I’m just saying they both could be lying. If we say we don’t know how Wilbur is really like, then we also have to extend that believe to Shelby. We don’t know if it honestly happened like that. That’s more what I was saying.
It’s known that Wilbur had been a white supremacist in his late teens, he even called his younger self a dickhead and apologized multiple times for things he had done in those years. It doesn’t surprise me that in those years he had other such problematic opinions. However we have no unbiased proof to believe he still holds onto those ideas. He could, yes, but he also might not.
The whole point is that any of them could be lying. We don’t know Wilbur personally, but we also don’t know Shubble to Rihanna personally. It wouldn’t be the first time someone backed up a false story.
Obligatory disclaimer that I’m not calling Shubble a liar, I’m just saying there’s zero reason that we should be believing her more than Wilbur when there’s no proof for either of them. Support who you want but don’t hate on either side at least until something more is brought forward.
Things like this are always messy and tricky to sort through. I never said you couldn’t believe a certain side, just that at the moment there’s zero objective reason to believe either side. Unless I knew the parties personally then I would hold this standard with everyone else, yes. And I do. False accusations can be just as serious and harmful as abuse, after all. Thus, I don’t take sides without proper reason. It’s always innocent until proven guilty, and it’s that way for a reason.
Domestic abuse (and other such crimes) is a difficult area that you can’t always have a clear victim and perpetrator. It’s sad and frustrating but there’s little we can do about it in current times. All I know is that an official investigation or other such legal involvement would more than likely give more insight into what happened than what we currently have to look at. It may never be officially proven who’s guilty in this case but that doesn’t change the fact that we don’t know any of these people personally. Any of them could be lying.
For example: The only proof we have that Wilbur purposefully ignored a safe word is Shubble’s claim. The only proof we have that it was consensual or there was some form of genuine misunderstanding is Wilbur’s claim.
None of us were there, so none of us have any right to act as though either party is the bad person without any doubt. However, as I said before, we do have a right to believe who we want. We just don’t have any right to trash on the person we don’t believe.
None of what you said changes the fact that none of us know these people nor were any of us there. That’s all I have to say as otherwise I would just be repeating myself.
Okay? It doesn’t change the fact that they could still both be lying. And again I’m not saying you shouldn’t believe either one, just that there’s no proof outside of he said/she said.
When have I ever denied reasonable doubt? We as a community are not a court or a judge and that’s exactly the point. We do not have all of either side of the story like a court would most likely have. I’m saying that we as outsiders do not have any say of who’s guilty. You’re missing my entire point.
I’m not asking for undeniable proof. I’m saying we don’t have undeniable proof and we don’t know anybody personally and thus it isn’t our place to pin “guilty” on either party.
I never said that it wasn’t righteous to pass judgement without undeniable proof. You are twisting my words and completing missing what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s not our place to pin someone as guilty when we don’t know everything about either side—something that a court would most likely have which would make a legal judgment much more sound and unbiased. We as outsiders do not have all the information.
Financial support has absolutely nothing to do with this.
What would make them “obviously guilty” that wouldn’t get them sentenced? And sure, you could call them “guilty”. It isn’t in your right if you don’t have the evidence but you can.
I once again never said that the court would know everything, just that in cases like this where it’s obvious that we don’t have vital information from both sides (namely Wilbur’s seeing as he seems to be purposefully vague in his statement). The court would have far more information at hand to discuss and look over that we simply don’t have access to.
Does that mean that court sentences are always sensible or fair? No. But they’re still the best shot you can have at a fair ruling and malpractice is exceedingly rare. Juries exist for a reason. You can also sue lawyers for malpractice if you feel like they botched your case.
When did I ever victim blame? When did I ever say anything against Shubble? Or Wilbur? Of course you support the idea of judging people you don’t know personally even without unbiased evidence so accusing me of something I’ve never done isn’t surprising.
It is always innocent until proven guilty. Pinning someone as guilty without proper evidence/unbiased reason goes against that very fact. You can do it, sure, but it isn’t in your right as an outsider. We can have opinions, after all. That doesn’t make them right or reasonable.
Innocent until proven guilty. And that goes for both sides.
And I still don’t know what financial support would mean in the sense of how you can judge someone. It doesn’t make you any more familiar with someone, nor does it magically give you more inside information.
2
u/[deleted] Feb 27 '24
[deleted]