Why they do accuse people of things then, I wish I knew. Do note that’s just a side discussion in mind though.

My definition of concrete is anything which there couldn’t possibly be any alternate explanation for. The desire for concrete evidence is the main defense against people framing each other. Most of us are lucky to live in a nation where court trials involving full analysis are a given right.

For this reason, I am open to the idea that Mangione might not be guilty. But that seems to be an exception for other people. There have been other celebrities with varying levels of guilt applied to them this year based on how high or low a bar people want to define the word “concrete”. It makes the defense of Mangione, which I would otherwise just chalk up to being generous, as inconsistent. If it has ever seemed like I have advocated for the idea that Mangione is guilty, it doesn’t boil down to me absolutely concluding he is guilty but rather down to the fact that, one, his defense feels forced, and two, people do seem to defend acts of violence these days, even more than a lot of non-violent situations, accusations of which I have seen jeopardize livelihood.

I didn’t think that would be very fruitful.

Discussions about this are known to complain there is nothing “concrete” pointing to Mangione’s guilt. Not unfair on its own, I guess. But then the people in these discussions do a 180 when other people are being talked about who they are more inclined to dislike. Some of the repliers even allude to this by using the justification that one discussion specifically involves murder, as if to imply (if that’s even the actual reason) that the allegations have to reach an oddly specific level to be treated with a certain level of rationale.

I neither deny nor condone this.

You say that like that must mean I’m new to the community.

The fist bump wasn’t or wouldn’t have been the core of the proof. It was just an additional suggestion.

No, but it presents its own problems to say we have to wait for that specific misdeed to be among the charges to use concrete thinking.

Because I’ve rarely been seeing a consistent definition of proof be upheld when it comes to discussions of guilt.

An honest question asking about where peoples’ definition of “proof” begins.

I’ve seen people in the lemmyverse chased out based on less concrete evidence.