[Cause]

amphibian, on 26 June 2018 - 07:32 PM, said:

Beyond the specifics of the Hardwick situation, what Cause is saying is worrisome.

He doesn't expect a woman to be believed or that there are other valid options besides going to the police or being silent. A work supervisor may not be able to formally act on an allegation of abuse outside the workplace, but they can listen.

That's not good, Cause.

And if she is wearing a short skirt she was asking for it. That is an accurate summary of what I said for sure.

No! What I am saying is that the rule of law and our philosophies of justice must be universal. Rape and abuse are not special cases. If fifty women accuse you of rape, we can assume on the basis of the evidence something is going on. If one women is in a he said she said situation we can't take peoples jobs. If Dykstra has evidence or more people have come forward that's a different case. As I said I'm not overly familiar with the story.

For a long time women have been ignored when they accuse men of rape or abuse. Are you sure? Did you change your mind? What were you wearing? The correction is not to swing to the extreme of the other side and believe the accusation immediately. It should be handled the same as any other accusation.

I obviously want victims to get the help they need. I don't believe accusing your rapist or abuser on Twitter, blog post, Facebook etc will be for the long term good of the victims or for justice to be carried out.

[amphibian]

There are more and valid options beyond criminal prosecution of abuse and assault. That's the point you're not getting and maybe won't get.

It's up to the person who was hurt to decide which parts and which options are what they want to do. Our job is to stop making the options hurt the person who was hurt even further (which we do, especially with criminal prosecution processes the world over).

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 27 June 2018 - 09:56 AM, said:

The correction is not to swing to the extreme of the other side and believe the accusation immediately.

Again, I think you need to ask yourself WHY you believe the above. Why is your inclination to not believe the accuser, and give benefit of the doubt to the accused. And then think about what BENEFIT an accuser has to airing the incident(s) publicly, and what the detriments of such a thing would be. If you think that most disgruntled ex's will threaten their livelihood, and possibly risk jail themselves to make a false accusation...that's a fairytale land designed by the patriarchy to keep women from reporting. even the most disgruntled ex will likely only key your car, or call you in the middle of the night...

Are there false accusations? Yes. It does indeed happen. How much? Between 2%-6% of reported cases are found to be false.

That means that 94%-98% of reported accusations are found to have grounds and be truthful.

In that scenario, from a simple math POV, where should our collective belief lay? With the accuser, or the accused? Does it not make more sense to err on the side of the 94% likelihood of guilt?

You also need to take into account that with cases like this one, we (in that I mean we the general public) don't know the particulars. She clearly has receipts and people are like "produce them!"...why? Why do WE need to see them? If she has proof as she says she does, that's very likely enough to keep Hardwick in his place, and not attempting to sue her for defamation, and the only time she would need to show them is if he slandered her publicly....and even then it's not OUR place to demand anything from her.

[Cause]

I don't think accusations should be met by belief or disbelief. In the case of the cops they should be met by duty, which is to investigate the accusation and escalate or deescalate as the evidence dictates. My concern is that the typical person who watches celebrity news etc is not really interested in following the facts. Its about the first immediate gut reaction. Roseanne bar did tweet something racist (honestly I don't actually know what she said) and she lost her show, Kevin Spacey lost House of cards after one allegation turned into about fifteen (though I forget exactly when he lost the show, was it only after the rest?) but George Takei who was also accused faced a backlash which then died away after no one else came forward. Still for a few days or weeks many people believed it.

A court of law often requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Now I keep talking police and courts and if a women doesn't want to go that route I understand. I also have acknowledged myself that we as the public don't need a guilty verdict or proof beyond a reasonable doubt to act. We can make a call based on the preponderance of the evidence (Weinstein for example). We can punish Roseanne for posting something racist even if its not criminal. People can stand up and say I don't want to watch her show or work with her.

Also I'm not talking specifically about Dykstra. I'm talking generally. Accusations of abuse and sexual assault are serious and I don't think we should want to live in a world in which people just throw accusations around on Twitter. They can do enormous damage. I have an anecdotal story and so did Macros. I also think Nevyn up top brings up some very good points about how when the accusation is not even about something criminal how it gets even more complex.

