Even if we take into consideration that 90% (out of 25) could be lying (they aren’t), that’s still ~3 women he assaulted.
We wouldn’t need any of this if Trump’s supporters actually had the ethics or morals they loudly claim they champion.
We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.
Submitted 1 day ago by Rooskie91@discuss.online to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Comments
Etterra@discuss.online 1 hour ago
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Believing women dosnt mean just acting blindly on a womans word and nothing more.
Believing women means intiating proper procedures, starting investigations, and gathering the facts and evidence, impartially and without prejudice.
So yes, We need the epstein files, even if we believe women, because they are evidence that, in all likelyhood, supports their claims.
Convicting based upon words sworn under oath and with no facts to back it up but feelings and outage has lead to a lot of overturned verdicts and innocent lives ruined.
CodingCarpenter@lemmy.ml 12 hours ago
This can still ruin someone’s life though. As soon as there are whispers of an accusation that are official it’s over. There needs to be a better way.
Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
What way is better than investigating allegations impartially? Do you know of something better that wouldn’t require someone to be psychic, or require everyone coming to some nigh impossible position where no one lies?
Dreaming_Novaling@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
Um… I’m a girl, and I totally believe these women were assaulted because we’re talking about rich assholes who literally feel like they can do anything.
But you have to present evidence no matter what. That’s literally how the court works. If all we have is he-said-she-said, then there’s not much we can do to reach a verdict. There have been regular people who have been incorrectly deemed assaulters/rapists due to lack of evidence. We have seen women who lie about this. You NEED to have proof, to ensure that it’s an undeniable fact that the accused is officially recognized as a shit person.
This is an unrealistic ideal, I’m gonna be real. I want these women to win and be acknowledged. I want all who interacted with Epstein to rot in prison and hell. But we need evidence. That’s just the truth.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 hours ago
Fuck the courts?
I agree not hurting people without evidence, but there’s plenty in public domain in this case. Like, i dont know exactly where the line on calling someone a nazi is, but when hellboy, indiana jones, and georgei zukov all have you at the top of their personal shit-list and you’ve got a sonnenrad tattoo that covers your entire back, and you cannot order breakfast without shouting “BLOOD AND SOIL”, It’s pretty obviously over that line.
This is kinda that, but for pedophilia.
ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Having the evidence needed to convict is different than evidence to no longer trust and shun.
With 20+ woman making accusations, being friends with a known pedophile and literally having recordings of him bragging about sexually assaulting women and bragging about going backstage with undressed teen girls the world shouldn’t need any more evidence. The honest and rational world doesn’t in fact.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Convictions are important going up against the rich and powerful. They live lives where they don’t have to care what us plebians think.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
Ah, yes, ye Olde “just believe them” attitude.
No one would ever lie for personal gain, right?
I don’t “believe” claims that have significant impact - that requires evidence. Which is the basis of our legal system.
Just wait till you’ve been wrongfully accused about something and have to stand before a judge. It’s no fun, and you’ll be grateful then that evidence is required.
SomethingBlack@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This is exactly right. The “believe women” stance is so childish and naive. “Take women seriously” would be just as effective, less dangerous and fit into every just legal system on the planet
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The “believe women” stance is so childish and naive.
It’s naive to believe our criminal justice system is reliably investigating and prosecuting instances of sexual assault.
Poayjay@lemmy.world 1 day ago
[deleted]ech@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
How does “We wouldn’t need [evidence] if society just trusted women” fit your argument?
merc@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
According to OP “We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.”
So, believing women is proof, and not only proof, but proof so strong that we wouldn’t even need the Epstein files. You might think that believing women doesn’t mean convicting every person who is accused, but OP sure seems to think so.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
So, you’re saying don’t believe them? Because if you believe them, then the accused is guilty, end of story.
LePoisson@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I mean I don’t think 25 women would lie about stuff that would be slander or libel when it comes to someone as litigious and thin skinned as Trump.
Not much evidence you can provide when it’s one person’s word over another. Only thing I can say is he never won a libel suit against his accusers as far as I know.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
I don’t care who is accused - I refuse to convict anyone on anything just from an accusation.
Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 1 day ago
And like a good scientist, I don’t give a shit what you think. Give me evidence.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“Just believe them” is shorthand for “Believe them long enough to actually press charges and hold a trial instead of dismissing them by default”.
