Accountability in Entertainment • Page 20

Why is this funny? It seems like a good response. 1) It doesn't attack the victim. 2) To a lot of people in the kangaroo court of public opinion silence is an admission of guilt.

If Lydia believes in her husbands innocence to some/all of Chloe's allegations, what do you think she should do? Nothing?

 

I mean I hate that so common illogical framing where another person who has dated an abuser says "they're not an abuser''. Abusers don't abuse every person they come into contact with, you can be abusive in one relationship and have no issues in another. That doesn't say anything about the past, but its always framed like "oh here's some evidence that he's innocent" when its really nothing and irrelevant.

 

I don't disagree with that in general, but Lydia specifically says she is not 'defending' with Chris. She is 'standing' with him.

I've listened to his podcast for years and it just surprises me how quickly people jump on the "fuck that guy" train. If Chloe's statement is true, then sure, fuck Chris. I'm sure someone here will bash me for using the word "if" because I am potentially doubting a victim (I know that studies show that there are fairly low rates of false accusations in this area). I just think it's odd that people corroborating Chloe's story (basically former employees of Chris who think it fits his personality) are met with likes and a statement from his wife is met with a "Lol."

Edit - Chloe's post also says she has evidence beyond her written word. Obviously she is not obligated to release that to the public, but I hope she shares that with Chris' employers (AMC, Comic Con, etc.).

Obviously, put his shows on hold for the time being..

 

I mean the low bar is attacking the victim, she didn't do that. She's basically saying she wasn't abused and knows nothing about his past relationship, why does that matter?

I trust people who've worked with him and have had any experience with Chloe. I trust Chloe to speak on her own experience. I don't like his self serving statement and this statement really adds nothing, but it will be used as some sort of defense for him which just doesn't make any sense.

 

If Chris thinks he is innocent of some of the worse allegations against him, what the hell is he supposed to do? He is put into a no-win situation, regardless of the truth.
Sure, trust people who've worked with him. But don't trust his wife.

edit - general question: is it possible to believe victims while also believing in 'due process'? In a macro sense, the #metoo movement stemmed from the lack of traditional avenues of due process and accountability (and also the rise of the internet/broad communication channels). So requests for waiting for due process are rightly criticized because 'due process' is flawed in a lot of ways. But I think it is also flawed to throw it out the window and believe the accuser in 100% of cases. I'm not sure if I'm making sense with this, but I'm interested in hearing some takes on that.

 

There's a big difference between "thinks he's innocent" and "is innocent", first off. And like you already said, there's such a miniscule chance that Chloe is making this up to discredit him, when the odds of him sustaining an abusive relationship is much, much higher.

I've been asked this "but what if they're innocent?" question a lot in real life, and I'm increasingly thinking its just a distraction. The real question isn't about the man's actions but always "why should I trust this woman over this man I have an emotional connection to?" "what if a lying woman is just jealous and trying to take down a powerful man who has done no wrong?" "what if someone comes for me next how do I get out of this?" In the rare Conor Oberst like cases where an accusation is false, the truth comes out, and I think based on the statistics and what we know about people rarely coming forward, that's a rarity. That's why I personally give the benefit of the doubt to the victim.

If something legitimately existed to disprove Chloe's motives or contradict her account in serious ways, then yeah I would no longer believe her story. As it stands, her story is probably very common, and thus very believable, especially when supported by people who he was working with when they were together and felt something was off. Those people were around their relationship more than his current wife was. She's in an impossible position too, anything more supportive of Chloe than the nothing kind of statement she gave almost necessitates a divorce.

 

given his whole vibe this may be a poorly planned bit but still disappointing

 

It's a weird line. I wouldn't say chris' wife is 100% being abused or anything like that but I will say that when I was being gaslighted? Gaslit? Super hard, I would've also defended my toxic af partner at the time. He convinced me his exes were all abusive toxic crazy bitches, effectively discrediting them to me, and he was the poor sensitive innocent victim plus it took me so long to even realize how messed up of a situation our relarionship was. I constantly defended him to people when I shouldn't have. It can be so complex with stuff behind that scenes that idk. Not saying that I know that's the case here because I don't, but given that it's so frequently a factor her statement doesn't rly change anything for me

 

Janet Varney, who dated Chris 2004-2011, hasn't made a statement, but she did make this post on twitter:

Gotta listen to that podcast...

 

Another of Chris' exes made a statement:

(I realize my posts in this thread have been one sided. If I see an update from Chloe or any other accusers I would post them here as well.)

 

Whatever this was appears to have been deleted

 

It's still up. Link

 

Weird - still shows for me...

 

Thanks for the link! Yeah not sure why but the post just isn't showing up above for me.

 

I’m getting so tired of the, “He didn’t do it to me so she must be lying,” story that always seems to come out in these situations. How hard is it to realize that your experiences are not universal and if you weren’t there you have no better understanding than anyone else?

 

If that is in reference to Lydia or Jacinda's statements, you can tell they are both very careful not to say Chloe is lying. They are only speaking to their own experiences. I have seen comments on reddit and news sites that paint Chris as a serial abuser and shady character. Obviously, he could still be an abuser without having been so in other relationships, but these statements can at least shut down the serial abuser talk.

 

That quote from Jacinda is like the textbook definition of “he said she said” or “there’s two sides to every story”. It’s not speaking about your own experiences to talk about what someone else has said and paint it in the light of condemning someone unfairly when you were not there yourself.

 

How do you get that from the quote below? I mean... saying both accuser and accused deserve a voice is condemning someone? That seems crazy to me. IMHO, that type of attitude will do damage to the movement of #Metoo longterm as it will cause a certain portion of the population to not take it as seriously as it deserves to be taken. I hope I'm not being too combative here, just trying to understand.

"The accuser’s story bears no resemblance to the one I shared with him all those years ago, but what is of supreme importance here is that every woman and every man deserves a voice. Accuser and Accused. Everyone deserves to be heard. A rush to judgement denies the right to due process; the #Metoo movement deserves due process."

 

I mean you’re definitely being combative, but since this is a hill you want to die on I guess that’s whatever. That’s also not what I meant by condemning. Her post is painting CHRIS as being condemned unfairly, when this was not her relationship and it is not her place to speak. If someone was sharing stories about her specifically, sure, she can say what she needs to about setting her own story straight. But both her picture and her comment are written as if to say Chris has been wronged and has some “other” story to tell, when countless people who knew them as a couple and him during that time have corroborated her story. It’s completely unnecessary to add in something that will be taken and run with by those who want to discredit her (and the entire movement, as you mention yourself.)

 

why are you so hellbent on defending Chris Hardwick lmao

 

I doubt he's hellbent on defending Hardwick in particular, just people in general who are accused of things and people, for the most part, automatically believing they're true.

 

I disagree with a lot of this... silence seems to be condemnation. Speaking out and it's not their place to speak. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I've only seen 2 or 3 ex-Nerdist employees and friends of Chloe's corroborate her story. I don't think 'countless' is the way to describe that.

All I am advocating for in this thread is for reserving judgment. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases victims do not have solid evidence beyond their word (which is rightly why "believe her" is such a big thing), but Chloe herself says she has evidence. If it's solid evidence, I hope that gets Chris himself blackballed from the industry. If it doesn't hold up, is he still condemned in the court of public opinion forever?

 

This. Movements die out due to hardliners and the zealots. I hope #metoo leads to sustained new cultural norms and awareness around abuse, sexual assault, and harassment. I do. I don't think denying humans time to defend themselves is good in the long run.

I will say - I'm a guy. I probably don't fully understand the movement 100% (or 50% - who knows). I realize my views don't gel with a lot of people in the thread or people I know. So I have to ask myself why? I am always open to learning, growing, and changing my mind, especially from people who have first-hand experience on issues.

 

I mean multiple people have already spelled out why these statements and actions are problematic, and yet you seem bent on finding some way to defend him or others theoretically like him when you could just as easily take a step back and listen and inform yourself instead of continuing to do so.