That’s because they’re not looking for evidence that shows a crime was committed, they’re looking for evidence of who committed the crime

Your injuries are evidence of a crime, but not necessarily evidence of a specific perpetrator

When a woman claims to have been assaulted, I automatically believe her in regards to how I treat her.

As far as the person she’s accused goes, though, I think it’s pretty easy to understand that nobody should be convicted on the sole evidence of their accuser’s testimony, and I think that should apply to the court of public opinion as well.

It’s a situation where either one person is guilty of a horrible crime, or the other is making false allegations of said crime. In order for both to be “innocent until proven guilty”, you need to assume the allegations are true when interacting with the woman, and assume they’re false while interacting with the accused. It’s really counterintuitive and maybe impossible to do

The fuzzy part is XD

Instructions unclear, ate dandelions

They might find that Trump is in the Epstein files

That’s a cool word! Thanks for introducing me to it XD

deleted by creator

Yes please!

Ooh! Is “fried” the new “slammed”?

Might want to specify which they, just so people don’t misinterpret it as (((they)))

Foley? Not a clue

But allowing AI slop to be falsely attributed to a dead artist is kinda a no-go for me

I’ve been considering cancelling my Spotify account for a bit, and this has pushed me off the fence! Good riddance to active manufacturers of bad rubbish

I’ve been learning web development, check out what I made! localhost:8080

Said manner being hurricane relief search-and-rescue operations

Dang, that sucks XD

Should have made their frames with zinc alloy instead!

Wouldn’t high-altitude metallic aerosols do the opposite?

I mean, they’re also killing them with bullets when they come to get food aid

mmmmpotato…

Better a victim than an accomplice