[Whisperzzzzzzz]

QuickTidal, on 26 July 2018 - 12:23 PM, said:

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.

As someone who has barely paid attention to this, haven't there also been multiple people who have said they've never observed this behavior and it's totally unlike him?

If so, why are their perspectives worth less than the people who say it is like him?

[Malankazooie]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 26 July 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

As someone who has barely paid attention to this, haven't there also been multiple people who have said they've never observed this behavior and it's totally unlike him?

If so, why are their perspectives worth less than the people who say it is like him?

Yes. Three former girlfriends have come out supporting him, saying they never experienced abuse. Even during his days when he used to drink. And the actress who plays Sif in the Thor movies, who was close friends with the couple during their relationship, and has stated she had insight to their situation that no one else had. She implored via her social media for everyone to sign the "Bring Hardwick back" petition online.

[worry]

People who didn't witness abuse's testimony is essentially "I didn't see anything." I don't necessarily have anything against earnest character witnesses, but in intimate abuse situations I don't know if that's worth more than nothing. All of us are constantly not witnessing abusers abusing their victims, even in our own circles. It's not an affirmative defense. That's a tricky thing, and it's worth nothing that not every circumstance even allows for affirmative defenses, which sometimes does put the accused at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, people who did witness abuse's testimony is "I saw the abuse." That's pretty affirmative. I guess there's more gray area in "I didn't directly witness the abuse, but I've witnessed similar and telltale behaviors in my personal or working relationship with ____." Everyone can value that as they will, and case by case.

I will say, in this particular situation we know Hardwick really did do his damndest to get Dykstra blacklisted, not just from his own productions but as industry-wide as he could manage. We also know that his response to her essay was dismissive, slut-shaming, and bullying. That's something we all (who read it) witnessed in real time.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

It's worth bearing in mind that the "behind closed doors" aspect is pretty standard for domestic abuse of any kind. Very rarely does anyone see it. Just about every single one of my ex's friends would tell you what a great guy he is based on their experiences of his behaviour with them. Let's just say I haven't had trauma focused counselling because he's a "great guy" behind closed doors.

As Worry said, character witnesses outside a relationship aren't worth a great deal when it comes to the details within the relationship.

[End of Disc One]

Quote

On the other hand, people who did witness abuse's testimony is "I saw the abuse." That's pretty affirmative.

Quote

in this particular situation we know Hardwick really did do his damndest to get Dykstra blacklisted,

Is there a source for these two things? I'm not denying either one, I just honestly must have missed it.

[worry]

Yah. I tried to be general & all-encompassing, and maybe erred towards overly generous in the last line of that first paragraph. My own tendency is to be quite a bit sharper than that. The 4-6% QT referenced (and I mean this to add to his point, not counter it) is by its nature a measure of reported cases...and it's still only a drop in the bucket of them. Take the fact that reported cases are themselves a fraction of total cases (with DV physical assaults, for instance, the report rate is only 25%), and the # becomes even more statistically insignificant. I just didn't want to derail the thread into an argument splitting hairs on what it means to say false reports "almost never" happen.

[worry]

End of Disc One, on 26 July 2018 - 08:50 PM, said:

Quote

On the other hand, people who did witness abuse's testimony is "I saw the abuse." That's pretty affirmative.

Quote

in this particular situation we know Hardwick really did do his damndest to get Dykstra blacklisted,

Is there a source for these two things? I'm not denying either one, I just honestly must have missed it.

The first two paragraphs of my post are more general, and in answer to Whisperz's question about the relative worth of those types of testimonies.


Re: the blacklisting, it's hard to Google search this without just getting day-after articles about Chloe's essay. I remember seeing actual industry people affirm her account of it though on Twitter and such, though, not necessarily an article.

These are a couple I could find right now:https://twitter.com/demimf99/status/1007886714516463616
https://twitter.com/...756295078842368

This post has been edited by Luv2B_Sassy: 26 July 2018 - 09:19 PM

[worry]

That line break error is killing me lately!

[Maark Abbott]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 26 July 2018 - 07:47 AM, said:

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.

I should probably have clarified my reference to the BOP, but yes, it was in relation to the company's actions - BOP meant that what they did is a reasonable thing. I'd not try to infer that it didn't happen because I don't have requisite information to state that it didn't happen (bear in mind this is from a personal perspective and doesn't account for witness testimony at all - if witnesses are saying they saw it firsthand I've no reason to try and disagree with them.).

Damn, doing law has changed me.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Don't worry, I knew what you meant!

[Maark Abbott]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 27 July 2018 - 07:17 AM, said:

Don't worry, I knew what you meant!

Hah, well I was sort of banking on that given what we do! Clarification is more for the others as I can see the point has been bolded a few times in here. Ass deep in Stage 3s right now so I'm all about that jargon today.

[QuickTidal]

The cast of Guardians stands by Gunn, and it looks like at least some want him resinated.

 DjXhGZBU4AMx0ih.jpg-large.jpeg (362.36K)
Number of downloads: 0

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 30 July 2018 - 06:19 PM

[Vengeance]

It is signed by the entire primary cast. So I would guess more then some.

[worry]

It's a pretty sweet-natured letter and I'm glad to hear of the familial warmth on set. It really shows through in the movies, which is part of what makes them special in the MCU. But then you get to that "due process" paragraph and it's like woof, what a thoughtless, wishy washy crock of nonsense. Gunn wasn't railroaded for his jokes by extremists on both sides of the 'political divide'. He was targeted by the right, by an actual rapist and his pro-rape followers, because they had a visceral reaction to a smattering of men in power being called out and facing minimal consequences for their behaviors.


