I thought we should always hear from the victims before jumping to conclusions.
Saying "listen to victims first" isn't saying "maduro is a rapist" so why was it wrong of me to do so? This was before it was out that it was fake, we hadn't even heard from the kidnapped girl yet. I get it, it could be a CIA op. But don't we get mad at libs for assuming Reid was a Russian op?
Isn't it important to make a world where victims won't feel like their accusations are assumed fake before we even talk to them?
We live in a world were CIA ops to take down socialist leaders are more common than Russian ops to take down American/Capitalist leaders. People were just hedging their bets on it being fake rather than making an actual good-faith argument about the credibility of sexual assault victims. Ideally people would wait for all the pieces to fall before making a claim. But this is the internet, not a bubble of academics making carefully proposed premises and perfectly logical deductions.
But why mark people saying "wait for the pieces" as concern trolls? Why discourage people from wanting to good-faith?
Because it's the internet.
Ah. I should have known.