Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Anonymous John
Mar 8, 2002

Timby posted:

Did she get collagen injections in her cheeks or something? That face ain't right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqVP575Yn7U

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

R. Guyovich
Dec 25, 1991

the investigations i've read about didn't involve chloe at all, which makes me severely doubt their sincerity.

esperterra
Mar 24, 2010

SHINee's back




R. Guyovich posted:

the investigations i've read about didn't involve chloe at all, which makes me severely doubt their sincerity.

Last I heard she didn't participate in the investigations b/c her intent was never for him to lose his job.

Nissin Cup Nudist
Sep 3, 2011

Sleep with one eye open

We're off to Gritty Gritty land




Was Hardwick even named directly? IIRC, his allegation was always in terms of "ex-boyfriend" or a related vagueness and bunch of people just internet detctive'd the guy to be Hardwick

claw game handjob
Mar 27, 2007

pinch pinch scrape pinch
ow ow fuck it's caught
i'm bleeding
JESUS TURN IT OFF
WHY ARE YOU STILL SMILING

Crackbone posted:

Note: this isn’t sealioning, or some sort of backdoor MRA bullshit. Genuinely curious to hear why given the circumstances he shouldn’t get his jobs back.

So for you, because this is where I'm at on the subject, and might explain the logic of people who are upset with this, I'm gonna offer a question back. If this whole thing were slander on his character, why did he not sue?

Because the thing that kinda strikes me here, especially with how many people are being very, very silent around the issue, is that for all the allegations he's stuck with silence and now as a result everyone is very clearly on the defensive. There's the already mentioned staff walking off over his rehiring. The show, which was a live, fans-call-in series before the interruption, is now coming back pretaped all season because nobody doesn't trust someone to make a scene, begging the question of why even do this. NBC, the much bigger company, only pulled him back when someone else stuck their neck out first on the winds of change. His friends continue to duck the question when asked what they knew or what they think, which, admittedly, they are not required to answer publicly, but it does color the thing when all of them stood by him as A Good Dude, Please Shut Up About It, Any Time Now. Nerdist writers have walked and left the company as well in the past week over his name hopping back on the site.

There's just as much chance he's clean as dirty in this from outside perspectives, sure, but especially with the dude being married to a Hearst, a family who have a real history of gently caress-you spending to shut down bad press, nobody close to the matter really seems to be cheering this on in any way, shape, or form, and in fact, it almost seems like the opposite? It's really hard to believe an innocent dude sheds employees every single place he treads, even if he's just a complete prick to work with.

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009

Crackbone posted:

So at what point is somebody given benefit of the doubt? I mean in this case:

- all of his exes have said he never abused them
- she claimed to have proof but never produced it
- At least two companies have “investigated” and brought him back on

It seems like every loving guy who’s been outed immediately has multiple accusers with the same story, and people way more powerful and profitable for Hollywood have gotten removed from their positions.

Note: this isn’t sealioning, or some sort of backdoor MRA bullshit. Genuinely curious to hear why given the circumstances he shouldn’t get his jobs back.

Well, from my understanding she never actually named him and she said she wasn't out to try and ruin his career. So, if you consider the possibility that she may be telling the truth, that could explain why she didn't want to take part in AMC's investigation. It's a literal he-said-she-said situation. Nobody knows who's lying. Without any more evidence than the word of one person (who doesn't even want to cooperate), of course there's going to be no reason to fire him, nor should there be. It baffles me why anyone would resign in protest of him being fully reinstated, unless there's more going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. And really, if they're resigning because they hate Hardwick for some other reason, then they really need to state so rather than imply that they resigned because they believe the abuse story is true. And if they have personal reasons for believing that the abuse story is true, then they should go public with it. Otherwise their actions just seem completely unreasonable.

END ME SCOOB posted:

If this whole thing were slander on his character, why did he not sue?


Because the burden of proof would be on him to show the court that her allegations are false, and such a thing is probably impossible. Defamation cases in the US are not a cakewalk. Failure to sue for defamation in a case like this should never be taken as evidence of guilt.

