News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I knew a guy, generally a good guy, and he helped me out when I was young.
Anyways, he made some bad choices (namely cheating on his fiance with his childhood bestie), knocked said girl up, they got married... they had another kid... a few years later this relationship turned sour, and I was rarely hearing from him. I later learned he was living out of his car at times.
At one point during this mess he told me his soon to be ex wife invited him over one night, they slept together, then he woke up with the cops in his face and her accusing him of raping her last night.
I didn't know what to think of it at the time, and I still don't. The person I thought I knew never would've cheated on his fiance... surely he wouldn't have raped someone.
Unlike this story, the charges for the guy I know were dropped and he wasn't prosecuted, let alone convicted. Maybe it was just a ploy for a better outcome in the divorce? That seems to be the conclusion the police drew. If it had gone to trial and he'd been convicted... I probably wouldn't have written a similar letter? But also maybe it would've been in some ways good for the judge to see not just this person at their worst moments but at better moments? What if the evidence wasn't strong? What if I hadn't followed the case closely?
I haven't heard from this guy in years at this point, hence why I'm avoiding the word friend. However at one point, he was a friend ... and I don't find it so easy to reconcile the "person you know" with the "person you've been told you know"
I think it's more about that difficulty reconciling, than "he never raped me." If they weren't lying in their letters as well... maybe this should just be considered part of the process? Like, yes Masterson committed the crime, now who else was he? Did he contribute nothing to society except for being a vicious Hollywood predator? etc.
The scientology thing adds a whole other angle here...
Anyways, the point is it's easy to not understand why someone would do something, but that doesn't mean it's not understandable (it doesn't mean it's justified either).
All the letters have one thing in common though: they're overly saccharine and suspiciously dodgy (actually that's two things, sorry). It's like they're trying to describe a modern-day Beaver Cleaver.