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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.”
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.
You make a great deal of sense.
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:
I hadn’t thought about that case in connection with the Dykstra/Hardwick case, but you’re right: there are parallels.
Your first statement seems fair to me, but I also admire your willingness to take back some of the remarks that caused objections.
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.
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.
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?
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”?
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.
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.
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?
…“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.
…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?
That’s my line!
You would think so!
Cite please.
Naaaaah. She was fine doing what she did.
Dykstra hasn’t claimed that any crimes have been committed. So why would she go to the police?
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.
So a conspiracy theory. Gotcha.
I think you are!
How so?
And the smear campaign continues.