there’s still no concrete proof though, which is my point. there may be a lot of similar accusations, but there have also been many instances of somebody being accused once and then a bunch of other people making their own false accusations trying to support the first one. I’m not trying to say he did or didn’t do it, what I am trying to say is it’s too soon to be cutting all ties because accusations are not proof on their own. false accusations are free and easy to make, and once you hear about the details of an accusation making a similar one is just as easy and still free.
Ah yes, the famous people who want to be humiliated publicly, accused of false allegations, and for most of the time absolutely no result.
People who side with potential rapists (yes, that’s what you do because you are assuming that it’s likely that the victims are lying) are always a delight.
Oh and you can’t punish someone legally for being only a potential rapist. Cutting off someone off your company or friend circle or whatever because they are likely a rapist is completely fine, legal methods were never meant to be applied to individuals.
I think it’s reasonable to cut ties now and make amends if he’s somehow found innocent. We’d all love for him not be a piece of shit and for these women to have not been assaulted, but I’m just saying it’s not likely.
How is it that all of these women who never met coordinated to slander him? And why? And why did they file police reports? And why does Gaiman admit this all happened but claims it was consensual?
Because you and others who keep suggesting maybe he’s innocent have not explained that.
there’s still no concrete proof though, which is my point. there may be a lot of similar accusations, but there have also been many instances of somebody being accused once and then a bunch of other people making their own false accusations trying to support the first one. I’m not trying to say he did or didn’t do it, what I am trying to say is it’s too soon to be cutting all ties because accusations are not proof on their own. false accusations are free and easy to make, and once you hear about the details of an accusation making a similar one is just as easy and still free.
Ah yes, the famous people who want to be humiliated publicly, accused of false allegations, and for most of the time absolutely no result.
People who side with potential rapists (yes, that’s what you do because you are assuming that it’s likely that the victims are lying) are always a delight.
Oh and you can’t punish someone legally for being only a potential rapist. Cutting off someone off your company or friend circle or whatever because they are likely a rapist is completely fine, legal methods were never meant to be applied to individuals.
Everyone is a potential rapist
I think it’s reasonable to cut ties now and make amends if he’s somehow found innocent. We’d all love for him not be a piece of shit and for these women to have not been assaulted, but I’m just saying it’s not likely.
it’s unreasonable because if he does turn out to be innocent, then you ruined someone’s livelihood for no reason.
This is not the message of a serious person. Imagine believing that N.G. needs more income.
So if you earn enough you should be okay with life ending slander?
People have died over accusations like these that have turned out to be false
How is it that all of these women who never met coordinated to slander him? And why? And why did they file police reports? And why does Gaiman admit this all happened but claims it was consensual?
Because you and others who keep suggesting maybe he’s innocent have not explained that.
Okay but none of that is evidence?
The idea of innocence until proven guilty is a corner stone of modern morality, and one we don’t throw out for any other crime.
Do you think we should apply this standard to to every crime, that if we have enough circumstantial evidence we should just assume someone is guilty?
First of all, yes him admitting it happened is absolutely evidence. As are the police reports you are pretending don’t exist.
Secondly, the court of public opinion is not the same as a court of law.
The crime is the non consensual part of it, not the act itself.
I’m not pretending they don’t exist, they’re just not concrete evidence.
It being public opinion is still not a justification to throw out one of the most basic principles of morality?