# And Now Chris Hardwick \[domestic abuse allegations\]
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 15, 2018, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153 "2018-06-15T15:28:07Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 21
### Author:  [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2018, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/401 "2018-06-25T07:11:46Z")
> [@raventhief](#):
>
> I disagree that you are in a position to tell us our purpose.
>
> Keep reading, I said that our purpose is to make the voices of victims heard. You think this is a bogus claim. I disagree.
>
> She told her story, explicitly to help other women recognize red flags and avoid them. You doubted her story, and implied that she was lying. Ok. I hope that some people read the article, realized they were potentially headed into bad territory and got out. If so, her story served a purpose.
>
> That’s what I hope. I don’t know what you hope or want.
I want justice. If she is telling the truth, I want Chris Hardwick to face the consequences, which he already has by losing his TV gig with AMC. If she’s lying, in whole or in part, then I want to see Chris Hardwick exonerated and Chloe Dykstra face the consequences for trying to destroy someone’s career. The truth may well lay somewhere in the middle.
---
### Author:  [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2018, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/402 "2018-06-25T07:15:37Z")
> [@Bone](#):
>
> If you were simply asking for more information, or suggesting she might be mistaken, you may have a point. But that’s not what’s happening. For example, your first post in this thread you called her story “grandstanding”, concluded it didn’t sound illegal, and saying that to tell her story she needs to name the person. But illegality isn’t at issue here so that’s a distraction. And calling her story grandstanding in this context is pretty perjorative:
>
> And just because things are framed in the form of a question, doesn’t mean it isn’t an accusation. Like here where you accuse her of trying to torpedo Hardwick’s career:
>
> And here you imply she’s making a false accusation, saying that without evidence that is satisfactory to you, she shouldn’t make a claim at all - which btw is total bullshit. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean it’s untrue:
>
> And here, you question her motives, while simultaneously saying that it’s not an attack on her. Except questioning someone’s motives is an attack - you are implying her motives are nefarious in some way:
>
> Here’s what I said earlier in the thread and it continues to be accurate, if I do say so myself. It is what you and others are doing.
Point made. Well argued. I’d like to take back some of what I said and reserve judgement. However, I still believe that “innocent until proven guilty” applies.
---
### Author:  [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2018, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/403 "2018-06-25T12:51:10Z")
Several years ago, we had a thread over a similar issue and several posters made the assertion that if an individual had personally experienced sexual assault but could not prove it–if, for example, someone groped them under the table or something–it was unethical to tell anyone except possibly very close friends about it, because it wasn’t fair to negatively impact the assailant’s life when you couldn’t prove it. In the same thread, some of the same posters argued that it’s unethical not to go to the police in the case of sexual assault, even if you know there is no case, because if you do then you bear culpability for any later crimes. It was like insisting that any amount of shame and humiliation imposed on victims through no fault of their own was okay, but even the potential of shame or humiliation against a possible assailant was unacceptable.
I mention this because it’s the logical conclusion some of the arguments in this thread are headed toward. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a fine sentiment–but so is freedom of speech, and the right to recount things that happened to you.
There are also times and places where uncorroborated testimony can be enough. I mean, say you were a manager and you had a long-term female employee who had always been honest and reliable: ten years without any sort of problem, certainly never a hint of dishonesty. You hire a new guy and after their first shift together, she comes and tells you that he shoved her against the wall in the store room and groped her breasts. She has no other proof but her word. I don’t know about you, but I’d fire him. I wouldn’t even have a conversation with him. On the other hand, if I had a reliable male employee, ten years with no complaint, and a totally new hire woman accused him of the same thing, I would not believe her. I’d assume she was a liar or had a distorted understanding of reality. I’d keep them apart and I’d watch her like a hawk because I would feel like she was unreliable–and anyone that unreliable is going to have other problems. We weigh testimony in context–and in the right context, it can carry a tremendous amount of weight.
---
### Author:  [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2018, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/404 "2018-06-25T14:18:07Z")
> [@MandaJo](#):
>
> 1. Several years ago, we had a thread over a similar issue and several posters made the assertion that if an individual had personally experienced sexual assault but could not prove it–if, for example, someone groped them under the table or something–it was unethical to tell anyone except possibly very close friends about it, because it wasn’t fair to negatively impact the assailant’s life when you couldn’t prove it. In the same thread, some of the same posters argued that it’s unethical not to go to the police in the case of sexual assault, even if you know there is no case, because if you do then you bear culpability for any later crimes. It was like insisting that any amount of shame and humiliation imposed on victims through no fault of their own was okay, but even the potential of shame or humiliation against a possible assailant was unacceptable.