Similarly, I often joke with friends that twitter should have a page where it shows markings for all the jobs it has taken. Like decals of downed planes on a fighter. We live in a world where the public backlash to jokes in poor taste can lose people their jobs. I don't necessarily disagree that the people in question should have lost their jobs a lot of the time. I will however point out that often the offending party is punished for something that is not a defining aspect of their character or for something that we all have maybe done once or twice in private without consequence. I saw today that 50 cent mocked terry crews for not being a strong enough man to not get groped at a party, he deserves the hell that will come his way especially given his fame.

I think if the Weinstein case shows something its the danger of civil suits replacing criminal ones and the danger of non-disclosure agreements. How many women were paid off and forced to keep quite while he went on to his next victim. How many people were complacent in enabling him by keeping quite or hushing up others. What exposure do they have to criminal prosecution? Very touchy but what responsibility do the women who agreed to keep quite have to the victims that came after them?

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 27 June 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

I don't think accusations should be met by belief or disbelief. In the case of the cops they should be met by duty, which is to investigate the accusation and escalate or deescalate as the evidence dictates.

In this situation it's less a legal issue than it is a moral one. She's not reporting to the cops because what is there to report? Being a reprehensible dick to your significant other isn't illegal....does that mean he should still be able to present himself as this amiable nerd impresario? I don't think so. These are moral consequences, not legal ones (unless she chooses to press charges on the sexual component which doesn't sound likely).

Cause, on 27 June 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

Roseanne bar did tweet something racist (honestly I don't actually know what she said) and she lost her show

She's been like this for years, and the receipts of it would not fit on one sheet of paper. It wasn't the one tweet that did her in, it was years of tweets culminating off the back of a successful revival show.

Cause, on 27 June 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

but George Takei who was also accused faced a backlash which then died away after no one else came forward. Still for a few days or weeks many people believed it.

It wasn't about other accusers not coming forward, He was exonerated DAYS later when the accuser himself walked back the accusation and said it didn't happen the way he initially said and Takei was innocent...and he apologized. A few days and Takei's back to square with most people knowing he's innocent.

Same true of Gary Oldman. Old abuse scandal reared its ugly head after this past years Oscars when the accuser, (his ex-wife who was a drug addict at the time and was proven in a court to have lied about the entire thing) claimed that she was disgusted her "abuser" ex was being lauded with an award. Then a few days later his sons come out and basically say she's full of shit, and that even the court documents exonerate Oldman (and his son who the wife claims was there during the incident says it's a total lie by his very unwell mother). But again, it was days later and seemingly most people know he's innocent now.

Cause, on 27 June 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

A court of law often requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As someone who's mother was emotionally abused for seven years by a boyfriend...a lot of abuse doesn't come in a form that can be prosecuted in any way. This DOES appear to be the case with Hardwick, and Dykstra was just doing a cathartic thing for herself, while also outing an emotionally controlling and abusive dick.

Cause, on 27 June 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

Accusations of abuse and sexual assault are serious and I don't think we should want to live in a world in which people just throw accusations around on Twitter. They can do enormous damage.

The comment being what then? That emotionally abused people should just keep it to themselves? Let the accused continue on as if nothing they did TRAUMATIZED another human being? Yes, we can prosecute Sexual assault (though it would surprise you to know that 85-90% of the "rape kits" taken by police after incidents are NEVER PROCESSED...think about that for a second. Possible proof of actual assaults...barely ever processed. That's the world we live in apparently), but what about the incidents that don't necessarily represent a criminal offence? As I already stated, emotional abuse is almost more detrimental to the psyche than physical. My mother had her arm sliced open with a knife by that boyfriend (though she never admitted that to me, but my sister saw), my sister called the cops, my mom refused to press charges, and she stayed with him a further seven years. SEVEN. It took her another 15 years to find someone who wasn't abusive after that. This is the type of emotional abuse that affected her and on what level. She was fully and totally in his control. Not even her son (me) who spent some nights out on the roof by my bedroom window to get away from him verbally abusing her...telling her to leave him.....helped. Nothing did until she finally said enough was enough.

[Nevyn]

In the Hardwick case, one thing you need to be careful with is viewing loss of shows as a punishment.

In some cases, it can be. Roseanne and Spacey, you had major concern over public outcry, boycotts, and damage to the brand to continue trying to work with them. But burden of proof was not a factor because on one side you had a tweet, and another you had a tacitly acknowledged and then spun bad act (and whispers of potential way more bad acts).

But at the end of the day, these are visible people in entertainment, and people have to want to watch them. And what you think of those people impacts whether you'll watch. And no logic or justice comes into play in that formula. Burden of proof is not relevant. Even if you aren't SURE or the act isn't criminal, the story changes how you view them, and that can make them less marketable.

AFAIK, Aziz has not lost his show officially yet. But they have a large mountain to climb figuring out if and how he wants to deal with public reaction, and whether a character based on him with the arc of that show can work with how people view him now, particularly those that were in his audience. Whatever happens, it will be less about punishment and more about "can the show still work and will people still watch".

Likewise, AMC could probably easily survive any protesting or what have you coming out of Hardwick accusations. But he is basically a panel/talk show/ game show host. His image needs to be superficial, inoffensive, and amusing, and from there he is facilitating conversation, with the subject matter or guest being the draw. And if the audience are sitting there out of the gate thinking "this guy is an ***hole", the show is just less appealing. And again, even if you are being fair minded in your evaluation of what he did or did not do, people can't help viewing the person differently. I have never really watched any Hardwick show other than a little bit of @midnight when he did that. But even if I were going to, this story would make me less likely to. That's not punishment, it is just perception distracting from my enjoyment of the show.

My issue is less to do what is happening with people in cases like that (in terms of losing shows), but more those cases being talked about interchangeably and casually compared to other ones, both in some of the language used and even getting into conversations about proof and who said what. The initial essay on Hardwick both threw around the term sexual assault while making clear it was not actually sexual assault in a legal sense. Predator gets thrown around. Gaslighting is the word of the year. And in a case that is fundamentally about an interpersonal relationship between two people that may have no criminal tie ins, we have debates on burden of proof, complaints about other celebrities based on their reactions to the story, and analysis of what Hardwick's wife said based on who her mother was. And I just don't see how any of that matters in the least. Dykstra was entitled to say her piece.

There is a conversation to be had about the described behaviours and preventing/getting out of those situations. But none of the rest of it matters. Hearst's credibility doesn't matter in the slightest (particularly as she was not witness to any described events). Neither really do the reactions of anyone else. The story is out, it places him somewhere on the ***hole spectrum, and further scorekeeping of the reactions to the story feels like a descent into gossip.

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 27 June 2018 - 04:33 PM, said:

further scorekeeping of the reactions to the story feels like a descent into gossip.

I'll just refer you upthread to worry's post about "opting in" and leave it at that. No one is making you read or comment.

[Nevyn]

QuickTidal, on 27 June 2018 - 04:43 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 27 June 2018 - 04:33 PM, said:

further scorekeeping of the reactions to the story feels like a descent into gossip.

I'll just refer you upthread to worry's post about "opting in" and leave it at that. No one is making you read or comment.

Didn't get any better when you said it than when worry did.

Interspersed with all the gossiping and back patting are real criminal allegations against hollywood people, and interesting issues to discuss. Which are good to know about and can bring about interesting concepts to debate.

Further, you'll notice that I certainly have cut back on my responding to this thread and getting into particulars on some of these fringe cases. Now I thought it made an interesting point of discussion to take a wide angle lens and think about how we are discussing/treating some of these things, and did my best to do so without getting into the details of any one case or going after any one poster.

It seems you and worry don't want that conversation, and are happy to go on as is. But my comments like yours are opt-in. So if you don't want to engage, don't. But a terse "if you don't like it, GTFO" is, frankly, bull****. If you don't want to talk about if and why these cases are important, don't. If you do, defend your position. But I'm trying to imagine if every book forum on here with a bad review thread was just two posts, the review and then a reply of "no one forced you to read it, get out".

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 27 June 2018 - 05:48 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 27 June 2018 - 04:43 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 27 June 2018 - 04:33 PM, said:

further scorekeeping of the reactions to the story feels like a descent into gossip.

I'll just refer you upthread to worry's post about "opting in" and leave it at that. No one is making you read or comment.

Didn't get any better when you said it than when worry did.

Interspersed with all the gossiping and back patting are real criminal allegations against hollywood people, and interesting issues to discuss. Which are good to know about and can bring about interesting concepts to debate.

