So true. The internet has made mob rule and piling on much easier and less likely to have consequences for the mobsters.
I'm uncomfortable with the way everything is basically taking a very female perspective which fails to acknowledge that male and female motivations are often entirely different when it comes to sex, and basically moralizing that male behavior is sleazy and nasty while female behavior is sainted and timid and helpless and pure. And yes, for the simpletons, that is called generalizing and not meant to apply in 100% of cases.
Sure, Weinstein is a douche. We can all agree on that, presuming half the stuff being said about him is true. All Brown seems to have been was an awkward young man who perhaps isn't all that good at seduction. Nevertheless, nobody, other than a few female columnists (and Kimmy), seems to even question why these women went to his home and went to his bedroom and sat on his bed with him. Because, apparently, women are sainted, helpless, timid souls.
The new Tory leader was quick to say "I believe these women." Really? Who are they? You don't know? You've never seen them. You've never heard them speak. You know nothing whatsoever about them which would lead you to be able to judge the veracity of their words. You have no idea whether they might have embellished, exaggerated, altered things a bit to make themselves look good, or misremembered. One was 'plied with alcohol'. I guess that's a better way for her to say it than "Yeah, I drank too much and got stinking drunk" because it removes any hint she might be in any way responsible. Yet this seems to be what society is saying. We have to "believe" whatever women say without question. Sorry, but I've known too many women. And they're as capable of lying, altering their memories to make themselves look good, and exaggerating as men are.
Ontario's idiot of an NDP leader, when asked about whether there ought to be due process, angrily brought up the Jian Gomesh trial and said the justice system was failing women. But it didn't. That trial revealed that the women had lied, had colluded, and had left out information which might make them look bad. The trial judge rightly found Gomesh not guilty. But to the SJWs like Andrea Horvath that was just an example of an evil man acting like, well, a heterosexual man, getting off without being properly punished!
Or, as NDP Leader Andrea Horwath snapped Thursday, when a reporter almost apologetically raised, you know, that presumption of innocence thing: “I really have two words — Jian Ghomeshi.”
Here’s two other words: “Not guilty.”
And if Horwath followed the trial, which I presume she did, she would know why the prosecution of the creepy CBC star fell apart: the complainants were not credible; at least two of them seemingly colluded before testifying; all three withheld from police crucial information about their relationships with the defendant. The case should never have come to court. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/patrick-browns-downfall-an-affront-to-fairness/ar-AAvbm8O?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntpIt is not brave to speak from the shadows. It is not courageous to vilify anybody from within bubble-wrapped camouflage.https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/patrick-browns-downfall-an-affront-to-fairness/ar-AAvbm8O?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntp