[Coda]

Originally Posted by Gallagher

disagree that something decades ago has no relevancy to someone's character

everyone makes stupid mistakes, but there are some kinds of mistakes that aren't the mistakes that just anyone would make, and those do speak to your character. the way you respond to your previous mistakes is what speaks of your current moral standing.

i don't have much of an opinion on this specific situation, but i think that it's important to understand in this climate of attacking people's histories that not only do individual morals and understandings change as they grow and not every little thing can be held against them, there are some kinds of mistakes that simply cannot be excused by age, era, immaturity, etc.

Sure, I can agree that there are some things that could indeed be unforgivable. Murder, especially premeditated, would certainly qualify here at any age. And on the other side of things, petty shoplifting by a teenager probably wouldn't. But in between, the dividing line is very fuzzy and extremely context-sensitive, and exactly where that line is drawn is itself a matter of opinion.

But one thing I absolutely do not want to do is hold an accusation against someone if that accusation is in fact false. It could have been alleged to have happened last week by someone in the full rightness of their mind, but if it didn't actually happen then that shouldn't be held against them.

One of the core tenets of our society is supposed to be the presumption of innocence. This is enforced by law in judicial settings, but in the public eye the tendency has been to presume guilt and put the onus on the accused to prove innocence. And that's infuriating to me. Kavanaugh is just the most recent and most visible example, but the problem goes way beyond just that.