What makes you think there’s an inappropriate level of investigating going on? What do you think an investigation is like? Are you expecting daily tweets about what amazing information their people are finding out in Hawaii?
I would expect SOMETHING would get reported, given the amount of coverage of the allegations in Dykstra’s essay. Instead? Crickets. What have you heard or read regarding an investigation? Or are the allegations the only thing that matters?
Hardwick’s employer is not going to give public updates about their HR investigation of their employee. So exactly whom do you expect to be making statements right now? If there’s any reason to toss “crickets” at someone it’s Hardwick himself. If he’s not saying anything then perhaps the investigation isn’t going in a way that he would like to talk about right now.
To be honest, the one that I find more concerning is the lack of any response from his friend Wil Wheaton. That doesn’t bode well.
…why?
Why would you expect SOMETHING to get reported?
On June the 15th this year Paulo Remes got deliberately hit by a Border Patrol vehicle. The Border Patrol vehicle then took off.
Here’s the video.
One would expect there to be SOME follow-up to this story. The Border Patrol released a statement at the time that said "“We stress honor and integrity in every aspect of our mission,” the statement said. “We do not tolerate misconduct on or off duty and will fully cooperate with all investigations of alleged unlawful conduct by our personnel.”
But that’s the end of the story.
No follow up from the media.
No comment from the Border Patrol on the investigation.
Nothing.
Crickets.
So its extraordinary that you think that this particular story is so newsworthy that you would expect SOMETHING would get reported. Because it isn’t particularly news-worthy right now at all.
And if a story about how a man can get run over by an (alleged) Federal Agent and the whole thing gets captured on camera and there are zero consequences for the Agent or the agency, and it doesn’t even make front-page-news and drops off the news cycle in a day: why the fuck are you expecting SOMETHING should have been reported about the Chris Hardwick story when it appears that everything that could have been reported on has been done so? If something happens it will get reported. In the meantime you aren’t going to hear anything.
The news cycle moves extraordinarily fast now. A couple of days ago the President of the United States was threatening Iran on twitter. And that story is practically over now.
The New York Daily News just fired 50% of their editorial team today. 238,000 jobs have been lost in journalism since 2001. Do you think there are journalists out there investing more time into this story? Why would they? What is it do you think they would find?
Congrats. You bumped the thread to tell everybody that you haven’t changed your mind. Well done. We look forward to you bumping the thread again in another couple of months to remind everyone that you haven’t changed your mind.
That isn’t what I said.
But it depends who is giving the benefit of the doubt.
If I’m AMC and I give Hardwick the benefit of the doubt and let him continue to host, I’m opening myself up for liability should he pat some production assistant on the ass or refer to his cohost as a cunt. So there is a cost to me for that, where I have no relationship with Dykstra.
If I’m a woman at a convention where Hardwick is, and I give Hardwick the benefit of the doubt, I could end up sexually assaulted. That is the downside of giving someone the benefit of the doubt when there are rumors he is not good to women. The upside, Hardwick might be a great person and I’d get an interesting conversation - that isn’t much of an upside for the risk. If I’m a woman at a convention and I give Dykstra the benefit of the doubt, the downside is that she’s crazy and I spend some time discovering that for myself. Same upside. But I’m not concerned about sexual assault.
If I’m here on this board, I can afford to give both of them the benefit of the doubt. I know neither of them and am unlikely to come into contact with either of them. Or I can give neither of them the benefit of the doubt. Honestly, Hardwick seems like an asshole and Dykstra seems a little crazy and I don’t believe either of them 100%. But I don’t disbelieve either of them 100%
And that’s what guys don’t get about giving a rumored sexual predator the benefit of the doubt. There is a real risk and a real cost to that for women - and often very little upside. And since I’m not likely to run into Hardwick, this case doesn’t have personal direct implications for me. But on a larger scale, women protect themselves and each other through creep identification. “Don’t stand next to Bob in the elevator, he gets handsy” “Hey, Jenny is drunk and hanging out with Charlie, we should go get her out of there (because Charlie has a reputation for taking advantage of that situation).” “Maggie is going out on a date with Brian, we should probably make sure she hears what happened between him and Sara before she gets in too deep”
Acsenray posted this link which includes several coworkers talking about Hardwick displaying the same kind of controlling and abusive behavior. Chris Hardwick's Hard Times: The Silence From Those in His Orbit Is Deafening As far as I’ve seen, his close friend Wil Wheaton has been completely silent about this. While Hardwick may have been abusive in one relationship it might be that this was a reaction to his loss of control with alcoholism and the timing of the relationship with Dykstra coincided with a shitty period in his life. Nothing I’ve seen from either Dykstra’s or Hardwick’s behavior leads me to doubt the abuse accusations.
You responded to a bumped thread to essentially tell us why you think this thread should not have been bumped. Interesting. And you have such a pleasant way of explaining things as well. I feel enlightened.
…nope. Didn’t do that at all. I directly addressed the sentence that I quoted. Can I suggest you actually read what I wrote? I mean, you even quoted my post again in its entirety and still managed to completely miss the point.
I thought so.
I do, don’t I?
That’s good to hear.
Yes, his closest friend and former roommate hasn’t said one word in support for him. What does that tell you?
Are those our only options? Believe her or tar and feather her? I think there are some options in the middle that are being omitted. Do you think I have attempted to tar and feather her?
Yer either for us or agin us.
Cleared by AMC, going to be back on Talking Dead. Nice to see a story with no backing not ruining someone’s career these days.
Careful. There are many who may still believe he’s guilty even if he gets show back. It’s the unfortunate underbelly of the #metoo and #timesup movements. Sometimes innocent people are sacrificed.
Just so we can be precise about what AMC did and did not say—
Oh I know, but it doesn’t make it ok. I or anyone else outside of their relationship will never know the absolute truth, but it’s not guilty until proven innocent. And I would at least like to think AMC was very thorough in this vetting of the accusations, considering the climate we find ourselves in these days.
That is fair and I shouldn’t have said cleared, that does imply a legal aspect. But I would think they have been very careful to cover their asses if they are putting him back on tv.
You’d think it would have been straightforward to establish that he abused her if she really possessed the pictures and audio that she said she did in her essay.
Apparently it doesn’t tell us anything.
Several of his former long-term lovers have come forward to vouch for his character, though. While this doesn’t necessarily discredit Dykstra’s claims, it would be extraordinarily odd for an alleged abuser to restrict abusive behaviour to just one relationship.
I’ve also heard that Chloe has been inconsistent in her claims, I haven’t really cared to follow the details of the story and its development so can anyone confirm if her story has indeed significantly changed?