Hardwick is added to the list.

[pauldun170]

Cool. What's compelling you to keep replying?

The little notification flag on the forum when someone quoted you.
I habitually respond to people who quote me

 

[jackstar7]

I’m going to go with innocent until proven guilty. Blogs and words don’t count as anyone can type words.

Oops to late. Guys life and career are over.

Whatever will he do with his millions of dollars...

 

[UNCjigga]

I’m probably just talking outta my ass, but when the production/content company cuts ties with someone (who's essentially the face of said company) so quickly, then they probably know more than what's in this journal. They might even be complicit in covering up or looking the other way to enable the perpetrator.

 

[soulcougher73]

Whatever will he do with his millions of dollars...

So just because he is rich you would be ok if he was faslely accused and his reputation and career are shot?

 

[Aikouka]

It seems that no matter where you look in the male Hollywood crowd, this seems to be way too normal.

Now, I don't think your post is really doing what I'm about to talk about, but I'd like to touch on generalizing/grouping a bit at first. I find it important to try to steer away from grouping people together unnecessarily. It always makes me a bit sad to see so much cop hate on this forum and other places when there are hundreds of thousands of LEOs yet people generally refer to them like any negative action applies to all. I'm not trying to get into a debate on that specific topic here, but using it as an easy example for why we should try to avoid generalizing statements.

As for why we seem to get a bit of this in Hollywood. Well, to be fair, we likely hear about Hollywood cases more often due to the big names in question. Although, I wouldn't be too surprised if Hollywood elite and higher business folk (e.g. CEOs) may be more likely to be found as part of these scandals. The reason is that it seems like people that find it easier to get ahead are usually those who don't mind doing it in unscrupulous ways. (Of course, this doesn't mean all CEOs and such are like that.) For example, in the blog post, she described him as incredibly controlling, but if you look at what he was controlling... it was his image. Not that trying to keep his image in check makes it okay or anything like that, but he cared more about ensuring his career path would have no potential hurdles rather than treating someone with dignity. Although, that's more in regard to the socializing, but when it comes to all the remarks about sex... it's hard to look at that in any other way than someone considering another person as beneath them... as more of an object.

 

[Bitek]

Didn't read the whole thing, but sounds like an insecure guy trying to hold on to a girl he doesn't think he deserves. Ironically this is exactly the sort of thing that drives then away.

Shame, as it's terrible for the woman, and I find him really funny. @.Midnight was hilarious (but haven't watched in a while)

 

[jackstar7]

So just because he is rich you would be ok if he was faslely accused and his reputation and career are shot?

False premise.

I don't think he's been falsely accused. And if you do... why?

Also, you said his life was over. Somehow I don't think anyone with massive wealth sees their life end just because they can't be famous anymore. But gee whiz, being abusive sure does have consequences for some narcissists out there. It's only a shame that it doesn't have consequences for ALL of them. And they should be stripped of their wealth, but that's never gonna happen.

 

[hal2kilo]

In the world of geekdom he's a big stupid deal.

Hell, I'm following this thread, and I have no clue who the fuck these people are. Must be a big deal since it's on this forum.

 

[soulcougher73]

False premise.

I don't think he's been falsely accused. And if you do... why?

Also, you said his life was over. Somehow I don't think anyone with massive wealth sees their life end just because they can't be famous anymore. But gee whiz, being abusive sure does have consequences for some narcissists out there. It's only a shame that it doesn't have consequences for ALL of them. And they should be stripped of their wealth, but that's never gonna happen.

I don’t know if he is being falsely accused. I’ll await the trial or facts. You’ve already made up your mind he is guilty just because someone said he did something.

What if I falsely said you raped me and you lose your job, fame, etc.? That is basically what is happening if she is lying. Court of public outrage has spoken, screw facts and proper investigation into what really happened.

I’m not defending the actions, I’m defending his right to a fair trial basically without everything he’s done and built for himself tarnished over what could amount to words someone typed up as I just did saying you raped me.

 

[jackstar7]

I don’t know if he is being falsely accused. I’ll await the trial or facts. You’ve already made up your mind he is guilty just because someone said he did something.

What if I falsely said you raped me and you lose your job, fame, etc.? That is basically what is happening if she is lying. Court of public outrage has spoken, screw facts and proper investigation into what really happened.

I’m not defending the actions, I’m defending his right to a fair trial basically without everything he’s done and built for himself tarnished over what could amount to words someone typed up as I just did saying you raped me.

Oh fucking brother. This isn't court. Do you wait for courts before making any decisions? Do you choose between televisions only after it has been adjudicated in courts which is the best?

I stand by the women coming forward with their experiences. You can stand off to the side and eat popcorn or whatever the fuck you're doing as if you had a vested interest in this woman, this guy, or anyone else.

Better check that you don't get famous, dude. Your behavior will come back to haunt you, too.

 

[soulcougher73]

Oh fucking brother. This isn't court. Do you wait for courts before making any decisions? Do you choose between televisions only after it has been adjudicated in courts which is the best?

I stand by the women coming forward with their experiences. You can stand off to the side and eat popcorn or whatever the fuck you're doing as if you had a vested interest in this woman, this guy, or anyone else.

Better check that you don't get famous, dude. Your behavior will come back to haunt you, too.

Whatever you say rapist. It’s been penned by me. You are guilty as charged by me.

 

[jackstar7]

Whatever you say rapist. It’s been penned by me. You are guilty as charged by me.

Wait, since you always side with accused rapists/abusers, you're on my side here, right?

 

[Aikouka]

Hell, I'm following this thread, and I have no clue who the fuck these people are. Must be a big deal since it's on this forum.

He's probably best known for hosting Talking Dead, which is a show that follows The Walking Dead that talks about what happened on the show with guests and such. Of course, he has done other things too.

 

[soulcougher73]

Wait, since you always side with accused rapists/abusers, you're on my side here, right?

You’re not smart enough to get it apparently. I’m not on either side. You on the other hand are so easily swayed by words to just accept blindly what is written on a blog. I’m not going to condemn him until more is known besides what actually happened. If he admits to it or she has actual proof of these things than sure he deserves all the bad that happens to him. Innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?

I mean how stupid would you feel if she comes out and admits to lying about all of this? It’s not like we’ve not seen that happen before on occasion.

 

[jackstar7]

You’re not smart enough to get it apparently. I’m not on either side. You on the other hand are so easily swayed by words to just accept blindly what is written on a blog. I’m not going to condemn him until more is known besides what actually happened. If he admits to it or she has actual proof of these things than sure he deserves all the bad that happens to him. Innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?

I mean how stupid would you feel if she comes out and admits to lying about all of this? It’s not like we’ve not seen that happen before on occasion.

What the fuck? So you don't think your hypothetical that she's going to admit she was making it up is far-fetched enough to not bother considering it?

You must live a life of constant paralysis. Anything can happen at any time...

 

[soulcougher73]

What the fuck? So you don't think your hypothetical that she's going to admit she was making it up is far-fetched enough to not bother considering it?

You must live a life of constant paralysis. Anything can happen at any time...

Remember you raped me. I said so. And since you always believe the accusers word without question. Well, you can see where your blind judge, jury and executuoner thinking leads.

Imagine if a moderator here banned your IP over my accusation about you raping me. And also spread the word so no other websites would allow you to join them. All your friends and family distance themselves from you because of course they believe me blindly that your a rapist. But it’s ok.. I’ll let you keep your money.

You might want to rethink your position on blindly believing every accusation that comes along. And as I said before I’m not defending him, I’m just defending his right to due process against his accusers before sentencing him as you have already done so.

 

[child of wonder]

Remember you raped me. I said so. And since you always believe the accusers word without question. Well, you can see where your blind judge, jury and executuoner thinking leads.

