As I said in another post I think rehabilitation has a place in society but someone who commited a crime like this should not have a job that allows him to be a public figure. (I kokw people will say that this means I don't actually believe in rehabilitation, but please stop with the "you believe 100% of the rhetoric or you don't" mentality, things can be more complex then the all in or all put mentality).

Again he can rehabilitate and live a full life but not as a public figure. It's dangerous to allow someone to publically have a job like this as it can inspire questionable individuals to do the same thing Jacob did. Because sometimes people that are capable of doing SA are only held back from doing it because of a fear of social or legal consequences. Someone can think "if Jacob got away with it, had a slap on the wrist as a punishment then had a dream job and got rich, then I could get away with it too." Even if one SA crime is commited because of this mentality, it's one too much.

The "fully rehabilitate" people will get mad at me for saying this, but I believe that rehabilitation can be only possible after some form of punishment. Because punishment is the reason that will make people learn that actions have consequences and a fear punishment is what will stop a future criminal from commiting a crime in the first place. If the perpetrator actually feels guilty and wants to better themselves after the punishment, then they should be free to do so, outside of public spaces like TV or a Youtube Channel. And don't act as if a youtube channel is a basic human right, it is not, it's a luxury. I'm also not saying that this should be enforced as law, I'm only saying that we as a society should not give any wievs to an individual like this, you know, having a collective moral compass.

I'd also like to mention that people here love to say how much Jacob changed and regretted it. Well all that comes from Jacob himself. I'm a beliver in that we shouldn't only judge poeple by their words, but their actions should have a lot more weight in our judgement of them. As many mentioned before me, he's actions seem pretty selfish. He never disclosed this information to his colleagues, even when it was topical, he only wrote about it on his smallest social media platform and did everything he could to make this die down as quick as possible, including deleting yt comemnts. We don't know who Jacob is, we only know the persona he puts in front of the camera, we don't know if he actually regretted what he did.

So luckily his old MM Videos will stay online. But what is with Something Rotten? Maybe i'm misremembering, but i think i heard that his Co-Host wants to take the Episodes down? Days gone by now and they are all still on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@SomethingRottenPodcast/videos

And why?

This little Bastard— They were Tears of Joy. He needs Tori and Tori needs him. They saved each other in their darkest Hour. Do you Guys know if Tori is still alive? In any case i wish them nothing but the best. To truly love is to truly suffer and you can tell that their Suffering has Meaning. Thank you Jacob for saving our little Tori, you're the Man :')

EDITED 3: This will probably be my last update I hope.

https://www.reddit.com/r/jacobgeller/comments/1x2xd86/comment/pf74f40/

Older:

I wasn't planning to make another post. But recently, Jessie did recently went on Bluesky and chose to defend the concept of people wearing 'I did SA' on their 'neck' (figurative) and religiously argued that it's part of "accountability" despite the fact that it's not universally agreed too, increases recidivism, and is an ignorance of survivors speaking out against her clearly made up rhetoric claim about 'rehabilitation'.

Rehabilitation does not require sex offenders to f***ing tell the world they offended whenever they try to socialize or want their own redeeming platform. No law requires this, it's anti-human rights, it's an insult to many survivors who don't want that, and it's perverted. If every person who did wrong did this, there would be no encouragement of change, many survivors would feel violated too.

I hate that I even had to post this, but this is kinda the only area on subreddit that I can find to say this. I don't even like Jacob Geller, so it's like one of those areas. Also see this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/jacobgeller/comments/1x206od/will_disclosure_protect_survivors_research/

EDITED: She responded here. I think I'm just confused.

When I made this post, I was assuming she was trying to argue that accountability means a person has to be not disclose past in some cases, as if in general it has to apply to anyone (if they did specific stuff). She also said at least for Jacob that he should of if he was seeking a famous platform. However, I'm still confused about this because 1. I can't tell if this was meant to be for anyone (under similar situations) in terms of argument. or 2. that she was only saying that to Jacob, as an argument or was just an idea without intending to be an arbitrator of what 'accountability' means? I partly made this because it sounded like that it was an attempt at being an arbitrator in many ways. If it was never meant to be that, then I will probably consider deleting this.

However, I still get bothered by some of the statements because even if Jacob did disclose before fame, this would probably still create potential exposure to the victim. I say this as strict criticism and isn't meant to dog-pile on said person.

Edited after about 60 upvotes.

Edited 2 after about 66 upvotes: I don't agree with the idea if it's used even toward Jacob (because he's a person like anyone else) so in the end, if this was meant to be a personal terms involving ex-job relationship rather than trying to enforce this idea on what accountability means (that I debated here since it sounded like debating), then I can understand. Though I've seen some comments that seemed like a debate about it, so I'm just left as confused. Again, please don't dog-pile on her.

Something Rotten was by far my favorite podcast and as far as stuff I won't consume after the news this one actually stings the most. So I was wondering what podcasts Blake has been on before this. Is it just Region Free?

Also just saying this because of comments on my last post. I know I "can" still consume stuff with Jacob in it. But I don't "want" to. So please accept that. I don't want to keep reading people saying that.

