site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   2266 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 25, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My wife and I have different views of the discourse around the Cornell 7. I'm seeing people sympathizing with Jane Doe and declaring the "obvious" guilt of the men. I have major problems with this, because there's not nearly enough evidence that actually indicates the men are guilty.

My wife told me that she isn't seeing so much of randos casting their judgement on the case, but rather women sharing their own stories of times they felt taken advantage of or were sexually assaulted, etc. And she thinks that's important and valuable in it's own right. Essentially, whether or not the allegations are true, this has had an brought women together to share their stories in a moment of cultural solidarity.

Even if my wife is correct, and the women reacting to the news coverage weren't just declaring these men guilty based on their own feelings, I still have some issues with the notion that this discourse is positive in its own right, and I'm trying to put it in a lens my wife would understand. I don't really think that she and progressives would agree that discourse and people sharing their victimization stories is always a good thing. As one example, there are many stories in the UK and Europe about people being victimized by new waves of immigrants. But for alleged victims to share those stories in solidarity would (in most progressive minds) create hatred and bias people against immigrants as a whole.

It's not about stories, it's about who is allowed to share their stories and whose stories are allowed to become narratives, and whose narratives are allowed to become policies. A lot of people have stories, but not every story gets to become The Story. If you need a policy that allows unlimited immigration, you know which stories are going to be shared and which are going to be suppressed. If you need a policy that promotes misandry and enables destroying frats, you know which stories are going to be shared and which are going to be suppressed. And so on.

I believe sharing stories is good because it helps others understand the world. Sharing a story, true or false, distorts people's perception, but they can ignore it, they can refuse to believe it, and they can contextualize it, so I think it's almost always a net positive. As long as the story doesn't obviously dox anyone.

Judgement: I agree it seems unlikely the men are legally guilty, because there is not solid evidence they didn't ignore the woman's consent, and AFAIK US law doesn't factor drunkenness into consent (unless "incapacitated"). In general, I still hold that laws shouldn't apply in ambiguous situations like this. But they may be morally guilty.

My take, maybe unconventional, is that if it was consensual (otherwise the problem is obvious), the problem happened when Jane Doe was "slut shamed" and uninvited to the Halloween party. That made her feel socially unwelcome, and thus taken advantage of, which I think she was: it would be unreasonable for her to expect the sex to develop into a deeper relationship; but it's unfair for it not to lower her social standing without affecting the men's, and if that's the natural consequence. them what she did to lower the men's is too (Prisoner's dilemma, except if the fraternity and sorority members thought more, they could've realized it beforehand).

So it's two things I think.

First the press and the left in general want to cast frats as the enemy caste. This has been going on for a long time, remember "A Rape on Campus" in Rolling Stone in 2014? It's very important for their coalition for young women to see frat boys as the dangerous enemy instead of desirable.

Next there's a big aspect of feeling that the woman wasn't treated as accorded to her by her station as a Cornell student. She's supposed to be in line to be part of the ruling class, someone should have stepped in to prevent her from making poor decisions. Of course girls are also allowed to do whatever they want. So it's the men's fault.

First the press and the left in general want to cast frats as the enemy caste. This has been going on for a long time, remember "A Rape on Campus" in Rolling Stone in 2014?

You're absolutely right, except it's even older than that.

This needs the Archer meme... "Do you want more Stephen Millers? This is how you get Stephen Millers."

The context of a viral story of false rape allegations is NOT the time to be sharing real rape allegations. People should not be sympathizing with Jane Doe or relating to her, because she is not in the category of rape victim. She is the enemy of rape victims. The best thing for society to do for rape victims, and for real rape victims to do for themselves, is to make a strong discrimination between real victims and fake victims. If women just band together in solidarity with all "rape accusers" as a class, and we as a society can't tell the difference, then real victims get lost in the noise.

Oh, you're a "rape accuser", that means there's a 50% chance this man is an evil rapist who should go to jail, and a 50% chance he's a victim and you're a horrible person.

is NOT what we want, but IS the rational public response to an indistinguishable class of 50% victims and 50% liars. Just taking this 50-50 mix and demanding "believe all women" does not lead to better outcomes. Saying "Oh you're a rape accuser, therefore there's a 50% chance this man is an evil rapist, so we will send him to jail without checking" is a worse outcome for society than one in which all of them go free unpunished. It is untenable. Society will not accept this demand and would be worse if we did. The only way to have real rape accusations be taken seriously is if they can be realiably distinguished from fake ones.

If you are a victim, you are not Jane Doe. Jane Doe is a perpetrator who belongs in jail, and you should try to distance yourself from her as much as possible, because you are an entirely different class of person. You should hate her, because she is the reason you are doubted and mistrusted.

As an aside – could anyone give me a quick rundown on what we currently know about the case? I haven't been following it that closely since the story first broke. Is there any chance of criminal proceedings?

I think reading the DA's statement about why they didn't initially investigate or press charges is enlightening. It's not long, so I'd read it if you're interested in the case.

The tl;dr is Jane Doe's initial statement about the night didn't meet the 3 criteria for rape under NY state law, those being 1) she was never unconscious 2) any drugs/alcohol she took she took was of her own volition 3) any sex acts she had were consented to and to the extent she rejected the boys' advances (grabbing her thigh/crotch iirc, I haven't read the statement in a couple weeks) they stopped when she made it clear she wasn't into it. They only started this "renewed" investigation after public outcry/lots of people calling the DA's office.

As I broadly understand it: she was really into Male Number 1 and consented to some slutty behavior because of it + her inhibitions were lowered from the drugs/alcohol. The boys, or at least 5 of them, were being shitty stereotypical frat boys who crossed some lines concerning upright behavior but never broke the law. Tons of women have a story like this and so it resonated. I sympathize with everyone but especially Jane Doe because she got sold an idea of female empowerment and sexuality that is pretty incompatible with like 80% of women and found out the hard way. Crap situation all around.

I sympathize with everyone but especially Jane Doe because she got sold an idea of female empowerment and sexuality that is pretty incompatible with like 80% of women and found out the hard way.

The young men were sold the exact same story and are being punished much more harshly. Why more sympathy for her exactly?

The NY Governor set up Letitia James as a special prosecutor to look into charges. So probably an attempt at charges. Guaranteed in NYC, but this is Tompkins County so I'm not sure how that will play out.

I can see the value of having a conversation about Cornell 7+1 in that we as a society are forced to critically reexamine our priors: one woman had drug-fueled sex with seven men, was seemingly fine with the outcome, but after experiencing negative feedback from people not directly involved in the intercourse decided that it was sexual assault. Everyone involved acted how their morals let them, and yet the final outcome was unsatisfactory to practically everyone. Something has to change, but what? No drugs at frat parties? No slut shaming? No unchaperoned co-ed events? No civil lawsuits after a criminal lawsuit is dismissed?

No unchaperoned co-ed events?

Amen

No lack of punishment for false rape claims.

Feminism empowered this woman to act that way; maybe we should try something different than "more feminism"?

I'm not sure if "Problem: There is a clash between my ingroup and my outgroup. Proposed solution: Have you considered shifting the balance of power towards my ingroup?" is a take that needs to be introduced explicitly.

Neither is "Have you considered shifting the balance of power towards the outgroup? Surely it'll work this time". Socon/crypto-feminist system prompt meets equality/liberal system prompt, tale as old as time.

Really, though, it's more a disagreement on how valuable sex is, or when the payment was made for it. The woman claims the intent of selling sex was buying a future privilege that was then revoked, so the woman "sues" for breach of contract.

Contract violations are not generally criminal matters. Women find it very convenient that this one is, because criminal accusations force the matter into social court, complete with scarlet letter if they win their lawsuit. This is a privilege thing; it worked OK back when a lack of automation meant you had to make a sex and obedience contract called a "marriage" just to get a meal.

But to properly address a contract violation, you have to set the value of sex at some dollar amount. Contracts go bad and people feel taken advantage of in various ways literally all the time- that's half of what divorce court exists to adjudicate. Of course, you can't get into a contract if you don't offer your services in exchange for money, and as any crypto-feminist will tell you, sex isn't a requirement for life.

Of course, you'll recognize that as "a woman must get over the fact that inherently means she's a whore". Naturally, that conflicts with female privilege (and father privilege).

The obvious solution is "fathers have zero privilege in an individualist society; if women can't psychologically handle the act of putting an explicit price on sex, save it for marriage, simple as". But letting more liberated women operate that way means they might get more male rewards, which is something feminists/fathers cannot abide that.

In the general case, is the answer to why a conservative/progressive can't leave a meritocratic system alone. They don't believe being less [morally] capable should result in an unequal outcome. Progressives literally say this, it's just that letting them do it means you let bad people set the rules because demanding them follow the rules was "too hard", and those people cannot deliver anything other than a crooked outcome.

As one example, there are many stories in the UK and Europe about people being victimized by new waves of immigrants. But for alleged victims to share those stories in solidarity would (in most progressive minds) create hatred and bias people against immigrants as a whole.

Class is a major hidden variable here. Cornell 7 discourse is about upper-class women sharing their relationship trauma. "The hot frat guy I was obsessed with in college wouldn't give me the time of day and tried passing me off to his buddies," is not really the same category of story as, "14-year old girl living on the streets is prostituted by the only family willing to take her in," even though there are superficial similarities.

I think the ideal response from a woman in this situation is to be grossed out by a drug fueled gang bang; have her danger signals activate, and assume the girl was kind of a slut who was still taken advantage of.

I would highly prefer that to either being a liberal realist and defend consensual gang bangs on ideological grounds, even if she’s “based” about it or fall into some me too! Victimhood solidarity circle with her girl friends.

I think both are bad signs. And I’d rather her just say “ew gross” and move on. I thus wouldn’t try any ideological reasoning about it

this has brought women together to share their stories in a moment of cultural solidarity.

Women need a cathartic ritual for the release of negative emotional baggage in a safe and supportive social environment. Think of it as emotional menstruation. In the same way a guy may need a simulatory activity where he kills enemies in a game (or engages in a Fight Club-like activity, and studies show fighting is emotionally beneficial for males), women need this activity but for complaint, lamentation, grief, etc. Modern forms of American religion generally lack catharsis, so what’s left for women are political rites. The Cornell seven becomes a quasi seven sorrows of Mary for the secular woman who has a lot of stress in her life related to men, in particular suitors and exes and unrequited crushes and bad bosses and teachers, and feels insufficiently protected by a patriarchal figure (the evolved social order of Westerners, the absence of which gnaws at the spirit). A woman who is still stressed over her last relationship can experience a heightened form of her own distress within the imagined life of a Jane Doe, the stand-in for all womenfolk —

[“I am Jane Doe” 🤜🤛 “his name was Robert Paulson”]

— and by experiencing these emotions at their peak through pity (similar to the classical articulation of the Sublime requiring a position of safety for the observer) they will feel them subside within themselves. How? & Why? First, because emotion naturally habituates and subsides; you cannot stay in heightened emotion forever; plunging into the depths of grief and distress will lead to an emotional resurrection within some days. Second, for the same reason that a person feels better about their sorry state when they witness the much more sorry state of another person. After watching a video of a paraplegic living their life, you’re unlikely to find your own small complaints as serious. I remember having this experience last month reading about the 9/11 victims, especially going through an online blog of a victim of seeing the guestbook of loved ones, infinitely sad, and when you snap back into your own reality it’s difficult to get worked up about your own problems. Well, Jane Doe accomplishes this fictively — the over-the-top suffering is sort of the point — she is alienated, trapped, alone, anonymous, accused, forgotten, etc, the emphasis on the hours. Lastly, they imbue all the causality of the evil on the fraternity brothers, getting all their anger out on them. So, the range of negative emotions are purged or at least mitigated by the event.

I don’t really think this has anything to do with experiences of sexual assault, though. I think it’s just about general negative experiences, especially wrt men.

studies show fighting is emotionally beneficial for males

Care to link?

Our culture really does lack catharsis, and I think it similarly lacks opportunities for ritualistic cleansing. Experiences of purity and dirtiness are probably the least explored aspects of secular life. Poor memories of men do not only conjure up anger in many women, but feelings of revulsion, dirtiness, and sin, much of which are introjected onto themselves. I'm reminded of the ancient practice of scapegoating, and can't help but think that something similar is happening here, the factual badness of the actual Cornell event notwithstanding.

this has had an brought women together to share their stories in a moment of cultural solidarity.

Hasn't that been continually happening for the past 16 years?

I think it's pretty much well-established fact at this point that normies mostly don't read past the headlines. So I think most of them just assume that 7 brutes lured away, then held down and brutally raped some clueless maiden.

Like Kyle Rittenhouse gunning down all those black people and then being found not guilty.

Essentially, whether or not the allegations are true, this has had an brought women together to share their stories in a moment of cultural solidarity.

I think there's a sneaky rhetorical trick being used here. Sharing stories about sexual assault in the context of this case really only makes sense under the assumption that the men are guilty. Imagine a group of men who, in the context of discussing this particular case, began to share exclusively stories about women who falsely accused men of rape. What would people assume about that group of men? They would be accused of pushing an agenda that rape accusations should not be taken seriously, in this case and generally. Now if they respond, "it doesn't matter if the allegations are true or not in this particular case, but it's a good thing that men are being brought together to share their stories in a moment of cultural solidarity". I doubt anyone would take that seriously.

I doubt anyone would take that seriously.

Obviously not, because men are expendable and women are wonderful.

I see it consistently as privileged white woman rapes two men who are too intoxicated to consent. Mainstream society proves yet again that male sexual consent is a fiction that not even the consent-oriented progressives believe. Something similar happened to a buddy of mine in college and it still boils my blood thinking about it. I'm sure progressives are absolutely making space for us to have this conversation (sarcasm)

This whole thing got my goat pretty bad. I had to unfollow a friend on instagram who kept posting shit takes because i didn't want to rip his head off in person.

Mainstream society proves yet again that male sexual consent is a fiction that not even the consent-oriented progressives believe

Of course it's a fiction. This is how there are men with child support orders from getting an over-18 woman pregnant when they were under 18.

Child support orders are not based on who consented or not. They're based on replacing welfare given to the custodial parent.

They're based on replacing welfare given to the custodial parent.

Yet it's abundantly clear that if the woman doesn't consent, she can unilaterally and forcefully terminate all her child s[upport] whenever she chooses no matter what the other parent believes, even if they have 100% joint custody (usually called 'a marriage').

Sure, you have to argue that you were insane in front of a judge in the most extreme case, but even in that case your peers will nearly unanimously agree you have the right to end that agreement whenever you so choose because that Protects Women.

The entire problem is that the double-standard that used to be viable (because it was compensated for in other areas of life by the conditions of reality) is no longer so, and the compensation traditional human instinct assumes is there... isn't. There were always other more even-handed ways of dealing with this problem but those seem to have been deliberately ignored.

But hey, US foreign policy even in nations it was supposed to be building is "permit the local aristocracy to get its boy-rape on so the women could have a future"- I guess if nothing else, it's a consistent approach.

In the rare cases where a man gets sole custody, child support is not an unusual outcome.

I wouldn't class "a man gets sole custody of a baby he committed a sex crime to father and is now extracting child support from the victim" as simply "rare". Not even if she marries her rapist.

If male sexual consent were real, then it would seem rather odd that the State would be willing to give custody of a child to a rapist and make the victim pay child support. I've certainly never heard of it happening where the male rapist gets custody of the child and then gets child support payments from the female.

Female victims also have the ability to get an abortion and avoid the whole problem, which a male victim does not.

One of the few infohazards that gets even me.

I remember the Ur-case for this being somewhat older, mid 2010s. I’ve been disconnected from news on it but one would hope in this past decade of people waking up the disparity of the social fictions we suffer. That such injustices would have at least withered from increased scrutiny?

I occasionally have power fantasies of my own when I read stories like this, reminiscent of how we treated consent back when we were teenagers.

I’m not sure i follow?

That's because the standard is "it's good when victims (as defined by progressive rules) share their stories."

Women are victims of white men (and men in a fraternity are white men for these purposes even if some of the Cornell ones aren't white), so it's good that women share their stories of being victims. However, immigrants/refugees are victims of the West, so it's their stories that need to be shared, not those of any people (even if women) that the immigrants victimize.

If someone subscribes to progressive victimology, then there is no lens that will change this interpretation.

It’s hard to tell whether progressives just have an ideological blind spot and don’t recognize the disparities that cut across their beliefs or they’re actually being disingenuous. The other day I just decided to scroll through the last couple weeks of videos from some progressive channels and decided to check out David Pakman. I always try to keep a balanced media diet on occasion, lest I risk becoming too self-referential and stuck in my own echo chamber. It was the usual shit. Hadn’t changed much in the last year or so since I’d checked him out. Except one thing stuck out like a sore thumb.

During the 2024 debate between Trump and Biden (back when Biden was still the presumptive nominee), Pakman was one of the loudest (and most delusional) people who seemed to be running cover for Biden’s qualifications. That he was mentally fine. Fit. Had no dementia and everything was okay. He even had callers on his program who were progressives who were questioning Biden’s mental acuity. Now fast forward and look at his latest reel of videos. It’s all about Trump’s mental decline (which is nowhere near as bad as Biden’s was), not knowing where he is, stumbling around, having a senior moment, etc. I don’t know whether he’s biased or just stupid. But it’s fascinating to watch in real time and almost nobody else notices it.

"Even if it isn't true, it started a conversation" is... well, I'm not a fan, but I have a hunch that others out there have torn it apart far better than I could.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats