[I have not read the whole post and might be missing something]
Yeah, I also felt confused/uneasy about this section and it did not feel like a strong piece of evidence to have a numbered list that only contains stuff like:
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
Alice accused [Person] of [abusing/persecuting/oppressing her]
This feels especially true since our basic assumption should probably be that cases like this are rarely straightforward, and each bullet point probably should have a lot of nuanced discussion of the situation. That being said, I am not sure how they would be able to provide evidence for these claims without deanonymizing Alice, which leaves us in an unhappy place, especially given that if these claims were true, that would be relevant information to have.
I’d be keen to hear ideas of how we could see more evidence for these claims.
One obvious one would be having a trustworthy third party could review those claims e.g. the community health team. But there are a lot of difficulties in practice with this solution.
[I have not read the whole post and might be missing something]
Yeah, I also felt confused/uneasy about this section and it did not feel like a strong piece of evidence to have a numbered list that only contains stuff like:
This feels especially true since our basic assumption should probably be that cases like this are rarely straightforward, and each bullet point probably should have a lot of nuanced discussion of the situation.
That being said, I am not sure how they would be able to provide evidence for these claims without deanonymizing Alice, which leaves us in an unhappy place, especially given that if these claims were true, that would be relevant information to have.
I’d be keen to hear ideas of how we could see more evidence for these claims.
One obvious one would be having a trustworthy third party could review those claims e.g. the community health team. But there are a lot of difficulties in practice with this solution.