Verge: Gearbox confirms Chris Hardwick will reprise role for Borderlands 3

[bluexy]

Could someone please explain to me what you expected to happen to Hardwick after the accusation?

Should he never get another job in the entertainment industry again? We don't know what happened. Only Hardwick and his ex do. And if you believe her, that's understandable. It's incredibly rare that women lie. It's important to listen to them when they make accusations. But to all those who are angry at this, I don't understand what you think should happen.

Click to shrink...

If you're asking sincerely, I'd think the answer is obvious. If you believe her, then you believe Hardwick is someone who sexually assaulted a woman. If you believe someone committed such a crime, yes, I think it's fairly understandable to not want them to work in a public facing industry like television. Especially in the same work environment where they were before. A position of power where they have control and influence over any number of people.

I just don't think you can make conclusive judgements either way, but if it boils down to a simplistic "he said, she said", I feel it weighs in his favour. She questioned his character. Multiple other women answered it for him.

Your posts above are really troubling and concerning, and undermine the real fight many women are facing. They don't want to win with your pity, they want to win with justice.

Click to shrink...

I find your insinuation that -believing women when they say they've been the victim of sexual assault- is just pitying them absolutely abhorrent and disgusting.

 

[Deleted member 57239]

-

 

[Zonal Hertz]

you're a journalist and you say this? .... are you serious?

Click to shrink...

He's a freelance game journalist. Certainly no more authority on this than anyone else.

 

[Critch]

Conspiracy theories, ok, that’s where this is going then

Someone being “cleared” doesn’t invalidate the victims claims

Click to shrink...

Floating the theory that he only got cleared because of having the same law firm as his wife is a conspiracy theory.

Someone being "cleared" also doesn't mean the accused should be penalized for something. That's what being cleared means. Hang the guy if more comes out about him that collaborates, sure, but at this point, there's no reason for anyone to not keep him on board.

 

[Captain Melody]

Situations like this always bring the biggest fuckin losers out of the woodwork to dismiss women's experiences.

Click to shrink...

Yup.

 

[bluexy]

i said what i said because it seems like you take accusations as fact. Am i wrong?

do journalistic principles mean nothing?

Click to shrink...

Yes, you're wrong. You're making several leaps of logic trying to reach a conclusion that isn't true. I said that testimony is evidence, which is a fact. Evidence can help establish the truth. Nothing more or less. I, broadly, choose to believe women in instances of sexual harassment and assault. Not as fact, but as truth, on a case by case basis given the context of each.

I write about video games. I can have personal opinions about these things, pervasive in the industry, while easily maintaining journalistic principles. I don't think it's unfair to say it's a stretch to say I don't just because you disagree with my personal opinions.

 

[ZeoVGM]

If you're asking sincerely, I'd think the answer is obvious. If you believe her, then you believe Hardwick is someone who sexually assaulted a woman. If you believe someone committed such a crime, yes, I think it's fairly understandable to not want them to work in a public facing industry like television

Click to shrink...

But you don't know. No one does. This was not a situation with multiple accusers and there is no proof of it. That doesn't mean she is lying but we literally do not know what happened. So to think he shouldn't get another job strictly because of this accusation and to get angry at a company for continuing to work with him just isn't realistic or how the world should work.

 

[Zonal Hertz]

At the end of the day, if this guy is cleared, he should get to work on whatever he used to do. If he doesn't, it sets a horrendous precedent that anyone can maliciously make false claims and all but guarantee they will ruin someones career. Yes. We absolutely should believe women. But the notion that this is blindly done in the absence of any sort of actual evidence followup and going purely from their word is literal insanity. Anyone who thinks people wouldn't abuse such a system is deluded and there are plenty of cases that prove this already.

 

[OHRye]

Can we just ban this guy already? Accusations = Evidence? Get real dude. It doesn't matter who I believe. There was no proof he did anything. Plenty of people get wrongly accused of things all the time.

