>>3379891

>We believe Survivors

Calling them "survivors" begs the question, assuming that false accusation is not possible.

>>3379961

The way to answer is, "give me some evidence of the crime and I'll believe the accusation".

>>3380027

>in Alinski fashion

How exactly? Allinsky didn't originate circular reasoning (and it's a favourite of Bible-thumpers).

>>3380027

>>3380074

Another thing as an aside, "survivor" is quasi-numinous term in the lexicon of their ersatz religion. Something akin to "Saint" in real religions.

>>3380197

That wasn't aimed at you. With circular reasoning I only meant calling any rape/sex abuse accuser a "survivor". I see what you mean with your further explanation. Actually Alinsky was a pretty smart guy and I don't see his methods as completely morally corrupt but rather quite useful against any establishment, good or bad. To the extent we're in power, we should defend against them and to the extent we're out of power we should use (some of them maybe).