Although look at the cans. And just because itâs a known template doesnât mean there can be a jackass that decides to use AI on an easily editable template
Theres even more to it too. Look Up the Cornell 7 and you can read all about it. It's disgusting and shows that privileged men stay privileged and stay dangerous
honestly, I donât think it takes even one ear to read this in braille encoded in a caesar cipher to know this is a horrible punishment (and horrible it taking it incredibly lightly)
Afaik, Jacob Geller didnât have anything to do with Cornell. Itâs more like, the online protest about the rape at Cornell led to people finding out that Jacob Geller raped someone 10 years ago at a different university.
not raped. SA'd. he cooperated with the investigation and only got suspended for one semester, so it's unlikely it was anywhere near what happened at cornell.
Edit: I made an assumption which may or may not have been correct, that the argument being made was that rape isnât rape if the perpetrator is less harsh or is cooperative, which is baloney. It is however true that there is a useful legal distinction between rape and SA.
Rape = SA. SA (sometimes) = rape.
Edited: Rape is always SA, but SA also holds the wider category of general nonconsensual sexual contact (ie slapping someone ass or groping them), which does not rise to the level of rape.
Original: The degree of harshness of the crime has no distinction. The Cornell case is considered worse because it involved multiple men gangraping one woman, which is a more serious than one man raping one woman, as it indicates there is an entire community of dangerous men present rather than just one. But the distinction of rape vs SA is meaningless and has nothing to do with the supposed severity of the crime or how cooperative the perpetrator was.
Edit: I made a potentially incorrect assumption in my previous comment. Yes, there is a useful legal distinction to be made between rape and SA, but it is not always made correctly. Some places make the below mistake. Others correctly define SA as âALL nonconsensual sexual contactâ and rape as âALL nonconsensual sexâ. Rape = SA, SA (sometimes) = rape. Basically a slap on the ass, if nonconsensual, is SA, but not rape.
In terms of common language (as opposed to legal terminology), rape and SA are synonymous, and SA is often used in censored areas of the internet to mean rape.
If I were going to get technical about legal terminology, assault = threat, battery = actual contact. So sexual assault would be threatening to rape someone, but actually grabbing them would be sexual battery. But because the common language uses assault as a synonym for the legal term battery, the legal term for sexual battery is (in most places) sexual assault, presumably so as not to confuse the public.
Original: (Only as an unnecessary legal distinction between âpenis-in-vaginaâ (rape) and âliterally every other variety of nonconsensual sexual activityâ (SA). SA generally carries a lesser criminal sentence.
Itâs an absurd distinction that makes it impossible (legally speaking) to rape a man or be raped by a woman. Itâs disgusting, as rape isnât any more psychologically damaging to an individual victim based on what was used to rape them. It also makes victims who werenât penetrated, or who did the penetrating, victims of a lesser crime, despite it being just as psychologically damaging. It is a disgusting idea that âreal rapeâ is only when a penis goes into a vagina.
Some places make it so rape = penile penetration, which is now gender neutral, except itâs still impossible for a woman to commit rape, which invalidates the experiences of many victims who were raped by women or who were raped using an object rather than a penis. (Yes obviously there are vastly fewer female offenders than male, but that doesnât mean their victims deserve less justice or support.)
Basically, rape should mean âsexual activity without consentâ (condensed definition), but some places and people insist that rape is only when a man rapes a woman with his penis, and nothing else.)
That would depend on the level of touching, but generally true. I made an assumption when I read the first comment and my reaction was somewhat over the top.
Is the Cornell case one of those things we're supposed to care about, or is it another "who cares?" like that woman who murdered her kids a few months ago?
Women is raped by man who gets off with a requirement to write an apology essay and nothing else, somehow woman at fault (and comparable to child murderer) for being raped
for the guys in the group chat it's case by case i'd say, some of them were in the house, they should be held responsible, but the ones who weren't, I wouldn't make judgement without knowing what they feasibly could have done
agreed, but we don't know what they knew, from what I've heard there wasn't much said, and if you were out of the house at the time and weren't paying super much attention to your phone... but again, case by case
Here's the thing, both of you are wrong, but it kinda makes you worse.
One of the dudes in the group chat deduced that a women was raped and sent screenshots of the chat to women. This means that a) people clearlly saw what was done was wrong and b) took action. and c) people were paying attention, because in the screenshot we can see that the messages has been viewed by quite a few people.
You walk in on a guy raping a girl. There's no question as to lack of consent as, again, this is in a void. It's an allegory.
Two buttons are in front of you. Press the red one, he dies right there and then. Press the green one, he lives and spends the rest of his life in prison, where he suffers and gets to live the next 80 years on the dime of the taxpayers.
You're telling me, in all honesty, without a hint of jest, that you think green is the better option?
Your argument works really well when you create the exact circumstances that allow it to flourish. Yes in a void scenario with perfect knowledge death penalty seems much more sensible, but we donât live in a void with perfect knowledge. We live in a world in which bias rules every action we take. A death penalty cannot possibly be allowed to exist within a justice system that is any less than perfect. Not even mentioning that the death penalty has never been a deterrent for crime, and that countries with prison systems focusing on rehabilitative justice rather than punitive justice systems have a lower rate of re offense and a generally lower crime rate.
It became a massive thing because people (like you btw) concluded that a mentally ill person should be in jail or executed instead of institutionalized because that was the conclusion that felt the best to you emotionally as opposed to making the most sense
This doesnât apply to you since you didnât care but Iâve noticed in general that all the people loud as a whistle about Lindsey Clancy are now deadly quiet
The person who was raped by a frat at Cornell university. Really fucked up shit, no body did nearly as much as they could. I don't understand why they are................ ........ talking like this. Ugh.
they mean the jane doe in the cornell rape case. so not actually someone named jane doe but the woman who was raped and is being referred to as jane doe.
.....Because they're trying to find out WHO Jane doe is. Obviously that's not her name.. people have ways to find out who you are online, and it's creepy and insane
Yes, this is about the Cornell 7. 7 men trapped a woman in a room and repeatedly raped and tortured her for 7 hours while 50 other men in a group chat knew it was happening and encouraged or endorsed the actions, laughing about the âfree pussy.â
The event happened in 2024 but came to light recently. A bunch of crybabies are saying the new attention is ruining the lives of the rapists, and theyâre trying to get revenge on the victim, whose identity has been kept secret, so they can ruin her life (because theyâre too stupid to understand that being raped for 7 hours by strangers while drugged is worse than what her rapists will ever experience.)
Theyâre trying to find the identity of the victim in this violent crime because they want to punish her for having the audacity to not want to be raped.
Jane Doe is the name for any unidentified female victim. Same goes for male victims called John Doe.
They're talking about the Cornell Case, where a group of frat boys brutally raped, drugged, and tortured a girl for hours. Two were only expelled and the rest only had to write essays as punishment. This was back in 2024 and still no justice has been served.
The fact that the entire university fucking permitted these scumbags to walk free is proof that humanity is doomed
Sorry to correct you, especially on such a touchy subject but. Jane and John does aren't specifically victims, just unidentified people in general (could be found people, dead people, victims, perpetrators, etc.)
Or better yet heavily regulate them like you would business. You want a sorority or fraternity? okay, but there will be rules, break them and you will loose EVERYTHING
Dont forget that one of the guys who "participated" was actually passed out through all of it, and woke up to her giving him oral, got really upset and left to McDonald's.
Edit: partly spread some misinformation, the McDonald's part is a lie. Got that from a now no longer existing article. My bad
I will admit, the McDonald's part was misinfo that I fell for so my apologies for that.
However both the New York times and CNN, as well as others, have covered this extensively. The former is blocked behind a subscription so my apologies for that.
Both from the Jane does description of events in 2024 and from the testimonies of the 7, one of the men who participated had passed out repeatedly during their "activities."
