One of the important things here that I feel is being overlooked:
The people defending Quinn keep talking about 'victims', about how anybody attacking Quinn is supporting an environment where 'victims' don't feel save to speak out. Here's the thing: Zoe Quinn is Zoe Quinn, and victims are victims. The two do NOT inherently overlap!
I don't believe the bolded part is accurate.
The value and appeal of victimhood is enormous.
A victim is automatically assumed innocent, garners sympathy, not held to account. A victim has things done to them, so it is never they who must change, but outside forces that have wronged them. We are told 'believe' victims.
It's a potent, attractive label.
Are victims victims?
No. I don't think so. I think this is another bastardisation of language and culture to move goalposts and remove accountability in order to excuse (and never question) suspect behaviour.
Some victims are victims.
Some are hoaxers.
To automatically adopt the label of victim and to start wielding and profiting from it - that strikes me as something not to take at face value.
It demands questions be answered. Evidence to be presented.
Look at this episode.
Who are the victims in your eyes?
Who is claiming victimhood?
Who is being rewarded and protected by that label?
Who is being denied that label?
Who is doing this?
What transparency do they offer?
I want to believe victims.
I want genuine victims to have as few hurdles to receiving justice.
And every person that exploits the mantle of victimhood for personal gain and prowess makes genuine victims suffer that much more.
Some victims are victims.
Some people are Zoe Quinn.
Some people are Jussie Smollett.
Some people are Alec Holowka.