Nerd Pride Radio

Confused as to how multiple sources who know the accused count as less reliable evidence than one person in Texas who doesn't.

I don't want to get lost in the weeds on Hardwick but I will simply say that sometimes the worst in people are brought out in a bad relationship but that doesn't mean they are a bad person.

Here's what I wish someone could explain to me:
What Dykstra described is not rape because - just going by her own account - she consented to it and she was capable of consenting to it. It sounded pretty awful, pretty gross, and like something people shouldn't do unless they're stupid or mean, but if it's consensual sexual activity, no matter how shitty, it's not rape. I really do think this distinction matters, because people are raped, and there's a big, big difference between having an awful experience you didn't refuse and went on not refusing through an entire awful relationship, vs. refusing to have sex with someone but then being sexually assaulted anyway.

I would simply like to add that my motive for asking - about what seems to me like the obvious fact that she did not describe being raped, but being involved in a shit relationship where she continued to agree to sex that she should have spoken up for herself and stopped agreeing to - is not because I have no sympathy for people in this situation. Rather, I also have sympathy for people who are raped, and I have sympathy for people who were in a bad situation of agreeing to a bad encounter(s) who don't deserve to have that experience re-defined after the fact as a rape. Because then what you're saying is that everyone who has shitty sex that they consented to was actually the victim of a major crime, rightly punishable by many years in prison, and there are some pretty bad consequences to foisting that onto people who don't want it foisted onto them.

Right Darcs- we disagree. That’s okay right? There’s no reason to make personal attacks because we have a difference of opinions right? It’s okay that we give different credibility to different accounts.

He's not personally attacking you.

Then don't personally attack people over it?

I hope so, because the remark about most people not knowing what evidence is was kinda mansplainy imo, though understandable coming from a place of feeling personally slighted. However, I have finally come to understand and accept that I am an internet troll so my contributions to serious discourse should not be taken seriously.

Literally every time a celebrity gets accused of this stuff, people they know come out of the woodworks to say "oh well that's not the person I know, they wouldn't do this." That's not particularly persuasive to me, at all, and I don't know why it would be.

The detailed, and nuanced, allegations of Dykstra lead me to believe she would not concoct such a story out of revenge. She could have easily called it rape if that was the goal but she went out her way to explain that it wasn't.

Frankly, I did not know that Hardwick used the term 'starfishing' on his podcast more than once - a term that also comes up in Dykstra's story. That's not only super gross, but particularly damning to me.

And miss me with this 'but he's innocent until he's proven guilty!' This isn't a court of law and Hardwick isn't going to jail. Sexual abusers get away with it more often than not. Not only that, the punishment is light; the man was rich and famous before the allegations and would still be rich and famous if he lost his incredibly stupid show. He married into the fucking Hearst family. He'd just end up hosting a review show for the Roseanne reboot or some other shit in 2 or 3 years. Cry me a fucking river.

All that said, AMC is entitled to do what it pleases; I stopped looking to corporations to make moral decisions a long, long time ago, and it's not like I would watch The Talking Dead over pouring bleach in my eyes anyway. It's why Disney's decision is particularly baffling. I agree 100% with Kyle that we cannot judge a person's words/actions by the character of the accuser. But the only reason these behemoths make these choices is out of business optics, never morality (AMC clearly felt this had blown over and/or they didn't have legal grounds to fire Hardwick). So, I think Disney is incredibly dumb, at the least, and insanely irresponsible for folding to the Pizzagate guy - and ONLY the Pizzagate guy - on something that I think everyone can agree falls into a gray area as a fireable offense. And I think Chris Hardwick is probably a piece of shit who I won't be supporting, ever; I know I won't really be missing anything.

On the other hand- I think we can all agree that The Wall is a terrible show.

James Gunn is remaking The Wall?

Those goose stepping hammers freaked me out!

Me too, especially when I was young and had never seen anything like it before.

So, buckett, I'm serious about being an unintentional but natural internet troll, so please take the following with a grain of salt. However, the reasons that a person might be cautious about affirming Dykstra's account or calling it rape/sexual assault don't necessarily have anything to do with wanting to defend Hardwick himself, or using exaggerated due process concerns to silence victims, so please don't turn it around on people like that. I realize this isn't a court of law, and I'm sure MrsDarcs does too.

There are serious negative consequences to calling things rape that aren't rape, and while Dykstra didn't use that word specifically, she did call it sexual assault and implied that it had happened to her many times, even as she simultaneously said that she agreed to it and went along with it. I'm not quite sure what to make of that. She wasn't underage, she wasn't drunk or drugged. I have a lot of sympathy for people who go along with things they don't want, because that really sucks, and it seems to happen to people often. It's worth talking about but it's a separate topic from rape. If sexual assault includes cases where the victim agreed to a bad thing that happened, then we're turning a lot of people into victims and that can be a heavy load. We're also telling sexual assault victims who didn't consent that their lack of consent wasn't really an essential factor in determining what happened to them after all. That's something I would like to be quite cautious about.

For the sake of argument, if you grant that Dykstra's story is true, then she describes being the victim of severe emotional abuse. Assuming that to be the case, is consent given under duress by a victim to a person who is emotionally abusing them still valid, informed consent?

Yes.

So do you believe that emotional/verbal abuse is actual abuse?

From first hand experience, emotional abuse is completely debilitating, diminishes self-worth, and increases depression and isolation to the point that you see no other option or way of living but to submit to your abuser. In even worst situations, like school bullying, it can lead to far worse consequences. So no. I don't believe emotional abusive environments are conducive to rational consent or decision making.