As I said, I don’t know Chloe Dysktra (or Chris Hardwick, either) from a hole in the ground and have no reason to “cast aspersions” against her. But I am indeed casting aspersions big-time on the whole concept of cancel culture, which it seems she was exploiting. And I think it’s disingenuous to speak of her as someone who “did nothing more than write about her version of her own experiences”. What she wrote was profoundly damaging to someone else’s reputation and career, a consequence she surely could not have overlooked and which indeed one suspects may have been the entire purpose of it. So, no, not snow-white innocence. And her refusal to participate in the subsequent investigations is also very suspect and not characteristic of someone who genuinely wants the full truth to come out.
I don’t know these people. I don’t know what either one claims. But i know from reading the thread that:
- A woman said something unpleasant about an unnamed man
- That public post was later linked to a particular man
- He was suspended from something valuable, pending an investigation
- The investigation was concluded and nothing was made public
- The woman did not participate in the investigation. We don’t know the details.
- The man was reinstated
And based on this, @wolfpup said really nasty things about the woman and said the man was exonerated.
So yes, I’m criticizing @wolfpup , too. The proper conclusion is that we don’t know what happened. There’s a good chance it’s a he said/she said situation, and no one but the two of them will ever know.
You did, when you presented a counterfactual as the actual probable state.
I know I always use words like “harangue”, “smear”, “bitter” and “attention-seeking bullshitter” about people I’m neutral about \s
The other one, if pulled, will have bells on, mate.
“just” is … underselling it quite a bit. Ask the CDC.
No, quite happy to.
No, this is pre-judging because of specific facts, not in spite of.
That I’m looking at the same facts you are and am coming to a different conclusion should tell you something about how easy it is to choose which facts you weigh.
Nothing there is in dispute. It’s what you choose to take from it that is entirely your own biases talking (as mine do in my conclusions).
Like you ignoring the other facts - power imbalances, patriarchy, corporate greed are all things that exist. You choose to ignore them, I don’t.
Only if he has a suitable victim - which his current wife is not. The power dynamic there is very different, even if she’s also younger than him.
Really? I thought I’ve been very clear that the basis of my reasoning is that I believe women.
Your ordinary White male, I’d say only 10% probability he’s a rapist.
Your powerful, wealthy, frat bro male in the entertainment industry? I’d say 50/50 they’ve done at least a little rape, for sure.
So you did it without a reason, then?
He had all of a month of suspension. Then continued on as before. ‘Profoundly damaging’, my ass.
Self-care is suspect now? She laid out her reasons quite clearly.
It’s very characteristic of someone savvy enough to know which way the deck is stacked. Because if she’s suspicious for this, so are the majority of women who don’t report their rapes to the police, and the additional 50% of those who do report who subsequently withdraw their cases. Liars, the lot of them \s
There are degrees of this. I’m not literally saying anyone should be able to say anything at any time, but we don’t want to live in some Soviet-style dystopia where everyone is watching each other for wrongthink.
We should err in the side of assuming good intentions and not ruining someone’s life over one mistake. And as I’ve said multiple times now, “avoiding offence” cannot be allowed to be an excuse to shut down a debate before ever having it. Whether something is actually offensive often depends on the conclusion of that debate.
It’s funny, I nearly said that in my comment: the fact you cannot make a space ‘safe’ for everyone at once is something I have seen mentioned multiple times - but never by a supporter of the ‘social justice’ movement. You are the first. Nor have I ever seen anyone talk about a space where it is safe to make mistakes. It has always been about keeping <oppressed groups> safe from offence by policing what is said.
You couldn’t even make a safe space for all people with autism, because they have different and sometimes conflicting needs. Eg one may need to stim by making loud noises, while another may find loud noises intolerable.
But what do you mean by ‘safe to be around’? People on the spectrum are far more likely to be gay or trans, so the great majority of such gatherings in reality are welcoming to both.
I find it hard to believe you are frequently calling people jerks to their faces in real life. IME this is something that happens almost exclusively online, where people can’t see each others’ faces and forget they are talking to a real human being. At worst you’d be doing the same thing you do normally.
I imagine a safe space for people with autism would be one where people are free to stim, talk in a monotone, not bother with eye contact, skip small talk and jump straight into a topic, and be ultra direct rather than worry about following rules of politeness. Maybe that would make you uncomfortable, I don’t know. But being different in some ways does not make a person a jerk.
As far as normal spaces, the issue with autism is that it’s a communication problem. People tend to read things you didn’t mean into plain statements, or decide you were (intentionally) rude because of something you did or didn’t say, (or the way it was phrased, or tone of voice, or body language, or because you didn’t sound sincere because you were conciously trying to avoid the other pitfalls…)
‘Social justice’ groups take this up to 11 by creating extra ways to screw up in the form of microaggressions, ‘dogwhistles’, and stereotypes that that you may well never have heard of, and by deciding a list of common words and phrases are now offensive and must be replaced with clunky euphemisms. Often they explicitly say intent doesn’t matter: if you offend someone accidentally, even if they are being wholly unreasonable, you are guilty. And they add a moral dimension: now, screwing up doesn’t just mean you were careless or rude, it means you’re an evil racist, or some other kind of bigot. Hardly surprising that even average people fall foul of this.
Then why did you do it?
And I think it’s disingenuous to speak of her as someone who “did nothing more than write about her version of her own experiences”. What she wrote was profoundly damaging to someone else’s reputation and career, a consequence she surely could not have overlooked and which indeed one suspects may have been the entire purpose of it. So, no, not snow-white innocence. And her refusal to participate in the subsequent investigations is also very suspect and not characteristic of someone who genuinely wants the full truth to come out.
More aspersions. You say you have no interest in casting aspersions, and then say she’s not innocent and imply malicious motives.
That’s really shitty. Borderline misogynistic, IMO. All she did was write about her personal experiences. Absent actual evidence of dishonesty, that is literally always okay and should never be criticized.
This pretty much sums it up exactly.
Sorry, if an independent investigation that comes up with no evidence of wrongdoing isn’t enough to clear his name, what exactly would be?
Note that Hardwick had already felt free to talk about his side before she did - including at conventions in front of hundreds of people.
You can cite where this part was in their press release or other statements, yes?
If you’re referring to the strong words I used before, they were motivated by my disgust at cancel culture, not Dykstra herself, and, speaking of power imbalance, of the ability of one single person to ruin another’s career with no accountability. I have no reason to criticize Dykstra personally for any other reason beyond that.
I did:
According to the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men will experience physical violence by their intimate partner at some point during their lifetimes.
Domestic Violence - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)
What on earth do you imagine that tells us about the Dykstra-Hardwick case?
The only specific facts at hand are about how three major organizations independently all reacted to the allegations after their respective investigations.
How much mileage do you think you’d get out of those “facts” in a court of law?
I believe those whose arguments are best supported by known facts. I sure hope to God you’re never on a jury.
And of course, Dykstra knew all long that Hardwick would be quickly reinstated and his career not harmed at all, and she only wrote that piece because … reasons. /s
I may have missed it, but the only reason I saw her give was “to move on with my life”. I can only interpret that to mean “I’ve said my piece and I don’t care about this any more”. Yet strangely, she cared enough just days earlier to write and publish that damaging story, but then declined to participate when asked to back it up.
So @Babale and @DemonTree , what legal or societal actions should we take to discourage or prevent movements like #metoo?
You’ve identified what you want to stop, how do you do so while maintaining freedom of speech for everyone?
Do you think you have some special insight into the mindset of women who have experienced (or claimed to experience) sexual assault or other trauma? If not, why the fuck would you ever think it’s appropriate to make such interpretations, implications, or aspersions?
I don’t think we should do that. Metoo has obviously been a positive cultural change overall, in that our society is more aware of boundaries and more respectful of everyone’s boundaries.
I don’t know what societal actions we can take to reduce stupid strawman like that one, but we should definitely do that.
You don’t see that as self-care? She also said “I hope that the hatred, the name calling, the death threats can go away” .
We’ve already established you’re not inclined to give what the woman in this says anything but the worst interpretation.
Strange to you, perfectly understandable to others. I know (years after the fact) after I told my mother about my rapist relative, I felt absolutely no need to confront him or do anything more about it, either. Telling my side to someone was all I needed, it turned out.
I find it hard to believe that you don’t consider #metoo an example of cancel culture. Especially considering your posts in this thread.
Raping or sexually assaulting someone is not the same as holding ideas, is it?
And before you strawman me further - I’m not a free speech absolutist, I think some censorship is reasonable.
What I don’t like is people supporting censorship while pretending that this is not what they are doing.
Cancelling someone, whether because of fucked up ideas they express or because they’re sexual criminals, is censorship. Even if it’s done by the Zeitgeist rather than by government action. That censorship is sometimes appropriate. But it becomes extremely difficult to have the sorts of conversations that let us honestly determine whether censorship is or is not appropriate in a given context, and act accordingly, if half the people having the conversation insist that no censorship is happening.
Once we acknowledge that censorship by crowd is a thing that is occurring, we can weigh when it is appropriate and when it is not.
They were directed at Dykstra by you, not at impersonal culture.
Something Dykstra very much did not do.
What on Earth do you imagine it doesn’t?
Three major capitalist companies investigating their powerful, very well-connected male employee. Those are also facts.
Whereas I thank Hastur I’m not in a jury-using jurisdiction.
Why should I give a fuck, as this isn’t about legal cases.
That would certainly have been the safe way to bet.
Reasons she gave in the piece. So I guess sarcasm fail on that one.
I never claimed it’s not censorship.
Freedom of speech can lead to censorship, in fact it has to allow it to occur at the social level.
Can you make an argument that doesn’t rely on inherent distrust of capitalism? You know, for those of us who think it’s actually a fairly effective way of organizing society?