[defertoreptar]

Whether something is plausible doesn't make it actionable. "He said, she said" shouldn't be actionable because it lacks verifiable evidence, outside of two people's subjective experiences. Those two people are the most vulnerable to bias because they have the most incentive to disregard the whole truth. I think it was Charlie Munger who said, "never expect someone to understand that which their job depends on them not understanding."

[jakelazaroff]

You’re jumping the gun here. No one’s talking about any sorts of legal or professional consequences. I’m responding to someone who seems to think it’s impossible to form an opinion about whether a pattern of “he-said she-said” allegations is credible.

[rufio]

nit: It was Upton Sinclair, in fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair

[imbnwa]

> Those two people are the most vulnerable to bias because they have the most incentive to disregard the whole truth.

So no racism claims are valid without either AV recording or, in all statistical likelihood, a non-Black person vouching for her?

If you actually what you want your ethics around this situation to be about then expect POC to start coming to work 24hr recorders on them at all times, just like how recording all police stops is a thing, because that's the kind of world you want to live in.

[defertoreptar]

If someone has a feeling that something was racially motivated but has no evidence, do believe that alone should enable actionable legal consequences?

[imbnwa]

You didn't mention legal consequences in your original post, that's obviously a different order of action with explicit criterion than whether or not this deserves third-party investigation which may lead to legal action. She also cites specific instances without naming names, I don't know why you're talking about someone "feeling" something is racially motivated. At bottom, you're also kinda missing my ethics point around how minority claims are recognized prima facie.

[defertoreptar]

> that's obviously a different order of action with explicit criterion than whether or not this deserves third-party investigation which may lead to legal action.

To my saying "plausible doesn't mean actionable," you jumped to the following conclusion:

> So no racism claims are valid without either AV recording or, in all statistical likelihood, a non-Black person vouching for her?

I thought it was necessary to find some foundation on which we both agreed before addressing your conclusion. If we didn't at least agree that the concrete example wasn't legally actionable, then our viewpoints would be too disconnected to make the effort worth it.

How about this: if there is a "he said she said" situation where the accuser believes the accused did something racially motivated, and neither the accused nor the accuser have any evidence other than their word, should the accused face a real consequence?