Damon, it was because he gave a totally uninformed opinion. He literally said "None of us came here perfect" and called it "outrage culture", or the Louis CK comment? There were serious problems with the comments he made. Men can speak out, but Damon's comments were certainly tone deaf.
Just like my favorite MeToo problem case involving "Grace" and Aziz Ansari. There was no attempt to properly deal with a any "crime" that took place on that horrid date night. Instead, an article was published. That isn't the actions of someone seeking justice for an inflicted wrong. That is someone with an agenda capitalizing on a social movement to get attention.
Disciple of Fate wrote: MeToo was about sexual assault, now its rapidly being dragged into the false allegations swamp completely ignoring that its a parasite on the larger movement and not an expression of the movement.
Because when you have high profile misfires with MeToo, like Ansari or George Takei, it shines a light on how overzealous we have become in dealing with this issue.
Look at how rabidly Matt Damon was attacked for suggesting that there are gradations to sexual assault and that nuance is needed in dealing with these issues. He was shouted down and attacked, and it wasn't until months later that Juliana Marguiles bravely defended him. I say bravely because there is a group think present with this issue that is gendered and extremely anti-male. The idea that men can't speak out on this, that they only have to shut up and listen, and that they are automatically guilty is no way to move forward as a society.
So, I think the issue with Ansari in particular is that the accusation didn't really have any major effect, right? He was defended by coworkers and collaborators, nobody cancelled his show, and there was open debate even in the #MeToo movement if the accusations rose to the level of misconduct.
As for George Takei, I'm not sure if the allegations derailed anything for him, since he seems to work sporadically and mostly in cameos. But I could be wrong.
My point is that while there is a lot of hand wringing about false accusations "ruining" careers, what we've actually seen so far from the MeToo accusations has been a range of results, from essentially no action to criminal proceedings.
My gut tells me that one of two things will happen in this case: either Hardwick doubles down on his allegation, and then calls her on her evidence; or he knows what she has, and quietly works out a deal with AMC and NBC about his shows.
This isn't going to be a hard case to fight, as it's not really a he said/she said. If she's alleging emotional abuse over a three year period, there are going to be supporting witnesses, not to mention the people who are involved in the blacklisting. That's what makes this interesting to me. She's not alleging something completely private and one time, but rather a pattern of behavior over years, that involves other people.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The idea that people are lining up to benefit from the movement with false allegations (I mean how would one benefit even? If its local you really only have a limited circle) Is just incredulous given the scope of what were talking about.
How would people benefit? Let's ask Mattress Girl, or "Jane" from the I stand with Jane movement. Or the girl that accused a fraternity of gang rape so she's get the sympathy of a boy she liked.
I'm not saying that false accusations are the norm. They are definitely in the minority. They are a detractor from a movement that has purpose. I do think that simply ignoring the thorn in your side isn't going to help.
I feel the same way about BLM. I like the idea behind the movement, but I think they'd be much further ahead to call out their own fringe elements and only protest the "Castile" cases, and disavow themselves from the Quanice Hayes protestors.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The idea that people are lining up to benefit from the movement with false allegations (I mean how would one benefit even? If its local you really only have a limited circle) Is just incredulous given the scope of what were talking about.
How would people benefit? Let's ask Mattress Girl, or "Jane" from the I stand with Jane movement. Or the girl that accused a fraternity of gang rape so she's get the sympathy of a boy she liked.
I'm not saying that false accusations are the norm. They are definitely in the minority. They are a detractor from a movement that has purpose. I do think that simply ignoring the thorn in your side isn't going to help.
I feel the same way about BLM. I like the idea behind the movement, but I think they'd be much further ahead to call out their own fringe elements and only protest the "Castile" cases, and disavow themselves from the Quanice Hayes protestors.
First off, 'Mattress Girl' used her experience 2 years later to make a piece of performance art. You got to explain how benefit is used in this case, she put in a ton of effort for a false claim and walked away with nothing, which is the opposite of what people are supposedly doing right now. Jane, I have no idea what case you are referring to and the last example, which one? Typing said words into google shows me a ton of results. Benefit is used in a very generous way here I feel. I guess if you believe in the saying there is no such thing as bad publicity, because I'm not seeing it.
Ignoring the thorn in your side is the only thing you can do, seeing as said thorn is completely unrelated and a parasite on the movement and addressing it will never make it go away. Its just going to focus more attention on false allegations and turn the perception of the entire movement toxic, as some people are already trying to do.
The second the BLM has to openly start calling out the parasitic elements and engage with them is the moment its opponents are going to go "see, they are all part of the same movement, why would they have these people in the movement if you disagree with them?" Its a movement without leadership, you don't get to pre-select your members and every idiot can proclaim they are part of it, that doesn't mean the debate should focus on said idiots to the detriment of the overall movement. You're never going to get rid of idiots attaching themselves to the movement, all you have to do is distance yourself from their conduct and make clear they are not part of your movement without engaging them.
cuda1179 wrote: Or the girl that accused a fraternity of gang rape so she's get the sympathy of a boy she liked.
Well, she was a very troubled person, with a string of arrests before and after that event. She currently serving 14-18 years or murder.
It's also worth noting that the DA in that case was disbarred and forced to step down. And three of the accused received seven figure settlements from the University. Oh, and the cop that led the investigation committed suicide.
Not to be flip, but in the aftermath of those accusations and prosecution, there are plenty of ruined lives, but not the lives of the falsely accused. That was the very rare case of a deliberately false accusation, but that was also abetted by crooked cops and a crooked DA.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And no, there is no better way of handling this, welcome to a free society, this is what happens, it sucks but its unavoidable. Even China with all their censorship has not solved the issue of the "human flesh search engine". The amount of censorship in the press and internet you would have to institute makes the public court unavoidable. The amount of societal changes you would have to push through to get rid off this effect is impossible. You know what would help though? Improving the prosecution of real sexual assault. All to frequently sexual assault is still seen as a crime without punishment (and in a sense it is), tackle that issue and the demand for public justice might be reduced. You're always going to have the public court of opinion on (pseudo) celebrities, regardless of what they do.
This is not just about celebrities. This is about a growing acceptance in society to instantly and uncritically believe one group, potential victims of assault, over another group, the potential perpetrators of the crime. That fundamentally goes against how the law should work, and while we are talking about public opinion and that is not constrained by the rules of law, there is still a gross injustice done to alleged criminals despite no evidence presented of their crimes having been committed. And people seem to be fine with that.
And the above comment wasn't only directed at celebrities. The celebrities part was added because celebrities are particularly vulnerable to the whims of their industry regardless. The idea that this is something new and growing is patently ridiculous, McCarthy got a good sized chunk of public support for his witch hunts, regardless of "how the law should work". People have always worked this way. I think you're also vastly overstating how many instantly and uncritically believe it when you go down to the average man or woman. Where do you think the backlash is coming from?
People should not be fine with that, but people are fine with lots of things, as I said, its an unavoidable side effect of a free (and even repressive) society. You're trying to argue that the MeToo movement is somehow unique in this or that this is a problem that can even be tackled in society, its simply untrue and impossible.
I think your acceptance of witch hunts as inevitable is lazy. We should strive to do better, not emulate mistakes from the past. I am also not arguing the MeToo movement is unique in creating witch hunts, rather that the witch hunts are hurting the credibility of MeToo. I also think you are vastly underestimating how many people blindly accept whatever crap scrolls across their screen.
Disciple of Fate wrote: They aren't of less concern, the issue is that when we talk about sexual assault is that bringing up false allegations is incredibly misleading. Its an entirely different issue than sexual assault that requires an entirely different approach to tackle.
It is absolutely relevant in cases like Hardwick's where the claim of sexual assault is made, but no action is taken on the alleged victim's part to pursue legal recourse. As stated in the OP, there have been no legal or civil charges filed, and yet in some peoples minds Hardwick is now a sexual predator. That is the problem at hand. If Dykstra had filed a police report or even gone after Hardwick in civil court it would make her claims appear less spurious because she was actively pressing her case. Instead, she eluded to Hardwick through a public essay and now he has to defend himself against her claims. That is the problem. A person being able to randomly post something online gets another person sidelined from their jobs until an investigation is conducted. And regardless of how that investigation concludes, sexual assault or no, Hardwick will carry this stigma with him.
Just like my favorite MeToo problem case involving "Grace" and Aziz Ansari. There was no attempt to properly deal with a any "crime" that took place on that horrid date night. Instead, an article was published. That isn't the actions of someone seeking justice for an inflicted wrong. That is someone with an agenda capitalizing on a social movement to get attention.
You missed my point. I was talking about the wider issue of sexual assault in the context of the MeToo movement. The Hardwick thing could be totally separate from that and still occur the same way. And no, no charges were filed,why? We don't know, but to assume its only plausible to people if charges are filed is simply naive. A good majority of cases of sexual assault never gets filed and the conviction rate is even far lower. There are many reasons why they don't file charges, but filling charges doesn't suddenly make the story more plausible. Nobody made charges against Weinstein when this all began either, that only came later.
You are missing my point here, or intentionally jumping between the specifics of the Hardwick/Dykstra situation and the larger situation of sexual assault to muddy the waters. I am not sure which is the case here as you are arguing generalities and specifics at the same time.
However, the point i was making was that Dykstra not filing a police report while making a public statement about her ex makes HER claim seem less reasonable. Filing charges does make the story more plausible because it elevates the story from a lurid piece of celebrity gossip to a possible criminal investigation. I am not speaking on the larger subject of sexual assault and reporting, I am specifically referring to this case. That Dykstra only went public with her story, and didn't even name Hardwick specifically, initially makes me think this is a smear job like "Grace's" story about Ansari. If more information comes out I'll happily change my opinion, but without anything concrete to point to this looks like an ex with a grudge. Because we have nothing else substantive to work with it throws the whole situation into question.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You do realize this is an industry problem right? Not a MeToo or the culture around sexual assault problem? People get fired for racist tweets, political views or any other reason under the sun in the industry. Its how the business works, once you're bad for business you're out. Its a societal problem.
It isn't just a Hollywood industry problem. You are right, it is a societal problem, but this is leaking outside of Hollywood and if we just blindly allow alleged victims to steamroll over the accused without a better handling of everyone's rights we are in for a mess. Read this to see how MeToo is impacting more than just Hollywood.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The idea that people only speak out to capitalize is also thoroughly discouraging to read. Is the only acceptable way to file a police report in silence and hope you're the lucky minority who actually get a trial?
Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said that. The acceptable way for a victim to proceed is to file a police report, file an HR report, file whatever report they need to do to get justice. Starting with a public essay to air out dirty laundry would not be Step 1. in my "How to Deal With and Overcome Sexual Assault" playbook.
Disciple of Fate wrote: MeToo was about sexual assault, now its rapidly being dragged into the false allegations swamp completely ignoring that its a parasite on the larger movement and not an expression of the movement.
Because when you have high profile misfires with MeToo, like Ansari or George Takei, it shines a light on how overzealous we have become in dealing with this issue.
Look at how rabidly Matt Damon was attacked for suggesting that there are gradations to sexual assault and that nuance is needed in dealing with these issues. He was shouted down and attacked, and it wasn't until months later that Juliana Marguiles bravely defended him. I say bravely because there is a group think present with this issue that is gendered and extremely anti-male. The idea that men can't speak out on this, that they only have to shut up and listen, and that they are automatically guilty is no way to move forward as a society.
Do we though? You're talking about high profile misfires and those are terrible. But how many names can you even remember without googling, the millions of women who have shared their stories of sexual assault that were never picked up in the media?
Did you just honestly ask me to recall names of people who have never been picked up and reported by the media? Come on. Even as a rhetorical device that is lame. Again, you are going general when I am going specific here.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Shining a light on sexual assault when perhaps more than half go unreported is overzealous? The only alternative is going back to a culture of silence, where people are victimized but don't feel free to speak out, because of a few mistakes in a sea of stories. What would your choice be?
Really? Just two options? I don't think so. Again, you are being lazy and not willing to look for a better alternative. And what is overzealous is blindly accepting that any claim made by a person IS truth. No, it isn't. The zealotry is with the mob mentality of tearing someone down at the mere mention of an infraction, not in the act of identifying legitimate claims of sexual assault.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also you seem to be missing the point behind the attacks (still wrong to attack someone) on Matt Damon, it was because he gave a totally uninformed opinion. He literally said "None of us came here perfect" and called it "outrage culture", or the Louis CK comment? There were serious problems with the comments he made. Men can speak out, but Damon's comments were certainly tone deaf.
Matt Damon wrote:“With the criminal activity, a lot of people said, ‘Everybody knew.’ That’s not true, Everybody knew what kind of guy he was — that he was tough, he was a bully … You knew he was a dog, but nobody who made movies for him knew he was raping human beings. Any human being would have put a stop to that, no matter who he was … I knew I wouldn’t want him married to anyone close to me. But that was the extent of what we knew, you know? And that wasn’t surprising to anybody. So when you hear ‘Harvey this, Harvey that’ — I mean, look at the guy. Of course he’s a womanizer. The Harvey situation is particularly horrible because those women — when you say, ‘Hey, let’s take a meeting in a hotel room’ — we auditioned for ‘Good Will Hunting’ in a hotel room. It’s not uncommon to take a meeting in a hotel room, and this is the most powerful man in the movie business at the time … If you get a thing from your agent on the letterhead of your agency that says, ‘Go meet Harvey Weinstein … at the Peninsula hotel,’ you go to that meeting,” he said. “You don’t go into that meeting thinking something bad is going to happen to you.”
So, Damon is acknowledging that people knew Weinstein was scum, but not at the level he really was, and that there was a normalcy to taking meetings in hotels. Nothing particularly tone deaf here, is there?
On Louis C.K.:
Matt Damon wrote:“The Louis C.K. thing, I don’t know all the details,” Damon said. “I don’t do deep dives on this, but I did see his statement, which was arresting to me. When he came out and said, ‘I did this. I did these things. These women are all telling the truth.’ And I just remember thinking, ‘Well, that’s the sign of somebody who — well, we can work with that.’ What the Hell else are you supposed to do? The fear for me is that right now, we’re in this moment — and I hope it doesn’t stay this way — the clear signal to men and to younger people is, ‘Deny it, because if you take responsibility for what you did, your life’s going to get ruined. But if you deny it, you can be in the White House, you can be the president.’ That message is 100 percent being sent right now.”
So he was congratulating C.K. for owning his gak, and went on to say why he felt that was worth acknowledging because the opposite, denial, is the more common path. Jeez. What a fething monster Matt Damon is.
On Weinstein and Franken:
Matt Damon wrote:“When you see Al Franken taking a picture putting his hands on that woman’s flak jacket and mugging for the camera … that is just like a terrible joke, and it’s not funny. It’s wrong, and he shouldn’t have done that,” Damon said. “But when you talk about Harvey and what he’s accused of, there are no pictures of that. He knew he was up to no good. There’s no witnesses, there’s no pictures, there’s no braggadocio — that stuff happened secretly, because it was criminal and he knew it. So they don’t belong in the same category.”
And they don't belong in the same category. Just like there are levels of murder there are levels of sexual assault, and there needs to be some nuance between the people who are irredeemable like Weinstein, and those who have made questionable, but ultimately not disastrous mistakes, like Franken.
Matt Damon spoke out reasonable on the issues and was attacked. Because he was a man. That is the problem at the heart of MeToo. It is being used as much as a weapon as it is as a salve for those who were victimized.
So, I think the issue with Ansari in particular is that the accusation didn't really have any major effect, right? He was defended by coworkers and collaborators, nobody cancelled his show, and there was open debate even in the #MeToo movement if the accusations rose to the level of misconduct.
It is questionable. He has gone silent. Master of None wasn't necessarily going to come back for a 3rd season right away, but it is unclear if that situation killed the show from having a 3rd season. He also isn't touring and has been keeping a low profile. I am not his business manager but I'd assume he has suffered some financial consequences from his date with "Grace."
Polonius wrote: As for George Takei, I'm not sure if the allegations derailed anything for him, since he seems to work sporadically and mostly in cameos. But I could be wrong.
He has lost fan support and also has been less publicly present. He traded pretty heavily on his social progressiveness, and the supposed hypocrisy of him going after Trump for assault when he was accused of assault himself made people back off following him.
Polonius wrote: My point is that while there is a lot of hand wringing about false accusations "ruining" careers, what we've actually seen so far from the MeToo accusations has been a range of results, from essentially no action to criminal proceedings.
How much fallout is acceptable for a nothingburger offense?
Disciple of Fate wrote: And no, there is no better way of handling this, welcome to a free society, this is what happens, it sucks but its unavoidable. Even China with all their censorship has not solved the issue of the "human flesh search engine". The amount of censorship in the press and internet you would have to institute makes the public court unavoidable. The amount of societal changes you would have to push through to get rid off this effect is impossible. You know what would help though? Improving the prosecution of real sexual assault. All to frequently sexual assault is still seen as a crime without punishment (and in a sense it is), tackle that issue and the demand for public justice might be reduced. You're always going to have the public court of opinion on (pseudo) celebrities, regardless of what they do.
This is not just about celebrities. This is about a growing acceptance in society to instantly and uncritically believe one group, potential victims of assault, over another group, the potential perpetrators of the crime. That fundamentally goes against how the law should work, and while we are talking about public opinion and that is not constrained by the rules of law, there is still a gross injustice done to alleged criminals despite no evidence presented of their crimes having been committed. And people seem to be fine with that.
And the above comment wasn't only directed at celebrities. The celebrities part was added because celebrities are particularly vulnerable to the whims of their industry regardless. The idea that this is something new and growing is patently ridiculous, McCarthy got a good sized chunk of public support for his witch hunts, regardless of "how the law should work". People have always worked this way. I think you're also vastly overstating how many instantly and uncritically believe it when you go down to the average man or woman. Where do you think the backlash is coming from?
People should not be fine with that, but people are fine with lots of things, as I said, its an unavoidable side effect of a free (and even repressive) society. You're trying to argue that the MeToo movement is somehow unique in this or that this is a problem that can even be tackled in society, its simply untrue and impossible.
I think your acceptance of witch hunts as inevitable is lazy. We should strive to do better, not emulate mistakes from the past. I am also not arguing the MeToo movement is unique in creating witch hunts, rather that the witch hunts are hurting the credibility of MeToo. I also think you are vastly underestimating how many people blindly accept whatever crap scrolls across their screen.
Lazy? I haven't seen you bring up any solution or any counter to the fact that this has gone on for at least a century and not even some of the most censorship heavy nations like China have been able to prevent it. Don't call something lazy when you have only an idealistic view of how the world should work to work with. Somehow though, nothing else gets as much worry expended on it as this.
Disciple of Fate wrote: They aren't of less concern, the issue is that when we talk about sexual assault is that bringing up false allegations is incredibly misleading. Its an entirely different issue than sexual assault that requires an entirely different approach to tackle.
It is absolutely relevant in cases like Hardwick's where the claim of sexual assault is made, but no action is taken on the alleged victim's part to pursue legal recourse. As stated in the OP, there have been no legal or civil charges filed, and yet in some peoples minds Hardwick is now a sexual predator. That is the problem at hand. If Dykstra had filed a police report or even gone after Hardwick in civil court it would make her claims appear less spurious because she was actively pressing her case. Instead, she eluded to Hardwick through a public essay and now he has to defend himself against her claims. That is the problem. A person being able to randomly post something online gets another person sidelined from their jobs until an investigation is conducted. And regardless of how that investigation concludes, sexual assault or no, Hardwick will carry this stigma with him.
Just like my favorite MeToo problem case involving "Grace" and Aziz Ansari. There was no attempt to properly deal with a any "crime" that took place on that horrid date night. Instead, an article was published. That isn't the actions of someone seeking justice for an inflicted wrong. That is someone with an agenda capitalizing on a social movement to get attention.
You missed my point. I was talking about the wider issue of sexual assault in the context of the MeToo movement. The Hardwick thing could be totally separate from that and still occur the same way. And no, no charges were filed,why? We don't know, but to assume its only plausible to people if charges are filed is simply naive. A good majority of cases of sexual assault never gets filed and the conviction rate is even far lower. There are many reasons why they don't file charges, but filling charges doesn't suddenly make the story more plausible. Nobody made charges against Weinstein when this all began either, that only came later.
You are missing my point here, or intentionally jumping between the specifics of the Hardwick/Dykstra situation and the larger situation of sexual assault to muddy the waters. I am not sure which is the case here as you are arguing generalities and specifics at the same time.
However, the point i was making was that Dykstra not filing a police report while making a public statement about her ex makes HER claim seem less reasonable. Filing charges does make the story more plausible because it elevates the story from a lurid piece of celebrity gossip to a possible criminal investigation. I am not speaking on the larger subject of sexual assault and reporting, I am specifically referring to this case. That Dykstra only went public with her story, and didn't even name Hardwick specifically, initially makes me think this is a smear job like "Grace's" story about Ansari. If more information comes out I'll happily change my opinion, but without anything concrete to point to this looks like an ex with a grudge. Because we have nothing else substantive to work with it throws the whole situation into question.
Because you're bringing up the specific case and I'm using it as an example now?
Also, why is it less reasonable, filling in a police report doesn't add anything to her allegation. Few actually make it to trial. Say she filed one and it didn't get prosecuted, then what? Would the decision not to prosecute also make her less believable? I mean its a useless barrier, anyone really comitted could just file one, because the specifics are really difficult to track and in a legally gray area.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You do realize this is an industry problem right? Not a MeToo or the culture around sexual assault problem? People get fired for racist tweets, political views or any other reason under the sun in the industry. Its how the business works, once you're bad for business you're out. Its a societal problem.
It isn't just a Hollywood industry problem. You are right, it is a societal problem, but this is leaking outside of Hollywood and if we just blindly allow alleged victims to steamroll over the accused without a better handling of everyone's rights we are in for a mess. Read this to see how MeToo is impacting more than just Hollywood.
Hollywood is not leaking anything. This has always happened both in and outside. Even your source clearly states that:
"When you start talking to employees, they say, 'Oh, this was pervasive for 20 years.' It's because, until last year October, we just made those cases go away,"
primarily by settling cases out of court, or using nondisclosure agreements, Taylor says.
MeToo had changed nothing about the public witch hunt, it has always been there. To pretend we're somehow in for a mess just because the culture of silence is being broken is facetious. It was already a mess, just one kept under wraps.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The idea that people only speak out to capitalize is also thoroughly discouraging to read. Is the only acceptable way to file a police report in silence and hope you're the lucky minority who actually get a trial?
Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said that. The acceptable way for a victim to proceed is to file a police report, file an HR report, file whatever report they need to do to get justice. Starting with a public essay to air out dirty laundry would not be Step 1. in my "How to Deal With and Overcome Sexual Assault" playbook.
Except that it won't get you justice in the vast majority of cases, your idealism is standing in the way of observable reality. Less than 1% of reports filed lead to a conviction in the end and for the HR one I refer you back to your own source:
"When you start talking to employees, they say, 'Oh, this was pervasive for 20 years.' It's because, until last year October, we just made those cases go away,"
primarily by settling cases out of court, or using nondisclosure agreements, Taylor says.
If your playbook worked, maybe less people would feel the need to go public.
Disciple of Fate wrote: MeToo was about sexual assault, now its rapidly being dragged into the false allegations swamp completely ignoring that its a parasite on the larger movement and not an expression of the movement.
Because when you have high profile misfires with MeToo, like Ansari or George Takei, it shines a light on how overzealous we have become in dealing with this issue.
Look at how rabidly Matt Damon was attacked for suggesting that there are gradations to sexual assault and that nuance is needed in dealing with these issues. He was shouted down and attacked, and it wasn't until months later that Juliana Marguiles bravely defended him. I say bravely because there is a group think present with this issue that is gendered and extremely anti-male. The idea that men can't speak out on this, that they only have to shut up and listen, and that they are automatically guilty is no way to move forward as a society.
Do we though? You're talking about high profile misfires and those are terrible. But how many names can you even remember without googling, the millions of women who have shared their stories of sexual assault that were never picked up in the media?
Did you just honestly ask me to recall names of people who have never been picked up and reported by the media? Come on. Even as a rhetorical device that is lame. Again, you are going general when I am going specific here.
I'm going general because you're trying to use two very specific cases to try and argue that the movement is rotten or overzealous. Its two cases out of how many? The people accusing Weinstein already outnumber your two specific cases multiple times. You want to go specific because it suits your argument.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Shining a light on sexual assault when perhaps more than half go unreported is overzealous? The only alternative is going back to a culture of silence, where people are victimized but don't feel free to speak out, because of a few mistakes in a sea of stories. What would your choice be?
Really? Just two options? I don't think so. Again, you are being lazy and not willing to look for a better alternative. And what is overzealous is blindly accepting that any claim made by a person IS truth. No, it isn't. The zealotry is with the mob mentality of tearing someone down at the mere mention of an infraction, not in the act of identifying legitimate claims of sexual assault.
Again, you don't get to call anyone lazy without having your own argument. This is how society developed, from culture of silence to MeToo. Your idealism is commendable, but its also unworkable because you don't control soviety.The issue is that this 'zealotry' is a backlash against how the system works. Unless you improve the system this isn't going to go away any time soon. Now try to offer up a workable solution instead of shouting lazy?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also you seem to be missing the point behind the attacks (still wrong to attack someone) on Matt Damon, it was because he gave a totally uninformed opinion. He literally said "None of us came here perfect" and called it "outrage culture", or the Louis CK comment? There were serious problems with the comments he made. Men can speak out, but Damon's comments were certainly tone deaf.
Matt Damon wrote:“With the criminal activity, a lot of people said, ‘Everybody knew.’ That’s not true, Everybody knew what kind of guy he was — that he was tough, he was a bully … You knew he was a dog, but nobody who made movies for him knew he was raping human beings. Any human being would have put a stop to that, no matter who he was … I knew I wouldn’t want him married to anyone close to me. But that was the extent of what we knew, you know? And that wasn’t surprising to anybody. So when you hear ‘Harvey this, Harvey that’ — I mean, look at the guy. Of course he’s a womanizer. The Harvey situation is particularly horrible because those women — when you say, ‘Hey, let’s take a meeting in a hotel room’ — we auditioned for ‘Good Will Hunting’ in a hotel room. It’s not uncommon to take a meeting in a hotel room, and this is the most powerful man in the movie business at the time … If you get a thing from your agent on the letterhead of your agency that says, ‘Go meet Harvey Weinstein … at the Peninsula hotel,’ you go to that meeting,” he said. “You don’t go into that meeting thinking something bad is going to happen to you.”
So, Damon is acknowledging that people knew Weinstein was scum, but not at the level he really was, and that there was a normalcy to taking meetings in hotels. Nothing particularly tone deaf here, is there?
On Louis C.K.:
Matt Damon wrote:“The Louis C.K. thing, I don’t know all the details,” Damon said. “I don’t do deep dives on this, but I did see his statement, which was arresting to me. When he came out and said, ‘I did this. I did these things. These women are all telling the truth.’ And I just remember thinking, ‘Well, that’s the sign of somebody who — well, we can work with that.’ What the Hell else are you supposed to do? The fear for me is that right now, we’re in this moment — and I hope it doesn’t stay this way — the clear signal to men and to younger people is, ‘Deny it, because if you take responsibility for what you did, your life’s going to get ruined. But if you deny it, you can be in the White House, you can be the president.’ That message is 100 percent being sent right now.”
So he was congratulating C.K. for owning his gak, and went on to say why he felt that was worth acknowledging because the opposite, denial, is the more common path. Jeez. What a fething monster Matt Damon is.
On Weinstein and Franken:
Matt Damon wrote:“When you see Al Franken taking a picture putting his hands on that woman’s flak jacket and mugging for the camera … that is just like a terrible joke, and it’s not funny. It’s wrong, and he shouldn’t have done that,” Damon said. “But when you talk about Harvey and what he’s accused of, there are no pictures of that. He knew he was up to no good. There’s no witnesses, there’s no pictures, there’s no braggadocio — that stuff happened secretly, because it was criminal and he knew it. So they don’t belong in the same category.”
And they don't belong in the same category. Just like there are levels of murder there are levels of sexual assault, and there needs to be some nuance between the people who are irredeemable like Weinstein, and those who have made questionable, but ultimately not disastrous mistakes, like Franken.
Matt Damon spoke out reasonable on the issues and was attacked. Because he was a man. That is the problem at the heart of MeToo. It is being used as much as a weapon as it is as a salve for those who were victimized.
No he didn't speak out reasonably, did you miss the part of the interview where he literally said "none of us came here perfect" when talking about sexual predators? Its seriously tone deaf.
Also not nobody knew about Weinstein, its simply not true, Weinstein had hired an agency to keep his 'activities'under wraps. People knew, they didn't put a stop to it. Damon was hopelessly naive in that part.
I mean he said agreeable things sure, but when you actually say nobody is perfect that is just something else. We're talking about sexual assault, not making a mistake at work.
Besides, you missed his best part on Louis CK:
I don’t know Louis C.K.. I’ve never met him. I’m a fan of his, but I don’t imagine he’s going to do those things again. You know what I mean?
Do what again, corner a 6th woman because he was outted? Damon was making his comments on Louis CK without knowing what he did. I mean how can Damon offer forgiveness for the things he doesn't know, why is that for him to decide?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sources? I would honestly like to read about it, sonce that was before my time.
Evidently, you've never heard of the "Satanic Panic" back in the 1980's. It even hit my area. And it was all based on kids starting rumors, and them getting out of control.
Oh, and as for your earlier comments about us skeptics blaming the victim and making excuses for rapists and sex offenders? I've been on calls that involved sexual assault that later turned out to be bunk, either done out of malice or to cover up something that somebody did. And I've had a cousin whom I was close to at one time, and an ex-in-law, that both suffered bull accusations that more or less ruined their lives despite the claims turning out to be lies. So, before you go on a bleeding heart, emotional rant, I suggest you had better read what others post before you start accusing people of such BS.
And I have yet to witness, or hear of, a case where the people who come out with such claims suffer the same stigma and ruination that those falsely accused go through.If anything nowadays, they are celebrated for being "brave" (to name a commonly overused word in the media today).
And for those that speak of how "rare" that false accusations are, please excuse me if I don't buy into the philosophy of "you have to break a few eggs to make an omellet" in this case. I don't give a good goddamned if it's 6% or a gazillion percent of cases, any is too much. Period. Just ask my cousin and the former in-law in question (who sufferes from mild mental retardation, which makes what he went through even worse). They would likely agree with me.
I wasn't born then, so thank you for the reference. At any rate, what I mean is that the concern over false accusations miraculously becomes a huge issue for people in sexual assault when they don't murmer a peep in discussions of other crimes. It's an obvious straw man to deflect from sexual assault because the concern is false; a double standard where the issue is only deemed worth discussion because sexual assault needs to be delegitimized. In no other crime is false accusation brought up as readily or as thoroughly. Zero concern is demonstrated for victims who have their lives ruined just for speaking out, something that's even worse. False accusations are a real problem that people like you are making it harder to deal woth by using it as a mere tool to defend rapists. I speak out against it being used this way because I actually believe it is a real issue, rather than claiming to.
Probably because so many of the accusations are of very serious crimes, they are presented without evidence, and people are being told to 'hate' the person being accused.
The problem is not necessarily that people don't believe the accuser, the problem is that they are being told to immediately change their beliefs. In many situations, anyone who doesn't accept what's being said verbatim is being called a sexist / racist / whatever for not accepting what, in any other circumstance, would be called a rumor. Which is just a bad way to operate in the world.
False accusations do occur, but they are rarely discussed. The people who say false accusations don't happen typically have no basis for making that claim other than the fact they are repeating something they heard.
False accusations do occur, but they are rarely discussed. The people who say false accusations don't happen typically have no basis for making that claim other than the fact they are repeating something they heard.
You'd be hard pressed to find someone serious who says "false accusations do not happen". That's a position only the fringiest of the fringe would take.
What people do say, and are supported by multiple credible studies, is that "false accusations do not happen at a rate that is worth worrying about".
Using the spectre of 'false accusations' to try and discredit the entire MeToo movement is like saying the entire pool is contaminated because a toddler peed in the shallow end.
False accusations do occur, but they are rarely discussed. The people who say false accusations don't happen typically have no basis for making that claim other than the fact they are repeating something they heard.
You'd be hard pressed to find someone serious who says "false accusations do not happen". That's a position only the fringiest of the fringe would take.
What people do say, and are supported by multiple credible studies, is that "false accusations do not happen at a rate that is worth worrying about".
Using the spectre of 'false accusations' to try and discredit the entire MeToo movement is like saying the entire pool is contaminated because a toddler peed in the shallow end.
Saying that I'm making the case that false accusations are a reason to disregard sexual assault accusations is a gross exaggeration of the point.
False accusations do occur, but they are rarely discussed. The people who say false accusations don't happen typically have no basis for making that claim other than the fact they are repeating something they heard.
You'd be hard pressed to find someone serious who says "false accusations do not happen". That's a position only the fringiest of the fringe would take.
What people do say, and are supported by multiple credible studies, is that "false accusations do not happen at a rate that is worth worrying about".
Using the spectre of 'false accusations' to try and discredit the entire MeToo movement is like saying the entire pool is contaminated because a toddler peed in the shallow end.
Saying that I'm making the case that false accusations are a reason to disregard sexual assault accusations is a gross exaggeration of the point.
Fair enough, I realise I made an assumption. I apologize for generalising your position.
False accusations do occur, but they are rarely discussed. The people who say false accusations don't happen typically have no basis for making that claim other than the fact they are repeating something they heard.
You'd be hard pressed to find someone serious who says "false accusations do not happen". That's a position only the fringiest of the fringe would take.
What people do say, and are supported by multiple credible studies, is that "false accusations do not happen at a rate that is worth worrying about".
Using the spectre of 'false accusations' to try and discredit the entire MeToo movement is like saying the entire pool is contaminated because a toddler peed in the shallow end.
While it isn't what Tech is saying (as established above) there's a good point to be made here--the position you are referring to happens a lot, where false accusations are used to attempt discrediting the entire movement. Which should be infuriating to people who actually care about false accusations (as people might have noticed a few pages back, it is to me); by using such a flimsy argument these individuals create the impression that anyone bringing up false accusations is only using it as an excuse. And it doesn't even have to be intentional; when there is a discussion about a #metoo situation and someone's first response is to raise up false accusations while making little to no comment on any other aspect they are presenting it as an excuse whether they want to or not. Unintended or intended, either way its defense of the rapists unless further context is given. And that chips away at the legitimacy of what is a separate issue that extends far, far beyond sexual assault.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lazy? I haven't seen you bring up any solution or any counter to the fact that this has gone on for at least a century and not even some of the most censorship heavy nations like China have been able to prevent it. Don't call something lazy when you have only an idealistic view of how the world should work to work with. Somehow though, nothing else gets as much worry expended on it as this.
I am calling your insistence that nothing can change and that things can only be X or Y lazy. That men have to accept being publicly shamed with no recourse because the *only* other option is for victims to be silenced is a false dichotomy and lazy thinking. I don't have an answer for this problem, but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist and that a solution isn't out there. There must be a better way forward or else this will simply entrench both sides and prevent any real meaningful change.
Disciple of Fate wrote: They aren't of less concern, the issue is that when we talk about sexual assault is that bringing up false allegations is incredibly misleading. Its an entirely different issue than sexual assault that requires an entirely different approach to tackle.
It is absolutely relevant in cases like Hardwick's where the claim of sexual assault is made, but no action is taken on the alleged victim's part to pursue legal recourse. As stated in the OP, there have been no legal or civil charges filed, and yet in some peoples minds Hardwick is now a sexual predator. That is the problem at hand. If Dykstra had filed a police report or even gone after Hardwick in civil court it would make her claims appear less spurious because she was actively pressing her case. Instead, she eluded to Hardwick through a public essay and now he has to defend himself against her claims. That is the problem. A person being able to randomly post something online gets another person sidelined from their jobs until an investigation is conducted. And regardless of how that investigation concludes, sexual assault or no, Hardwick will carry this stigma with him.
Just like my favorite MeToo problem case involving "Grace" and Aziz Ansari. There was no attempt to properly deal with a any "crime" that took place on that horrid date night. Instead, an article was published. That isn't the actions of someone seeking justice for an inflicted wrong. That is someone with an agenda capitalizing on a social movement to get attention.
You missed my point. I was talking about the wider issue of sexual assault in the context of the MeToo movement. The Hardwick thing could be totally separate from that and still occur the same way. And no, no charges were filed,why? We don't know, but to assume its only plausible to people if charges are filed is simply naive. A good majority of cases of sexual assault never gets filed and the conviction rate is even far lower. There are many reasons why they don't file charges, but filling charges doesn't suddenly make the story more plausible. Nobody made charges against Weinstein when this all began either, that only came later.
You are missing my point here, or intentionally jumping between the specifics of the Hardwick/Dykstra situation and the larger situation of sexual assault to muddy the waters. I am not sure which is the case here as you are arguing generalities and specifics at the same time.
However, the point i was making was that Dykstra not filing a police report while making a public statement about her ex makes HER claim seem less reasonable. Filing charges does make the story more plausible because it elevates the story from a lurid piece of celebrity gossip to a possible criminal investigation. I am not speaking on the larger subject of sexual assault and reporting, I am specifically referring to this case. That Dykstra only went public with her story, and didn't even name Hardwick specifically, initially makes me think this is a smear job like "Grace's" story about Ansari. If more information comes out I'll happily change my opinion, but without anything concrete to point to this looks like an ex with a grudge. Because we have nothing else substantive to work with it throws the whole situation into question.
Because you're bringing up the specific case and I'm using it as an example now?
Also, why is it less reasonable, filling in a police report doesn't add anything to her allegation. Few actually make it to trial. Say she filed one and it didn't get prosecuted, then what? Would the decision not to prosecute also make her less believable? I mean its a useless barrier, anyone really comitted could just file one, because the specifics are really difficult to track and in a legally gray area.
Are you serious? Filing a police report would absolutely make Dykstra's complaints seem more reasonable because she was actually using the resources available to victims of sexual assault to peruse justice. You know, when a crime is committed typically the response is for the victim to go to the authorities for assistance. Posting a thinly veiled essay to a new publication doesn't tell me that Dykstra is doing anything other than trying to smear an ex in public. Do you honestly not see how simply posting an essay online, and doing nothing else to involve authorities regarding a matter of sexual assault, de-legitimizes her claims?
In what other situation would a victim of a crime choose to air their grievances in public without prior seeking assistance from authorities? Note I am asking specifically about a victim going public first, before trying to seek justice from authorities. Sure, if Dykstra went to police and was ignored and then posted publicly and that resulted in an actual investigation you wouldn't be hearing a peep from me. But that isn't what happened. Dykstra went public first. If Dykstra has proof like she claims she should have no problem obtaining legal representation and filing the appropriate police reports etc. Why did she instead choose to post to Medium instead? That action makes me question her motivation.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Hollywood is not leaking anything. This has always happened both in and outside. Even your source clearly states that:
"When you start talking to employees, they say, 'Oh, this was pervasive for 20 years.' It's because, until last year October, we just made those cases go away,"
primarily by settling cases out of court, or using nondisclosure agreements, Taylor says.
MeToo had changed nothing about the public witch hunt, it has always been there. To pretend we're somehow in for a mess just because the culture of silence is being broken is facetious. It was already a mess, just one kept under wraps.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The idea that people only speak out to capitalize is also thoroughly discouraging to read. Is the only acceptable way to file a police report in silence and hope you're the lucky minority who actually get a trial?
Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said that. The acceptable way for a victim to proceed is to file a police report, file an HR report, file whatever report they need to do to get justice. Starting with a public essay to air out dirty laundry would not be Step 1. in my "How to Deal With and Overcome Sexual Assault" playbook.
Except that it won't get you justice in the vast majority of cases, your idealism is standing in the way of observable reality. Less than 1% of reports filed lead to a conviction in the end and for the HR one I refer you back to your own source:
"When you start talking to employees, they say, 'Oh, this was pervasive for 20 years.' It's because, until last year October, we just made those cases go away,"
primarily by settling cases out of court, or using nondisclosure agreements, Taylor says.
If your playbook worked, maybe less people would feel the need to go public.
Going public after the proper authorities have failed you is not the issue. That is the correct thing to do (and the opposite of what Dykstra did). It is going public with veiled claims which later causes a witch hunt that I take issue with. That HR departments across the country are dealing with MeToo complaints, and that those HR departments are now taking those complaints seriously is a sign of change. That is a victory for the MeToo movement, but the problem is the other aspect of MeToo, which is the narrative that men should just blindly accept any accusation made against them. That they have to shut up and only listen, and that they cannot have a voice in the discussion That is a problem now that this is beyond Hollywood. It isn't just an "industry" issue as you were claiming, and isn't simply a matter of breaking victim's silence if we allow this uncritical approach to dealing with accusations to take root.
Which brings up the Matt Damon example. Someone who was shouted down for simply being a man.
Disciple of Fate wrote: No he didn't speak out reasonably, did you miss the part of the interview where he literally said "none of us came here perfect" when talking about sexual predators? Its seriously tone deaf.
Also not nobody knew about Weinstein, its simply not true, Weinstein had hired an agency to keep his 'activities'under wraps. People knew, they didn't put a stop to it. Damon was hopelessly naive in that part.
I mean he said agreeable things sure, but when you actually say nobody is perfect that is just something else. We're talking about sexual assault, not making a mistake at work.
And you missed his larger point that sexual assault is not a single, all encompassing infraction but instead there are levels to sexual assault. And yes, no one is perfect. People make dumb mistakes, like Franken's photo, or sharing an inappropriate joke at the office. Those are worlds apart from locking a woman in your hotel room or office and forcing her perform sexual acts. But that is the problem isn't it? Matt Damon has a penis and so he cannot possibly speak on this matter. That mindset is insulting and is no way to actually improve this problem in society. One group can't dictate to the other how such a complicated matter will be dealt with, but that is exactly what some in the MeToo movement are trying to do.
Matt Damon wrote: don’t know Louis C.K.. I’ve never met him. I’m a fan of his, but I don’t imagine he’s going to do those things again. You know what I mean?
Do what again, corner a 6th woman because he was outted? Damon was making his comments on Louis CK without knowing what he did. I mean how can Damon offer forgiveness for the things he doesn't know, why is that for him to decide?
I honestly don't think you are understanding Damon's point at all. He said he doesn't know C.K., not that he didn't know what C.K. did. Huge difference there. Yuuuge!
Damon is stating that after C.K. gave his apology and admitted doing what he did to those women, and because of that introspection and admission of guilt, Damon doesn't think C.K. will do those things again. Damon could be wrong, but he also could be correct.
Damon isn't the king of Hollywood, so what he decides is purely his opinion and not actionable. By saying that he thinks C.K. learned a lesson and won't behave in the same manner isn't a rejection of C.K.'s infractions but rather a man's opinion on another man's apology and ownership of his crimes. He is entitled to that yes? Or no, because he is a man? The only tone deafness was in the rabid attack on Damon for speaking his opinion on the matter. That is ridiculous.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lazy? I haven't seen you bring up any solution or any counter to the fact that this has gone on for at least a century and not even some of the most censorship heavy nations like China have been able to prevent it. Don't call something lazy when you have only an idealistic view of how the world should work to work with. Somehow though, nothing else gets as much worry expended on it as this.
I am calling your insistence that nothing can change and that things can only be X or Y lazy. That men have to accept being publicly shamed with no recourse because the *only* other option is for victims to be silenced is a false dichotomy and lazy thinking. I don't have an answer for this problem, but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist and that a solution isn't out there. There must be a better way forward or else this will simply entrench both sides and prevent any real meaningful change.
So far you have failed to provide a single idea, but me pointing out that this is unlikely to be resolved as this is how it went 70 years ago and still goes in some of the most censorship heavy countries is lazy. Well then, this is a level of debating I haven't witnessed before. At least I presented a possible solution, but continue with calling me lazy I guess, even though you couldn't be bothered to read my posts clearly enough...
Disciple of Fate wrote: They aren't of less concern, the issue is that when we talk about sexual assault is that bringing up false allegations is incredibly misleading. Its an entirely different issue than sexual assault that requires an entirely different approach to tackle.
It is absolutely relevant in cases like Hardwick's where the claim of sexual assault is made, but no action is taken on the alleged victim's part to pursue legal recourse. As stated in the OP, there have been no legal or civil charges filed, and yet in some peoples minds Hardwick is now a sexual predator. That is the problem at hand. If Dykstra had filed a police report or even gone after Hardwick in civil court it would make her claims appear less spurious because she was actively pressing her case. Instead, she eluded to Hardwick through a public essay and now he has to defend himself against her claims. That is the problem. A person being able to randomly post something online gets another person sidelined from their jobs until an investigation is conducted. And regardless of how that investigation concludes, sexual assault or no, Hardwick will carry this stigma with him.
Just like my favorite MeToo problem case involving "Grace" and Aziz Ansari. There was no attempt to properly deal with a any "crime" that took place on that horrid date night. Instead, an article was published. That isn't the actions of someone seeking justice for an inflicted wrong. That is someone with an agenda capitalizing on a social movement to get attention.
You missed my point. I was talking about the wider issue of sexual assault in the context of the MeToo movement. The Hardwick thing could be totally separate from that and still occur the same way. And no, no charges were filed,why? We don't know, but to assume its only plausible to people if charges are filed is simply naive. A good majority of cases of sexual assault never gets filed and the conviction rate is even far lower. There are many reasons why they don't file charges, but filling charges doesn't suddenly make the story more plausible. Nobody made charges against Weinstein when this all began either, that only came later.
You are missing my point here, or intentionally jumping between the specifics of the Hardwick/Dykstra situation and the larger situation of sexual assault to muddy the waters. I am not sure which is the case here as you are arguing generalities and specifics at the same time.
However, the point i was making was that Dykstra not filing a police report while making a public statement about her ex makes HER claim seem less reasonable. Filing charges does make the story more plausible because it elevates the story from a lurid piece of celebrity gossip to a possible criminal investigation. I am not speaking on the larger subject of sexual assault and reporting, I am specifically referring to this case. That Dykstra only went public with her story, and didn't even name Hardwick specifically, initially makes me think this is a smear job like "Grace's" story about Ansari. If more information comes out I'll happily change my opinion, but without anything concrete to point to this looks like an ex with a grudge. Because we have nothing else substantive to work with it throws the whole situation into question.
Because you're bringing up the specific case and I'm using it as an example now?
Also, why is it less reasonable, filling in a police report doesn't add anything to her allegation. Few actually make it to trial. Say she filed one and it didn't get prosecuted, then what? Would the decision not to prosecute also make her less believable? I mean its a useless barrier, anyone really comitted could just file one, because the specifics are really difficult to track and in a legally gray area.
Are you serious? Filing a police report would absolutely make Dykstra's complaints seem more reasonable because she was actually using the resources available to victims of sexual assault to peruse justice. You know, when a crime is committed typically the response is for the victim to go to the authorities for assistance. Posting a thinly veiled essay to a new publication doesn't tell me that Dykstra is doing anything other than trying to smear an ex in public. Do you honestly not see how simply posting an essay online, and doing nothing else to involve authorities regarding a matter of sexual assault, de-legitimizes her claims?
In what other situation would a victim of a crime choose to air their grievances in public without prior seeking assistance from authorities? Note I am asking specifically about a victim going public first, before trying to seek justice from authorities. Sure, if Dykstra went to police and was ignored and then posted publicly and that resulted in an actual investigation you wouldn't be hearing a peep from me. But that isn't what happened. Dykstra went public first. If Dykstra has proof like she claims she should have no problem obtaining legal representation and filing the appropriate police reports etc. Why did she instead choose to post to Medium instead? That action makes me question her motivation.
And again, is a allegation only more reasonable if you go to the police? Is that really the angle you want to go for here? The authorities can barely provide any assistance in cases like this because the situations are so incredibly hard, if you're lucky you get some understanding and possibly a trial. But reading Dykstra's account you and I both know there isn't enough to go to court over, so what would filing a report do?
So all those women who spoke out against Harvey de-legitimized their claims too? Where does the line get drawn on this?
Examples? What kind, domestic abuse frequently has things go public before it goes to the authorities. Dr. Dre, R Kelly, Sean Penn, Bill Murray. Mayweather, Seagal, Leto (granted this one has a weird mix following him in regards to allegations), Depp (who as a money maker actually got 'saved' by WB). Really, there aren't many crimes beyond assault or sexual assault that can really go public. It happens more often than you think and it really depends on where you look or if you happen to hear it at the right moment. Like I said, what Dykstra said sounds plausible, but that's it, unless others step forward or confirm the type of behaviour you can't really go anywhere.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Hollywood is not leaking anything. This has always happened both in and outside. Even your source clearly states that:
"When you start talking to employees, they say, 'Oh, this was pervasive for 20 years.' It's because, until last year October, we just made those cases go away," primarily by settling cases out of court, or using nondisclosure agreements, Taylor says.
MeToo had changed nothing about the public witch hunt, it has always been there. To pretend we're somehow in for a mess just because the culture of silence is being broken is facetious. It was already a mess, just one kept under wraps.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The idea that people only speak out to capitalize is also thoroughly discouraging to read. Is the only acceptable way to file a police report in silence and hope you're the lucky minority who actually get a trial?
Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said that. The acceptable way for a victim to proceed is to file a police report, file an HR report, file whatever report they need to do to get justice. Starting with a public essay to air out dirty laundry would not be Step 1. in my "How to Deal With and Overcome Sexual Assault" playbook.
Except that it won't get you justice in the vast majority of cases, your idealism is standing in the way of observable reality. Less than 1% of reports filed lead to a conviction in the end and for the HR one I refer you back to your own source:
"When you start talking to employees, they say, 'Oh, this was pervasive for 20 years.' It's because, until last year October, we just made those cases go away," primarily by settling cases out of court, or using nondisclosure agreements, Taylor says.
If your playbook worked, maybe less people would feel the need to go public.
Going public after the proper authorities have failed you is not the issue. That is the correct thing to do (and the opposite of what Dykstra did). It is going public with veiled claims which later causes a witch hunt that I take issue with. That HR departments across the country are dealing with MeToo complaints, and that those HR departments are now taking those complaints seriously is a sign of change. That is a victory for the MeToo movement, but the problem is the other aspect of MeToo, which is the narrative that men should just blindly accept any accusation made against them. That they have to shut up and only listen, and that they cannot have a voice in the discussion That is a problem now that this is beyond Hollywood. It isn't just an "industry" issue as you were claiming, and isn't simply a matter of breaking victim's silence if we allow this uncritical approach to dealing with accusations to take root.
Which brings up the Matt Damon example. Someone who was shouted down for simply being a man..
Is it though? After the proper authorities have failed you and say there isn't a case, how many people are only going to turn their back on you or add to the chorus of "false allegations"? Why is it suddenly ok afterwards, why does that suddenly not make it a witch hunt to you, even if it can turn into the exact same scenario?
No, its not a sign of change, its a sign that they were being forced because pressure was applied. You can't guarantee that that pressure will be maintained if the movement dies. Those complaints are only being taken seriously because it hurts their bottom line, which is exactly why Hardwick got the sack, his numbers turned red. Meanwhile we have had serial offenders with enough 'star' power being kept on the air because they still brought in the dough regardless. You can't just call it a victory, wait to see what happens in 5 or 10 years, if it keeps the current momentum then its a victory, but the backlash is already mounting.
So because a vocal minority tells people to shut up and listen it suddenly represents the whole group? You yourself even used the word narrative, which is exactly what this is, a select group of media crafting the idea. The exact other side of the argument that is heard just as commonly is, why is the accused always believed? The idea that this is some sort of monolithic hive mind with only one argument is terrible. Again, it has already taken root, this is how it has always been, children have always been believed and men were/are more easily believed, except now for the first time its actually turning towards sexual assault in which belief in a victim is more easily achieved, somehow this is the moment society has gone too far. Its going to bounce back again, MeToo is slowly dying down already and if the system is improved then this should happen less. You can't have a quick fix, as lazy as it is of me to say
Disciple of Fate wrote: No he didn't speak out reasonably, did you miss the part of the interview where he literally said "none of us came here perfect" when talking about sexual predators? Its seriously tone deaf.
Also not nobody knew about Weinstein, its simply not true, Weinstein had hired an agency to keep his 'activities'under wraps. People knew, they didn't put a stop to it. Damon was hopelessly naive in that part.
I mean he said agreeable things sure, but when you actually say nobody is perfect that is just something else. We're talking about sexual assault, not making a mistake at work.
And you missed his larger point that sexual assault is not a single, all encompassing infraction but instead there are levels to sexual assault. And yes, no one is perfect. People make dumb mistakes, like Franken's photo, or sharing an inappropriate joke at the office. Those are worlds apart from locking a woman in your hotel room or office and forcing her perform sexual acts. But that is the problem isn't it? Matt Damon has a penis and so he cannot possibly speak on this matter. That mindset is insulting and is no way to actually improve this problem in society. One group can't dictate to the other how such a complicated matter will be dealt with, but that is exactly what some in the MeToo movement are trying to do.
I didn't miss it, but I also don't fully agree with it. Sexual assault is sexual assault, while sentencing should be different, we should have a no tolerance policy towards it as a whole. Its ridiculous to have a ranking system of how bad it makes someone, "well he only groped her, at least he didn't flash her" isn't the road you want society to go down.
And no, saying "nobody is perfect" when discussing sexual assault is fething awful man. We should all know that its bad, there is a reason we call it assault/harassment. He never distinguished like you do now between acts when he said "nobody is perfect". Matt Damon made some incredibly tone deaf comments and you're trying to twist it into some sort of misandry defence. That is what is insulting, not the mindset narrative you crafted in your head and just tossing the entire movement on one heap.
Matt Damon wrote: don’t know Louis C.K.. I’ve never met him. I’m a fan of his, but I don’t imagine he’s going to do those things again. You know what I mean?
Do what again, corner a 6th woman because he was outted? Damon was making his comments on Louis CK without knowing what he did. I mean how can Damon offer forgiveness for the things he doesn't know, why is that for him to decide?
I honestly don't think you are understanding Damon's point at all. He said he doesn't know C.K., not that he didn't know what C.K. did. Huge difference there. Yuuuge!
Damon is stating that after C.K. gave his apology and admitted doing what he did to those women, and because of that introspection and admission of guilt, Damon doesn't think C.K. will do those things again. Damon could be wrong, but he also could be correct.
Damon isn't the king of Hollywood, so what he decides is purely his opinion and not actionable. By saying that he thinks C.K. learned a lesson and won't behave in the same manner isn't a rejection of C.K.'s infractions but rather a man's opinion on another man's apology and ownership of his crimes. He is entitled to that yes? Or no, because he is a man? The only tone deafness was in the rabid attack on Damon for speaking his opinion on the matter. That is ridiculous.
*edit* Left out a few paragraphs
See now, your statement that he knew what CK did is kinda undermined by this bit you yourself quoted:
Matt Damon wrote: “The Louis C.K. thing, I don’t know all the details,” Damon said. “I don’t do deep dives on this, but I did see his statement
I mean for some reason Damon either knows CK is a serial offender and doesn't think he would do it a 6th time, or he doesn't know all the details, thinking it only happened once and was thinking he wouldn't do it again. Seeing as he didn't do a "deep dive[s]", I'm trending towards the latter, because CK's statement never really clearly states what he did except for understatements. If CK did what he did in front of one child, let alone five of them, would you really think Damon's reaction would be the same?
What he decides is purely his opinion, but when his opinion is objectively awful like like the nobody is perfect comment you're going to get some criticism (this being the age of the internet also attacks that go way too far). He is entitled to his opinion, just as other celebrities are entitled to criticize him for it.
Well it seems he is getting quite some support from his side of the story. I wonder if that translates into anything.
Which really makes you wonder about one thing, if he is innocent then what does he do in the office that all his coworkers are against him/supporting Dykstra. They could have just kept quiet and nobody would know but they came out in the open.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well it seems he is getting quite some support from his side of the story. I wonder if that translates into anything.
Which really makes you wonder about one thing, if he is innocent then what does he do in the office that all his coworkers are against him/supporting Dykstra. They could have just kept quiet and nobody would know but they came out in the open.
Perhaps they have some bias? Could have been a lot of things, maybe he never filled the coffee pot back up. I’d weigh exes speaking on his behalf more heavly than coworkers in a personal matter such as this.
Dykstra’s accusations revolve around their home from what I recall- how would his coworkers be aware of that? How many times have we heard “They were always quiet and nice” or “They were in church every Sunday” about serial murderers, rapists, or mass shooters? If we’re to believe his coworkers over his exes we’re going to need some compelling reasons, especially considering the exes actually lived with him for some period of time.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well it seems he is getting quite some support from his side of the story. I wonder if that translates into anything.
Which really makes you wonder about one thing, if he is innocent then what does he do in the office that all his coworkers are against him/supporting Dykstra. They could have just kept quiet and nobody would know but they came out in the open.
Perhaps they have some bias? Could have been a lot of things, maybe he never filled the coffee pot back up. I’d weigh exes speaking on his behalf more heavly than coworkers in a personal matter such as this.
Dykstra’s accusations revolve around their home from what I recall- how would his coworkers be aware of that? How many times have we heard “They were always quiet and nice” or “They were in church every Sunday” about serial murderers, rapists, or mass shooters? If we’re to believe his coworkers over his exes we’re going to need some compelling reasons, especially considering the exes actually lived with him for some period of time.
I think bias is unavoidable if you know either of the people. Hence me being curious, is he some kind of d-bag in person/to work for.
Yeah as the overall accusations, exes certainly have more experience in the relationship department. Not saying that the coworkers specifically back up the sexual assault and make that aspect more believable, just that he is controlling or has a bad personality potentially. I suppose he might have been/is a d-bag, but that is a far cry from being a predator.
AMC Networks have completed their investigation of Talking Dead host Chris Hardwick, ultimately leading to a decision which reinstates his role within the network.
“Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick," AMC Networks said in a statement. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review, including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”
Hardwick will resume his Talking Dead duties beginning with the August 12th episode set to air after the Mid-Season Four premiere of Fear the Walking Dead and continue through Season Nine of The Walking Dead which begins on October 7th. The Walking Dead Season Nine preview special will be hosted by Yvette Nicole Brown, who temporarily stepped in for Hardwick with the special and at San Diego Comic-Con for both show's Hall H panels, as it is already in production.
AMC's Talking with Chris Hardwick will also resume airing.
Hardwick was suspended from his AMC work and moderating role at San Diego Comic-Con after a letter from ex-girlfriend Chloe Dykstra surfaced, making accusations of sexual harassment and attempts at blacklisting her within their industry.
“He’s doing very well right now and I can only speak from my own experience, where the man I married was not the man who was written about in that article,” Hardwick's wife Lydia Hearsttold Variety at San Diego Comic-Con. “I’ve known him to be nothing less than absolutely loving, compassionate, supportive, not just to myself, but to everyone he knows and works with. He’s just a genuinely good man with a good heart. I can honestly say without a doubt that he will be getting back to what he loves very soon.”
Khaleesi Griff
@keltothelean
wrote:The outpouring of fanboy/girl glee and triumph over Chris Hardwick getting his job back underscores the point that women have nothing to gain from coming forward. I expect Dykstra wrote her essay expecting Hardwick would suffer little to no consequences.
The Day Is My Enemy
@GreatDestroyer_
wrote:Honestly, I don't give a gak if AMC investigated Chris Hardwick and thinks he's innocent. That's believing the abuser and not the abused, and it's a real bad look for AMC to bring back the guy that just caused all the controversy recently.
One person's accusation with no real evidence makes Hardwick automatically an abuser in these peoples' eyes, and even after an investigation found nothing substantive to back up the accusers claim he is still guilty? Of what? Dykstra's bad opinion of their relationship? Just absurd. Dykstra claimed to have evidence to back up her accusations but never presented it. She never went to police with her claims of sexual assault (and even changed that phasing in a revision of the essay, then changed it back again after being called out on it).
So, no evidence is required for these people to paint Hardwick in a certain light as an abuser and perpetrator of sexual assault. However, when an investigation is done and nothing corroborates the claims made by Dykstra it is an example of systemic oppression of women and not believing their claims of abuse/assault? WTF?
All of this insanity over a single person's wild claims. This is not okay.
Huh, at least they showed some backbone into taking him back now that the allegations seemed questionable. That's going to be awkward Monday morning now that he knows his coworkers think he's a dick and they could see him having done that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: Dark you have shown a perfect example of why #believeher is such a toxic attitude, it ignores due process and evidence, an accusation is enough.
So that begs the question, what are the ramifications for her now her claim has been proven to be false ?
She should be fired at least and arrested for wasting police time, resources and making false allegations.
Fired from where? Also wasting police time? Didn't you follow the thread, Dykstra never filed.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Huh, at least they showed some backbone into taking him back now that the allegations seemed questionable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: Dark you have shown a perfect example of why #believeher is such a toxic attitude, it ignores due process and evidence, an accusation is enough.
So that begs the question, what are the ramifications for her now her claim has been proven to be false ?
She should be fired at least and arrested for wasting police time, resources and making false allegations.
Fired from where? Also wasting police time? Didn't you follow the thread, Dykstra never filed.
Any internal investigation would involve the police (U.K.) is that not the same in the US?
Khaleesi Griff
@keltothelean
wrote:The outpouring of fanboy/girl glee and triumph over Chris Hardwick getting his job back underscores the point that women have nothing to gain from coming forward. I expect Dykstra wrote her essay expecting Hardwick would suffer little to no consequences.
The Day Is My Enemy
@GreatDestroyer_
wrote:Honestly, I don't give a gak if AMC investigated Chris Hardwick and thinks he's innocent. That's believing the abuser and not the abused, and it's a real bad look for AMC to bring back the guy that just caused all the controversy recently.
One person's accusation with no real evidence makes Hardwick automatically an abuser in these peoples' eyes, and even after an investigation found nothing substantive to back up the accusers claim he is still guilty? Of what? Dykstra's bad opinion of their relationship? Just absurd. Dykstra claimed to have evidence to back up her accusations but never presented it. She never went to police with her claims of sexual assault (and even changed that phasing in a revision of the essay, then changed it back again after being called out on it).
So, no evidence is required for these people to paint Hardwick in a certain light as an abuser and perpetrator of sexual assault. However, when an investigation is done and nothing corroborates the claims made by Dykstra it is an example of systemic oppression of women and not believing their claims of abuse/assault? WTF?
All of this insanity over a single person's wild claims. This is not okay.
That is the echoes from the lunatic fringe. Twitter is the worst possible vehicle for public discourse. It amplifies the insane and outrageous.
Formosa wrote:Dark you have shown a perfect example of why #believeher is such a toxic attitude, it ignores due process and evidence, an accusation is enough.
So that begs the question, what are the ramifications for her now her claim has been proven to be false ?
She should be fired at least and arrested for wasting police time, resources and making false allegations.
IIRC she didn't do any of those things. It was a blog that blew up.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Huh, at least they showed some backbone into taking him back now that the allegations seemed questionable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: Dark you have shown a perfect example of why #believeher is such a toxic attitude, it ignores due process and evidence, an accusation is enough.
So that begs the question, what are the ramifications for her now her claim has been proven to be false ?
She should be fired at least and arrested for wasting police time, resources and making false allegations.
Fired from where? Also wasting police time? Didn't you follow the thread, Dykstra never filed.
Any internal investigation would involve the police (U.K.) is that not the same in the US?
The network did its own investigation, for all we know that could have consisted of them putting a guy on a spinning chair and then racing him around the office. The police was never involved and only Dykstra could have involved them as the victim or a witness in the case of this, as it went on in private according to her, only Hardwick could have filed against himself.
Did she write the blog feeder? If she did then did she come out after and state it wasn’t true, if not she is guilty at least of lying and defamation of character.
I don’t like the idea of her escaping Scot free after these accusations.
Formosa wrote: Did she write the blog feeder? If she did then did she come out after and state it wasn’t true, if not she is guilty at least of lying and defamation of character.
I don’t like the idea of her escaping Scot free after these accusations.
That's going to be incredibly hard to prove as a lot of this relationship stuff is quite subjective. Dykstra might have actually experienced it like she told them, even if legally speaking nothing wrong went on (or even on a societal level). Lying is not a crime and defamation is going to be a civil case in front of a jury. That's never going to work. The US is harder in this instance, because a defamation case depends on the accuser presenting overwhelming evidence versus the defendant having to prove themselves in the UK.
Irving (the Holocaust denier) vs. Penguin Books is a fascinating defamation case with attention spend on why Irving brought the case to court in the UK instead of the US (long story short, in the UK the defendants actually had to prove the Holocaust happened to prove its not slandering Irving by calling him a Holocaust denier)
Formosa wrote: Dark you have shown a perfect example of why #believeher is such a toxic attitude, it ignores due process and evidence, an accusation is enough.
So that begs the question, what are the ramifications for her now her claim has been proven to be false ?
She should be fired at least and arrested for wasting police time, resources and making false allegations.
Her claim was not proven to be false.
“Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick," AMC Networks said in a statement. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review, including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”
Nothing in this statement says that they found evidence which disproved the claims. The investigation may have failed to find evidence of the events occurring, or only circumstantial evidence which is not enough for them to consider not letting him back, but that is not the same as the events actually not occurring.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Nothing in this statement says that they found evidence which disproved the claims. The investigation may have failed to find evidence of the events occurring, or only circumstantial evidence which is not enough for them to consider not letting him back, but that is not the same as the events actually not occurring.
To add to that, they also may have found everything she said was true, but that it didn't rise to the level of sexual assault (something she walked back a bit herself), and so it was a private matter between two parties.
We don't know what happened between them, we never will, and we don't know what the investigation found, and we never will. It's impossible to draw any conclusions without more data.
Formosa wrote: Dark you have shown a perfect example of why #believeher is such a toxic attitude, it ignores due process and evidence, an accusation is enough.
So that begs the question, what are the ramifications for her now her claim has been proven to be false ?
She should be fired at least and arrested for wasting police time, resources and making false allegations.
Her claim was not proven to be false.
“Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick," AMC Networks said in a statement. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review, including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”
Nothing in this statement says that they found evidence which disproved the claims. The investigation may have failed to find evidence of the events occurring, or only circumstantial evidence which is not enough for them to consider not letting him back, but that is not the same as the events actually not occurring.
So hold on a minute, they investigated and he did not commit the crime to which he was accused and reinstated, how does that not make her claims false?
If I accuse you of something that is later found to not be true in an investigation, would that not make my original statement false?
Formosa wrote: So hold on a minute, they investigated and he did not commit the crime to which he was accused and reinstated, how does that not make her claims false?
If I accuse you of something that is later found to not be true in an investigation, would that not make my original statement false?
So, while there is a huge gap between criminally filing a false report (which as all crimes involves intent, in this case to deceive) and a person not being guilty of a crime, the fact nobody actually filed a false police report really means that nobody is going to be prosecuted for filing a false report.
Further, the investigation was likely focused on three things:
1) did a crime occur
2) did abuse or harassment incompatible with the corporate image occur
3) did anything scandalous that's bad for the brand occur.
In an investigation like this, you need to get past the general or conclusory accusations (He emotionally abused me! He sexually assaulted me!) and look at the specific allegations. So, AMC may have decided that while she more or less accurately described his behavior (his actual actions), while she saw that as abuse/assault, they did not. They may also have determined that her report was not fully accurate. Or, they may have decided that her repot was accurate, and he in fact did abuse/assault her, but not to the level that will damage the network.
It's easy to blow off the internal investigation as being either kangaroo court or simply for show, but my gut tells me that they had a serious talk with Hardwick about the accusations, and about who or what could confirm the accusations. If they were satisfied that nothing terribly incriminating came up, and he didn't do anything they couldn't stomach, then clearing him makes sense.
Just because they dont' see the need to take action doesn't mean she was lying. In fact, it's unlikely that she is. That doesn't mean every detail she reported was accurate, nor does it mean we all have to accept her interpretation of those details.
Again, for all we know the investigation could have consisted of them putting a guy on a spinning chair and then racing him around the office, this is a company with its own financial interests to protect, not an institution determined to find out the truth.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, for all we know the investigation could have consisted of them putting a guy on a spinning chair and then racing him around the office, this is a company with its own financial interests to protect, not an institution determined to find out the truth.
And why would they protect something if there was proof out there that could hurt them (the company)
Formosa wrote: So hold on a minute, they investigated and he did not commit the crime to which he was accused and reinstated, how does that not make her claims false?
If I accuse you of something that is later found to not be true in an investigation, would that not make my original statement false?
So, while there is a huge gap between criminally filing a false report (which as all crimes involves intent, in this case to deceive) and a person not being guilty of a crime, the fact nobody actually filed a false police report really means that nobody is going to be prosecuted for filing a false report.
Further, the investigation was likely focused on three things:
1) did a crime occur
2) did abuse or harassment incompatible with the corporate image occur
3) did anything scandalous that's bad for the brand occur.
In an investigation like this, you need to get past the general or conclusory accusations (He emotionally abused me! He sexually assaulted me!) and look at the specific allegations. So, AMC may have decided that while she more or less accurately described his behavior (his actual actions), while she saw that as abuse/assault, they did not. They may also have determined that her report was not fully accurate. Or, they may have decided that her repot was accurate, and he in fact did abuse/assault her, but not to the level that will damage the network.
It's easy to blow off the internal investigation as being either kangaroo court or simply for show, but my gut tells me that they had a serious talk with Hardwick about the accusations, and about who or what could confirm the accusations. If they were satisfied that nothing terribly incriminating came up, and he didn't do anything they couldn't stomach, then clearing him makes sense.
Just because they dont' see the need to take action doesn't mean she was lying. In fact, it's unlikely that she is. That doesn't mean every detail she reported was accurate, nor does it mean we all have to accept her interpretation of those details.
So that brings me back to my original question.
Are the police not automatically called in accustation such as these, they must be called in the U.K., is it not the same in the US?
Formosa wrote: So that brings me back to my original question.
Are the police not automatically called in accustation such as these, they must be called in the U.K., is it not the same in the US?
Not at all, and even if a company were to call the police because they received a report, it still wouldn't be criminal.
So, if I accused somebody of a crime in an internal email, and the company called the police, unless I confirm that accusation in a signed statement to the police, I haven't actually filed the report.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, for all we know the investigation could have consisted of them putting a guy on a spinning chair and then racing him around the office, this is a company with its own financial interests to protect, not an institution determined to find out the truth.
And why would they protect something if there was proof out there that could hurt them (the company)
Because if there was proof Dykstra would have come out with it? There is no conclusive proof hence him getting his job back. We have no idea if they took him back out of fairness or financial reasons.
Desubot wrote: I think it depends on the district but iirc they will only get involved if she actually reports it to them
if not since nothing was filed then no all of this becomes a private matter.
(but im not the law so i have no clue this is just my assumption)
Filing a false report, as a crime, is really treated as a form of perjury. Which means its not so much making a false statement, as making a knowingly false statement while under an obligation to tell the truth.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, for all we know the investigation could have consisted of them putting a guy on a spinning chair and then racing him around the office, this is a company with its own financial interests to protect, not an institution determined to find out the truth.
And why would they protect something if there was proof out there that could hurt them (the company)
Because if there was proof Dykstra would have come out with it? There is no conclusive proof hence him getting his job back. We have no idea if they took him back out of fairness or financial reasons.
Finding a talking head (for lack of a better phrase) is easy, so my guess is fairness and they found her statement to be questionable and or false
Khaleesi Griff
@keltothelean
wrote:The outpouring of fanboy/girl glee and triumph over Chris Hardwick getting his job back underscores the point that women have nothing to gain from coming forward. I expect Dykstra wrote her essay expecting Hardwick would suffer little to no consequences.
The Day Is My Enemy
@GreatDestroyer_
wrote:Honestly, I don't give a gak if AMC investigated Chris Hardwick and thinks he's innocent. That's believing the abuser and not the abused, and it's a real bad look for AMC to bring back the guy that just caused all the controversy recently.
One person's accusation with no real evidence makes Hardwick automatically an abuser in these peoples' eyes, and even after an investigation found nothing substantive to back up the accusers claim he is still guilty? Of what? Dykstra's bad opinion of their relationship? Just absurd. Dykstra claimed to have evidence to back up her accusations but never presented it. She never went to police with her claims of sexual assault (and even changed that phasing in a revision of the essay, then changed it back again after being called out on it).
So, no evidence is required for these people to paint Hardwick in a certain light as an abuser and perpetrator of sexual assault. However, when an investigation is done and nothing corroborates the claims made by Dykstra it is an example of systemic oppression of women and not believing their claims of abuse/assault? WTF?
All of this insanity over a single person's wild claims. This is not okay.
That is the echoes from the lunatic fringe. Twitter is the worst possible vehicle for public discourse. It amplifies the insane and outrageous.
Yeah, that is a fair point, but I am seeing arguments like those not just on Twitter. The extremist view point behind those tweets seems to be leaking into more conventional media outlets.
I know Slate is biased and leans pretty heavily left, but they still published this:
Slate Article wrote:Hardwick is also the host of the NBC game show The Wall; the broadcast network has yet to announce whether he will stay on. But Hardwick’s reinstatement at AMC may indicate that #MeToo oustings are more likely to take place if there are multiple accusers and if the alleged infractions happened in professional, rather than domestic, settings.
From my reading it seems the author is disappointed by not only AMC's decision, but that #MeToo "oustings" can't happen with a single, unverified source. That is scary to me, and seems indicative that this viewpoint has roots deeper than the Twitter fringe.
Even the title of the article, "Chris Hardwick to Return to Talking Dead After 'Careful' AMC Review" tips the author's hand that the piece disagrees with the outcome of the event. Why put the word careful in shudder quotes? It suggests that the author believes the review is suspicious, yes? The AMC statement even had the words "careful" and "review" right next to each other, so arguing the author/editor was simply quoting AMC's release doesn't exactly fly when the title doesn't include review in those same quotes.
"Chris Hardwick to Return to Talking Dead After 'Careful Review' by AMC" has a very different reading than what Slate went with.
I dunno, maybe I am seeing crap that isn't there, but what started off as a positive movement (MeToo) has turned into (at least for some people) an ugly lynch mob looking to "oust" whomever they can.
Formosa wrote: So that brings me back to my original question.
Are the police not automatically called in accustation such as these, they must be called in the U.K., is it not the same in the US?
Not at all, and even if a company were to call the police because they received a report, it still wouldn't be criminal.
So, if I accused somebody of a crime in an internal email, and the company called the police, unless I confirm that accusation in a signed statement to the police, I haven't actually filed the report.
That makes so much more sense to me now, what a backward ass system, no wonder so many people just get sacked out of hand over there without any criminal charges being brought against them, genuinely it was bothering me for ages, you guys need to get a handle on that.
The #MeToo movement has turned ugly fast and in reality is causing as much harm as help. These people who file false accusations do more to hurt actual victims than anything else
Combine with how some of these federal programs work (like Title IX), I can see how some people are becoming jaded and starting to believe accusers less and less
Ustrello wrote: The #MeToo movement has turned ugly fast and in reality is causing as much harm as help. These people who file false accusations do more to hurt actual victims than anything else
Combine with how some of these federal programs work (like Title IX), I can see how some people are becoming jaded and starting to believe accusers less and less
To quote somebody or other: "That's just, like, your opinion, man."
Again: in this case, no accusation was filed. It was standard 'he said, she said', and AMC engaged in standard corporate CYA.
I might be mistaken, but from where I'm sitting it looks like some guys are projecting their own bias onto this case a wee bit much.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, for all we know the investigation could have consisted of them putting a guy on a spinning chair and then racing him around the office, this is a company with its own financial interests to protect, not an institution determined to find out the truth.
And why would they protect something if there was proof out there that could hurt them (the company)
Because if there was proof Dykstra would have come out with it? There is no conclusive proof hence him getting his job back. We have no idea if they took him back out of fairness or financial reasons.
Finding a talking head (for lack of a better phrase) is easy, so my guess is fairness and they found her statement to be questionable and or false
My money would be on questionable, and we have no idea if they actually talked or interviewed her personally. Plus everything was already out in the open, they might have just done an internal review with his coworkers or former employers. We just don't know what exactly they did.
Ustrello wrote: The #MeToo movement has turned ugly fast and in reality is causing as much harm as help. These people who file false accusations do more to hurt actual victims than anything else
Combine with how some of these federal programs work (like Title IX), I can see how some people are becoming jaded and starting to believe accusers less and less
To quote somebody or other: "That's just, like, your opinion, man."
Again: in this case, no accusation was filed. It was standard 'he said, she said', and AMC engaged in standard corporate CYA.
I might be mistaken, but from where I'm sitting it looks like some guys are projecting their own bias onto this case a wee bit much.
No not really just my opinion. It is one also shared by women I know who were sexually assaulted and harassed, but that is just like your opinion man
Khaleesi Griff @keltothelean wrote:The outpouring of fanboy/girl glee and triumph over Chris Hardwick getting his job back underscores the point that women have nothing to gain from coming forward. I expect Dykstra wrote her essay expecting Hardwick would suffer little to no consequences.
The Day Is My Enemy @GreatDestroyer_ wrote:Honestly, I don't give a gak if AMC investigated Chris Hardwick and thinks he's innocent. That's believing the abuser and not the abused, and it's a real bad look for AMC to bring back the guy that just caused all the controversy recently.
One person's accusation with no real evidence makes Hardwick automatically an abuser in these peoples' eyes, and even after an investigation found nothing substantive to back up the accusers claim he is still guilty? Of what? Dykstra's bad opinion of their relationship? Just absurd. Dykstra claimed to have evidence to back up her accusations but never presented it. She never went to police with her claims of sexual assault (and even changed that phasing in a revision of the essay, then changed it back again after being called out on it).
So, no evidence is required for these people to paint Hardwick in a certain light as an abuser and perpetrator of sexual assault. However, when an investigation is done and nothing corroborates the claims made by Dykstra it is an example of systemic oppression of women and not believing their claims of abuse/assault? WTF?
All of this insanity over a single person's wild claims. This is not okay.
That is the echoes from the lunatic fringe. Twitter is the worst possible vehicle for public discourse. It amplifies the insane and outrageous.
Yeah, that is a fair point, but I am seeing arguments like those not just on Twitter. The extremist view point behind those tweets seems to be leaking into more conventional media outlets.
I know Slate is biased and leans pretty heavily left, but they still published this:
Slate Article wrote:Hardwick is also the host of the NBC game show The Wall; the broadcast network has yet to announce whether he will stay on. But Hardwick’s reinstatement at AMC may indicate that #MeToo oustings are more likely to take place if there are multiple accusers and if the alleged infractions happened in professional, rather than domestic, settings.
From my reading it seems the author is disappointed by not only AMC's decision, but that #MeToo "oustings" can't happen with a single, unverified source. That is scary to me, and seems indicative that this viewpoint has roots deeper than the Twitter fringe.
Even the title of the article, "Chris Hardwick to Return to Talking Dead After 'Careful' AMC Review" tips the author's hand that the piece disagrees with the outcome of the event. Why put the word careful in shudder quotes? It suggests that the author believes the review is suspicious, yes? The AMC statement even had the words "careful" and "review" right next to each other, so arguing the author/editor was simply quoting AMC's release doesn't exactly fly when the title doesn't include review in those same quotes.
"Chris Hardwick to Return to Talking Dead After 'Careful Review' by AMC" has a very different reading than what Slate went with.
I dunno, maybe I am seeing crap that isn't there, but what started off as a positive movement (MeToo) has turned into (at least for some people) an ugly lynch mob looking to "oust" whomever they can.
You're the one getting a bit paranoid here, just look at the original source you posted:
AMC Networks have completed their investigation of Talking Dead host Chris Hardwick, ultimately leading to a decision which reinstates his role within the network.
“Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick," AMC Networks said in a statement. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review , including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”
The use of careful in that headline is just a quote on how AMC characterized its own review, nothing more, nothing less. You can read just as much into 'careful' review as in 'careful review'. Putting review in quotation marks doesn't add anything of value, while quoting careful does.
Ustrello wrote: The #MeToo movement has turned ugly fast and in reality is causing as much harm as help. These people who file false accusations do more to hurt actual victims than anything else
Combine with how some of these federal programs work (like Title IX), I can see how some people are becoming jaded and starting to believe accusers less and less
To quote somebody or other: "That's just, like, your opinion, man."
Again: in this case, no accusation was filed. It was standard 'he said, she said', and AMC engaged in standard corporate CYA.
I might be mistaken, but from where I'm sitting it looks like some guys are projecting their own bias onto this case a wee bit much.
No not really just my opinion. It is one also shared by women I know who were sexually assaulted and harassed, but that is just like your opinion man
I’m with you mate, pol just explained to me that police are not automatically called when an accusation is made, the medium does not matter here, if you make an accusation in the U.K. be it in a book, email whatever, the police get involved straight away and investigate, but apparently not in the states, it goes a long way to explain how people keep getting away with both the attack and false accusations ... it’s bloody mad!
Ustrello wrote: The #MeToo movement has turned ugly fast and in reality is causing as much harm as help. These people who file false accusations do more to hurt actual victims than anything else
Combine with how some of these federal programs work (like Title IX), I can see how some people are becoming jaded and starting to believe accusers less and less
To quote somebody or other: "That's just, like, your opinion, man."
Again: in this case, no accusation was filed. It was standard 'he said, she said', and AMC engaged in standard corporate CYA.
I might be mistaken, but from where I'm sitting it looks like some guys are projecting their own bias onto this case a wee bit much.
No not really just my opinion. It is one also shared by women I know who were sexually assaulted and harassed, but that is just like your opinion man
I’m with you mate, pol just explained to me that police are not automatically called when an accusation is made, the medium does not matter here, if you make an accusation in the U.K. be it in a book, email whatever, the police get involved straight away and investigate, but apparently not in the states, it goes a long way to explain how people keep getting away with both the attack and false accusations ... it’s bloody mad!
But again, how would you prove the allegations are false when there are no witnesses? You can't just throw everything that can't be proven on the false allegation pile, that would lead to an incredible amount of 'false accusation' cases given how many (or should I say few) of these sexual assault cases actually end up in court.
Ustrello wrote: The #MeToo movement has turned ugly fast and in reality is causing as much harm as help. These people who file false accusations do more to hurt actual victims than anything else
Combine with how some of these federal programs work (like Title IX), I can see how some people are becoming jaded and starting to believe accusers less and less
To quote somebody or other: "That's just, like, your opinion, man."
Again: in this case, no accusation was filed. It was standard 'he said, she said', and AMC engaged in standard corporate CYA.
I might be mistaken, but from where I'm sitting it looks like some guys are projecting their own bias onto this case a wee bit much.
No not really just my opinion. It is one also shared by women I know who were sexually assaulted and harassed, but that is just like your opinion man
I’m with you mate, pol just explained to me that police are not automatically called when an accusation is made, the medium does not matter here, if you make an accusation in the U.K. be it in a book, email whatever, the police get involved straight away and investigate, but apparently not in the states, it goes a long way to explain how people keep getting away with both the attack and false accusations ... it’s bloody mad!
But again, how would you prove the allegations are false when there are no witnesses? You can't just throw everything that can't be proven on the false allegation pile, that would lead to an incredible amount of 'false accusation' cases given how many (or should I say few) of these sexual assault cases actually end up in court.
Proof is in the pudding deciple, British system actually works, it’s not perfect but it seems to be a lot better than the American one... actually the whole UK police system is better than theirs, but that’s a different discussion.
As to proving the allegations are false, that’s what the police are for, they investigate and have a hell of a lot less bias than a company who is paying the person, just look at this thread alone, because the company did it in house some of you are hinting at a possible cover up, while others are saying that she lied and made false accusations.
Had the police been involved like they should have been, we would (possibly) have a definitive answer.
Ustrello wrote: The #MeToo movement has turned ugly fast and in reality is causing as much harm as help. These people who file false accusations do more to hurt actual victims than anything else
Combine with how some of these federal programs work (like Title IX), I can see how some people are becoming jaded and starting to believe accusers less and less
To quote somebody or other: "That's just, like, your opinion, man."
Again: in this case, no accusation was filed. It was standard 'he said, she said', and AMC engaged in standard corporate CYA.
I might be mistaken, but from where I'm sitting it looks like some guys are projecting their own bias onto this case a wee bit much.
No not really just my opinion. It is one also shared by women I know who were sexually assaulted and harassed, but that is just like your opinion man
I’m with you mate, pol just explained to me that police are not automatically called when an accusation is made, the medium does not matter here, if you make an accusation in the U.K. be it in a book, email whatever, the police get involved straight away and investigate, but apparently not in the states, it goes a long way to explain how people keep getting away with both the attack and false accusations ... it’s bloody mad!
But again, how would you prove the allegations are false when there are no witnesses? You can't just throw everything that can't be proven on the false allegation pile, that would lead to an incredible amount of 'false accusation' cases given how many (or should I say few) of these sexual assault cases actually end up in court.
Proof is in the pudding deciple, British system actually works, it’s not perfect but it seems to be a lot better than the American one... actually the whole UK police system is better than theirs, but that’s a different discussion.
As to proving the allegations are false, that’s what the police are for, they investigate and have a hell of a lot less bias than a company who is paying the person, just look at this thread alone, because the company did it in house some of you are hinting at a possible cover up, while others are saying that she lied and made false accusations.
Had the police been involved like they should have been, we would (possibly) have a definitive answer.
I will say this your police/judiciary have had a string of high profile missteps in sexual assault cases recently
Ustrello wrote: The #MeToo movement has turned ugly fast and in reality is causing as much harm as help. These people who file false accusations do more to hurt actual victims than anything else
Combine with how some of these federal programs work (like Title IX), I can see how some people are becoming jaded and starting to believe accusers less and less
To quote somebody or other: "That's just, like, your opinion, man."
Again: in this case, no accusation was filed. It was standard 'he said, she said', and AMC engaged in standard corporate CYA.
I might be mistaken, but from where I'm sitting it looks like some guys are projecting their own bias onto this case a wee bit much.
No not really just my opinion. It is one also shared by women I know who were sexually assaulted and harassed, but that is just like your opinion man
I’m with you mate, pol just explained to me that police are not automatically called when an accusation is made, the medium does not matter here, if you make an accusation in the U.K. be it in a book, email whatever, the police get involved straight away and investigate, but apparently not in the states, it goes a long way to explain how people keep getting away with both the attack and false accusations ... it’s bloody mad!
But again, how would you prove the allegations are false when there are no witnesses? You can't just throw everything that can't be proven on the false allegation pile, that would lead to an incredible amount of 'false accusation' cases given how many (or should I say few) of these sexual assault cases actually end up in court.
Proof is in the pudding deciple, British system actually works, it’s not perfect but it seems to be a lot better than the American one... actually the whole UK police system is better than theirs, but that’s a different discussion.
As to proving the allegations are false, that’s what the police are for, they investigate and have a hell of a lot less bias than a company who is paying the person, just look at this thread alone, because the company did it in house some of you are hinting at a possible cover up, while others are saying that she lied and made false accusations.
Had the police been involved like they should have been, we would (possibly) have a definitive answer.
What proof? When it comes to the UK and the US the sexual assault reporting rate and the decidedly false report rate are barely different, for better or worse, we don't do much better in Europe than the US, because its an incredibly vague legal area when its he said she said.
Historical sex crime proof, now that I think of it there is no reason why you would know what I’m talking about.
For example Katie price wrote about a sexual assault in her book, she didn’t call the police but they got involved as soon as they were aware and investigated.
Then in the US we have the mattress girl scandal, a woman lied and practically ruined a young mans life with nothing more than an accusation, you also have the rampant problem on university campuses where they don’t follow due process and as crazy as it seems some feminist extremists were advocating expelling people on an accusation alone... insanity.
So basically in the U.K. we have a small minority of false accusations, where in the US you have a cultural movement that advocates removal of due process and false accusations.
Desubot wrote: I think it depends on the district but iirc they will only get involved if she actually reports it to them
if not since nothing was filed then no all of this becomes a private matter.
(but im not the law so i have no clue this is just my assumption)
Filing a false report, as a crime, is really treated as a form of perjury. Which means its not so much making a false statement, as making a knowingly false statement while under an obligation to tell the truth.
Formosa wrote: Historical sex crime proof, now that I think of it there is no reason why you would know what I’m talking about.
For example Katie price wrote about a sexual assault in her book, she didn’t call the police but they got involved as soon as they were aware and investigated.
Then in the US we have the mattress girl scandal, a woman lied and practically ruined a young mans life with nothing more than an accusation, you also have the rampant problem on university campuses where they don’t follow due process and as crazy as it seems some feminist extremists were advocating expelling people on an accusation alone... insanity.
So basically in the U.K. we have a small minority of false accusations, where in the US you have a cultural movement that advocates removal of due process and false accusations.
Surveys show that only 1 out of 6 rapes in the UK get reported to the police and out of those 1/6 on average 1/8-1/10th makes it to trial (CPS statistics combine with police data on rape or attempted rape reports). This is broadly in line with the overall US average and that in many European countries.
The US has a small minority of false accusations too, the few there are get blown out of proportion. The UK has a false report rate of about 3-4%, the US has roughly 5%. Its really splitting hairs here. Really, on the whole the UK system makes little difference on the total number because false allegations are a fraction of those reports that even get anywhere.
This is all just based on media perception of what is coming out of the US and enlarging the extremes.
Formosa wrote: Historical sex crime proof, now that I think of it there is no reason why you would know what I’m talking about.
For example Katie price wrote about a sexual assault in her book, she didn’t call the police but they got involved as soon as they were aware and investigated.
Then in the US we have the mattress girl scandal, a woman lied and practically ruined a young mans life with nothing more than an accusation, you also have the rampant problem on university campuses where they don’t follow due process and as crazy as it seems some feminist extremists were advocating expelling people on an accusation alone... insanity.
So basically in the U.K. we have a small minority of false accusations, where in the US you have a cultural movement that advocates removal of due process and false accusations.
Surveys show that only 1 out of 6 rapes in the UK get reported to the police and out of those 1/6 on average 1/8-1/10th makes it to trial (CPS statistics combine with police data on rape or attempted rape reports). This is broadly in line with the overall US average and that in many European countries.
The US has a small minority of false accusations too, the few there are get blown out of proportion. The UK has a false report rate of about 3-4%, the US has roughly 5%. Its really splitting hairs here. Really, on the whole the UK system makes little difference on the total number because false allegations are a fraction of those reports that even get anywhere.
This is all just based on media perception of what is coming out of the US and enlarging the extremes.
Um.... that’s nice lol, did you actually read my post?
I read it, but like I said, a lot of this stuff are the extremes that get broad attention in the media and the internet, if you google you can find cases like that in the UK (like the student who had to wait for a trial for two years and then just got resolved because the police handed over 'new' evidence) but they just get less media attention because the political landscape isn't as polarized in those aspects. Honestly these sorts of witch hunts happen over everything in the US (remember the woman who got fired and threatened for flipping off Trump or just this week Gunn?), its nothing really relegated to this specific aspect of society. But no worries, Betsy DeVos is working on sexual assaults on campus, so yeah that's going to be a trainwreck.
Honestly, situations similar to Hardwick have happened in the Netherlands too and have been big on a national stage, but nobody hears of it outside of our own country.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Again, for all we know the investigation could have consisted of them putting a guy on a spinning chair and then racing him around the office, this is a company with its own financial interests to protect, not an institution determined to find out the truth.
And why would they protect something if there was proof out there that could hurt them (the company)
Because if there was proof Dykstra would have come out with it? There is no conclusive proof hence him getting his job back. We have no idea if they took him back out of fairness or financial reasons.
Finding a talking head (for lack of a better phrase) is easy, so my guess is fairness and they found her statement to be questionable and or false
Or simply exaggerated. (Lots of folks at AMC seemed willing to believe that he was a jerk - her perceptions of him being an abusive jerk may not have been actionable, or risen to the level of actual abuse, while still being the actions of a jerk.)
The Auld Grump - I can believe any number of people being jerks....
Disciple of Fate wrote: I read it, but like I said, a lot of this stuff are the extremes that get broad attention in the media and the internet, if you google you can find cases like that in the UK (like the student who had to wait for a trial for two years and then just got resolved because the police handed over 'new' evidence) but they just get less media attention because the political landscape isn't as polarized in those aspects. Honestly these sorts of witch hunts happen over everything in the US (remember the woman who got fired and threatened for flipping off Trump or just this week Gunn?), its nothing really relegated to this specific aspect of society. But no worries, Betsy DeVos is working on sexual assaults on campus, so yeah that's going to be a trainwreck.
Honestly, situations similar to Hardwick have happened in the Netherlands too and have been big on a national stage, but nobody hears of it outside of our own country.
The Title IX system is already kinda a trainwreck, I mean you look at the case in USC where they were purposefully trying to get rid of a student before doing an investigation and they had to pay out a couple hundred thousand dollars for it. Plus it is super easy to take advantage of, if you are the first to report/accuse in a situation nothing can be done to you by the school or the person you are accusing. So you are having people who have had drunken sex and the dude/girl will go to the title IX office and say he was sexually assaulted, even if it isn't true and it turns out he sexually assault the women and or other dude they school nor the other person can do anything about it legally or through the school.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I read it, but like I said, a lot of this stuff are the extremes that get broad attention in the media and the internet, if you google you can find cases like that in the UK (like the student who had to wait for a trial for two years and then just got resolved because the police handed over 'new' evidence) but they just get less media attention because the political landscape isn't as polarized in those aspects. Honestly these sorts of witch hunts happen over everything in the US (remember the woman who got fired and threatened for flipping off Trump or just this week Gunn?), its nothing really relegated to this specific aspect of society. But no worries, Betsy DeVos is working on sexual assaults on campus, so yeah that's going to be a trainwreck.
Honestly, situations similar to Hardwick have happened in the Netherlands too and have been big on a national stage, but nobody hears of it outside of our own country.
The Title IX system is already kinda a trainwreck, I mean you look at the case in USC where they were purposefully trying to get rid of a student before doing an investigation and they had to pay out a couple hundred thousand dollars for it. Plus it is super easy to take advantage of, if you are the first to report/accuse in a situation nothing can be done to you by the school or the person you are accusing. So you are having people who have had drunken sex and the dude/girl will go to the title IX office and say he was sexually assaulted, even if it isn't true and it turns out he sexually assault the women and or other dude they school nor the other person can do anything about it legally or through the school.
But when has a Trump official ever walked into a problematic situation and made it better? Especially DeVos, who is upper level bad at what she does. If IX is already a trainwreck, all DeVos is going to do is pile more trains on.
The Title IX system is already kinda a trainwreck, I mean you look at the case in USC where they were purposefully trying to get rid of a student before doing an investigation and they had to pay out a couple hundred thousand dollars for it. Plus it is super easy to take advantage of, if you are the first to report/accuse in a situation nothing can be done to you by the school or the person you are accusing. So you are having people who have had drunken sex and the dude/girl will go to the title IX office and say he was sexually assaulted, even if it isn't true and it turns out he sexually assault the women and or other dude they school nor the other person can do anything about it legally or through the school.
Then there is Amherst case where the victim of a sexual assault was expelled because the perpetrator was convinced by her friends that a passed-out guy took advantage of her and apparently used his mind powers to make her de-pants him and perform a sexual act on him. The college then eliminated his due process rights, would not let him defend himself, and ignored physical evidence where the accuser admitted she was the perpetrator.
You're the one getting a bit paranoid here, just look at the original source you posted:
AMC Networks have completed their investigation of Talking Dead host Chris Hardwick, ultimately leading to a decision which reinstates his role within the network.
“Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick," AMC Networks said in a statement. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review , including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”
The use of careful in that headline is just a quote on how AMC characterized its own review, nothing more, nothing less. You can read just as much into 'careful' review as in 'careful review'. Putting review in quotation marks doesn't add anything of value, while quoting careful does.
I disagree with you. Putting careful in shudder quotes does place a different emphasis on the title. Based on our previous interactions in this thread I don't think either of us will convince the other of our interpretation, but shudder quotes are a rhetorical devices used by writers. It just doesn't make sense to leave out "review" when that word immediately followed "careful" in the AMC statement, unless the writer/editor were trying to cast doubt on the vigilant nature of the investigation. Maybe it is bad writing/editing, but given the context of the article I am not convinced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Devil wrote: Chloe Dykstra didn't participate with the AMC investigation. Her statement from twitter:
Chloe Dykstra has spoken out for the first time since her ex-boyfriend Chris Hardwick was reinstated by AMC as the host of Talking Dead. The network had launched an investigation of him after Dykstra penned an essay, which did not mention Hardwick by name, detailing her claims of alleged emotional and sexual abuse in their relationship. In a statement posted to Twitter, Dykstra says that she did not participate in AMC’s investigation of Hardwick and states she simply wishes to move on with her life. Read her full statement below:
I have been adamant since I came forward with my essay that I never set out to ruin the career of the person I spoke about. I could have provided more details, but chose not to. I have said what I wanted to say on the matter, and I wish to move on with my life. For that reason, I chose not to participate in the investigation against the person I spoke of. I do not believe in an eye for an eye, and therefore I have only shared my evidence with those who I felt should see it.
