The outcome of the investigation is all the cite you need. If he were viewed as a sexual predator, he wouldn’t have been invited back.
Barely. We’re maybe a few miles down the road towards a just society, and that road is hundreds or thousands of miles long. Progress has only barely just begun. The vast majority of predators are still facing no consequences for their predation.
Bullshit. Your trust that their investigation, and AMC’s final decision, was necessarily based on a just outcome, is bullshit, and a big part of why so many people are still abused with little or no recourse.
And that’s why people are resistant to your point of view. You’d have the consequence of a mere accusation result in a person being unemployable. You understand this is why the modern world, for the most part, has moved beyond The Inquisition, mob justice, vendettas, and witch hunts for justice?
Ivy Kagan Bierman appears to be a very good lawyer and investigator, especially in matters within the entertainment business realm. If you don’t have faith in her findings, isn’t that much the same thing as doubting a female yet again?
No. But you suggesting my assertion is false is very hypocritical of you. I thought it was about believe. Or is that belief theory very selective?
If they didn’t say “we believe Dyktra was lying” then they didn’t say they believe Dykstra’s was lying. It’s simple as that.
First, no one has to conclude that Hardwick is a “sexual predator” to believe that Dyktra wasn’t lying.
There’s enough people in this very thread who have said that what Dykstra describes isn’t abusive. They might have come to the same conclusion. But the point is they didn’t say anything about the truth or falsity of their claims.
Second. Over many decades we know of many powerful men who have been credibly accused of abusive behavior and in the short (or long) run, suffered no consequences.
Just because a very small number of famous people are possibly facing some (perhaps temporary) consequences at this moment doesn’t fundamentally change the fact that the vast majority of abusers get away with it, whether or not they’re publicly accused.
So another possibility is that they might have concluded that Dykstra told the truth and that Hardwick really is a predator, but on the balance we will continue to make money with him and it will eventually just blow over, because this is enough of an edge case that people will stop paying attention to it. (Just keep my daughter away from him).
Which is exactly how corporations have been doing business for centuries, so that wouldn’t exactly be a surprise.
…can you point out anywhere in this thread where iiandyiiii has called for Inquisition, mob justice, vendettas, and witch hunts for justice?
Because iiandyiiii has scrupulously not called for any of these things throughout this thread. So I would suggest that you aren’t “resistant to iiandyiiii’s point of view” because you don’t actually understand what iiandyiiii’s point of view actually is.
The consequences here was not that a “mere accusation result in a person being unemployable.” That didn’t happen here.
She didn’t release any findings. So that’s the end of that.
This has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. I’ve never suggested anything like this.
Sadly, that may be true. But companies also don’t want to keep a liability around if it might affect their customer base. That’s why Hardwick was suspended so quickly even though he wasn’t named in the essay. I felt it was premature, but it was what it was.
I don’t have faith in large institutions making decisions based on justice and fairness rather than bottom line. I don’t know why anyone would. I have faith that they make smart and competent decisions based on profit. That says nothing about justice or fairness or what’s right. And of course, as Ascenray noted, she didn’t release any findings.
Exactly. Thank you.
octopus needs your help in slaying that straw man! Well done!
Please make a list of people who have become “unemployable” as a result of this case—
(Psst. Hardwick is still employed)
My entire message throughout this thread has been “please don’t shit on women (including implying dishonesty) for nothing more than coming forward and talking about their experiences”. And that’s what’s been happening, again and again.
God I detest that expression. It’s like Golden Showers only much grosser. Can’t you come up with something better? Questioning? Invalidating? Casting aspersions?
Just for you, I’ll try. Please don’t cast aspersions on Dykstra, including implying dishonesty, when all she’s done is tell a story she says is about her experiences. There’s no evidence she’s being dishonest, and it’s wrong (and harmful to society) to continually imply that she is.
If only you were even a little bit as repulsed by the actual act as you are by his description of it.
Not in those exact words but what do you suggest we call avoiding the proper law enforcement and judicial system route and appealing directly to an internet mob? If you have a better term for that sort of trial and judgement by the general public I’m all ears.