we say “believe victims” bc brave women like rose mcgowan bring their real identities to the table. they have entire lives to lose and nothing to gain. that’s why it’s less morally grey to set aside the presumption of innocence for criminals, these women risked everything.

it’s something else entirely when you’re dealing with anonymous accounts on twitter. does the same privilege extend to someone who’s very identity is in question? is your comparison appropriate? think about it yourself.

the criminal trial process is so long & painful for victims, it’s improbable that anyone would put themselves through it for a lie. questioned by police, going through cross-examination at trial, having your character scrutinized by judges, jury & the public. No. Believe victims

It’s not always possible to launch a criminal investigation. Eg. time bar (when the act occurred so long ago you passed the statute of limitations), evidentiary difficulties, etc. That’s what happened for a lot of women who (with their real identities) exposed Harvey Weinstein.

Are you going to call a victim a liar during the 4 years it takes to secure a guilty verdict? Or are you going to be a moron who says it’s easy for women to put their lives & reputation at risk? They had stakes & brought their identities as security, why shouldn’t I believe them?

But anonymous exposés are another matter. Can you trust someone you don’t even know exist? Do not feel guilty asking yourself this, you aren’t discriminating against victims for making accusations of a sexual nature — you are asking the threshold question of their very existence.

That doesn’t mean you shoot to the other extreme and call someone a liar. It just means you have to listen to the substance of their accusations and judge it on its merits. You’d have to contend with the lack of a convenient presumption that does away with the need to think.