Switch Theme:

Accusations and guilt: Hardwick et al.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Northern IA

So if you haven't heard, Chris Hardwick's ex gf has indirectly (last I saw) accused him of emotional abuse and sexual assault.

https://medium.com/@skydart/rose-colored-glasses-6be0594970ca

He has vehemently denied the accusations.

Guess my question to start off with is:
Have companies gone too far by cancelling/firing/suspending people who have only been accused of such things.....?

No legal charges. No civil charges. No court decisions. Just the mere accusations of one person against another "She said he said".

I have no interest in either of these people. I knew who Hardwick was from catching probably less than 5 episodes of his Talking Dead show during the first 3 seasons of TWD (so a quite some time ago). I have no idea who Chloe is. So I am not biased either way.

I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.

Thoughts?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/17 04:06:47


I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.

Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
 
   
Made in nl
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

Ah well, see, that's the problem - a lot of people have now decided "fairness and justice" have different meanings inside and outside of a court of law, and so should also have different standards of proof.

Oh, and don't bother appealing to such people on the basis that such an attitude will generate false-positives that ruin lives & careers for no actual reason - the accusation against George Takei turned out to be a pile of nonsense(and a perfect example of why a more circumspect approach is needed to stuff like this, because his accuser wasn't actually malicious, just a normal human being subject to normal human mental processes who had allowed years of retelling a tall tale down the pub and a misunderstanding of how date rape drugs actually work to lead them to a false conclusion), and the response of some of the "#BelieveHer" style activists was to say, in so many words, that someone like George who's been a committed liberal lefty activist for decades should be willing to "take one for the team".

I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





North Carolina

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So if you haven't heard, Chris Hardwick's ex gf has indirectly (last I saw) accused him of emotional abuse and sexual assault.

https://medium.com/@skydart/rose-colored-glasses-6be0594970ca

He has vehemently denied the accusations.

Guess my question to start off with is:
Have companies gone too far by cancelling/firing/suspending people who have only been accused of such things.....?

No legal charges. No civil charges. No court decisions. Just the mere accusations of one person against another "She said he said".

I have no interest in either of these people. I knew who Hardwick was from catching probably less than 5 episodes of his Talking Dead show during the first 3 seasons of TWD (so a quite some time ago). I have no idea who Chloe is. So I am not biased either way.

I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.

Thoughts?




Personally, I think this "me too" crap has gotten out of hand. It gotten to the point that I'm beginning to doubt many of the claims. I'm also beginning to believe that it's being used by some to grind some axes and bury some hatchets.

Even in the case of Cosby, it took two trials to burn him on three charges. The first ended in mistrial because of contradictory statements from Andrea Constand, and the fact that members of the jury felt that the prosecution didn't introduce no new real evidence. The time it took to prepare a new trial allowed the "court of public opinion" to further contaminate a potential jury pool, and worked to the prosecution's favor.

And now Morgan Freeman is getting flak, with CNN (go figure) leading the charge to generate a media circus around the allegations.


I'm the last person on the damned planet to defend anybody active in modern Hollyweird and it's craptastic fantasy factories. But it gets to a point where you have to stop and say "Hold on a minute", even if it involves people working in a town covered in slime and hypocracy.

Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k 
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Northern IA

One of the things I feel that is very.....telling?....in this Hardwick case is the accuser's own admission that she is "angry"....that she is actually "still angry". This relationship ended 4 years ago.

From reading some of the things she writes about, Hardwick sounds like a bit of an insensitive, narcissistic dick during their relationship.

That does not automatically make him anusive though.

To say that "My last relationship ended due to lack of intimacy" straddles the line between honesty and manipulation (which I am not sure qualifies as abuse). Is it kind of a dick move the way she describes him saying it? Sure. Is it brutally honest? Yes....though it definitely communicates his needs and desires to his partner.

I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.

Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
 
   
Made in fi
Confessor Of Sins




 TheMeanDM wrote:
Have companies gone too far by cancelling/firing/suspending people who have only been accused of such things.....?


American companies in particular will have you on a contract where they can fire you for what basically amounts to "being an embarrassment" for the company. It's the same clause they use when they fire a manager who brings the media down on them by being a dick to the customers. It's just a different embarrassment today.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

The Morgan Freeman accusation was laughably bad. I watched the video of that "harassment" and thought "that's what she's complaining about"?
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.

Thoughts?


In a lot of these cases there will never be a legal process, especially when the incidents happened outside of the statute of limitations. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations on sexual assault, but there is, and it lets offenders escape justice.

If people decide not to work with someone because of accusations of poor behavior, that's how freedom of association works.


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

Remove the statute of limitations and do not allow reporting on cases in progress. Many countries do not allow reporting on this sort of stuff for precisely this reason. The press can report the verdict.

I think the metoo movement was really important and about a lot more than Hollywood btw. Read some of the ordinary women posting about the things that have happened to them. It's sickening stuff.

   
Made in nl
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

 Ouze wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.

Thoughts?


In a lot of these cases there will never be a legal process, especially when the incidents happened outside of the statute of limitations. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations on sexual assault, but there is, and it lets offenders escape justice.

If people decide not to work with someone because of accusations of poor behavior, that's how freedom of association works.



I mean, you don't see any issue with that at all? A culture in which a mere accusation, devoid of any substantial evidence, is sufficient to destroy someone's life? Because that's kind of the reason we implemented a justice system in the first place, because human beings can be both vindictive and malicious enough to accuse falsely, easily fooled enough(even by ourselves) to accuse mistakenly, and prone to making judgements about things based on entirely unrelated and often trivially petty things like "I just don't like his eyes, he seems shifty to me...".

It's exactly those kinds of tendencies that have led to sexual crimes being so hard to prosecute("she was asking for it in that dress", "he seems a fine upstanding gent to me, I can't believe he would do that" etc etc) - but you can't answer one nonspecific injustice with another and call that fair or just.

And it's not like we're just talking about people losing a few drinking buddies, we're talking about someone's livelihood and, if the media decide you'll make a profitable story you're pretty much done for life since stories about accusations linger long after retractions, assuming you ever get one.

It's monstrous that so many victims of rape and sexual assault never see justice because the nature of the crime often makes meeting the standard of proof required to overturn the presumption of innocence in a court impossible, but plenty of people who are probably criminals walk free for a myriad of awful crimes and nobody is clamouring for mere accusation to be sufficient to ruin somebody if you're accused of one of those.

To be clear - if a woman I know and trust came to me and said that someone, whether I knew them or not, had assaulted her, I would take her seriously, support her, and distance myself from the person she had accused until it was sorted out one way or another, but I would do those things because I know and trust her, not because she's a woman accusing a man of sexual assault. When someone I don't know makes an accusation against someone else I don't know, I have no basis to decide the veracity of the accusation one way or another, and neither does anybody else that doesn't know both of them well, so the idea we should default to believing either side is unjust, and the idea that one party should face actual, real-world consequences like losing their job or being plastered across newspapers and TV shows branded as a pervert as if they had been confirmed as guilty is grotesque.

I'm just glad I live(for the moment) in a place that has actual labour laws.

 Da Boss wrote:
Remove the statute of limitations and do not allow reporting on cases in progress. Many countries do not allow reporting on this sort of stuff for precisely this reason. The press can report the verdict.

I think the metoo movement was really important and about a lot more than Hollywood btw. Read some of the ordinary women posting about the things that have happened to them. It's sickening stuff.


It is, absolutely. But you don't fix that by shifting the injustice from one "side" to the other, you fix it by addressing the root problems - comprehensive sex and relationship education from an early age with a heavy emphasis on consent,; more extensive training for police forces and much, much heavier penalties for officers who dismiss cases out of hand or fail to properly investigate; stuff that will prompt actual cultural shifts away from this kind of horror being so prevalent in the first place, that's what will make an actual difference, not adopting a "guilty until proven innocent" standard outside of the court system to make up for the failures within it.

I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

This whole movement stinks to high heaven, it’s one sided nature and “guilty until proven innocent” media circus does not sit well with me.

I’m still unsure why none of the accusers have been arrested for prostitution and false claims, because you know damn well that some of them used sexual favours to get roles, Male and female.

As another poster said, I don’t trust any of it anymore.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So if you haven't heard, Chris Hardwick's ex gf has indirectly (last I saw) accused him of emotional abuse and sexual assault.

He has vehemently denied the accusations.


In part. He denied sexually assaulting her, which even based on her allegations seemed like a reach. (The nature of consent in long term relationships is a complex topic.) However, he did not deny trying to get her blacklisted from companies he worked with, which raises the spectre that he did, in fact, do that. I

Guess my question to start off with is:
Have companies gone too far by cancelling/firing/suspending people who have only been accused of such things.....?

No legal charges. No civil charges. No court decisions. Just the mere accusations of one person against another "She said he said".


It's possible, of course, but when you look at the grey area cases, the consequences have clearly been better than for the cases where there was corroboration or an admission. Look at Aziz Anzari or Joss Wheedon. They cruised though their accusations of various impropriety with little harm. I'm sure there is an example of somebody that lost a great opportunity solely due to an untrue accusation, but compared to the rash of genuine accusations as well as the many cases were no action was taken, it's a pretty small number.

I have no interest in either of these people. I knew who Hardwick was from catching probably less than 5 episodes of his Talking Dead show during the first 3 seasons of TWD (so a quite some time ago). I have no idea who Chloe is. So I am not biased either way.


Well... just because you aren't personally interested doesn't mean you aren't biased.

I am, if anything, on the side of fairness and justice and letting a legal process play out *before* a person's life and career are ruined by accusations.

Thoughts?


Well, first, whose life and career have been ruined by accusations? The accusation here came out Thursday. Nothing has been cancelled, but there's been some talk about suspending some things. Maybe the companies do an investigation. Maybe they wait to see how public responds.

I think that for a non-criminal matter like this, when a public accusation comes up, especially one that is plausible, you look into it. If we've learned anything over the past generation, peaking in the last few years, it's that damn near anybody can some sort of sexual predator. Looking into these accusations doesn't ruin anything or anybody.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Formosa wrote:
This whole movement stinks to high heaven, it’s one sided nature and “guilty until proven innocent” media circus does not sit well with me.

