Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I have no interest in keeping these people on a pedestal in the exact way I have no interest in tearing them down. My reservation on this - and it's a minor one because I don't super care either way in spite of this being my third post in 30 minutes on the subject - is if they're being accused, tried and sentenced based on the unvetted accusation alone.
Is every accuser qualified to diagnose their own mental or emotional abuse and trace back the source to an individual and have the ability to level that accusation in a fair and balanced way? I kind of doubt it.
|
Well... they're not... unless you're talking about the court of public opinion which these individuals and the companies they work for bank on for success.
Again, we don't put anything positive through this type of verification process, and in the industries these people work in positive press and a likeable image make bank. People like good stories, a career resurgence after a battle with addiction, a young actor who just stumbled into Hollywood from nowheresville USA. As much as their quality of work matters, the story around them and their reputation plays a big role in their work and opportunities. So why do we just accept these stories that make there people seem a certain way, and then instantly want a verification process for stories that might change our perception. Our original perception isn't based on anything real, so why are we trying to protect it?
And I do get the "tried and sentencing" thing from a public opinion standpoint. Like, person says something, ok, we believe them, people shout about it, company x takes action. But you have to remember that everything in the court of public opinion is this way. You do not have to be a criminal to lose a job that depends on public opinion, you just have to be unlikeable. You do not have to be especially talented or interesting to gain one either, you just have to be likeable. It goes both ways.