Bullshit. Where is the evidence? Why didn’t she name him?
Incel Twitter! Now available on The Straight Dope!
Anyway… he’ll be fine. He literally married an heiress and never has to work another day in his life.
If he is guilty of what he had been accused of then I feel for his wife.
To restate: I don’t support Hardwicke. I’m saying lets wait for the evidence to come in before we believe terrible things about him.
Its in living memory of some of us that the simple allegation of a white woman could get a man lynched. Lets try to be a bit more civilized.
Exactly what evidence are you waiting for? do you think CSI is going to get on the case and come here to post irrefutable proof? this is all we have and all we are ever going to get, you either believe her or you don’t.
Most abusive men leave a trail of victims. If another woman comes forward ill change my position.
Telling the truth, and there’s no reason to believe it’s not the truth, is never the coward’s way out.
I can’t imagine calling a woman who may be an abuse victim a “coward” simply for telling her story. It’s truly monstrous. How would you feel if someone close to you, very bravely, told a very difficult story about their lives, and were then called “cowards” and worse by anonymous strangers? Why is this okay?
You didn’t wait for any evidence before calling Dykstra a “coward”. I wonder why the difference?
I written and deleted about 6 different responses and none seem adequate.
And people wonder why women don’t come forward in droves.
I am curious what the people who think she is lying think she stands to gain from making this up? She already had fame in her circle. All this does is invite attack and people calling her “loathsome” and worse. She literally has no reason to make this up.
Some people despise women, or at least women who don’t stay silent. It’s sad and loathsome and terrible for our society, but it’s true.
Because false allegations happen and create other victims. You of all people Andy know what can happen to a man falsely accused of abusing a woman. Men lynched. The Central Park boys accused of rape. Accusations are a starting point.
You called her a coward, based on no evidence, just for telling a story. Disgusting. There’s no excuse for that. It has nothing to do with potentially false allegations – you can reserve judgment all you want. But calling her a coward simply for telling her story is shameful.
So the first woman he abuses just has to wait until he does it to how many more women before you believe her?
Justice is hard and both the accuser and accused must be listened too. If Hardwicke was Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby then I would believe. Hardwick doesn’t have a track record. Yet.
You called her a coward with no evidence. That’s not listening, that’s disgusting.
Ok. I was wrong to call her a coward and I apologize. It was the wrong thing to say. But I believe if we are going to accuse someone we should name them.
How do you know what he did? He might have abused her. She might have abused him. We have to wait for more evidence before we pass any judgment.
Okay, good for you for recognizing that and apologizing. Hopefully you can learn from it and not rush to judgment the next time a woman comes forward and tells a story.
I don’t think there’s any wrong way to tell the truth (and there’s no reason to believe she’s not telling the truth – if proof emerged that she was lying, I’d have no problem with criticism against her). Every victim and survivor will process their experiences differently. Each one will have differing levels of legitimate fear of their abusers, especially when they’re powerful and influential in their industry. Each one will have their own reasons for telling their story in a certain way, and it’s entirely up to them how to tell it. If they want to name names, fine. If they don’t, fine. There’s no wrong way to tell the truth. And their stories are theirs, to tell in the entirety, or only partially, or not at all, however they choose.
Please do not lecture me on justice or throw random court cases. Yes, of course it happens.
But you seem much less concerned about her story being taken seriously than his name not being besmirched. Over the course of history, which way do you think was more likely?
Do you not see how your knee jerk is to not believe her, because she doesn’t have multiple other women coming forward, a caseload of evidence, and chose to not name a powerful man? The benefit of the doubt, in your mind, lies squarely with him. You’re entitled to that, but don’t make because you are just that much more impartial or fair than those who are more inclined to believe her.
I read the article and it is both familiar sounding and very saddening. I can’t put myself in the mindset of Dykstra, but I do know that it’s her story to tell, in the way she sees fit. It’s not for me or anyone to put rules around how she tells her own story, in her own way. I read it as a way for her to get closure - it’s her story. It’s not about Hardwick at all.