Right, which is why you refuse to believe the accusers, right?

All we have here is judgement. There's no meaningful evidence except testimony from the people in conflict. You made one call, grandparent made another.

Why should only one be sexist?

What has been stated so far is not 'judgment'. SavantIdiot has merely stated a prior that applies to any and all accusations of some sort, regardless of the evidence. The fact that OP can provide evidence of unambiguously positive exchanges, while not dispositive as has been pointed out, is at least enough on its own to overcome the prior.

Alternatively: three similar accusations of different events by different people without any other relationship seems like that should be enough to outweigh a nice text message that got sent once, no?

I mean, maybe not. You disagree. But you disagree because you JUDGE the evidence differently, not because of any fundamental truth.

To wit: get off your high horse. You're doing the same thing you called another poster "sexist" for doing.

Person A accuses Person B of sending creepy text messages. Person B shows a message history of what they claim to be the entire conversation between them, with no creepy messages in it. Person A refuses to share any text messages.

How is it sexist to believe that Person B is innocent? I think someone is being sexist or racist in this situation if their judgement changes depending on the race or gender of persons A and B. That's what the root comment wrote, or at least how plenty of people are interpreting it: it makes more sense to them that Person B is guilty and Person A is truthful by virtue of the fact that Person B is a man and Person A is a woman.

You are getting at it when you write this:

> But you disagree because you JUDGE the evidence differently,

Correct, but the deeper fundamental aspect is that they making their judgement based on the evidence. As opposed to making judgements based on the gender/race of the people involved.

> How is it sexist to believe that Person B is innocent?

Good grief. It's not! For exactly the same reason that it's not sexist to believe Person B is guilty, as exporectomy did above and as zozbot234 and you defended. Judgement calls aren't sexism.

But FWIW: by typical preponderance of evidence rules, multiple corroborating testimonies by unrelated witnesses sit way higher than "here's a screenshot of an unrelated event". I submit that the reason you're clinging so hard to that is that you really just don't WANT to believe this guy is a creep.

Which, fine. It's a judgement call, and you judged. Just don't tell the rest of us that you aren't.

You're not even presenting an accurate picture of the accusers side though. Two of them are apparently know each other literally because the original accuser told another accuser[1] that Pasquale was to blame.

[1] https://www.notion.so/image/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazo...

That's not at all how racism and sexism work.

Racism and sexism depend on power imbalance, and calling out centuries of existence of either when exploring if there is a power imbalance at play is not related.

Saying "This race is inferior" is vastly different than saying, "This race was and is still exploited by power structures." Do you understand difference?

Racism depends on making assumptions or judgements about other people based on their skin color. It has nothing to do with power. Minorities don't have a free pass to be racist towards White people, and women don't have a free pass to be sexist towards men.

For social media outrage, women seem to have more power than men (eg. this article), so your claims about men are sexist due to the power imbalance. I'll also demonstrate the equivalence of your statement to racism by changing some words:

"What makes more sense? Some black person has been violent and only showed the positive side in his defense, or three random unrelated white people -- who he claims only ever had lovely, adoring exchanges with him -- decided to destroy his life for no apparent reason."

all major social media companies are literally owned and run by men

Can you connect that claim with a conclusion using some logic? For example - and I know this probably isn't what you're implying but I don't know what it actually is - "They are run by men and the sex who's members run them is the one with the most power, therefore all men have more power than all women.

Yours is neo-nazi thinking: "Look at all those banks and media companies, so many Jewish last names..."

Anti-black racists have the same mindset: "Hmmm... what do all those looters and criminals have in common?"

Of course, your mindset totally ignores the millions of people that don't fit your stereotypes.

-isms are a belief that "$group does $thing, so $person who is a part of $group probably $thing" held or supported by a large enough group of people that it out-powers $person.

Saying only long-held -isms somehow pass your bar is gatekeeping and not ok. Victims don't need your approval.

The smallest, most vulnerable, most powerless minority of them all is the individual. So parent's point is still very relevant.