fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4466 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4466 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for The Umbrella Academy]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for The Tenth Line]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue]

__________________________________________________

11. [WARNING for discussion of domestic abuse]

__________________________________________________

12. [WARNING for discussion of rape, pedophilia]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #639.
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

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies more significantly to the accusers, who have generally less motive to lie.

No it doesn't.

If you mean not legally, no, but that's not relevant to public discussion which is my whole point.

Edited 2019-03-30 00:17 (UTC)

But still can. I dunno about you, but most of us don't know these people personally and jumping to conclusions about their personal lives seems rather hasty. It's better judge on an individual basis after the facts have come out than make a mistake about something as serious as abuse.

I just want more people to realize that even implying an accuser is lying but also implying "Innocent until proven guilty" is hypocritical as fuck. That's jumping to conclusions and taking a side.

The problem with framing it where you give the accused the benefit of the doubt all the time is that you end up with a society that consistently and structurally doesn't take abuse claims seriously, and isn't able to effectively deal with abuse. And we know this because it's literally the world that we live in.

That doesn't mean that you have to take every accusation at face value, either. But we should take them seriously, and not necessarily give the accused the same presumption of innocence in our private personal judgments and actions that applies in criminal trials.

You should be at least as concerned with letting people slide for abuse as you are with people being unfairly accused of abuse.

This. This is a good comment.

This. And, as it stands, we currently DON'T take abuse claims about women seriously. I have watched my friend's sister-in-law emotionally manipulate and abuse her husband and young son because no one believes that a woman and a mother would do such a thing. But if she were a man? They would be all over her in a flash.

I don't know about that. But it is a court standard, not a standard normal people have to use in deciding what they believe happened.

Which is why OP shouldn't imply it's automatically the pure way for the public to approach things by complaining that everyone supposedly does the opposite.

Oh I agree.

I met ninety6tears two summers ago in South Virginia and she all of a sudden knocked me down and started kicking me in the face. Some bystanders had to intervene and I suffered a major concussion.

Fuck off

Reply with your actual account next time

I saw Goody Proctor with the devil.

One time Regina George punched me in the face. It was awesome.

A buddy of mine saw Kylo Ren take his shirt off in the shower and he said that Kylo Ren had an 8-pack. That Kylo Ren was shredded.

But the thing is that most situations aren't the Salem witch trials

So what?

As William Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Accusers should NEVER be assumed they are telling the truth. We should listen to them, yes. But the burden of guilt is on the accuser and their representative.

and victims are... not innocent? such dumb logic to apply this outside of court.
"better for ten people to suffer than for one other person to suffer" wow such supreme bigthink you're right the morally excellent thing is to assume all abuse and rape victims are lying thank god that smartyquote cleared that up

I think that is an excellent standard to use when you're talking about using the overbearing power of the state to mere out punishment, as Blackstone was writing about.

I don't see why my personal belief about what is and is not true should follow what is correct for the state. Because I'm not the state. I'm a private citizen with my own reason. I can make nuanced judgments, I am not bound by the laws of evidence, I can think in terms of probabilities, and I do not have the power to imprison or execute people based on the judgments I make. The state needs to have a high standard of certainty for specific reasons that don't apply to individual citizens.

That's a great standard for court. Real life is not court, and there is no reason we need to hold everything to the same evidentiary standard as court.

What about mob justice though? Social media has made it abundantly clear that what public opinion is can and will cost people jobs regardless of what's actually true.

That's a problem. But I think there has to be some middle ground. I think there should be some level of evidence, but I don't think it has to be the level of evidence required by a court.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-03-30 01:24 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2019-03-30 01:28 (UTC) - Expand

philstar22 - 2019-03-30 01:28 (UTC) - Expand

It's one thing to ask that people use their reason and try not to immediately rush to judgment. It's another thing entirely to demand a presumption of innocence and proof beyond a shadow of a reasonabke doubt. There is a big leap between those things.