You read an article, written by somebody you never met, accusing a person you never met, citing evidence you never saw. Now you feel angry at the accused person. What does that make you?
You read an article, written by somebody you never met, accusing a person you never met, citing evidence you never saw. Now you feel angry at the accused person. What does that make you?
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm assuming this is about Neil Gaiman. 9 women, the youngest being 18, have come forward and he made them sign NDA's [Content Warning]. Even if it was consensual the stuff he's admitted to doing is just awful. As a girl, I have every right to be angry that people like him view women as toys to use and abuse.
God damnit. I told someone recently "at least we'll have Pratchett and Gaiman in the non-asshole writer zone".
I'm rather hesitant to talk again...
Don't take hearsay so seriously.
Don't take the rabble's judgment of great artists so seriously either
Nope. Purely in the abstract. It happens a lot on social media. The Gaiman thing is just one example.
My point still stands. If there's evidence that someone has done terrible things, then most reasonable people aren't going to stick up for that person. I'm not sure what relevance not knowing the people involved has. Normal people are angry at Neo Nazis even though they may not know one personally.
Hearsay constitutes weak evidence.
What's the minimum you'd count as strong enough evidence to justify anger at the accused?
(Disregard that pm, wrong community)
The word of an authority that I respect would do it.
"an authority that you respect"? So truth doesnt matter, just the status of the person stating it? You should rethink your values
I said that the word of an authority that I respect would do it.
And by "do it" I meant (in reply to TootSweet@lemmy.world) that it would justify anger at the accused.
That's pretty far from truth. It's putting my trust in an authority.