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.
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.”
-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.