Chris Hardwick

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So here's my summary:

• Older man falls for younger girl in attempt to exploit for sex.
• Younger girl with daddy issues falls for older man in attempt to exploit for career purposes.
• They grow into a relationship and probably care about each other on some levels. Also, they are both narcissistic in some other ways.
• She feels disempowered but it's really a consequence of the initial setup of the relationship.
• He feels betrayed but it's also a consequence of the setup since for him it was primarily about what he could give her for sex.
• At the worst point in the relationship they get some bad advice on this thing called starfishing and it's terrible that he does that but contrary to her disturbed view she wasn't forced into it. It does make Hardwick out to be a way worse person than her.
• She sneaks around with another guy who can actually give her what she really wants with a relationship because she thinks she needs to sneak around--one factor is she is still looking for career opportunities through Chris but she also feels disempowered. She is very emotionally immature.
• They break up each thinking ill of the other but also being unhealthily attached as weird boyfriend/girlfriend.
• In Hardwick's text he writes: "My position will be that we simply parted ways and I wish you the best. It is my hope that you will do the same." In other words, I won't talk about the cheating if you don't talk about how terrible the starfishing was.

 

[Derec]

You might feel yourself a big chagrined to realize that you are pretty much in alignment with the #MeToo movement, which has been questioning why the music industry has not had the same kind of revelations/denouncements/loss of contracts as has the film industry.

No, I am not. Unlike #metoo I am against punishing men based on a mere accusation, like what's been happening with men like Hardwick.
I am also against purging the public square of any hint of female sexiness, another #metoo goal (see Formula 1 grid girls or beauty pageant bikinis or even ads that feature attractive scantly clad females)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, I am not. Unlike #metoo I am against punishing men based on a mere accusation, like what's been happening with men like Hardwick.

Let's deal with what is concretely before us rather than big issues of metoo and feminism etc. I've asked questions in the op.

Do you think that people have rights to freely associate? Do they have rights to make financial decisions expecting a small loss by associating with Hardwick so that they can decide for themselves?

Since this seems he said/she said--frankly I think they are both right and wrong and you can see how I have bluntly stated so and am non-ideological unlike you--can you explain how you think people ought to operate in social settings/society with respect to burdens of evidence? What burden of evidence ought people use in social settings or when interviewing with a host? Do you think socially people should be treated innocent until proven guilty? What about if it makes someone feel uncomfortable? Why should they have to follow your idea of burden?

In terms of math, the expected value of gains may be less by associating with Hardwick now. It does seem unfair to me like I wrote in the op. But don't people have a right to earn money and not lose? Again, what burden should they operate under with Hardwick and why?

 

[Keith&Co.]

(see Formula 1 grid girls or beauty pageant bikinis or even ads that feature attractive scantly clad females)

Did I miss the part where you showed evidence that either of those were actually connected to #Metoo? I mean, outside of just you asserting This Is So...

 

[ronburgundy]

... unless she has some actual evidence and actual charges are pressed against him and this isn't just her slandering him, he should sue her for damages.

Do you think that a victim's statement is not evidence? I think it's evidence but not proof and possibly not completely true

The victims statement is a claim, which by definition cannot be evidence in support of itself.

Is the claim "I am God" evidence that God exist and that I am that God?

The idea that claims of wrongdoing are in themselves also evidence of the claim is precisely at the heart of the problem where justice (whether legal or social/moral) becomes impossible.

 

[ronburgundy]

Do you think that people have rights to freely associate? Do they have rights to make financial decisions expecting a small loss by associating with Hardwick so that they can decide for themselves?

Of course, but exercising one's legal rights is often not the morally right thing to do. And, we all have the right and moral responsibility to hold people morally accountable for unjustly harming a person for their own personal profit. I think cowering to pressure to unjustly punish a person who you don't have good basis to conclude deserves such punishment is itself a moral wrong doing, and the excuse of protecting your own profit is not a good one.

It is no different than when a corporate CEO exercising his legal right to con suckers out of their money by appealing to their fears, vanity, emotional weakness, or stupidity. IOW, if there is no evidence against Hardwick, then they the morally correct thing to do would be for people to boycott AMC for firing him and these actors that won't work with Hardwick.
And while this leads to everyone exercising their rights of association, that doesn't make them all equally ethical for doing so.

And I think the ethical burden of evidence is much higher when one not only exercises their own right of association in response to accusations, but applies legal/social/or economic pressure upon others to act similarly. IOW, its one thing for an actor to decide they don't want to be interviewed by Hardwick. But it is a whole other level for someone to pressure those actors to make that decision or pressure AMC to fire him, which obviously causes Hardwick harm. People applying that pressure are not just protecting themselves but trying to cause Hardwick harm as a form of punishment. Thus, they have a high burden of evidence in order for their pressure to be ethically acceptable.

