You are not very interesting to me conversation-wise. Don’t hold your breath. We who hold views contrary to yours are not impressed with what you’ve presented thus far. Try harder, amigo.
…the question I put to you, which mirrored the question you put to iiandyiiii was “Got anything new to contribute or are we pretty much done here?”
I took it from your last answer that yeah you had more to contribute. But based on your most recent reply to me I suspect that you don’t. If you don’t think I’m “interesting” feel free to stop responding. But whether or not I’m interesting or not really has nothing to do with what we are debating here.
I’m not your buddy, and I’m not your amigo, and I’d respectfully request you stop addressing me as such.
Ditto, as Banquet Bear has said.
The funny thing is that I could be wrong. But if I’m wrong then nothing is lost – people just refrain from shitting on Dykstra or any other women without actual evidence of dishonesty. Note that I’m not shitting on Hardwick, nor calling on anyone to do so.
But if Biffster is wrong, then they are shitting all over an honest woman, and making future victims think twice and consider that maybe coming forward will just result in a bunch of assholes shitting all over them regardless of whether or not they’re being honest.
The trouble I see with your approach, iiandyiiii, is lack of any resistance against inaccurate declarations about the complexity of human nature which do a disservice to truth, and if taken too far become a kind of fundamentalism. Post #49 is an example, someone takes a few details about Dykstra’s life to deduce there is no reason for her to lie.
This is why I liked L&O Special Victims Unit. Admittedly I haven’t watched it regularly in almost a decade. It didn’t/doesn’t shrink away from some uncomfortable truths how people are complex, things are sometimes not what they seem while continually being a source of validation for unheard victims.
No problem, friend. 
Questioning somebody’s accusations as false, as both networks have done, is not “shitting” on anybody. Your response has been lazy in that you refuse to investigate and think things through. Chloe’s lack of honesty does not invalidate every other abused persons claims either.
Good example. We get SVU regularly now on I believe it’s the crime channel, and it’s also on Netflix. Some cases were complex and yes, sometimes victims lie.
Here’s the problem. We know that these kinds of employment and private abuses of women are widespread. If you know any women well, you know that “Yes all women” is true.
However, the vast majority of these abuses take place behind closed doors, where there are no other witnesses, and where the sole proof is the victim’s own words.
What’s been the rule so far is that unless a woman is is an absolute position of privilege or had an uncommon level of proof, women just have to suck it up and bear the burden of being victimized twice.
What exactly do you want to do about this? We want women who are abused to go public and speak up, whether or not that abuse rises to any criminal level.
That’s part of the process that changes society for the better.
Or do you want to go back to the status quo, in which countless numbers of victims must just suffer in silence or face further victimization?
Remember, this is not just about law enforcement. This is about fundamentally changing society and giving woman the empowerment to reduce these things from happening in the first place. It’s about teaching the powerful—particularly powerful men—that they will be less likely to get away with no social consequences whatsoever.
This is without question a better world than existed a year ago or a decade ago. It’s still not the best world, but it’s better, just a little bit.
How can you possibly disagree with that? Unless you honestly believe that these kinds of abuses really are rare. And if you believe that, then you haven’t really tried to understand the world around you.
As someone who made real accusations - that were - I discovered later - believed - although at the time I was told that they didn’t believe me, I lost my career doing what I wanted to do, ended up with depression, anxiety and PTSD, ended up in a different field where my career was restricted because I couldn’t stay late at work with a male coworker unless I’d built up trust, spent years running out of meetings in tears or shaking if I was triggered, had issues in my sex life, and finally after two decades, ended up having a related mental breakdown and haven’t held a real job in three years. Oh, and then there was the STD, that may have contributed to three years of infertility treatments.
He got a $3M golden parachute when they asked him to leave “for unrelated reasons” about six months after the investigation ended and took early retirement.
Do you think that’s fair?
It absolutely is shitting on someone – especially in this vastly skewed society in which women who speak up are constantly shat upon and very rarely believed, and the men who are accused of sexual abuse or harassment usually face very temporary consequences at worst.
A very thoughtful response. It’s a tough job finding a balance between the rights of the alleged victim and the rights of the accused. I don’t know what the answer is apart from conducting a very thorough investigation. And that’s exactly what AMC and NBC did here using a very reputable law firm with much experience in the sexual harassment matters in the entertainment world. I believe this case is one exception to the generally held contention that victims tell the truth. We should respect that finding.
Not at all. I’m sorry to hear of your experience. That’s terrible.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then. I think you’re terminology is crude and off base and I’m not going to say it’s accurate just to appease you. Questioning someone is nowhere near “shitting” on them.
But we don’t know the results of that investigation. It could have been “we think Dykstra was probably telling the truth, but based on your contract with Hardwick, there is nothing actionable enough from Dykstra’s accusations to trigger the firing clause, and if you fire him you will be vulnerable to a very expensive lawsuit from Hardwick”. Or a million other possibilities in addition to the possibility that Dykstra’s story was not accurate. Your shitting on Dykstra is based on nothing more than your own feelings and personal bias due to your own experiences.
Or the investigation could have concluded that Dykstra told the truth, but the truth is that was not abused or sexually assaulted even by her own account. Since she refused to take part in the investigation or share the evidence she supposedly has, there’s really no merit to her claims. Why do you keep putting her on a pedestal as some kind of paragon of virtue? She has done #metoo no favours. Put another way, not everyone who blows a whistle has a story to tell.
They didn’t release any findings from the investigation, so it says exactly zero about whether anyone had lied.
Note that Dyktra never called for Hardwick to be fired. All she said was that if Hardwick publicly challenges her, she has proof to back it up.
He hasn’t publicly said she lied about any particular claim.
So the conclusions about Dyktra made in this thread aren’t supported by known facts.
I’ve made no claims about Dykstra’s virtue, much less putting her on a pedestal. I’ve said no negative things about Hardwick either. You’re shitting on her, including in this exact post. She could have a myriad of legitimate reasons to refrain from taking part in the investigation – including “I’ve said what I wanted about my experiences, and I have no wish to talk further about them, and I have no desire to contribute in any way to this investigation or assist in either Hardwick’s exoneration or repercussions”. Talking about traumatic experiences can be traumatic, quite obviously.
I really wish you’d stop using the phrase “shitting on.” It’s inaccurate and gross. According to your logic, you’re shitting all over what I post. So you’re one to talk about etiquette.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually, she said if her anonymous ex-boyfriend publicly challenges her, she has proof to back it up. But when it came to saving her reputation in the form of an actual investigation, where actual consequences could have come about, she stopped short. Doesn’t make a lot of sense, unless she actually possessed no actual evidence, or the evidence was less than conclusive. As it stands now, we can only guess.