LogFAQs > #906920839

Darkman124 posted...

It sets the expectation for survivors of all kinds of forms of abuse, whether it be abuse toward women, abuse from police officers, abuse from other people in power, to have to be the ones, like Im doing right now, to show and prove their stories. Its feeding into that.

Yes, when proof exists and your story rests on the existence of it, you should show it.

If your story is "this thing happened", that's one thing--but when your story is "this thing happened and I can prove it" the associated damage to the person in question is (and should be) greater, but there's burden of proof on you to back that claim up.

If she shows the video and it is what she says it is, he'd best exit politics.

Balrog0 posted...

but that line of reasoning is really just kind of peculiar to me. Even in the wake of the Me Too movement

It makes me extra suspicious, as though she were trying to use the movement as cover.

But I'm 100% willing to condemn the guy if she posts the video she claims she has.

Agreed. Which makes it all the worse to me that Ellison lied about it in the first place. He had no reason to lie - if it didn't happen, he should have gotten in front and painted her as a golddigger.
---

'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen