A couple of things that have jumped out at me in the last page of posts.
The idea that some of you would have supported her ‘if only.’ If only she had dispassionately described what happened and let the reader characterize it as they wanted; if only she had avoided highly charged terms. And again, this smacks of ‘I support them protesting this thing, but not like that.’ Consider the possibility that you sound like someone who is actually not in support of ending these horrible things, because the only time you choose to use your voice is to nitpick the people that are.
Maybe the meta-discussion about what constitutes abuse is the actual point. Maybe the article isn’t FOR you. Maybe it’s for a generation of young women who have been taught to allow this sort of behavior as a signal that maybe they don’t have to anymore?
I ‘allowed’ the ‘sexual assault’ is not an incorrect combination even in legal terms. If the perpetrator knew or head reason to know the sexual contact would be unwelcome, the victim doesn’t have to actively resist. Yeah, she ‘allowed it to happen.’ So what? ‘Why didn’t you fight back’ is increasingly an unacceptable question in the courtroom, so I don’t accept that the question needs to be posed outside of it. Reasonable people can look at the context and make some inferences that also happily don’t re-traumatize the victim.
There could be a million reasons, most of which are none of our business. Accusers don’t owe you (or anyone else) anything except honesty, and there’s no reason to believe she’s not being honest.
There’s also no reason to believe she IS being honest. There are far more reasons for her to be dishonest than to be honest, starting with revenge. She certainly got that, to varying degrees of success. She may have also been partially honest but confused about the meaning of terms like “abuse” and “sexual assault,” making her story less credible.
I’d ask you to stop casting aspersions on her with no evidence at all, but I’ve lost any hope that you have any interest in not making things harder for accusers to come forward and speak. So I’ll just hope that others see your example and recognize that it’s, in a small but still real way, hurting society and people, and helping no one at all (including Hardwick), and won’t repeat it.
What aspersions? You seem to have a phobia of people actually asking questions that might get to the heart of the matter. Do you think what she experienced was “sexual assault” in the normal meaning of the word that’s used in court? Assuming she’s telling the truth about her experience? I’m afraid your examination of what evidence has been presented is lacking.
No, I’m just not into casting aspersions on women (which includes implying dishonesty) for nothing more than telling their story. Questioning her experiences publicly without evidence of dishonesty helps absolutely no one, and hurts the chances of those coming forward.
You still don’t seem to get it, so I’ll try again. I couldn’t care less what fucking doubts you or anyone have, or what you believe. Doubt anything you want, believe anything you want. I really don’t care at all. But your actions and words, even on a public message board, can affect society in small but real ways, and society is really fucking awful in how women who come forward with such stories are treated. If we’re going to change society, we’re going to need to be careful, and that means not adding to this huge pile of awfulness that society throws at these women no matter what. You’re adding to that huge pile of awfulness with your public doubts and questioning with no evidence, and that’s a bad thing to do.
Maybe in the future there won’t be such a huge pile of awfulness that automatically seems to come from society and culture, and it won’t be so important that we be so incredibly careful not to make things worse. But until then (and I hope we get there), I’m going to criticize anyone I see adding to that terrible stuff and making society worse. And that’s what you’re doing, in a very small but still real way.
You might be considering that possibility, and you would be wrong. When the stories about Cosby came out I was unconditionally supportive of the women and hoped to see justice done. I felt exactly the same way about Weinstein’s victims, and I think we’re all content to see him face the consequences. When story after story after story came out of other such occurrences, I was surprised – in fact, downright amazed – that such abuses were so widespread, but never had reason to doubt the accounts.
It was only recently, and due in part to anecdotes like the ones recounted here, that it began to dawn on me that the apparently very widespread occurrence of these “abuses” is substantially due to the fact that they are not within many country miles of being all the same, and that at least some of them consist of overreactions, hyperbole, selective recollections, and downright falsehoods. So when I say that I would have felt more sympathetic and supportive of Dykstra if she had a little more dispassionately described objective facts and avoided highly charged terms and SJW jargon – and perhaps dialed back a little the vindictive attempt to destroy Hardwick’s career – I say it because it’s true.
Regardless of who it’s “for”, it’s a public document that affects many people’s lives beyond whatever social-justice in-group it’s aimed at, and it affects them in many ways that can be both serious and unfair. That social movements like this are powerful doesn’t mean they’re always necessarily just, and in fact it tends to mean exactly the opposite. The very fact that they operate with no accountability and employ jargon-laden hyperbole to incite hostility against the accused pretty much guarantees that the service of justice is of little interest here.
