AMC pulls all of Chris Hardwick's shows amid sexual assault allegations

Well stated
Every case is different and the hope is that the guilty are found guilty and the innocent are not falsely charged and not determined to be guilty. I think of the DUKE LAX Players, who were falsely charged, but at least the facts came out in that case in the end, as it was easy to jump to conclusions about a group of kids seen as spoiled upper class types, whose families have the financial resources to hire better lawyers to help find them innocent(but in this case they really were innocent).

I really struggled with the Michael Jackson Accusations, as I could see either side being the Truth(Either there were Families knowing they could extort money from him with accusations, and if that was the case, he was at worst guilty of bad judgement sleeping with kids in his bed, as he was trying to relive the childhood he never had, or he was a Pedophile and was doing something wrong with those kids).

 

Grant, you wrote :"Men aren't going to stop treating women like their toys."
How do the majority of men, who have never treated women like toys, fit into your narrative?

 

"That #metoo movement is evil and demonic."

"Women who dress scantily are scum? Interesting."

Grant, above are the two posts you included to preface your statement of things going into a bad place.
Please explain how these remarks take things into a bad place.
Please explain this "bad place" you are referencing.

Thank you.

 

I highlighted your last sentence because this is the portion of your reply I wish to focus upon without leaving out the entire post...which has relevance in your overall answer.
The mentality of, believe the woman and crucify the man is not new, nor is it universal. It is very dependent on the court, accuser, and accused.
With that said it seems many are ready and willing to believe, at face value, the story the woman tells while casting aside the mans story...especially if it does not fit the narrative of what they want to believe.
I have been witness to direct lies told about a man, by a woman, and NOBODY in any authoritative position cared one bit about vetting the story...just hang the man and be done.

Even with eye witness accounts directly contradicting what the woman claimed, the story still was greatly in favor of the woman.

I know of a few women who have specifically used this mentality against men to basically ruin the man out of anger, revenge and spite...and it worked each and every time regardless of verifiable evidence, proof.

While this is NOT an indicator of all women are lying about abuses, it is a reality that a women is not always the victim of what she is claiming to have happened simply because she said it happened.

 

Here you are correct.
The mob is guiding the outcome and the facts are becoming less important to the popular vote.
The media has fed this monster and it has grown out of control. So long as certain words are used like, allegedly, believed to be, our sources suggest, and the like the story gets distributed without regard to the real facts as they have been verified.
Lies, salacious content, first to "print", and legally worded so as not to be sued, are the standard of the media world at this time...and it is wrong in my opinion.

 

I think the opposite may be action, real, meaningful action. Most who use "virtue signaling" begin and end with the specifically chosen words to garner favor.
Nothing much ever occurs from these people because they are usually made of little to no action. All hat and no cowboy, so to speak.

 

I have to say that "virtue signalling" is a new phrase to me.

 

I go with the former. MJ just had bad judgement, based on his history of being a gentle, timid child abused by his father, achieving fame at a very young age, and pretty much being responsible for supporting his entire family with his talent.

 

They aren't alleged anymore. He's been convicted and is awaiting sentencing this fall.

 

After Cosby... you're only willing to listen to one side?

Sorry, but I strongly feel each case is independent of each other. Before deciding on a case, I want to hear both sides of the story.

 

Is that true? Can that be confirmed? Or is "virtue signaling" just a derogatory term used to invalidate people attempting to do the right thing by painting them as pretenders?

 

So THE MEDIA have massive control over "the sheeple"? The sheeple are so dumb they can be controlled, but not you because you're the smart one?

 

Looks like all the thread killers have convened on this topic in full force.

Whether it’s down to inability to follow simple rules or lack of impulse control, you guys are the reason why this forum needs industrial-strength moderation.

 

As with most things in life there are both sides.
Some who say virtuous things in an explanatory manner also act in a virtuous manner.
However, from my direct experience and observations, many who speak about virtuous things do not act in such a manner.

I believe the "old" term that most closely resembles the newer "virtue signaling" is "Brown Nosing."

Saying the right things, to the right audience, in order to garner favor, without ever actually taking action concerning the words spoken, has always been a bad thing no matter what you call it.

For confirmation just look around at the people. Listen to what they talk about, then observe what they actually do. Rarely are the virtuous ideals the actions taken by those who spoke so eloquently about said ideals.

"I support our troops" ribbons are a great example of this. When you find out what has literally been done by most "I Support Our Troops" banner waivers you realize the "support" begins and ends with the purchase of the ribbon they use to show everyone how supportive they are.

NOTHING else has been done, is planned to be done, or will ever be done...but there they are, signaling to all how great and helpful they are in supporting our troops with their $1 sticker.
The number of instances such as this are many, and the basic outcome is similar. Virtue Signaling can be found pretty much everywhere these days if you are willing to see things for what they literally are, rather than what they are claimed to be.

 

Good for him! Now … if he could train himself not to say "like" every third word that he says.

 

Not saying *you* were contending there is a level of funniness/talent for which abuse is okay. But that's how the "he was never funny anyway" sort of comments come across to observers.

I'm sure many are often happy to engage in some shadenfreude in these cases. I've never been a fan of Hardwick, so I'm certainly not pained if he doesn't return to TV. But again, to the mass of observers (which one may or may not care about), emphasizing enjoying his downfall just because you never liked the guy rather than because of his alleged heinous actions is going to result in people not being very supportive of such an assertion.

