Just a few days ago, Matt Lauer came under fire for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman. Hours later, a victim made public Geraldo Rivera’s inappropriate conduct. A day or two prior to that, famed gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar altered his not guilty plea to guilty, effectively confessing to the sex crimes against gymnasts once under his care. And If you pay any attention to recent events, you know that the list is growing almost daily.

If there is a positive to this, it’s that victims finally discovered the strength to hold their abusers accountable. With each new testimony, women the world over are galvanized to speak up against countless injustices. The #MeToo movement took over social media and women, from star-studded celebrities to the every-woman of America, allowed their voices to join the increasing volume of solidarity.

Thinking back to when Bill Cosby first came under scrutiny, I resisted the notion that a man seemingly as wholesome and as lovable as my grandfather is capable of the disgusting things of which Dr. Huxtable himself stood accused. Then another woman spoke up. Then another. With each new testimony, I was forced to confront my biases and my emotional unwillingness to consider Cosby anything other than how I wanted to see him. In the end, Cosby’s conduct and attitude convinced me that he surely must be guilty.

Of course, I still don’t know if Cosby is guilty of sex crimes against women. I’m inclined to think he is, despite my previous reluctance, but I still cannot say with absolute authority that the actor, and comedian, is either guilty or innocent. It’s Cosby word against his accuser’s words.

On a personal note, I want to think the best of everyone. I don’t want to think anyone is lying or bearing false witness. However, when someone claims that another person sexually abused him or her, the accused either confirms or denies said accusation. Here lies the problem: if the accused denies the claim of the accuser, who is right and who is wrong? Posit the two parties as plaintiff and defendant. Assign the burden of proof on the plaintiff, which is how courts are run, at least ideally. The defendant can rest easy knowing that they’re innocent until proven guilty. Totally sucks if the defendant is guilty.

Recently I inadvertently found myself embroiled in a Twitter fight because I announced my desire for objectivity rather than immediately condemn a person to hell for transgressions that are strictly allegations until proven otherwise. It’s not that I want to immediately refute a victim’s claim, but emotions and objectivity don't often go hand-in-hand.

The Twitter-sphere wasn’t having it, but one comment drew my attention above nearly all others: “Presumption of innocence is part of the judicial system, not social life.”

Without waxing too philosophic, I just want to point out that the situation is lose-lose. Maintain objectivity and I’m an asshole for victim shaming, but if I immediately accept the word of another person without requiring some evidence, I'm on a witch hunt. What does that say about me? Should I just immediately accept the alleged victim’s word as more valid?

To sum up a couple points, I support victims speaking up. I encourage victims to speak. I want to see abusers dragged through the mud as much as the next person. Even more than that, however, I want people—would be abusers—to see that taking advantage of a person, of violating them in the most personal and intimate ways possible, is not okay. Would sure be nice if we didn’t have to teach them through punitive means, but, one way or another, they need to learn.

Pursuant to objectivity, however, I also want due process to be a personal ideal rather than just strictly a judicial privilege. Women should have the courage to speak up, and they should be listened without being dismissed outright. Abusers should be called out and made to feel the consequences of violating another person. Yet, I am not going to condemn a person outright for the sake of solidarity or without, at least, observing the situation or the people in question.

To all the social media warriors immediately responding to accusations by unquestioningly taking the sides of the victims, consider that in your demonstration of supporting a victim, you also look like an angry mob ready to burn a witch or heretic at the stake. I understand your desire to castrate the vile monsters masquerading as humans, but can we please show some restraint while it's ascertained that they are, in fact, vile monsters masquerading as humans?