normal human beings listen to recordings and believe victims but ok man, whatever you say
1
Pro with the longest tenure with a (tier 1) team
posted in
General Discussion
Comments:
Threaded
Linear
"Innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to be the public opinion in a civilized society. That is why most streamers didn't shun him like you freaks and instead chose to take a neutral stance unless clear evidence was presented that actually proved him guilty, clear evidence that is not a 9 page anecdotal document presenting absolutely nothing but an incredibly short out of context clip. At best, both of them are horrible people.
If the legal system followed your rules then society would collapse in one day. People in power would be the first ones to claim victims. But your twitter brainrot mind cannot comprehend socioeconomic so it's useless. Please read some more books.
the point, you dumb sack of shit, is that the legal system follows the idea that defendants are innocent until proven guilty - this does not mean the public should abjectly follow this perspective(rather, they should form their own opinions based on the evidence available), it means the justice system should not treat defendants as guilty until the trial process affirms them as such because the justice system presuming guilty people to be innocent and treating them as such is better than it presuming the inverse.
the public is free to form their own opinions as they choose and does not have to behave within these confines unless they are a member of the relevant jury, because the burden of proof juries are required to make determinations on is beyond any reasonable doubt rather than what they believe to be more likely
public opinion does not have these kinds of stakes in the slightest, which is why people are completely allowed to presume individuals on trial as guilty without society collapsing in a day - this is evidenced by the fact that it has not done so yet
i have a masters in english and i minored in political science my friend, i have paid far too much for textbooks to be told to go read more of them
masters in english and u start ur sentence calling people personal insults to get ur point across-wow really shows ur point mate
u can form whatever opinion u want u can think the sky is green and people would just think ur a dumbass- as much as u want it to be green, sky is blue.
at the end of the day facts are facts and the fact is that hes innocent, u cant change that or u can continue to live in denial, sinatraa is innocent and will NEVER be put behind bars at least for this incident specifically
i didn't say anywhere that it is objectively wrong to believe, personally, that all individuals accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty
i said that it is wrong to prescribe that requirement to public opinion, and there is no functional basis to applying that to ones' personal opinion
and i called him a dumb sack of shit, correctly, for incorrectly making that prescription without basis
the only basis for doing it is if you can't think critically enough to realize there is a difference between the requirement set for how the justice system must treat the accused and how the public can in the comfort of their own home. it is just a very simple-minded way of thinking about it by latching onto a catchphrase without understanding, in depth, what it actually means
Why are you getting so angry? Have you considering calming down first. It's not healthy to get this angry on the internet over a random discussion. If anything, it shows your mental state and explains why you think emotionally, just like you're doing right now.
And yes, you do need to read more books because I guarantee everyone that you probably majored in cultural studies, and of course you have a masters in English lmao, because if not that then I would have guessed you probably got one in social justice or climate science. I don't understand why you would self-report like that but okay I guess
Anyways, now on your first comment. There is nothing that says the public can't do that, just like how there is no rule that says a snail can't enter a race. But when societal ethics and common sense come into play (assuming you don't know what any of those are since you immediately start insulting someone for having a different opinion), it's not the wisest thing to do.
There is a law in place that will prosecute the accused, and until they have been proven guilty by prosecution, no one should incriminate the accused or shun them based on anything. The general public cannot sort through evidence and verify what is truthful and what's not.
Because if they could, then we should bring back those witch lynchings from old times. Because we all know how amazing that went, right? Lmfao
Unless the defendant is like MrBeast and he is pulling a SLAPP (assuming there is no anti-SLAPP measurements in that jurisdiction), you can't make a judgment on your own and incriminate the person.
It is ethically wrong, and can be incredibly damaging to their career, even if the public is technically free to do that. Who is going to pay reparations for that, the government? Have you ever thought about that?
Discord