You brought up Harvey Weinstein. I asked to establish the basis of the criticism, and demanded you commit to a single consistent standard regardless of partisan allegiance. Which you're still failing to do. See below.
Weinstein hasn't yet been subject to any legal process, and you seem to have no problem ostracizing him. Some consequences don't require legal process, such as the consequence where people stop wanting anything to do with you because you're considered toxic waste. Beyond that, my first post explicitly said that they should face the legal consequences, which would naturally include indictment, trial, and conviction before any of those more formal consequences would take hold. You're the one suggesting that I want to short-circuit due process, not me. My proposition here was based on the stipulated fact of abuse, looking to what should happen when someone is rightfully and properly adjudicated to have committed it.
That post specifically was you evading my question, therefore rather than answer it, I redirected you back to my original query. The only value you see in this is the opportunity to malign liberals. You don't fundamentally care about the underlying issue. The standard I advanced is one to apply uniformly to liberals, conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, communists, anyone who runs afoul of it, but you won't give a straight answer on whether that is what you support or not, instead trying to redirect the meaningless void of discussion back to Weinstein without ever establishing what standard you are using to judge.
If we can't agree on the standard, what use is there in talking about it?
