3) Until more becomes available … this case seems like a joke.
4) Believing #3 before we get “all the facts” isn’t just entirely reasonable, it should be the moral default for any man or woman accused of something that they adamantly deny.
5) #4 takes nothing away from A-N-Y other sexual assault case or any perceived broader problem regarding sexual assault. TJ and, frankly, the victim deserve this case to be viewed in isolation. If you see viewing it in isolation as a problem, I’d argue the problem lies more with you, your virtue signaling and your desire to make everything about a validation of your self-flattering ideologies that pad your ego…
I guess it's kind of an aside, but the term "virtue signaling" just seems entirely meaningless. But maybe I just don't understand it well. Can you elaborate on what you mean by it?
To me, any argument that speaks to morality fits the term - and moralizing is 90% of argument. I mean, your own 4th point is about what our "moral default" should be - is that not "signaling" something you see as a "virtue"?
I would respectfully disagree with your moral claim. I think it's quite possible (and morally defensible) to give TSJ the presumption of innocence while also abstaining from assumptions about what
actually happened and/or cavalier statements about the merits of the case.
I mean, I think I understand what you're communicating. It sounds like your personal standard for proving guilt is high, similar to the legal standard. It also sounds like you think we should treat people as entirely innocent until that standard is met - in this case, implying that TSJ shouldn't be suspended as a U of I athlete. I don't have much of an issue with those views on the surface.
But even taking that as a given, what's the benefit to saying "this case seems like a joke"? It gets your point across, I suppose, but can you really not see how someone might
infer from the phrase that you don't particularly care about this victim, other victims, or the broader problem of sexual violence? That may not be true, and I'm sure it's not your intent. You may be totally open to changing your mind about this case, too. If so, all of that is great. But you're still calling it "a joke" now - and more than that, trying to persuade others to see it the same way as a moral default. Why choose that term, instead of something more respectful of the gravity of the situation?