Where is the line between accountability and mob rule?: Accountability advocates

Because every other courthouse was closed

On October 15, 2017, Alyssa Milano posted me too and within twenty-four hours the phrase had been used twelve million times. Men who had been untouchable — Weinstein, Spacey, Lauer, Moonves — were heading toward prosecution. Their behavior had been known and absorbed by their institutions for years. In some cases, decades.

The formal systems did not fail to detect the behavior. They detected it and chose to protect the perpetrator because the perpetrator was valuable. Weinstein’s legal team buried complaints. His allies killed investigations. NDAs were signed under duress. Every other courthouse was closed.

The anti-cancel camp cites Sacco and Cafferty. We know the names. We concede the cases. But using them to discredit the entire apparatus requires ignoring what the apparatus replaced: a world where Larry Nassar abused gymnasts for twenty years while institutions dismissed complaints. The asymmetry of power is the variable both other camps underweight. Telling victims to work within the system is viable only when the system is not owned by the person causing the harm.

The norm evolutionists compare us to McCarthyism. McCarthy targeted political beliefs. Accountability movements target conduct. Conflating the two serves people who prefer their conduct go unexamined.

Where we concede ground: We have no limiting principle, and that is not a minor concession. It is the concession.

What would change our mind: Institutions removing powerful offenders at the same rate privately as when complaints go public.

Read the full synthesis: Where is the line between accountability and mob rule?