I've been with this thread from the jump and all y'all are crawling out of the woodwork slamming her instead of focusing on him. I don't even know who half you niggers are.
My man, I don't know who Max is beyond his mediocre RLM appearance. I'm saying these things on principle, not any particular love for this one specific fag boy.
Now, if you'll look around, I think you'll see a reflection of the first statement in that post you quoted. This game of twitter show-trials has gone on for a little too long and people are getting tired of it, as fun as a public execution may be. I realize that hard evidence is hard to produce in these cases, but the demand that we proceed in condemnation based on nothing but words is not a good long term alternative.
What I'm saying has nothing to do with Max, rather, it is about the nature of MeToo.
That said, I hope you do indeed have something up your sleeve
@Eggman's Ghost . Standing up in court is one thing, the real challenge I'm sure will be standing up to Hollywood money. Best of luck, it's an unenviable position, with no ideal solution.
It is ludicrously simple for a group of people to meet and collaborate surreptitiously on the internet. Cf. every actual extremist group. It is also simple for those people to find one another initially when they are, for example, discussing rumors about a public figure. I don't say this to scream "CONSPIRACY!", just to indicate that collusion is always extremely difficult to prove until screenshots of an IRC channel surface.
In these sorts of situations I wouldn't even jump to the conclusion that there's collaboration between the accusers, there doesn't need to be when there're other possible motivations.
There are still conditions to evidence by virtue of quantity, but it’s still a valuable and valid measure of an accusation’s weight. If all of the accusing women were known to follow one another or spend time together, they could have collaboratively made a story.
However, when multiple accusations rise from unrelated people who have no reason or route to forge a scenario together, that’s a point toward Landis being found guilty.
Additionally: do the stories align?
If the accusers knew one another beforehand and their stories aligned, then it raises red flags for collaboration.
If the accusers didn’t know one another beforehand and the stories have notable differences, red flags arise for misconstruing the story, or for Landis having made a mistake, but not being a predator.
However, the accusers did not know each other, and many key details of their accounts align and show the same behavior from Landis. This points to Landis being a repeat, intentional offender, and the actual “villain” so to speak, and significantly decreases the likelihood of this being a “team of exaggerating girls takes down a celebrity they dislike” situation.
You can’t take quantity at face value, but the more accounts that surface from more sources that have no reason to collaborate, and share key details, it lends additional credibility to their claim that he’s a predator.
You ever notice a pattern my man? One accusation surfaces, and then like 20 more over the course of a month. There's time in-between accusations there, time to read what one accuser has said, and repeat their own version of it. There doesn't need to be conspiracy here; do you think fucking "Yonah Bex" is someone to take the word of? She could be telling the truth, who knows, but that's the chick that fakes cancer to fund Disney vacations. She, and a few other public accusers have said provably spurious shit like this before, and they are almost certainly just jumping in on the trend.
I point this out
not to say that they are all lying however, some of them could be telling the truth but just because there's 20 more accusations that "fit a pattern" doesn't mean shit. If you had the urge to join in you could just copy the "key details" with your own accusation and make that pattern "fit". Your logic is predicated on the assumption that they have no reason to lie, and as such discount the possibility of forged accusations, but things often turn out more complicated. Some might just enjoy the spotlight of "justice served", and others might have a more personal reason to ruin the accused. You can't just assume that everyone is being honest when the sentence is ruin.
That said if you're just here for the drama --that's why I was here before we got sidetracked, go right ahead believing whatever makes the guy look worst, just try not to confuse that with justice ok?
I'm not shocked that I'll need to say it again; I'm not here with my wordwalls in defense of Landis, but in defense of possible future subjects of this sort of "democratized trial", and of the principles that allow for even justice, or at least as even as we can hope for.
