You read an article, written by somebody you never met, accusing a person you never met, citing evidence you never saw. Now you feel angry at the accused person. What does that make you?

Someone who reads articles and has emotional bandwith.

You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?

A normal internet user

Was this posted by Ronald MacDonald from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia?

"Have you poured through the facts? Seen the figures? No? So let me get this straight, Mr. Reynolds... You get your information from a book, written by men you've never met, and you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of... humph dare I say it? Faith?"

credulous

Wow you must be really butthurt that your beloved celebrity turned out to be a different person than you imagined.

This is called cognitive dissonance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).

There are different ways the brain can cope with conflicting information. Looks like yours chose denial. It also chose to double down on the denial by constructing a reality in which multiple witnesses arent a credible source.

If you remember about this post in a few weeks, thats gonna be embarrassing^^

Also, to answer to your post directly: Are you the kind of person that doesnt believe the earth is round because you havent seen it for yourself? If not, ask yourself why this case is different.

I don’t know but whatever it makes me is less bad than whatever rejecting the claims of victims published through credible sources makes you 😜

One word I might use is "premature". I definitely don't know about other people, but rather than the anger implied in the question, if someone had a crime or misdeed attributed to them, if what happened mattered, my biggest inclination would be to try to fill in the gaps in my mind. Along the way, this of course potentially implies things like "why did they do it", "how was it done", and "did they really". A lot of people, however, consider it conclusive based on what amounts to public perception, something I am no stranger to being on the receiving end of, and I don't think I have to tell you how destructive that has turned out. It compels me to wonder how scary our state of existence is, especially when typically getting "to the bottom of something" is associated with neurodivergence.

credulous

angry

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

A sun-burned penguin?

whoever wrote that article must be good at either citing or rage-baiting.

or both.

A conservative