You seem to not believe there is such a thing as emotional trauma, that it is all just "taking offense".
I think you should go to a veterans PTSD meeting, play a recording of machine gun fire, and when they get upset you can announce, loudly, "Come ON, manchildren, don't be so offended! I didn't actually commit a crime!"
Oh, and when you go, please make sure you make a video and post it here. (You might want to have somebody else hold the camera.). Thanks.
Morrus may be being too amusing to make the point clear.
Your position comes off as a logically inconsistent rationalization. If "crime has been committed" is the only socially valid basis upon which complaint can be made, then you cannot complain, as the other complainers have not committed a crime.
So, make up your mind - is crime necessary? Whichever way you answer, you lose the right to complain about complaint, I'm afraid.
You'd need to identify some other point, like, "I do not believe there is sufficient evidence that he did anything wrong, criinal or otherwsie," which makes this an evidentiary discussion, and you may have to change your position if folks provide evidence. Alternatively, you could say, "Whatever offense he may have committed (criminal or otherwise) is not worth the grief heaped on him." But then you'd get into a discussion of exactly how much apparent support of abusers is acceptable, which is a hill you probably don't want to climb, much less die on, amiright?
Pick your poison.
I thought it was abundantly clear. Posting something on the intarwebs doesn't automagically validate it as true, regardless of who is posting it or what their motivation is. Whether criminal activity or just being a terrible person. And it shouldn't automatically result in ruining peoples' livelihood.
Writing on facebook that your ex- was abusive doesn't make it true. Filing a complaint with the local police department resulting in an investigation, an arrest, an indictment, a trial, and a conviction makes it true. Having a lawyer take your case and filing a civil lawsuit resulting in a finding of being held civilly liable makes it true (to a lesser standard of proof). A corporate investigation resulting in "we don't want to be associated with this guy" doesn't make it true. It only makes the appearance of guilt true - and that's what the corporate world normally operates under - the appearance of wrongdoing, even if it didn't actually happen, hurts their brand.
Is Zak S a POS - probably, based upon anecdotal evidence from multiple parties. Does it rise to the level of being actionable by a lawyer in a civil case, or by a prosecutor in a criminal trial? Who knows, since as far as we're all aware, he hasn't been arrested and there is no civil trial that has concluded. That he is suing his accusers also doesn't automatically make him guilty, as some have stated, nor does it invalidate his accusers either until a trial is concluded or a settlement is made, who knows.
Did Mike Mearls forward PII via email to him? Who knows - we only have anecdotal evidence. For all we know, Zak S still had access to his ex-wife's online accounts and was able to find out her email.
No one other than the parties involved knows the truth because there hasn't been a trial that has concluded either way and corporations generally don't make it a habit of releasing internal investigations to the public. And, frankly, it shouldn't matter one way or the other to anyone but the parties involved.
That's what social media doesn't get (and what everyone else allows them to blatantly get away with) - social media has no standing to judge anyone's actions other than as a gawking in the public square type of activity. The corporate world and the legal world have allowed the court of twitter and facebook to replace an actual legal system. You want to accuse someone (even if it is true) on social media? Go call the cops, file a lawsuit, or file a corporate complaint. Without some type of proof through one of those venues, the "proof" of a social media posting means nothing, nor should it.
More importantly, by "social media," I mean individuals who post their opinions as infallible fact and refuse to acknowledge any other information or any other viewpoint - no matter who it is, including me, that would declare opinion as fact.
