4 ms·

Right, which is why you refuse to believe the accusers, right? All we have here is judgement. There's no meaningful evidence except testimony from the people

Right, which is why you refuse to believe the accusers, right? All we have here is judgement. There's no meaningful evidence except testimony from the people in conflict. You made one call, grandparent made another. Why should only one be sexist?

zozbot234 5y ago
What has been stated so far is not 'judgment'. SavantIdiot has merely stated a prior that applies to any and all accusations of some sort, regardless of the evidence. The fact that OP can provide evidence of unambiguously positive exchanges, while not dispositive as has been pointed out, is at least enough on its own to overcome the prior.
- newacct583 5y ago
  Alternatively: three similar accusations of different events by different people without any other relationship seems like that should be enough to outweigh a nice text message that got sent once, no? I mean, maybe not. You disagree. But you disagree because you JUDGE the evidence differently, not because of any fundamental truth. To wit: get off your high horse. You're doing the same thing you called another poster "sexist" for doing.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    Person A accuses Person B of sending creepy text messages. Person B shows a message history of what they claim to be the entire conversation between them, with no creepy messages in it. Person A refuses to share any text messages. How is it sexist to believe that Person B is innocent? I think someone is being sexist or racist in this situation if their judgement changes depending on the race or gender of persons A and B. That's what the root comment wrote, or at least how plenty of people are interpreting it: it makes more sense to them that Person B is guilty and Person A is truthful by virtue of the fact that Person B is a man and Person A is a woman. You are getting at it when you write this: > But you disagree because you JUDGE the evidence differently, Correct, but the deeper fundamental aspect is that they making their judgement based on the evidence. As opposed to making judgements based on the gender/race of the people involved.
    - newacct583 5y ago
      > How is it sexist to believe that Person B is innocent? Good grief. It's not! For exactly the same reason that it's not sexist to believe Person B is guilty, as exporectomy did above and as zozbot234 and you defended. Judgement calls aren't sexism. But FWIW: by typical preponderance of evidence rules, multiple corroborating testimonies by unrelated witnesses sit way higher than "here's a screenshot of an unrelated event". I submit that the reason you're clinging so hard to that is that you really just don't WANT to believe this guy is a creep. Which, fine. It's a judgement call, and you judged. Just don't tell the rest of us that you aren't.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - fastball 5y ago
    You're not even presenting an accurate picture of the accusers side though. Two of them are apparently know each other literally because the original accuser told another accuser[1] that Pasquale was to blame. [1] https://www.notion.so/image/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fsecure.notion-static.com%2Fde0b79db-204e-4f4e-9735-09d09926b510%2FUntitled.png?table=block&id=44a73db4-0a7c-4043-b81b-10db0cbce32e&spaceId=4df35c39-cb11-4523-a7a4-2c68a3fecc57&width=2640&userId=4b2c8fc0-cbde-4ebe-aec3-801582d7eeb3&cache=v2 https://www.notion.so/image/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazo...

zozbot234 5y ago

What has been stated so far is not 'judgment'. SavantIdiot has merely stated a prior that applies to any and all accusations of some sort, regardless of the evidence. The fact that OP can provide evidence of unambiguously positive exchanges, while not dispositive as has been pointed out, is at least enough on its own to overcome the prior.

newacct583 5y ago
Alternatively: three similar accusations of different events by different people without any other relationship seems like that should be enough to outweigh a nice text message that got sent once, no? I mean, maybe not. You disagree. But you disagree because you JUDGE the evidence differently, not because of any fundamental truth. To wit: get off your high horse. You're doing the same thing you called another poster "sexist" for doing.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Person A accuses Person B of sending creepy text messages. Person B shows a message history of what they claim to be the entire conversation between them, with no creepy messages in it. Person A refuses to share any text messages. How is it sexist to believe that Person B is innocent? I think someone is being sexist or racist in this situation if their judgement changes depending on the race or gender of persons A and B. That's what the root comment wrote, or at least how plenty of people are interpreting it: it makes more sense to them that Person B is guilty and Person A is truthful by virtue of the fact that Person B is a man and Person A is a woman. You are getting at it when you write this: > But you disagree because you JUDGE the evidence differently, Correct, but the deeper fundamental aspect is that they making their judgement based on the evidence. As opposed to making judgements based on the gender/race of the people involved.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    > How is it sexist to believe that Person B is innocent? Good grief. It's not! For exactly the same reason that it's not sexist to believe Person B is guilty, as exporectomy did above and as zozbot234 and you defended. Judgement calls aren't sexism. But FWIW: by typical preponderance of evidence rules, multiple corroborating testimonies by unrelated witnesses sit way higher than "here's a screenshot of an unrelated event". I submit that the reason you're clinging so hard to that is that you really just don't WANT to believe this guy is a creep. Which, fine. It's a judgement call, and you judged. Just don't tell the rest of us that you aren't.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- fastball 5y ago
  You're not even presenting an accurate picture of the accusers side though. Two of them are apparently know each other literally because the original accuser told another accuser[1] that Pasquale was to blame. [1] https://www.notion.so/image/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fsecure.notion-static.com%2Fde0b79db-204e-4f4e-9735-09d09926b510%2FUntitled.png?table=block&id=44a73db4-0a7c-4043-b81b-10db0cbce32e&spaceId=4df35c39-cb11-4523-a7a4-2c68a3fecc57&width=2640&userId=4b2c8fc0-cbde-4ebe-aec3-801582d7eeb3&cache=v2 https://www.notion.so/image/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazo...