[SolarNet]

Because the operate in two different parts of the system. One is about our social systems and the other is about our legal systems.

Governments, contracts, civil and criminal litigation should work on a presumption of innocence (even if the bar is lower in civil court, it still exists), and require evidence (often an abundance of it, or so much it removes all shadows of doubt) to enact binding legal outcomes and punishments.

Groups, events and organizations should work on a basis of empathy and freedom of association. People generally don't want to associate with predators, abusers, and fascists (though the reactions of many commentators in hacker communities often make me question that assumption). And so many social systems are designed to filter those people out. And in more emotional settings like friend and support groups, believing victims is a way to exercise our empathy and provide mental and emotional support and healing for them. Which is the purpose of these groups.

This is like basic civics.

[memefrog]

>People generally don't want to associate with predators, abusers, and fascists.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse... This is why it is important that people aren't labelled as those things without actual evidence. If you do, then you turn those labels into weapons to be wielded by anyone nasty enough to try. That reduces sympathy for genuine victims.

Online communities are not "support groups". "Believe victims" makes sense, but is completely circular logic: if you call them a victim then you already believe them. "Believe complainants" is what is actually meant, and that also makes no sense: we should not unquestioningly believe all complainants about any alleged wrongdoing.

It has nothing to with "basic civics".