fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3253 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3253 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Fallout]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Colonel Fitzwilliam, Pride and Prejudice 1995 miniseries]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Master and Commander/Aubrey/Maturin series]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Undertale]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Justified]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Fury, Don/Boyd]

__________________________________________________

08.

(The Pioneer Woman/Ree Drummond)

__________________________________________________

09.

[Interworld]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #465.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Where the fuck is your horse in this race?

What do you just like his dick so much you have to defend the possibility that he might not be a rapist?

Do you know the guy?

Do you regularly disregard safe-words and rape women and you just don't like to see someone called out for it?

Where is your horse in this race? There is literally nothing anyone but James Deen has to gain from supporting the possibility of his innocence, while supporting the possibility of his guilt is of benefit to so many. It supports Stoya, it supports the women like Stoya, and it makes it that bit harder for rapists to get away with it. This is good for eveyone but James Deen, so why put up such a fight? What do you have to gain? Where is your horse in this race?

If he actually provably didn't do it, none of that stuff is relevant. If you have some good compelling reason for thinking he didn't do it, you shouldn't put that aside out of those considerations. If someone's innocent, they're innocent. That's justice.

Of course in this instance, I don't think there is any good compelling reason to be had. But I'm just saying, if there were.

The idea we should just assume someone is guilty in cases where it benefits fewer people if they're innocent is not a good one.

"There is literally nothing anyone but James Deen has to gain from supporting the possibility of his innocence, while supporting the possibility of his guilt is of benefit to so many."

Hi, do you live in America? Because innocent until proven guilty is one of our standards. And sure, people like to trot out "but that's only in a court of law!!!" but the second we start to devalue it outside the courtroom is when it begins to lose its teeth inside it, too.

but the second we start to devalue it outside the courtroom is when it begins to lose its teeth inside it, too.

That is horseshit.

Why? Do you think juries are grown in a lab under the courthouse? They come from the public. Which is why it's dangerous to promote the idea that innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean anything in the public. Because those thoughts get ingrained into the fabric of worldiew, and how is anyone supposed to get a fair trial when the jury pool thinks the accuser should be believed over the accused because women?

If you have a real answer, I'd love to hear it.

[ SECRET POST #3253 ]

Re: James Deen

Re: James Deen

Re: James Deen

Re: James Deen

Re: James Deen

Re: James Deen