What I wanted was for the people around me who heard a false narrative–one that was created to hurt me and my career–to know the truth. More importantly though, I know how insidious emotional abuse is and felt compelled to share my story so others might not feel so alone.
Regarding closure, I wish I had been able to have had a private conversation with the person I spoke about in my essay. Reaching out to him over text made me vulnerable, and ultimately ended up in a tabloid article where said texts were chopped up and spun to discredit me.
With the circus moving out of town, I intend to focus on the subject I originally wanted to shed light on: emotional abuse. I plan to continue this conversation and intend to work with institutions like RAINN and other support groups for survivors.
I hope that the hatred, the name calling, the death threats can go away and we can return to productive discourse. My love to everyone.
You're the one getting a bit paranoid here, just look at the original source you posted:
AMC Networks have completed their investigation of Talking Dead host Chris Hardwick, ultimately leading to a decision which reinstates his role within the network.
“Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick," AMC Networks said in a statement. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review , including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”
The use of careful in that headline is just a quote on how AMC characterized its own review, nothing more, nothing less. You can read just as much into 'careful' review as in 'careful review'. Putting review in quotation marks doesn't add anything of value, while quoting careful does.
I disagree with you. Putting careful in shudder quotes does place a different emphasis on the title. Based on our previous interactions in this thread I don't think either of us will convince the other of our interpretation, but shudder quotes are a rhetorical devices used by writers. It just doesn't make sense to leave out "review" when that word immediately followed "careful" in the AMC statement, unless the writer/editor were trying to cast doubt on the vigilant nature of the investigation. Maybe it is bad writing/editing, but given the context of the article I am not convinced.
You are reading to much into it, look some more Slate headlines with quotation marks:
White House Bars CNN Reporter for “Shouting Questions” During Oval Office Press Event Brock Turner Insists He Never Wanted Sex, Only “Outercourse” The Hard Truth About House Democrats Being “Soft Favorites” This Fall The War on Immigrants: Elizabeth Holtzman quit a Homeland Security advisory committee over Trump’s “punitive, cruel, vicious, heartless, ruthless” immigration policy.
Are these all rhetorical devices, or are they simply quoting like the article you mention also did? That they didn't put review in the quotation marks is just a stylistic choice so they could put AMC in between. It would have read much weirder if it had said "careful" AMC "review", which makes it sound much more insincere than the way they did it now. Its clear that careful in this context refers to the AMC Review, as in AMC called it careful.
"Letting him sexually assault me"
Oh...you mean...let him have sex with you? Because sexually assault is when you are forced to do something sexual - not when you let someone do anything.
I wonder...why didn't she end the relationship when he told her he didn't want her to talk during dinner? She had a lot of opportunities to leave.
Letting can be used in a lot of contexts, I don't think that should devalue anyone's story. Dykstra obviously feels that what she experienced was sexual assault, using letting in this context probably has something to do with her feeling guilty she let it happen. Its not an uncommon sentiment, even though in this case it seem that her claims were questionable when measured against societal standards for assault.
Exactly what “evidence” did she put forth besides anecdotes?
A lot of what she said in that essay was consistent with boiler plate phrases you see individuals who are accused of rape, sexual assault, harassment etc. use that people so often decry and call out.
"Letting him sexually assault me"
Oh...you mean...let him have sex with you? Because sexually assault is when you are forced to do something sexual - not when you let someone do anything.
I wonder...why didn't she end the relationship when he told her he didn't want her to talk during dinner? She had a lot of opportunities to leave.
There is a plethora of studies and victim's stories available for you to read. You will discover that both those statements are not correct and why 'rape culture' is a real thing that exists.
I am not implying you are a rape apologist or anything of that sort. But your perception that she could not have been assaulted because she didn't physically resist and she was fine with the relationship because she didn't leave are two of the biggest foundations of 'rape culture'.
There's also the difference between affirmative consent "yes, I want this," and passive consent, which is basically not saying no.
One of the downsides of increased awareness about abuse is that may people are using terms that have technical or legal definitions in the ways that are sloppy or even inaccurate. The upside of people being aware of all the ways that abuse occurs outweighs that, but you end up with a lot of people saying they were victims of emotional abuse or sexual assault when they are using a very broad definition, not the narrower, more commonly used definition.
Given that the accuser did not want to participate in the investigation, it seems that her goal of letting world know that he's a bad boyfriend has been accomplished, and we can probably move on.
You're the one getting a bit paranoid here, just look at the original source you posted:
AMC Networks have completed their investigation of Talking Dead host Chris Hardwick, ultimately leading to a decision which reinstates his role within the network.
“Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick," AMC Networks said in a statement. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review , including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”
The use of careful in that headline is just a quote on how AMC characterized its own review, nothing more, nothing less. You can read just as much into 'careful' review as in 'careful review'. Putting review in quotation marks doesn't add anything of value, while quoting careful does.
I disagree with you. Putting careful in shudder quotes does place a different emphasis on the title. Based on our previous interactions in this thread I don't think either of us will convince the other of our interpretation, but shudder quotes are a rhetorical devices used by writers. It just doesn't make sense to leave out "review" when that word immediately followed "careful" in the AMC statement, unless the writer/editor were trying to cast doubt on the vigilant nature of the investigation. Maybe it is bad writing/editing, but given the context of the article I am not convinced.
You are reading to much into it, look some more Slate headlines with quotation marks:
White House Bars CNN Reporter for “Shouting Questions” During Oval Office Press Event Brock Turner Insists He Never Wanted Sex, Only “Outercourse” The Hard Truth About House Democrats Being “Soft Favorites” This Fall The War on Immigrants: Elizabeth Holtzman quit a Homeland Security advisory committee over Trump’s “punitive, cruel, vicious, heartless, ruthless” immigration policy.
Are these all rhetorical devices, or are they simply quoting like the article you mention also did? That they didn't put review in the quotation marks is just a stylistic choice so they could put AMC in between. It would have read much weirder if it had said "careful" AMC "review", which makes it sound much more insincere than the way they did it now. Its clear that careful in this context refers to the AMC Review, as in AMC called it careful.
Many of those titles would go against your point if they removed the secondary, tertiary etc. words in the quote chain.
For example, White House Bars CNN Reporter for “Shouting Questions” During Oval Office Press Event replaced with White House Bars CNN Reporter for “Shouting" Questions During Oval Office Press Event.
Those titles read differently, yes?
I already provided an example of how the Hardwick title could be presented, without bias, while maintaining the accuracy of the AMC statement.
That would look something like this: Chris Hardwick to Return to Talking Dead After "Careful Review'" by AMC
Such a title maintains the verbiage of AMC's statement and doesn't add unnecessary shudder quotes.
Also, you are ignoring the title in conjunction with the context of the article itself. So, sorry, I don't buy that the the shudder quotes are anything other than intentionally casting doubt on AMC's review process. Context matters, right?
But go on and keep telling me I am paranoid, when you are ignoring the damn context of the article.
I read this whole thread, then formed an opinion.
I "read" this whole thread, then formed an opinion.
I read this whole thread, "then" formed an opinion.
I read this whole thread, then "formed an opinion".
PourSpelur wrote: I read this whole thread, then formed an opinion.
I "read" this whole thread, then formed an opinion.
I read this whole thread, "then" formed an opinion.
I read this whole thread, then "formed an opinion".
But go on and keep telling me I am paranoid, when you are ignoring the damn context of the article.
What context, its about as matter of fact as you can get. What is wrong about the observation that oustings are more likely in a proffesional setting or with multiple accusers? Because in those settings you either have more witnesses, companies worried about an O'Reilly type lawsuit or independent of each other victim stories, its pretty accurate to state that in such a context a #MeToo outing is more likely than a he said she said. Its like me saying its more likely that you get sunburned if you have an outside job or spend more hours outside than other people. I think you're letting your bias bleed into the article.
Polonius wrote: There's also the difference between affirmative consent "yes, I want this," and passive consent, which is basically not saying no.
One of the downsides of increased awareness about abuse is that may people are using terms that have technical or legal definitions in the ways that are sloppy or even inaccurate. The upside of people being aware of all the ways that abuse occurs outweighs that, but you end up with a lot of people saying they were victims of emotional abuse or sexual assault when they are using a very broad definition, not the narrower, more commonly used definition.
Given that the accuser did not want to participate in the investigation, it seems that her goal of letting world know that he's a bad boyfriend has been accomplished, and we can probably move on.
She certainly has succeeded in making him look bad. She accuses him of sexual assault though. That is an unfair statement given what I read in the article.
I don't know the sexual appetites of Chris or Chloe.
What I will offer up is my opinion based on what she has said.
If you are squeamish about sexual intimacy and BDSM, read no further.
Spoiler:
I have a sneaking suspicion that Chris is into being a "Dominant". Given her statements about how she felt controlled in certain aspects of the relationship, his rules, and feeling like she was "assaulted" by him during sexual encounters, all those markers point me toward this belief.
I suspect that Chris wanted her to be a good little submissive and possibly utilized some physical things to heighten the sexual experiences, and that he also expected a Dominant/submissive relationship outside the bedroom.
Again, I suspect that he obtained her consent to do whatever it was that she *thought* she would be comfortable with....but eventually came to have regrets/remorse about giving her consent and began to think: 1) his sexual activity as assault and 2) his non-intimacy rules as being overbearing and controlling.
She may have given her consent in the beginning in an effort to please him, or to keep the relationship going, or because she felt she had to. Regardless, I again suspect that her consent wasn't made with 100% commitment or 100% understanding of the Dom/sub dynamic (and not just the sexual aspect).
either that or a spurned ex lover that wants to extend her 15 minutes of fame.
Or it could be like that girl from Amherst college. A year after sexually assaulting her roommate's passed-out boyfriend she let a group of associates convince her (brainwash?) into thinking SHE was the victim. Get around people that alter your way of thinking and suddenly you see past events in a new light that makes your mind rewrite history to the point that even you believe it.
It may well be that + being around/influenced by people who do not understand the D/s dynamic and convinced her that it was abuse (similar to the above poster theory)
It may well be that + being around/influenced by people who do not understand the D/s dynamic and convinced her that it was abuse (similar to the above poster theory)
Depending on his actions (assuming this theory is correct), it is 100% possible that they were in a consensual D/s relationship and he abused her.
It may well be that + being around/influenced by people who do not understand the D/s dynamic and convinced her that it was abuse (similar to the above poster theory)
Depending on his actions (assuming this theory is correct), it is 100% possible that they were in a consensual D/s relationship and he abused her.
If it's consensual it's not abuse. Heck, if it was consensual he could literally have punched her in the face and it wouldn't be abuse.
cuda1179 wrote: If it's consensual it's not abuse. Heck, if it was consensual he could literally have punched her in the face and it wouldn't be abuse.
If someone in a bar dares you to punch them in the face, and you do so, and they die, you will almost certainly be charged with some variant of criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter despite the fact the person consented to be punched.
If someone consents to allowing you to perform plastic surgery on them in your living room, and then they die of complications, you will undoubtedly be charged with practicing medicine without a license at a minimum.
I am sure I can come up with more examples but the point is that someone consenting to something doesn't give you a blank check to do whatever you want.
So far as what happened between those two, no idea, and we're never going to know, either.
cuda1179 wrote: If it's consensual it's not abuse. Heck, if it was consensual he could literally have punched her in the face and it wouldn't be abuse.
If someone in a bar dares you to punch them in the face, and you do so, and they die, you will almost certainly be charged with some variant of criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter despite the fact the person consented to be punched.
If someone consents to allowing you to perform plastic surgery on them in your living room, and then they die of complications, you will undoubtedly be charged with practicing medicine without a license at a minimum.
I am sure I can come up with more examples but the point is that someone consenting to something doesn't give you a blank check to do whatever you want.
So far as what happened between those two, no idea, and we're never going to know, either.
Practicing medicine without a license is in a wholly different league here and is more than a bit strawmany. As this woman is most definitely alive, your first point is also irrelevant.
Consenting to being punched is the reason assault charges aren't filed in high school or college boxing clubs or tough man competitions.
It may well be that + being around/influenced by people who do not understand the D/s dynamic and convinced her that it was abuse (similar to the above poster theory)
Depending on his actions (assuming this theory is correct), it is 100% possible that they were in a consensual D/s relationship and he abused her.
If it's consensual it's not abuse. Heck, if it was consensual he could literally have punched her in the face and it wouldn't be abuse.
Consent isn't a blank check. Just because you're in a relationship with someone doesn't give you the right to violate their boundaries. And consent can be withdrawn at anytime, for any reason.
Consent isn't a blank check. Just because you're in a relationship with someone doesn't give you the right to violate their boundaries. And consent can be withdrawn at anytime, for any reason.
I never said it was a blank check or that consent couldn't be revoked. I never even implied that.
There should always be communication about boundaries before entering the dynamic and, if you are a good Dom, during the dynamic. Don't just assume your sub will never change their feelings about something and that you will always have carte blanche to do anything and everything. Granted there are some people who get into total and complete slavery with no boundaries....
Anywho...that's a bit off the track...
Again, I just have a feeling that the dynamic was something she wasn't prepared for and eventually came to feel it was an abuse of some kind. She is 20 years younger than he is....and so may not have totally understood the committment it requires.
Piece that together with the text messages that surfaced in June that show Chris broke up with her due to her chesting on him.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Cuda, you said he could punch her in the face and it not be abuse.....I kind.of read it the way others did as well at first.
Only if they have worked that out in establishing their dynamic would that not be abuse.
If, however, he did something completely outside her comfort zone without obtaining her consent then it could be considered abuse.
And in many (if not all?) States it doesn't matter to the cpurt if you even have a signed contract with your Dom or sub...the legal system does not look favorably upon BDSM activities (even between consenting adults).
up somebody's life and/or livelyhood due to 
