Well, I didn’t get a reply to my last post, so I figured there wasn’t really any defense forthcoming for the goalpost moving re: alleged damages from mere accusations, so why continue to highlight the fact, didn’t really seem sporting.
You called her a possible victim of sexual assault. I was wondering why you think she is a possible victim of sexual assault, instead of a victim of sexual assault, like she states in her article.
Those things don’t conflict.
EDIT: Not interested in going further with your gotcha game.
Of course they do.
I don’t play gotcha games. Curious on why you are not taking her word that she was a victim of sexual assault, that’s all.
I think it’s highly inappropriate to make allegations against someone without very strong evidence, and furthermore to withhold such evidence when the opportunity comes to present it.
You want to be curious about manufactured things that have nothing to du with anything I posted, feel free. I probably won’t indulge your straw man silliness, though.
You did say “possible victim of sexual assault.” Either she was a victim or she wasn’t. If she wasn’t, she does not deserve our sympathy. Which is it?
I find it surprising that a direct question asking for your opinion on something is somehow a “strawman”. I’m not arguing for or against anything. I simply wondered why you called her a “possible” victim instead of a victim.
Funny how you refuse to answer such a simple question.
This makes it much, much harder for victims to come forward. Sometimes they just want to tell their story. That should be welcomed, not dissuaded.
I don’t believe you’re accurately representing anything here, and so I’m not going to engage further when such engagement would violate the rules of GD.
Unless they’re lying. Do you think false allegations should be welcomed just as openly as true ones?
Sure, okay. I’m accurately representing the exact thing you posted - “possible victim of sexual assault”. I’m not the one who called her that, YOU did. If you can’t explain why you would make such a statement as opposed to “victim of sexual assault”, then okay. Your non-answer says more than your answer ever could.
Have a good day.
Allegations shouldn’t be called false, or even suggested as such, without very solid evidence. Survivors and victims have been treated horribly for a long, long time, and in order to fix that we need to make sure they’re completely welcome to come forward and tell their stories, with no obligation more than to be honest. And without any solid evidence they’re not being honest, they shouldn’t be implied to be anything but.
Do you have a link to that?
That’s an unnecessary double standard.
In other words, all allegations should be treated as true. What if Chris Hardwick alleged that Chloe Dykstra was being untruthful? Do we respect that allegation the same way? Or does your idea only apply when females make allegations about males?
If Hardwick made allegations of sexual assault against Dykstra, I’d certainly advocate that they be seriously considered, and criticize any suggestions that he was being dishonest unless there was solid evidence that he was.
Again, there’s a long and horrible history of denigrating survivors and victims of sexual assault, and in order to correct that we need to be very careful to ensure a welcoming atmosphere for victims and survivors. Casual suggestions and implications of dishonesty, without solid evidence, are the opposite of “welcoming”, and are harming efforts to try and fix this really terrible part of our society.
…Amber Anderson made strong allegations against Harvey Weinstein. Her evidence was as strong as Dykstra’s.
So did Lysette Anthony.
And Asia Argento.
And Rosanna Arquette.
And Jessica Barth.
And Ambra Battilana Gutierrez.
And Kate Beckinsale.
And Juls Bindi.
And Zoe Brock.
And Cynthia Burr.
And Liza Campbell.
And Marisa Coughlan.
And Florence Darel.
And Emma de Caunes.
And Juliana De Paula.
And Cara Delevingne.
And Sophie Dix.
And Lacey Dorn.
And that isn’t even a quarter of the names that have spoken out over the last year about Weinstein, with absolutely no evidence except the power of their voices.
Was it appropriate that they all kept their mouths shut over the last 20 years? When was the appropriate time for them all to speak out? Ashley Judd spoke out in 1997. Nobody believed her. Was it inappropriate for her to speak out back then? How about now?
A welcoming atmosphere for victims and survivors, certainly. But keep an eye out for bald-faced liars at the same time. They certainly do not help the cause. And always keep in mind that people’s perceptions are coloured by their experience and upbringing. What one person calls “sexual assault,” for example, may not really be sexual assault at all. It may be something else, but precision in language is extremely important in these kinds of situations.
There’s no reason to bring this up when discussing instances with no strong evidence of lying. Doing so only implies you believe Dykstra is being dishonest, and thus doing harm to the chance of that welcoming atmosphere for victims and survivors in the future.