Don’t we have a cultural tradition of privileging the hypothesis that makes someone innocent? I mean, I see people say “innocent until proven guilty” is just for the courtroom, but that strikes me as the same sort of thing as “it’s only censorship if the government does it”.
Maybe it’s as you describe, and maybe he was ignoring her saying no repeatedly. Why privilege only the hypothesis that makes Shermer innocent?
Also, the other accusations, while short of rape, are of bad behavior. Would you trust an ethicist who went around hitting people?
Don’t we have a cultural tradition of privileging the hypothesis that makes someone innocent? I mean, I see people say “innocent until proven guilty” is just for the courtroom, but that strikes me as the same sort of thing as “it’s only censorship if the government does it”.