…nope.
You misunderstand the purpose of an analogy.
Maybe she wasn’t lying either time. Maybe she imagined he was a wonderful boyfriend. Because at the time he did a whole lot of things “a wonderful boyfriend” is supposed to do.
I’ve explained why.
Is this a legal opinion?
They aren’t “important points.”
I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. You do the same.
…BREATHTAKING!
I look forward to reading this!
Lets be clear here: the article wasn’t very good. It took a quote out of context to make a point that Burke wasn’t making.
“as the Atlantic describes it.” Not, as you claimed before, as Burke describes it. You cited Burke. So I went directly to the source to see exactly what she actually said.
But it didn’t. It didn’t engender all the shock and awe of the sexual predation charges against Cosby and Weinstein.
And lets be fucking real here for a minute. Even the actual sexual predation charges against Cosby and Weinstein haven’t really whipped up much at all. Both of these cases reveal exactly how far and how deep this sort of thing goes in Hollywood. Yet people like Adam Venit still has a job. For all the talk about “mass hysteria” very little has changed both in Hollywood or in society.
I gave you a time-stamp. But the youtube video really wasn’t for you anyway. It was for anyone who wanted to see what Burke actually said free from editorial comment.
It wasn’t an “excellent summary.” And I know this because I read the article you cited, then I listened to what Burke actually said. The Atlantic published this storythat to be quite frank is an absolute disgrace. It is disgusting trash. The Atlantic may well be “reputable” in your eyes but they are more than capable of publishing unscientific nonsense.
No that isn’t clear. Her answer, in context, was clearly talking about things like pay equity and gender equality and colleges and the military. Burke includes sexual assault and harassment as things that are inclusive. Its in the talk. You should listen.
This is editorial comment from the writer of the article. It poses a question. And when the writer of the article claims:
That isn’t actually what actually happened. She didn’t give an emphatic yes to the questions from the editorial writer that was written after she said what she actually said.
And I know this, because I actually listened to what she actually said.
This isn’t how it played out in reality. These quotes have been taken from different parts of the interview and in context she is saying something materially different.
This has everything to do with Lena Dunham and nothing at all to do with the larger movement.
You cited Lena Dunham. Was there something I was supposed to get from all that?
Nah. As Burke goes onto to say (if you actually cared about what she has to say, apparently you do not) that the “journalism that came out [after the journalism that broke the story] has not been supportive.” Journalism is a much bigger problem than people using the hashtag. The tent isn’t getting any bigger. The tent is about as big as its ever gonna get.
And this? This is a great big chunk of juicy hyperbole. A strawman. A distortion.
I hate going back to an even more contentious analogy, that of racism. But it holds true here, as well. If you don’t recognize that there is a systemic issue, every single response appears to be an over-calibration.
All of the discussion of ‘the larger principle of justice’ is laughable, because people had their chance to weigh in on those larger principles when it was women being disadvantaged as a matter of course. But now, in a case of a man being mildly inconvenienced by accusations that, on the face of it, still appear to be factually true, we trot out those principles to shut down discussion.
For what it’s worth, I have been a shitty boyfriend, and a shitty husband. But this movement doesn’t bother me. Because it isn’t about me. It’s about the fact that we are nearing (and we’re not there yet, by a long shot) a time when women can be honest about their experiences and not get shouted down for it. Which is a good thing.
Which allegations appear to be factually true? I would suggest the opposite; they appear to be factually false. I imagine the lady that conducted the investigation would have suggested Chris Hardwick stay off of work if she thought they were true.
Again, assuming that AMC’s investigation was more about truth than protecting their investment is a naive position to take.
I would say that the credible stuff includes some controlling behavior- her not being allowed to have male friends, speak in public, go out without him, and that she was expected to be sexually available for him regardless of whether it was something she wanted in that moment (she refers to that as assault, which while it isn’t legally the case, captures the spirit of the offense). The penalty for breaking any of these was his termination of the relationship. The claim is that she could have left any time. Which again, is used against women who stay in physically abusive relationships as well.
Since you are buy just asking questions, I’ll ask one of my own. Do you feel as though women have been free to come forward with allegations of abuse without fear of repercussion, historically? Do you feel that they may do so now?
Of course not. There are always possible repercussions—and there should be. If someone has nothing to lose, what’s to stop them from making false accusations anytime they want? As someone who’s survived false accusations, I can tell you that the person who made them suffered no repercussions while I lost my job. Do you think that’s fair?
Of course it’s not fair. But over any sufficiently large population, there will be some measure of unfairness. We put innocent people in prison every day, but the solution to this isn’t doing away with the concept. We have people defrauding social service programs every day, but that’s no reason to end them. It happens. The question is always whether it’s worth the trade-off-- and there will always be one. I recognize your personal experience impacts your opinion, but then don’t turn around and try to argue a higher principle. You are arguing from the same emotion you accuse others of doing, except that yours favors the oppressor.
I don’t like the equivalence being made that somehow that being accused of some of these things is as bad or worse than being on the receiving end of it. I hear that all the time w regard to calling out people for being racist- know what’s worse than being called racist? Not getting loan you were otherwise qualified for. Know what’s worse than being called an abuser? Actually being abused.
I am not convinced that women are using #metoo en masse as a tool to achieve unfair outcomes. I am quite convinced that we as men have shut down most avenues for them to voice their experiences. More women stay silent for fear of social (and economic) repercussions than men are falsely accused.
I have a wife and two daughters. Yer damn right I encourage them not to be silent about injustice. However, they feel the same way I do about the allegations against Chris Hardwick. We believe him. We don’t believe her. For another individual in another situation, it depends entirely upon the facts of the case. But we’re not going to let statistics or a social movement decide Hardwick’s guilt or innocence. And bottom line, if Dykstra has evidence to share with an investigation that would have established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, she should have shared it. By not participating at all in the investigation it just looks like she was bluffing. From my perspective, anyway.
I don’t think you understand how abuse or assault actually play out in life. I wish absolutely not harm on your daughters, but if they ever find themselves in such a situation, ‘evidence beyond a reasonable doubt’ is hard to come by. These are very personal events, and don’t leave visible marks. I’ll say that as someone that has, in the last 4 years, investigated several dozen instances of sexual abuse and violence. You are somehow imagining these cases like ‘stranger danger’ rapes or ‘beaten with a wooden rod’ type domestic abuse scenarios.
As far as I know, Dykstra isn’t wanting Hardwick arrested. Is your position that she isn’t allowed to speak of what happened between them unless she is at that point? Understanding ahead of time that the odds of a criminal proceeding finding him guilty is minuscule?
“Keep your mouth shut, unless you are prepared to prove it in court” is telling women in the vast majority of these cases that they have no right to speak.
And of course, that’s without the sizable minority that still exists who, accepting the facts presented, will still say she deserved it somehow.
I understand what you’re saying. However, when investigating such crimes, one must also keep an eye open for red flags. In my estimation, Chloe’s story has a number of red flags that would make an investigator suspicious. She could be telling the truth, but it’s also likely that the truth is that her experience doesn’t rise to the level of either abuse or sexual assault. The lawyer investigating is female and is well experienced with cases in the entertainment community. She knows what to look for. I think Chloe’s case is atypical and constitutes that percentage that are called false accusations.
First of all I reject the notion that those of us who have observed #MeToo being taken much too far deny that there has been a systemic problem. Of course there has. The pertinent observation is that sometimes the remedy can go too far, and this is especially the case when the concept of “justice” is rendered and carried out in the wild jungle of social media rather than in the halls of justice, and there is absolutely no accountability. We occasionally see evidence of the pendulum swinging over too far even in carefully crafted legal frameworks intended to protect the weak against abuses, so one can only imagine the abuses that can take place in the other direction when thrown to the vagaries of mob justice. In fact one doesn’t have to imagine it, because I’ve seen it first-hand.
The idea that some of us are concerned about the larger principle of justice is anything but laughable. The fact is that some of us are seeing evidence of the new, improved #MeToo (“now with added smearing power”) being used in ways that are grossly unjust, with no repercussions whatsoever to the accuser but with potentially devastating consequences to the accused.
Make no mistake, the conditions that have been created now with the snowballing of #MeToo are nothing less than an enabler of bullying. If an embittered and vindictive ex can make accusations and engage in personal smears with no evidence and no accountability (about virtually anything, with the new, improved expanded scope of #MeToo), with potentially devastating consequences for the victim, this is bullying pure and simple, and worse, because it can be career-destroying yet has attracted broad social support. You’ll forgive me if I vehemently object to a social climate that now not only condones but glorifies bullying, simply because the bully is from a group that once was weak and sometimes victimized, and isn’t karma a wonderful thing. Justice is individual, specific, and evidence based; there is no justice in mob group-think, social fashion, or broad-brush fact-free victimization across any groups, whether gender-based or racial.
Remember that NBC was involved, too. The assumption that this was only about pure truth may be naive, but there’s nothing naive about the observation that there was a serious downside if Hardwick had been unjustly cleared and shielded by the networks; if there were reasonable grounds for believing that Hardwick was guilty of serious transgressions and this came out later, or if Hardwick was a serial abuser who continued that behavior, the repercussions on the networks would be far, far beyond any value they’re getting from him today.
The difference is that his unfairness occurs in the context of formally regulated systems where every possible effort is made to prevent it and ensure just outcomes. This does not apply to trial by social media and mob “justice”, where emotion holds sway over all else and there are no safeguards. The discussion here is over the vast significance of this difference.
If the party “being called an abuser” faces career-ending social and professional consequences while the party alleging abuse sits in her desk chair in front of the computer riding the wave of a social movement that rewards her for spinning exaggerated and context-free fanciful tales for the sake of vengeance and attention-seeking, then the situation is a little different, isn’t it?
Please don’t let facts get in the way of a good story. It’s all fine to say the accused is “mildly inconvenienced” until it’s you who must face the accusations. I’ve been there. It was anything but a “mild inconvenience.” And it didn’t matter how false the allegations were either; there are some that would always presume I was guilty. I survived, but what a terrible ordeal to have to go through, having your reputation torn to shreds. That’s why I can relate to Chris Hardwick far more than his accuser.
Now imagine how all the women feel who have come forward and said something about their own experiences, only to have strangers shit all over them and call them liars with no evidence. If only you showed a tiny fraction of the concern that Dykstra might be worse than “mildly inconvenienced” by all the possibly false allegations and presumptions of dishonesty that you show for Hardwick. What a terrible ordeal that would be for Dykstra and other women who do nothing more than speak out about their own experiences, huh?
I have sympathy for all the other women. I don’t have much sympathy for Dykstra because I believe she made false allegations. It’s not that hard to understand.
Right. You’re willing to shit all over someone based on your feelings and bias due to personal experience, rather than actual evidence. And the possibility that you might be shitting all over an honest women, as well as possibly helping to dissuade future victims from telling their story, gives you no pause at all, even when no one loses anything (including Hardwick) if you refrain from shitting on this woman.
I’ve heard all this from you before. Many times. Ad nauseum. I don’t buy it and it’s clear you don’t understand what I’m saying. Got anything new to contribute or are we pretty much done here?
…that very same question was asked of you last time you bumped the thread several pages ago.
We’ve heard all this from you before. Many times. Ad nauseum. It’s clear you don’t understand what we have all been saying to you. So I suppose the question really should be: “have you got anything new to contribute to the thread or are we done here?”
Who’s “we”? Speak for yourself, buddy.
…“we” would be everybody that has disagreed with you in this thread.
And I’m not currently, nor will be ever in the future, your “buddy.”
I’ll take that answer as “no you do not think we are done here.”
I look forward to seeing the new points of contention you intend to introduce to the thread.