Do yourselves a favor and save yourselves from the social and cognitive inquisition.
The Crime Control Model
This inquisition comprises a well-known and powerful group that has assumed the right to convict people without trial and at times even after they are acquitted by the courtsolely on the basis of the stories told by its members. To be considered innocent until proven guilty is not a privilege, it is a moral right.
Anyone who convicts outside a court is no different than totalitarian regimes throughout history that convicted people on the basis of questionable testimonies, or blatant lies, without giving the accused an opportunity to defend themselves. In Innocent Before Proven Guilty current context, instead of an evil totalitarian regime, there is an evil totalitarian thought police that is using the media to socially lynch its victims. In urging you to save yourselves from the inquisition of thought, I am, first and foremost, asking you to take a cognitive, ideological and principled stand against the emotional pornography that cruelly forces anyone who watches it to Innocent Before Proven Guilty to the power of a tear-jerking testimony and consider it an absolute truth, even though it was never actually verified.
In fact, it cannot be verified.
Caesare Beccaria on Crime and Punishment
When faced with this mass lynching on social media, there is a moral obligation to fight back. Not with a counter lynch — heaven forbid — but rather with an honest quest for truth. There is such a thing — truth. It has criteria.
But the members of the current inquisition do not possess these criteria. What this reality needs is people who are familiar with the current insanity and, in their quest for truth, refuse to capitulate to the dictates of this group.
Like it? Share with your friends!
We need people who can take a moral stand against extrajudicial convictions. Think of it as a moral obligation to save society from this boundless emotional stupidity, which could drive people to suicide.
What about the victims of sexual Innlcent, you may ask. Second, who can guarantee that they are always actually victims of sexual assault? Why are we expected to stand with the woman testifying just because she cried and showed emotion? Is that a criterion for truth? Is there a shortage of people throughout history who committed heinous crimes and then, years later, cried with great emotion and recounted the event solely from their subjective perspective? Does the fact that they cried mean they are right?]
Lost labour.
It is remarkable, the useful message
I hope, it's OK
In my opinion you commit an error. Let's discuss.