Popular TV Host Chris Hardwick accused of sexual abuse

[Tonyman64]

If you ask to have sex five times, get four no’s, then finally a yes, that’s consent. In her own words the sex was consensual.

The guy may have been a total asshole to her in this relationship, may being the operative word, that doesn’t mean he should lose his career, or be justified to kill himself, as is literally suggested on the first page.

It's not consent if the yes was gotten through coercion (here's an excerpt from a book chapter discussing coercion: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vie...376-chapter-12 ) . Also, if you continuously ask someone who doesn't want to have sex with you to have sex, you might be kinda shitty.

Also threads like this highlight why we probably should teach people about consent in school.

[Deleted]

But in response to your actual question, what was described in the blog post is pretty textbook emotional abuse. It seems like you might be saying it's some kind of grey area and hard to tell, but that's not case.

I'm not talking about what Chloe posted. I'm talking about what actually went on. Those two may be the same thing, but they also may not be the same thing. Chloe may have lied, she may have exaggerated, she may have embellished, and she might have a point of view that is skewed because of whatever reasons.

She writes it as emotional abuse, she claims sexual assault, but how do we get to know what actually happened, and who gets to decide what that actually was?

Obviously, we don't get to know, and we don't get to decide. So, now all that's left is either believe her or don't believe her. Those who believe her say she should be automatically believed because of this that and the other thing. "Why should she lie?" Well, because of several reasons, but to know those reasons we'd have to know who she really is and what actually went down between the two.

The reality is that Chloe says stuff happened, Chris says stuff didn't happen, but only what Chloe said matters, and now it's just time to watch the towers fall.

It's not consent if the yes was gotten through coercion (here's an excerpt from a book chapter discussing coercion: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vie...376-chapter-12 ) . Also, if you continuously ask someone who doesn't want to have sex with you to have sex, you might be kinda shitty.

Also threads like this highlight why we probably should teach people about consent in school.

I'm guessing this all applies to other things as well, such as sales? Because we know salespeople always take a "no" for an answer the first time, right.

No but seriously, what about relationships? What about when people are "tenacious" and keep trying to woo a person after they've been shut down once? They're coercing then right. That's abuse then, right. Well, I guess it is.

[digichi]

Well, let's see what the next 24 hours bring, and we can come back to this comment then. If he loses all of his AMC gigs and his gig at NBC, we can pretty much assume him working in TV is over, so, yup.

Personally, there's a part of me that would be glad if Hardwick turned out to be an abuser of women, as that'd be a great example of yet another one of these white-knighting social justice warrior assholes being shown for what they truly are and going down in flames. I just don't trust Dykstra, at all, not after what I've read about her in the past, after the tons of sexual pictures of her floating on the internet and how she's been on interviews and TV shows that I've seen her on, and all of that speaking to her character and so on. My read on her just makes it impossible for me to just immediately jump in the camp of "believe her 100% and ignore everything else!"

Well I certainly don't think anyone should blindly side with the accuser 100% and ignore all else, but it is more progressive to take their word with caution and an open mind. Remember, what you see on screen is only half the truth to what is hidden behind closed doors. I think in the end, the people who see them more often will likely have more insight on their character than anyone watching 30 mins of them doing their job.

http://junkee.com/jeffrey-tambor-arr...lopment/157506
No ones talking about this, but it's interesting to see how one of the 'lesser' cases has played out..

[Milchshake]

As a Gen Xer that remembers HArdwick from his skeezy days at MTV. Not surprised...

How he translated that schtick into such a long career, I blame millenials.

[Tonyman64]

I'm not talking about what Chloe posted. I'm talking about what actually went on. Those two may be the same thing, but they also may not be the same thing. Chloe may have lied, she may have exaggerated, she may have embellished, and she might have a point of view that is skewed because of whatever reasons.

She writes it as emotional abuse, she claims sexual assault, but how do we get to know what actually happened, and who gets to decide what that actually was?

Obviously, we don't get to know, and we don't get to decide. So, now all that's left is either believe her or don't believe her. Those who believe her say she should be automatically believed because of this that and the other thing. "Why should she lie?" Well, because of several reasons, but to know those reasons we'd have to know who she really is and what actually went down between the two.

The reality is that Chloe says stuff happened, Chris says stuff didn't happen, but only what Chloe said matters, and now it's just time to watch the towers fall.



I'm guessing this all applies to other things as well, such as sales? Because we know salespeople always take a "no" for an answer the first time, right.

No but seriously, what about relationships? What about when people are "tenacious" and keep trying to woo a person after they've been shut down once? They're coercing then right. That's abuse then, right. Well, I guess it is.

What I'm seeing browsing Twitter is people who have worked with/for him or know people who worked with/for him saying the article doesn't really surprise them. I'm also seeing lots of random people siding with one person or the other, but the lack of people who know him coming up to bat doesn't really speak well of him.

In some cases high pressure sales techniques can be illegal. And in general I view them as pretty shitty, so that's not really morally greying up things for me.
Not taking no for an answer when you pursue someone in a relationship is shitty. The fact the we've romanticized it doesn't make it not shitty.

[Deleted]

What I'm seeing browsing Twitter is people who have worked with/for him or know people who worked with/for him saying the article doesn't really surprise them.

Yeah, might do well to remember though that the worst shit within the human species are those people who form a circle and start cheering when there's one person hurting another, and from my experience, most people tend to do exactly that. In a school yard setting it's all those assholes who cheer on a bully. Can be called a bandwagon, too. Whatever the case is, most people are so eager, so goddamn eager to pick a side and start cheering. They see one person fling mud and they'll grab a bucket and join in.

I mean, that's clearly visible in other primates; one chimp starts making a ruckus and the rest join in mouths frothing. It's just in our nature.

[Tonyman64]

Yeah, might do well to remember though that the worst shit within the human species are those people who form a circle and start cheering when there's one person hurting another, and from my experience, most people tend to do exactly that. In a school yard setting it's all those assholes who cheer on a bully. Can be called a bandwagon, too. Whatever the case is, most people are so eager, so goddamn eager to pick a side and start cheering. They see one person fling mud and they'll grab a bucket and join in.

I mean, that's clearly visible in other primates; one chimp starts making a ruckus and the rest join in mouths frothing. It's just in our nature.

Which is why I don't really view random people's takes as being indicative of the truth of the situation. I don't think people who know the person in question chiming in is equivalent to forming a circle and throwing punches.

[Deleted]

Which is why I don't really view random people's takes as being indicative of the truth of the situation. I don't think people who know the person in question chiming in is equivalent to forming a circle and throwing punches.

Yeah I'm not sure who else chimed in with any actual information other than "yeah doesn't surprise me", which means absolutely jack, other than Rob Kazinski, who just so happens to be Dykstra's boyfriend. Also, in case Rob still visits MMOC, hi Rob.

I have audio/video that will support and prove many of the things I’ve stated in this post.

Time to put your audio/video where your mouth is, Chloe.

[Oakshana]

Well looks like we have some bystanders..

http://https://mobile.twitter.com/RobertKazinsky/status/1007837986833121280

Ironically, Robert Kazinsky is Chloe Dykstras current boyfriend. And he's also had his own #metoo moment a few years ago himself.

[zorkuus]

Ironically, Robert Kazinsky is Chloe Dykstras current boyfriend. And he's also had his own #metoo moment a few years ago himself.

If that's true then it could be beoynd irony.

[Fojos]

I fail to see how some of you guys are any different from the people that immediately call for the heads of the accused. If you just assume that every woman that speaks out is a liar, then you're just the flip-side to those people.

If someone accuses we want evidence. Stop autimatically believing women just because you both have vaginas. You of all should know how spiteful women can be

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, sexual coercion is considered sexual assault in many states. Sorry that you hate that fact so much, I'm not even giving my opinion on it. But it is.

Its certainly interesting that, again, this is the hill you're choosing to die on. I don't really feel like repeating the same conversation ten more times as people scream their faux outrage about a topic they couldn't care less about outside of sticking it to the ess jay dubyas. So I'm out. Enjoy the rage.

Well good thing that the story provided isn't defined as sexual coercion in any sense of the law. Read up, ignorant court of public opinion.

[XangXu]

It sounds like his only crime was “being an asshoke boyfriend”.

Was there violence?
Was there rape?
Was she forced against her will?

I’m sorry but if you can’t go to the cops or speak out because “It’s too humiliating” and shit, that’s your fault. The help is available. No one is going yo magically know what is going on. These services are here to help YOU and punish HIM.

[korijenkins]

i think it is best to support the victims

We don't know if she was actually a victim though, because we have no proof of any wrongdoing on his part. She provided no transcripts of text messages, emails, or phone calls. Nothing at all. Just an account and an accusation.

[Fojos]

Okay, how many of them have sued them for money? Because then the only assumption is that they made money by getting paid off in hush money, but that seems like a rather pointless endeavor because, unless they retract the claims after you pay them, why give them money if they've already made the accusations?

For revenge? You could make an argument for it, but in this instance if they wanted revenge (especially if they have proof as they allege), why not just outright accuse Hardwick?

Career opportunities are abundant for these girls, they could even go around making money from doing "lectures" on how they were abused.

Because she seems more legitimate by not mentioning his name (but mentioning strong details that excludes anyone else).

[cuafpr]

ok so now we have a bit of both sides... its up to her to provide the proof she claims since he has denied it. If she doesn't come forward with the proof i'll be more inclined to think she is a jealous ex, sorry but without more proof of illegal activity there is doubt, and doubt is supposed to lead to a not guilty verdict. Not innocent but not guilty, there is a difference. Also black listing is interesting.. how ? Was he hurt and refused to work with her or for a company employing her? Did he call a company he had no connections with and say don't hire her? Did they call him as a reference and what did he say? Need more... If i was in a serious relationship and the chick cheated on me, i wouldn't want to work with her, or be around her. So if a company wanted me and her but could only have one and chose me, that's not black listing.

I've also had a friend who's life was nearly destroyed over a chick. Girl he dated in college claimed rape when he left her, went all the way to court before her story cracked and he proved she was lying. Even expunged from the records that shit came up time and time again.

Frankly is kind of scary to think anyone you have ever dated or known could ruin your life with a simple blog post and not a shred of evidence provided.

People supporting her without evidence need to stop think the damage this will do if she is lying to other victims really going through what she described. If he is guilty of anything illegal jail time it is, if not she should face the time for false claims and pay for the damages done to his career.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

So a woman comes forward about an abusive relationship and your reaction is to dismiss her claims entirely. Then when the man who abused her says "nah, didn't happen like that" you have no trouble believing him. Why do you find it so easy to believe one and so difficult to believe the other?

No. When this woman comes forward, tells a sob story, claims she has evidence, and refuses to share any of it, I'm suspicious. Then when this man comes forward, counters the story with a completely believable scenario (that he had significantly less time to come up with, as opposed to the woman who admits to having 'written it multiple times,' meaning she worked on it for ages) that not only counters her story but explains why she'd come up with it, yeah, I'm going to believe that story more than the first one.

That's why.

- - - Updated - - -

I think subconsciously ppl are giving the 'victim' here too much power. As if her accusation will immediately destroy his career and he'll end up homeless on the street, so the reaction to that is to underestimate the woman, or even worse, start berating her with hate and assume she's lying.

Oh, you mean like how it already has begun to ruin his career just a few hours after the post was made? You mean like that?

[Rexosaurus]

No. When this woman comes forward, tells a sob story, claims she has evidence, and refuses to share any of it, I'm suspicious. Then when this man comes forward, counters the story with a completely believable scenario (that he had significantly less time to come up with, as opposed to the woman who admits to having 'written it multiple times,' meaning she worked on it for ages) that not only counters her story but explains why she'd come up with it, yeah, I'm going to believe that story more than the first one.

That's why.

Uh yeah, you had already written her off as some vengeful ex that was lying before Hardwick even put out a statement. Then you readily accepted his statement as proof of his innocence? You're not any different from the people that go after the accused without solid proof.

Just for future reference, the accused being innocent until proven guilty =/= attack the accuser until they prove that they're telling the truth.

[Tonyman64]

No. When this woman comes forward, tells a sob story, claims she has evidence, and refuses to share any of it, I'm suspicious. Then when this man comes forward, counters the story with a completely believable scenario (that he had significantly less time to come up with, as opposed to the woman who admits to having 'written it multiple times,' meaning she worked on it for ages) that not only counters her story but explains why she'd come up with it, yeah, I'm going to believe that story more than the first one.

That's why.

- - - Updated - - -


Oh, you mean like how it already has begun to ruin his career just a few hours after the post was made? You mean like that?

Ohh, his story is "clearly believable", but her's seems like a fabrication to you. Do you not see that you're treating these two people with drastically different standards?

[Deleted]

Just for future reference, the accused being innocent until proven guilty =/= attack the accuser until they prove that they're telling the truth.

The accusation is an attack. Those kinds of accusations end careers, and sometimes lives. Imagine being innocent and the target of such an accusation, and then imagine being a celebrity when that happens. What would you do? You'd just let the world think you did it? You'd just let the liar get away with their lies?

That's the other side of this; we have no idea whether she's lying or not. According to him, she is lying though.

Then we go to the whole "what does she gain by this" -debate. What does she gain? Well, she gets to hurt Hardwick. She gets to destroy his career. She gets to hurt him both emotionally (by everyone now thinking he's some #metoo rapist), and financially (by him losing his career.)

So if that's where her head is at, if she really feels that scorned, and if she really wants to hurt him, this would be a great way to do it, especially if there's even a little bit of truth in it, something that she may then have skewed and twisted in her head so that it seems a million times worse than what it was, so that she absolutely feels justified in doing this.

But we don't know. We know she says he sexually assaulted her repeatedly, and he says she's full of shit. Doesn't matter though, as his career is most likely over nonetheless.

I do have to add here that personally I don't really give two shits about Hardwick. I like Talking Dead because of the guests and the format, but anyone can host that, so I hope it continues with another host, if it can (most likely can't though.) I think Hardwick himself is yet another white-knighting SJW prick, of whom there are way too many in this world, so as such it would be sweet to see him go down in flames for something like this. What I don't like, though, is this whole process which is completely one-sided, how it's "believe the victim 100% of the time", there's no room for objectivity, and how it's complete and utter vigilantism and mob justice.

[Dystemper]

The accusation is an attack. Those kinds of accusations end careers, and sometimes lives. Imagine being innocent and the target of such an accusation, and then imagine being a celebrity when that happens. What would you do? You'd just let the world think you did it? You'd just let the liar get away with their lies?

That's the other side of this; we have no idea whether she's lying or not. According to him, she is lying though.

Then we go to the whole "what does she gain by this" -debate. What does she gain? Well, she gets to hurt Hardwick. She gets to destroy his career. She gets to hurt him both emotionally (by everyone now thinking he's some #metoo rapist), and financially (by him losing his career.)

So if that's where her head is at, if she really feels that scorned, and if she really wants to hurt him, this would be a great way to do it, especially if there's even a little bit of truth in it, something that she may then have skewed and twisted in her head so that it seems a million times worse than what it was, so that she absolutely feels justified in doing this.

But we don't know. We know she says he sexually assaulted her repeatedly, and he says she's full of shit. Doesn't matter though, as his career is most likely over nonetheless.

I do have to add here that personally I don't really give two shits about Hardwick. I like Talking Dead because of the guests and the format, but anyone can host that, so I hope it continues with another host, if it can (most likely can't though.) I think Hardwick himself is yet another white-knighting SJW prick, of whom there are way too many in this world, so as such it would be sweet to see him go down in flames for something like this. What I don't like, though, is this whole process which is completely one-sided, how it's "believe the victim 100% of the time", there's no room for objectivity, and how it's complete and utter vigilantism and mob justice.

Dont froget she gets her Spotlight on her again and will be out in thepubl;ic eye. She will be touted as such a brave femenist warrior and will more then likely get more work or a book deal. She stands to profit from the allegations