Jimmy Eat World - Surviving (October 18, 2019) Album • Page 58

I said "I think". Calm down.

 

oh wow that changes everything my bad


/s

 

People can choose to take what I said and look for more evidence. Or they can stick with what they currently think and ignore it. I'm not saying anything dangerous. Hardwick's name was cleared by his employer and he was taken back. Maybe that counts for something. Some people have been known to lie or exaggerate their own victimhood before. Don't blindly believe what I say without looking for your own evidence. But I can share my general perspective on it.

 

saying someone has been widely discredited without anything to back it up is extremely dangerous. putting that out there without backing it up yourself is wildly irresponsible, though it seems like youre just coming from a place of arrogance which, is worse. his employer taking him back means nothing by the way, people are protected by their employers after committing heinous acts all the time, especially in the entertainment industry. if you put something like that out there, it is your responsibility to back it up, not whoever happens to read your posts. by the way, the percentage of false accusation is so incredibly low there's almost no way she's lying. but im sure you already know that and choose to say "some people lie you know" anyway. overall, you are disgusting and should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Do you think you might be exaggerating just a tad? JUST a tad? "Extremely dangerous", "disgusting", "ashamed" and "wildly irresponsible"? Come on, this is a music forum. I don't have disciples on this forum. Nobody is going to take my vague statement and shape their world view around it. Nobody is going to see me saying "I think she was widely discredited" and blindly take my word for it, ignoring all the other information. There is no danger here.

 

I think we should leave this conversation where it is. It clearly isn't going to turn out a very productive or friendly one.

 

Has anyone heard the studio version of 555 yet?

 

im not exaggerating at all

so i guess thats gonna be a no on having anything to back up your statement, which means you posted that because...........???? are you a big hardwick fan or something?

 

Oh wow a faceless corporate entity with a financial stake in his success cleared him of any wrongdoing that was in no way connected with anything related to his work for them, that changes everything

 

No.

 

The year.

 

I've never seen anything Hardwick has done, other than the interview with Jimmy Eat World. I'm not a fan of is and I barely know who he is. Just sharing the impression that I've got from other people online that apparently her accusations more came from a place of a bad relationship (everyone has them) rather than criminal abuse. I could be wrong, that's fine. If it helps to mitigate any "extreme danger", please feel free to ignore every single thing I say on this website.

 

You are propagating a widely harmful and dangerous belief; that is, that victims of abuse should be side-eyed and doubted just because an incredibly small minority of individuals have been caught lying about or exaggerating their accusations. You don't need "disciples" to understand why immediately dismissing a victim's story as being "widely discredited" with no evidence and no explanation is a bad look.

 

Maybe it doesn't change anything. Maybe we should stop talking about this as it's not going anywhere positive. I have no stake in this. At the least Chris Hardwick is a bit of a shitty person. Not sure about a criminal but probably at least he's a bad boyfriend.

 

Let's also not dismiss the internet or a music forum as being, somehow, a less valid or significant place of discourse. Saying something publicly on a forum is no different than saying something publicly in a room full of people. The things you say hold weight, whether you speak them or write them out.



Oh and another thing, using criminality as a basis for a person's wrongdoing doesn't work in a country with such a flawed, biased, and tedious judicial system

 

ahhh and there it is. calling this stuff just a "bad relationship" is what allows hardwick to get away with it and continue on with his career. of course it was a bad relationship, relationships that involve emotional abuse tend to be quite bad. downplaying it like that is something you should absolutely never do. emotional abuse is real and can cause PTSD and other issues just as much as physically abusive relationships can. and i do not care about whats criminally wrong or whatever, i have zero faith in our justice system when it comes to protecting victims.

 

I didn't dismiss. I'm not extremely dangerous. This is getting a bit silly. I didn't say to side-eye everyone. Just giving a counter-impression to the topic at hand. It wasn't worth me commenting, I agree with that, because I didn't expect everyone to get so upset by it. You're all happy to side-eye Hardwick's account of things, and accept that he is probably in the wrong, but I'm not allowed to hint at the other side of the story being possible.

 

Okay, couple things. I didn't call you extremely dangerous. I'm calling the ideology of dismissing survivors extremely dangerous, because it is. Conversations about abuse allegations should never be called "silly." That's insulting to survivors. You didn't use the words "side-eye," but that's what you're doing. That's implicit in the things you said. We don't need a devil's advocate or "counter-impression" when a survivor comes forward to tell their story about their abuse and abuser. I'm willing to believe women because I know how incredibly rare it is for them, or any victims of abuse, to lie. I'm willing to put my faith in the people who have been harmed moreso than the people who harmed them. It's simple.

 

Do you all honestly, genuinely think, that I'm a dangerous and disgusting human being because I shared the impression I had got that he might have had his name cleared? Really? A dangerous and disgusting person for having received that impression and commented it in a forum. I don't know where I got it from but I got it from somewhere. I don't have evidence to back it enough and I'm not particularly invested in the case as it is. I just had a vague impression and I shared it. And you all can ignore me. Please do. But I don't like being called disgusting and dangerous, I think that's a little over-the-top.

 

Is it possible that a man is ever a survivor of a lying and manipulative woman? Or are all women perfect and all men the devil? Is there any room whatsoever for nuance in these conversations? Or is it just "skeptical man = monster"?

 

nah im pretty sure youre disgusting

 

Come on. You have to know better than this. Of fucking course men are survivors of abuse. That's why I said "any victims of abuse." It's a fact, though, that women experience abuse at a disproportionately higher rate than men. No one is calling women perfect and men monsters. That's the most "silly" thing that's been said in this conversation so far. Just accept that you said some stupid shit, use it as a learning experience, and move on.

 

So why am I being attacked for not blindly believing all women?

 

I haven't thrown personal insults at anyone here. You have. So there's that.