re: Chris Hardwick #metooed in a big way.

quote:

---

He’s Ryan Seacrest without the looks or charm.

---

I don't think Ryan Seacrest has either of those things.

A shitty relationship is a shitty relationship, but if he had her blacklisted in the business, that's another can of worms. And that's probably easy to confirm, if true.

quote:

---

WTF is wrong with you?

---

Even if what she said there was 100% true, it simply sounds like an overbearing, jealous partner. But...it did not make her a victim of anything other than her bad judgement to decide to stay with an a-hole. Put another way, that reads like complaining about a bad boyfriend...

I've spent way too much time looking at this story over the weekend, and one thing seems obnoxiously clear...this system of "believe the woman" has got to stop. It is, quite literally, a modern day witch hunt in that the accusation is the ONLY thing that matters and even the attempt to claim innocence is seen as an indication of guilt. And that's terrifying.

A handful of people on social media have attempted to argue that MAYBE before trashing the guy as if the accusation is 100% true we actually wait and hear his side (he did respond later that day) and then wait and see if there is any evidence. those lone sane voices have been met with ridicule, as if the mere suggestion that anyone not "believe the woman" is compounding any abuse.

And here's the thing...I'd guess the VAST majority of everyone saying that stupid talking point would also believe nearly universally in the concept of innocent people going to prison for crimes they did not commit, and how much of a travesty that is. We KNOW people lie about others, and we KNOW that far too often people lose their lives and reputations because of those lies. Why then pretend that only in cases like this where a woman accuses a man of some terrible act that there is no possibility of her being misleading and no possibility of him being innocent?

It clearly sets a terrible precedent for anyone willing to open their eyes. Even if EVERY SINGLE ONE of these MeToo claims have thus far been 100% truthful, when you set up a system where all someone has to do is accuse another person of something bad enough AND the person being accused CAN NOT respond with a defense, how soon will bad actors begin to take advantage of that system simply to ruin people's lives? To deny that obviously reality is to deny the very nature of humans.

I have NO IDEA what the truth of any of this is, but at some point people need to step back of this ledge and realize that what started out as a good thing (being open to women coming forward and telling stories of their having been abused and REALLY listening to them rather than dismissing them outright) has become the opposite where if there really are innocent people being accused the system is set up to eat them without the possibility of defending themselves.

quote:

---

At the very least these accusations can have lasting impact on the accused by costing them their job/livelihood. If it is a scorned former lover with no legitimate gripe, those people need to be slammed. I don't care one way or another about Hardwick per se, but the entire movement has been distressing because any person can use it as a means for revenge for any purpose under the sun. It is just hard to trust a lot of these allegations because of these attention whoring statuses. If someone was truly sexually assaulted, roast them. But we need to really define sexual assault to some of these people because a lot of the stories I have heard are not that.

---

I think that because we are now being told that the only acceptable response to a woman accusing a man of (insert horrible thing here) is 100% belief, it's going to lead to an unfortunate backlash. Yes...idiots with an agenda will never see this for what it is, but middle of the road people who can imagine themselves being accused of something they did not do AND being told there is no defense they can offer will eventually see this spiderweb for what it is...or at least what it could easily become for anyone unlucky enough to be caught in it.

People understand the absurdity of the witch hunts and how the accused were simply guilty...and claiming innocence only made them guiltier in the eyes of the accusers and the general public. That's what we've got now. Hardwick came out and essentially denied much of what she wrote, and he was blasted HARDER for having had the gall to defend himself. there were folks on line LITERALLY saying "that's exactly what an abuser would say!!!" Well, isn't it also what an completely innocent person would say as well...?

FWIW, I have two other thoughts on this. First, I'm not sure if there's been any guy thus far outed like this who came out and said, "Nope...didn't happen." If there is, I'm unaware of it. To me, that's a good thing for him because he's actually PART of that PC culture that has helped create the web he's now caught in. He knows full well that denying the accusation will go over like a fart in church and he still denied it.

Second, I think given much of what she claimed wasn't THAT bad (think Harvey Weinstein level stuff) if he had done it he would have been much better served to admit it, fall on his sword and give it a couple of years and rebuild his reputation. He had to have consulted a handful of attorneys before responding, so I assume that they decided on the road least likely to end him. But denying it hard had better mean he knows the accusation is complete bullshite, because otherwise he rises to the Lance Armstrong/Rafael Palmiero level of denying something and blaming people for accusing you only to then have to admit you lied about the denial AS WELL.

That's a hole that people generally don't really allow you to dig yourself out of...

quote:

---

Yep, and it will mean bad things for real victims in the long term, after many lies and hoaxes are exposed - as has been the case for false rape accusations in colleges.

---

I don't think you should compare the two. This entire situation seems to deal with emotional abuse.

quote:

---

This entire situation seems to deal with emotional abuse.

---

It does, but how do we define "emotional abuse"?

This looks like another big old lie from a female.

quote:

---

Doing your business on a woman as she lays there crying seems to fit in there.

---

No, that's what she described as sexual assault...and I'd pretty much agree.

quote:

---

…Including let him sexually assault me. Regularly. I was expected to be ready for him when he came home from work. How did this happen? At the beginning of our relationship, I was quite ill often due to my diet, something I’ll get to in a bit. One night he initiated, and I said, “I’m so sorry, can we not tonight? I’m feeling really sick.” He responded, “I just want to remind you, the reason my last relationship didn’t work out was because of the lack of sex.” It was a veiled threat. I succumbed. Every night, I laid there for him, occasionally in tears.

---

Of course, there's that whole thing about whether any of it is true...

quote:

---

Nice anecdote, but that's not what I asked for, and don't think that's what happened with Hardwick.

---

It's exactly what she claims happened.

quote:

---

If #metoo includes "emotional abuse" then that's an even more slippery slope, because its in the eye of the beholder. What's emotional abuse to someone may not be the same for someone else. Are we to crucify someone because they called their ex a slut and she felt it was "emotional abuse"?

---

It's a slippery slope except in cases where there is obvious emotional abuse. But then there are degrees in any type of accusation, sexual harassment included.

quote:

---

And, low and behold, he actually gets it!

---

Did you really think that Burr would have a different opinion? He's the "There's plenty of reasons to hit a woman, you just don't do it" guy. That's one of his signature bits.