>
> 2. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a fine sentiment–but so is freedom of speech, and the right to recount things that happened to you.
>
> 3. There are also times and places where uncorroborated testimony can be enough. I mean, say you were a manager and you had a long-term female employee who had always been honest and reliable: ten years without any sort of problem, certainly never a hint of dishonesty. You hire a new guy and after their first shift together, she comes and tells you that he shoved her against the wall in the store room and groped her breasts. She has no other proof but her word. I don’t know about you, but I’d fire him. I wouldn’t even have a conversation with him. On the other hand, if I had a reliable male employee, ten years with no complaint, and a totally new hire woman accused him of the same thing, I would not believe her. I’d assume she was a liar or had a distorted understanding of reality. I’d keep them apart and I’d watch her like a hawk because I would feel like she was unreliable–and anyone that unreliable is going to have other problems. We weigh testimony in context–and in the right context, it can carry a tremendous amount of weight.
1. I don’t know the thread but yeah I can see some tension between those concepts if the same person said ‘don’t publicize what you can’t prove’ and ‘you have to report a crime against yourself to the police whether there’s a case or not’. But as you point out in 3, contexts differ. And here the context, wholly aside from general credibility of the principals as in point 3, is mainly categorization of actions. Perhaps the most central allegation here “…letting him sexually assault me. Regularly…” itself contains tension between concepts.
2. I agree here: criminal liability and social shunning have never worked on the same basis. Maybe now social shunning is being magnified by the internet to a point it has to work differently, but still not necessarily on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt being required to just _think poorly_ of somebody. It’s the standard for the state to punish somebody with jail etc.
3. OK but which anecdote does Dykstra/Hardwick story fit? First difference as in point 1: in your stories either somebody committed a crime or somebody else falsely accused somebody of committing a crime. Dykstra/Hardwick is mainly in a far grey-er area of characterizing somebody’s behavior over a long consensual relationship. But secondly the vast majority of the audience judging the story in question has no real basis to assess the reliability of Hardwick\* or Dykstra. A lot of the debate here IMO is over a formula where Dykstra would receive points for credibility because of her sex, or in any case a formula where expression of doubt about her story is more ‘despicable’ than expressing doubt about Hardwick’s denial. Your hypothetical stories, while describing what would be reasonable action by you, don’t deal with that issue, central to the debate here IMO.
\*I agree with a previous post it’s preposterous to judge this based on Hardwick’s perceived TV persona; I’m not sure I’d ever heard of Dykstra as a celebrity previously but I think likewise for almost anyone who had, they still don’t actually know her.
---
### Author:  [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2018, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/405 "2018-06-25T14:20:25Z")
> [@Biffster](#):
>
> I want justice. If she is telling the truth, I want Chris Hardwick to face the consequences, which he already has by losing his TV gig with AMC. If she’s lying, in whole or in part, then I want to see Chris Hardwick exonerated and Chloe Dykstra face the consequences for trying to destroy someone’s career. The truth may well lay somewhere in the middle.
I don’t think there is “truth” in this case. It’s like a Rorschach test. People see the relationship through their own perspective. Even if we had video of their entire relationship, people would view it through their own experience and come to different conclusions.
I look at the 5 rules that Hardwick imposed on her and they don’t sound particularly onerous or abusive for a celebrity and alcoholic. It sounds like Hardwick was blunt when he said them, but I wouldn’t say that the rules themselves count as abuse. And if she didn’t like those rules or rules being imposed on her in the first place, she should have left.
Even that she calls them “rules” is on her. I don’t think Hardwick said “Here are the rules you will follow or else.” Rather, he was setting his expectations for the relationship just like we all do in all relationships. Probably most of us are less blunt than him (e.g. say something like “I have trouble with alcohol and would prefer that you not drink with me.”), but we all have expectations for our partner. The fact that she took his statement as “rules” has a lot to do with her. Hardwick probably needs someone who will stand up for herself more and push back if she doesn’t agree.
Think about George’s parents on Seinfeld and how they yelled at each other all the time. Most of us would hate to be in that relationship, but it works for them. That’s probably the kind of partner Hardwick needs. So when he says, “I’m busy. You have to keep your nights free.”, she responds with “Forget that. I’m a busy woman too. If you want to be with me, you’ll have to make the time.”
---
### Author:  [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2018, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/406 "2018-06-25T14:56:42Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#):
>
> 1. OK but which anecdote does Dykstra/Hardwick story fit? First difference as in point 1: in your stories either somebody committed a crime or somebody else falsely accused somebody of committing a crime. Dykstra/Hardwick is mainly in a far grey-er area of characterizing somebody’s behavior over a long consensual relationship. But secondly the vast majority of the audience judging the story in question has no real basis to assess the reliability of Hardwick\* or Dykstra. A lot of the debate here IMO is over a formula where Dykstra would receive points for credibility because of her sex, or in any case a formula where expression of doubt about her story is more ‘despicable’ than expressing doubt about Hardwick’s denial. Your hypothetical stories, while describing what would be reasonable action by you, don’t deal with that issue, central to the debate here IMO.
I think people have to make their own determination based on what they know–or truly reserve judgment. My point is just that you can’t say that testimony isn’t evidence. It absolutely is, and in some cases it’s appropriate to treat uncorroborated evidence as proof. Several people here were arguing that uncorroborated testimony should always be disregarded. I don’t think that’s true.
---
### Author:  [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2018, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/407 "2018-06-25T20:46:49Z")
> [@filmore](#):
>
> I don’t think there is “truth” in this case. It’s like a Rorschach test. People see the relationship through their own perspective. Even if we had video of their entire relationship, people would view it through their own experience and come to different conclusions.
>
> I look at the 5 rules that Hardwick imposed on her and they don’t sound particularly onerous or abusive for a celebrity and alcoholic. It sounds like Hardwick was blunt when he said them, but I wouldn’t say that the rules themselves count as abuse. And if she didn’t like those rules or rules being imposed on her in the first place, she should have left.
>
> Even that she calls them “rules” is on her. I don’t think Hardwick said “Here are the rules you will follow or else.” Rather, he was setting his expectations for the relationship just like we all do in all relationships. Probably most of us are less blunt than him (e.g. say something like “I have trouble with alcohol and would prefer that you not drink with me.”), but we all have expectations for our partner. The fact that she took his statement as “rules” has a lot to do with her. Hardwick probably needs someone who will stand up for herself more and push back if she doesn’t agree.
>
> Think about George’s parents on Seinfeld and how they yelled at each other all the time. Most of us would hate to be in that relationship, but it works for them. That’s probably the kind of partner Hardwick needs. So when he says, “I’m busy. You have to keep your nights free.”, she responds with “Forget that. I’m a busy woman too. If you want to be with me, you’ll have to make the time.”
You make a great deal of sense.
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [June 25, 2018, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/408 "2018-06-25T23:06:52Z")
> [@Stonebow](#):
>
> This might have been covered up-thread, and if so, my apologies. But has anyone made the parallels to the Aziz Ansari case a few months ago? As in, one can fully believe the accuser, think the accused is a dipshit (based ore upon public persona than anything else), and still accept this as a completely consensual encounter/relationship and within the ‘margin of error’ given the vagaries of human interaction?
>
> Clearly the accuser here suffered some sort of damage as a result of the demand of this relationship. That said, how many of us in perfectly sound and healthy relationships would like some of our sexual idiosyncrasies paraded in public? Especially if this impacted our livelihood?
You make some good points here. I hadn’t heard anything about Ansari since the January stories about him; apparently he’s doing well in his stand-up career:
> [@](#):
>
> Aziz Ansari getting more ‘enthusiastic’ applause after sexual misconduct allegations
> **[Aziz Ansari getting more ‘enthusiastic’ applause after sexual misconduct...](https://pagesix.com/2018/06/06/aziz-ansari-tests-new-jokes-in-surprise-comedy-cellar-set/)**
>
> “They lost it when he came out,” an audience member told Page Six.
I hadn’t thought about that case in connection with the Dykstra/Hardwick case, but you’re right: there are parallels.
