I’m not sure how you square that definition with what the OP wrote in the headline.
They said that we wouldn’t need the Epstein files (the evidence collected by the FBI in order to prosecute this child sex trafficking ring) to prove DJT’s guilt if we just believed women.
I hope you can, at least, see how that appears to be saying that “the evidence isn’t needed if we believe women.” and not "we should take womensy claims seriously.
You’re right that there are two vastly different interpretations of that statement: (1). Take women seriously and (2). A woman’s accusation is a higher form of evidence.
OP’s headline is, at best, poorly written but it’s very easy to understand why it appears to be using (2).
Furbag@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You make a great point. My own counter to that would be that not every consequence needs to come directly from the courts. People are more than capable of making up their minds about it with just the testimony from the accusers and then acting on that information accordingly, we just didn’t. That doesn’t seem to be OP’s principal argument, though.