On 06/06/2021 20:26, quil...@riseup.net wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 12:18:46PM -0500, quil...@riseup.net wrote:
>>> Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 08:36:27PM -0500, quil...@riseup.net wrote:
>>>>> Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
>>>>>> I can - Jake raped or sexually assaulted several people I know. No
>>>>>> social benefit can be used to justify that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't because I have no evidence. The evidence you present is not
>>>>> convincing to me.
>>>>
>>>> If I've seen evidence that's convincing to me, what is the appropriate
>>>> way for me to describe Jake?
>>>
>>> The way you do it is appropriate for you. How can I know what is
>>> appropriate for you? Perhaps you meant to ask something else.
>>
>> So there's nothing wrong with me calling Jake a rapist if I've seen
>> evidence that convinces me that he's a rapist?
>
> There is no problem for me. It is just false until proven. Perhaps it
> could be a problem for you, if the involved parties take legal action.
> I doubt they would. It would hamper the positions of both sides even
> more. It serves neither side attacking the other side, either with real
> actions or just opinions and gossip. The only constructive effort would
> be to do something concrete in favour of the side you are on. Calling
> Jake a rapist does not do anything constructive, besides to discuss what
> policies do go or bad for ourselves and for our communities.
If Garrett and his Debian buddies were in that group watching an alleged
rape, why did they just watch it without trying to stop it?
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu
https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
