0
I like to think that all clearheaded, goodhearted individuals are hoping for a fair trial and outcome this time around.
New York is notorious for misconduct at the lower court level, but perhaps the scrutiny that may pertain here will curtail some of this historically pervasive misbehavior.
I agree that it's a shame to see anyone whiteknighting on behalf of odious values, most especially judicial misconduct.
But one of the more unfortunate aspects of our new social media democracy is that anyone can speak up, and repeatedly, regardless of their capacity for clear and logical thinking. Such individuals are generally quite intractable, and unable to advance past their ineptitude.
In a structured debate format, such people would be thoroughly shamed and humiliated, and forced either to withdraw or improve themselves. But social media provides them with the opportunity, unfortunate for all concerned, to endlessly broadcast their erroneous thinking, and never move past the limbo in which they're trapped.
I always thought it might be interesting if platforms asked potential members to submit to a brief logic test to see if they were capable of clear thinking, but as this might drastically reduce membership to unsustainably small levels, perhaps it's best to look at the good such individuals may provide despite their shortcomings, such as sharing interesting third party content, and providing provocative questions for discussion.
I certainly wish all concerned in the Weinstein situation the best, including Mr. Weinstein, caught in a trap not intended for him, a lesser whale.