I would have thought it was perfectly obvious why it’s problematic to use a highly loaded term with specific serious implications in a context of unbounded ambiguity. It’s grossly unfair to the accused who is required to produce an impossible defense. It’s also an abuse of language that weakens the term so that its original meaning is now so vague and diluted it’s virtually meaningless, much as such abusive accusations weaken the cause that this whole movement was supposed to be about.
I believe women when they tell their stories, unless there’s reason to suspect they’re not being entirely honest. You seem to be incapable of seeing the flaws in her story, which is fine, but that in no way means I am doubting ALL alleged victims of abuse. You’re just not getting it.
And how do you feel about Asia Argento’s story? Do you side with her because she’s a woman and a prominent figure in the #metoo movement, or do you side with her alleged victim? He happens to be male, by the way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m siding against anyone who’s unjustly attacking (including implying dishonesty) accusers, including against Argento’s accuser (or Argento herself) or any other accuser, barring evidence of dishonesty.
You’ve attacked an accuser, over and over again. I’ve attacked no one but you and others who attack accusers. I haven’t attacked Hardwick or anyone else aside from you and a few others in this thread making similar unjust attacks. But you’re not getting it, and I see little reason to believe you ever will, so I’ll just hope that others see your example as one to be avoided and not repeated.
May I ask what those flaws might be? You seem concerned that she didn’t cooperate with the network investigation, and take real offense at her characterization of what occurred to her on some occasions as ‘assault,’ even though I’ve explained how there’s no real conflict in the way she used it and either social or legal terms. But in terms of the actual content, what precisely is problematic for you? Aside from it being, as some other posters have mentioned, ‘SJW jargon.’
Regarding Argento, I see no reason to doubt the accuser’s story. And I’ve no issues with her facing financial losses as a result. And?
That was a pretty lame closing. You’re not even trying now. So quite simply, do you unconditionally support the victim or alleged victim? Because if you do, that means you don’t support Asia Argento. You can’t support the accuser and the accused at the same time.
Just stay out of the way. The black-and-white-believe-everythings and the oh-now-we-want-nuancers will eventually kill each other off if you don’t distract them.
How about jail time? The rape of a minor is a criminal offense. Or does she get special treatment because she’s female and a victim of Weinstein herself?
As far as Dykstra goes, the whole “I’m just telling my story” angle is suspect because she leaves her abuser anonymous but leaves enough clues that make him anything but anonymous. The text messages that she sent wanting to get back together months later (after she cheated and they broke up) doesn’t make it sounds like he was an abuser. And yer damn right her lack of involvement in the investigation is a telling sign that she was not being entirely honest in her account and was worried about being discovered if she were questioned about it too closely.
Again, my suspicions about Ms. Dykstra in no way means I automatically disbelieve other victims of abuse. Jimmy Bennett’s claims against Asia Argento seem to be consistent with other behaviour I have read about.
I support Argento’s right to make credible accusations, which she has done, and there’s no evidence of any dishonesty for her accusations against Weinstein. I support the right of her accuser to make credible accusations, which he has done, and there’s no evidence of any dishonesty for him for his accusations against Argento.
There’s no conflict here. I don’t know why there would be. Accusations should be considered reasonably, and unless there’s any evidence of dishonesty, the accusers should not be denigrated in any way. This goes for Argento as well as her accuser. Argento has made credible accusations against Weinstein, as well as having credible allegations made against herself. That the accusations against her are credible does nothing to invalidate the credible allegations made against Weinstein.
And this just sidesteps my issue with you, which is your continuing denigration of an accuser based on no evidence of dishonesty. It’s wrong and you should stop it.
Sorry, dad, but you’re not the boss of me. The point of the matter is that you seem to be preaching that we should always believe the accuser, no matter what, and I’m saying this idea is foolhardy. It’s important not to pass judgement, certainly, unless you discover there’s more to the story. I didn’t pass judgement on Chloe until I learned there was more to the story. And it looks like AMC and NBC agree with me. They have certainly passed judgement. In their judgement, now was a good time to return Chris Hardwick to his employment. They wouldn’t have done that if there were even a hint that he had done the things he was accused of.
Maybe in your world, accusers always tell the truth. But in the real world, that just ain’t the case. One must be on guard for details that don’t add up.
If the accuser chooses to pursue that route, I’ll support that choice, and expect that the rules of evidence, both physical, documentary, and testimonial, all apply. Likewise, if the accuser chooses to take civil action against her.
I’m trying to figure out what you’re fishing for, here. You are seeing all sorts of contradictions where there are none.
I’ve never said a thing about belief – it’s truly mind-boggling that you think I’ve said I have, when I’ve explicitly said, over and over again, that I don’t care at all about what you believe.
Let me know when you actually want to respond to my words. Because this isn’t anything close.