Popular TV Host Chris Hardwick accused of sexual abuse

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Oh my goodness. You are trying so hard. You do realize the "in the corner" phrase came from SaliSs, right? Someone from your side of the argument. That's why I put it in quotes and then used it. I know it was a mixed metaphor but rather than be an asshole and correct his idiom I chose to communicate with him anyway. So now you come along to try and correct my use of English, completely oblivious to the fact that I was using his turn of phrase politely. In short, you're being a complete asshole and trying to find somewhere, anywhere to feel superior. It's pathetic.

Wrong. Link to the post in question.

SaliSs wasn't incorrect; she did write him into the corner. Because she did. She literally wrote a blog post on the subject. You're the brilliant genius who then claimed that Hardwick is actually the one who wrote anything. He hasn't written a fucking think on the subject (certainly not when you typed that garbage). Your point may have been that he figuratively painted himself into a corner by his alleged actions, but that's neither what you said, what SaliSs was talking about, or what anyone had said at the time you vomited that bullshit up in your post. This woman put Hardwick in a bad position, and there isn't really much he can do about it especially since you can't prove a negative; so yes, she did write him into a corner.

And trust me, I'm not at all embarrassed by your (and others) inability to admit that you're full of shit, condemning someone who hasn't been even remotely proven guilty of the accusations, and trying to convince yourselves -- and only yourselves -- that you're actually taking the enlightened view by tossing in the occasional "but I don't know" or "but he could be innocent" comments.

Oops, almost left out my own: "But IDK."

[Socialhealer]

sounded like she thought a real life 50 shades of grey is a great idea.

once he set out all those rules she should of just noped out of there, how was that ever going to be a good relationship? she just let herself get abused.

the guy is obviously a massive asshole, but if someone says wanna go out with me i'll treat you like my property and control every aspect your life, you say NO, not yes.

[Coombs]

Chris Hardwick has power to ruin somebody's career? I find that hard to believe.

Right? He's a fucking nobody who isn't really funny or entertaining. I can't possibly believe he has any power.

[Sooba]

Holy shit. I covered both sides of this already. So lets try this again: That post you linked? Yeah, it says If. If she has no evidence, he simply denies it and she's screwed the same way Cernovich was. Not put in a corner. If she has evidence then he put himself in the corner already. So either he's not cornered, in which case SaliSs was incorrect, or he put himself there, in which case SaliSs was incorrect. Take your pick.

As a humourous aside, I seemingly enjoy numbers in people's names as much as you do. >.>

[Shurtugal]

^^^^

It wouldn't be surprising if a wealthy dude on tv turned out to be a dick off camera, it isn't exactly something that is too uncommon.

Not disagreeing with you. Though she could just be a girl with a BS sob story.. because thats more and more common now.
I used to think it was only people on reality TV; But it seems like half of all humans have a "poor me" story, as if only they could possibly have hardships in life.

[Sanguinerd]

Holy shit. I covered both sides of this already. So lets try this again: That post you linked? Yeah, it says If. If she has no evidence, he simply denies it and she's screwed the same way Cernovich was. Not put in a corner. If she has evidence then he put himself in the corner already. So either he's not cornered, in which case SaliSs was incorrect, or he put himself there, in which case SaliSs was incorrect. Take your pick.

As a humourous aside, I seemingly enjoy numbers in people's names as much as you do. >.>

I only said the corner thing because even if he's innocent people will view him differently now(if he's guilty it's rightly so that they do). Which is the problem with doing this publicly imo.

And I do believe I was right in saying so, though I might be mistaken - it happens(I was wrong about the evidence thing).

[DarkWeb]

Accused not found guilty yes?

Same thing today, #metoo was never about justice

[Sooba]

I only said the corner thing because even if he's innocent people will view him differently now(if he's guilty it's rightly so that they do). Which is the problem with doing this publicly imo.

And I do believe I was right in saying so, though I might be mistaken - it happens(I was wrong about the evidence thing).

One thing many of us need to take a step back and think about is simply how these arguments tend to get phrased. Me believing one thing or another has precisely zero bearing on what happens to Hardwick. So someone arguing that I'm not supposed to believe it is... useless at best. Now if I'm the type to engage in online harassment of the guy, letter writing campaigns, etc then my behaviour could be of import. But people getting angry about believing or not believing are being a little ridiculous. That being said, whether we like it or not, statistical evidence tends to point in one rather strong direction.

Employers, friends, and those in positions to impact their life are in a different position - which is why I spoke of split approach. If you're his employer, you wait for further clarification. If you're her friend, you support her. If you're the court, innocent until proven guilty. I have a feeling there will be efforts to privately reach out and request her evidence from people in such positions over the next few days.

- - - Updated - - -

Same thing today, #metoo was never about justice

/rolleyes. Yep, those people all just happened to want to unjustifiably attack Weinstein at the same time.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

/rolleyes. Yep, those people all just happened to want to unjustifiably attack Weinstein at the same time.

Yeah, I bet Aziz Ansari totally agrees with you that each and every accusation made are totally justified.

[DarkWeb]

One thing many of us need to take a step back and think about is simply how these arguments tend to get phrased. Me believing one thing or another has precisely zero bearing on what happens to Hardwick. So someone arguing that I'm not supposed to believe it is... useless at best. Now if I'm the type to engage in online harassment of the guy, letter writing campaigns, etc then my behaviour could be of import. But people getting angry about believing or not believing are being a little ridiculous. That being said, whether we like it or not, statistical evidence tends to point in one rather strong direction.

Employers, friends, and those in positions to impact their life are in a different position - which is why I spoke of split approach. If you're his employer, you wait for further clarification. If you're her friend, you support her. If you're the court, innocent until proven guilty. I have a feeling there will be efforts to privately reach out and request her evidence from people in such positions over the next few days.

- - - Updated - - -



/rolleyes. Yep, those people all just happened to want to unjustifiably attack Weinstein at the same time.

1. Every man isn’t Harvey Weinstein
2. An aspiring actress fucking you to get a role isn’t rape

[Sooba]

Yeah, I bet Aziz Ansari totally agrees with you that each and every accusation made are totally justified.

Aziz didn't actually argue with much in the case of that particular situation. But now you're seemingly willing to dismiss Weinstein's situation? Statistically speaking you're way out in left field.

[Delekii]

inb4 Sooba and the others say this guy hasn't already condemned him, too.

I certainly have.

The only place where you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt is in a court room, and only in a criminal case. Everywhere else, everyone who reads what you write will judge what you say in their own context. You can't have it both ways; either she is lying or she isn't.

She offered many specific examples and circumstances, says she has video/photographic evidence, and has corroborating parties. Judging him personally on the strength of that evidence is perfectly reasonable. It won't send him to jail directly. If you think she is lying that's your prerogative; I don't. If she is called to produce that evidence and can't, I am capable of changing my mind based on new evidence.


This new wave of "can't judge guilty on a personal level before they are proven guilty by a court" is simply nonsense. You're a critically thinking human being; you're capable of looking at information in front of you and making reasoned assumptions. Sometimes they will be wrong, most often they will be right. We make judgments based on our contextual understanding nearly continuously as human beings interacting with other human beings, and alter our behaviors accordingly.

[Sooba]

1. Every man isn’t Harvey Weinstein
2. An aspiring actress fucking you to get a role isn’t rape

Did I miss something? You seem to be assuming much about the basis of their relationship (assuming you're talking about Hardwick.) Because if you're still talking about Weinstein... jesus.

[Toppy]

Because of my leaving him for someone else, he made calls to several companies I received regular work from to get me fired by threatening to never work with them. He succeeded. I was blacklisted. With the assistance of a woman who’d gained my trust and my heart over the past year, he steamrolled my career.



If that's true, that's not right.

The OP article is written by the girl so I'm sure it's 100% her side of things. I would like to hear his side of things.

Translation: I left working for someone else and couldn't get a job afterwards. So clearly I was blacklisted!

[nymphetsss]

what a joke, she was in a dom/sub relationship and couldnt handle it. 2 weeks in and he sets forth a bunch of rules, she knew exactly what was going on. A chick tells me i cant go out at night 2 weeks in, I RUN FOR THE HILLS SCREAMING.

Attention seeking

oh and she looked good in that pic she posted, fit with nice definition

[melodramocracy]

I just assume everyone in show business is a colossal dickhead.

People tend to immediately equate talent with benevolence when there's no reason to.

[Altrec]

That's one of the things that bothers me with all the people constantly bitching and moaning about the #MeToo stuff, they're acting like the falsely accused don't have ANY recourse. They fuckin' DO have recourse, it's exactly what you just said. Libel, slander, defamation, all that shit. If Hardwick didn't do any of this shit, and he KNOWS he didn't, then he can absolutely do this and take this woman to the cleaners.

Why the fuck are we acting like these fuckin' rich guys are defenseless victims, helpless against this shit? There's plenty of legal recourse for shit like this, false accusations, stuff like that. Hardwick's RICH, I'm sure between his comedy money, and his wife's William Randolph Hearst inheritance, they can mobilize an army of lawyers before you can blink.

This is a bigger deal for, you know, regular people living paycheck to paycheck, I can't imagine having to try and defend against a false rape allegation in my position. But bitching about the rich people it happens to? Why? If they didn't do it, and they know they didn't, and they can prove they didn't, then they can fuckin' CRUSH the accuser in court.

That's the thing though, IF he is innocent, then why not take it to court? That's always a red flag for me, is these guys come out with their PR statements like "I didn't do this, these allegations are false" but then they don't take it to court. Why? If you didn't do it, then you KNOW you didn't, and it should be an easy win. Not taking it to court just makes it seem like you're guilty and you know you wouldn't be able to win, because you know you did it

Two reasons in particular. One, it is really hard to prove someone is intentionally being slanderous and completely turns the concept of innocent until proven guilty on its head by making the accused prove they didn't do something and prove why the accuser is telling lies intentionally. The second reason not to sue is because in the current environment where the court of public opinion is all that matters he would be accused of attacking the "victim" etc.. It is a no win scenario for Hardwick.

[DarkWeb]

Did I miss something? You seem to be assuming much about the basis of their relationship (assuming you're talking about Hardwick.) Because if you're still talking about Weinstein... jesus.

Yea I’m assuming they are both innocent until proven guilty

[Torched]

I need too hear both sides before I even start believing anything these days.

[Sooba]

Yea I’m assuming they are both innocent until proven guilty

You're not the courts. And have effectively abandoned reason, then.