3 ms·
They are both true, but that's the problem. It's not enough to know Weinstein is a terrible person; we want to punish him for specific acts of wrongdoing. Howev
by Veen 6y ago
They are both true, but that's the problem. It's not enough to know Weinstein is a terrible person; we want to punish him for specific acts of wrongdoing. However, our evidence for those acts is inherently unreliable. Our desire to punish wrongdoers must be tempered by the fact that memories are not reliable evidence.
- junippor 6y agoHow thoughtful of you! It's funny though that people like you never show up when the accused doesn't have an army of lawyers. In those instances, no one ever goes "guys, our desire to punish the accused must be tempered by the fact htat memories are not reliable evidence! Maybe she kinda wanted to be raped and can't remember it"
- Veen 6y agoEither memories are reliable or they are not. It seems they are not. You're free to deny that fact or to refute it with counter-arguments, but claiming "people like me" are discussing it because we fear "an army of lawyers" puts you a step away from tin foil hat territory.
- junippor 6y agoExactly, anyone can dispute the facts, that's why being able to hire better lawyers totally doesn't affect the outcome of the case, right? /s
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]