I think rather than making this some broad morality play about rape culture and consent, there’s another undercurrent of people picking and choosing the evidence they want to acknowledge because it conforms to whatever social narrative they’re trying to create.
These are people’s lives. There are a lot of awful people out there. Just look up Peter Scully. There’s a lot of people — including you — who used this trial to push their agenda. Regardless of his superstar status, Derrick Rose is a person who deserved — and got — a fair trial.
Now we just have a bunch of people who presupposed that Rose was guilty who are now trying to pretend like they didn’t and instead make this about broader concerns of rape. No — you damned someone before you even knew what evidence there was or wasn’t. You ignored rationality for the sake of your agenda. Is that any different from rape apologists automatically assuming an accuser is lying before even trying to look at both sides? I don’t think so.