And yet, where's the harm in waiting for the full story to be revealed?
As an apologist mechanism, I'll concede that it's lacking, but even in the face of evidence, we should be wary of indicting anything for which we don't have personal, inside involvement, but even for cases, like this, for which there appears to be evidence, predisposing ourselves to a cause makes it less likely that we'll adjust our opinions in the event that counter-evidence is provided, or the existing evidence is placed into a context which might make it otherwise reasonable.
Note, I'm not suggesting that any of the above applies here, but as a general practice, avoiding prejudgement in the absence of all the facts is a bad way to approach gossip.
> Note, I'm not suggesting that any of the above applies here, but as a general practice, avoiding prejudgement in the absence of all the facts is a bad way to approach gossip.
This isn't gossip. The text messages in the complaint have been confirmed and condemned by Tinder. She was clearly sexually harassed by Mateen, who has been suspended. Tinder is disputing the allegations with respect to its management.
As an apologist mechanism, I'll concede that it's lacking, but even in the face of evidence, we should be wary of indicting anything for which we don't have personal, inside involvement, but even for cases, like this, for which there appears to be evidence, predisposing ourselves to a cause makes it less likely that we'll adjust our opinions in the event that counter-evidence is provided, or the existing evidence is placed into a context which might make it otherwise reasonable.
Note, I'm not suggesting that any of the above applies here, but as a general practice, avoiding prejudgement in the absence of all the facts is a bad way to approach gossip.