Sunday, December 16, 2018 • Morning Edition • "We're so sorry, DC. Please take us back."

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Chloe Dykstra Calls Out Abusive Ex, Unrelatedly Nerdist Implode

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

RobThompson

cheese

Postby RobThompson » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:50 pm

SporkBot wrote:I'm just not closing myself off entirely to the possibility, as some people have. The idea of her boyfriend not allowing her to drink isn't so outlandish, I just don't think Hardwick did it because he's secretly a misandry-inspired stereotype of "all men". The alleged assault...that has always been tricky to prove. And while she admits to going along with it because she didn't want to lose him, I wouldn't say she experienced nothing. I'm not sure what the law says on "didn't really want to have sex, but went along with it anyway". Reluctant consent?

Just look at all the assumptions that have to be made in order to forward this point.
User avatar

Clockwork_Fish

cheese

Postby Clockwork_Fish » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:12 pm

While I agree that the right to due process is not something to be denied (in a perfect world, anyways) it's also true that it's been used to shield men from persecution because so many cases of rape or domestic abuse come down to he said, she said, and 'he said' can afford more expensive lawyers. Heck, there was a rape trial in Alberta in 2014 where the judge literally asked the victim to explain why she didn't keep her knees together. In the 21st fucking century.

Couple that with literally thousands of years of women getting the short end of the stick and you see what happens. Me Too is the tip of a very unseemly and very angry iceberg and saying "you can't do that because LAWS!" isn't going to resolve the situation. This isn't a right/wrong, black/white issue, it's just several shades of screwed up with no right answer.
User avatar

SporkBot

Swedish Pinata of Death

Postby SporkBot » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:21 pm

RobThompson wrote:Just look at all the assumptions that have to be made in order to forward this point.


I think you're reading WAY too much in the semantics of my wording in giving my viewpoint. Or are only assumptions about Dykstra being truthful wrong? Are the assumptions that Hardwick isn't a sexual predator more valid? Since apparently the mere suggestion she's not lying is some manner of trigger; it's not even about defending Hardwick, but saying Dykstra must be some kind of vindictive crier of wolf. Despite the fact that women mostly don't lie about things like this, but who needs a motive or reasoning for suggesting she's b.s.-ing everyone about this?

I can understand not taking much stock in Robert Kazinsky backing her up, but completely dismissing her claims is how people have gotten away with stuff far worse than not letting someone have a beer. But I guess it was her own fault for not recording her day-to-day life for three years.
User avatar

RobThompson

cheese

Postby RobThompson » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:29 pm

SporkBot wrote:
I think you're reading WAY too much in the semantics of my wording in giving my viewpoint. Or are only assumptions about Dykstra being truthful wrong? Are the assumptions that Hardwick isn't a sexual predator more valid? Since apparently the mere suggestion she's not lying is some manner of trigger; it's not even about defending Hardwick, but saying Dykstra must be some kind of vindictive crier of wolf. Despite the fact that women mostly don't lie about things like this, but who needs a motive or reasoning for suggesting she's b.s.-ing everyone about this?

I can understand not taking much stock in Robert Kazinsky backing her up, but completely dismissing her claims is how people have gotten away with stuff far worse than not letting someone have a beer. But I guess it was her own fault for not recording her day-to-day life for three years.

Nobody has said a word about dismissing her claims in this conversation other than you. And the only thing anyone has to try and understand where people are coming from are their words. A couple of us are not suggesting anything more than acknowledging at this stage it would be assumptive to say much of anything about this other than "We do not know what happened between them." That and it probably is not fair for someone to have punitive action taken against them without any proof one way or the other of the validity of an accusation made against him or her.
User avatar

SporkBot

Swedish Pinata of Death

Postby SporkBot » Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:37 am

RobThompson wrote:Nobody has said a word about dismissing her claims in this conversation other than you. And the only thing anyone has to try and understand where people are coming from are their words.


I've used to term in the context that I'm just not outright disregarding her claims...which some seem to take issue with.

A couple of us are not suggesting anything more than acknowledging at this stage it would be assumptive to say much of anything about this other than "We do not know what happened between them."


But some remarks have come off resonating very close to a "she's lying" narrative, bordering on conspiracy. Someone did back up her statement, but is given little regard for being close to her. Not using the specific word, but feeling very dismissive.

That and it probably is not fair for someone to have punitive action taken against them without any proof one way or the other of the validity of an accusation made against him or her.


I never supported Hardwick's shows being on hiatus (not that I watch them), but nor was I overly surprised; the networks want to protect themselves from the instinctual reaction of Twitter users and Facebook-ers. But given this is something that'd be incredibly difficult to show physical evidence for, and provided she's not in that aforementioned 8%, that leaves her with the option of staying quiet about something that's been troubling her for years, or pursuing a legal case (which would become just as public), where lack of evidence wouldn't get her very far, either.
User avatar

IvCNuB4

Staff Writer

Postby IvCNuB4 » Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:43 pm

Hey Chloe ...
:smt097 :smt097 :smt098 :smt098

Chris Hardwick returning as host of 'Talking Dead' following investigation

"Following a comprehensive assessment by AMC, working with Ivy Kagan Bierman of the firm Loeb & Loeb, who has considerable experience in this area, Chris Hardwick will return to AMC as the host of 'Talking Dead' and 'Talking with Chris Hardwick,'" AMC said in a statement to CNN. "We take these matters very seriously and given the information available to us after a very careful review, including interviews with numerous individuals, we believe returning Chris to work is the appropriate step."
Hardwick is expected to return as the host of "Talking Dead," the after show for "The Walking Dead" and its spin-off series, on August 12, following the mid-season premiere of "Fear the Walking Dead."


:smt041 :smt038
User avatar

RobThompson

cheese

Postby RobThompson » Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:47 pm

In today's environment, I am honestly a little surprised by this outcome.
User avatar

HNutz

Rain Partier

Postby HNutz » Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:15 am

RobThompson wrote:In today's environment, I am honestly a little surprised by this outcome.


I'm pleasantly surprised.
User avatar

IvCNuB4

Staff Writer

Postby IvCNuB4 » Fri Jul 27, 2018 3:17 pm




She still won't call him by name. She never meant to ruin his career? She chose not to participate in the investigation or to share all her "evidence".

I hope this bitch gets the help that she needs.
User avatar

IvCNuB4

Staff Writer

Postby IvCNuB4 » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:48 pm

God damn, that was an emotional tear-filled opening on tonight's "Talking Dead". I felt so sorry for Chris Hardwick and the obvious pain and trauma that fucking bitch fucking Chloe Dykstra fucking put him through.
User avatar

HNutz

Rain Partier

Postby HNutz » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:57 pm

IvCNuB4 wrote:It's also possible that he could lose his job hosting NBC's game show "The Wall", as well.


He was on "America's Got Talent" as a guest judge again, so maybe he's still involved with "The Wall"?
User avatar

Bianco

rubber spoon

Postby Bianco » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:35 am

HNutz wrote:
He was on "America's Got Talent" as a guest judge again, so maybe he's still involved with "The Wall"?


I read some employees that work on his various shows/projects are quitting in protest because he's back on the air.
User avatar

HNutz

Rain Partier

Postby HNutz » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:27 am

Bianco wrote:
I read some employees that work on his various shows/projects are quitting in protest because he's back on the air.


.. Da FUCK?
User avatar

achilles

Rain Partier

Postby achilles » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:50 am

Bianco wrote:
I read some employees that work on his various shows/projects are quitting in protest because he's back on the air.


That's interesting because in this climate, I'd guess that the network was pretty well satisfied that they did a good investigation and that there was nothing to the claims, otherwise I doubt they'd have let him back.
User avatar

Bianco

rubber spoon

Postby Bianco » Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:22 am

achilles wrote:
That's interesting because in this climate, I'd guess that the network was pretty well satisfied that they did a good investigation and that there was nothing to the claims, otherwise I doubt they'd have let him back.




https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant ... -quit/amp/

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests