Even if the allegations are true, his life should not have been ruined over this.
On the other hand, when I read the accusers' accounts someone else linked in the comments, they sound credible. It fits behavior patterns we've all seen before.
I don't know who to believe.
You don't have all the information. You weren't there. You don't even know the people personally. You are not in a position to make any judgement either way.
Something sounding credible doesn't make it true. It doesn't automatically make it false, either. You don't have to believe the accuser or the accused. The only thing any of us should do is mind our own business.
I didn't personally participate in cancelling this person. In fact, I agreed with the point he made in the article. I'm just not sure he didn't do it.
Are you saying I shouldn't have an opinion on that part?
So far, I see that this post caused quite a few forks, the opposite of what the author asked for.
I don't have a solution.
I think as a man who runs conferences you shouldn't sleep with people who attend them. Or any other things like that, for that matter.
Should you be cancelled for that? No. But humans are humans.
There is no solution to this. Courts are also wrong all the time (look at OJ) and victims of SA almost never see justice.
The answer is: we don't know the truth.
There is a subtle, but worthwhile, difference between "plausible" and "credible". Lots of stories are plausible. Few are credible.
In emotion laden cases like this we tend to want to believe stories we already agree with, or have some investment in. I'm no exception to that.
We need to not be misled by what is plausible, or confuse that with what is credible.