I’m still unsure why none of the accusers have been arrested for prostitution and false claims, because you know damn well that some of them used sexual favours to get roles, Male and female.

As another poster said, I don’t trust any of it anymore.


that's an interesting take. I would think the sheer number of credible complaints, often confirmed by admissions from the accused, would bother you.

there are a lot of accusations of sexual misconduct because it turns out sexual misconduct is incredibly common.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/17 15:41:42


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

Credible complaints that have been confirmed are totally different from assumed guilt from a complaint alone pol and you know it, what we have here is doubt, accusations have been thrown around so freely and quickly that it’s losing credibility, combine with that that the media are forcing people out of their jobs before anything has been proven, that’s not justice, that’s mob rule.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Formosa wrote:
Credible complaints that have been confirmed are totally different from assumed guilt from a complaint alone pol and you know it, what we have here is doubt, accusations have been thrown around so freely and quickly that it’s losing credibility, combine with that that the media are forcing people out of their jobs before anything has been proven, that’s not justice, that’s mob rule.


But... how do you think you go from a complaint alone to confirmation? You have to investigate it, which takes time.

Is anybody assuming guilt here? At most, he's had his name taken off a website he no longer works at. Are there really examples of people losing jobs over false accusations?

As for credibility, I hate to break it to you, but this is a credible accusation. It's not dispositive, but it's certainly credible enough to start an investigation. If all we know is the accusation and the response, I would point out that his silence on trying to blacklist her shows that there's some meat on the bone there.

Justice is taking complaints like this seriously. By assuming they are not true, you are showing a profound bias.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

 Polonius wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
Credible complaints that have been confirmed are totally different from assumed guilt from a complaint alone pol and you know it, what we have here is doubt, accusations have been thrown around so freely and quickly that it’s losing credibility, combine with that that the media are forcing people out of their jobs before anything has been proven, that’s not justice, that’s mob rule.


But... how do you think you go from a complaint alone to confirmation? You have to investigate it, which takes time.

Is anybody assuming guilt here? At most, he's had his name taken off a website he no longer works at. Are there really examples of people losing jobs over false accusations?

As for credibility, I hate to break it to you, but this is a credible accusation. It's not dispositive, but it's certainly credible enough to start an investigation. If all we know is the accusation and the response, I would point out that his silence on trying to blacklist her shows that there's some meat on the bone there.

Justice is taking complaints like this seriously. By assuming they are not true, you are showing a profound bias.



you must prove something is true so by default any accusation is to be met with doubt by default, innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

And this case is indeed credible, and should be investigated in private so the media cannot do a court of public opinion as we have seen time and time again, as for the blacklist, no that just show evidence that people dont want to work with her or a myriad of other reasons, NOT supporting the accusation of sexual misconduct.

Just to reiterate, Justice is doubting any claim from anyone about anything until such a time sufficient evidence is presented for you to take it seriously and then action it, we have a distinct lack of the correct prosecution method when it comes to the #metoo movement, assuming these people are speaking the truth prior to any evidence being presented...
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Formosa wrote:
you must prove something is true so by default any accusation is to be met with doubt by default, innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.


And again, in what way is anybody treating anybody as guilty? Sure, some people on twitter and tumblr are probably saying he's a scumbag, but how is that hurting him?


And this case is indeed credible, and should be investigated in private so the media cannot do a court of public opinion as we have seen time and time again, as for the blacklist, no that just show evidence that people dont want to work with her or a myriad of other reasons, NOT supporting the accusation of sexual misconduct.


Well, you need to show evidence if your goal is to handle something officially. But this wasn't an official complaint, it was simply a person describing their experiences. She's not even asking for action.

Just to reiterate, Justice is doubting any claim from anyone about anything until such a time sufficient evidence is presented for you to take it seriously and then action it, we have a distinct lack of the correct prosecution method when it comes to the #metoo movement, assuming these people are speaking the truth prior to any evidence being presented...


That is not really true. Nobody wants to live in a society were complaints were all met with doubt and skepticism, even prior to an investigation. "Officer, my car was stolen." "OH yeah? How do I know you didn't sell it, and are tying to rip off the insurance company? Bring me some evidence, and we'll look into it."

There is no on prosecution method for #metoo because it's not a criminal prosecution. It's a movement in which women (and some men) are sharing their stories about the sexual misconduct they've experienced in a professional context. Very little of the accusations have had a criminal element, but many would rise to the level of civil sexual harassment. The goal is twofold: expose not only the scumbags doing this, but the community which has looked the other way; and show how common it is, making it easier for other people to come forward.

Historically, accusations of sexual misconduct have been met with incredulity. Accusers were never believed. So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better.

I think, if anything, companies have been pretty conservative about cutting ties with the accused. I can't personally recall anybody that was fired over a false accusation, but it may have happened.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

 Polonius wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
you must prove something is true so by default any accusation is to be met with doubt by default, innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.


And again, in what way is anybody treating anybody as guilty? Sure, some people on twitter and tumblr are probably saying he's a scumbag, but how is that hurting him?


And this case is indeed credible, and should be investigated in private so the media cannot do a court of public opinion as we have seen time and time again, as for the blacklist, no that just show evidence that people dont want to work with her or a myriad of other reasons, NOT supporting the accusation of sexual misconduct.


