This is kind of what I expected. If this dude was spotless then his network wouldn’t have dropped him after the first allegation as quick as they did. They probably had some inkling that he was a bit of a sleaze.
* All speculation, of course.
Four male eyewitnesses or it didn’t happen.
You have (as have others) been arguing against positions made up in your own minds for a while now.
Continuing to say things about how there’s such a thing as non-physical abuse and such is fine. I mean, it’s really obvious, and does not really address anything actually being said, but I guess it’s fine to keep raising truisms if it helps you somehow.
You’re essentially reading bullet points from a women’s health clinic pamphlet written to contest misunderstandings from 1955 that no one here has, and it does not actually address any of the nuance people here have actually raised.
But if it makes you all feel better to read off bullet points like “victim blaming” and the like without actually considering the issues being raised, whatever makes you feel good I guess.
But at this point, you’re arguing with imaginary bad guys making imaginary arguments you feel proud to refute using basic truisms that no one is contesting. So there’s not much point in continuing.
I thought he was a good person, always good to his guests on his shows and yet the article you linked… I could see those things being true too.
One thing I always thought was that he didn’t seem like much of a nerd despite constantly associating with nerdy things. Too charismatic, too attractive. And if the article is true, then perhaps there’s been a lot of acting going on.
There’s no “you must lack this much charisma or attractiveness” gate on being into “nerdy” things, just saying.
So maybe you’re doing a terrible job of presenting your point? What is it?
I may be. In any event, I’m not going to waste the effort of restating it to people I think have no interest in trying to understand. It’s like talking to a certain type of Trump supporter: once you get enough dogmatic responses of “Fake news!” and “Witch hunt!” regardless of what was said, you realize you’re just wasting your time and move on.
Yeah, just move on man. It’s a victim blaming dogpile in here if you question anything. The echo chamber is strong here and this particular issue and the people involved (the scummy nerd guy and his instagram model ex, not our lovely forum members) just aren’t worth it.
You know how every once in a while, you see a post like “ok, wow, this thread is making me kind of want to leave QT3 and never come back?”
That’s kind of how I feel right now.
I don’t know about anyone else but I have been trying quite hard to figure out what you were trying to get at and failing. I have found myself getting misinterpreted from time to time and if I have tried multiple ways to try and explain and it’s still not coming across, I definitely don’t bother continuing. But it seems to me you haven’t done that and I would think it would be worth giving it at least one additional shot instead of spending a bunch of time blaming us for dodging a point we’ve never seen made.
No there isn’t, it’s just not something I’ve classically associated to nerdiness.
Yeah, it’s not the classical image. But these things are getting much more widely popular than they used to be.
They certainly are! It’s become a mark of pride for clearly non-nerdy people to call themselves nerds, which devalues it for true nerds like myself. Just watching GoT doesn’t cut the mustard. For women, I trace that all back to the Liz Lemon character on 30 Rock making it cool.
Anyway, I have no reason to doubt Hardwick’s nerd cred. He always struck me as a snide little prick, I didn’t enjoy watching him on screen, and he’s probably a lot worse than that from these recent revelations, but he’s a legit nerd for sure.
Real nerds use Android! There, I said it. Fight me!
And probably use Linux. And have a maker space nearby. And play D & D with people instead of just on the PC.
I am not a real nerd… :(
Edited to add some clarification, just in case people took me seriously. Although I was miffed that they devoted so much time to how awesome their IPhones were, when at the time, some interesting Android phones had been released.
Real nerds have both Android and iPhone phones. Multiples of each.
I thought using Linux and Android and iphones made you a geek, not a nerd? I’m a little behind on these terms.
I’ve been through this discussion a few times with real life friends over the past half year or so. It’s come up with the occasional #metoo story that is less cut and dry criminal/abuse of power, and resurfaced with a vengeance recently due to a very complicated case spilling out in a local professional association that has galvanized quite a few friends into multiple camps. The argument often devolves into the three distinct camps present here, and rarely makes meaningful progress, given the argument tends to be in bad faith (no sides are really open to convincing or even giving up the slightest ground).
I have managed to find some common ground among the camps with two lines of reasoning, but otherwise now try to avoid the topic entirely (given bad experience with the first few months of being willing to dive in!).
The first is separating the idea of blame from the idea of risk. Often men are inclined to play the devil’s advocate in assessing the victim claims, including highlighting points like those above - “if she didn’t want to stay, why didn’t she leave?” This infuriates the opposing side and often immediately kills any discussion, as it is taken as blame. I’ve found it helpful to highlight that blame isn’t being attributed, but risky behavior is. For example, if I knowingly walk through a dangerous city neighborhood at night, and get mugged, most people (women included) would be willing to state that I was taking some risk that resulted in my victimization - even if I had reasons for doing so (e.g. no other reasonable path in that circumstance). The assailant is still entirely to blame for mugging me, but I did take a risk that most people would acknowledge. Sometimes, but not always, this effort to separate risk versus blame helps soften the impact of (typically) men playing the devil’s advocate in assessing an allegation. It sometimes diffuses the argument altogether - with an agreement on risky behavior, but also on where blame lies for any specific assaults (for example).
A second, more often useful, argument is to pivot away from discussing the veracity of the details and instead focus on what lessons they teach me that I can take forward in my own life. I’ve found the best way to make this concrete for men and women is to discuss what you would advise either party to do prior to, during, and after the situation, assuming they were your child and the opposing story was entirely true or false (4 possible scenarios). Imagining this as a hypothetical son or daughter who needs advise on how to avoid entering, or ending up stuck in, a unhealthy relationship (or, evening out with the intent to hook-up, abusive colleague, etc) tends to get much more agreement from the various opposing camps. I think it’s because rather than judging someone you don’t know at all, you’re imagining how to advise someone you care deeply about, either as the victim or aggressor (for either sex). This approach has produced much more interesting and productive conversations than trying to impossibly dissect the true/falsehoods of the he said/she said in the few cases that spill into public.
I don’t want to put words in SlyFrog’s mouth but yesterday as I read through a large portion of the thread I thought there was a point he made earlier that has been ignored. Of course he seemed to ignore it also so perhaps I’m imagining things. Note that this is thrown out with the implicit understanding that I’m talking in general terms not specifically talking about Chloe.
In our world of imperfect communication it seems the current consensus is that women have no responsibility to communicate clearly. Instead the onus is on the man to understand mixed, contradictory, un-stated, or even retroactive messages.
Again, I don’t know if that is @SlyFrog thought on agency restated in a manner that he would agree with but it was what I got from those posts.
Crying and just laying there during sex after being pressured into it is a mixed message? These are not subtle social cues.