> say you saw your boss doing something you perceived to be illegal.
Keyword being "perceived".
But let's examine the premise.
Do I have any evidence of this act? Do I have sufficent expertise to determine if what I saw was actually illegal? Where are my biases? Can I argue my case in a coherent and believable manner?
and most importantly in this particular case, are there literally thousands of other people who contradict my position?
All of those are very important points, and exactly why I chose the word "perceived".
Let's say multiple people observed a pattern of suspicious acts over a period of time from this boss. Maybe it's a big company, and you have hundreds of accusers, and hundreds of defenders of the accused.
So, you naturally have some people with flimsy testimony and inherent bias, and others who clearly don't know the law or policy. Then you have a few with valid testimony that the defenders of the accused are able to convincingly refute.
But you're still left with a core group of people with legit questions, hopefully trying to determine wrongdoing in honest, good faith, and they received flimsy evidence and inaccurate testimony in response from the defense. This core group still has questions unanswered... muddied, by the obviously false testimonies from those with bias, but still their core questions remain.
Deciding, at that point, that all discussion is to be silenced, does nothing to prove either side.
My point, though, really was not to draw a direct analogy, but to try, perhaps unsuccessfully, to get you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who, in good faith, has genuine questions. And to then imagine being told that your questions are so fundamentally offensive on their face, that you shouldn't even be allowed to further ask or discuss them, and that any explanation, regardless of how thorough or how flimsy, should be accepted without further scrutiny.
I think anyone who is being honest would admit that this would do nothing to satisfy you of no wrongdoing, but instead would probably convince you there was wrongdoing. Which, frankly, is a terrible way for cases of illegality to be decided, no matter which side you're on.
Keyword being "perceived".
But let's examine the premise. Do I have any evidence of this act? Do I have sufficent expertise to determine if what I saw was actually illegal? Where are my biases? Can I argue my case in a coherent and believable manner?
and most importantly in this particular case, are there literally thousands of other people who contradict my position?