> [@Biffster](#):
>
> There are a number who have said I am attacking the victim by simply asking for more information, or even suggesting that she might be mistaken. I’m not sure where this automatic “believe the accuser” attitude comes from—it defies common sense. Listen to the victim, sure, but also show some sensitivity to the fact that there are always three sides to the story: yours, mine, and the cold hard truth.
> [@Biffster](#):
>
> Point made. Well argued. I’d like to take back some of what I said and reserve judgement. However, I still believe that “innocent until proven guilty” applies.
Your first statement seems fair to me, but I also admire your willingness to take back some of the remarks that caused objections.
> [@Corry\_El](#):
>
> … A lot of the debate here IMO is over a formula where Dykstra would receive points for credibility because of her sex, or in any case a formula where expression of doubt about her story is more ‘despicable’ than expressing doubt about Hardwick’s denial. …
Your post has many excellent points, but I’ll highlight this. You put this more succinctly than I did–yes, that fits with what I was saying.
---
### Author:  [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2018, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/409 "2018-06-26T17:21:12Z")
> [@Biffster](#):
>
> I want justice. If she is telling the truth, I want Chris Hardwick to face the consequences, which he already has by losing his TV gig with AMC. If she’s lying, in whole or in part, then I want to see Chris Hardwick exonerated and Chloe Dykstra face the consequences for trying to destroy someone’s career. The truth may well lay somewhere in the middle.
Justice is a great thing to strive for, but just because someone cannot be proven guilty means that they actually are innocent. In those cases where the guilty go free because they were able to cover their tracks - that isn’t justice. That doesn’t mean we should convict the innocent without proof in a court of law, but it does mean that sometimes people get what the deserve out in the real world - even when the allegations aren’t provable - and sometimes people get shafted. For a woman, giving someone the benefit of the doubt in these sorts of cases can be dangerous. For a corporation, it can open them up to future liability and be expensive.
---
### Author:  [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2018, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/410 "2018-06-27T21:27:17Z")
[Chris Hardwick’s Ex Andrea Savage Defends Him Amid Sexual Assault Allegations](https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/chris-hardwicks-ex-andrea-savage-defends-him-amid-sexual-assault-allegations/ar-AAzfhpX?li=BBnb7Kz)
> [@](#):
>
> “I’ve known Chris for over 15 years. We dated years and years ago,” Savage tells PEOPLE. “He is one of the kindest, most supportive, women-supporting, intelligent people I’ve ever met.”
>
> \*\*\*Based on her own experiences with Hardwick, Savage, 45, says she did not recognize the person described in Dykstra’s post.
>
> * * *
>
> “None of this rang true in terms of my experience with him,” she says. “He’s truly one of the least controlling people. That’s not the Chris I know.”
---
### Author:  [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)
#### Post date: [July 6, 2018, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/411 "2018-07-06T06:41:35Z")
Has Chris Hardwick actually been named by Chloe Dykstra yet as her alleged abuser? I would think that him losing his job is a pretty serious consequence for an anonymous ex-boyfriend.
---
### Author:  [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)
#### Post date: [July 6, 2018, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/412 "2018-07-06T10:05:33Z")
> [@Biffster](#):
>
> Has Chris Hardwick actually been named by Chloe Dykstra yet as her alleged abuser? I would think that him losing his job is a pretty serious consequence for an anonymous ex-boyfriend.
…which employer are you talking about?
---
### Author:  [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)
#### Post date: [July 6, 2018, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/413 "2018-07-06T15:34:06Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#):
>
> …which employer are you talking about?
AMC.
---
### Author:  [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)
#### Post date: [July 6, 2018, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/414 "2018-07-06T23:05:49Z")
> [@Biffster](#):
>
> AMC.
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#):
>
> [https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/17/entertainment/chris-hardwick-chloe-dykstra-allegations/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/17/entertainment/chris-hardwick-chloe-dykstra-allegations/index.html)
>
> "AMC said Saturday it has suspended his show, “Talking with Chris Hardwick,” while it assesses the accusations against him. The cable network also said Hardwick will step aside from moderating AMC and BBC America panels at Comic-Con International in San Diego next month.
> “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 you are aware that AMC are assessing the accusations against Hardwick. Do you really think that part of that assessment would not be finding out if Hardwick was Dykstra’s “alleged abuser”?
