Post #3880370
2026-07-09 22:40 UTC
I don’t know who you’re making that argument against, but it’s not me.
There’s a big difference between “believe women,” a statement that evolved in a world where women are subject to embarassing exams, intense scrutiny and backlash all for a minimal chance their attackers might face justice, and “kill everyone a woman accuses.”
Believing women means supporting women who make credible accusations, especially ones backed by evidence, in a world where doing so carries a litany of repurcussions.
Your counter example doesn’t fit the context, it’s saying “if you believe this then you think this guy should have died.” No one is saying that. Stop making a terrible argument.
Replies (1)
-
@wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2026-07-09 23:56
You apparently don’t understand what an absolute statement implies. “Believe women” as an unconditional statement is literally saying to never doubt them. And it’s enforced socially as well, as it’s basically taboo to say “Well hold on, slow down, let’s think about this and examine the evidence.” In a court of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Not so in the court of public opinion. Sure, Emmett Till is an extreme example. But it is an example. A counterexample, actually. And if you can’t look at that and think “Well maybe there’s a point here, maybe we shouldn’t just automatically believe every accusation is credible,” then I dont see the point in trying to reason with you any further.