Ok so conclusions about how they only determined they aren't liable would be unsupported assumption.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
AMC clears Chris Hardwick to return to Talking Dead
- Thread starter GavinUK86
- Start date
- Status
Ok so conclusions about how they only determined they aren't liable would be unsupported assumption.
Yes.
As would the conclusion that they determined the claims were false is .
Your comparison to O'Reilly in this case is interesting. A guy who paid out tens of millions in settlements to more than a half dozen women over a decade, compared to a guy who had a single ex girlfriend make claims.
I was addressing your statement here:
"Just means the corporations investigation showed they were safe from liability ."
You now agree this is false since we have no idea. The conclusion we can draw is an investigation was done and, in the opinion of the company, the findings did not support firing.
So we are left with accusations we can't determine the validity of and an investigation that we know didn't compel a company to fire an employee. In other words, anyone picking an assumption about what happened and defending it as if those who disagree are bad people isn't being reasonable or fair. Not saying that includes you, but I think your statement quoted above demonstrates a little bias.
Honestly it was just the first similiar case I could think of. I'm at work so I didn't have time to research an example .
If you can share a better example I'd appreciate it .
But that's my entire point. The cases aren't similar at all...
I love that we live in a socienty, in which it's so easy to ruin someone else - and everyone will turn against them based on a mere "he did this and that".
If he got cleared by a reputable law firm, thats how it is. INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
Why do still keep believing the "victim" lol
Ridiculous.
If he got cleared by a reputable law firm, thats how it is. INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
Why do still keep believing the "victim" lol
Ridiculous.
O'Reilly also had multiple accusers and there is actual evidence and a history of bad behavior.
That isn't a proper comparison.
No one should be saying, "See? She's lying." But finding fault in AMC bringing him back doesn't make sense. We don't know what happened. They have more information than we do.
And the Talking Dead "brand" wont' be hurt. No one cares who is hosting.
There is definitely bias. I freely admit that I believe her entirely. I also freely admit that I believe without corroboration that AMC was just covering thier asses .
I believe that because its always what corporations do. Its a simple cost benefits analysis of how much harm is done to a brand. Its what Disney, Adult Swim, Pixar, Fox, Fox News, all of them do before making these decisions.
Maybe am wrong and thier lawyers did a thorough investigation, interviewing witness, checking security cam footage, etc. But how quickly they turned it around leaves me skeptical.
And if they turn around a present all the evidence showing she is lying, we can review that and come to new conclusions.
Victims need to be trusted and not shunned. It's important to listen and believe victims because it is rare that they lie.
But it also doesn't mean that a single accusation should cost a person his job. Every situation is different and needs to be looked at individually and fairly.
User Banned (2 Weeks): Misogyny. Junior account.
Sure, but there's a possibility that they'd lie. For whatever reason, spite etc. Who knows how "rare" this really is - especially nowadays when one accusation basically gets someone fired. Its all too easy. There's plenty of cases of women making up rape stories to ruin lives. Not saying she did, I'm just saying -
In this case, tough shit. Maybe he did it, maybe he did not - but as of right now it's a baseless accusation without any proof so it's only right he gets his job back etc. until he's -proven- guilty.
There we go!
Not baseless btw, people corroborated the accusation of Hardwick blackballing her industry wide. Of course, the relationship details are going to be he-said she-said, but nothing about this exonerates him.
That's just how it is though. That is how -law- works. You're innocent until you're proven to be guilty. There's no reason for him to lose his job over a mere accusation. And if she can not / does not prove it then yes - it's just that. Tough shit.
So are people gonna stop with the false accusations ruin careers narratives to try and keep all victims quiet now or no?
She initially said she had proof but if she's not bringing it to bat then wyd lad
She initially said she had proof but if she's not bringing it to bat then wyd lad
I missed the part where Hardwick was arrested and tried in court, can you point it out to me?
But you've already showed how you feel about victims, so I'll let you keep talking.
That's a completely ridiculous statement, it should not be this easy for one person to make another person lose their job - just by pointing fingers.
Especially if they point fingers claiming to have proof and then what - nothing.
I don't think releasing all evidence is really appropriate in any case. Our desire to know the details doesn't override the privacy of either individual. Not releasing the findings surely doesn't suggest they're lacking or unconvincing since I honestly can't imagine a situation in which they would ever be released by any organization hired to perform such a task. Have you ever seen such a release?
And I'm not sure without knowledge of what was reviewed how you can use the length of time it took to come to any conclusions about the quality or purpose of the investigation.
