yeah, i didn’t say any of that. you’re a fucking nutjob. bye now. 

cool story. 

we treat every accused criminal with the presumption of innocence until there’s hard evidence. we don’t casually ruin lives and futures based on someone’s words. that all i’m saying. i care both about the ‘vast majority’ of people who were assaulted AND the people who’s lives were destroyed by malice, even though it’s…

Of course, but I have admitted through everything I’ve said on this subject that they’re rare. Doesn’t make them any less serious when they happen. There’s nuance. Harvey Weinstein is not Aziz Ansari, y’know? life isn’t black and white. people are messy and complex and deeply flawed.

people behind screens get a near-sexual rush from picking up the metaphorical torches and casually ruining lives and futures. if to them, the binary is that ‘women are saints and all men are guilty’, that’s all the dehumanizing they need to justify it. they think they’re doing some service to women by naively…

why compare? there’s literally no need. you’re just saying one issue automatically should be compared to another, and that’s insanity. people can care about separate issues at once! even if one is rarer than the other! the one way they’re linked? people who false accuse HURT genuine victims being believed. 

also good job entirely avoiding the points i brought up in favor of ad hominem, strawmen-littered garbage. you acted exactly as expected. 

indeed. it’s how people like this ALWAYS react when a woman is caught doing something like this. B-b-but, MEN DO WORSE! 

so that means Al Franken should be let off the hook, right? Because what he did was nowhere near as bad as Harvey Weinstein? 

and that no one should ever care about false accusations, because they’re a) rare and b) sexual assaults exist too! i guess if someone were struck by lightning, we can tell that person their plight is unimportant because sexual assaults exist and are more common, and by purely mentioning a separate issue happening…

you say ‘false equivalencies’, i say ‘adults can care about separate issues and not get defensive and irate if i dare suggest that bringing A up does not take away from B’. you assuming that my caring about both issues is taking away from survivors is disgusting. 

and i’ll be the first to admit my experience rating a film like this surely suffers for not being able to relate to such situations. absolutely.

respectfully and fairly, i’m with you, but believed by default can lead to serious personal consequences. we have innocent until proven guilty in this country for a reason, and we seem to accept that for all other crimes but SA crimes. sorry, but i hold the same viewpoint with all crimes. 

nope, it doesn’t. i can care about different, tangentially related issues at the same time, even if one is ostensibly rare. there’s no need to compare the two things. you don’t show in a lung cancer ward and say ‘i don’t care about y’all because brain cancer is worse’. that’s not what i’m doing.

...expect when Conor Oberst sued his false accuser there were plenty of people calling him a ‘bully’ and her a victim. 

a predicted, the implication that a black filmed is overhyped leads to implied racism on the critic’s part.

i thought the film was only okay. I also though many, many overhyped white-filmmakers films were okay. 

i agree with this entirely, I just want there to be real penalties for people who lie, because it can do a lot of damage and undermine a lot of perception and credibility. 

America is probably near the top in wrongly imprisoned innocent people, too. So maybe it curbs that a bit to show the false accusers that there’s actual punishments for their actions.

that’s absolutely a fair point. i just kinda cringe when i see what i consider to be an average movie, and then see 99% of published critics at least considering it decent enough to recommend. that speaks of group thinking to me, and I don’t like the implications of it. I don’t think much can be gained by white…

and i don’t think anyone (hopefully) wants a world where the marginalized are treated as artistically infallible simply based on their background, speaking of the death of objectivity. i mean, that’s condescending as hell.