Talking Dead..?

valid reinstatement, invalid reinstatement? if AMC says they investigated, is it ok to doubt accusations or do we always favor the accuser?

http://comicbook.com/thewalkingdead/2018/08/10/talking-dead-executive-producer-quits-chris-hardwick/

it's a quandary, you don't want to create a predatory atmosphere if someone's feelings get hurt in a relationship ending badly, but yeah you don't want to encourage a predatory relationship by someone who's high spotlight or well off. mind you I always felt Hollywood is mostly run by the low of the low, so the more the Hollywoods feed on the themselves, the more I'm laughing at the whole dumb system. the winners? lawyers.

I'm a big believer in innocent until proven guilty, except for OJ.

Okay this is hearsay on my part, but my understanding is that Hardwick (a sexual name if there ever was one) presented a case via old texts or twittery or whatever that his former girlfriend was kind of nuts, or at least hyperexcitable, and maybe a tad disappointed that he dumped her. Basically, some people believed her (and left) and others believed him (and stayed or let him stay).


As for investigation and such, a lot of previous accusations led to pretty immediate proof of (systemic) wrong doing by men against women. So people at TD may have jumped the gun in response to all of that. I'm guessing that there was no specific foundation in the claims, except that they were claims. Where I think entertainment establishments could run into trouble is, as you suggest, a quick siding with the accuser before all info comes out. Could this mean that Hardwick could seek damages for even temporarily being suspended from TD? I don't know how his contract works. If there are clauses for such things. But maybe he should start dating a dominatrix. If he dates at all.


Again, most of the accusations I've heard about have had merit. So what do people do about that?

I dunno, I go back to the stereotypical guys are wrong in this case and always will be as the relationship predators as so will be guilty if nothing else by the court of public opinion, ie hardwick will be seen as guilty from this point forward even if innocent. The public court is slanted in the opinion an accusation is guilt, I'm assuming as Hollyweirds see their female accolades as immediately at a disadvantage. Incorrect IMO as I see many powerful female Hollies working their trade to great success, but mind you I am not seeing the behind the scenes shenanigans.

One has to define merit, if AMC investigated and found no wrong doing. So a mere accusation against me has merit, if not judged by an 'arbitrary' company? By what standard then do you indicate a valid arbitrary judge is? If i argue against a past girlfriend she does not not provide a satisfactory sex relation, does that constitute me harassing her for sex relations as a ground for ruining a professional relationship? At what line is this drawn? Any sex/kissing is terms for ruining a professional relationship? I need 'x' kisses per day? It becomes stupid. Harassment is so stupidly vague I can't see where it gets argued in court. I can say you hair looks crap, that can be construed as harassment. Or your eyes, your eyes, fat cheeks, fat ass. ALL STUPID SUBJECTIVE.

AMC is a company, not an arm of the law. They have their own self interest to protect. AMC has to form an opinion. After working with Chris for so long, they should already know enough about him to know if these claims have merit. So they take what they know about Chris and his situation along with the evidence in this case and form an opinion. Then they act accordingly. If Chris is being reinstated by AMC, I think it is a really good sign that he is probably innocent of these charges.

Yeah who knows. Chloe has a career but I'd not say she is on Ch's level for popularity. So for me smacks of popularity grab on her part. Mind you I'm a guy so automatically biased for guys, as gals love to put in our face how much smarter they are than we are. And then we walk away and worlds fall apart.