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?
I'm not saying you can't form an opinion on it but maybe don't post "this is fake" until you hear the whole story? I guess I'm more concerned about the message this creates for victims of abuse. That if we publicly claim their victimhood is true or false before we even talk to them maybe we are doing victims a disservice. Just like it was wrong of the media to post that this girl was a victim before talking to her.
It's already hard for people to talk about abuse openly, shouldn't we be working to ease that burden by making a narrative that consistently puts victims first?
No I don't agree with you. However you want to describe this (tone policing, slippery slope, false dichotomy), the message is the same I think. When someone says "this is fake" they're not in a vacuum. They're responding to a series of known facts, including the identity of the alleged criminal and the source of the information itself. To compare this generally to "victims of abuse" entirely ignores that nuance I'm not surprised you'd get shit on for that.
By saying something so close to "you can think that but don't share your belief" you're doing a greater disservice imo. It's gate keeping good faith beliefs and that's some lib shit.