Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I understand, that is why a court of law will only accept evidence that leaves no doubt about someone having committed a crime. The court of public opinion has no such requirement though, and I don't think it should have. Often times it is exceedingly difficult to prove rape/SA, especially because many victims need time to eventually report the crime. That is because the victims face a lot of scrutinization (often times more than the accused person), which they obviously tend to avoid because it's such a traumatic event. So I think it's fair to judge someone accused of SA, because usually it's true even if the victim is unable to prove it.
That being said I also believe in separating the art from the artist, at least to a certain extent. If the music encourages SA, I wouldn't listen to it (regardless of accusations, really), but otherwise I won't let the things the artist (probably) did distract from the art. Hitler also did nice paintings, and I don't see why we shouldn't appreciate the paintings for what they are, even if the person who created them was obviously evil.