Which means that the accused must prove his innocence. How would that be even possible?
I’m your former partner and say that you beat me up one year ago in our bedroom. How do you demonstrate your innocence, and if you can’t, what level of punishment do you think is appropriate for your awful behaviour?
On other thought on all this. The usual way that inherently unverifiable claims have been supported in the past is by a pattern of behavior involving multiple accusers. This is exactly what happened in the Cosby and Weinstein situations. Part of what I’m objecting to is how this has quickly snowballed and entered a completely different context where a single accuser, often an embittered ex-partner, is now considered a faultlessly credible witness in the new venue of trial by social media. This is what I meant in reference to the “hair-trigger sensitivities and a one-sided power imbalance” that I think has now developed. You just have to be accused by an ex-partner – of practically anything – and suddenly you’re “one of them”, no better than Harvey Weinstein.
Not faultless, but definitely credible. So far there has been no evidence presented that has made me doubt her. People who know them both the best have not come out in support of Hardwick. His denial was very narrow and specific, his supporters are unreliable, his retaliation did him no favours, and the only investigation was from a biased source of self-interest. That’s all we have, but that means something.
Good point. I wonder how this was investigated. Were people who knew both of them interviewed?
I’m trying to stay neutral here and address the principle of the situation rather than defending Hardwick whom I know nothing about. My problem, again, is the ease with which one person can use Internet venues and social media to leverage the highly biased and sensitized environment that #MeToo has created to smear someone and destroy their career. You say you’ve seen no evidence to make you doubt Dykstra. What does that mean – that you believe everything she said? That you believe most of what she said? That you believe nothing was embellished, that there were no extenuating circumstances that would change someone’s perception of these events?
Whenever I see an emotionally charged tirade like she wrote that presents only one side of an emotional and obviously troubled relationship, I remind myself that people in that situation often have a distorted perception of these events, even if they’re totally not being vindictive and trying to be truthful. Hardwick outright denied the most serious allegations, which leads one to wonder how truthful the rest of it is, and if the small stuff really matters to the extent of justifying firing him from all his jobs.
I don’t know that his supporters are “unreliable” and how substantiated his supposed retaliation was but again, defending Hardwick is not the point here. The unfairness of the way events unfolded here is what pisses me off. To call the investigation “biased” is a bit disingenuous – this is the company that suspended him immediately when this came out in the interests of their own reputation, and made their decision to reinstate him presumably in light of the fact that there was nothing there that would make the association with Hardwick harmful.
One of the sites I was looking at to get more information about this had a comment from one of the readers that said, in part, the following which I wholeheartedly agree with:
These public trials are a pox on our society, and a path that is only enlarged with social media. Some deserve what they get, but too many can be made to suffer for not having done anything but be in a relationship that had ended badly.
I haven’t mistreated anybody, but had social media been around in the ’90s, one vindictive woman would have smeared my name across the web. I would fear her even now, but after her family had her committed, I mostly pity her and feel for how the mind can betray an otherwise stable person.
And lest we forget, she went to a lot of trouble not to name her alleged abuser, a very passive aggressive move (let’s see if you can guess who I’m talking about). To me, that gives her account the appearance of a fiction; I don’t know what the real CH did but let me tell you about the one in my version of the story. Someone said they have no evidence to doubt Chloe’s story, but I would suggest there is no evidence to believe her either. Her lack of involvement with the actual investigation is mighty suspicious.
Biffster, as someone who has slogged through all 16 pages and counting: it is not at all clear what, exactly, you want or expect out of this conversation.
We are never going to know whether Chloe Dykstra’s story is factually true (absent surprise audiovisual evidence or eyewitness testimony). Maybe every word is true, maybe every word is false, and maybe the truth lies somewhere in between but we’re never, ever going to know for sure.
Since there are no court proceedings of any kind related to this story, we’re never going to know whether Chris Hardwick is legally guilty of anything, either. Since he’s not facing any kind of legal consequences, that’s OK.
Since his legal guilt and factual guilt are unknowable, what we’re left with now is that every individual person gets to make up his or her mind what they believe on the basis of the evidence that’s available. You have obviously come to the conclusion that she’s lying. That’s fair. On the basis of the same evidence, I think he probably did all or most of what she suggests. I’m not certain - again, we’ll never have factual certainty about this - but given that my opinion matters not a fart in the wind to Chris Hardwick, I’m OK with being uncertain-but-leaning-toward-guilty. This whole rigmarole didn’t cost him his show, any money, his freedom, or his marriage. The terrible consequence for Chris Hardwick is that some guy on the Internet, who he will never meet, thinks he’s a creep and won’t watch his show.
So what is your complaint here? That I have drawn a conclusion based on the incomplete evidence available to me? I’m not on a jury; I am under no obligation to observe a “reasonable doubt” standard. I think OJ Simpson killed his wife, I think Roger Clemens used a lot of steroids, and I think Chris Hardwick is a Very Bad Boyfriend. What is the problem?
How will we know when this (the highlighted bit) has occurred?
So you’re saying that permitting false accusations will prevent abuse?
How would that work?
That’s not addressed to me but I’ll answer from my perspective. The similarity among all such #MeToo missives – many of which have been perfectly valid, especially when all this started with the real villains like Cosby and Weinstein – is that “we want the world to know”, “we want things to change”, etc. So now we – we much-maligned guilty males – are expressing concern that things have gone so far in the other direction and created such a toxic environment that any male exiting a bad relationship is at risk of being slandered and libeled with little or no recourse. Mob justice in this newly created climate of misandry tends to deliver ruthless condemnation of the accused without evidence along with an outpouring of support for his accuser.
