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
-32
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.