>>3844603>Being a victim is incredibly fashionable these daysIf it was one woman's word against his, maybe. Two, eh, pretty hard to believe, but I'd maybe want to see some hard evidence first. Three? Okay, now it's getting really unlikely that they're all making it up. Four? No fucking way. Five? Seriously, no fucking way. Six? Are you goddamn kidding me? SEVEN?
EIGHT?
NINE?
TEN?
ELEVEN?
You're saying eleven different women made allegations JUST because they thought it was cool to be a victim, knowing that this would probably tank their careers as photographers themselves, knowing that they'd have to spend the rest of their lives dealing with assholes like you, knowing that even coming forward the absolute most that was likely to happen was him getting kicked out of a job that, frankly, as a 76 year old, he was probably going to retire from or simply die out of soon anyway?
And Magnum hired an investigator to investigate this, and after the results of it, the board voted to kick him out. That suggests that the investigator didn't come back and say "Yeah, no, there's nothing there." That suggests that he did this shit.
Eleven fucking women who have no reason whatsoever to lie about this other than that you think "being a victim is fashionable", vs a boomer born in the 50s.
>>3844604> Absence of evidence fallacyThat's not the absence of evidence fallacy. That's if I said "there's nothing proving conclusive that he DIDN'T sexually harass these women, so he must have".
What's happening here is that there's almost certainly a lot of evidence, it's just that not all of it is public. The evidence that we do have is:
1. 11 women came forward
2. One has publicly stated that he was jerking off to her on a zoom call
3. Magnum hired a PI to look into it
4. Magnum leadership took the unprecedented step of voting to kick him out after seeing what the PI came back with