Well, you need to show evidence if your goal is to handle something officially. But this wasn't an official complaint, it was simply a person describing their experiences. She's not even asking for action.

Just to reiterate, Justice is doubting any claim from anyone about anything until such a time sufficient evidence is presented for you to take it seriously and then action it, we have a distinct lack of the correct prosecution method when it comes to the #metoo movement, assuming these people are speaking the truth prior to any evidence being presented...


That is not really true. Nobody wants to live in a society were complaints were all met with doubt and skepticism, even prior to an investigation. "Officer, my car was stolen." "OH yeah? How do I know you didn't sell it, and are tying to rip off the insurance company? Bring me some evidence, and we'll look into it."

There is no on prosecution method for #metoo because it's not a criminal prosecution. It's a movement in which women (and some men) are sharing their stories about the sexual misconduct they've experienced in a professional context. Very little of the accusations have had a criminal element, but many would rise to the level of civil sexual harassment. The goal is twofold: expose not only the scumbags doing this, but the community which has looked the other way; and show how common it is, making it easier for other people to come forward.

Historically, accusations of sexual misconduct have been met with incredulity. Accusers were never believed. So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better.

I think, if anything, companies have been pretty conservative about cutting ties with the accused. I can't personally recall anybody that was fired over a false accusation, but it may have happened.




All accusations are met with doubt and skepticism, thats the point, when an accusation is made a quick mental judgement is made, rightly or wrongly, based upon the information the person has given, the body language of the person and appearance of the person, its at this point you need to stop, think critically, attempt to dismiss any bias you may have and then reach a fair conclusion, but it MUST start with doubt, otherwise people can and will take advantage.

And no, the pendulum should be in the middle, not favouring one side or another, thats the definition of in equality, so not only do i disagree with your statement...

" So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better."

I Know that kind of attitude is frankly dangerous....
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 Polonius wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
you must prove something is true so by default any accusation is to be met with doubt by default, innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.


And again, in what way is anybody treating anybody as guilty? Sure, some people on twitter and tumblr are probably saying he's a scumbag, but how is that hurting him?


And this case is indeed credible, and should be investigated in private so the media cannot do a court of public opinion as we have seen time and time again, as for the blacklist, no that just show evidence that people dont want to work with her or a myriad of other reasons, NOT supporting the accusation of sexual misconduct.


Well, you need to show evidence if your goal is to handle something officially. But this wasn't an official complaint, it was simply a person describing their experiences. She's not even asking for action.

Just to reiterate, Justice is doubting any claim from anyone about anything until such a time sufficient evidence is presented for you to take it seriously and then action it, we have a distinct lack of the correct prosecution method when it comes to the #metoo movement, assuming these people are speaking the truth prior to any evidence being presented...


That is not really true. Nobody wants to live in a society were complaints were all met with doubt and skepticism, even prior to an investigation. "Officer, my car was stolen." "OH yeah? How do I know you didn't sell it, and are tying to rip off the insurance company? Bring me some evidence, and we'll look into it."

There is no on prosecution method for #metoo because it's not a criminal prosecution. It's a movement in which women (and some men) are sharing their stories about the sexual misconduct they've experienced in a professional context. Very little of the accusations have had a criminal element, but many would rise to the level of civil sexual harassment. The goal is twofold: expose not only the scumbags doing this, but the community which has looked the other way; and show how common it is, making it easier for other people to come forward.

Historically, accusations of sexual misconduct have been met with incredulity. Accusers were never believed. So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better.

I think, if anything, companies have been pretty conservative about cutting ties with the accused. I can't personally recall anybody that was fired over a false accusation, but it may have happened.


Might not be following the line of your conversation properly, but how has it hurt him? AMC shut his show down almost immediately, and he's also lost paying gigs at Con's now as well. These accusations have had a HUGE negative impact on his life.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/17 18:08:10


Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Formosa wrote:

All accusations are met with doubt and skepticism, thats the point, when an accusation is made a quick mental judgement is made, rightly or wrongly, based upon the information the person has given, the body language of the person and appearance of the person, its at this point you need to stop, think critically, attempt to dismiss any bias you may have and then reach a fair conclusion, but it MUST start with doubt, otherwise people can and will take advantage.


There's a difference between doubting an accusation, and doubting that a crime occurred or that the accusation maps exactly with reality.

Let's look at the current case. She alleges that she was sexually assaulted, and goes on to describe her ex-bf pressuring her into sex when she clearly did not want it. I have no reason to doubt the specifics, but I have plenty of reason to doubt that she was sexually assaulted in any way that's legally meanginful. What's she's describing is a lack of positive consent, which is a really good moral framework for sex. However, that's not the legal, or even generally accepted ethical, way to judge sexual interactions. She no doubt felt sexually abused, and while plenty of people would agree with her, I think that her use of the term is a touch... over broad. That said, I don't doubt that she felt sexually victimized.

We might be using terms too loosely. When I say that you shouldn't doubt an accusation, I mean that you shouldn't immediately try to disprove it. You shouldn't immediately act on it, but you should look into it.

