[worry]

What about human history leads you to that conclusion?

[amphibian]

Marv Albert was convicted of sexual assault including biting the woman and he's been back on TV for a long long time.

Saying "oh the TV people must know what they're doing" is not a good thing to say in this context.

[worry]

Also a certain nation I won't name elected a well-known, self-admitted serial sexual predator the President of the United States of America.

[Malankazooie]

About the Chris Hardwick return to AMC.

Spoiler

SIKE! YOU'VE BEEN PUNK'D

My Consey is still free of any accusations of being a lecherous creep. So suck it #MeToo infatuaters!

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

I've just seen your post in the Walking Dead thread on this issue. I didn't realise victims have to call the police to have a chance of their story being credible. Nor did I realise not being the same asshole in other relationships means you absolutely cannot possibly have been one in one specific one. The more you know, huh?

Sure, he could be innocent, but to dismiss the possibility that he isn't based on the two things above is tenuous and straying into victim blaming territory. "You didn't do the prescribed checklist of things, so there's no possibility at all that you are telling the truth!"

Sacking someone on the testimony of one person is indeed sketchy, but I think that point can be agreed without going down the rabbit hole of what (potential) victims have to do in order to be believed.

EDIT: I'll disclose some bias in that I have some personal investment in the topic of abusive relationships.

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 26 July 2018 - 07:38 AM

[Maark Abbott]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 26 July 2018 - 07:36 AM, said:

I've just seen your post in the Walking Dead thread on this issue. I didn't realise victims have to call the police to have a chance of their story being credible. Nor did I realise not being the same asshole in other relationships means you absolutely cannot possibly have been one in one specific one. The more you know, huh?

Sure, he could be innocent, but to dismiss the possibility that he isn't based on the two things above is tenuous and straying into victim blaming territory. "You didn't do the prescribed checklist of things, so there's no possibility at all that you are telling the truth!"

Sacking someone on the testimony of one person is indeed sketchy, but I think that point can be agreed without going down the rabbit hole of what (potential) victims have to do in order to be believed.

EDIT: I'll disclose some bias in that I have some personal investment in the topic of abusive relationships.

This is one of those instances where you'd probably have to look at the balance of probabilities. Not having enough information means I can't comment and so won't on the subject at hand, but it's a test that seems apt for scenarios like this.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

I agree, in the sense of what the company do about sacking him/not doing so. In that sense, they've probably made the "best" (that's really not the right word) move in reinstating him (unless there's information we're not privy to, but I assume there isn't).

I appreciate people who lie about this sort of thing exist, and you can't discount their existence out of these narratives. The implications the other way just bug me - while it may be right (or not) in this instance, it's a stance you see WAY too many times regardless.

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 26 July 2018 - 07:49 AM

[worry]

The balance of probabilities, impo, is that Chris Hardwick did this to Chloe Dykstra. It's true that most people on Earth will never know for sure, but at the same time it's a total mischaracterization of the situation (re: the TWD post referenced) to present it as a he-said-she-said or especially as her-story-against-many. Plenty of people close to one or both of them read Dykstra's essay and said "Yup, that makes sense."

One thing we can be sure of though is that AMC's "investigation" was 100% a cost/benefit analysis about keeping someone they've invested a lot of time and money in vs. the reputational damage it might do to their brand. It's the same thing car companies do when they're deciding whether paying for a life-saving fix or compensating the statistically likely # of bereaved families would ultimately cost more. By no means should anyone believe AMC did an ethically concerned, truth-seeking investigation of Chloe Dykstra's claims, or that their decision to return him to hosting duties is the same as clearing him of wrongdoing.

[Tattersail_]

Your fat friend...

My link

[Tattersail_]

 McEyebrow.PNG (89.22K)
Number of downloads: 0

[QuickTidal]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 26 July 2018 - 08:35 AM, said:

The balance of probabilities, impo, is that Chris Hardwick did this to Chloe Dykstra

^^this.

Not only does her story line up WELL with the "hidden emotional abuse" playbook of these assholes, but there are MULTIPLE mutual friends and acquaintances that have stood up for Dykstra and said that yes, though they didn't say anything at the time, they witnessed this behaviour by Hardwick.

Like has been mentioned tonnes of times before the "false reporting" percentage is 4-6% of cases. That sides HEAVILY in Dykstra's favour.

That AMC is taking that chance is...weird. Just cut him loose. It's not like Talking Dead is some cash cow of a show.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 26 July 2018 - 12:24 PM

[Malankazooie]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 26 July 2018 - 07:36 AM, said:

I've just seen your post in the Walking Dead thread on this issue. I didn't realise victims have to call the police to have a chance of their story being credible. Nor did I realise not being the same asshole in other relationships means you absolutely cannot possibly have been one in one specific one. The more you know, huh?

Sure, he could be innocent, but to dismiss the possibility that he isn't based on the two things above is tenuous and straying into victim blaming territory. "You didn't do the prescribed checklist of things, so there's no possibility at all that you are telling the truth!"

Sacking someone on the testimony of one person is indeed sketchy, but I think that point can be agreed without going down the rabbit hole of what (potential) victims have to do in order to be believed.

EDIT: I'll disclose some bias in that I have some personal investment in the topic of abusive relationships.

AMC hired a separate firm to investigate. After a "comprehensive assessment" they decided to bring him back. Not saying he wasn't an asshole in his relationship with the accuser, it just wasn't something to be fired for. Believe me, if being an asshole to women in a relationship could get you fired, my sister's husband would be collecting unemployment.

[Aptorian]

What are those two posts actually about Tattersail?

One is some, I assume by the moniker, proud fat person who is angry that she doesn't get more attention.

The other is a tweet about wildly different situations, different people, who have handled their transgressions very differently.

Tyson is a convicted rapist and all around violent force of nature. He's also a person who tries to make amends and has done a ton to change his life.

Mel Gibson is psychologically unstable drunk, misogynistic racist bible thumper who thought he was the king of the world. He took a fall, he apologised and has worked to reform himself and be forgiven.

Meanwhile, you have Chris Brown, who as far as I am aware, refused to take any blame for his actions and generally just acts like an asshole in every story you hear about him.

People should not be judged by their past transgressions alone, but rather by how they act after the fact.

[QuickTidal]

Alternative Goose, on 26 July 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

Mel Gibson is psychologically unstable drunk, misogynistic racist bible thumper who thought he was the king of the world. He took a fall, he apologised and has worked to reform himself and be forgiven.

RE Gibson: As someone who knows a person with Bi-Polar....when it's undiagnosed, it's an absolute, mind-devouring train wreck of a mental illness. Couple that with substance abuse and you have a powder-keg human. That he's been properly diagnosed, and is on meds for it now means that he probably won't stray into the territory he's spent the last decade trying to reform himself from. Doesn't excuse what he did, but it explains stuff like the phone call nastiness. That's textbook Bi-Polar stuff. 100%.

[Tattersail_]

Alternative Goose, on 26 July 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

What are those two posts actually about Tattersail?

One is some, I assume by the moniker, proud fat person who is angry that she doesn't get more attention.

The other is a tweet about wildly different situations, different people, who have handled their transgressions very differently.

Tyson is a convicted rapist and all around violent force of nature. He's also a person who tries to make amends and has done a ton to change his life.

Mel Gibson is psychologically unstable drunk, misogynistic racist bible thumper who thought he was the king of the world. He took a fall, he apologised and has worked to reform himself and be forgiven.

Meanwhile, you have Chris Brown, who as far as I am aware, refused to take any blame for his actions and generally just acts like an asshole in every story you hear about him.

People should not be judged by their past transgressions alone, but rather by how they act after the fact.

By no means am I clued up no things like some of you guys. Those two posts were something I come across today which made me think. The first one about fat people being abused/raped and there not being much to do about it. The second one pointing out that unless the victims are famous then no one gives a damn. They are both saying a similar sort of thing in a different way. Like who cares if Michelle from the off-license got her tits grabbed by a drunk middle aged man when Gail Platt off Corrie got fingered by Harry from One Direction.

[QuickTidal]

Tattersail_, on 26 July 2018 - 01:51 PM, said:

Gail Platt off Corrie got fingered by Harry from One Direction.

 GailUgh.jpeg (28.72K)
Number of downloads: 0

[Tattersail_]

QuickTidal, on 26 July 2018 - 02:03 PM, said:

Tattersail_, on 26 July 2018 - 01:51 PM, said:

Gail Platt off Corrie got fingered by Harry from One Direction.

 GailUgh.jpeg (28.72K)
Number of downloads: 0

Ha ha exactly QT

[Aptorian]

Tattersail_, on 26 July 2018 - 01:51 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 26 July 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

What are those two posts actually about Tattersail?

One is some, I assume by the moniker, proud fat person who is angry that she doesn't get more attention.

The other is a tweet about wildly different situations, different people, who have handled their transgressions very differently.

Tyson is a convicted rapist and all around violent force of nature. He's also a person who tries to make amends and has done a ton to change his life.

Mel Gibson is psychologically unstable drunk, misogynistic racist bible thumper who thought he was the king of the world. He took a fall, he apologised and has worked to reform himself and be forgiven.

Meanwhile, you have Chris Brown, who as far as I am aware, refused to take any blame for his actions and generally just acts like an asshole in every story you hear about him.

People should not be judged by their past transgressions alone, but rather by how they act after the fact.

By no means am I clued up no things like some of you guys. Those two posts were something I come across today which made me think. The first one about fat people being abused/raped and there not being much to do about it. The second one pointing out that unless the victims are famous then no one gives a damn. They are both saying a similar sort of thing in a different way. Like who cares if Michelle from the off-license got her tits grabbed by a drunk middle aged man when Gail Platt off Corrie got fingered by Harry from One Direction.

Sorry, that was actually an overly aggressive reaction on my part. I get a rash when ever I see these glorified blog posts from feminists. I think I have what ever bug is up the ass of the meninist crowd.

Of course these people's stories need to be heard. Of course everybody's story matters. I just get on edge when I see these professionally angry social media people rail against injustices that we're all aware of and we all suffer through in quiet dignity. Like we're supposed to. All this sharing of emotions bothers my inner caveman.

[amphibian]

I don't think we're supposed to suffer through injuries and injustice in quiet dignity at all.

That's how we get exploited and crushed by kleptocrats and dictators.

[Aptorian]

But as a white middle class male I prefer things to be like they always were, surely you can understand that, right? What about MY needs, huh?