Which part?
It seems as if you are saying that so long as it was physically possible for the assault to have occurred, then that is enough evidence to believe the accuser.
In your scenario, how could Hardwick defend himself if he is innocent?
Or to those inside one, even.
A few jobs back, our team structure was:
- a bunch of experienced consultants getting the mushroom treatment, doing work for the French subsidiary of a Spanish company. About half the French people spoke English, none spoke Spanish. One of us did not speak French, but he was the Sales guy: the Sales ladies spoke English (and Russian, and German, and were working on their Spanish).
- our so-called “team leader”, who was very inexperienced and did not have a single word of French.
- the dude whose job description we eventually found out was “keeping the consultants under control”, Mr Nails (he wore them really long, longer than most women),
- and his boss.
At one point, when four of us were coming to the end of our contracts, I was the only one who was absolutely clear that I was not, no fucking way, not ever, try to make me and I’ll sue your ass for all the well-documented shit I’ve got on you, going to renew. We were talking about it and I pointed out “you guys know how every team ends up being a bit like a family? Kind of disfunctional, but you know what I mean, we pretty much live in each other’s pockets”. “Yeah…” “This one family happens to be abusive. Very abusive.” and I proceeded to list the abusive behavior of Mr. Nails, the times he’d insulted any of my coworkers (I’d recognized the signs early and knew how to avoid being targetted), his doing it in front of his nominal boss who’d shrunk as if he was yelling at her…
The guys did admit that it did, in fact, follow the patterns you hear on PSAs about abuse, but only one decided to leave at the end of our contracts. Another didn’t want to risk any kind of unemployment period, the fourth was counting back to retirement and said he didn’t mind being called a pustule-ridden whore by his client so long as the client paid on time (which by the way they did… not!).
What did Mr. Nails say when we informed him that we were leaving?
“You can’t do this to ME!”
I swear, every abusive manager I’ve had has said some variation on that. And again, it’s straight out of those PSAs.
Great, I refute it. I have never assaulted UltraVires, not having ever met him in real life or even knowing who he is.
Now, Dopers - who is believable?
I’d be especially wary in these cases of inferring anything from silence or non-committal statements of acquaintances besides not wanting to be the target of a social media mob. Put yourself in the position of a friend/acquaintance of both these people. Say, just hypothetically, there’s some truth to what she says but it’s not 100% accurate as far as you know. Think about how to phrase your impression of that without one mob or another coming after you. Just shutting up, if possible, is the obvious choice. It’s plausible to say you don’t know, you might really not.
Except in Wheaton’s case “acquaintance” doesn’t quite cover it - “Best friend” is perhaps more accurate (it’s certainly his own phrasing), which is why the longer he leaves his statement, the worse it’s getting for his own brand. That’d be offset by whatever he actually says, of course, but for now? Not a good look.
He should have said nothing, you’re right. Or perhaps stopped making the other tweets, it’s the juxtaposition that’s poor optics, IMO. Like he’s hoping all the immigration outrage and puppy pics will divert attention from the Dykstra thing (which, yeah, is not going to happen - a lot of people have an irrational hate for the guy, and this just gives them ammunition)
See post 362. I concede that I was out of line with my “accusation.” However, the responses have made the point that I am not to be believed because none of us have ever even met in person.
So, is that the standard? So long as it was physically possible that an assault occurred, the accuser is to be believed? If so, how can any innocent person refute a false accusation?
I think that’s the point with the Dykstra/Hardwick thing. I hadn’t heard of Chloe Dykstra until these recent allegations emerged, but I feel like I’ve known Chris Hardwick for years from watching him on TV. I fear that this may be something like Bill Cosby, where I’d grown up with the man and couldn’t fathom that he would have sexually abused anyone. That’s all changed now, of course.
Why? Because Chloe Dykstra, a person you admit that you have never heard of and therefore know nothing about her veracity or reputation for being honest, makes an uncorroborated allegation? And that makes your “fear” that your view of Chris Hardwick will be the same as your view of convicted felon Bill Cosby?
That’s the part I don’t understand. I don’t know either of these people. Sometimes people lie. I’m not going to have an opinion one way or the other on this until there is some corroboration.
He’s not being accused of any crimes. He’s being accusing of being a controlling and manipulating and emotionally abusive jerk to his domestic partner.
Slightly different than Bill Cosby.
It’s possible to be a terrible person without ever doing anything against the law.
Maybe he is all of those things. Maybe he isn’t. I just don’t understand why the following happens in these cases:
Person A: Person B is an abusive asshole.
Person B: That is not true.
Then we all believe Person A without having any knowledge about what happened or who is more trustworthy.
Sometimes I miss the days when private lives were indeed private. On the other hand, it’s good when abuse is exposed and dealt with. Somewhere in the middle, truth becomes a bit player in an off broadway show that lasts a week.
It appears that part of being “woke” means automatically believing the accuser. I’d say this gives the accuser an awful lot of power that they haven’t necessarily earned.
It’s not about belief. It’s about refraining from attacking them in any way, including suggesting that they might be lying, without strong evidence.
Does this policy also apply to the accused?
Sure doesn’t seem to. In order to not question the accuser, you pretty much have to sacrifice the accused.
#metoo came about because of extreme and unjust inequities in society in how victims/survivors of sexual abuse and harassment are treated. I’m unaware of any systemic and widespread extreme/unjust inequities in how those accused of sexual abuse and harassment are treated. Therefore my focus is on ensuring that victims/survivors are treated with respect and decency, since society generally treats such folks so terribly. Society generally supports and defends those accused like Hardwick, so I don’t feel the need to in this case. Society generally attacks and demeans those that make credible accusations of abuse and harassment, which is why I think it’simportant not to add to that.
If you want to start a movement about unfair treatment of those accused of abuse and assualt, then point out some widespread inequities I’m missing and feel free to try.
How about we work by the age old principle of innocent until proven guilty rather than the other way around? If corroborating evidence suggests Hardwick is guilty of what he is accused beyond a reasonable doubt, then we throw the book at him, take away his TV show, shun him, whatever, but not before. The way many people are talking right now, it’s as though his guilt is a done deal. And in any event, I thought this was supposed to be about Dykstra telling her story, not punishing Hardwick. He may as well be guilty for the way much of the public has reacted. Soon we’ll be burning witches again.
All I’ve criticized is attacks on Dykstra. If you want to make some other point, feel free, and I won’t criticize you unless you continue to attack Dykstra.
As for innocent until proven guilty, that’s for courts. It doesn’t have anything to do with this thread, as far as I can tell. I don’t think anyone has advocated locking Hardwick up.
…the part you quoted.