And no, the pendulum should be in the middle, not favouring one side or another, thats the definition of in equality, so not only do i disagree with your statement...

" So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better."

I Know that kind of attitude is frankly dangerous....


I think the pendulem is now swinging to the middle, and even then, only for higher profile accusers. In the past, accusations of sexual misconduct were simply dismissed. Nobody looked into them, nobody wanted to. Look at Louis CK or Harvey Weinsteien: their misconduct was an open secret. Hell, courtney Love joked about "not being alone with harvy Weinstien" on a red carpet. It wasn't that these accusations all came out of nowhere: it's that prior to the last few years, they went nowhere.

People are now starting to accept that these accusations could be true. They aren't all true, and even more commonly, they dont' fit neatly into a "totally true/totally false" framework. Often, they are true, but not enough to derail a career (aziz anzari).

But without media and the industry changing their attitude about accusations, then none of the well documented abusers would have been brought down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
Might not be following the line of your conversation properly, but how has it hurt him? AMC shut his show down almost immediately, and he's also lost paying gigs at Con's now as well. These accusations have had a HUGE negative impact on his life.


Well, AMC actually said this (emphasis added):

“We have had a positive working relationship with Chris Hardwick for many years,” the network said. “We take the troubling allegations that surfaced yesterday very seriously. While we assess the situation, ‘Talking With Chris Hardwick’ will not air on AMC.”

So, they are going to assess. Which seems fair, right? There's an accusation against somebody you do business with. You might not fire them, but you might pull them out of public view while you investigate it, right? Also worth noting, form another article:

"Just a few hours ago, reports also surfaced that AMC was under pressure to drop the axe on season 2 of Hardwick's soon to return talk show Talking with Chris Hardwick. This pressure was being exerted by reps for Hardwick's celebrity guests, who understandably wanted to avoid being seen on TV in a friendly atmosphere with the embattled host." https://screenrant.com/chris-hardwick-denies-sexually-assaulting-chloe-dykstra/

Keep in mind that AMC has far more information than we do. If the accusation was a nothing burger, they might stand more by him. If they know it has juice, they might want to distance themselves. If nothing else, they no doubt have talked to him about this more candidly than he's talked to us. The accuser has also alluded to having evidence, but has withheld it for the time being.

So, yes, his career has clearly taken a hit, but he hasn't lost his job or been fired yet. The dude had a talk show, and a talk show that nobody wants to appear on isn't going to be worth putting on the air.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/17 18:30:41


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

And the reason no one wants to be on the show is BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGATIONS.

As someone that has been falsely accused of misconduct I may be biased, but this reeks of a spurned, jealous ex trying to extend revenge and stretch out her 15 minutes of fame.

The only reason I passed my trial by fire is that half a dozen of my female coworkers stood up for me and called out the BS lies that were being told. Even after it became apparent that I was beyond any doubt innocent my accuser was never reprimanded in any way for fear of a lawsuit.
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





I am trying to understand why people are so worried about this now? People in the entertainment industry have always been affected by rumors. Your image is everything and it's part of what you are selling. It you are abusive in private, it can and will affect your career if it gets out.

Chris Hardwick was known to be a jerk and the allegations sound plausible. People who worked with him are not surprised. And now it's being voted in the court of public opinion.

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 cuda1179 wrote:
And the reason no one wants to be on the show is BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGATIONS.


Right, but not the media or the "mob justice." These are people all making judgments based on what's good for them. These guests aren't defending him, which isn't exactly uncommon in these cases. In fact, there seems to be some silence from colleagues and friends.

As someone that has been falsely accused of misconduct I may be biased, but this reeks of a spurned, jealous ex trying to extend revenge and stretch out her 15 minutes of fame.

The only reason I passed my trial by fire is that half a dozen of my female coworkers stood up for me and called out the BS lies that were being told. Even after it became apparent that I was beyond any doubt innocent my accuser was never reprimanded in any way for fear of a lawsuit.


So you're saying that you were accused, and an investigation cleared you. So, you know, it worked. And you can't reprimand somebody for filing a complaint of sexual (or racial) harassment, as that's a violation of federal law. It's called retaliation. I work in management, and I deal with my share of discrimination claims. It's a very employee friendly system, but it's a gun with one bullet. While you can't officially reprimand or publically punish the person, people that file complaints (even valid ones) rarely see their careers advance.

As for her motives, I think that is your bias. I think it's more likely that this is the result of a lot of therapy ,and deciding that she was a victim. I would guess that he treated her about as lousy as she detailed, but that most people wouldn't put up with it. She did, and she likely internalized the blame for that. While she shouldn't have accepted that treatment, he also shouldn't have treated her that way, or anywhere close to it. So it's a catharsis, a way of telling the world that she was wronged, even if she seemed to bring it on herself.

I'm not a mental health professional, so I don't know how effective that is. It's a lot of dirty laundry to air, but nothing about the accusations triggers any warning bells that they are fabricated. There were a lot of details, and few sweeping statements. She seemed to acknowledge a lot of her enabling of his behavior. If it's fake, it's a really thorough job. It also is fairly simple to disprove. It's not going to be hard for reporters to check to see if employers did blacklist her. Will her friends confirm that she dropped out of their lives? Does she have receipts?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

And then there is his side of the story. Apparently their 3 year relationship wasn't made to last, and for the last year there was a lot of back and forth yelling.

