Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Can anyone actually find his statement? I was trying for a bit and its a merry-go-round of pages linking to each other.

https://deadline.com/2018/06/chris-hardwick-denies-abuse-allegations-chloe-dyskstra-1202411897/

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.”

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Can anyone actually find his statement? I was trying for a bit and its a merry-go-round of pages linking to each other.

https://deadline.com/2018/06/chris-hardwick-denies-abuse-allegations-chloe-dyskstra-1202411897/

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Can anyone actually find his statement? I was trying for a bit and its a merry-go-round of pages linking to each other.

https://deadline.com/2018/06/chris-hardwick-denies-abuse-allegations-chloe-dyskstra-1202411897/

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.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 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.

Link doesn't want to work, but depending on what statistics you want to go for it averages at around 5-6%
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjZpYvFl93bAhXPL1AKHfuPCU4QFjAIegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1zs97YRv7CpQEzK8W0wyDP

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.

This is the entertainment industry: allegations have always been enough. Why is this different than Mel Gibson or Michael Jackson?

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.

Sources? I would honestly like to read about it, sonce that was before my time.

 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.

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

Is cool, we were talking past each other.

 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

https://io9.gizmodo.com/a-brief-history-of-satanic-panic-in-the-1980s-1679476373

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/23/satanic-panic/

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

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.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

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.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 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:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

I disagree, they weren't tone deaf.

Here is what he said: https://pagesix.com/2017/12/15/matt-damon-speaks-out-on-harvey-weinstein-al-franken-and-louis-c-k/

On Weinstein:

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.

 Polonius wrote:

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?