- 1 Post
- 8 Comments
brown567@sh.itjust.worksto Showerthoughts@lemmy.world•Lemmy is a tech literate echo chamber71·7 days agoNah, I’m an idiot XD
I have a more comprehensive set than that, and I still keep all of the freebies
brown567@sh.itjust.worksto Showerthoughts@lemmy.world•We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.3·11 days agoThat’s an excellent point
brown567@sh.itjust.worksto Showerthoughts@lemmy.world•We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.72·12 days agoThat’s because they’re not looking for evidence that shows a crime was committed, they’re looking for evidence of who committed the crime
Your injuries are evidence of a crime, but not necessarily evidence of a specific perpetrator
brown567@sh.itjust.worksto Showerthoughts@lemmy.world•We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.64·12 days agoWhen a woman claims to have been assaulted, I automatically believe her in regards to how I treat her.
As far as the person she’s accused goes, though, I think it’s pretty easy to understand that nobody should be convicted on the sole evidence of their accuser’s testimony, and I think that should apply to the court of public opinion as well.
It’s a situation where either one person is guilty of a horrible crime, or the other is making false allegations of said crime. In order for both to be “innocent until proven guilty”, you need to assume the allegations are true when interacting with the woman, and assume they’re false while interacting with the accused. It’s really counterintuitive and maybe impossible to do
Free space in the middle
Bullcrap. Almost all of them are rooted in racism or petty grudges