I am as outraged about Dunham’s tweet as you are about any tweet of a complete stranger with no knowledge of the parties involved pledging their loyalty to a person they don’t know by adding #ibelieveher. That about sums it up.

She did, just like every #ibelieveher tweeter.

So you do not agree with #Ibelieveher, because if you do as a principle, you do believe that every accused is guilty? It’s the only logical conclusion. If you believe the accuser = victim, then the accused must be guilty.

Unlike all the people on social media who support her and thus call him a rapist? They have actually been in the room when the purported crime took place?

There is a word for ‘demanding money, or else...’.It’s called extortion and it’s illegal.

Neither should (or does), in my opinion, but I was playing devil’s advocate in a reply to someone who said so about Dunham’s tweet. I followed his logic.

Explain how publicly believing the accuser without any knowledge of the case isn’t meant to publicly sway an investigation in favor of the accuser?

That’s true if you’d like to see the investigation harmed in favor of the accuser. I’d prefer to have an independant investigation find out the truth.

She came out in support of the accused. She alluded to inside knowledge of the case, probably exculpatory evidence. She doesn’t get in the way of the investigation by oversharing and she doesn’t need to share with you or anyone else.

Last I checked, I wasn’t telling the government to shut her up.

...and potentially tainting an ongoing investigation by oversharing? You really have to be an entitled millenial prick to think that criminal investigations should be conducted on social media platforms.

Yet, you would publicly support every accuser without explicitly mentioning any evidence to back up your support. Right now this is a criminal case. Dunham has both 1st amendment rights and the duty not to meddle with an ongoing investigation by oversharing with the public. What is there not to understand?

‘Insider knowledge’ is not how you phrase ‘he’s a friend that’s why I believe him’.

Great then. I’m sure that there is no evidence to the contrary (paper trail, e-mails, phone logs etc).

What if this is exactly the case for Dunham here?

You mean like all the people who side with the accusers, even though they have no knowledge about the cases at all? Yeah, that would be helpful.

Coming out in favor of a woman you don’t know, about a case you have no inside knowledge of is ok, publicly siding with the accused is only ok if you present evidence as a third party, while the investigation is still ongoing? Ok, got it.

It’s interesting, that you read this as ‘believing the dude’s lawyer’:

I read that differently from you. She doesn’t believe that he is innocent simply because they are friends:

Would you ask for incriminating evidence from someone who publicly supports an accuser against the accused?