He finally dumped her after he caught her in an affair (I seem to remember that in the news) and she begged to come back.

Did he blacklist her? I don't know, and if he did it's a pretty prick thing to do.

I do have a problem with people's careers ending because of mere accusation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:
[
So you're saying that you were accused, and an investigation cleared you. So, you know, it worked. And you can't reprimand somebody for filing a complaint of sexual (or racial) harassment, as that's a violation of federal law. It's called retaliation. I work in management, and I deal with my share of discrimination claims. It's a very employee friendly system, but it's a gun with one bullet. While you can't officially reprimand or publically punish the person, people that file complaints (even valid ones) rarely see their careers advance.


The system worked for me by chance and luck. My accuser made many claims. Some of them couldn't be disproven in a he-said she-said way, luckily she was careless and made claims about things I (hadn't) said in public, and that's where my coworkers helped me out. Had I been accused by someone a little craftier, my career may have been over.

And quite frankly, I think anti-retaliation laws NEED to be rewritten. I do believe every case needs to be taken seriously and looked into. However, if someone makes a claim that is ridiculously over the top and disprovable, THEY are the harasser and deserve to be reprimanded.


I also find it funny that many feminist groups are actively fighting AGAINST some of these retaliation laws. The number of boys in college claiming sexual assault has increased noticeably in the last few years. Basically, if a couple has drunk sex, the first to accuse the other is the "victim" according to how many colleges treat accusations. Many guys have figured out the system, and if there is any doubt at all that a girl they were with the night before might try to make a claim against them, they beat them to the punch.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/17 21:39:35


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Polonius wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
you must prove something is true so by default any accusation is to be met with doubt by default, innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.


And again, in what way is anybody treating anybody as guilty? Sure, some people on twitter and tumblr are probably saying he's a scumbag, but how is that hurting him?


And this case is indeed credible, and should be investigated in private so the media cannot do a court of public opinion as we have seen time and time again, as for the blacklist, no that just show evidence that people dont want to work with her or a myriad of other reasons, NOT supporting the accusation of sexual misconduct.


Well, you need to show evidence if your goal is to handle something officially. But this wasn't an official complaint, it was simply a person describing their experiences. She's not even asking for action.

Just to reiterate, Justice is doubting any claim from anyone about anything until such a time sufficient evidence is presented for you to take it seriously and then action it, we have a distinct lack of the correct prosecution method when it comes to the #metoo movement, assuming these people are speaking the truth prior to any evidence being presented...


That is not really true. Nobody wants to live in a society were complaints were all met with doubt and skepticism, even prior to an investigation. "Officer, my car was stolen." "OH yeah? How do I know you didn't sell it, and are tying to rip off the insurance company? Bring me some evidence, and we'll look into it."

There is no on prosecution method for #metoo because it's not a criminal prosecution. It's a movement in which women (and some men) are sharing their stories about the sexual misconduct they've experienced in a professional context. Very little of the accusations have had a criminal element, but many would rise to the level of civil sexual harassment. The goal is twofold: expose not only the scumbags doing this, but the community which has looked the other way; and show how common it is, making it easier for other people to come forward.

Historically, accusations of sexual misconduct have been met with incredulity. Accusers were never believed. So yes, the attitude for believing their claims has changed, but I'd argue its for the better.

I think, if anything, companies have been pretty conservative about cutting ties with the accused. I can't personally recall anybody that was fired over a false accusation, but it may have happened.


What the Marylander said.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 cuda1179 wrote:
And then there is his side of the story. Apparently their 3 year relationship wasn't made to last, and for the last year there was a lot of back and forth yelling.

He finally dumped her after he caught her in an affair (I seem to remember that in the news) and she begged to come back.

Did he blacklist her? I don't know, and if he did it's a pretty prick thing to do.

I do have a problem with people's careers ending because of mere accusation.


I think most people outside of the crunchier corners of Tumblr agree with you. That's why it hasn't really happened, as far as I can tell. If this blows over, he'll go back to his NBC game show and his other projects as normal.

The system worked for me by chance and luck. My accuser made many claims. Some of them couldn't be disproven in a he-said she-said way, luckily she was careless and made claims about things I (hadn't) said in public, and that's where my coworkers helped me out. Had I been accused by someone a little craftier, my career may have been over.


Yeah, that's not all that lucky. Most people that file unsupported harassment claims aren't exactly criminal masterminds. Generally speaking, they are acting out of fear or panic. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's a lot harder to create a viable harassment claim out of whole cloth than many people think.

It's incredibly frustrating that a person can basically allege anything they want, with no repercussions. Hopefully, over time the system figures out a better way to balance the right to complain with the rights of the accused.

And quite frankly, I think anti-retaliation laws NEED to be rewritten. I do believe every case needs to be taken seriously and looked into. However, if someone makes a claim that is ridiculously over the top and disprovable, THEY are the harasser and deserve to be reprimanded.


I agree, but its' a lot harder in practice than it seems. You have all kinds of constitutional issues, rights to work, etc. It's a freaking mess.

