[QuickTidal]

 amphibian, on 15 June 2018 - 05:47 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 15 June 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

 amphibian, on 15 June 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

I don't think expecting her to speak up is healthy. She's made her decisions and us providing an environment where anyone can speak up if they choose to is what we have to do.

And there's hundreds of people blabbering directly at Dykstra about how she's awful, Chris is great, there has to be more proof, that this is still OK because he's funny etc.

So we're failing the one who did speak up and I'm not about to put more pressure on someone who didn't speak up because [points to this mess of a vocal minority group's response].

Now I'm wondering if Varney is the person who pressured her got her blacklisted as she is who Hardwick dated after Dykstra, or if that's just some other random friend of both of theirs. Either way, one would have to expect he treated all his exes to at least SOME of this behaviour....it's full on pattern.

Hardwick dated Dykstra after Varney. He also got married some time after the Dykstra breakup.

Oh shit, you're right. My bad.

[worry]

While I get what you're saying about him being a phony, Malan, in the sense of your belief that he was masking something...I don't think there's any room or reason to divorce this behavior from 'true' nerd-dom or whatever.

If anything, recent years have shown nerd subcultures to be festering toxic swamps of entitlement and misogyny. The "nice guys"-are-owed-something/everything mentality turned up to 11, spliced with old school boys club rationalizations for every bad behavior imaginable. It ain't the 'cool kids' or whatever who ran Kelly Marie Tran and Millie Bobby Brown off social media this month.

[Malankazooie]

You missed my point completely and turned it into your own soap box. I was just saying the guy is a phony, a serial deceiver if that can be applied or is a thing. So it didn't surprise me that he became a manipulator and abusive in his relationship(s).

[worry]

Holy hell, do you have to get immediately hyperdefensive? It wasn't an attack on you. There's just not a single part of your first post that isn't focused on what a fake nerd Chris Hardwick is, besides the "hyuk hyuk I might watch his show anyway" part, so I think my response was reasonable. Your second post explains what you meant to say with the first, which is fine and makes sense and would have been met with an "ahh ok, I getcha" if it wasn't draped in weirdass arbitrary abrasiveness.

[Malankazooie]

The response to Hardwick has been swift. AMC has pulled Talking With, and Hardwick is out as host of panels at 2018 SDCC.

It's sort of a bummer about Talking With, as the line up this season was pretty solid. I hope they get someone to replace him.

About Talking Dead. The twitterati were clamoring for Yvette Nicole Brown to replace him. She is very knowledgeable about the show (appears as a guest with notes she has taken), but not sure how good of a show host she would be. I'd give her a shot though.

[worry]

As far as I've read, it's been suspended from AMC's schedule indefinitely.

[Maark Abbott]

 Luv2B_Sassy, on 15 June 2018 - 07:56 PM, said:

If anything, recent years have shown nerd subcultures to be festering toxic swamps of entitlement and misogyny.

The problem here is that whilst we as nerds on the whole disown and don't associate with those kinds of folk, they then congeal into their own turgid little morass. Best to consider them as Gobbos and roll me some sweet, sweet initiative.

[Cause]

I didn't know who Hardwick or Dykstrata were. I looked it up.

It seems to me that the me too movement is perhaps having a negative effect if instead. Of reporting the police etc people are Airing all of this on social media.

He lost his show on one accusation? Based on trial by public perception? So far I saw Dykstrata accuse him, his wife defend him. Is there more to the story?

With weinstein you needed an excel spreadsheet to track all the allegations so one could reasonably assume their was truth to them. He was either scum or somehow somebody convinced over fifty women to frame him

This post has been edited by Cause: 25 June 2018 - 11:48 AM

[QuickTidal]

 Cause, on 25 June 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

He lost his show on one accusation? Based on trial by public perception? So far I saw Dykstrata accuse him, his wife defend him. Is there more to the story?