Furbag@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Yeah, I think a lot of people are completely missing the point. Very similar to how saying “black lives matter” doesn’t imply that non-black lives do not matter, or that black lives must somehow be considered more important than any other life, the phrase “believe women” doesn’t imply that we should start doubting men, or that a woman’s testimony should be held as a higher form of evidence than anything else. It’s pointing out the clear systemic bias against women in a system controlled and dominated mostly by men who do not want to cede their power and authority.
One of the many flaws of the English language is how difficult it is to condense a very complex sociopolitical message down into a catchy one-liner without losing a ton of the context that got people there in the first place.
wewbull@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Between charges and a trial is a criminal investigation. If that doesn’t give enough reason to proceed to trial, charges are dropped.
A better stat would be %age of accusations that result in an investigation. That should be a lot higher, but police shouldn’t be trying to prosecute cases that have nothing but an accusation to court.
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Wait, which do you think happens more often: a false accusation, or an uninvestigated sex crime? Because false allegations happen, but statistically it’s like saying you shouldn’t go to restaurants because occasionally chefs murder people with knives. It’ll probably make the news, but only because it’s so fucking rare.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
I said neither of the above. Don’t out words in my mouth.
People are falsely accused of crimes all the time, which is why the legal system requires evidence.
Bunbury@feddit.nl 10 hours ago
Innocent until proven guilty (I say that as a woman AND a survivor of SA).
Then again he was proven guilty in other cases. Seeing as those weren’t enough to remove him from power permanently I am not sure what this would do. If I had to bet on if he assaulted minors I’d go for heck yes. I’d bet nearly everything I have on that. So I’d be a pretty bad jury member of this case ;) anyway: the more evidence there is, the harder it is to ignore. Victim statements are pretty good evidence, but more is better.
brown567@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
When a woman claims to have been assaulted, I automatically believe her in regards to how I treat her.
As far as the person she’s accused goes, though, I think it’s pretty easy to understand that nobody should be convicted on the sole evidence of their accuser’s testimony, and I think that should apply to the court of public opinion as well.
It’s a situation where either one person is guilty of a horrible crime, or the other is making false allegations of said crime. In order for both to be “innocent until proven guilty”, you need to assume the allegations are true when interacting with the woman, and assume they’re false while interacting with the accused. It’s really counterintuitive and maybe impossible to do
pupbiru@aussie.zone 5 hours ago
assume the allegations are true when interacting with the woman, and assume they’re false while interacting with the accused
id also add to assume they’re at least somewhat plausible when interacting with people around them who may be effected in the future
putting people on guard, as long as it doesn’t negatively effect anyone involved is useful: it’s not a good outcome to have information, keep it to yourself to protect people, and then for someone new to get hurt
it’s incredibly tricky, and imo false reports are just as bad as true reports: false reports hurt real, and future victims significantly
brown567@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
That’s an excellent point
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 1 day ago
“If we just trusted women”
We don’t trust people based on their gender. We trust them based on credibility and evidence. If there’s even the tiniest amount of doubt then it better to let the guilty walk free rather than put an innocent person in jail. And I’m speaking broadly here - not about Trump specifically.
breecher@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
That is not OP’s point. Their point is the opposite, namely that a lot of people automatically distrust people (women) based on their gender. Lots of women have provided credible evidence under oath:
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
[…] We trust [people] based on credibility and evidence. […]
I don’t think this is necessarily the case. For example, one could give someone a chance despite past wrongs.
h3rmit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Yeah, and inoccent until proven guilty. We should not believe absolutely anyone, regardless of gender, making any accusation.
Every accusation should be thoroughly investigated, though.
It happened with Neil Gaiman recently. Many accusations, no sentence for him (at least as of yet), he denies the claims.
Yet, massive lost to reputation, projects cancelled, etc.
If he’s found guilty, all the shame and consecuences to him, but society should stop acting like people talking or a “hyper graphical article” makes things true.
We live in the age of quick opinions, echo chambers, and the like.
Amir@lemmy.ml 4 hours ago
Another example is Luigi Mangione, everyone already thinks he did it, when there’s no evidence and only “evidence” it was him
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
[…] We should not believe absolutely anyone, regardless of gender, making any accusation. […]
Do you make a distinction between “accusation” and “testimony”?
squaresinger@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Yes, the Epstein files are important, but not for proving guilt.
Honestly, guilt doesn’t matter in this case, because nobody who matters cares. His fanbase, his voters, his politicians and even his supreme court don’t care. He’s been convicted of felonies, and it just didn’t matter.
But the Epstein files are something different. It’s one of the core things his conspiracy manic fan base are sworn in on. It’s part of their core narrative and beliefs. Him being in there could really shake things up.
Bubbey@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
The burden of proof for a criminal rape suit is really high, and you can’t really just He-said She-said it.
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 5 hours ago
The burden of proof for a criminal rape suit is really high […]
How do you mean?
cute_noker@feddit.dk 13 hours ago
Was none of the girls underage?
rumba@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
There are names and pretty damning proof, there are no prosecutions other than the two show runners.
Sp00kyB00k@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Got me an ex that wanted, out of spite, to turn me in with the police for rape. And saying so she could baby lasso me back.
There is a reason why evidence is needed to proof something.
shalafi@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Had two exes lie to the police, got thrown in jail for a day over the first one. Got off, but still.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
ITT: Bunch of people who don’t understand how the justice system works, accusing everybody else in it of being misogynistic incels.
Amberskin@europe.pub 17 hours ago
No, we would still need evidence.
Because of that ‘innocent until caught’ and ‘due process’ things you may had heard about.
Note: a credible testimony IS evidence, although it must be a little bit beyond the simple ‘trust me’ stuff.
bonedaddy@mander.xyz 6 hours ago
This thread is fkn mess.
thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
We just had to believe him when he bragged about it!
starlinguk@lemmy.world 1 day ago
So you’ll believe the guy, but not the women.
And that’s exactly what’s wrong with most of these comments.
3abas@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
They said you don’t need victim testimony because the rapist is bragging about it, and your interpretation is that said don’t believe women.
You’re the sexest one, even if you don’t realize it.
thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
Im pointing out that its not a matter of “believing men over women”, but rather believing whatever we want to believe.
When youre a hammer everything looks like a nail
DandomRude@lemmy.world 1 day ago
One thing is certain: someone who has been declared a rapist by a court of law and has been convicted of many serious crimes should never be president of a country — especially not if he is also doing everything in his power to withhold incriminating material relating to the investigation of a pedophile ring.
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
[…] someone who has been declared a rapist by a court of law and has been convicted of many serious crimes should never be president of a country […]
IMO, I don’t think this is a good idea. My concern is that it may give one’s opposition an incentive to find a way to falsely convict them of a crime (or maybe create a new criminal offense) in order to remove them from the running for office.
DandomRude@lemmy.world 13 minutes ago
I don’t mean legal regulations, but rather a minimum level of common sense: I cannot imagine a more unsuitable candidate as the incumbent US president - who he is was widely known. Now organized crime is in power - that was completely predictable, because that is what he has always stood for.
Zomg@lemmy.world 1 day ago
God, I remember stories of some women who falsely claim sexual assault. When there are consequences, just ruling on vibes and a 1 sided account of a story is so incredibly bad.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Name one time.
Ever think that women’s lives are often ruined by being raped and not being believed when they do report it?
_thisdot@infosec.pub 6 hours ago
Here’s one against Joe Biden: en.wikipedia.org/…/Joe_Biden_sexual_misconduct_al…
Zomg@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Took me 5 seconds bro. Please do better.
MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys
Somewhat famous case, thought partially to have been a source of inspiration for a book called “To Kill a Mockingbird”, somewhat famous in its own right.
Highly recommend you read it
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 16 hours ago
How bad does the damage from the false accusation need to be?
One I’m fond of pointing to as evidence that they happen is Tracy West accusing her ex Louis Gonzales. He spent three months in jail while it was being investigated, and only got out because he happened to have a very heavily corroborated alibi for the day that left only a 6 minute window during which he would have had to travel a total of 2 miles, obtain a duffel bag full of forensic countermeasures, subdue and rape the victim, dispose of said duffel bag in a manner it would never be recovered and return. And that 6 minute window was not when she originally said it happened, until they allowed her to revise her statement which became much fuzzier about when it happened. Also there was evidence that she was researching the way she was tied up in the days leading up to her being tied up exactly that way. By all appearances this case was about a custody dispute over their kid, and despite the case being dropped because it was physically impossible for him to have done it she still got to use it against him because fucking family courts. He eventually got a finding of factual innocence from CA courts and had the entire thing expunged from his record - to be clear, this essentially requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you could not have committed the crime. When he was interviewed by an LA paper about the case, he’d developed an obsession with being as publicly visible with as much paper trail as possible at all time, just in case because of how lucky he was with his alibi from this case (if he’d eaten before he left to get the kid, his alibi wouldn’t exist and that alibi is the reason he only spent 3 months in jail).
How about Brian Banks? Kid with a real chance of going into professional football, Falsely accused, threatened with 41 years, plead to 5 years + 5 probation + registering as a sex offender on advice of his lawyer. The accuser sues the school and wins $1.5M. 9 years later, his accuser contacts him on Facebook and they speak. He secretly records the conversation, in which she admits to having lied but refuses to tell authorities that because she was afraid that they might make her pay back the money. The video gets released publicly and the Innocence Project gets involved. He goes on to briefly join the UFL and then NFL after not having meaningfully played for 11 years (time that would have been the prime of his career if not for the accusation).
Speaking of the Innocence Project, what’s your opinion of them? It tends to vary for left leaning folks - either they like it because a lot of the people exonerated are POC or they hate it because a significant majority of people exonerated by it were imprisoned for some flavor of sexual assault. Go look at their list of cases: innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ According to the site when filtered for sex crimes 184 of the “more than 250” people were imprisoned wrongly for a sex crime. 124/184 of those exonerated by the Innocence Project that were imprisoned for a sex crime were misidentified by an eyewitness. For sex crimes, that eyewitness is very often the alleged victim.
Alaik@lemmy.zip 15 hours ago
theguardian.com/…/duke-lacrosse-rape-falsely-accu…
…crimewatchpa.com/…/woman-pleads-guilty-lying-abo…
www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-67992342
Are we really saying any group of people are infallible and incapable of lying?
Don’t get me wrong, I believe the majority of rape accusations aren’t false accusations with a sinister motive. I believe Trump is a rapist.
We should never act like any group of people will never lie, and we absolutely should never compromise on due process.
Apthianos@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
I personally witnessed a woman fake being raped and abused by her ex because her ex found a new girlfriend after they broke up for a few days. She even beat herself up and tore up her own clothes. She admitted to it the next day after she calmed down. I know not every woman is like this but there has to be evidence. It sucks I know but that’s just how it has to be.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
Even for such an orange looking piece of shit the judicial process should be fair, and everyone should be innocent until proven guilty.
TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Trial by socia media? Fuck outta here.
All these scummy shitbags are certainly guilt, but this needs to be proven.
The motto I get behind is “trust, but verify”.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
That is what ‘believe women’ means, because women’s claims of sexual violence are frequently not believed to the point that the police come up with excuses to not even look into the claims. Then if they do, the prosecutors come up with reasons why they shouldn’t ‘waste time’ prosecuting when there is as much evidence in a rape case as there is in a murder case.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Accusations aren’t evidence. It would break the way we prosecute.
KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
Have a Kangaroo court if you must, like Ceausescu, if it helps you sleep at night.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Technically true and I get the point of the statement, but unquestioningly trusting a whole category of people is no smarter than mistrusting a whole category of people. We’re all individuals with our own levels of honesty, spite, conscience, etc.
Auli@lemmy.ca 21 hours ago
Why should we trust them? Not all accusations are true women are just as screwed up as men.
Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 20 hours ago
Because there 25 women that have come forward, out of god knows how many women, and the guys pretty much admitted it himself.
LadyButterfly@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Yep, plus he’s openly misogynistic. He’s not a man that treats women with respect, and objectifies many. Then there’s his red flag relationship with his daughter…
RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 20 hours ago
At least a couple of them are telling the truth, statistically, but I’m still on team Evidence rather than team Rumor.
That is, assuming evidence against the President still means anything. Once that cat’s out of the bag, play ball.
YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 hours ago
Lemmy is mostly men, it is hard to share any other perspective. SA is hard to get a conviction in. If there isn’t physical evidence like semen, then the victim is called a liar. If there is semen evidence, then the victim is called someone who regretted their choice and is now getting back at the person. (And this is assuming the perpetrator was male, there can be female perpetrators too). A lot of victims do not come forward about what happened because they don’t want to be called a liar and labeled a pariah publicly. The absolute shame and rejection when someone doesn’t believe you. This subject is pretty sensitive to me and lemmy just really, really disappoints sometimes.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
If there isn’t physical evidence like semen, then the victim is called a liar.
They are called liars when there is physical evidence. Not to mention the massive backlog of processing rape kits.
YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 hours ago
I absolutely agree. If rape kits are made, they can be backlogged and then degrade, which is extremely depressing to think about.
Threads like this need to be followed up with eyebleach (a community full of cute animals and such).
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
Lemmy is mostly men […]
Has there been a recent survey?
GaMEChld@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Questions:
-
Would you be ok with you or someone you love more than yourself being sent to prison on a false accusation as long as a larger number of guilty people also get imprisoned?
-
Do you think false accusations don’t happen?