Right. But how does a person get "cleared" of something like this? In a single he-said/she-said situation?
The accusation will stick whether it is true or not.
I go with lack of evidence, aka believe Chloe but also give Hardwick benefit of doubt. Until something else comes out it is the only thing you can say
This, until further evidence surfaces, this is the only possible outcome, for what is worth, i lean more to her side of the story, but with no evidence, he gets the benefit of doubt.
Companies take these kind of accusations pretty seriously nowadays. It's standard practice to have a third party, usually a law firm, to conduct a thorough investigation so they can cover their asses. I assume AMC did just that.
I don't think Hardwick is remotely uniquely talented to such a degree they would continue to do business with him unless they findings concluded it was safe to do.
I actually can't stand Hardwick, but if AMC did their due diligence, this won't bother me.
I don't think Hardwick is remotely uniquely talented to such a degree they would continue to do business with him unless they findings concluded it was safe to do.
I actually can't stand Hardwick, but if AMC did their due diligence, this won't bother me.
The Hearst family is worth 32 billion fucking dollars. They are not "just one client among MANY".
"safe to do business with" and "we determined he didn't do anything" are two very different things. Fox News deemed it was safe to continue doing business with Bill O'Reilly for 10+ years and 42 million dollars in settlements, because the money they paid out was less than the money he brought him. It doesn't mean he wasn't a disgusting sexual predator and abuser.
Also, companies hiring law firms doesn't make everything automatically on the up and up, especially when the law firm in question has serious ties to important clients of that firm. It's a huge conflict of interest at the very least, not to mention the fact that AMC has a vested interest in the outcome. The idea that any of this makes things proper and trustworthy is about as convincing as the standard police boilerplate after one of their cops shoots an unarmed person ("we have investigated ourselves and determined that we did nothing wrong").
You're still going to say this in 2018, when we've recently seen dozens of men get fired from every career position imaginable over sexual abuse allegations? It's not even arguable that the easiest thing for AMC to do here would be to just fire Hardwick and end this entire problem for themselves immediately. They've chosen to reinstate him, which is going to be the tougher road, because now they're going to be asked why they did so, you're awful and I'm never watching your network again, etc. They must feel confident this was the right course of action.
You're not going to see them release a vast evidence cache and witness testimony. This isn't a public court case. I suspect they talked to many people around Hardwick, who've worked with him currently and previously, and given them an anonymous opportunity to share stories of his misbehavior with them, and they got nothing. Also, the original claim by Dykstra included the threat that she had proof of his abuses, at least in some form. Again, I would strongly suspect the investigators talked directly to her and asked for that proof. Then you have multiple ex girlfriends of his coming forward to say he didn't abuse them in any way. If Dykstra wasn't willing to provide any evidence, and you've got all these other people vouching for the guy not being a shithead, it's easy to imagine a company deciding he doesn't deserve to be fired.
Oh okay. I've seen her on it the odd time, but I don't actively watch it. I just sometimes see what has been saved at the end of The Walking Dead.
Yeah I mean her stint on there was addressed by her as
"Covering for my friend"
So she supports him.
What would allow you to say that he did not do anything wrong? All the responses saying they refuse to believe the investigation do not mention what any person accused of this could do to give them a way out.
I have high doubts the firm would risk their reputation for Hardwick.
Did you even read the comment thread on that tweet or look into the case at all? Or did you just see the name Hearst and jump to conclusions?
Patty Hearst (Chris Hardwick's mother-in-law) was suing the Hearst Corporation which was represented by Loeb & Loeb. They were on opposite sides. They don't have a connection.
edit* grammar
Last edited:
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was quoting your comment to point out that in terms of other clients, the firm has MUCH bigger ones than Hearst to begin with, and that it's absolutely ridonkulous to believe that they'd dirty their hands and their reputation for someone as lowly as Chris Hardwick.
This would explain virtually everything that just happened. Unfortunate that they didn't coordinate with her on the timing.
Sounds like she is okay with him getting his job back and this whole thing was done to help her heal from their relationship. Not a win-win for both but looks like they both come out of this somewhat okay so that's positive I guess.
Talking Dead hasn't been on the air since June 10 and Talking with Chris Hardwick hasn't aired since last September (season two was pulled a week before it was set to air, but will seemingly air at a later date).
I still don't intend to get back on the Chris Hardwick train. Those text messages he leaked didn't exactly make him sound any better in my opinion.
Gotcha. I don't watch the show so didn't know. But I am not one to blindly believe what entertainment trots out there. It usually sides on the ratings/losing money/fans side of things that what is right.
- Status