> I see that you rewrote some of your comment after I published mine That is false. I edited my own comment before you replied (I even checked right before and

> I see that you rewrote some of your comment after I published mine That is false. I edited my own comment before you replied (I even checked right before and after submitting my edits), and apparently unfortunately you didn’t see my edits until afterward, and have made yet another incorrect assumption. My edits were not a reaction to you, I clarified and improved my own comment. Is it possible you’re complaining about my argument getting stronger, and jumping to incorrect conclusions about my motivation, because you were already failing to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation? The point that you just clarified is that Weinstein would never have gone to court, nor to jail, without his actions, nor without the allegations. Just 1 comment ago you “attributed” his being in jail to the court, arguing that here and in all cases of cancel the final decisive people in power were the primary cause of the outcome. I fully agree that he’s in jail because of his actions. You’ve just illustrated the point that the judge that delivered his sentence is not the correct way to attribute his being in jail. The judge’s decision is only one reason, and it’s almost completely irrelevant. Once Weinstein was finally accused in public, after mounting public outcry, and once he was investigated and formally charged, jail was practically inevitable. The cause of him being in prison is correctly attributed to the whole series of events, especially the events that started everything (his actions and the allegations), and not, contrary to your claim, to someone in power.