Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> writes: > On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 12:18:46PM -0500, quil...@riseup.net wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> writes: >> >> > On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 08:36:27PM -0500, quil...@riseup.net wrote: >> >> Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> writes: >> >> > I can - Jake raped or sexually assaulted several people I know. No >> >> > social benefit can be used to justify that. >> >> >> >> I can't because I have no evidence. The evidence you present is not >> >> convincing to me. >> > >> > If I've seen evidence that's convincing to me, what is the appropriate >> > way for me to describe Jake? >> >> The way you do it is appropriate for you. How can I know what is >> appropriate for you? Perhaps you meant to ask something else. > > So there's nothing wrong with me calling Jake a rapist if I've seen > evidence that convinces me that he's a rapist?
There is no problem for me. It is just false until proven. Perhaps it could be a problem for you, if the involved parties take legal action. I doubt they would. It would hamper the positions of both sides even more. It serves neither side attacking the other side, either with real actions or just opinions and gossip. The only constructive effort would be to do something concrete in favour of the side you are on. Calling Jake a rapist does not do anything constructive, besides to discuss what policies do go or bad for ourselves and for our communities. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