END ME SCOOB posted:

There's just as much chance he's clean as dirty in this from outside perspectives, sure, but especially with the dude being married to a Hearst, a family who have a real history of gently caress-you spending to shut down bad press, nobody close to the matter really seems to be cheering this on in any way, shape, or form, and in fact, it almost seems like the opposite? It's really hard to believe an innocent dude sheds employees every single place he treads, even if he's just a complete prick to work with.

It is pretty drat odd, which makes me wonder if there's more going on. But what do I know about it? Nothing.

Sucrose fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Aug 13, 2018

Hat Thoughts
Jul 27, 2012

Sucrose posted:

Well, from my understanding she never actually named him and she said she wasn't out to try and ruin his career. So, if you consider the possibility that she may be telling the truth, that could explain why she didn't want to take part in AMC's investigation. It's a literal he-said-she-said situation. Nobody knows who's lying. Without any more evidence than the word of one person (who doesn't even want to cooperate), of course there's going to be no reason to fire him, nor should there be. It baffles me why anyone would resign in protest of him being fully reinstated, unless there's more going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. And really, if they're resigning because they hate Hardwick for some other reason, then they really need to state so rather than imply that they resigned because they believe the abuse story is true. And if they have personal reasons for believing that the abuse story is true, then they should go public with it. Otherwise their actions just seem completely unreasonable.


Because the burden of proof would be on him to show the court that her allegations are false, and such a thing is probably impossible. Defamation cases in the US are not a cakewalk. Failure to sue for defamation in a case like this should never be taken as evidence of guilt.


It is pretty drat odd, which makes me wonder if there's more going on. But what do I know about it? Nothing.

It's rly not that complicated, that article links this one where multiple people who've worked with Hardwick say his behavior is entirely consistent with the abuse post.
So I mean, I don't know why they need some secret info or to announce a press release along w/ their decision. Like, quitting at this exact time is the obvious announcement that they believe her based on their experiences.

Hat Thoughts
Jul 27, 2012
& yeah, you can say, "Well without further info on the specifics I don't think their experiences are enough 2 determine the credibility of the original post" which is like, totally fine. I just don't think there's any reason 2 search for a conspiracy or attempt to read between the lines of such a straightforward response

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009

Hat Thoughts posted:

It's rly not that complicated, that article links this one where multiple people who've worked with Hardwick say his behavior is entirely consistent with the abuse post.
So I mean, I don't know why they need some secret info or to announce a press release along w/ their decision. Like, quitting at this exact time is the obvious announcement that they believe her based on their experiences.

Ok, that makes sense.

So basically, it seems like AMC decided that there was no evidence to justify firing him, but multiple co-workers who were familiar with him as a controlling rear end in a top hat at work were like "gently caress this, I'm out" when it was announced that he was coming back. Got it.

Hold The Ashes
Sep 17, 2017

END ME SCOOB posted:

So for you, because this is where I'm at on the subject, and might explain the logic of people who are upset with this, I'm gonna offer a question back. If this whole thing were slander on his character, why did he not sue?

:eyepop:

Trolling, hypocritical or just retarded? Placing the onus on a man, who was never actually named by the supposed victim, to sue for slander and keep the story more publicized is just hilarious.

I'd love to see the mental gymnastics you'd put yourself through to somehow have this same belief while undoubtedly still supporting women for choosing not to go to the police for rape and just bringing it up 20+ years later in the press.

K. Waste
Feb 27, 2014

MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.

Hold The Ashes posted:

:eyepop:

I'd love to see the mental gymnastics you'd put yourself through to somehow have this same belief while undoubtedly still supporting women for choosing not to go to the police for rape and just bringing it up 20+ years later in the press.

gently caress off

chitoryu12
Apr 24, 2014

"If this guy just kept quiet and didn't take any action to stop the accusations, plus other people have been walking off the job in protest of him not being fired, maybe there's some truth to his ex's story."

"OH SO I BET YOU WANT WOMEN TO STOP REPORTING RAPE TOO, HUH"

K. Waste
Feb 27, 2014

MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.
Why would anyone choose to not go to the police? Cops are notorious for their rigorous investigation of abuses of power

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003

301 ‘Predator Priests’ Named In Pa. Grand Jury Sex Abuse Report: ‘They Were Raping Little Boys & Girls’
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/08/14/pennsylvania-diocese-sex-abuse-grand-jury-report-released/

‘You know what you did’: Keith Ellison’s ex-girlfriend, Karen Monahan, speaks out
https://thinkprogress.org/keith-ellison-ex-girlfriend-karen-monahan-speaks-out-b4e8c3bf7095/

It turns out that pouring millions into a fledgling sex cult is not a good investment.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/wild-story-heiress-gave-her-190000819.html

Martman
Nov 20, 2006

K. Waste posted:

Why would anyone choose to not go to the police? Cops are notorious for their rigorous investigation of abuses of power
He's just saying that some of the same reasoning applies to an accused not immediately going for public litigation in response. I don't think the intent was what you're implying.

esperterra
Mar 24, 2010

SHINee's back




Martman posted:

He's just saying that some of the same reasoning applies to an accused not immediately going for public litigation in response. I don't think the intent was what you're implying.

I got his point but his initial tone was poo poo and then he fully lost me at the second paragraph. Yeah it makes sense if Hardwick didn't sue, whether he's guilty or innocent. It's a whole lot of red tape over an accusation he wasn't even explicitly named in, when I'd imagine he already has enough to deal with over it w/r/t keeping his career afloat.

It still really isn't a 1:1 comparison though, not taking legal action and not going to the police. And kind of tasteless esp the way he worded it.

Anyway, whether Hardwick did what Dykstra said or not I think we can all agree it's become clear he is p much definitely an rear end in a top hat to work with, which doesn't automatically make him a sexual abuser but certainly does lend credence to him maybe having the kind of temper that could easily make him in fact a sexual abuser.

Hold The Ashes
Sep 17, 2017
I don't give a gently caress how I worded it when most of you are just spouting the silliest SJW horse poo poo imaginable. You had half a page to point out someone posting some of the dumbest logic imaginable and still tried to dismiss it until someone else risked your bee hive wrath to point out I was obviously not saying what you tried to straw man it into.

But no, you locked yourselves into your little bunkers and defended the indefensible because "he's on our side must defend!". Queue 100 more pages of blind outrage.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Hat Thoughts
Jul 27, 2012

Hold The Ashes posted:

I don't give a gently caress how I worded it when most of you are just spouting the silliest SJW horse poo poo imaginable. You had half a page to point out someone posting some of the dumbest logic imaginable and still tried to dismiss it until someone else risked your bee hive wrath to point out I was obviously not saying what you tried to straw man it into.

But no, you locked yourselves into your little bunkers and defended the indefensible because "he's on our side must defend!". Queue 100 more pages of blind outrage.

im indefensible bunker sjw :hai:

LesterGroans
Jun 9, 2009

It's funny...

You were so scary at night.
Bee hive bunker wrath

chitoryu12
Apr 24, 2014

Tag yourself I'm the bees.

Vegetable
Oct 22, 2010

I’m 100 pages of blind outrage

Hold The Ashes
Sep 17, 2017
:effortless:

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006

Zogo posted:

‘You know what you did’: Keith Ellison’s ex-girlfriend, Karen Monahan, speaks out
https://thinkprogress.org/keith-ellison-ex-girlfriend-karen-monahan-speaks-out-b4e8c3bf7095/
Considering this is the second accusation against Ellison, I have enough trust in the claims that Ellison is probably a shithead to women.

With that said, it's an interesting case to look at in terms of how the media reports this stuff. A lot of the evidence to verify the claims seems cagey and reporters have been uneasy about reporting the claims in the past. I think most people--or at least lovely people--are under the belief that newspapers are just reporting anyone who claims sexual assault, but "believe the women" isn't really their guiding philosophy. There has been this rubric of verification (Material evidence, witnesses, confidants who were told of the abuse at the time) that I think is eventually going to rub against the broader emerging philosophy of "believe the women."

Once again, I do believe the women. Ellison probably is abusive at least at some level. But he probably won't be punished for these claims.

Rhyno
Mar 22, 2003
Probation
Can't post for 10 years!

Vegetable posted:

I’m 100 pages of blind outrage

I'm...very confused.

Hat Thoughts
Jul 27, 2012

cant handle the beehive wrath? 😏

esperterra
Mar 24, 2010

SHINee's back




Gonna sting ya!!!

K. Waste
Feb 27, 2014

MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.

Martman posted:

He's just saying that some of the same reasoning applies to an accused not immediately going for public litigation in response. I don't think the intent was what you're implying.

Intent is not the same thing as meaning.

Chris James 2
Aug 9, 2012




Had to come in here and join in laughing at this idiot

peer
Jan 17, 2004

this is not what I wanted
the sjws :argh:

Rhyno
Mar 22, 2003
Probation
Can't post for 10 years!

peer posted:

the sjws :argh:

I recently heard some say this out loud and pronounced it "EssJews."

Is that a thing?

Ferrous
Feb 28, 2010

Rhyno posted:

I recently heard some say this out loud and pronounced it "EssJews."

Is that a thing?

I've heard people say "Ssssjeews!" But only because they were mocking the type of people that rant about the SJWs. I've never heard anyone say it seriously.

Shrimp or Shrimps
Feb 14, 2012


Clearly it's ess-jay-double-yoo-zz

davidspackage
May 16, 2007

Nap Ghost

Ferrous posted:

I've heard people say "Ssssjeews!"

No that's just David Icke's lizard people.

Flesh Forge
Jan 31, 2011

LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY DOG

Hold The Ashes posted:

Queue 100 more pages of blind outrage.

its cue bithc

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009

Timeless Appeal posted:

Considering this is the second accusation against Ellison, I have enough trust in the claims that Ellison is probably a shithead to women.

With that said, it's an interesting case to look at in terms of how the media reports this stuff. A lot of the evidence to verify the claims seems cagey and reporters have been uneasy about reporting the claims in the past. I think most people--or at least lovely people--are under the belief that newspapers are just reporting anyone who claims sexual assault, but "believe the women" isn't really their guiding philosophy. There has been this rubric of verification (Material evidence, witnesses, confidants who were told of the abuse at the time) that I think is eventually going to rub against the broader emerging philosophy of "believe the women."

Once again, I do believe the women. Ellison probably is abusive at least at some level. But he probably won't be punished for these claims.

I think it should be clear that there are two different situations that warrant two different responses. If a woman says she was raped, the default ought to be "believe the women" and sympathize, not act like a shithead and ask her to prove she was raped, etc. (I've seen people do this) But if a woman says that "X raped me" then that's an accusation against someone, and the default should be to carefully gather statements and material evidence and witnesses before coming to a decision on whether the accusation is substantiated enough that the accused ought to face consequences for it.

GrandpaPants
Feb 13, 2006


Free to roam the heavens in man's noble quest to investigate the weirdness of the universe!

https://jezebel.com/what-kind-of-wack-rear end-adult-man-invites-a-teen-to-game-1828342914

Not illegal (depending on when they met?) but gross.

starkebn
May 18, 2004

"Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"
Chicks banging old(er) guys with money is never going to change

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

I mad that Dane Cook still has a private plane in 2018.

I mean is it still using the same load of fuel from 2007, or what.

Macdeo Lurjtux
Jul 5, 2011

BRRREADSTOOORRM!
All that mad American Gods money.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


it's super creepy.

but not as creepy as paul walker starting his relationship with his gf when he was 33 and she was 15. which nobody talked about until after he died for some reason.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply