Very confused about people who simultaneously fetishise due process and approve of direct action
Conversation
I mean I'm not actually confused, given that the people who fall into this category generally only start talking about due process when protecting men accused of sexual violence
1
1
29
Company is accused of malfeasance: guillotine them all
Man is accused of rape: hold on, we shouldn't take a side until the judicial system reaches its infallible conclusion
3
5
40
No, I'm saying that just because a court hasn't found someone guilty of rape doesn't mean they're not a rapist
1
4
You agree with this, right? It seems uncontroversial.
2
1
Yeah, there's a big difference between different expectations on the level of evidence (other credible accounts, witnesses, etc.) that should be present to take action against people for doing awful things (which depends on the action being taken too) vs. what they're arguing.
1
They're arguing strongly for presuming innocence about crimes until a court convicts someone (as if people can't evaluate evidence outside a court), yet they're more than happy to imply the victims are making false accusations. What happened to presumption of innocence there?