[Gallagher]

Originally Posted by Coda

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.

i think, in a way, something that's becoming more and more prominent with this struggle of guilt in the public eye is this idea people have that you have to presume innocence of the right side with situations like these, because either one of these sorts of accusations or the accusation being false, both are crimes that ruin lives. it seems like people feel as though assuming innocence of a person means assuming guilt of another when it's this kind of situation, and media representation and breakdowns only help to bolster this idea of one side or the other, just as it does in the larger scope of politics.

if the accusations against him are true, then i think that this is a case of something that absolutely speaks of his character and how suitable he is for the position he's going for.

but to judge based on impulsive emotion, to try and be on the "right" side from the start, and the larger issue of emotional manipulation in order to assert any kind of agenda, that speaks a hell of a lot on a person's character, too, and we're seeing a lot of that surrounding all of this. it's not okay.

anyway lol. point is, not disagreeing with the source of your outrage. just how your initial post came off as dismissal of how that kind of act, if true, would actually reflect on his character. "just an inappropriate touch between two teenagers" is, to me, an incredibly distasteful, dismissive way to spin it in the context of your post.