Imagine if a moderator here banned your IP over my accusation about you raping me. And also spread the word so no other websites would allow you to join them. All your friends and family distance themselves from you because of course they believe me blindly that your a rapist. But it’s ok.. I’ll let you keep your money.

You might want to rethink your position on blindly believing every accusation that comes along. And as I said before I’m not defending him, I’m just defending his right to due process against his accusers before sentencing him as you have already done so.

Being on the board of directors of a large atheist organization I watched several of the female board members foam at the mouth when one of our members was accused of touching the breast of another member. Her side of the story was she felt creeped out by him and while they were talking he suddenly reached out and flicked her breast just below her shoulder. His side was a piece of food flew out of his mouth and he absent mindedly reached out to flick it off of her.

The female board members suddenly had all these complaints about him come out of the woodwork. They thought he was weird. He stands too close to people. He stretched out at an event and put his arms out on the chair next to him and didn't move them right away when a female sat in that chair. The "triggers" kept pouring in.

Next, they began Googling him and discovered that many years ago he was a public school teacher and was accused of having sex with a 15 year old student. It never went to trial and the charges were dropped but it ended his teaching career. Just before the statute of limitations was up, this girl (now an adult) sued him and the school district for emotional distress. The judge threw out the case.

The female board members wanted to send all this information out to all the organizers in the community to warn them about this man. He was active in our Toastmasters group, volunteer work, etc. Essentially sending out this "warning" would ostracize him from the entire community as word would spread quickly and nearly everyone and every event he participated in would distance themselves from him.

This kind of bullshit is WRONG. In the case of the story above it was a witch hunt led by unmarried, childless, fat cat women ages 30-50 to destroy a man's life when all we really had to go on was "he said, she said" as to the intentions behind his touching the female member. Even if what he said was true it was wrong of him to touch the woman but being the first complaint against him a warning to adhere to our no harassment policy was all that was needed. These women wanted to DESTROY him.

 

[Commodus]

Remember you raped me. I said so. And since you always believe the accusers word without question. Well, you can see where your blind judge, jury and executuoner thinking leads.

Imagine if a moderator here banned your IP over my accusation about you raping me. And also spread the word so no other websites would allow you to join them. All your friends and family distance themselves from you because of course they believe me blindly that your a rapist. But it’s ok.. I’ll let you keep your money.

You might want to rethink your position on blindly believing every accusation that comes along. And as I said before I’m not defending him, I’m just defending his right to due process against his accusers before sentencing him as you have already done so.

Please drop the excuses. I've seen this time and again, and it's ultimately a cop-out made on the false pretense of objectivity.

Yes, you shouldn't blindly believe claims, and I don't think jackstar7 was suggesting otherwise. But nor should you pretend there aren't publicly-known facts that suggest the claim is truthful. Hardwick already had something of a reputation; his response amounts to gaslighting rather than a sincere denial; Dykstra has little incentive to embroil herself in drama like this (she was already well-known beforehand).

Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly... they all count on men like you to let them off the hook when any perceptive person can see that their claims don't hold water. Women are reluctant to come forward because you cast doubt on their claims unless they secure a conviction, which is difficult in a system that tends to ignore even strong evidence of sexual assault until it becomes overwhelming (even with Cosby's admissions, it took dozens of women to secure a conviction).

And let me be clear: this doesn't mean that false accusations never happen. But it's far more likely that claims like this are truthful than otherwise, and throwing your hands up in mock objectivity doesn't help.

 

[soulcougher73]

Please drop the excuses. I've seen this time and again, and it's ultimately a cop-out made on the false pretense of objectivity.

Yes, you shouldn't blindly believe claims, and I don't think jackstar7 was suggesting otherwise. But nor should you pretend there aren't publicly-known facts that suggest the claim is truthful. Hardwick already had something of a reputation; his response amounts to gaslighting rather than a sincere denial; Dykstra has little incentive to embroil herself in drama like this (she was already well-known beforehand).

Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly... they all count on men like you to let them off the hook when any perceptive person can see that their claims don't hold water. Women are reluctant to come forward because you cast doubt on their claims unless they secure a conviction, which is difficult in a system that tends to ignore even strong evidence of sexual assault until it becomes overwhelming (even with Cosby's admissions, it took dozens of women to secure a conviction).

And let me be clear: this doesn't mean that false accusations never happen. But it's far more likely that claims like this are truthful than otherwise, and throwing your hands up in mock objectivity doesn't help.

I’m not letting anyone off the hook though. That is where your post falls apart. I’m just not going to jump on the bandwagon of public persecution without a bit more evidence than someone’s word something bad happened. Most everyone here already condemned this man based on just reading this article in the OP. As if that was enough in and of itself.

I don’t know his past as I don’t really follow celebrities lives. If he is guilty and there is evidence of such then sure, go ahead and burn em at the stake. But damn, let the guy get his fair shake in defending himself. It’s the American way.

 

[Jaskalas]

It would appear that the concept of rights, and of due process, only applies to your interactions with our government. Ah, but I think we've already extended many rights such as the first amendment, religious freedom, and other rights to lord over private businesses. Isn't that so? People have "workplace rights", yes? They cannot be discriminated against? So then one wonders where due process comes into play.

Modern technology allows the "community" to act universally, like a government, and bar people from... life. From work, from income. Without that, what do people have? How long before they are homeless? The public now has as much power as our government to deprive people of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Does due process not apply to them?

Can a single person be allowed to ruin another?

If a person says yes... then I ask you another question. Have you never scorned or crossed someone? Is there no one with a score to settle against you? They haven't yet, but maybe one day they'll connect the dots and realize that mere word... mere accusation is all it takes to end you. Can you sleep well at night knowing that is all it takes? A life's effort destroyed by one letter, and no need for evidence. No trial, no due process.

In the old days if a person crossed a community, he'd be "run out" of town. He'd have the option to move and "start a better life". Today we have the internet, and so escape is impossible. Unlike when our laws were written, a person cannot escape their past. Social consequences are both permanent and national, if not international. The power held over you by others is astronomically more important than it used to be.

Do our laws properly address these modern situations, are our rights and civil liberties properly protected?

 

[Commodus]

I’m not letting anyone off the hook though. That is where your post falls apart. I’m just not going to jump on the bandwagon of public persecution without a bit more evidence than someone’s word something bad happened. Most everyone here already condemned this man based on just reading this article in the OP. As if that was enough in and of itself.

I don’t know his past as I don’t really follow celebrities lives. If he is guilty and there is evidence of such then sure, go ahead and burn em at the stake. But damn, let the guy get his fair shake in defending himself. It’s the American way.

The thing is, I knew you'd offer a defense something like this. And my issue is that you treat condemnations like this as if everyone blasting Hardwick is doing so based purely on Dykstra's word, or as if her word carried little weight. Many of us know that there's more to it than there seems at first glance, and that Dykstra isn't just doing this to get extra time in the limelight.

It's not that you shouldn't use a critical eye, it's that you should trust, but verify. These claims are very often truthful; and again, many of the men in these cases are counting on people using "but he hasn't been convicted yet!" to shield them from criticism despite years of systemic behavior and shady non-denials. You may think you're creating a level playing field, but you're actually skewing things against the victims.

 

[Skel]

It would appear that the concept of rights, and of due process, only applies to your interactions with our government. Ah, but I think we've already extended many rights such as the first amendment, religious freedom, and other rights to lord over private businesses. Isn't that so? People have "workplace rights", yes? They cannot be discriminated against? So then one wonders where due process comes into play.

Modern technology allows the "community" to act universally, like a government, and bar people from... life. From work, from income. Without that, what do people have? How long before they are homeless? The public now has as much power as our government to deprive people of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Does due process not apply to them?

Can a single person be allowed to ruin another?

If a person says yes... then I ask you another question. Have you never scorned or crossed someone? Is there no one with a score to settle against you? They haven't yet, but maybe one day they'll connect the dots and realize that mere word... mere accusation is all it takes to end you. Can you sleep well at night knowing that is all it takes? A life's effort destroyed by one letter, and no need for evidence. No trial, no due process.

In the old days if a person crossed a community, he'd be "run out" of town. He'd have the option to move and "start a better life". Today we have the internet, and so escape is impossible. Unlike when our laws were written, a person cannot escape their past. Social consequences are both permanent and national, if not international. The power held over you by others is astronomically more important than it used to be.

Do our laws properly address these modern situations, are our rights and civil liberties properly protected?

People weren't run out of town so they could start a better life. They were run out of town with the hopes they'd die alone, and a good chunk of the time someone would go out to make sure they died. If that person did go try and start again elsewhere, the people of the town would go out of their way to make sure the new town knew of their crimes. There's tons of historical stories where this happened. Romanticizing how easy things were to start over is mostly historical fiction.

I don't know if Hardwick should be strung up. I'm pretty sure he did crappy shit to the woman. Most relationships have bad crap in them, doubly so if they're just some kind of rebound/hookup/whatever which this sounds like. I know if I went back through all my bad ideas of thinking I could do something with my exs, I'd find crap I'd be ashamed of. In Hardwick's case I'm not sure I'd go so far as assault, but as she's not looking to press charges I'm not sure it matters what you call it. It is a woman telling her feelings about what happened, right or wrong. The rest of what is happening is how people who are able to do something feel about what she said. If nothing else, this should be a cautionary tale about how what you do will come back to haunt you.

Regardless of what he did or didn't do.. I can say I'm not a fan of his, so his losing his shows and whatnot won't cause me to lose sleep.

 

[jackstar7]

I’m not letting anyone off the hook though. That is where your post falls apart. I’m just not going to jump on the bandwagon of public persecution without a bit more evidence than someone’s word something bad happened. Most everyone here already condemned this man based on just reading this article in the OP. As if that was enough in and of itself.

I don’t know his past as I don’t really follow celebrities lives. If he is guilty and there is evidence of such then sure, go ahead and burn em at the stake. But damn, let the guy get his fair shake in defending himself. It’s the American way.

Good luck with your concern, coward.

 

[mikeymikec]

Being on the board of directors of a large atheist organization I watched several of the female board members foam at the mouth when one of our members was accused of touching the breast of another member. Her side of the story was she felt creeped out by him and while they were talking he suddenly reached out and flicked her breast just below her shoulder. His side was a piece of food flew out of his mouth and he absent mindedly reached out to flick it off of her.

How do you spit/spill food on someone and then "absent-mindedly" flick it off them? The latter 100% suggests that the former is something people just happen to do all the time and think nothing of it, which should be your first "this smells like bullshit" clue. I'd be embarrassed if I did that to someone, that would be my first thought in his alleged place. Beyond that there's not really much room for "absent-mindedness", because how does one "absent-mindedly" then consider damage limitation after such a embarrassing faux pas? Even if I was on as approximately familiar terms with that someone as I am my wife, I'd be apologising first. If it happened to my wife and I while we were in private I'd then probably remove it myself unless I thought it was going to leave a stain. In public I'd point it out discreetly and only assist if she asked me to. If the person was an acquaintance or a stranger I'd default to the most formal way of doing it I already described.

Frankly I'm amazed that you haven't critically thought through his excuse for yourself because IMO it's 100% bullshit for an adult without some kind of pretty obvious mental development issue to honestly act in the way he claimed.

 

[soulcougher73]

Good luck with your concern, coward.

It's nice to know you don't care about the american justice system. Bring on the wild wild west and lets hang this bastard at high noon in the town center for all to see without a trial.