Again: Not the same thing. What kind of an action am I supposed to take on the basis of that statement?
If it’s just about my internal beliefs, my standard of proof will be relatively lax - does it pass the smell test? Is it at least a hair likelier to be true than not?
If I am to ostracize, fire or imprison somebody on the basis of that statement, I have to be a lot more careful and rigorous.
For the purposes of criminal convictions and incarceration, yes. For the purposes of forming an opinion about whether someone is likely guilty of a crime, no.
Unless you are serving on a jury, the only question you need ask yourself before forming an opinion is “whose version of events seems more likely: Louis C.K.'s or the women accusing him of sexual harassment?”
Of course, you don’t have Louis C.K.'s version of events. He’s refused to comment on anything to the point where people like Tig Notaro have called him out to, you know, say something in a “say it ain’t so, Joe” kinda way.
That’s a complete strawman. A few dozen people who were protected for years by a culture of enabling no longer being as readily protected from consequences is not the same thing as an industry with many hundreds of thousands of people all being guilty. Nor is it with the priesthood. Nor is it with Silicon Valley. Rinse and repeat with most any other industry.