you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 174 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The burden of proof works the exact opposite way. You make a claim, then you need to support verifiable and damnable evidence. Not the other way around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 50 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    This isn't a court trial tbh

    So just because it's not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren't a purely legal framework.

    what has come forth from Madison's side

    Which is, to be perfectly fair, limited to he-said-she-said which isn't evidence. It's just an allegation and very little can be decided from that alone.

    At this point there is exactly zero useful information to actually derive any real decision from.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago

    So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework.

    I'm under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn't harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc.

    That's the difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago

    Oh, sure, I mean, you are definitely free to do and think as you wish. Just pointing out how the burden of proof works, since a lot of people (not necessarily you) do not get how it works. Bertrand Russel, everyone!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    How do you present evidence that it didn't happen without uploading months of continuous security camera footage?

    I think we should first wait for Madison to provide evidence that it did happen

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    At least there was other ex-employees who did show support to some of the stuff Madison said

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    ehhh, no; Colin and Taran repeatedly stated they never witnessed sexual abuse or harassment, and they can only confirm current claims are consistent with what she told them before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I said "show support to some stuff", not that they confirmed any of it as witnesses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think we're saying the same thing but I don't like the way you phrased it. They didn't support any part of her story, except that it didn't change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If, hypothetically, Madison made this whole thing up due to some ulterior motive, don't you think there would be other ex-exployees with mutual interests?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago*

    Just out of spite? Nah that's not normal. If we were talking about some megacorp like amazon or blizzard I'm sure there were ex employees piling in with some lies too but it's way less likely in a smaller company when we're talking about just 2 other people known by the community chipping in.

  • source
  • parent