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2018, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/415 "2018-07-07T00:24:34Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> What troubles me is that some in this thread are (essentially) agreeing that number 1 is appropriate in the case of Dykstra/Hardwick and other accusations made against men by women-----but then they go on (in effect) to label numbers 2, 3, and 4 as being abusive of women in and of themselves. The message seems to be that _ **examining the statement in any way is exactly the same thing as silencing victims of abuse** _.
And this is what bothers me. As far as I can tell, **this claim is entirely untrue.**
I see absolutely no one who has said that considering plausibility (#2) is wrong. No one has said that looking for corroboration (#3) is wrong, and have in fact cited some. And no one has said that past behavior (#4) is irrelevant.
You have been explicitly asked by another poster to provide quotes that back up your claims. You have not done so. Does that mean you admit your claim was wrong?
If you’re fighting against something we don’t say or agree with, then how in the world can we actually accomplish anything? You’re back there arguing with a tree, and we’re trying to get you to actually engage with us.
* * *
In this case, your number 2 is already there: they were together for a time. Number 3 has been given by several people who knew Hardwick as well as several previously anonymous Reddit posts that have been identified to know that she has not changed her story. Number 4 is again the people who knew Hardwick. All of this was already present!
Now, there is a belated defense of him not actually being like that. Unfortunately, delays cost credibility. And two of the defenses aren’t really even defenses, and that is a problem. If you have to give those types of defenses, that suggests there actually is a problem.
So while I am a little less on her side than before, I still tend to believe her claims are true. Because all those things you claimed matter _do_ actually matter.
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2018, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/416 "2018-07-07T00:38:16Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#):
>
> A lot of the debate here IMO is over a formula where Dykstra would receive points for credibility because of her sex, or in any case a formula where expression of doubt about her story is more ‘despicable’ than expressing doubt about Hardwick’s denial. Your hypothetical stories, while describing what would be reasonable action by you, don’t deal with that issue, central to the debate here IMO.
The issue with this is that it’s not a sex-based thing. It’s an accuser based thing. The person who has made the accusation gets “points” if you must simply because, statistically, such accusations are more likely to be true. This does not mean we stay with that position. It does not mean we do not judge the accusation by those points described above. But it does mean we give the accuser the benefit of the doubt, all else being equal.
The opposite is true of the accused. The accused is expected to try and defend themselves. And while their actual defense may have merit, the mere fact they are defending themselves has no bearing on whether the accusation is true.
It is true that the reverse is true in a court of law, as it should be. But, in the real world, we have a huge, huge problem of not believing accusers with sexual situations. So it’s better to err on the other side.
It’s not just about women, though. I believed Terry Crews and Brandon Fraser. It only seems to be about gender because women are more likely to report sexual abuse, harassment, and assault. But it’s really about the accuser.
And, again, it’s not much. It’s a very slim difference. Literally any other facts could overwhelm it. And, the less certain we are, the less that should be done about it.
I don’t, however, buy into this hyperbole of someone’s life being ruined. Anzari was mentioned. His life is fine. Every single time I see someone bring up a false accuser being caught, I look at the accused, and they are fine! Sure, if they want to sue for restitution, that’s fine. But they don’t have irreparable damage.
So I am not going to freak out about Hardwick being suspended for a while for an investigation. And, even if Hardwick is not a problem, this is what should be done. This is what it means to take an accusation seriously. It’s important that this always be done. No more shrugging these things off.
---
### Author:  [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2018, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/417 "2018-07-07T04:42:04Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#):
>
> …so you are aware that AMC are assessing the accusations against Hardwick. Do you really think that part of that assessment would not be finding out if Hardwick was Dykstra’s “alleged abuser”?
And how do you imagine they will do that exactly? What form will an investigation into an anonymous ex-boyfriend take? Who will conduct it? Chris has been removed from his hitting duties on AMC and all associations with the Nerdist. He is as good as fired. How is he supposed to prove his innocence, especially when he has not actually been named yet by his accuser?
---
### Author:  [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2018, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/418 "2018-07-07T07:41:00Z")
> [@Biffster](#):
>
> And how do you imagine they will do that exactly?
…“Hi Chloe, its AMC! Were you talking about Chris Hardwick?”
> [@](#):
>
> What form will an investigation into an anonymous ex-boyfriend take?
Are you an adult? Have you ever worked for a company before?
I’m not being sarcastic. Its bizzare you aren’t able to figure this stuff out for yourself.
The very first thing they will do will be to touch base with Dykstra and ask her if she would like to go on (their) record about the accusations. That’s just common sense. That’s how investigations happen. They don’t happen in a vacuum. They don’t guess. They don’t just read twitter.
> [@](#):
>
> Who will conduct it?
Probably human resources or the equivalent.
> [@](#):
>
> Chris has been removed from his hitting duties on AMC
Pending an investigation.
> [@](#):
>
> and all associations with the Nerdist.
Which had already happened long ago. Are you keeping up with the thread? This has all been talked about already.
> [@](#):
>
> He is as good as fired.
Nah, not really.
> [@](#):
>
> How is he supposed to prove his innocence, especially when he has not actually been named yet by his accuser?
When you figure out how “investigations work” that will answer your question on “how they know if Chris Hardwick is the accused.” This is real basic stuff.
As to “how can he prove his innocence”: he will tell his story, corroborate what he can, present his evidence. AMC will weigh that up with Dykstra’s evidence and Dykstra’s story, then they will make a decision on who they consider more plausible and make a decision accordingly. What else would you expect them to do?
---
### Author:  [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2018, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/419 "2018-07-07T09:51:50Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#):
>
> …“Hi Chloe, its AMC! Were you talking about Chris Hardwick?”
>
> Are you an adult? Have you ever worked for a company before?
>
> I’m not being sarcastic. Its bizzare you aren’t able to figure this stuff out for yourself.
>
> The very first thing they will do will be to touch base with Dykstra and ask her if she would like to go on (their) record about the accusations. That’s just common sense. That’s how investigations happen. They don’t happen in a vacuum. They don’t guess. They don’t just read twitter.
>
> Probably human resources or the equivalent.
>
> Pending an investigation.
>
> Which had already happened long ago. Are you keeping up with the thread? This has all been talked about already.
>
> Nah, not really.
>
> When you figure out how “investigations work” that will answer your question on “how they know if Chris Hardwick is the accused.” This is real basic stuff.
>
> As to “how can he prove his innocence”: he will tell his story, corroborate what he can, present his evidence. AMC will weigh that up with Dykstra’s evidence and Dykstra’s story, then they will make a decision on who they consider more plausible and make a decision accordingly. What else would you expect them to do?
I expect AMC will do none of these things. Are you an adult? This is really basic stuff. The reason she hasn’t named him is because she’s afraid of being sued for defamation of character. She’s not going to officially go on any record, or she would have started by doing that. And she would have reported it to the police if there were something to report. Nope, this is your basic smear campaign, started due to her frustration at her limited success within the entertainment industry, which may actually have nothing to do with Chris Hardwick. I could be wrong, but the timing and process here are very bizarre. She would be wise to hire a lawyer if she hasn’t already.
---
### Author:  [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2018, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/420 "2018-07-07T11:16:54Z")
> [@Biffster](#):
>
> I expect AMC will do none of these things.
…you don’t expect AMC will do what they said they were going to do?
Are AMC lying? They said they were going to investigate, but they are not?
> [@](#):
>
> Are you an adult?
That’s my line!
> [@](#):
>
> This is really basic stuff.
You would think so!
> [@](#):
>
> The reason she hasn’t named him is because she’s afraid of being sued for defamation of character.
Cite please.
> [@](#):
>
> She’s not going to officially go on any record, or she would have started by doing that.
Naaaaah. She was fine doing what she did.
> [@](#):
>
> And she would have reported it to the police if there were something to report.
Dykstra hasn’t claimed that any crimes have been committed. So why would she go to the police?
> [@](#):
>
> Nope, this is your basic smear campaign, started due to her frustration at her limited success within the entertainment industry,
You are echoing the smear campaign on Dykstra. Well done you! It isn’t based on any objective evidence of course, but you do you.
> [@](#):
>
> which may actually have nothing to do with Chris Hardwick.
So a conspiracy theory. Gotcha.
> [@](#):
>
> I could be wrong,
I think you are!
> [@](#):
>
> but the timing and process here are very bizarre.
How so?
> [@](#):
>
> She would be wise to hire a lawyer if she hasn’t already.
And the smear campaign continues.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153.md?page=20)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153.md?page=22)