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.
I would think one of the most basic principles of morality would be that if a whole bunch of women who didn’t know each other over the course of years said they were violently tortured and raped by a man, believe them.
He does not get to decide whether they consented and I have no idea why you don’t know that. So many rapists out there claim their victim consented. That’s pretty much the most common self-defense of rape there is. They even say that directly to their victims. “You know you want it.”
All I can think here is that you either hate women on an incel level or you have never talked to a rape victim. I can’t come up with another explanation for your behavior.
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?
I would think one of the most basic principles of morality would be that if a whole bunch of women who didn’t know each other over the course of years said they were violently tortured and raped by a man, believe them.
He does not get to decide whether they consented and I have no idea why you don’t know that. So many rapists out there claim their victim consented. That’s pretty much the most common self-defense of rape there is. They even say that directly to their victims. “You know you want it.”
All I can think here is that you either hate women on an incel level or you have never talked to a rape victim. I can’t come up with another explanation for your behavior.
Bitch I am a fucking rape victim, and because I am a man and was rated by a woman no one believed me, so kindly shut your fucking mouth.
In that same instance I also had my rapist turn the accusation on me, and had people belive her inherently.
So I know what the fuck I’m talking about I know both sides of this argument. And I’m telling you, as a fuckjng victim, to listen to me.
Assume people are innocent until you have actual evidence they are not (unless the victim is a freind of yours obviously)
This is, yet again, dozens of women. This is, yet again, something he admits to doing.
The only way he is innocent is if all of these women colluded. And the only reason to assume that is misogyny.
You keep acting like there’s only one accuser here and not a whole bunch.