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?

  • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    There's a difference between:

    1. Believing a person who comes forward and claims they were sexually assaulted, and
    2. Believing a fascist government who claims the president they ran out of the country in a coup sexually assaulted someone.

    We should absolutely believe people who come forward are doing so in good faith, and we should absolutely investigate such claims while ensuring the accused has due process, but at some point you have to have a bullshit detector. "This accusation isn't coming from the alleged victim, and is instead coming from an unreliable institution with an ax to grind against the accused" should set off anyone's bullshit detector.