Possibly. It’s also possible the ones they lose are ones they don’t want to keep - in a post-#MeToo era, fans like that may be considered toxic to a brand. The calculus here isn’t just one of absolute fan numbers, but also advertisers, sponsors and (I know this is a long shot) social responsibility or the perception thereof.
I guess that’s what they call a humdinger of a moral dilemma.
Doesn’t seem like it was such a thorny dilemma for AMC…
Maybe not. Yvette Nicole Brown is quite popular all on her own and will do a fine job hosting, I’m sure. Hopefully no scandal will follow her around.
This is what I do not get. Why, in your opinion, it Dykstra worthy of the benefit of the doubt while Hardwick is not?
So much for striving for equal rights.
It sure has gotten quiet around here. Is that because the case against Hardwick is as good as closed? Will he ever get a fair hearing? Did Chloe Dykstra get her fifteen minutes of fame and then is heard no more? Did she help advance the cause of the #metoo and #timesup movements? Or do people just not care anymore?
Lol. I always love it when a thread is active for a solid month, goes to 13 pages and then someone says “boy, it sure got quiet in here” after people finally get tired of saying the same things over and over again.
Exactly the point. When can we expect to learn new information that either proves Hardwick deserves to be punished or exonerates him? People sure seemed to care up to two weeks ago. Now? Crickets.
What ‘new information’ would you imagine to do this? I don’t think the facts are necessarily in dispute; the context for some of them is, and much of the difference of opinion has to do with the audience rather than the speaker. The story came out, there was an industry response that was deemed sufficient to the alleged offense, and the world moves on.
In cases of accusations of abuse, the new information people await, often, is testimony from others who might have suffered abuse by the same accused person.
If there is no such testimony forthcoming, that tends to be informational in and of itself. Not proof, mind you, one way or the other. But it does affect people’s reading of the initial accusation.
I appreciate the response, but it makes little to no sense in the context of these specific allegations. The idea here is that Hardwick’s actions, when taken as a whole, compose a pattern of psychological abuse. It’s not like was accused of drugging and raping someone. It’s very possible that he engaged in some of these behaviors, but not all, in the context of other relationships, and it didn’t amount to abuse. Or he did, and the other person didn’t consider it abusive. It seems clear to me that it was the unique combination of a couple of volatile, damaged people that resulted in what pretty much everyone agrees is a toxic relationship.
I won’t speak to the accuser’s motivation in this case. But it has been a useful discussion of the different lenses we bring to relationships, and, frankly, how a lot of ‘traditional’ male behaviors should be held up to more scrutiny.
And so far the only ones to come forward are other ex-girlfriends who were not abused. Three of them.
There’s really no need to be coy. We’re all friends here. What exactly do you think this means?
I think perhaps it means there’s smoke and heat, but no fire. Much ado about nothing. A voice in the wilderness crying out. The tone of the essay struck me as at least a partial fabrication. The threat of pics and audio at the end seemed like a bluff. I’m saying I don’t believe her. That’s what I think this means.
Then you’ve just described a huge problem. If what is happening is wrong, then why would the fame of the accused matter? That sounds very much like the Cosby reaction–people were upset because it was happening to someone they like. If it wouldn’t matter if he wasn’t famous, then clearly nothing is wrong suspending someone pending an investigation.
As for why the conversation has died down: I can only speak for myself, but I for one get tired of trying to explain the same thing over and over when it gets ignored. I see Typo Negative asking the same question that I’ve already answered twice. Accusations of sexual misconduct are more likely to be true, while denials always happen, and thus mean nothing. Plus not believing accusations is how we got into this mess of people getting away with shit.
Instead of not believing, we believe and then investigate. We give the benefit of the doubt, rather than try and tar and feather the person for making the accusation, making it hard for others to come forward.
It’s what happens in every other case. You don’t have cops being told that someone robbed you assuming you are a liar. They believe you and investigate.
…well there’s a fucking surprise!
True enough. Maybe I just find it frustrating because there doesn’t seem to be any investigation going on, at least not proportional to the sensationalism of the allegations.
Good to know you’re fucking entertained.
Are you sure it’s “most people”? In fact, what was described wasn’t a disclosure that would harm a reputation (to which I could be quite sensitive, in fact), but the kind of low statement that leaves me indifferent and only makes me think less of the person who uttered it. That’s typical of my reaction to this kind of things : they don’t make me feel lower, they lower my perception of this person, so if anything they rather make me feel superior.
There’s a lot of variation from one person to another on all sort of things, but a tendancy to assume that other people perceive, feel, react in the same way you do (realizing the extent of it, to the point that I now feel that different people are essentially living a different world due to their different perception of it and different assumptions about what other people do or think has been one of the major revelations in my life. What opened my eyes long ago was a conversation between coworkers that started with what they would do if they found a wallet with money in it. The more the exchange progressed, the more I realized that those two coworkers were living in essentially parallel universes, given the assumptions they had about everybody else and about how things go in the world).