It's more of an abuse overall story (emotional more than anything else) with the one mention of sexual coercion by her. The pickup after the fact was by those around her who "nodded" and believed her because they knew this is who Hardwick was privately. The blacklisting was also corroborated by people who Hardwick HAD asked to not hire Dykstra. The abuse is not something he could likely be charged/convicted on (that I can tell), and more of a "this happened to me, and I need to say something so that I can move on mentally."...and that it's something that seems to be corroborated by those who know him. Rumour has it that this is EXACTLY why Nerdist and he parted ways in December officially, that they knew his private behaviour was not the best of images. He even called her a "mistake" in front of a SDCC crowd of thousands, because that's OBVIOUSLY the setting to air personal dirty laundry. It's more about Hardwick being a pretentious jerk, instead of the happy-go-lucky persona he paints himself with publicly. So for her, to watch him have this "I'm a great guy and a positive for nerds!" mask on and have throngs of fans and major hit TV shows....while he's a whole different person off camera...would be traumatizing. Emotional abuse is brutalizing almost more than physical. It sounds like he was basically emotionally abusive to her every day.

And his wife who defended him is the daughter of Patty Hearst...the poster child for Stockholm Syndrome...so I'm not sure what type of moral compass she can lay claim to.

And you will notice that the only thing he rebuts is that anything they got up to amounted to "sexual abuse"...but he very likely won't rebut the rest because he knows it's true is my guess.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 25 June 2018 - 12:39 PM

[amphibian]

I'm responding to Cause after QuickTidal responded:

Furthermore, going to the police is one option available to people who have been abused. It is not the only option and the ideal state of things should be that all options are available freely and easily to those who have been hurt. That person gets to decide what works for them and in what context.

Having large numbers of people stating that they have been harmed beyond one isn't needed to give full credibility to the story of that one person. One person matters. Many people matter.

[Cause]

 amphibian, on 25 June 2018 - 05:20 PM, said:

I'm responding to Cause after QuickTidal responded:

Furthermore, going to the police is one option available to people who have been abused. It is not the only option and the ideal state of things should be that all options are available freely and easily to those who have been hurt. That person gets to decide what works for them and in what context.

Having large numbers of people stating that they have been harmed beyond one isn't needed to give full credibility to the story of that one person. One person matters. Many people matter.

I must disagree. If a disgruntled Ex of mine showed up at work and told my boss I was physically, emotionally or sexually abusive Id expect him to tell her to please leave and that he could not act on hearsay. That's all social media is, its an attempt to slander.

This reminds me of something I have not thought about in a long time. Happened almost ten years ago. A friend of min was in a serious motor vehicle accident when a car jumped a stop sign and took him out on a motorbike. Crushed his leg. He was basically on bed rest for 3 months or more and hardly mobile for a long term after that. He ended up losing his job because he could not perform it. Found a new job eventually. Somebody phoned his boss and said he was a terrible person or some such (we don't know who called and we are not sure exactly what they said) and his new boss fired him as a result one day before the 3 month probation period would end. My friend eventually killed himself because he felt like he couldn't catch a break after one horrible thing after another.

I said myself in this thread that innocent until proven guilty is a commonly misused and misunderstood principle and we don't need to wait for a trial to act. However I also don't think we should encourage a world in which people just attack and accuse each other I the court of public opinion over the internet.

[QuickTidal]

@Cause: Ask yourself why Chloe would put herself at legal risk...if it were untrue? What benefit does even a disgruntled ex have to benefit from taking on a big shot Hollywood guy like Hardwick? I'll tell you why...she said it in her post...she has the receipts. He knows it. This is why he's not taking legal action.



Anyways, so Hardwick released (Read: Leaked to fucking TMZ) texts from 7 months after his relationship with Dykstra ended where she's trying to reconcile with him...as if that's proof that "she still wanted me 7 months later! See, she's just a disgruntled ex!" while evidently being too stupid to realize that it LITERALLY is a perfect example of the very "controlling" nature she accused him of in her statement. And he made sure to only release 4 lines of text from her (no replies from him)...this is like textbook controlling behaviour in fact....but yeah releasing this shit to try to further discredit her story...just shows you what a POS Hardwick clearly is.

Oh, and Wil and Anne Wheaton both "liked" a defense of him on Intsgaram (Hardwick's wife Lydia Hearst) and Anne even went so far as to call/dismiss it as simply a "toxic relationship"...which I mean...And Felicia Day (this one stings me) decided not to take sides...

