Calling out others’ reactions to a post that isn’t yours, and demanding an explanation, is not cool IMO but I’ll entertain it.
The post played on all the toxic stereotypes about accusers. Money grab, not telling the truth, why did she take so long to come forward?
All questions asked to undermine the integrity of the accuser and question their ethical integrity without knowing any of the contexts or facts relevant to the case.
It’s no different than automatically assuming the accused is guilty, piling on additional accusations without evidence, and assuming certain inherently unethical things about the accused, again without the presentation of facts and evidence in a formal proceeding.
They’re both inherently flawed perspectives. The signal to noise ratio is broken in both perspectives.
We should take both the accuser and the accused in good faith and allow the legal proceedings to occur, and reach a well-informed conclusion based on said proceeding.