Well, then I suppose it's a good thing I'm not here to entertain you, or find specific subsets of things you like to talk about to make sure you feel okay in the thread as far as what should be discussed and what shouldn't.

Nevyn, on 27 June 2018 - 05:48 PM, said:

It seems you and worry don't want that conversation, and are happy to go on as is. But my comments like yours are opt-in. So if you don't want to engage, don't. But a terse "if you don't like it, GTFO" is, frankly, bull****.

Odd, no one said anything of the sort. It was a comment on what you choose to engage in and what you don't. If you think what's being discussed by myself and others is some salacious gossip...you needn't engage. You can certainly still be in the thread and have your own conversations. No one is stopping you, or telling you to GTFO. Worry's point was "You don't want to engage in gossip, then you needn't do so." That's it.

Nevyn, on 27 June 2018 - 05:48 PM, said:

If you don't want to talk about if and why these cases are important, don't. If you do, defend your position.

I have. You simply don't think I'm being deep enough I guess, or don't like my answers or comments. To that I can only reply...meh? Can't help you.

Nevyn, on 27 June 2018 - 05:48 PM, said:

But I'm trying to imagine if every book forum on here with a bad review thread was just two posts, the review and then a reply of "no one forced you to read it, get out".

Nice false equivalency. No one here is telling you to get out...nor that you can't share whatever you want to discuss.

You said (paraphrasing) "This is all just gossip, why don't we focus on ________ instead, that's the conversation we should have."...to which you were replied to with a "you don't have to engage with that aspect since the thread, nor its commenting members are "making you" because obviously we don't feel it IS gossip. YMMV, but I'm not going to stop commenting as I have because you don't like the trajectory of that particular discussion.

[worry]

It was already great when I said it.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Anonymous internet rape allegation against Maynard (lead singer of Tool, A Perfect Circle, and so forth). Specifically that she went backstage with him in 2000, froze, and he had sex with her even though she was unresponsive.

Other people on the internet claim that details of the story are clearly false (for example, that Maynard's security personnel are all male, while the accuser claims to have been approached by a female security person).

https://www.ultimate...rl_in_2000.html

[QuickTidal]

That will be an interesting one...since he's been good friends with Tori Amos since he was a kid, and she was not only the victim of a rape herself, but helped set up RAINN (Rape and Incest Network). One would think she'd be really upset to hear this. But knowing Tori, she'd side with the accuser.

Also, re: the security guard. The band has security guards obviously, but the venue ALWAYS has hired security of all types. ALWAYS. This is a rule of law with the venue needing to protect the venue from harm, accidents or the like. So the defense "but my security detail is all men" doesn't really fly. Maynard could vERY well have asked a venue security person to go get her from the crowd.

And it seems like more people are chiming in with similar stories of behaviour like the described. I'm betting this is accurate.

[Cause]

QuickTidal, on 28 June 2018 - 01:00 PM, said:

That will be an interesting one...since he's been good friends with Tori Amos since he was a kid, and she was not only the victim of a rape herself, but helped set up RAINN (Rape and Incest Network). One would think she'd be really upset to hear this. But knowing Tori, she'd side with the accuser.

Also, re: the security guard. The band has security guards obviously, but the venue ALWAYS has hired security of all types. ALWAYS. This is a rule of law with the venue needing to protect the venue from harm, accidents or the like. So the defense "but my security detail is all men" doesn't really fly. Maynard could vERY well have asked a venue security person to go get her from the crowd.

And it seems like more people are chiming in with similar stories of behaviour like the described. I'm betting this is accurate.

See this is crazy. An anonymous accusation against a celebrity? What should anyone do with this information?

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 28 June 2018 - 01:23 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 June 2018 - 01:00 PM, said:

That will be an interesting one...since he's been good friends with Tori Amos since he was a kid, and she was not only the victim of a rape herself, but helped set up RAINN (Rape and Incest Network). One would think she'd be really upset to hear this. But knowing Tori, she'd side with the accuser.

Also, re: the security guard. The band has security guards obviously, but the venue ALWAYS has hired security of all types. ALWAYS. This is a rule of law with the venue needing to protect the venue from harm, accidents or the like. So the defense "but my security detail is all men" doesn't really fly. Maynard could vERY well have asked a venue security person to go get her from the crowd.

