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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

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:

 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.

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.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/06/20/woman-lied-rape-michigan-college-sentenced-jail/716950002/

 techsoldaten wrote:


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.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/06/20/woman-lied-rape-michigan-college-sentenced-jail/716950002/

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.

 feeder wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


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.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/06/20/woman-lied-rape-michigan-college-sentenced-jail/716950002/

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.

But, sure, there's never a reason to question the accuser. Totally not worth one's time to consider.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


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.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/06/20/woman-lied-rape-michigan-college-sentenced-jail/716950002/

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.

But, sure, there's never a reason to question the accuser. Totally not worth one's time to consider.

To be clear, I'm not one of those blindly "Listen and Believe" people. I'm more of a "Listen and Give Them the Benefit of the Doubt".

 feeder wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


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.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/06/20/woman-lied-rape-michigan-college-sentenced-jail/716950002/

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:

 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.

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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Besides, you missed his best part on Louis CK:

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

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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...

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 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.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Besides, you missed his best part on Louis CK:

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.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jacinda-barrett-defends-ex-boyfriend-chris-hardwick-cautions-161551298.html


Looks like another woman has stepped up to call BS on these claims, and one with some serious connections as well.

 cuda1179 wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jacinda-barrett-defends-ex-boyfriend-chris-hardwick-cautions-161551298.html


Looks like another woman has stepped up to call BS on these claims, and one with some serious connections as well.

How terrible it must be to have your reputation ruined by one false accusation.

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.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 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.

Necro'd but for a reason: Story update!

Hardwick is being reinstated by AMC as host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick.

http://comicbook.com/thewalkingdead/2018/07/25/chris-hardwick-hired-amc-talking-dead-reinstated/

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.”

Glad he wasn’t just swept under the rug and forgotten. Good to see him back to work.

Yeah, I was surprised and happy with the outcome.

A lot of people are angry about AMC's decision, however.

These tweets sum up one aspect of the anger and I just can't understand their perspective:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kathy-griffin-dramatic-reaction-chris-hardwick-cleared-abuse-allegations-232025594.html

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.

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.

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?

DarkTraveler777 wrote:Yeah, I was surprised and happy with the outcome.

A lot of people are angry about AMC's decision, however.

These tweets sum up one aspect of the anger and I just can't understand their perspective:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kathy-griffin-dramatic-reaction-chris-hardwick-cleared-abuse-allegations-232025594.html

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.

 Formosa wrote:

 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)

well that's that then, can we go back to trying to purge Whedon now ?

 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.

Or they decided to not say it was false and potentially open themselves up for a lawsuit or get anymore bad press by saying she lied.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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?

I don't think it's as black and white as that. It was an AMC internal investigation. I'm pretty sure the cops were never involved.

It's basically just the cool kids in high school relationship drama writ large.

 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.