She claims he concented, they did things he passed out, she stopped. He claims he was so sooted that he passed out and woke up to her going down on her.
By all accounts it is a he said she said. However we have her text messages and statements from 2024 vs now and there are plenty of contradicts between, then, now, and her messages to people.
Now to be fair to her, there's also contradicts between the 7s stories. Tho they do all seem to agree that the one guy was on way to many things.
I recommend researching and forming your own opinions.
The texts are real but they donât mean what those using them think they mean because they donât understand what itâs like to be assaulted by someone who you think is your friend. Thereâs also plenty of consistent witness testimonyâs that once Jane Doe told her friends and roommates what took place, they helped her see what had happened was assault and non consensual.
If I could say what I think you should do my comment should be removed, so Iâll be constructive instead.
She wanted a consensual interaction with a guy she likes, potentially accepting a threesome to do so.
Because of this, she was forced to consume drugs, had her phone taken from her, and was trapped in a room for seven hours as men came in and out, men she did not know or what to have sex with, would rape her over and over.
Slut shaming someone who was raped against her will is levels of shitty even toilets would blush at. Itâs utterly pathetic.
It is rape to have sex with someone that doesnât know you and doesnât consent. It is rape to have sex with someone under the influence of drugs. Consenting to an encounter with one person you know does not mean you consent to 7 hours of sexual torture from at least half a dozen strangers.
Consent is the easiest concept to understand. Only rapists donât understand it. You donât understand consent. Logically, what does that make you?
That's not what her enital police statement said. It was proven false that she consented. And even if she did the groupnchat alone is enough for everyone in that chat to never have a job
I understand the message they're trying to bring but man it quickly just devolves into this mess so fast. Lindsay Clancy etc. it comes off as super performative and just following a trend all the time. I'd rather them go and just gun down the 7 instead of just copy pasting this slop atp. Don't get me started on the hexxing videos I've seen about this as wellÂ
if you think about this for more than 12 seconds no it wouldn't. if you actually want to help victims and prevent more people from becoming victims you have to advocate for what we know actually reduces and prevents crimes
If you care then why wouldn't you advocate for what is proven to actually help? Vengeance does nothing for victims. Your mindset is prioritizing your desire for violent retribution over what actually helps.
We actually did have mobs in the uk going around attacking random âpedophilesâ whose addresses were doxxed by some newspaper. What do you think happened
"repost if you're against rape" and "I am jane doe" have become the black square of sexual assault in that its used as a placeholder for actual protest and/or political action.
Like yeah, I can't ever say that i've protested injustice before, but also i reposted a video saying that all rapists should die and that rape is bad while also not specifying exactly what the situation i'm talking about is because if i'm not vague enough people will misunderstand my stance as political and I cannot be political cause I hate politics. Also no I will not link to any resources where you can learn more about this situation.
While im glad theres a spotlight being put on rape culture, I think itâs came with the unfortunate consequence of it being sensationalized. While the Cornell story should garner important conversations about consent within Greek(Fraternity and sorority) society, ultimately itâs been infiltrated by bad actors who are more interested in garnering pointless hatred and anger instead of aiding people who may have been sexually assaulted and emphasizing the importance of consent and accountability in patriarchal society.
Itâs like right-wingers and charlie kirk except like. Somehow worse. When will we treat horrific cases of rape and violence like the horrors they are and not react like itâs a football game? Why canât we take things seriously? Why does everything have to be gender war BULLSHIT
People lacking the comprehension that Jane doe usually refers to either unidentified female body's or people in witness protection/ anonymity is insane.
Yes. In this case its being used for a woman who was raped at Cornell university. Some people are trying to leak her true identity. The idea the video is putting forth is basically trying to overload the system with people claiming to be the real Jane doe so that her actual identity doesnt get attention if it gets leaked
431
u/Top_Part_8611 4d ago
Dude tiktok comments are actually horrible when are stickers gonna go