Where is this great left wing mob putting innocent right-wingers on trial in the court of public opinion? The biggest names on the right who've lost their jobs are all at FOX News, as far as I know, and have been outed by and large by other employees at FOX News. Are Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson suddenly on the 'left' side of this issue? Is outing and punishing these creeps supposed to be partisan? As far as I know, groping people without their consent, sexual assault, and rape are all actual crimes, not just breeches in your employment contract's morals clause, but I'm not seeing many actual trials in lieu of these nefarious public opinion courts. It took decades and >60 victims going public just to get Bill Cosby to face any consequences. Raise your hand if you were waiting for the outcome of his trial to finally decide if you thought he was guilty or not.

This post has been edited by Luv2B_Sassy: 30 July 2018 - 09:12 PM

[End of Disc One]

Who made the decision to fire Gunn? For some reason I doubt the higher ups at Disney or Marvel are right wing. I wish this wasn't a political issue either.

[QuickTidal]

End of Disc One, on 31 July 2018 - 01:44 PM, said:

Who made the decision to fire Gunn? For some reason I doubt the higher ups at Disney or Marvel are right wing. I wish this wasn't a political issue either.

It would have had to come down from Disney CEO Bob Iger, via pressure on Feige (Marvel head). It's Iger and the shareholders who stand to lose out if the Fox merger deal is Kiboshed by the Trump Administration out of spite, so they are dancing to Trump (and the "right's") tune until that merger is finalized and passed through. This is especially true since Iger has pissed off Trump at a few intervals over the last year...so he's walking in eggshells.

I highly doubt that anyone else, Feige included, would be AS on the ball as Iger would be about such a merger.

All that said, when the Merger is finalized and is OUT of the Trump Administrations hands as far as stymying it...I could THEN see Iger and Fiege and co re-hiring Gunn.

The GOTG movies and characters are a CASH cow under the MCU...and GOTG is tied into Gunn's DNA...and if the cast supports him to this level (at the possible cost of their own careers and livelihoods), they could choose to phone it in for another director on GOTG3...(I'm assuming they are all under contract to reprise), or even more extreme break contract and pay the penalties (something as mostly big stars with other film careers, they COULD feasibly do). Aside from ANY of that...Disney MCU need to take into account the audience. How many people would be much more inclined to patriate a GOTG movie with Gunn at the helm rather than someone else? I can't say that I would go see a non-Gunn helmed/written GOTG movie...but I can guarantee you I'd be there opening day if he did end up rehired and doing it. That's a big gamble for them to figure out in the back of all this.

EDIT to add: Consider also the more sweeping connotations of this decision and what it was made on the back of. A racist, sexist, Alt-right rapist D-bag...dredged up tweets Disney ALREADY knew about years ago...and showed them to the court of public opinion...all to get Gunn (An anti-Trump guy) fired....and Disney balked and did so. Now imagine that you are Chadwick Boseman, lead of the MCU's newest HUGE success character...and the company you ostensibly work for gave in to the caustic whims of a racist alt-right asshole troll...how good would you feel about your employers?

I'll say this now...Disney buckling to Cernovich and his asshole friends and supporters...is the tip of the iceberg and is REALLY going to affect the MCU going forward in unforeseen ways from a business standpoint. If the alt-right can hold a corporation like Disney's feet to the fire and they capitulate...how many of the more liberal leaning producers, directors, cast members crew members...will choose to change venue?

Sidebar: I found out today that Chris Evans (Captain America himself) calls Trump "Biff"...in what I assume is a clever reference to BTTF2's Biff Tannen in charge of the darkest timeline. Amazing. Did I mention I love Chris Evans?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 31 July 2018 - 02:46 PM

[End of Disc One]

That's interesting, I had no idea those sort of considerations were going on

[Aptorian]

Oooff...

Asia Argento, a #MeToo Leader, Made a Deal With Her Own Accuser

Quote

The Italian actress and director Asia Argento was among the first women in the movie business to publicly accuse the producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault. She became a leading figure in the #MeToo movement. Her boyfriend, the culinary television star Anthony Bourdain, eagerly joined the fight.

But in the months that followed her revelations about Mr. Weinstein last October, Ms. Argento quietly arranged to pay $380,000 to her own accuser: Jimmy Bennett, a young actor and rock musician who said she had sexually assaulted him in a California hotel room years earlier, when he was only two months past his 17th birthday. She was 37. The age of consent in California is 18.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 20 August 2018 - 05:45 AM

[Malankazooie]

Crickets on this one from the forum. Not surprised.

Also, not surprised about Asia Argento either. Bourdain should never have gotten mixed up with her. The episodes she appeared on Parts Unknown, boy did she come off as a miserable person to be around. Like, personality wise, she just seemed to have a mean streak in her (for no reason). One scene that stands out is when she and Bourdain were at this beautiful location on the very south of Italy, enjoying it and being the only ones there. She then makes some rude comment about it will be ruined by tourists, or some such shitty attitude take on what was, up to that point, a lovely segment. Hey asshole, you do realize what Bourdain's show is about right? It's a TRAVEL show; revealing locations that, surprise, might pique travelers' interest and entice them to visit there. You pretentious dipshit.

[worry]

Everyone's just still waiting for you to publish the findings of your board exposé.