I hope you realize I don’t agree with Algren and was being facetious.

Thegun says he's a comedian but rarely understands when anyone else is being jocular.

Well I assume Chris Hardwick will be doing less things now. He's apparently a psychologically/sexually abusive boyfriend. (or, was...)

...because one random ex made claims of abuse?

I don't even like Hardwick (I've found him annoying for years), but for an ex of anyone to "come forward" years later with random claims of emotional/sexual abuse that--based on lack of evidence so far--can't be proven/dis-proven...that just seems like another line we've crossed into insanity.

So, for three years someone can consent to sexual acts within an ongoing, exclusive relationship with another person and then once they've broken up it becomes non-consensual because they don't like their former beau anymore/claim they were never *really* that into it?

These Chris Hardwick claims are the kind of thing that, unless accompanied by some kind of evidence or further accusations with merit, should be entirely dismissed taken on their own.

Pretty much, yeah. That's what will happen.



Despite this being true. It's the crazy world celebrities now live in.

I think Hardwick is an emotionally abusive a-hole and sabotaging his ex's careers is more than enough to lose him his job and reputation, although it would appear evidence is important there. We should take emotional abuse to the extent that it wrecks someone's body and mind to the point of near suicide as important. Emotional abuse is abuse. He deserves what he's getting. But I don't think he's a rapist. You can "starfish", lay down and do nothing while the man has sex with you, and still have it be consent. She went along with it because "she didn't want to lose him" I am sure there's plenty of wives in long term marriages who pull down their pants once a week and lay there until he's finished using the same logic of trying to make the man happy at the cost of their own, or holding out hope it'll turn around. A lot of people used the term bad sex to defend the Aziz thing, but I think this is a better example of two people in a relationship who have bad but consenting sex.

Nobody is saying this is rape, as far as I know. But you can still abuse someone into consensual sex. That is still abuse.

She says she has evidence, which she threatened him with at the end of her article if he ever decided to sue her. Whether or not he decides to sue will probably be a pretty good indicator as to whether he’s innocent or not. Then again, considering AMC and NBC will probably drop him, he might have no choice but to sue regardless of her evidence to try and salvage whatever career he’ll have left. He certainly has the pockets for a long drawn out lawsuit if he wants one.

If you keep having consensual sex with your exclusive, long-term partner over a period of *years* that's your choice. Don't want to fuck? Leave. Oh, and Hardwick's ex called it sexual abuse.

If there *is* any evidence, now is the time--you shouldn't get to just make general accusations and then follow them up with "and there's evidence to prove it! I just won't be releasing that. Trust me, though!!"

Holy shit. Do you have any idea how abuse works?

There are millions of spouses in this country who are PHYSICALLY abused every day, who don't leave. For many reasons. Either they can't get up the courage, they're scared, they can't afford to leave, they think they deserve it, etc etc etc.

good lord, man.

Nobody described any physical abuse re: Hardwick (at least not so far). Do you have insider info that others don't?

Nothing about this Harwick/ex-girlfriend situation falls under that umbrella of physically abused spouses who can't afford to leave, etc, so what in the world does that have to do with this?

Annnnnnd now TMZ has the text conversations between them.... https://www.google.com/amp/amp.tmz.com/ ... t-messages

Apparently sent to TMZ by Chris or his people.

I never said he physically abused her. But they are not as different as you seem to think. Everything she claims falls right in line with mental abuse, which can be just as difficult to leave. For the reasons I stated above. Abuse victims are ABUSED, which makes them more vulnerable to more abuse, and can think that whatever situation they're in is normal. It's not. Nothing he did was normal, or OK.

And did you read those texts yet? The novel from him and the follow-ups from her, both right away and many many months later? Even if we just ignore all the info from his novel text, she herself says over and over (then and over half a year later, unprompted) how much she loves him/he's her favorite person/etc. Why do we need to accept her sob-story from a few days ago but not these texts?

Also, how do you know "nothing he did was normal, or OK"? You are just accepting her word as fact, when based on these text messages there is more to the story than she says. This is all nobody's business, by the way, *in theory,* but this Chloe character made it public so now it's all fair game.

I've never seen someone abused love their abuser. In fact, I highly doubt there is a well known saying for that exact situation!

Again, do you have some insider info that nobody else does?

So far you have one party making *accusations* (no evidence to support) and now the other party showing *evidence* that the so-called abused half was actively seeking him out up to half a year after the alleged "abuse" took place to make a family, get back together, etc.

What makes you so qualified to understand the operation of this random woman's mind?

What happens if someone says that withholding sex while in a long term monogamous relationship is a form of emotional/psychological abuse? This isn't meant to be a sassy comeback or anything, I'm geniunely curious where the lines are drawn. It's not unthinkable someone would try to argue that.

None of the "evidence" he provided refutes ANYTHING she has said.

How is someone supposed to "prove" that their longtime girlfriend from several years ago consented to sex? Or that she was a willing participant? Generally speaking, the fact that someone continues to sleep with/live with/etc for years is acceptance--unless you have other information (and your feelings don't count as info!).

The texts prove that *she* was actively interested in reconciling over half a year after they were no longer together. Without adding your own thoughts of what you think she meant as an alleged abuse victim, her texts are rather clear--she wants to be back together, he does not respond.

So, again, unless you have some information that others do not, there is nothing here. This is PURE he said/she said (years after the fact...) yet you and others seems confident in reaching the conclusion he is 100% guilty of everything--bring on sentencing!

This is simple, I think. I require more (or *any*) evidence of misdeeds to form judgment on such a thing, and not simply an ex-partner's word.

This isn't a fucking court of law. You can think what you want to think. Right now, I believe her story more than his. Nobody is forcing you to. Him not being on TV anymore won't ruin him. He's richer than you or I will ever be.

So, if you have money (that you worked for and earned) that means it's okay for your professional life to be ruined over an allegation of abuse? Because hey, even if it's not true you have some cash, so who cares?

Also, my problem isn't what some random person on the internet thinks, it's that these companies made these decisions (which *absolutely* tilt things against him for...the rest of his life?) based on allegations of an ex. If there is something more here, evidence-wise, then now is the time to reveal. If you accuse someone of rape (she HAS accused him of sexual assault--I didn't, *she* did) and have evidence of such event taking place then to keep that secret suggests to me deception. Whenever someone/something demands blind belief, that gets the hairs on the back of my neck going.

Don't question! Don't ask to see evidence claimed to be in existence! Just accept these words as the indisputable truth, otherwise you're part of the problem!

Her story is simply a now-version of relationship events from years ago, compared to her then-version of relationship events. Who's to say what her future-version of relationship events might be? This is something that had no place being disclosed on the internet, period. Even if she has decided now, years later, that it was an abusive relationship--great! Good for you, what a learning experience, don't do that again. Not everything needs to be a blog post, or a way to get your name on the TV...

Malcolm, do you write for Bill Maher? Because everything you've written in this thread is full to the brim with good sense and logic, just like Maher.

No, just because you have money doesn't mean your career should be "ruined" over an allegation. But I'm not going to shed a tear for someone losing their multi-million dollar talk show.

The companies have every right to make the decision of whether or not to keep him hired or not. If they believe the allegations, then there must be something to them. They're around him more than we are. Nobody is asking for blind belief, but you seem to be asking for blind belief in the person being accused. Again, this isn't "innocent until proven guilty". This isn't a court.

She didn't keep it secret. People in her life knew, and she wrote a generic blog post, and never mentioned who it was. (Obviously since he's a public figure, it wasn't hard to figure out)

Her story is her story. I'm sure his story is his. If he refutes it, you're just going to believe him over her? What makes him more trustworthy to you? She doesn't need a blog post to get her name on TV. She was never a star, nor will she ever be a star. Tons of women are abused and come forward years later, and none every become "stars" because of it.

Again, as I've stated before. It does bother me when people go straight to "end their career!" when an allegation comes out. Like... just pause for a second. This isn't a Trump/Cosby situation where dozens of women are saying the same thing. Delay the TV show, cancel the moderation. Do your due diligence and review the situation.

You keep saying "this isn't a court" like a court is the only place where evidence or facts should matter. Nobody should be free to make serious accusations like this without some semblance of proof and if they do choose to, it isn't on me or anyone else to simply accept it as truth.

In response to what makes him more trustworthy in this situation, for me it's not that he is some beacon of truth not to be questioned--it's that she herself has gone about this in an underhand manner with conflicting information. So she, in essence, has *lost* the benefit of the doubt from me whereas he still has it.

And Algren, nope--no Bill Maher writer here, just someone who agrees with him on many things. Based on their public personas/stated thoughts, I consider myself the bastard son of Bill Maher & Judge Judy Big fan of personal responsibility!