I have no idea whose right, I don't know these people. What I do know is nothing was proven, so that's what I go by.

 

[Bricktop]

Accusations are evidence. You don't get to say, "Nothing was found," while ignoring the evidence.

Click to shrink...

What an absurd opinion.

Even if accusations were evidence, which they aren't, then by extension any refutation of said accusation would also be evidence.

The truth is we have zero evidence in this case. We have a she said, he said and an investigation that found nothing worthy of firing him. That's it. Now you can choose to believe what you want but pretending like there are any facts is ridiculous.

P.S. Accusation != Testimony. One is something you can toss out on Twitter, the other requires an oath under threat of perjury. She never testified about anything, which means her accusation is, in fact, not evidence of anything, merely a claim that it happened...two completely different things.

 

[bluexy]

But you don't know. No one does. This was not a situation with multiple accusers and there is no proof of it. That doesn't mean she is lying but we literally do not know what happened. So to think he shouldn't get another job strictly because of this accusation and to get angry at a company for continuing to work with him just isn't realistic or how the world should work.

Click to shrink...

There are degrees of knowing, even without certainty. This isn't a court of law and people's individual opinions aren't going to have any dramatic consequences. Personally, I'm comfortable in believing this woman and supporting her by posting disapproval of the lack of consequence for Hardwick. That's the degree of my involvement. If I was in a jury deciding whether he was guilty or not, that'd be another matter entirely. I couldn't convict without certainty. But yeah, in terms of speaking online? Sure, I believe the woman, and so know enough to feel comfortable speaking on the topic this way.

Even if accusations were evidence, which they aren't, then by extension any refutation of said accusation would also be evidence.

The truth is we have zero evidence in this case. We have a she said, he said and an investigation that found nothing worthy of firing him. That's it. Now you can choose to believe what you want but pretending like there are any facts is ridiculous.

P.S. Accusation != Testimony. One is something you can toss out on Twitter, the other requires an oath under threat of perjury. She never testified about anything, which means her accusation is, in fact, not evidence of anything, merely a claim that it happened...two completely different things.

Click to shrink...

Actually, yes, a refutation absolutely is evidence in the same way that an accusation is. And alright, if you choose to give as much credence to his reputation as to her accusation, then that's your call. But in effect, you're just choosing not to believe her. Which isn't really treating the two perspectives evenly or fairly. It's treating his as accurate and hers as a lie.

And no, "testimony" is a broad term in the same way that "evidence" is. We're people on the internet talking about this stuff, deciding whether we're going to talk about it online in one way or another in the future. We're not bound by the structure of law and legal definitions here. These words have meaning outside of the legal system. "I believe this woman and so I don't think we should put this guy on TV," is a world apart from, "GUILTY! TO JAIL!"

 

[someday]

I won't be buying the game just like I stopped watching any of the Talking shows on AMC, and I mostly avoid AMC as a whole. I read her story and I read his response. Ultimately my decision doesn't mean much to anyone but I feel better.

 

[ZeoVGM]

There are degrees of knowing, even without certainty. This isn't a court of law and people's individual opinions aren't going to have any dramatic consequences. Personally, I'm comfortable in believing this woman and supporting her by posting disapproval of the lack of consequence for Hardwick.

Click to shrink...

You can believe her and also understand that he shouldn't lose jobs because one person made a claim against him. The two need to be separated. A person should not lose their job because a single person makes an unproven claim -- even if you personally believe it to be true.

 

[Coyote Starrk]

I personally don't have an issue with this. If he was still under investigation or had just been accused then I definitely would, but from what I can tell he was investigated and nothing was found. And no new evidence or accusers have come out either since the original allegations surfaced.

 

[bluexy]

You can believe her and also understand that he shouldn't lose jobs because one person made a claim against him. The two need to be separated. A person should not lose their job because a single person makes an unproven claim -- even if you personally believe it to be true.