I generally take people at their word in my day to day interactions. I’d believe you if you told me something. But I wouldn’t enforce laws on people with only eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony has been proven unreliable.
YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
I get that men are terrified about false rape accusations, even though there is an extremely low chance of it happening, they are afraid. When someone talks about sexual assault, in their mind they feel they need to defend themselves by bringing up false accusations because in their mind it will discourage this crime, bring light to real victims, and thus protect themselves. I’m not a man but this is what I’ve been told. Then you have victims, who simply want their rapist and other rapists to face justice. They often know others around them who have also been sexually assaulted. When they talk about sexual assault and someone else brings up false accusations, it feels like they don’t actually care about the victims and just want to soapbox about false accusations, stealing the spotlight. They might even be a toxic part of the manosphere.
The nature of the crime means it is usually the victim and the perpetrator alone and not in public, and the victim is more likely to know who the assaulter is. It can be a family member, friend, partner, etc. There usually isn’t much evidence to prove sexual assault. So we have a problem. As you said, you don’t believe a hefty amount of these sexual assaults should have laws enforced on them. I don’t have a solution, other than a suggestion that people should be more empathetic towards victims. And not ask questions like yours to victims.
questions like these are unproductive
1. How many rapists are you ok with letting go free so that you or someone you know doesn’t have to go to prison for something they didn’t do? 1,000? 10,000? Every single rapist? Is it better to let every single criminal go free so that you do not have to go to prison? 2. Do you think rape/sexual assault don’t happen?
-
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 20 hours ago
SA is hard to get a conviction in.
Yeah. It turns out that something that usually has no witnesses beyond the accused and accuser, often has little or no evidence other than the accusation itself and the sole difference between it and an otherwise common and legal act exists solely in the mind of the accuser is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 hours ago
Not sure if you were just reiterating, but yes it is depressing. It takes bravery to step forward knowing that it can cause further damage to oneself. Not just socially but mentally. I don’t have a perfect solution to this. But when the perpetrator is Trump, I doubt justice is going to happen.
0x0@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
solely in the mind of the accuser
Wait what? Ever heard of consent? No is no? Coercion? The most common definition of rape?
There’s a huge grey area between people having consensual sex and rape, but rape is not in said gray area.
Aeri@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
I identify as a woman and the “The internet is literally all men anyone who says they’re a woman is a liar” thing is really demoralizing.
YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
My first experiences on the internet were riddled with misogyny. As a child, I was told I am lying about being a girl and didn’t sound like one. I had many guys tell me “tits or gtfo” when learning I’m a girl, usually after they asked me if I was a girl. I tried playing some multiplayer team games online and was hazed once they found out I was a girl, multiple times. I refuse to play those games now. Even as an adult, I’ve had gamer guys think I’m great until they learn I’m a feminist, then the hate comes back. I’ve dated an adult man who belittled me for playing Sims because people with real lives play games like Overwatch. At least mainstream media felt like there were more women around, lemmy just feels more centered for men :/
zbyte64@awful.systems 16 hours ago
A functioning judicial system is a prerequisite to any sort of accountability. And if we had a judicial system that served the people, then the Epstein client list would be known and prosecuted. The problem is we have a two-tiered justice system.
_thisdot@infosec.pub 19 hours ago
If this were the case, Republicans would easily find 30 women to lie against Kamala Harris or whoever the next Democratic candidate is
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
There is a reason the Tara Reade allegations didn’t derail Biden’s campaign.
Triasha@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Let them. Let them lie. They don’t care about truth, evidence, or justice. Why should we care what they lie about?
Lumisal@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Well, the thing is, the Epstein files isn’t about women.
It’s about girls.
So even if we did believe in women more, those files should be released
SparrowHawk@feddit.it 20 hours ago
Jesus christ the comments in this thread…
gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org 14 hours ago
Demanding hard evidence before locking someone away for 10 years instead of just taking one individual at their word, the horror!
LadyButterfly@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
I know, it’s horrible.
tisktisk@piefed.social 1 day ago
Is this a showerthought or just wrong?
Someone just learned that anecdotal evidence < material evidence by a lotTattorack@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Human stories/word/memory is incredibly fallible (be it because of how flawed humans are either biologically or behaviourally) that nothing outside of law enforcement uses human stories/word/memory as reliable evidence.
So no, testifying under oath will not be considered as evidence to anyone who values provable, testable fact.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 4 hours ago
“not a girl in sight in these comments”
lmao you just assume if anyone disagrees with you we’re not women.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 hours ago
Most women, even those who have been accused of sexual assault, have experience being assaulted.