[erikpukinskis]

I respect your opinion but I disagree strongly with your claim that this is “medieval”.

Courts have the power to truly end people’s lives. Because of this power they must have the highest standard of proof: innocent until proven guilty.

However, many crimes are very difficult to prove, which means courts mostly can do nothing about things like rape, harassment, etc.

That’s a good thing on some level, we don’t want to put innocent people in jail.

But if we leave it at that, and simply disbelieve all stories not proven by courts, then the vast majority of victims of crime will be totally left without support.

That’s why personal policies like “believe women” exist… not because they are more true than “believe the courts” but because both policies are flawed and so together they provide better coverage of innocent people than either policy could alone. For the innocent victims who haven’t been protected by the law, the “believe women” community has their back. For innocent victims who have been falsely accused the “believe the courts” community has their back.

I believe this diversity of belief is essential.

And so, I support you being a “believe the courts” person. But I would like you to consider that this leaves you in a position where you can’t support a large number of victims of crime. And therefore that’s a job other people, with a different attitude to the courts, must step in and do.

[shrimp_emoji]

I don't think anyone has anyone's back. All it takes it one group of people to demonize you, and the damage is done.

When some terminally online lefties doxx you and try to get you fired, does some other group of people sweep in to your defense, in your experience?

Your characterization of “believe women” existing as a counterbalance to the flaws of the legal system is compelling, although it still doesn't seem like a good idea. One system is unchecked vigilante bullshit, while the other system is a transparent, evidence-based process. It's like "the medicine doesn't work; let's sacrifice goats and bloodlet instead".

Nitpick: it's not “believe women”; it's “believe ALL women”, which is more hilarious. (And frankly sexist, as it strips women of the agency to lie, which -- spoiler-- is a thing people do all the time.)

[46756e]

I agree with the idea that someone who was convicted twice of sex crimes in a leadership role is a bad idea and that by including them you may be excluding others.

Although I am curious about your opinion about other senarios. What is the person was found guilty in a US college Title IX court? Or what if it was just an accusation online? These are the questions we should get clear answers to now so when they (inevitably) happen, we know how to act, we don't have a twitter debate war to decide.

[erikpukinskis]

I don’t think there is any universal answer to your question. I think individual people should make individual judgements in individual scenarios about what to believe.

Sometimes I may believe an accusation and sometimes I may not. I don’t want to offload that responsibility to anyone else, in a court or anywhere.