Click to shrink...

Sure. I don't agree with your conclusion but I understand that perspective. It's just like, virtually no effort to say, "I believe her enough not to support him," versus not doing anything. I think that bit of effort is pretty meaningful and says a lot about a person.

 

[Deleted member 21709]

Gearbox is on a roll this year, whew. They are leaning into it.

 

[Mona]

But in effect, you're just choosing not to believe her. Which isn't really treating the two perspectives evenly or fairly. It's treating his as accurate and hers as a lie.

Click to shrink...

wait, do you think that not believing her account means you think the assault didn't happen? cuz thats what you just said

 

[Bricktop]

Actually, yes, a refutation absolutely is evidence in the same way that an accusation is. And alright, if you choose to give as much credence to his reputation as to her accusation, then that's your call. But in effect, you're just choosing not to believe her. Which isn't really treating the two perspectives evenly or fairly. It's treating his as accurate and hers as a lie.

Click to shrink...

You realize you are actually doing what you claim that I am doing? She said this, therefore you don't believe him, the people who have come out in his defense, or the fact that the investigation couldn't find anything worth firing him over? Is that about right?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim I'm giving his reputation more weight and not treating them equally when you flatly ignore everything else and assume guilty just because she made an allegation. Further, I'm not treating his account as accurate at all, I'm just not willing to apply guilt where I have no evidence of guilt, while you're completely willing to ignore him, his backers, and an investigation because someone claimed he did something. So much for treating them evenly or fairly.

 

[bluexy]

You realize you are actually doing what you claim that I am doing? She said this, therefore you don't believe him, the people who have come out in his defense, or the fact that the investigation couldn't find anything worth firing him over? Is that about right?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim I'm giving his reputation more weight and not treating them equally when you flatly ignore everything else and assume guilty just because she made an allegation. Further, I'm not treating his account as accurate at all, I'm just not willing to apply guilt where I have no evidence of guilt, while you're completely willing to ignore him, his backers, and an investigation because someone claimed he did something. So much for treating them evenly or fairly.

Click to shrink...

I already wrote up a reply to this argument here. Sexual assault accusations don't exist in a vacuum. Acknowledging that both accusation and refutation are valid as types of evidence doesn't mean they deserve equal consideration. And, come on, citing that his friends, family, and job all say he's a great guy doesn't mean anything.

 

[Wein Cruz]

I'm a little suspicious of hardwick because I do take it seriously when a woman accuses a man of abuse, buuuut I'm unwilling to completely write someone off and say they should basically go away forever and never work again based on one accusation from one ex and nothing else. The world can't work that way.

Click to shrink...

Unfortunately a lot of people don't think this way

 

[SamWilson]

If I recall, AMC hired a law firm with a lot of experience in these kinds of issues/accusations, and they concluded nothing occurred that should rise to level of him being terminated / them cutting business ties. I can't recall their wording, but I am pretty sure that was the gist of it. There were no settlements or anything like that.

Since then Hardwick has slowly been getting his jobs back.

Edit: Here's an article discussing it: https://www.slashfilm.com/amc-chris-hardwick-investigation-third-party/

Click to shrink...

Thanks for the link!

I must have missed that part of the news cycle where he was cleared. (I didn't watch Walking Dead this year, so didn't know he was back on Talking Dead).

 

[mr teaspoon]

And you really think this is gonna help the massively fucked situation we have out there? Not buying a game and complaining on a forum full of like minded individuals will not fix anything thats the point of the joke (which ive now added /s too just so ppl will know since i guess they dont get it)

Click to shrink...

Oof, so much here.

First of all, what you're characterizing as "complaining" is literally people here TALKING ABOUT THE NEWS. Like, is it not okay for this info to come out and for people to discuss it? If you have a weird issue with conversation, stay off of a forum.

Two, yes, actually, not buying a game is a pretty effective way to make your voice heard.

