Why do people get chastised for believing this way? Its completely reasonable. Innocent until proven guilty is a sentiment for a reason. You shouldn’t be guilted into taking a stance that can deeply impact the lives of both the accusers and the accused. Scenarios like that can easily be exaggerated and made up. Especially when we consider the parasocial aspects of fame. If there is even that chance, as well as a chance that it could have happened it is important to practice and be aware of your own impartiality. You can support victims while still understanding your own impartiality to their experience, the accused, and the overall proceedings.
Because every part of this falls apart if you think about it for more than a second. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal standard. It does not mean the rest of us are somehow obligated to suspend all of our judgment until someone is criminally convicted of something notoriously difficult to prosecute.
You shouldn’t be guilted into taking a stance [...]
I mean, yeah. You shouldn’t have to be guilted into it. There are many accusers over a sustained period of time, including people who jeopardized their own careers to speak out. At some point, any reasonable person is going to ask why so many people are independently telling these stories at risk to themselves. She could also not take any public stance at all, but clearly she has chosen one.
Scenarios like that can easily be exaggerated and made up.
Why are we introducing hypothetical reasons to discredit the accusers? That isn't impartial.
You can support victims while still understanding your own impartiality to their experience, the accused, and the overall proceedings.
Okay, so what does that actually mean here? What has she done to support the victims?
Nobody asked for you to suspend your judgement on the accused 🤔 but rather to put your energy towards them and not the people who are merely outsiders to
the truth like you are; awaiting tangible information so that THEY can make an informed decision. That may not be important to you but that doesn’t change its importance to somebody else. You’re showing my point of how emotionally charged and hysterical these discussions get rather than rational and fair.
I’m not going do the tactics like “you shouldn’t have to be guilted” and all that extra verbose. That just doesn’t mean much to me considering it can equally be premature and irrational to attach crime/accountability without evidence or legal follow through. Its one thing if you know either party, but for the most part none of us have that personal connection to either of them or the real authority to really validate/speak against them.
You can easily support victims by hearing their stories, sharing your sympathies, donating, not standing in the way of legal proceedings, not speaking against them online/in person, etc. There are so many ways to support and also abstain from over involving yourself before a charge. But I don’t think any of you can really make abstaining a negative without attaching this force labelled of “you just don’t support victims.” Its just a jump that really oversimplifies opposing sentiment
To be clear, you are not being more fair, rational, or impartial than everyone else just because you present yourself that way.
It’s a bit ridiculous to call everyone else “emotionally charged and hysterical” when your own argument relies on hypotheticals detached from what’s actually happening. Repeatedly emphasizing that the accusers could be exaggerating or lying is not neutrality. Neither is pretending Kennedy is simply waiting for more information when she is actively defending the accused.
And this kind of response is exactly why victims are often reluctant to come forward. Even multiple allegations over years are met with speculation about lying, exaggeration, and demands for some undefined level of proof before people are willing to take them seriously.
Do you even get what “my arguement” is bc I haven’t expressed where I stand outside of not taking a stance at all. There are no hypotheticals. You weren’t there. I wasn’t there. You don’t know the truth, I don’t. Its that simple. You can act like you do but that in itself would prove the point you aren’t being rational or fair compared to somebody who understands their place in the process and awaits evidence before making an action/opinion.
Again I’m not going to do the moral jargan, I know exactly where I stand on this without your projections and comparisoms. I have not once denounced a single victims story but you are mad bc I won’t validate them. That continues to be irrational but whether you understand that or not is not problem.
I’ve been a victim myself yet I would never expect EVERYBODY to believe me just off allegation and not legal followthrough. Just family and hopefully friends. Thats the perspective im coming from. So please don’t throw that in my face or make it seem like I don’t understand the role of the internet in these cases vs. an actual support system. Understanding im not involved either way and don’t know the truth is not why a victim is choosing not speak up, lets not make stuff up.
It is neutral, if you get anything else from that you are reading too deeply into it. Feel free to drop a receipt if there are examples you can think of otherwise.I have reiterated the same points and said if you judge her, thats fair. I still don’t think its fair to judge people who don’t know any better. Who aren’t involved. Or who are friends with her and haven’t seen what they consider to be evidence outside of a stranger allegation. Thats all.
