Now that’s a detailed response. Thanks for sharing it.
Surprising how quickly the discussion died when Hardwick got his job back.
Isn’t it though. What happened to all the defenders of Chloe Dykstra’s version of events?
Feel free to read the thread again if you’re interested in our opinions. And your continued implied attacks (and those of others) on Dykstra, for doing nothing more than coming forward and talking about her experiences, with no evidence presented so far that she was lying, remain as disgusting as they were earlier in the thread.
I had thought the discussion died before that, when it became obvious that Biffster wasn’t bothering to listen to anyone who didn’t agree with him that Dykstra was a worthless slut who was lying, and if she wasn’t lying, deserved what she got and wasn’t understanding that the rest of us were talking about the bigger issues at play - not having access to the evidence we’d need to have to be able to come to a conclusion about truth. Ideas like “men need to take some societal risk in moving society forward on this issue” and “women who know they will be accused of lying won’t speak up and therefore misogyny is allowed to perpetuate.”
My opinion hasn’t changed. Hardwick seemed like an asshole before this and still seems like an asshole.
He does strike me as being an asshole from watching The Talking Dead, but I still believe they are both right to some extent, as is often the case when people break up.
How can you possibly read an attack on Chloe Dykstra from the question I asked? I’m asking why YOU’VE been so quiet.
I said none of those things. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth, especially if you’re being honest when you say this is about being listened to and understood.
To what extent, do you think? How would it be possible for them both to be telling the truth?
Because your post doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it exists alongside all the other posts you’ve made in this thread.
I meant both are exaggerating. Perhaps he often wanted sex after work, and she took that to mean what she said about being ready when he got home. Stuff like that on both their parts.
Perhaps, but when it came to her use of the term “sexual assault,” I think that’s what made a lot of ears prick up. The problem is that her use of the term “sexual assault” (another word for the older term “rape”) appears to be different than both the legal terminology and Chris Hardwick’s understanding of what they were doing. She may believe she was telling the truth but didn’t have a proper understanding of the terms she was using. In any event, when the time came to follow through on her allegations, she declined. I’m not sure I understand why if she was serious about what she had alleged in her essay.
If you don’t understand why a possible victim of sexual assault might not want to continue to delve into her alleged sexual assault, then IMO you don’t understand much about the issue. In a society that treats victims of sexual assault so horribly, the surprising thing is that anyone ever actually speaks up at all, not that an accuser might want to stop talking about it.
Why would you say “possible victim of sexual assault”? Don’t you believe her?
Oh she spoke up PLENTY, or did you forget about that? She blogged about her experience in an online essay on Medium. That’s not the same thing as being quiet about it. The thing is she stopped short when she could have actually done something substantial, if the allegations were true that is.
I’ve seen no reason to believe that she’s not being honest, and I think it’s highly inappropriate to imply that she’s being dishonest without very strong such evidence.
According to her statements, she said what she wanted to say, and having said it, did not wish to go further. Every survivor and victim can decide for themselves what they want to say, and how far they want to go in saying it, and it’s inappropriate (and harmful to future victims and survivors) to suggest that because she didn’t want to go further then that’s evidence of dishonesty.
I’ve never said she’s being dishonest. I believe everything she says happened, happened. I just don’t agree with her choice of terminology to describe it.
You, however, seem to now think she’s a “possible” victim of sexual assault, when she said right in her story that she was sexually assaulted.
Huh? Reading this literally, I can’t parse what you’re trying to say in the last sentence. Is this just a silly gotcha or something?
Gee, now its a problem to put words in someone’s mouth - wasn’t an issue when you were stuffing my mouth…