Such instances often entail a person is accused, economic or other social pressure is applied to punish them, and business associates yield to that pressure. It can and likely has sometimes been the case that the most grossly immoral people involved are the members of the general public who used their vocal outrage to coerce that outcome. Whether this is the case will depend upon how much evidence those people actually had to support the accusation before they vocalized their outrage/pressure.

In sum, sometimes those expressing outrage and demanding "justice" are the one's toward whom the most outrage and punishment should be directed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... unless she has some actual evidence and actual charges are pressed against him and this isn't just her slandering him, he should sue her for damages.

Do you think that a victim's statement is not evidence? I think it's evidence but not proof and possibly not completely true

The victims statement is a claim, which by definition cannot be evidence in support of itself.

The victim's statement is evidence. It's eyewitness testimony.

Is the claim "I am God" evidence that God exist and that I am that God?

The idea that claims of wrongdoing are in themselves also evidence of the claim is precisely at the heart of the problem where justice (whether legal or social/moral) becomes impossible.

In a court of law, eyewitness testimony is evidence. So are confessions.

If person Z told everyone they are god and scammed them and then confessed to police saying "I am not god" then that's evidence. Likewise, if they say "I am god" then it's evidence that they are crazy, a liar, or some other thing without excluding possible mutual things going on. It's still data and relevant to the case, making it evidence.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

In this case the proposition is she was abused. Her testimony is information related to that proposition.

In any case, I think you should look closely at the context of my post, i.e. the post I was responding to which talked about classifying her article as slander. Do you think the rules given in JP's post are valid about when something ought to be considered slander?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And I think the ethical burden of evidence is much higher when one not only exercises their own right of association in response to accusations, but applies legal/social/or economic pressure upon others to act similarly. IOW, its one thing for an actor to decide they don't want to be interviewed by Hardwick. But it is a whole other level for someone to pressure those actors to make that decision or pressure AMC to fire him, which obviously causes Hardwick harm. People applying that pressure are not just protecting themselves but trying to cause Hardwick harm as a form of punishment. Thus, they have a high burden of evidence in order for their pressure to be ethically acceptable.

I appreciate this answer. And I agree with respect to profit. But what about if it isn't about profit but instead something else, like let's say personal history of trauma? Wouldn't it be fair for a person to freely avoid someone else without making the avoider out to be a pariah?

 

[Derec]

The victim's statement is evidence. It's eyewitness testimony.

First of all, "victim" is not the correct nomenclature. "Alleged victim" or "accuser", please. You are assuming that what she is saying is true by calling her "victim".
Second, her accusation is evidence only inasmuch the accused's statement that he did not do it is evidence that the accuser is a liar and a false accuser.
Women, like men, lie all the time. Women are not some special creatures that are past falsely accusing an ex for revenge.

In a court of law, eyewitness testimony is evidence. So are confessions.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable even for disinterested witnesses with no ax to grind. She however, has every motive to lie. Thus, her claims should be taken with one of these.

False confessions are also a problem.

If person Z told everyone they are god and scammed them and then confessed to police saying "I am not god" then that's evidence. Likewise, if they say "I am god" then it's evidence that they are crazy, a liar, or some other thing without excluding possible mutual things going on. It's still data and relevant to the case, making it evidence.

Is it evidence that Z is god?

In this case the proposition is she was abused. Her testimony is information related to that proposition.

But it doesn't really indicate "whether [her claim] is true or valid".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[pointless musing]I wonder if it's ever going to be possible to have an adult discussion of the complex issues involved in such situations without it becoming a whack fest for pathetic women haters who serve no purpose on this earth[/pointless musing]

 

[Derec]

[pointless musing]I wonder if it's ever going to be possible to have an adult discussion of the complex issues involved in such situations without it becoming a whack fest for pathetic women haters who serve no purpose on this earth[/pointless musing]

Given that you are incapable of reasoned argument and all you have are insults, I would say it's never going to be possible to have an adult discussion with you.
P.S.: Can you point to any specific points I made in post #49 that you think are "women hating"?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[pointless musing]I wonder if it's ever going to be possible to have an adult discussion of the complex issues involved in such situations without it becoming a whack fest for pathetic women haters who serve no purpose on this earth[/pointless musing]

Given that you are incapable of reasoned argument and all you have are insults, I would say it's never going to be possible to have an adult discussion with you.

You're clearly not an adult, so I won't lose any sleep, but this made my day:

P.S.: Can you point to any specific points I made in post #49 that you think are "women hating"?

Why did you assume I was referring to you?

 

[Derec]

Why did you assume I was referring to you?

Because you posted right below my post and you left wingers often unfairly accuse me of it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why did you assume I was referring to you?

Because you posted right below my post and you left wingers often unfairly accuse me of it.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

But it's hillarious.

 

[Toni]

So here's my summary:

[*]Older man falls for younger girl in attempt to exploit for sex.

Probably true but perhaps he really did care for her.

[*]Younger girl with daddy issues falls for older man in attempt to exploit for career purposes.

Possibly true but it seems she really did care for him.

[*]They grow into a relationship and probably care about each other on some levels. Also, they are both narcissistic in some other ways.

Probably true because I think we are all sometimes a little bit narcissistic in some way or another. I don't see anything that points to narcissism here more than with anyone else.

[*]She feels disempowered but it's really a consequence of the initial setup of the relationship.

It may have been inevitable given his personality/way of dealing with things and her personality and way of dealing with things but this is not really possible to know from the outset, particularly for someone who is/was as young as she was at the beginning of the relationship. Also, she hung out a lot with gamers and such who are not known for their social acumen (my apologies to gamers. I don't know many but the ones I do know are lovely people in the context in which I know them and I'm really just following a stereotype here. This is not a blanket condemnation of gamers' social abilities by any means). Maybe she was flattered by an older guy's attentions. A lot of younger women are. I may have been, too, back in the day.

[*]He feels betrayed but it's also a consequence of the setup since for him it was primarily about what he could give her for sex.

First of all, if her essay is taken as factual, he was out trying to trade up early in the relationship when he was confining her to hotel rooms while he went out prowling parties for more eligible/well known potential bed partners.

[*]At the worst point in the relationship they get some bad advice on this thing called starfishing and it's terrible that he does that but contrary to her disturbed view she wasn't forced into it. It does make Hardwick out to be a way worse person than her.

Google starfishing. I did. He basically accused her of laying there like a dead thing when the situation was that she wasn't interested in having sex with him at that particular moment but he was insistent and kept reminding her that he broke up with his last relationship because she wouldn't give him sex on demand. Please note that in my research on starfishing there is zero suggestion that the man should make efforts to engage the woman in ways that would enhance her enjoyment of sex, much less do anything to enhance the mood or simply leave her alone if she's not interested at that moment without running out to find the nearest female receptacle to use for sex.

This is on some level emotional abuse. How serious of abuse it is is really not evident. But if we are to take her at her word, she had become dependent on him, he was controlling much of her behavior including what jobs she should take, who she could or could not be friends with, and whether or not she was allowed to speak in public, as well as where she was allowed to go and when she was expected to be available for him to have sex with.

This is controlling and abusive behavior. I'm sure he did not see it that way and surely thought of it as at worst, benign and certainly within his rights as an Up And Coming Famous Person. Now, you or I would have probably told him where he could go but she wasn't cut out that way and likely, part of him recognized it and was drawn to her because she seemed vulnerable to such control, even if this was unconscious on both their parts.

When I was quite young, I dated an older guy (Not as large an age gap but more than 5 years and less than 10 years older than me. Here was clue #1: He wouldn't tell me how old he was). As the relationship progressed, there were some initial, very small steps on his part to attempt to control me. He didn't like most of my friends--just the ones he knew. Especially a friend who was fairly strong and outspoken. He really didn't like her. As time went on, I spent less and less time with anyone besides him. He was free to come and go and do what he wanted with whoever he wanted but if he ever called when I was out or busy, I got the third degree, especially if it involved studying in a library in a group which had male students in it. Anyway, I would have given him a hard pass as my instincts told me the first time I saw him if I hadn't had a lot of difficult stuff going on and if I hadn't been in pretty rough shape emotionally. I was very young and yep, very dumb but fortunately, he wasn't that terrible and I can see now that he was regretting that he was treating me so badly--interspersed with treating me very, very well (and no, Derek, if you are reading this: no money was involved. We didn't have money. Just luuuuuuuuv) --so there were plenty of carrots to go along with the less pleasant attempts to control me. Attempts increased in degree of control attempted. At one point, he complained I was gaining weight. I weighed closer to 90 than 100 lbs at the time. A weight gain would have been applauded by my parents and any medical professional who saw me but I definitely had not gained weight. And I told him so--in a voice that basically said fuck the hell off that shit so he did. But with a smile on my face Anyway, despite the terrible stuff-and it wasn't good, let me tell you, there was some powerful chemistry between us and I was absolutely certain that I could see stuff that no one else saw--that he wasn't that big a jerk but was actually very vulnerable and insecure and really really decent if only someone loved him enough and I was sure I could. And he really, really could be great. He was smart and liked interesting music and science and and thought I was funny and smart and attractive and importantly, he stood up for me, too. But as time went on, the person I needed someone to stand up for me against was him. This is where I learned the hard hard lesson that if all of your friends or even just casual acquaintences think your significant other is an asshole/douche/bitch/bad person and your friends are reasonably good people who are not murderers/drug dealers/thieves/emotionally abusive monsters--maybe you should listen to them. At least step back and take a hard look at the guy and remember your first impression, your second and third impression and consider whether maybe they might have a point. Do that cost/benefit analysis and get the fuck out. Fortunately, it didn't last too long. Unfortunately, the damage done lasted longer than the actual relationship. But I did learn some very valuable lessons, the first one being: trust yourself and do not trust anyone who tries to tell you not to trust yourself. The next girl he tried to date was even younger than me. Legal--I think she had turned 19, the same age I was when we first started seeing each other. Anyway, she knew better than I did and did not fall for him but instead fell for someone even worse who had tried hard to give the other guy a run for his money re: me but I wasn't having it at all. Not if we were the last people on earth. So, we can all be dumb with some people and smart with others. Anyway, I learned a lot but not as quickly or as painlessly as I would have liked. Mostly, I decided I deserved to be treated well and chose my life accordingly afterwards. Which was smart, even if I say so myself. Everybody: You deserve to be well treated and you should treat others well, to the very best of your abilities. And get out if either of you is not holding up your end of the bargain.

[*]She sneaks around with another guy who can actually give her what she really wants with a relationship because she thinks she needs to sneak around--one factor is she is still looking for career opportunities through Chris but she also feels disempowered. She is very emotionally immature.

Lots of sneaking around on both their parts, it sounds like. Lots of emotional immaturity. For her: it was to be expected at her age. For him? Maybe not so much expected or forgiveable.

[*]They break up each thinking ill of the other but also being unhealthily attached as weird boyfriend/girlfriend.

I think they were both done. Maybe not at the exact same time but they both are now.

[*]In Hardwick's text he writes: "My position will be that we simply parted ways and I wish you the best. It is my hope that you will do the same." In other words, I won't talk about the cheating if you don't talk about how terrible the starfishing was.

1. You really need to google starfishing.
2. They both cheated/attempted to cheat, probably multiple times, at least on his part. She was mostly confined to a hotel room, it seems. What he's really saying is that I have to say something that sounds kind and generous and loving because you told everybody that I was controlling, perhaps abusive, selfish and a selfish, insensitive lover so I need to come off like a decent human being here.

For the purposes of this response, aside from my own little self reveal from the very distant past, I'm taking her at face value. Mostly because she assumes responsibility for her part in the whole thing.

 

[Toni]

nm

 

[zorq]

Toni, There is no indication that Hardwick was cheating on Dykstra. Chloe never accuses him of cheating. She claims he would never hang out with friends, only people he thought could help his career as a public personality. He was controlling her access to other people, but she offers no hint that she thought he was unfaithful in her reveal.

Also, Toni, you should note that the timestamps of the screenshots of the texts allegedly written from Hardwik to Dykstra were written at the time of the breakup in 2014-2015. They were not written after Dykstra's blog post in 2018. While the texts were released in response to the blog post, the contents of those texts were NOT.

 

[zorq]

An interesting point here is that while Hardwick denies any sexual abuse, he hasn't denied trying to blacklist her from her usual sources of employment after their breakup. That may be a telling detail and a really shitty move.

Some folks around here are quite concerned about ruining a person's livelihood over false public allegations(not that they shouldn't), but if it is true that Hardwick deliberately acted to destroy the career that Dykstra had been building for herself after their breakup, isn't that pretty shitty too? Maybe it even deserves some retaliation?



OT side note: One of the things Dykstra complains about in her post is an occasion when she gasped unexpectedly after seeing a cute dog and startled him. This is a pet peeve of mine. On occasion I'm driving the car and my wife feels the need to squeal unexpectedly because she saw a cute dog. Now I'm a very careful driver and generally distrustful of the drivers around me, so I usually interpret these vocal expressions of unexpected joy as an indication of imminent danger. Sometimes, even when I'm not in the car my wife (and sometimes her friends) make gasps or shrieks upon spotting something cute and it always puts me on edge.

Of course Dykstra claims she was "punished" for her gasp, which is likely not appropriate, depending on how she defines as punishment.

 

[Toni]

Toni, There is no indication that Hardwick was cheating on Dykstra. Chloe never accuses him of cheating. She claims he would never hang out with friends, only people he thought could help his career as a public personality. He was controlling her access to other people, but she offers no hint that she thought he was unfaithful in her reveal.

Also, Toni, you should note that the timestamps of the screenshots of the texts allegedly written from Hardwik to Dykstra were written at the time of the breakup in 2014-2015. They were not written after Dykstra's blog post in 2018. While the texts were released in response to the blog post, the contents of those texts were NOT.

From the link in the OP:

Our first convention together, San Diego Comic Con, he instructed me to not leave the hotel room. He went to parties by himself and got a famous actress’s number with intention to date her at the same time as me. I found out months later, and couldn’t bring myself to say anything because by this time, my self-worth was in the toilet.

So, early on in the relationship, he's out trying to get the phone numbers of famous actresses. While confining Dykstra to the hotel room. Sorry, but that sounds a lot like someone who is definitely at least looking to cheat. It would be absolutely stunning if he were not cheating during the relationship. Famous actress? Probably only in his dreams and certainly not for long. He didn't have the juice or the looks. But he was definitely prowling and probably cheating. Especially since he became engaged to someone else (daughter of someone famous--not famous in her own right) very soon after they broke up.

And her 'cheating?' She kissed someone and told him about it.

Excellent points about him torpedoing her career. Especially with some decrying her speaking out (somewhat anonymously) because it damaged his career. Probably not for long.

 

[ronburgundy]

The victims statement is a claim, which by definition cannot be evidence in support of itself.

The victim's statement is evidence. It's eyewitness testimony.

She observed with her senses that she had sex against her will?
No, that cannot be observed. It is a claim about an unobservable state of mind that needs to be supported by independent observable evidence.

Is the claim "I am God" evidence that God exist and that I am that God?

The idea that claims of wrongdoing are in themselves also evidence of the claim is precisely at the heart of the problem where justice (whether legal or social/moral) becomes impossible.

In a court of law, eyewitness testimony is evidence. So are confessions.

That is only when what is testified to have been observed is independent of the initial claim of what occurred. A person will not be convicted of a crime by merely claiming they committed one, if there is no independent evidence that a crime was ever committed. Go into a police station and "confess" that you raped someone. IF the cops cannot find a victim to back up your claim you will not be charged with anything let alone convicted (other than for making a false claim). Similarly, eyewitness testimony is evidence when it relates to a crime that has already been asserted or established by other information. Plus, the evidential status of such testimony rests upon it being given under oath under criminal penalty for lying. The fact of such a penalty and the fact that such penalties make most people afraid of lying in that context are independent pieces of information that turn the statements made into evidence for some claim being made by the prosecution.

If person Z told everyone they are god and scammed them and then confessed to police saying "I am not god" then that's evidence.

That is evidence that they scammed people only because you have independent statements that contradict each other. So it has no correspondence to an accusation by itself being evidence of itself.

Likewise, if they say "I am god" then it's evidence that they are crazy, a liar, or some other thing without excluding possible mutual things going on. It's still data and relevant to the case, making it evidence.

Again, that interpretation requires that you have independent information showing the person cannot be God. So, like I said, only when there is information independent of the accusation that establishes or refutes the thing being claimed, does the accusation serve as evidence either for the claim or that the accuser/claimant is lying and/or crazy.

If you are not making an a priori assumption about God's existence, then the statement is not evidence the person is crazy, but rather, according to your definition, is evidence that they are God.

Your a priori assumption is only rationally acceptable with "God" because it is not a claim about a specific possible event, but about a generality that requires the existence of an entity we can rationally rule out as impossible. You cannot do that with claims about specific events within the realm of scientific possibility. Thus, such claims/accusations about another's behavior do not point to any conclusion, which means it is not evidence of anything.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

In this case the proposition is she was abused. Her testimony is information related to that proposition.

By "abused" she means forced into non-consensual sex, and she offers no information that logically supports that claim, she merely asserts it. Saying, "I was abused, he forced me to have sex." is just making the same claim twice. It is not supporting a claim with evidence.

In any case, I think you should look closely at the context of my post, i.e. the post I was responding to which talked about classifying her article as slander. Do you think the rules given in JP's post are valid about when something ought to be considered slander?

Slander requires that the claim be false, which requires the target of the accusation to have evidence that it is false. But according to you, Hardwick merely testifying "It is false" is itself evidence that it is false, so he would have a case. My position (and that of science) is that it not evidence of anything but merely a counter-claim which like the original claim requires independent verification in order for their to be any evidence.