I was asked earlier for a cite for this sort of claim and my answer was, for one thing, the observation that commentary on this board since Weinstein has tended to treat all offenders as equally guilty of equal transgressions even though the differences in claims and levels of evidence are huge. Another observation is that AMC’s investigation of this case led them to believe that the accusations are either unfounded or may in some cases be true or partly true but that none of the possibly true ones are serious enough to warrant firing him, and they’re willing to put their reputation on the line.
I’m also reminded of a sexual assault case in my area in which frankly I and almost everyone believed the guy to be guilty as sin, but he was found not guilty by a judge who totally blasted the women who testified against him, saying that their evidence was “deceptive and manipulative” and that the evidence from all three of them not only suffered from inconsistencies, but was “tainted by outright deception”. If this is the quality of evidence that is brought to bear in the court of public opinion and social media, I would truly fear ever being on the receiving end of it.
No problem. Believe what you want to believe. The problem came when some of us dared to suggest that Chloe’s story may not have been as true as what she’d like us to believe. She used very passive aggressive tactics in presenting her information, most notably telling us about an ex-boyfriend but not naming him, supposedly to preserve his anonymity, but it didn’t take long for everyone to figure out who, including his employer. Threatening to bring forth evidence (and continues to threaten) that she ultimately decided not to bring forth. She is a manipulator. That’s the problem. She threatens for attention. She is content to have people leave it to trial by social media. Otherwise, why are we still talking about this two months later? It is the lack of closure that is ultimately so frustrating here.
I agree with this. However, the problem I have is that in many cases, these exact type of allegations do cost jobs and personal freedom.
I have no problem with you believing the allegations, but as you mention, your opinion has no more value than the posters here that do not believe the allegations. But that’s okay on a message board. If you were on AMC’s hiring/firing board or on a jury, would you take your admittedly imperfect belief and cause Hardwick to lose his job? Send him to prison? (Suppose she claimed rape instead of what she did)
It will always be easy to find some sort of supposed justification to denigrate accusers who speak out about their own experiences. Thanks for demonstrating this again and again.
NOTE: Nothing you’ve suggested here is anything close to a good reason to denigrate someone who has done nothing more than speak about their experiences.
I don’t understand how it is denigration. Nobody in this thread knows Chloe Dykstra. She might be a victim. She might be a wonderful person. She might be crazy. She might be evil. She might be a liar.
Likewise none of us know Chris Hardwick. I don’t see how it is denigration to take a step back before costing the guy his livelihood and assess the situation.
If we assume (which I do not) that false allegations are an extreme rarity, they will no longer be once it is discovered that a mere accusation can cause your enemy to lose everything.
“Make sure they’re completely welcome”? This is a matter of people’s reputation and livelihood, a matter of basic justice. It’s not the AA or the reception desk at the Grand Hyatt Regency.
The converse of your first statement is that allegations shouldn’t be made without very solid evidence. Unless you’re willing to accept that, what you’re advocating is one-sided mob rule in the interests of what you, personally, consider a worthy cause. My perspective here, to say it again, is that #MeToo is – like many successful movements and many bureaucracies – becoming inflated by its own self-importance, its own peculiar jargon, power, and apparent immunity, and is at risk of defeating its own initial worthy purpose by raging out of control beyond all bounds of reason.
Don’t you mean “alleged” experiences? Or are you accidentally revealing your bias here?
I have a feeling you haven’t really read the more recent posts in the last two pages of this thread, and certainly haven’t responded to them.
As for Hardwick, don’t forget that after being suspended and investigated, he’s back to all his original jobs. What does that tell you about the veracity of those awesome claims against him? What does that tell you about others who might also be innocent but not as well situated to defend themselves?
Sexual assault is rape. She claimed he raped her. Except she said she let him sexually assault her, which suggests she consented, which means it isn’t rape. This lack of precision on Chloe Dykstra’s part is what makes her whole account lack a certain amount of credibility. And when you’re trying to establish guilt or innocence in the realm of something as serious as sexual assault, credibility is everything.
And nothing you’ve suggested in this entire thread is anything close to a reason to take her word at face value. People lie. People fabricate. People try to cover their asses all the time. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that an ex-girlfriend might have ulterior motives? And especially four years later out of the blue?
I’ve never suggested anyone has to take her word at face value. I’ve only criticized those who denigrate her, directly or by implication, over and over again, when there’s no good reason to do so. By all means, believe anything you want. Just don’t continue to denigrate a woman just because she told her story, without any evidence of dishonesty, in a way you don’t like.
I will criticize if I believe she’s lying and spreading false accusations. And you should too, unless you think it’s okay to make false accusations.
Let me ask you point blank: do you think Chris Hardwick sexually assaulted Chloe Dykstra? Do you think he raped her? Do you think it’s still classed as sexual assault if she consented to it? Because that is exactly what she claimed in her first essay.
I won’t comment on the factual accuracy of something I couldn’t possibly have the knowledge to judge, and that includes refraining from denigrating someone when there’s no evidence of dishonesty. All accusers deserve the chance to tell their story without being denigrated for it, barring good evidence of dishonesty.
So you believe we should automatically believe someone when they tell their story? Why don’t you then believe Chris Hardwick’s story? Or the three other ex-girlfriend’s who spoke up on his behalf? Or his wife? There’s no evidence of dishonesty from them either. Your automatic belief in someone who tells their story seems awfully selective.