iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Anyway, what I got out of this is that this particular DA did not believe he could succesfully prosecute not just rape of physically helpless persons, but also attempted offences and multiple counts of actually concluded sexual assault. Literally useless charlatan.

010

Incidentally, if you want some more rage fuel, in the police statement, Doe appears to feel bad for telling this guy that was manifestly about to orally rape her off "in a mean way". These cretins did this to a person that appears to be kind to the point of genuine comedy.

I hope the disdainful contempt shows

I mean, can you even prosecute something like that? Everytime someone was grabbing at her vagina or penetrating her without consent and she complained they stopped. Then they patiently waited until they could try again when she would not complain. Conscientious, if you ask me.

I think if I was a DA and this was described to me I wouldn't find anything suspicious about it. Sounds very above board.

some people can regain consciousness without losing it. They can just do that! Then after she came to she told them to stop again. So she kinda had two moments of consciousness and in both she rebuffed them, and in the middle they were inside her. Probably doesn't mean anything.

Listen listen, yeah, it's true that when she was awake these two guys asked to have sex with her and she said no, then she suddenly regained consciousness and she was having sex with them, but that's not because they started raping her when she passed out

Yes, hovering over someone for hours waiting for them to regain consciousness is tiring and uncomfortable. But you know what? He would do it, because those chi phi guys? They may be crass, they may get overexcited, but they hashtag believe in consent. That's what I think.

130

ergopraxis @ergopraxis.bsky.social · 19h

Listen, at some point jane doe wakes up to a guy about to put his penis in her mouth, but don't you dare suggest the people who were invited to rape her, actually raped her while she was out. That guy was going to wait there, penis in hand, for hours if need be, to ask her first.

130

It has not escaped my attention how many of the people that defend the cornell 7 on twitter are gender criticals. Very validating.

0172

ergopraxis @ergopraxis.bsky.social · 23h

Maybe she's a good kantian girl that never lies, but I think it's more likely that these are selective leaks made because the cornell 7 are desperate and have nothing to show, and either the evidence she submitted is much more extensive or the interviews were damning or both.

010

ergopraxis @ergopraxis.bsky.social · 23h

Incidentally, the text messages that are supposedly damning to Doe's case are not from her pov because they're fabrications. They're from her pov because *she* submitted them to the university hearings. Consider carefully why she was willing to do this, and why she still won.

Of course, I remain persuaded that she was physically incapacitated for large chunks of the night and that this is the most serious aspect of her case, but it's good, perhaps, to remind people that the loophole they think they discovered re assaulting plastered girls is not real.

020

Since she was mentally incapacitated because of involuntary intoxication at the time she was proposed for the first threesome, that threesome also amounted to rape under NY law. Since she was offered more ketamine throughout, she could not give valid consent throughout the night.

Since she was heavily inebriated when she was instructed to do ketamine, she could not validly consent to the offer, but was for the purposes of law coerced into it. Therefore her mental incapacitation as intensified by ketamine use was due to involuntary intoxication.

The solution to the puzzle is that, in the absence of a similar carveout, mental incapacitation because of voluntary intoxication can vitiate consent when offered drugs. But those may cause or prolong mental incapacitation, which will then be because of involuntary intoxication.

130

Those of you that are quick on the uptake may now realize why, the moment Doe got a lawyer, she begun describing her first threesome as non-consensual as well. What changed is not the description of the material facts.

Here's a nice legal puzzle for you. In NY, sex with a person that is *mentally* incapacitated because of voluntary intoxication is not rape. Is complying with an instruction to do drugs while mentally incapacitated because of voluntary intoxication, also *voluntary* intoxication?

141

Does that mean art should not attempt to be socially conscious? On the contrary, it means that it should be conscious of its own material position in the actually existing world, and of what it can actually accomplish *given* that we must change the world.

000

So your friends are right, the point is to change the world, before we find ourselves in an environmentally dystopian junta. Art can express truth, but can not usurp or substitute our role in this pursuit to do it for us.

100

Art is also a commodified good incorporated in the economic system, and this matters, but I don't think the film claims it's therefore worthless. It's just lamenting that its value is not socially transformative, or at least that's a difficult thing for it to be.

100

Just remember, it's not a comedy, it's a cry for help. Directors only make movies like this when they are deeply distressed etc etc. I clapped (internally). If you are interested in cinema, go see it before they drop it.

000

It also has one of the most beautifully grounded, insidious capitalist villains, and of course, that's not Digger himself. The music is excellent. I frankly can't really think of a serious defect the film has. Give everyone an oscar, including the guy puppeteering maggie the cat.

aesthetically very pleasing, some extraordinary, extremely satisfying, extended monologues that are sorely lacking from film and TV but are common in theatre, tight direction, more than excellent acting, from everyone, but especially by Cruise, who coasts with the great ones here

100

Conceptually brilliant take on recuperation and the real but finite value of art as expression of truth when both truth and fiction are overwhelmed by the fact of consolidated power, art as bittersweet opium, a communal release providing a false sense of power without ever lying.

100

I also didn't find the satirical caricatures so inflated tbh. I probably find them more down to earth than the actual film itself. I'm sorry, but the sort of evangelical pastors that cozy to trump just are Like That, for example.

100

One of the best aspects of the film, imo, is how perfectly he manages to capture the aesthetic of theatre within a film, but it's generally a film with beautiful composition, clever transitions, a subdued but distinctive colour palette. It's just a beautiful film.

100

None of the platitudes thrown at this film as criticism make sense to me. It's not angry at everyone and everything, it's not elitist by any means. I don't know what people are talking about. Critics that gave excellent reviews to Odyssey cherrypicking about this are incoherent.

100

Maybe superhero slop has really turned their brains to mush. I'm happy this is not so much the case for the audiences, but it's really a sad showing for professional media critics if they get lost here. Nothing about this is really self-indulgent, disgusting or finicky.

100

Both the monologues and the entire film can be analysed for hours, though I will say I found it much more straightforward than critics have suggested. I don't know what critics thought was convoluted in a serial narrative like this, or what was supposed to be self-referential (?)

100

Cruise's monologue is something he should definitely be proud of, a feat of rhythm, choreography, recitation, incorporating elements from classical tragedy (the european council as the chorus) and basically throwing trvth nvkes at you. Capital doesn't need narrative, it has Power

100

I haven't come out and said it, but you should actually try to catch digger in theatres if you can. It's a 5/5 film, and possibly his very best. It's a simple story within a story, where everything, technically, is true, but ellides a deeper truth, a gut punch of the last moment

100

I kept thinking about it during the credits. I'm pretty convinced this is The Message of the film, and would not be surprised if the director thought of it in exactly these terms.

100

The artists have hirtherto only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it ~Alejandro González Iñárritu

230

weren't they there already At this point it feels like the Pope will be more progressive in like half a decade

000

There was a recent article I can't be bothered to find now that argued we should take a substantive approach to what acts are degrading / contrary to dignity instead. It's more common around britfem circles, less so with more elevated radfems.

Hard pill to swallow for many: Iñárritu has directed 6 masterpieces, a fairly good film, and a mediocre film, and the mid one is the revenant.

000

You can't get a genuine notion of coercion unmoored from social unfreedom! These approaches may appear radical or more substantive, but they will invariably result in a conservative recuperation of basically feudal gender normativity, and at that point, you can just be a catholic

020

There is, in my view, no way to do this without implicitly reinforcing rape culture. You can't decenter someone's autonomy from a discussion of sexual assault or from the analysis of how it is a violation and think you can retain a categorical rejection of sexual coercion.

I will say one thing about the nominally feminist discourse on consent. It's one thing to say consent is not sufficient for moral sexual relations, it's quite another to say that consent can be replaced by some intuitive conception of dignity to determine just sexual relations

231

You see, Jane Doe thought her friends would protect her. She thought she'd have a good time with them, and then they'd tuck her in. Alas, her friends were traitors and instead waited for her most vulnerable to sell her out to their slobbering loser friends for brownie points.

140

She *didn't* waste time, and *didn't* attempt to ingratiate herself to her abusers. Like Pelicot, she filed the complaint immediately after learning what actually happened. Is it a wonder the inciting event of her realization is absent from a discussion dominated by apologetics?

Very obviously what did the work here is that she became aware of the group chat messages where her friends are explicitly calling on people to have sex with her, and this corroborated the forum post that she was initially persuaded by Ingalls was a mean-spirited fabrication.

Once she finds out that the night did not end with her doing ketamine with the guys and passing out (that is, about that 90% being a real thing that they conspired to organise) she immediately changes her mind, cuts contact with them and files her complaint within exactly a day.

But it makes perfect sense in order. She is not talking about the same thing any more. At first she is talking about something she regarded as consensual, then she is talking about something she didn't realize happened at all, and had to learn was done to her, literally, online.

If a group had sex with her over several hours as people were saying (the 90% of the 7 hour night) she had no recollection of this, and had not consented to it. It is only when the snippets are out of order, and the forum post is ellided, that she seems to abruptly claim this.

That's why she couldn't square people talking about her having had a gangbang with her actual memory of her threesome. That's why she tells Newell that 90% of the night was non-consensual. She only remembered the beginning of the night.

The chat thus corroborated the forum post. A number of these men (to the university she speculated about up to ten) had sex with her *after* she became incapacitated, *after* the 7 "shut things down" by moving her to a different room and proposing that they... do more ketamine.