You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. How can you trust the alleged victim is telling the truth and not believe the accused is guilty at the same time? One negates the other. If the alleged victim is telling the truth, the accused is guilty. If the alleged victim is not telling the truth, then the accused is not guilty. You can’t have both things be true at the same time. A healthy dose of skepticism is helpful if you really want to be objective.
Which (the highlighted bit) is exactly what I and others being accused of ‘discouraging women from coming forward’ have consistently called for.
All accusations—whether by a woman against a man, by a man against a woman, or any other combination of genders—should be listened to fully and fairly and then investigated.
Making ‘special’ rules for women is condescending and insulting to women.
I haven’t seen anyone here argue that a claim should not be investigated.
If you are asserting that such an argument has been made here–and your post implies that you are–please link to the relevant posts.
What they’ve been saying is they’re not going to believe the victim until after it has been investigated. Their priorities are reverse what I think they should be.
So it’s better to believe the alleged victim from the getgo and then change your mind and turn on them later? That’s pretty whacked.
…not as “whacked” as claiming “the cry wolf routine will be the thing that prevents others from coming forth with abuse allegations” while simultaneously bumping a thread continuously so you can find new ways to call Dykstra a liar.
Uh, dude, you just bumped it yourself by responding. LOL
…LOL. You don’t know the difference between “bumping” and “responding.”
Apparently neither do you.
…rather than get distracted by this attempt to ignore my point, here’s what I said again:
What is it, do you think, is more likely to stop people coming forward: someone telling their story, or that same person being continuously characterized as a liar?
The person making false allegations who ends up getting bit in the butt when the falsity of her allegations are discovered. Ever read about the boy who cried wolf? It’s much like that.
That’s how it’s done when they investigate other crimes. Also, I wouldn’t say “turn on them” as that is an aggressive way if putting it. But certainly if the alleged victim is actually lying, there would be repercussions.
I feel like I’m explaining basic ideas of justice to a child.
…are you seriously basing your opinion on a fucking fairy tale?
There is plenty of information out in the public domain about why women don’t come forward. Here are a few examples.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/16/health/why-women-hesitate-to-report-sexual-misconduct/index.html
Not a single one of them backs up your “fairy tale” theory. Women don’t come forward not because of anything that Chloe Dykstra has done but because of people like you. Read the cites. And if you don’t believe what I’ve cited here go do some research for yourself.
We don’t know enough to be able to conclude that Dykstra has made false allegations here. Its a conclusion you have reached. It isn’t a conclusion shared by everyone. But even if we were to assume that Dykstra’s allegations were false it is still highly unlikely her story will stop other women from speaking out. Its the **reaction **to her story which is problematic. They won’t speak out because they fear they will be treated the same as Dykstra: they will be called liars, they will be accused of “crying wolf”, they will have their story looked over with a fine-tooth comb and the most minor of inconsistency will be highlighted and used as proof the that story is untrue.
We know this. And we know this because this is what women have been saying over and over again. So you take comfort in your fairy tale. Because it bears no relation to anything in real life.
Don’t insult other posters.
What is it with you guys and your staunch opposition to nuance? Nobody has argued that all alleged victims are liars until proven otherwise, but that’s the strawman you’re pushing so hard in order to validate your arguments. It’s quite sad, really.
For your sakes, I hope it’s not proven that Dykstra’s claims were wildly exaggerated/fabricated because man, the secondhand embarrassment I’ll feel going back through this thread and reading the histrionic posts…
Do not junior mod. If you believe there is a rule violation, report the post.
[/moderating]
Fine. But if you were paying attention, I wouldn’t need to.
I know there is this impression of moderator omnipresence, but suffice to say the rumors aren’t true. It’s a common refrain to encourage post reports rather than responding.
So as not to keep anyone in suspense, I received a report of post #911 and I decline to intercede. Take any other comments about moderation to ATMB and not in this thread.
[/moderating]
What an unmitigated load of sanctimonious crap.
Let me say first of all that I was shocked at the initial revelations about predators like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, and there have certainly been many others. The predators got what they deserved, and my sympathies are obviously entirely with the women.
Yes, we do know enough about Dysktra’s allegations to know that they were false, in overall substance and as far as could be reasonably determined, based on the fact that two major networks put their reputations on the line to reinstate Hardwick after suspending him. By Hardwick’s own admission some of the allegations were true, sure, but the overall picture and the way it was presented leveraged the current toxic climate in a way that was extraordinarily and unfairly damning. Acting like a jerk in a failed relationship is neither a crime nor grounds for being socially or professionally ostracized.
What drives me up the wall is the equivalence that is now being made by a fashionable and weaponized social movement with virtually any negative interaction in a relationship. I know someone who lost a lucrative position because of this bullshit from an ex. It was all the usual sanctimonious jargon: “I want to tell my story … I wasn’t ready until now but I need closure … move on with my life … want others to know …”. Almost a carbon copy of the Dykstra essay. Yeah, except it wasn’t true. AFAIK it’s possible that some of the minor claims were true, but the general picture was untrue, filled with exaggerations and falsehoods. This guy was thousands of miles away on the other side of the world when some of this bullshit was supposed to have happened.
If there’s a practical avenue of defense against this sort of defamation, please, I’m sure we’d all be interested in your expertise on the matter.
…I have no staunch opposition to nuance.
How the fuck are you getting that from my post? Did you read it before quoting me?
No its not.
I’m entirely happy with absolutely everything I’ve posted in this thread. Nothing has been histrionic. Nothing is embarrassing.
If you feel like addressing anything I’ve actually said in this thread, rather than a strawman version of it, please feel free to give it a go.
…thank you for sharing your opinion.
Why do you feel the need to include a disclaimer with your post?
No we do not.
Putting their reputations on the line is not absolute proof that Dysktra’s allegations were false.
So you claim Dykstra’s allegations were false.
Except for the ones that you concede are true.
Huh.
Oh come on. There is no “toxic climate.”
So what is it, exactly do you want to do about it?
You concede Dykstra wrote some “true stuff.”
Should she be banned from ever writing blog posts outlining true stuff about her ex-partners?
Are people in this thread obliged to not “socially ostracize” Hardwick?
Should the government step in and censor this material?
I don’t really care what “drives you up the wall.” There is nothing “fashionable” about wading into the public arena with a story that is extremely likely to get the public to turn against you in droves. #metoo is not driving people to come forward with virtually any negative interaction to become part of a “weaponized social movement.”
Are you sure this person lost that lucrative position because of that “bullshit from an ex?” Because if he actually was on the “other side of the world when some of this bullshit was supposed to have happened” then maybe he lost that lucrative position because of something else entirely. Or maybe “some of those minor claims that were true” may not have been as minor as you claim. Regardless: its hard to really judge what is really a personal anecdote.
“Defamation” is not a neutral word. If you choose to use that word in a thread like this the conventions of legal language and protocol *should *apply. As you are the one who has chosen to use the word I’m actually interested in your expertise on the matter.