As an aside, this is different than something like Roseanne, where the "thing" people have been shouting about regarding her for months if not years is the *exact* thing that led to her demise. Whereas, with Hardwick, while there are some potential links between his public persona/observations of his persona and some of the accusations against him, the typical complaints about Hardwick in recent years (e.g. he's a hack, he's a d-bag, he's annoying, he's not funny, he has to have blind devotion to AMC and "The Walking Dead") aren't really directly related to the recent accusations.

 

I also find highly annoying the think pieces that adamantly emphasize the "nerd" element of the Hardwick situation.

Let's be clear: Hardwick is not and I don't think ever was a "nerd" (or a "geek"). I could write pages and pages about this, about how Hardwick has been a big part of the "mainstream" co-opting "nerd culture", etc.

But whatever good or bad generalizations one can make about the possibly partly-apocryphal "typical" nerd (a neckbeard dude "living in his Mom's basement", etc.), whatever *that* is, Hardwick is NOT.

 

: )

 

Don't play innocent. You've needed heavy moderation too.

 

its gonna get ugly, chris just released the breakup texts, now im sure she'll release what ever she has....

I think he's playing this all wrong. just let it blow over people will get tired and move on to the next drama

 

Those texts paint a very different picture than the one she does - but both sides come off pretty broken - this feels a lot less like something that should be used to do harm to either one of them and more like something that should stay between the two of them (of course, if more information comes to light, this could all change).

 

I agree.....the one thing that's been pretty much proven by multiple sources is that he was trying to blacklist her which I think is really crappy shouldn't be ok.

 

Some good points about mob rule mentality, but you seem to confuse the issue regarding what constitutes a fair reaction for these type of allegations. We don’t know what considered judgement was used when deciding what actions were warranted here. Was it more than just accusations? Are the accusations on their face credible enough to give the guy the axe? You may see the start of a slippery slope, but I am not so sure that is the case at all.

 

It's the wild west out there in social media land. The cult of celebrity and selfie obsessed culture is biting everyone in the butt.

 

True.

They may have been. The account given by the ex make him sound like a complete dick, that's true, and he may well have deserved the axe. But I'm looking more at who decides and why. We're all consumers, so we can decide not to buy, for sure, but what I'm seeing here has a parallel in academia, and it's not one that bodes well for the future. You can have a sharp, maybe even brilliant professor who consistently gets bad student survey numbers because they don't like the fact he makes them study when they don't want to -- they're part of the 'breathing for credit' cadre as I like to call it. In a hyper-competitive "delivering/selling" educational services market, the university drops him. I don't think that's right.

So in the entertainment field, somebody says something offensive, gets accused of something and it looks credible (something less than legally actionable -- like being a dick), I think it's more appropriate to let the market/fans/consumers decide by turning off and closing their wallets, not the instant knee jerk.

I understand your point, there may well have been something more there that we're not seeing, but that's my point, we're not seeing, and we need to to make a reasoned judgement.

Actually, you're right, it's not the start to my mind, but a progressive escalation of a trend that I believe started a while back.

I'm putting these events on a cline that basically starts for me in 2002/3 with a different set of issues, but wide view of the trend. It might seem counterintuitive to link the issues, but if you look at it from a propaganda and social conditioning perspective you'll see what I'm getting at. The past couple of years have seen the major media (which, it has to be said, means the elite media, since they set the national agenda) push society into a flash judgement mode. Whether or not this was an altogether natural 'bottom-up' development sparked by popular technology I don't know, but it's clear major media are enthusiastically on board. Mob justice, court of public opinion, flash trend justice all permit bypassing calm and considered judgement, and may in time help bypass or help influence the way the rule of law is applied.

It has already been a decade since it was revealed that Facebook was conducting social media experiments in conjunction with the Pentagon.

Just look at the way some people react in the medical marijuana thread we're both in. You have already made-up minds (including mine) but while I, you and others attempt to demonstrate the reality that there are scientifically established, verified, demonstrated medical benefits and uses for cannabis, there are a number of people who refuse to believe it and continue to say "there's no evidence." Why would they do that when there is? Because they've been inculcated with a mindset that prevents them from looking at conflicting evidence. Maybe they can't handle it and keep their already set world view. I don't know. I do know it's fossilised myopia established through both social conditioning and some degree of media support.

So -- not to threadcrap, I think these are related issues -- it will be really interesting to see what becomes of the medical marijuana debate. There is a popular undercurrent -- nearly 50 years in the making -- for legalisation. As I showed in my post over on that other thread, there is all kinds of tantalising, verifiable evidence for all kinds of medical uses for marijuana, reported in medical journals, that have gained scant coverage. What has gotten coverage is the down side.

What happens next? We know that the average man in the street has little to no say in what happens at the top, so let's consider what those "in the know" might want. If they decide to get properly positioned to profit from blanket legalisation (and the factions who look to lose markets to marijuana-based medicines capitulate) I'd expect to see fast, spectacular reportage on the positive side with major media lining up in the march and the anti-side pilloried for all kinds of reasons both related or unrelated to the facts of the argument and their quick and comprehensive removal from the discussion.

Sorry for long-winded thinking out loud, but what I'm getting at is this: we've already slipped and we're well on our way down the slope -- a super effective means to enact publicly supported purges has been created.

It works.

It's kind of brilliant that the thing that has given it not only significant traction and momentum is an issue no one can really argue with -- that sexual abusers deserve what they get -- from a career destroyed to jail. When you consider all the credible allegations and accusations by women of having been victimised by sexual abuse through the decades, you have to wonder -- why now? It was just as reprehensible in 1988 as 2018, but it was only a marginal media issue. Why is that? Why was it so relatively unimportant before, but it's front and center now?

But the key I think is articulated in what you just mentioned in your post, i.e.

and that's right, we don't.

Sometimes that makes all the difference.