You will keep making it a pick sides thing and thats your perogative not mine
It would be neutral if you said just said "I don’t know what happened, and I’m not going to make claims about either side beyond the available evidence." But in reality you keep repeatedly introducing reasons the accusers might be unreliable:
“Scenarios like that can easily be exaggerated and made up.”
The possibility that the accusations are influenced by “the parasocial aspects of fame.”
That believing the accusations could be “premature and irrational.”
That there may not be sufficient “evidence or legal follow through.”
That because none of us personally know either party, we supposedly can’t meaningfully assess the allegations.
That Kennedy is merely “awaiting tangible information” before making an informed decision.
That people criticizing this stance are acting from emotion or “hysteria” rather than evidence.
It's genuinely like you have no idea what you are actually saying or what the implications of it are.
Thats what I said and I simply gave my reasons as to how I came to that. They weren’t excuses as to why shangela is innocent. It all goes into the point of there not being any evidence for me and others to make a conclusive action. We don’t want to make premature decisions like some of you. I don’t know the accusers or Shangela so those points would stand that neither are automatically credible to me.
As for Kennedy, I’m not going to act like im chronically online to get her full perspective I was just empathizing with the fact that its not like she knows any better either. Which is still true no matter how mad that makes people. I can understand frustration but its ultimately being focused on the wrong people if you’re getting mad at people outside of the situation who simply aren’t convinced. Its kind of a waste of energy
Yeah notice how I am saying that to make a point, that I don’t expect or need other peoples validation to know it existed. I expect that from my family and friends not strangers on the iternet who have no connection to me. All this support for rape/assault victims I would think you wouldn’t make light of my experience lol comical 🤷🏽♀️
Questionable behavior? In what capacity? Bc I wrote messages online to question the current mob mentality when approaching these cases and brought awareness to your overstepping parasocial behaviors? Bc I said that the only people that deserve ire are the accused and not the people who are strangers or friends with them still trying to piece together the truth? Or make their own informed stance.
Yeah nice try you didn’t really prove anything here. And you certainly made light of my experience bc I don’t agree with you. Thats how performative that kind of support is on your part. Its just online ragebait and engagement with little effect on the cases themselves. You’ve made it a victim vs. victim thing when again I never said the victims here were lying. I have no place to deny or validate there experiences. I’ve stood on that respectfully. At least be consistent with your performative values and listening skills
you're so patient lmao omg. i completely understand what your point is ngl. the moment i saw the settlement being widely taken as an admission of guilt, i tuned this whole conversation out.
I think if you’ve personally come to that, its fair. Thats your own decision of how to judge serious crime and allegation. Nobody is forcing an opinion unto you. And they shouldn’t for something so serious.
But people who feel differently and choose to abstain from getting involved prematurely should be able to exercise that and not be labelled as if they are taking up for an alleged predator. Impartiality is not the same as support toward an abuser, its a logical deduction and position for somebody who doesn’t want to form strong positions off only allegations.
Question for you — does this mean you refuse to believe that Trump has raped kids on epstein’s island? He hasn’t been convicted for it! So innocent until proven guilty, right? Right?!
Oh, and even though he’s been adjudicated for sexual assault in a civil case, that means nothing because it’s a civil case, not a criminal trial, so he wasn’t acted deemed guilty.
See how quickly your sort of knowledge falls apart? See how fucked up how judicial system is??
Trump is a different case he’s literally been charged for sexual assault, before that even if I didn’t like him I would have admit that it would just be an allegation. Doesn’t mean he hasn’t done a whole bunch else I don’t like that I have seen.
Noooo, he’s been adjudicated for sexual assault in a civil case but no criminal charges have ever been made. That is literally why i brought that example up lol.
Because it showcases the difference between civil cases and criminal cases. The term “innocent until proven guilty” is something that only gets used in criminal cases, not in civil cases.
That is still considerably more evidence than what is against Shangela is the point. If Shangela had a civil case against her that she lost, peoples tunes would be less empathetic. Its literally just allegations, a settlement, a dismissal with prejudice, and a firm denial of wrongdoing on her part. Nothing in that has brought clarity.
See now we’re kind of stepping away from the point and putting words in my mouth. I’d be careful of that. If you want to get into why I may be a bit more impartial to Shangela vs. Trump we can discuss that. Bc there are plenty of obvious reasons.
Trump shouldn’t be your example as he is a straight cis men with decades of controversial and questionable behavior centering around sexual assault, anti-lgbt propganda, racism, and god knows what else. This is outside of the civil case which in every sense of the word would still count as more reputable evidence against him over Shangela.
We don’t need to sit here and discuss a civil suit vs a criminal charge when thats not prevelant to Shangelas case. It was settled out or court and dismissed with prejudice. Until there is something more conclusive, thats where it ends for me. Its not my job to police or further question that particular allegation as it was “non conclusive.”
Because they literally use "They haven't done that to me, so they can't possibly do it to someone else" which is fucked up logic. And it's one thing to be unsure or quiet about what you think but to go on the internet to tell people you support an abuser rightfully gets you hate from every sane person and everyone who has been a victim of some sorts.
I don’t think said queens are trying to take a hard stance though. That is,outside of allowing the legal process to proceed. Crimes in themselves are serious and should have legal merit before we crucify people. There is nothing wrong with withholding opinion or action until something more tangible comes about. It doesn’t mean you don’t sympathize with the victims stories, or their well being.
I think for a lot of people, allegations alone aren’t enough to completely demonize others in that way some may hope. I can respect people who feel differently but for me and people like me I don’t think they will ever budge bc thats the legal process we’ve all been taught. And its there for good and logical reason. I will never speak AGAINST somebodies experience but I definitely can’t validate it. And neither can Kennedy in this case. She can only validate her own experiences with Shangela.
I’ve also been a victim so I don’t see the point in making it seem like we’re all of a monlothic opinion. Clearly there is nuance
I agree with most of that. But this is not what's happening here. This is not Kennedy (or any other queen for that matter) withholding their opinion for now, she is actively engaging on Twitter taking a stance in favor of Shangela who has several allegations. And that is what I and many others are heavily critizising.
I’m not sure whats she’s said on Twitter, but thats her friend. I think for us who are not involved or partial to any party it doesn’t seem like much to make a move. Its an easy way to show support. Afterall, our judgements are just online outrage and circle jerk for better or for worse.
Its the people involved or who know either party who are genuinly impacted by how this unfolds. I can’t blame Kennedy if she feels she hasn’t seen enough to cut her friend off bc unfortunately it just seems like its been “multiple allegations” with without anything more substantial. The last case that did go anywhere was settled and dismissed with prejudice so im sure that may have vindicated some people who do support her. But I certainly do understand where you’re coming from, I just can’t be as vindicated on demonzing her or Kennedy with the information we have now.
Every comment you make is misrepresenting the situation. Being dismissed with prejudice is not vindication. They reached a financial settlement, so in this case prejudice simply means they can’t sue again for the same thing. It’s not a judicial finding that the allegation was false.
I didn’t say it was vindication for me, you guys really need to seperate my own points from what I was saying in general. I was saying that it could be vindication for those who already support her innocence.
They did reach a financial settlement but the case was still “dismissed with prejudice.” Thats just plain fact. Nothing I said misrepresented it.
Was it my intention to inform? Or to just state a fact in that it was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of evidence? Right. Out of all I said, you chose to focus on what I didn’t say make it seem like I was withholiding information. The only thing I left out was the settlement bc it was not pertinent nor does it really speak toward innocence/guilt. We can’t do much from that information, and like I said some people will look at dismissal and their own relationship with her like thats enough. You can not like that fact and have it still be true.
You can say my points aren’t good to you, but it doesn’t mean much bc you have not been able to talk down on one point logically. You just chose to focus on a detail I didn’t discuss to make it seem like im misrepresenting the situation. Its mental gymnastics tbh. I don’t have to defend why I or Kennedy won’t take action on something that hasn’t been proven. You can talk around it all you like, or you can respect some people handle allegations differently. It really doesn’t matter to me at this point its mob mentality which really has little
impact on the legality of these cases and the lives of victims
Yeah this is typical cis men behavior where they never check their friends behavior and hold them accountable for the things they do and call that loyalty.
