RoundRock! Thank you very much for your thoughtful, objective, and informed reply.
Imagine if at the beginning of this thread, you posted (from your post, tweaked very slightly to shorten):
"I personally hold disdain for social media mob-like behavior, and we are still in discovery where all the facts are not yet known, so we should be careful jumping to our own conclusions. This whole thing is messy and the truth is going to be like a needle in a haystack of lies. In subjects as serious as this one, we should all try to avoid stereotyping people based on what we believe and instead focus on what we know of the situation."
I think you would have been met with all kinds of scorn and derision for your supposedly inconceivable perspective. If you continued, the replies would likely be filled with mischaracterizations, intentional fallacies, utterly silly and laughable attempts to shame and "bully" (lol), and so on. You would have been called Nick several times, etc. Eventually, you might reach the point to where you're like, "OK, let's see if anyone fairly acknowledges the possibility of a different viewpoint when it's expressed in a way that's more in line with their style." And, then, voila - someone shows up and finally does! This thread has been frustrating because I have been viewed as participating in bad faith while it seems to me many (most) others have been contributing in bad faith! (lol)
I don't think I have treated the Johnsons and Stoffel much differently. The allegations against Nick (and LJ, though I view Nick more dimly based on what's been shared) are so exceedingly plausible. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, Nick's judgment/actions were extremely awful - Monumentally bad. I agree with how you've depicted him. If Nick were to eventually go to jail, I would absolutely not question it. He's earned it! Imo, I give him the barest of benefit of the doubt, but since we do not know for sure, I believe it's a must (as much for all future people as for him). If he somehow is found to have been able to skate on the thinnest of ice to have not legally raped, it will not make much difference in how I view him. Perhaps the laws around sexual assault / rape can be amended that address various power dynamic situations, etc. I'd be all for it.
Good point that perception of Stoffel has been shaped from sources other than Stoffel. I may have not-quite-appropriately tied her together with Woods as he was the presenter of her side and, according to him, spent a lot of time in communication with her (but still was not her). I took exception to the excited proclaiming that this should be national news (mentioned multiple times, I believe). If it bubbles up and becomes national news, then great, but when a victim or a media representative says it should be, it casts suspicion and doubt. It feels like salesmanship, and on this kind of topic, in particular, I find it very off-putting. If I remember correctly, the lawsuit also makes the Nassar-like comparison (but I could be wrong). I understand trying to search for and empower other victims to come forward, and I get that "national conversations" can be needed and good. But trying to hype it up.. I don't like that. (Of course, it doesn't necessarily make the allegation false.) As for all the other stuff that was said by interviewees, yes it is very hard to know (and certainly can be questioned) what can be believed. For whatever reason, some parts ring true to me and other parts not so much.
"Should our first reaction to sexual assault claims be one of skepticism, compassion or maybe both depending on the situation?" I think it can vary. Anyone in contact with someone alleging sexual assault needs to be extremely compassionate, consoling, understanding, supporting, etc. Victims must be encouraged to come forward right away, and they must know that it outweighs the feelings of embarrassment, potentially not being believed, and/or other hurdles. Outside their immediate circle, I think it can start to change. As you suggest, the situation itself could affect the levels of compassion / skepticism. I also believe the length of time after the assault could affect the levels, the venue/forum where the claims are heard could affect the levels, and also what the reactors themselves bring in terms of their experiences / biases. The further away someone is from the victim and the situation, the more likely they are to view the issue more impersonally, theoretically, etc. This is not a bad thing as truth would more likely be gleaned in a dispassionate manner, imo. Victims should not seek input from distant people who will discuss things in way that may not feel good / safe.
Yes, I have been all over the uneven bars as it relates to Dirr (good one). And, yes, the drug administration aspect has always seemed to me the more easily-proven violation.
I apologize to anyone close to Stoffel for my verbifying of her name (but I don't apologize to any preening signalers out there). Part of it is that she has a cool name that should be a verb of some kind. My intent has not been to hurt or discredit her. I hope the best for her moving forward, and I hope the truth wins out. I believe it will someday. Of course, there is merit to her allegation being true (as far as we know)!
Thanks again, RoundRock, for replyjng in good faith. With that, I will be taking a bit of a time out from this. Not promising forever, though. Before the "good riddance, b@stard" or "Byeeeee, Nick!" or other such posts are made, know that they would only encourage me to get back to it. :)