I’m glad you didn’t accuse me of moving goalposts, since this was the example I gave, from my original post:
My point is that if someone says, “That guy jumped on top of me and came on to me at a party” and the other guy says, “I don’t remember doing that, but it seems like I owe him an apology” then there’s no reason to get into giving people the benefit of the doubt about what happened. What happened is a settled matter.
I’m trying to respond to this:
I think giving people the benefit of the doubt is a great idea. If I meet a random person I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not guilty of sexual assault and that they never falsely accused someone of sexual assault - those are both really terrible things to do. In a situation where one person accuses the other of sexual harassment and the other denies it, you can’t simply give the benefit of the doubt. You have to apportion that benefit of doubt between the two parties. Give the harasser the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t commit sexual harassment or give the accuser the benefit of the doubt that they aren’t lying.
If I look at it objectively, sexual harassment and assault is far more common than false claims of sexual harassment and assault. If we’re not trying to meet courtroom standards then it is illogically anti-victim to assume accusers are lying rather than to assume that the accused did what someone said they did.