And it seems like more people are chiming in with similar stories of behaviour like the described. I'm betting this is accurate.

See this is crazy. An anonymous accusation against a celebrity? What should anyone do with this information?

I mean, it's a rock star targeting and sleeping with a fan. This is not new territory, and I would wager dollars to donuts he did this and just thinks "she was into it" since he's a rock star (and in 2000 was at the height of his career). The guy on the reddit thread who talks about having been backstage at Tool/APC shows (and is the one who defends AGAINST the accusation) even SAYS he had special VIP passes for "harem girls" and that was typical of him. That one of these fans might not have been into it, and that he might have done it anyways...is very, very believable.

What should people DO with this information? Ask Maynard. He would probably deny it was rape. Part of the bad thing is that the statute of limitations on rape is LIKELY up after 18 years whatever state she's in, so she has no real legal recourse.

But understand why she does it. It's a catharsis for a rape she suffered 18 years ago that's been eating her up inside.

But the fact that more than one person reports the "harem" VIP passes ARE a thing with him...means this is much easier to believe than someone who doesn't act like that.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 28 June 2018 - 01:00 PM, said:

And it seems like more people are chiming in with similar stories of behaviour like the described. I'm betting this is accurate.

What do you mean by 'similar'?

The 'similar stories' I saw on the reddit thread don't describe anything remotely resembling sexual assault. The closest one is this: 'Maynard approached her and invited her to hang out in the trailer to chill and "watch movies." They were watching "Happy Gilmore" and he was wearing silk pants. That's when he whipped it out. She immediately got up and left, he ran after her and said, "Wait, please don't go, you're not like all the other girls." She did give him her number but he never called.'

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 28 June 2018 - 06:50 PM

[Malankazooie]

Wow, the destroy Chris Hardwick hate pendulum is swinging back the other way now it seems.

Three former girlfriends (Jacinda Barrett, Janet Varney, and Andrea Savage) have come out in his support. And another actress/friend (Jaimie Alexander) has tweeted that she knew him through his break up with his accuser and so has a personal perspective on the situation. She provided a link to an online petition asking AMC to bring him back.

I remember when Varney appeared on his (now cancelled) @midnight show on Comedy Channel. You could tell they were friends. He even joked that they used to date. I believe Savage appeared on @midnight too.

Too tired at the moment to provide links. Google if you're curious.

[Malankazooie]

Whelp, add James Gunn to the trash pile of losers. Old tweets got his ass fired. And boy are those tweets locked on to a specific theme *cough pedophilia *cough. Outright disgusting shit. To be apologetic for him and brush it off as just "jokes" is a hard sell in my book. If it was just jokes, then I think there would have been a variety of them on various themes, not all focusing on little boys. Just sayin'

[Nicodimas]

Malankazooie, on 20 July 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

Whelp, add James Gunn to the trash pile of losers. Old tweets got his ass fired. And boy are those tweets locked on to a specific theme *cough pedophilia *cough. Outright disgusting shit. To be apologetic for him and brush it off as just "jokes" is a hard sell in my book. If it was just jokes, then I think there would have been a variety of them on various themes, not all focusing on little boys. Just sayin'

I agree. I also now am wondering if he has a Kevin spacey level history

Like who thinks like that??

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 20 July 2018 - 11:28 PM

[Tsundoku]

I saw the tweets this morning. Pretty innocuous recently, a couple of references on the level of "gay chicken/panic" locker room jokes.

I'm not saying they're great, but we all know they were pervasive as all hell up until a couple of years ago and 99.99% of the time meant absolutely nothing.

Hell, I recall drunken nights back in Uni (early 90's, for clarification) when people would compete for the worst baby jokes. Or worse. You'd sort of have this involuntary guffaw of "I-can't-believe-you-said-that-and-that-I'm-laughing-etc". I look back now and wince a bit, but it didn't make us all monsters.
I'm pretty sure I haven't raped anyone, become a paedophile/necrophile/etc.

And please stop applying today's standards to yesterday's behaviour. It reeks of revisionism.

[Malankazooie]

I've played Cards Against Humanity with friends. This isn't that. This has too much of an infatuation with a certain topic. A lot of the tweets don't even rise to the level of being a joke, tbh.