The lives of Black folks are deeply, materially circumscribed in ways our lives are not. They are much more likely to face poverty and live in areas of concentrated poverty. They are exposed to heightened social scrutiny in public spaces and to vastly disproportionate levels of policing within their own communities. The integrity of Black communities, the integrity of their invisible social networks and the visible economic and business networks that once propped them up, has been systematically shattered using large infrastructure projects, "urban renewal," and gentrification as the tools of destruction. When we talk about supposedly heightened levels of "Black crime," what we're really talking about is the concrete, material manifestation of the historical legacy of systemic white supremacy, and its continuing institutional practice in contemporary society.
So, no, I don't think there is any legitimate comparison between taking a stance of presumptive belief in the stories of victims of predatory sexual behavior and of holding predatory men socially accountable for their behavior—when we know statistically and empirically that there are very few false allegations being leveled—and a presumption that would hold individual Black folks inherently and always responsible for the work of white supremacy.
Stated, yes, but nowhere proven or even defended. I'm willing to entertain argument—even when it is slipshod and shot through with sophistry—but I will not engage with unsupported assertions pronounced ex cathedra.
Part of why we seem to be talking past each other, I suspect, is that we're dealing with a fundamental conceptual divide. You are arguing in favor of an abstract principle or ideal ("The Presumption of Innocence"). Because you are defending a principle in the abstract, you view the material circumstances of its application as irrelevant. It's the principle of the thing; it should be held inviolate regardless of the social context.
On the other hand, abstract principles strike me as being essentially faith statements, even when their content is secular in nature. Abstract ideals aren't really open to debate in the normal sense; they cannot be disputed by reference to facts, and are subject to change only through the experience of revelation. I'm not an idealist, I'm a materialist. I don't really give a shit about ideals or principles abstracted from the social, political, economic (etc) contexts in which they are applied, and I think those material contexts are entirely relevant to addressing pragmatic social concerns.
To bring things back from the conceptual to the concrete, I believe that the way we privilege the narratives of accuser and accused needs to reflect the context in which those narratives are being presented. In the legal process and criminal trials—incidentally the context which the "presumption of innocence" was developed—deference to the accused party is warranted, and, indeed, required, given the vast imbalance of power that exists in a contest between a single individual and the resources, authority and capacity for violence of the state, as well as the severe and potentially life-altering potential consequences faced by criminal defendants.
In the context of the internal policing of a social scene, I don't see that the presumption of innocence offers any practical advantages. The consequences for victims (and potential future victims) are quite severe, while the potential consequences faced by the accused (within the scene) are limited in scope. We have good empirical evidence that people don't lie very often about being victims of sexually predatory behavior. Under those circumstances, I think the benefits to the community as a whole that accrue from privileging the stories of accusers over the accused are substantial, and the potential downsides fairly trivial. The alternative seems to largely benefit individuals with boundary issues and a poor understanding of or disregard for consent, without any corresponding benefits for the community at large.
tl;dr version a social scene is not a court of law, and the same rules need not apply.
And I agreed with you, elaborating only to point out that the courts are unlikely to even entertain a libel suit under those circumstances.
No, you don't have much recourse, but that speaks more to the particulars of that particular charge and the degree to which folks think reflexively when the safety of children is called into question.
Sure you do. It's a scene. If you're not a nazi, there are people that will know you and know that. What gets people called "nazis"and makes it stick is holding views consonant with nazi thought. Again, it's a scene; people are gonna know.
I know this is probably abstractions and hypotheticals for you, but I have lived experience with this. For obvious reasons, I do not front with this background, but I dumped nearly a decade of my life into far right movement politics. I've rubbed shoulders socially with some of the stars of your favorite, "Nazi gets punched," viral hits. I got called a "nazi." A lot. I was a nazi. It comes with the territory.
That allegiance came at significant social cost to me. I was cut out of the local scene, banned from all the music venues and half a dozen regular old bars. I won't lie, it felt shitty and it hurt. I'd invested an enormous amount of time, energy and emotional labor into being in and part of a community of metal fans. Being a hesher was a big component of what passed for my identity. Having that connection taken away left me unmoored and isolated.
The thing is, I needed to be unmoored and isolated. The views I held were a social cancer, among the very worst and most destructive ideas ever conjured by the minds of men. People coddling me and looking past my noxious opinions were not doing me any favors. It helped keep me stuck pissing away my life chasing ideas that, had I possessed the fucking wit to achieve even an elementary understanding of myself, I would have known were literally existentially threatening to me. Being called out and held accountable for the views I held and the way I moved about in the world was a game changer for me. It forced me to take stock of my life, to be self-honestly reflective on how I was living and had lived. It gave me an opportunity for personal growth that I took off and ran with. It was the kick in the ass I needed, and my life has been better in every way for it.
All informal social spaces are governed by mob rule. The lack of formal mechanisms and rules is inherent to the context; enforcement of consensus is spontaneous and collective by default. You're demanding, on principle, that the leopard must stop having spots.
