thats a good question. we cant let a life be ruined or even punish a man whitout strong evidence that goes beyond 'oh, i feel like he is guilty', but at the same time we as people dont enjoy the idea that someone who has broken the social contract we respect gets to be in a position of power or evidence. as it would be like accepting 'the system' is crooked, which then threatens its validity. and make no mistake, no matter how much we like to shit talk 'the system' and how crooked it is, few thoughts are as terryfing as losing the protection of society. hence why which hunting on twitter serves the purpose of re-injecting validity, so to speak, in the system we adhere: if we complain about the injustice as a group, we then start to believe that, as a group, we were against injustice all along and that the injustice was a mistake and not a flaw. outrage in this context serves a societal mental hygiene sort of function.
i would argue the morally correct way of doing all of this is going to the police with this sort of issue and not to twitter. if you know that twitter rape cries can never be proven or disproven and by force of nature turn into character assassination 9 out of 10 times, then even if your case is true you would be making more well-established a culture that gives opportunity for false accusations to flourish and do damage. in that sense, a truly resposible woman would choose another route. but well, we westerns are a very narcisistic society, we care too much about our needs.
finally, in this particular case her story seems credible, his response sounds avoidant AF, although well formulated. if she acomplished anything with the accusation, to be honest, was to cast a doubt on his character but at the cost of outing herself as manipulative and unbalanced. its hard to say how bad of an effect it will have in launders career but i hope none at all. even if hes antisocial behaviour seems credible, if it cant be established it shouldnt recieve actual credit
went on quite a digression here i guess