This also has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. No idea what the hell you’re talking about. You could try citing posts and actually pointing out what you disagree with (I’ve asked you this before, but no luck).
…not in those words at all.
Who has called for that? Certainly not iiandyiiii.
Nobody is on trial. And the general public makes judgement’s all of the time.
Thank you, I appreciate that. Dykstra May very welling be telling truth, her truth to be precise, but it’s still very possible that her truth does not qualify as either abuse or sexual assault. I think those were the key terms that caught everybody’s ears, and she may well be using the words wrong. I’m not sure who she consulted before posting, if anyone, but clearly using loaded terms such as these is bound to create a reaction. She certainly got one.
If her point was that on private these TV celebrities can actually be big jerks, then fine, I have no argument there. If she thinks laying down ground rules that she didn’t like within two weeks of the start of their relationships was a dickish thing to do, so be it, but at least he was up front, and she certainly didn’t have to agree to these rules. In fact, after quite a long time, she broke a big one—sleeping with someone else—which appeared to end their relationship. To be honest, her essay felt a lot more like gossip to me than a description of abuse. YMMV. But I think the lesson here is that ALL people should think twice about which dirty laundry they’re going to air in public. It may have unintended consequences, and I don’t think that ultimately Dykstra has done herself any favours, nor has she set a great example for the #MeToo movement. Many others have, however, and they are the ones who deserve the attention.
…the thread has been going for 21 pages. And you still don’t understand what her “point” actually is.
This is not the lesson that should be taken away from all of this.
Dykstra doesn’t owe anything to the #metoo movement.
None of this justifies casting aspersions on her, including implying dishonesty, which is what I’m criticizing.
I get the strong impression that you just like to disagree about stuff.
Did you actually any of the rest of the post? Or are you too busy looking for things you want to disagree with?
Yes, I read it. I didn’t think it was particularly relevant to my main point, which remains my main point – there are no good reasons, and plenty of bad ones, to cast aspersions of Dykstra, including implying dishonesty. Even if everything you said in that post was true (I don’t think it necessarily is, but even if it is, you shouldn’t cast aspersions on her).
…just as your impression is wrong about Dykstra’s point: your impression about me is equally wrong. I don’t like to disagree about stuff. I don’t disagree with what iiandyiiii, or what Acsenray, or what Dangerosa have said. I would prefer not to disagree with stuff you are saying. But you keep saying stuff that I disagree with. So we debate. This thread is still in Great Debates right?
This thread is in Great Debates. We are having a Great Debate. If the topic weren’t debatable, if disagreement didn’t exist, then this thread would be in the wrong place.
Welp, the struggle continues … No one said it was going to be easy.
“This case” involved one man, who was fortunate enough and important enough to two major networks that after automatically canning him in response to unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo, were willing to go to the trouble, expense, and risk of actually investigating the claims and exonerating him. Not everyone is so lucky, and from the direct and indirect anecdotal experieneces of some posters here, some of the accused never have a chance to clear their name. There is a long string of famous men who have indeed lost everything, though they are probably guilty of serious transgressions, but there are also lesser ones, too, as noted here, who may not have been guilty of anything at all.
In the rational world that I inhabit, saying that there may be another side to the story that should be heard to establish the facts before taking precipitous action is not “shitting on” anyone. If “shitting on” someone has a definition, it would be something like “a one-sided hit piece posted on a social media blog”.
But more to the point here, that’s not been your only message. The other message heard throughout this thread is that there’s been a systemic problem for so long that it’s OK for the balance of power to shift the other way. So please just consider me a little voice trying to nudge the balance of power ever so slightly back again, back towards reason, a little voice that dares to question the pile-on defending #MeToo and defending Dykstra. You know, kind of a little miniature #MeToo in reverse. 
Here is a court case that concluded in Ontario a couple of years ago that contains a number of object lessons. It’s my personal opinion that this guy is a perv who gets his jollies from violent sex, and his guilt was established in the court of public opinion by the fact that no less than eight different woman came forward with accusations. Quite frankly that’s enough for me. But I’m posting an account of a guy that I think is guilty of some terrible things because there are good object lessons here in how our different societal systems work.
The point is what happened when the case went to court. Despite the apparent preponderance of evidence, it seems that some of the women colluded and conspired to make damn sure he was convicted, and their zeal in doing so backfired because, whatever this guy’s guilt, the women betrayed themselves as manipulative and untrustworthy, and he was found not guilty because the evidence was not credible.
… Judge William Horkins, in a searing rebuke of the complainants, said that their “deceptive and manipulative” evidence raised a reasonable doubt in the guilt of Ghomeshi … Horkins said the evidence from all three not only suffered from inconsistencies, but was “tainted by outright deception.” “The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth,” Horkins said.
There are several object lessons here, IMHO, most notably the fact that even someone who has been wronged – maybe even greviously wronged – is still capable of fabrication and deception and, once again for about the tenth time, accusations without accountability should never be taken as seriously as they currently are without real, tangible evidence.
Another striking lesson comes in the social backlash that occurred after the verdict. There were protests and women’s marches all over the place. Rationalize it how you will, the theme of the protests was clear: the guy should have been found guilty and thrown in jail: everybody “knows” he’s guilty, and to hell with evidence.
This is how social media tries and convicts the accused, guilty and innocent alike. Know who came out in support of the verdict? No, not other abusers and perverts. Judges and lawyers. People who understand how the justice system works, and how it must work. Know what it reminds me of? Lena Dunham having to apologize for defending an accused co-worker caught up in the maws of #MeToo, because guilt or innocence doesn’t matter any more, what matters is that women have to stand in solidarity, and how dare you question the omnipotent power of #MeToo? Reminds me less of 21st century justice than it does of the Spanish Inquisition.
You apparently have zero understanding of the power of social mores, and the power of the new social media to shape them, both for good and for bad.
…once again you are incorrect.
What is it, exactly do you think Dykstra owes a #hashtag? How does that work exactly?
And does that mean we all owe something to the hashtag? Should the people in this thread calling Dykstra “a liar” refrain from doing so, out of deference to the #?
Lol. Airing dirty laundry onto the internet instead of bringing it to the proper authorities is de facto an attempt at mob justice. Regardless of spin.
Women speaking is not “mob justice”. It’s just women speaking. They should be allowed to speak without aspersions cast upon their character.
…how are you defining “dirty laundry?”
And what is the correct authority one should take “dirty laundry” too?
Not it isn’t.
There is no spin.
I proposed the same exact standards that are used in a civil court: the 51% rule.
You’re a lawyer. How does one defend themselves in civil court? There’s your answer.
It seems weird to me that you guys don’t seem to get that an internal investigation in these matters means as much as when the Catholic Church internally investigated the problem with child molesting priests. Sure, maybe they’re telling the truth. Or maybe they just sat on their hands and did nothing. We can’t know.
So the investigation means nothing. Hence the only thing that matters is whether we thought there was enough to believe her before. I’ve already weighed the evidence before, in this very thread, and I continue to believe her. Is there an argument that what she said doesn’t rise to the level of abuse? Sure.
What I will not abide is this tendency for those who make accusations to be vilified as liars or vindictive assholes trying to get someone fired. Unless you have actual evidence supporting that claim, you should not make it. This desire to assume that the accuser is a villain causes far more harm than anything that happened to Hardwick. It’s why so many victims have to carry their trauma without even any semblance of justice.
That, to me, is what #metoo is about. It’s about women no longer sitting back and letting people destroy them for speaking out. That’s what the real issue with Weinstein et al was: that the women couldn’t speak out and get him dealt with, because they would be harmed for doing so.
Attacking Dykstra without proof that she was a lying, conniving asshole only makes it where other women will not feel comfortable coming forward.
That matters more to me than whether Hardwick is on the air or not.
Fair enough. I’d call it an okay debate, but definitely not a great one.
I remember that case. I was hoping Ghomeshi would get his ass kicked. Turned out no be the case. The collusion between the accusers turned out to be their undoing, as I recall.
This isn’t even an argument. It’s just contradiction.