And an ex of Hardwick's from the 90's (AKA before he made his rise to real stardom) has come out in his defense saying "'That's not a portrait of the man I knew, we should be careful of witch hunts...ect. ect." as if that stands as irrefutable proof that Hardwick is innocent...like since he wasn't abusive in one relationship, that somehow surreptitiously absolves him of any wrong doing 20 years later? It's nonsense and the type of shit that people usually use to dismiss abuse allegations.

Another friend of both of them has also come out with her tale of being close to them and realizing the "signs" were there in hindsight...

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 26 June 2018 - 06:34 PM

[amphibian]

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.

[Nevyn]

Is anyone else thoroughly over this topic?

I'm all on board with outing political, business, and entertainment figures using their power in a work environment for sexual harassment or assault, especially given the means the power dynamics in the legal system have served to hush this up for years. For things like that, #metoo has been an appropriate response, and these are cases we want widely known, and where public action matters.

But so much of what this is now becoming about is just in an entirely different realm. Interpersonal relationships, outside of work. Past accusations that have had legal scrutiny rehashed and prosecuted in public opinion. Cases with little power dynamic at all.

And on some level, even some of these have some value. It is good to have an environment where women feel empowered to talk about their negative experiences, and for public discussion about things that are or are not ok.

But it is not the same value as the former, and it is treated as if it is. And in the process of going through and discussing and rehashing these various accusations, it all feels more and more like a gossip group. Today's daily moral superiority affirmation. "Ooh, I always knew HE'D be a p.o.s." . And we talk about the cases in the same way. Debating who to believe the same way. But when the entirety of the case is sub-criminal, and you are talking about relationship and not work dynamics, I frankly don't care who to believe or not believe. Regardless of what I believe, I'm not acting on that information. In some of the cases, you could have all accusations agreed upon and stipulated to, and have no criminal charges, and the information only relevant to future potential partners for the accused.

If it's cathartic for the women to talk about their experiences, great. I just don't find it as interesting or important for the rest of us to debate case by case.

[worry]

I think that's why mods took the unusual step of making this particular thread opt-in.

[Aptorian]

Wait, the other threads are compulsory? Shit, better get to shit posting...

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

So by 'sexual assault' she means he coerced her into sex by threatening to break up with her. Does that legally constitute 'coercion'?

And if it does, is basing one's willingness to stay in a relationship on willingness to have sex illegal? Or morally repugnant?

Very little idea who Hardwick is. If his show is based on the perceived authenticity of some sort of 'nice guy' or 'white knight' persona, and large portions of his audience would not continue watching if they knew about his private behavior, then he deserved to lose it on that grounds. For example, Louis C. K. and Aziz Ansari will have to publicly reckon with their actions if they want to come back as even remotely mainstream comedians (at least, for their previous audiences). Hardwick sounds significantly more abusive, at least in terms of probable suffering caused. That's different from someone losing their job or show based on accusations that have nothing to do with the job or show.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 26 June 2018 - 08:34 PM

[worry]

I think all of his shows definitely play on his "nice guy" persona, usually on top of his geekdom. One that doesn't get mentioned as much is The Wall, a prime time NBC game show he hosts where the contestants are basically local do-gooders being rewarded with an opportunity for big money (kinda like Extreme Home Makeover; the people on it have inspirational stories). It's a nice concept that doesn't deserve to die with CH's career.

[Nevyn]

 Luv2B_Sassy, on 26 June 2018 - 08:15 PM, said:

I think that's why mods took the unusual step of making this particular thread opt-in.

Wait, so you're saying a person shouldn't complain about a situation or environment they literally could have avoided at any point by taking the agency to decide it wasn't working for them?

[Macros]

I see what Cause is saying, but think in this particular case he's wrong as I happen to believe her and think Chadwick is a fruitloop.


however anecdotally, An ex of my sisters ended up doing a few months in prison when a girl came out and accused him of shit he flat out simply did not do, so yes we must be careful as lives can be ruined by false accusations

however to cause I say this is a different situation as the girl has video and audio evidence I think? and it seems to me that all evidence points to chadwick being the manipulative controlling, gaslighting emotionally abusive fucker as is described. your girlfriend is lying on a hospital bed after serious surgery and you ask the doctor how soon you can fuck her?