There is that “innocent until proven guilty” thing.
I find it troubling that this accuser stated, originally, both that she cared about warning other potential victims, and that she had in her possession evidence of abuse having been committed. But now, she says:
Of course ‘moving on’ can be desirable. But what happened to the concern she’d earlier said she felt for others who might be victimized?
(emphasis mine)
and
If there is an abuser whom she could stop by simply handing over the audio/video, why doesn’t she do so? There is no necessity for her to do more than hand it over, is there? Perhaps answer a few questions about the provenance of the evidence. Isn’t putting herself out to that extent, at least, in line with her stated goal of helping other potential victims?
Something about this isn’t right. If she has hard evidence of abuse, she should turn it over to the authorities. She has claimed to care about others who might fall prey to the same abuse. Her claim seems hollow, given that she has the power to stop an abuser but chooses not to do so, for the sake of ‘moving on.’
And no, that is not the same thing as saying that ‘all victims have a duty to report abuse,’ because Dykstra has already come forward about having been abused. Of course it’s true that many victims feel they can’t come forward, and no pressure should be put on them to do so. There may be all sorts of complications that would make such pressure unreasonable. I’ll say it again: victims have no obligation to come forward.
But Dykstra, again, has already come forward.
Victims have no obligation to release every single intimate detail, which may include video or other material that could constitute evidence, if they don’t wish to.
Nope, sorry. Any burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
That has nothing to do with what I’m saying.
Why does Dykstra’s dishonesty have anything to do with future alleged victims? You’re overreaching.
Because victims and survivors might read threads like this one and say “screw it, they’re gonna call me a liar even if there’s no evidence”, and stay silent, because you’re implying dishonesty without good reason.
Then they should also not threaten others with releasing it. It amounts to a bluff and shoots her credibility in the foot.
She didn’t threaten anyone, but even if she did, that wouldn’t justify casting aspersions on her when there’s no good evidence she’s lying.
People who think Dykstra is being honest wouldn’t call her a “**possible **victim of sexual assault”
Yer damn right she did. She threatened her abuser with releasing audio and pics as evidence that would prove her case. Did you read her essay on Medium?
There’s no good evidence she’s telling the truth either.
Alright, I’m done for now. I hope y’all will one day recognize how important it is to avoid denigrating survivors and victims of sexual assault, rather than continuing to support the status quo that treats them like shit.
Real survivors and victims, you bet. I hope y’all will remember that using loaded terms like “abuse” and “sexual assault” can have serious unintended consequences. Have a great week, iiandyiiii.
Sorry for getting back so late, but directly linking to specific comments on Gawker media sites is particularly problematic due to the crappy software they use for the comment section.
Here’s for the second comment I quoted (hope it works):
https://jezebel.com/1827920922
I’m having trouble find a link to the other one, though.
As an aside, it’s weird how most of the internet is stubbornly resolute in its stance that Chloe Dykstra is 100% truthful based on the odd reactions to Hardwick having his job reinstated. Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe for whatever reason, but it’s wholly unrealistic and unfair to expect that people accused of misconduct should be made to lose their livelihood if there is absolutely nothing to support the veracity of the accusations. Chloe was given a chance to prove her side of the story, and she ultimately chose not to. Whether it’s because she lied about the evidence she claims is in her possession or for other unknown reasons, her credibility is now rightly shot because she shared her story and the details within it with the obvious intent that it invite trouble for Hardwick. If it was simply about aiding other domestic abuse survivors or just a form of self-therapy, she would have omitted all identifying information that made it clear as day who she was talking about. She’s not an idiot.
False accusations may be rare, but nevertheless they do happen and you have no way of distinguishing legitimate accusations from the false ones until a thorough investigation is made, which can only happen if you give the accused party the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. “Believe women” has got to be the worst tagline for the MeToo movement because adherents of the movement insist on having it taken literally in all situations.
She did the #metoo movement no favours by stopping short after threatening to release the evidence she supposedly had. You’re right: she could have left out the hints indicating exactly who she was talking about. It was a very passive-aggressive way of seeking revenge against an ex-lover.
And so Chris Hardwick returns to the Talking Dead this weekend. I wonder if anything about his demeanour will have changed.
An executive producer and a handful of staffers who work on the show turned in their resignations after the announcement Hardwick would be reinstated.
Good luck to them and their choices in future employers. I sincerely hope they have a conscience if such an employer has used their clout to get away with wrongdoing. I don’t see reason to know Hardwick to be such a person.
That the #MeToo movement is quite properly holding abusers to account is the positive side of it. But there’s a sinister side to it, too.
The sinister side is that it’s casting such a wide net that almost any male who has ever been in a relationship with a woman that has broken up on less than amicable terms is potentially in the crosshairs of a new and implacable weapon of the social justice brigade, adjudged not in the courtroom but in social media, convictions secured not on the basis of evidence but on unsubstantiated claims and innuendo.
I don’t know Chris Hardwick from a hole in the ground and have no particular inclination to defend him, and maybe he really is an asshole. But the title follows in the pattern of all the others, which famously began with Harvey Weinstein (or maybe further back, with Bill Cosby). My question is: and now Chris Hardwick is … what? Proven to be just exactly the same as the criminal predators Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby? Based on what? Is this what our concept of justice and fair play has come to now?
In this specific case, AMC investigated the claims and decided that Hardwick should be returned to work on the show. NBC returned him to “America’s Got Talent”, and Nerdist restored his name to their website. There are other signs, too, that #MeToo has itself become abusive and guilty of overreach; Megyn Kelly has said that the movement has been “expanded to the point of ridiculousness by some.”
Gossip and innuendo has always been toxic, but with the power of social media and the fashionable emergence of #MeToo, the toxicity has become weaponized. There is potential for beneficial social reform, yes, but it’s also created hair-trigger sensitivities and a one-sided power imbalance capable of causing a great deal of harm and injustice.