You demand proof only when it helps your hero. If alleged assault makes you smile, log off. Your beef is not bigger than abuse, and survivors are not props for stan wars.
My main grip with this take is the following : you are arguing that we shouldn't believe the mere mention of their names as presumptive of association to the crime, because no prosecution was followed.
Well no prosecutions were made against Weinstein, R.Kelly and others for years, and yet they were all found guilty of serious crimes at a later time.
Shouldn't we at the very least examine the existence of accusations through the years and ask for answers on their end, instead of blindly disregarding accusations as mere "Stan" fodder ?
I think you’re responding to an argument I didn’t make.
I’m not saying “no prosecution means ignore accusations.” I’m saying that an anonymous FBI hotline tip, released in a bulk document dump, is not evidence of a crime and should not be treated as one, especially when it’s being circulated as meme fuel in stan wars.
The Weinstein and R. Kelly cases actually support my distinction, not undermine it. Those cases involved multiple on-the-record accusers, corroboration, investigative journalism, civil filings, criminal charges, and eventually court findings. None of that started or ended with a single unverified tip being treated as proof. The reason those cases mattered is because accusations were examined seriously, not flattened into screenshots or used as fandom ammunition.
Nothing in my piece argues against asking questions, examining patterns, or taking allegations seriously. It argues against collapsing tips, rumors, allegations, charges, and verdicts into the same bucket, and against celebrating allegations when they’re useful against artists people already dislike.
If the goal is accountability, the standard has to be higher than “a name appeared in a document.” Otherwise we’re not pursuing justice—we’re just outsourcing our ethics to tribal fandom and calling it concern.
My main grip with this take is the following : you are arguing that we shouldn't believe the mere mention of their names as presumptive of association to the crime, because no prosecution was followed.
Well no prosecutions were made against Weinstein, R.Kelly and others for years, and yet they were all found guilty of serious crimes at a later time.
Shouldn't we at the very least examine the existence of accusations through the years and ask for answers on their end, instead of blindly disregarding accusations as mere "Stan" fodder ?
I think you’re responding to an argument I didn’t make.
I’m not saying “no prosecution means ignore accusations.” I’m saying that an anonymous FBI hotline tip, released in a bulk document dump, is not evidence of a crime and should not be treated as one, especially when it’s being circulated as meme fuel in stan wars.
The Weinstein and R. Kelly cases actually support my distinction, not undermine it. Those cases involved multiple on-the-record accusers, corroboration, investigative journalism, civil filings, criminal charges, and eventually court findings. None of that started or ended with a single unverified tip being treated as proof. The reason those cases mattered is because accusations were examined seriously, not flattened into screenshots or used as fandom ammunition.
Nothing in my piece argues against asking questions, examining patterns, or taking allegations seriously. It argues against collapsing tips, rumors, allegations, charges, and verdicts into the same bucket, and against celebrating allegations when they’re useful against artists people already dislike.
If the goal is accountability, the standard has to be higher than “a name appeared in a document.” Otherwise we’re not pursuing justice—we’re just outsourcing our ethics to tribal fandom and calling it concern.