So a bunch of people who are trying to make a point about "liberalism" and "cancel culture" are going around, re: Paul Krueger and asking, "Where is the evidence? What are the specific allegations?", meaning criminal allegations.

Let me go ahead and just give them some ammo.

From what I can tell most, if not all, of what's under discussion here isn't criminal, or if it is, it would be hard to bring charges, much less prove it in a court of law.

But that's fine because no one's talking about him being a criminal or wanting him arrested or convicted.

A large amount of what is coming out amounts to a pattern of how he treats women, particularly the women he dates or is otherwise close to. It came out because one of them decided to share how he had made her feel over a period of time. Other women shared similar experiences.

So this is the part where you go, "So, you ruin a man's relationship over a series of bad relationships? His exes air their dirty laundry in public and now Cancel Culture says he's a monster and anybody who associates with him must be punished?"

You've probably heard Dave Barry's waiter rule: "Someone who is nice to you but rude to the waiter is not a nice person."

What if I told you that women, even women one is dating, are every bit as much human beings as wait staff in restaurants are? morpheus_glasses.png

And Paul's conduct was with women in and around the industry he worked in, industries adjacent to it. His apparent habit of what he has portrayed as a night of intemperate gossip has had impacts on other people's careers.

So it's not a question of personal vs. professional conduct, his personal conduct has been part of his professional conduct.

"But where is the proof? Where is the evidence?"

Testimony is evidence. And no, nobody's swearing to anything in a court of law, but nobody's being taken to court, either.

When one person described her experience, other people recognized those experiences even without the name.

And that prompted more people to spontaneously mention their experiences, which brought out the fact that some people had witnessed or talked about it in private years ago... and I don't know how that isn't overwhelming evidence.

"Overwhelming evidence of WHAT? WHAT is he being charged with?"

Nothing, man. I said that up top. So far as I can tell no one's making a criminal case out of this. You can relax. Everyone got their due process.

He's not being attacked "for bad relationships", he's being outed for emotional abuse. And if you don't think it's "fair" that there can be consequences for that without an impossible standard of proof... I mean, think how perverse it would be, if things worked the way you want.

Imagine how bad the world would be if people could do literally whatever they want in their personal lives and unless they did it in a way that both clearly broke the law and left evidence, there couldn't even be social consequences?

If you HAD TO invite someone to the party even after you found out what they were saying about friends of yours because it wasn't criminal and you couldn't prove it. Is that fair? If you HAD TO keep doing business with someone even after you found out how they treat their spouse.

I unfollowed him after I found out about the pattern of abuse. That's the "consequences" I've inflicted. I would have kept following him if I hadn't read about the allegations. Should I be enjoined from unfollowing? Normally I have the freedom to follow and unfollow who I like.

The people going "It's not fair to ostracize somebody without evidence!" What is your solution? What is fair, in this situation? That everybody who was free to follow or unfollow should now *HAVE TO* keep following, unless or until we can document a different reason?

What about people who are only hearing about him for the first time because of this, so weren't following him? They might have liked him and followed him otherwise. Should we organize half of them to start following him?

"His agent shouldn't fire him over this." So when is his agent allowed to part ways? Is this now a lifetime contract that can only be severed when someone brings a conviction in a court of law?

There are dark histories attached to ostracism for *harmless* personal/private conduct but the social consequences of being snubbed, ostracized, shamed for harmful conduct is part of how society works. Part of why society works.

The people who jump up in cases like this will always say "No one is defending treating women that way, but..." buuuut if there's no consequences for it then it's tolerated behavior, and what is tolerated is allowed, and what is allowed may be encouraged.

We are social animals.

Social consequences don't just change future behavior because people fear the consequences. They help shape our understanding of what is right and acceptable, and what is not.

If we see that a behavior is not tolerated in our community, then that behavior seems less appealing, less like an option.

To use a very low stakes example: where no one else is walking on the grass, most people won't, either. Where there are signs against it, even fewer will.

But as soon as one person cuts across the grass without any consequences (it's probably me, I'm too disabled to walk your long loopy sidewalks if you don't express a preference that I not do so), other people will shrug and do it, too, if it gets them where they're going faster.

On the other hand, if I am in a completely unfamiliar place and there are a lot of people moving purposely like they know where they're going (and thus I understand they are from around here) and absolutely no one is stepping on the grass?

I'll be a bit more hesitant.

And it's not like I look around and consciously think to myself, "Let me do a quick survey of the situation and register how deferential people are to the lawn." We're social animals. We do this mostly without thinking. What behavior is modeled as a society around us matters.

TL:DR - the standard of evidence for not standing next to someone is "I don't want to stand next to this person." That's it. That's all it takes and all it should take.

If a lot of people find out something at once, a lot of maybe might decide all at once not to stand there.

It's weird how multiple people can show up to the same situation with objections of "This is a Twitter mob!" and they are all perfectly aware that they're individuals who each are doing what they think is right, came to this conclusion on their own, and are acting on their own...

...but they assume the people they have labeled a "mob" all got together and coordinated, or followed a leader, or went with a crowd. They don't apply the same sense of agency they give to themselves and people who agree with them to people who disagree.

From my point of view, it seems like the people who swarm anyone who speaks about their experience with abuse and also anyone who speaks in support of those people are more mob-like. They seem more kneejerk, they seem angrier, they're more often set off by ragey call-out posts...

...but I fully admit that this might just be my perspective, I'm not seeing the view from inside their head. Maybe they really do all independently arrive at the same talking points over and over again! Maybe it's completely organic!

I can't say for certain it's not.

I don't know what about any of my threads or tweets about this situation gave the impression I was following anyone's lead, or that anyone told me to do anything, or that I did anything but look at a situation, take in the available information, and make a decision for myself.