Third, there was no 'joke' on your part. You're unironically telling people to shut up and get over it and using dumb, lazy 'you going to march in the streets over this?'

 

[Burly]

That company AMC hired to investigate him also represents the family of Chris Hardwick's wife, the fucking Hearsts. Totally no conflicts there.

JUST SAYIN' when people say he was cleared.

Click to shrink...

I wish this was more common knowledge. It's ridiculous.

Click to shrink...

You guys know it was the exact opposite of that, right?

Loeb & Loeb, the lawfirm which did the 3rd party investigation into Chris Hardwick, previously represented the Hearst Corporation against Patty Hearst (Hardwick's mother-in-law) when she sued them.

 

[brokeastronaut]

You guys know it was the exact opposite of that, right?

Loeb & Loeb, the lawfirm which did the 3rd party investigation into Chris Hardwick, previously represented the Hearst Corporation against Patty Hearst (Hardwick's mother-in-law) when she sued them.

Click to shrink...

They're tight knit with the family. All of them. There's a huge conflict of interest there.

 

[Feep]

I don't know if this matters, but I know Chloe personally. (Even if I didn't, I'd be heavily leaning into believing her, anyway.) She and I have discussed this at length and I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that Chris Hardwick badly, badly abused her during their time together.

It's telling that Chris Hardwick's immediate drafted response denied next to NOTHING of her testimony, only that technically, a specific instance couldn't be considered sexual assault due to verbal consent. Which is true, I guess.

And while a couple of his ex's went to bat for him, it's a bit of a known secret in the industry that he's a piece of shit.

I understand my words should carry no more weight than Chloe's, and you reading this theoretically shouldn't increase or decrease the odds you think she's telling the truth. But it *does* bother me to see anyone stick up for this asshole, and while I agree that no legal action should be taken, in this case, I absolutely don't want him in my fucking games.

It goes without saying; I will not be purchasing Borderlands 3. It's not like he's even a very good actor. Replace him with any number of the brilliant talents in and around Los Angeles and Austin.

 

[Jakisthe]

Except that everyone recognize the dangers of conflicts of interest and professionals - especially law firms - take multiple steps to remove them from the equation. Someone in a large organization having worked for someone else doesn't mean the entire thing is tainted.

 

[Zornack]

They're tight knit with the family. All of them. There's a huge conflict of interest there.

Click to shrink...

Source?

 

[brokeastronaut]

Source?

Click to shrink...

I'll Google it real quick but this all came up months ago when this was first coming to light. They're rich people family lawyers.

It's mentioned here in a yahoo article but many other sources said the same thing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ya...wick-cleared-abuse-allegations-232025594.html

 

[Burly]

They're tight knit with the family. All of them. There's a huge conflict of interest there.

Click to shrink...

In the case people people are using to cite the conflict of interest, she was suing her her own family on the board of trustees of the Hearst Corporation.

 

[brokeastronaut]

In the case people people are using to cite the conflict of interest, she was suing her her own family on the board of trustees of the Hearst Corporation.

Click to shrink...

It's not the only time Loeb and Loeb has worked with the Hearsts. I don't find any of them trust worthy when it's in all their interests to keep money in the families flowing. This includes Hardwicks career.

 

[moriquendi]

P.S. Accusation != Testimony. One is something you can toss out on Twitter, the other requires an oath under threat of perjury. She never testified about anything, which means her accusation is, in fact, not evidence of anything, merely a claim that it happened...two completely different things.

Click to shrink...

That’s a very convenient way to be able to discount any allegations. So nothing anyone says is evidence unless it’s specifically given under oath? It seems like a definition specifically designed to discredit accusers.

It is funny that it’s only allegations of sexual abuse by women that seem to be subject to this level of scrutiny.

 

[reaganstein]

They lost one more sale. Guess it shouldn't be surprising given the pitchford comments on animal abuse.

 

[Alex840]

He must be cheaper than Troy Baker.