Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

At least Louis C K asked, first.

 

It's not, but we've all made that point several times already, too. So we done here?

 

Where does it fall on the Facebook wallpaper scale (-7 = “If you love Jesus you’ll repost this” to +7 = “I fucking love science!”)?

 

One question: Is it acceptable for a person to simply treat allegations, even allegations he or she hears in the news, seriously rather than "believing" the accuser as a default?

 

What does "treating them seriously" mean?

 

In very broad strokes: You will process information related to the allegations as you would any other allegations. You will not presume as a default that the accuser is lying. You reserve the right to change your mind as further information is available.

I'm not asking if this is the position you would necessarily take yourself, but whether it is in the range of acceptable positions.

 

OK if I weigh in the fact that the system was built by men for men as well as administered overwhelmingly by men and is inherently unfair to women? Because that's my personal default when I'm in the court of public opinion's over-sized jury box considering a sexual misconduct allegation.

 

So long as you also note that the presumption of innocence, another of those creations of white men (!!!!!!) that perpetuate the patriarchy (!!!!!!), is included in that oh-so-white-ish Article 11 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

I don’t get your point. Did somebody suggest our judicial system shouldn’t have presumption of innocence as one of its pillars?

 

Someone suggested our system was of, by and for white men. Can’t remember who ...

 

Slippery slope?