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?
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.