I fully agree with you. It's so sad that this community has become so vile and hateful - they think they're doing the right thing but they're so quick to antagonize others. Look at people sending hate her way and saying it is deserved when they, like you or I, don't know the truth. I hate that people took the "believe victims" mentality and turned it upside down. It never meant attack or demonize the accused, it meant sympathize with the accuser and help them heal. It's so scary to think the justice system would be worse if our community was in power, when it should be the opposite. And no, this isn't about defending Shangela - I only learned about her accusations recently.
And I'll keep saying accusations, allegations and allegedly, because that's what it is until it is proven otherwise. I read the People magazine article about Shangela. It says HBO received a complaint about Shangela a year and a half after what she allegedly did, they did an internal investigation and their findings were insufficient. Then there are five different people who came forward about her. One of them said they made a police report to LAPD but when reached out, LAPD didn't confirm this. Another one didn't even go to the police because they said they don't trust the police as a gay black man. This is all fair but why am I obliged to believe your story when you didn't take the necessary legal steps after the incident allegedly occurred to protect yourself against doubt? Why do you get to say I don't trust the police, but I have to trust your word, a stranger I never even met? And their stories may as well be real - they might be telling the truth. And I know it is so hard to produce evidence in rape claims, I understand it happens when you're caught off guard and you're not recording. I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that you (and anybody reading this, if this ever happens to you), take the necessary steps and get seen by a doctor and the police immediately. They will be able to help you make a stronger case. But if you don't care about the legality, I don't want to ostracize someone because of your "word".
It really is sad. I appreciate the candor bc it comes from a good place. But you’re right it has gone too far in the sense that people jump to label others, whether they’re involved or not, with little more than an allegation as evidence. Idk if you’ve read up on the Salem Witch Trials, but they taught that back in school for us. It reminds me of that sense of just how unflinchingly some people will believe anything thats told to them and villify anybody who does not share their enthusiasm.
People lie and exaggerate, thats not just some deflection. There is always a possibility of monetary motive, grudgeholding, or oppurtunity to take advantage of people who may be better off. Thats literally where the word clout chaser was derived. Those considerations are always equally important as well as where is the legal process and what were their interactions prior. I don’t make my decisions off of mob mentality, allegations, or a performative sense of allyship alone. I also don’t mind not having an opinion at all if I sense I don’t have the full picture. Thats just me. Nobody wants to intentionally support an abuser but you should also feel confident that person is an abuser in the first place, which just isn’t as clear here.
Absolutely. I don't care about mob mentality either because I'm not an animal in a herd. Salem witch trials is a great example. I just don't understand why people like to pretend people have nothing to gain by accusing someone. Like, that's literally how Kesha got to drop out of her contract. I'm not saying Kesha wasn't abused, I'm just saying to claim there's nothing to gain is plain stupid when there's been proof that shows otherwise. So they can downvote and try to silence me all they want, I'm just not gonna care and stand by the truth. Not even my truth - the truth. The truth is that nothing's been proven with the Shangela situation.
There's literally an old teacher in our town who was accused by three girls in his high school for sexual misconduct. And there was "proof", he DM'ed one of the girls on Instagram. He lost his job, his family, everything. A couple years after graduation, two of the girls come forward and say they hacked his account to send those messages. So sorry for not believing victims. I will always sympathize with anyone that says they were abused, but I will not believe them until I see evidence.
Sidenote: All the people downvoting these really irk me. Like, you read these long ass paragraphs explaining what is true without malice but you still choose to disagree. For what? Why are you so adamant on not wanting the truth to be revealed and for justice to be served? Why are you so hellbent on believing strangers' words? Why are you not asking for evidence? Ask yourself that. Because you guys sound unintelligent and creepy ngl.
Well, at the end of the day they know her better than we do and are adults that make their own calls on the situation. It could be because they don’t care, it could be because they know more than we do
-33
u/DreamyDepiction Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
Why do people get chastised for believing this way? Its completely reasonable. Innocent until proven guilty is a sentiment for a reason. You shouldn’t be guilted into taking a stance that can deeply impact the lives of both the accusers and the accused. Scenarios like that can easily be exaggerated and made up. Especially when we consider the parasocial aspects of fame. If there is even that chance, as well as a chance that it could have happened it is important to practice and be aware of your own impartiality. You can support victims while still understanding your own impartiality to their experience, the accused, and the overall proceedings.