And then for stuff like this, this isn't even a complaint. It's just a public accusation. There's nothing official about it.

I also find it funny that many feminist groups are actively fighting AGAINST some of these retaliation laws. The number of boys in college claiming sexual assault has increased noticeably in the last few years. Basically, if a couple has drunk sex, the first to accuse the other is the "victim" according to how many colleges treat accusations. Many guys have figured out the system, and if there is any doubt at all that a girl they were with the night before might try to make a claim against them, they beat them to the punch.


The college sexual assault system is a completely different animal. It's beyond terrible. If you want to find an example of how big government is creating a mess, that's exhibit one in my book. And I'm a big government liberal!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/17 22:26:30


 
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!





Chicago

 Polonius wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
And then there is his side of the story. Apparently their 3 year relationship wasn't made to last, and for the last year there was a lot of back and forth yelling.

He finally dumped her after he caught her in an affair (I seem to remember that in the news) and she begged to come back.

Did he blacklist her? I don't know, and if he did it's a pretty prick thing to do.

I do have a problem with people's careers ending because of mere accusation.


I think most people outside of the crunchier corners of Tumblr agree with you. That's why it hasn't really happened, as far as I can tell. If this blows over, he'll go back to his NBC game show and his other projects as normal.

The system worked for me by chance and luck. My accuser made many claims. Some of them couldn't be disproven in a he-said she-said way, luckily she was careless and made claims about things I (hadn't) said in public, and that's where my coworkers helped me out. Had I been accused by someone a little craftier, my career may have been over.


Yeah, that's not all that lucky. Most people that file unsupported harassment claims aren't exactly criminal masterminds. Generally speaking, they are acting out of fear or panic. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's a lot harder to create a viable harassment claim out of whole cloth than many people think.

It's incredibly frustrating that a person can basically allege anything they want, with no repercussions. Hopefully, over time the system figures out a better way to balance the right to complain with the rights of the accused.

And quite frankly, I think anti-retaliation laws NEED to be rewritten. I do believe every case needs to be taken seriously and looked into. However, if someone makes a claim that is ridiculously over the top and disprovable, THEY are the harasser and deserve to be reprimanded.


I agree, but its' a lot harder in practice than it seems. You have all kinds of constitutional issues, rights to work, etc. It's a freaking mess.

And then for stuff like this, this isn't even a complaint. It's just a public accusation. There's nothing official about it.

I also find it funny that many feminist groups are actively fighting AGAINST some of these retaliation laws. The number of boys in college claiming sexual assault has increased noticeably in the last few years. Basically, if a couple has drunk sex, the first to accuse the other is the "victim" according to how many colleges treat accusations. Many guys have figured out the system, and if there is any doubt at all that a girl they were with the night before might try to make a claim against them, they beat them to the punch.


The college sexual assault system is a completely different animal. It's beyond terrible. If you want to find an example of how big government is creating a mess, that's exhibit one in my book. And I'm a big government liberal!


To take it a step even further the entire title ix system, sexual misconduct etc not the sports and scholarship portion, is a joke

Ustrello paints- 30k, 40k multiple armies
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/614742.page 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 cuda1179 wrote:
Had I been accused by someone a little craftier, my career may have been over..


Don't you own a restaurant? How does that work - they make you hand over your spatula and pad, forever?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/17 23:24:58


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I hear people counter the #metoo movement with "it goes too far and innocent people have their lives ruined" but I rarely if ever see said people raise examples of that happening. But actual victims of sexual harassment hit the news every single day that the same individuals are very quick to brush off. I go back to my phrase on the matter:

"The difference between rape of a child and rape of an adult is people try to make excuses for the second one."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 03:20:42


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Yodhrin wrote:
Ah well, see, that's the problem - a lot of people have now decided "fairness and justice" have different meanings inside and outside of a court of law, and so should also have different standards of proof.

Oh, and don't bother appealing to such people on the basis that such an attitude will generate false-positives that ruin lives & careers for no actual reason


There are different standards of proof. This isn't something some people just decided recently, it is a staggeringly obvious universal constant. If you really truly don't understand this, ask yourself if you two children said the man in the house two doors down from yours tried to molest them, would you continue to let that man babysit your kids? By your argument, it would be wrong to cancel him as a babysitter, because he hasn't been proven guilty of anything in a court of law. Which is ridiculous. Staggeringly, absurdly, depressingly ridiculous, and about the clearest example you will ever get of a person just steadfastly deciding that he will not apply any form of common sense or reason to a very straight forward reality.

Anyhow, now we've got that distraction out the way and recognised we use different standards of evidence for different things, we can start to talk about a two very different issues here which are not all that related but often get thrown in to the pot together.

1) there is a big difference between a single accusation with no supporting witnesses, and multiple accusations from many victims who were all telling their stories for years before they knew of any other people also telling stories. The former is weak and it would take extreme circumstances to be considered strong enough to act on, while the latter is very strong and would require extreme circumstances to be discarded.

2) companies don't really give a gak whether or not an accusation against one of their staff is true or isn't. They don't 'believe her', but they also don't believe in standards of evidence. They believe in avoiding bad headlines. When an accusation breaks they're gonna look at whether that person is so uniquely valuable that it's worth the cost, and move from there. FOX News tried to keep O'Reilly long after the multiple payments to multiple women had been revealed because the guy dominated ratings and was the channels most recognisable face. Whereas this Hardwick guy, near as I can tell, ran one of those after the show chat segments that are typically staffed with b- and c-list talent. So of course he got booted straight away.

That latter is a serious issue. In this very media conscious age of social media mobs, it really doesn't take much to get someone fired. Forget an accusation of firing someone for being accused of domestic abuse, we've seen people fired for posting off-colour jokes. But that is an issue of trying to use the mechanics of modern corporate society in place of the justice system, it is not an issue with people making a judgement over the standard of evidence. And that is it's own mess we need to spend a long time studying and unwinding.

But that doesn't mean the answer is to stop believing multiple, credible witnesses, because they haven't taken their issues to court and gone through the painful, ugly and protacted mess of the modern legal system just to get people to believe they were telling the truth.

There is a weird, maybe confused but also maybe kind of disenguous pushback against #metoo that is mixing those two things up. It is picking up on the genuine concern that some companies are acting with immediate terminations, but instead of talking about the power that companies have, instead they're using it to attack the core of #metoo, the idea that a woman speaking out shouldn't be treated with a default position of disbelief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Yodhrin wrote:
To be clear - if a woman I know and trust came to me and said that someone, whether I knew them or not, had assaulted her, I would take her seriously, support her, and distance myself from the person she had accused until it was sorted out one way or another, but I would do those things because I know and trust her, not because she's a woman accusing a man of sexual assault. When someone I don't know makes an accusation against someone else I don't know, I have no basis to decide the veracity of the accusation one way or another


This is genuinely the worst process of assesing truth I have ever seen in my life. And I've been on the internet, so I've seen some things.

Anyhow, 'because I know them and trust them' is a hopeless standard. People we know lie. Everyone who lies will have friends who know them and trust them. So ignore that junk because it's nonsense.

Instead, actually read the accusation. See if it is just one person or if it multiple accusers. See if the accusation makes sense, and fits with what know about how people act. See if there's evidence supporting supporting either the accuser or the accused, such as supporting witnesses, photos etc.

So, you know, learn the basics of the accusation and apply judgement. Or don't and stay quiet, if it isn't something you want to get involved in. But don't ever think the way to figure it out is 'do I know her and trust her, if so it is true, if not it is automatically he said she said' because holy crap that is such an awful pile of nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 cuda1179 wrote:
The Morgan Freeman accusation was laughably bad. I watched the video of that "harassment" and thought "that's what she's complaining about"?


One of two things is happening here.
1) You have absolutely no idea of what Freeman was actually accused of.
2) You know what he was accused of, and after reading that Freeman repeatedly tried to lift up a girl's skirt while asking if she was wearing any underwear while being told to stop, you thought there was nothing wrong with that.

I really hope it's #1. Can you please confirm it's #1, because if not, holy crap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:
Is anybody assuming guilt here? At most, he's had his name taken off a website he no longer works at. Are there really examples of people losing jobs over false accusations?


AMC has pulled further episodes of his show, so there has been immediate blow back for Hardwick, which is an issue. But as I said above that's more an issue with corporate power and how easily they can end a career, combined with an interest in nothing but their brand, than it is with #metoo.

Afterall, AMC made their move before most people even heard this story about a c-list nerd culture commentator/comedian. Arguing that it was done because thousands believed her accusation and pressured AMC is the narrative a few people in this thread have invented in their heads, which is weird because none of that happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I hear people counter the #metoo movement with "it goes too far and innocent people have their lives ruined" but I rarely if ever see said people raise examples of that happening.


If you ever need to see an example of how power dynamics work, just look at the reaction to #metoo. People have spilled gallons of ink worrying about men who might lose their careers to this, but almost nothing has been written about the women who's careers were destroyed after refusing to submit, or for speaking out afterwards. And there is now vast concern given to the chance that a man might be falsely accused and then penalised, and while that is a legitimate concern, it is telling that there is no similar concern for the women who were attacked after making their accusations, and who still suffer consequences even after their claims were proven true.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/06/18 04:19:37


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

 Ouze wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:
Had I been accused by someone a little craftier, my career may have been over..


Don't you own a restaurant? How does that work - they make you hand over your spatula and pad, forever?



I currently own a restaurant. Like many people I've had a career change in my life. After going to college for Mechanical Engineering I got a pretty decent job. However, many factors, including an economic downturn and the previously mentioned incident, soured me on the field and I reevaluated my life and decided the salary wasn't worth it. However, thanks for trivializing a rather traumatic part of my life, greatly appreciated.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 cuda1179 wrote:
However, thanks for trivializing a rather traumatic part of my life, greatly appreciated.


If you want to get precious about people trivialising other people's lives, maybe you want to think twice before putting harassment in mocking quotations, when describing a man trying to lift a girl's skirt repeatedly while asking if she's wearing underwear, and claiming surprise that there was nothing to complain about.

One of the things about a callous culture where people ignore or mock other's worst moments is that it has a habit of coming back around.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/18 08:59:27


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: