So why are their thresholds more important than others'?
This is literally why we have a justice system - people have different ideas about what is wrong and what is right. The justice system, with its set of laws, is the final arbiter o right and wrong.
If you cannot get enough support for adding in your personal moral code to the set of laws, then perhaps it's not as universally moral as you seem to think it is.
What's muddying the discussion is the invocation of the criminal justice system. We all implicitly understand that you can lose your job for being incompetent (not a crime), for calling your boss names (not a crime), for disparaging your company (not a crime), for flying a swastika flag from your car's antenna (not a crime). But because sexual assault is in fact a crime, people move the goalposts: now, for someone to face social and commercial consequences, they need to first be found guilty in a court of law.
That's a strange and, I think, indefensible standard.
Only if they want to also be mobbed. I did say earlier that the mob ensures ostracization via fear.
There is nothing redeeming or respectable about being in a mob, but the current cancel culture is attempting to overturn generations of social norms by trying to portray mobbing and witch-hunting as the moral high-ground.
Believe me, no matter how many big words are used to philosophize about the moral superiority of mobbing, at the end of the day the mobbers are no different to any other mobbers.
> But because sexual assault is in fact a crime, people move the goalposts: now, for someone to face social and commercial consequences, they need to first be found guilty in a court of law.
Well, yes. It's much more serious to be a criminal than a non-criminal. You are equivocating non-criminal acts with actual criminal acts and then appear surprised that for accusations of actual criminal acts people require evidence.
It's not shades of gray - there's a thick and visible line between "He's a criminal" and "he has different opinions to me".
You're damn right - for someone to face serious consequences, there had better be evidence that convinces a court that the person committed the crime of which they are accused.
