Straw man again, I never said I did, the courts did that.
Actually, since many are not criminals, their civil rights are no more, including their free speech.
Duly noted that the more clear cancellation of the Palestinian protesters was avoided in your reply.
…and the thread derails.
*(should be a reply to Duckseason but somehow shows up as a reply to GIGObuster)
The subject is cancelling others for their speech. So yeah, you lose the debate when you are the one judging that what is happening to the protesters is not a free speech issue.
For that we use the law and Due Process. Not what I just say.
On July 25, 2018, AMC announced that a comprehensive investigation conducted alongside law firm Loeb & Loeb had failed to confirm Dykstra’s allegations and that Hardwick would return as host of Talking Dead and Talking with Chris Hardwick . Their statement read, “We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review, including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step.”[57] Dykstra, who refused to cooperate in the investigation, stated two days later on Twitter, “I chose not to participate in the investigation of the person I spoke of. I do not believe in an eye for an eye.” She also stated that she “originally wrote [her] essay so [she] could move on with [her] life, and now [she intends] to do so”.[58] On July 31, 2018, NBC announced that Hardwick would return as host of The Wall following its own investigation.[59] On August 10, 2018, his name was returned to Nerdist’s website after their own investigation.[[60]]
Chris Hardwick - Wikipedia
Check this out, too:
Exploring The Shadow Side Of #MeToo (forbes.com)
Let me rephrase that. The investigation found that the article Dysktra had published could not be factually substantiated, and it did in fact have the effect of canceling every aspect of Hardwick’s career as noted above, until an exhaustive investigation cleared him of any wrongdoing. The reason she wrote the article can be known only to Dysktra herself, but her stated reason that it was so she could “move on with her life” doesn’t make a lot of sense, and she surely must have known that it would be very damaging to him.
And while Hardwick was no saint in that relationship, as I already said, neither was she. Hardwick broke off the relationship because she was cheating on him. The whole thing sounds like an ungodly mess, but it was Hardwick who initially suffered consequences until AMC came to his rescue.
Uh, the words from the OP:
BTW right wingers are doing the cancelling in criminal ways nowadays.
No it’s not. The topic is “cancel culture,” not “leftwing cancel culture.”
Not knowing who or what a “Chris Hardwick” is, I attempted to educate myself. Is there really some tremendous uproar about this poor, unfortunate soul having to endure an entire month of being checked out and then theoretically exonerated during the height of #MeToo, seven years ago? Or are there multiple Chris Hardwicks and I picked the wrong one?
I presume the story must have staying power because he is living off canned dog food now, his life in shambles, the perfect example of how cancel culture takes somebody from the height of fame to pauperhood…
So you retract your claim that the investigation concluded that “Dysktra tried to smear Hardwick with unsubstantiated accusations”, and you retract your implication that she was therefore dishonest?
By you now, I did not mention him in my last post, so deal with it.
Chloe’s social media post is my cite. I’m not linking to X, but feel free to read the links from her Wiki page.
A counter-cite will be hard to get, BTW, since AMC hasn’t said who they interviewed.
Why would I? You’ve already outed your clear bias in the words you chose to use in your initial ‘paraphrasing’. I’ve no interest in reading another attack on Dykstra just in slightly different wording.
Do you think Dykstra was lying, but AMC chose not to publicize the fact? That’s… a take. I guess.
I’m choosing to believe Dykstra’s account of not taking part in the investigation. Hardly a stretch, I’d say.
Not interested in playing your game, thanks. Done replying to you here.
My bias is towards truth, facts, and the most likely probabilities. When someone publishes an essay out of the blue that is very damaging to another individual’s career, when that particular someone is revealed as an unfaithful cheating former partner in a bad relationship, and when an independent investigation fails to corroborate any of the substantive accusations in the essay, then yes, I’d assign a fairly high probability to the assumption that the essay was essentially vindictive.
That’s why you used such truthful, factful, neutral words like ‘smear’ and ‘harangue’ and ‘bitter’, I guess.
And the cheating accusation is Hardwick’s word, so I suppose some people’s word is good enough for you.
We don’t know anything at all about the investigation, based on your own link, except that AMC decided to keep Hardwick. For all we know, the investigation found “he probably did it, but if you fire him, the ensuing breach of contract lawsuit would be far more expensive than keeping him”.
Your characterization of the investigation is based on your own personal feelings, not any facts.
Counterpoint: Yes I do.
But I do get to use that to help decide what I think of them and that I will or will not associate with them. Up to the rest of the world if they follow me
Not really, right wingers did it (and do it now) more often and much much harder; and no, it is by looking at the law and judges rulings that yeah, I can say then that your arguments here are straw men. Me and others here did not decide that.
Sorry, edit time wore out. The ‘most likely probability’ to you is that the older, wealthy, powerful, White male is the one to believe?