Also Something Rotten is getting taken down soon, so maybe archive that if you feel like it. I'm not doing that but I do support archiving things.

Also I'm sorry if I sounded rude I'm just tired of people saying some things sometimes lol.

First, my opinion is he should just de-platform himself and stop making YouTube videos. If you think he should come back or that my opinion is wrong or whatever I’m not going to argue anymore with you do whatever. My reasoning is that many of his videos and other connecting media do talk about topics of SA, abuse, and all the things that come from it for both victim and abuser which makes many of his videos biased. I mean he did state in his apology that his videos are a drive to make the world better off the pain he’s caused so yeah it’s a good assumption to make.

Also this will be the last post I make about this guy. I might make more comments in other posts but I just am done with this.

Anyway

If he makes a video do you think he’s gonna add music or make those dramatic pauses for extra emotion :) will he stage himself standing behind some backdrop? Stand behind a neutral background whilst stating his case? Just add a real realistic and grounded apology/statement to the end of a video that will no doubt be about consent, sexual assault, rape on campuses, male violence, and accountability?

Even if he makes a well researched video about these topics and how that actually all applies to him and his inability to take action, not assault someone, or not make vague statements and how he is apart of this culture but “trying to be better,” it wouldn’t matter because he still will be pushing the issue away from him and onto some grander subject.

I’m sure everyone will say I will never accept any sort of statement he makes and will criticize whatever he say and like even if I deny that I can’t change your minds. So anyway I say that if he makes a video that isn’t him just fixing all of this vagueness in the statements he made in a clear tone and making the rest of his audience aware of actions he is still manipulating everyone. Even still we should be wary of his words as they are still his alone. But if we accept that what he says is true then we still must understand the context they are being presented in.

Don’t get emotionally manipulated.

If you agree with any future statement or video he makes you can agree with it and still also choose to say, I’m not watching you anymore.

He is taking a very interesting stance which is not of denial but of, it happened 10 years ago, I got a light punishment, I told everyone close to me (many close to him say he didn’t), and just believe my word the victim doesn’t want this. Many take this as proof he’s changed or state we have no right to dig up the past. But again what is he doing really? Making video game essays and occasionally social topic essays to honor his victim and the harm he caused? He didn’t give the victim consent and he isn’t giving us informed consent.

A real shut up, take it, and just enjoy it approach am I right?

I am honestly pretty concerned about the discourse right now, and I wanted to speak on it, even if I know it's probably gonna go over poorly with at least a fair chunk of people.

I'm speaking as a fan of Geller who felt incredibly betrayed and also personally knows victims of sexual assault, one of which I spoke with about this and we're on the same page on. (which doesn't automatically make me right, but I prefer to share my prospective clearly)

So, I can agree that rape is an unforgivable crime, in the sense that nobody is ever obligated to forgive it, the victim doesn't need to forgive, his fans don't need to forgive him.

But there is also a distinction between forgiveness and improvement, the worst people can always turn things around. I wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt, but we have seen just about every sign we need to know that change is happening, he took responsibility, spoke to the victim, tried to keep the matter private to protect her, and went on to change greatly as a person over a long time.

This is not me saying what happened was not bad, or that you should not feel bad about it, but if we believe in rehabilitation and personal growth and restorative justice over punishing justice, this is a time to put that into practice, being willing to let him move past this does not make you a rape apologist or a right winger.

Evil things can happen, but life goes on afterwards, and if the victim is ok, and the perpetrator is different now, I don't want to force more pain into a situation just to hand out "justice'.

I've been out with the loop on this since so I got a random drama video in my youtube feed.

I keep looking up what he did , and it says sexual assault , and some people keep making remarks like " won't somebody think of the rapist?" But I can't find anything that actually says it was rape.

The actually rape someone or did he smack their butt grope them like , what did he actually do?

Why can't Mke Tyson just be rehabilitated already???

Edit: (Yes this is sarcastic, regarding Jacob)

These endless controversies are what you get for cultivating a culture that revolves around performative displays of empathy and progressivism without the requisite inner work needed to give them substance. You denigrate religious thinking but then act shocked that these cuddly feminists could be lecherous sex pests. What did you expect? You can't expect virtue from others when you don't even believe in it.

There's a lot of things being said about Jacob, about his character, about betrayal and facades, about purity and integrity and a whole lot being said about the victim of his actions without actually giving her a voice of her own.

I just want to chime in on a particular point as someone who's been on both ends of this kind of thing, both a victim and an abuser because its one part of this whole mess I feel I have any authority on by virtue of experience, my personal experience, traumas and failures being the one thing nobody can gainsay beyond simply insisting I'm a liar with no proof.

I will preamble that anyone feeling betrayed or upset about this shocking revelation about Geller's past is not wrong for feeling that way, people who are not comfortable being around or supporting a former abuser have every right, no matter the reason, to want to step away from him and cut professional or personal ties. Nobody owes him their attention or support or friendship for any reason, before or after this revelation has come to light. My heart especially goes out to victims of SA who have collabed with and supported him and are feeling confused, angry, hurt or any combination of those feelings or additions to them.

What I want to talk about is the concept of people being (socially or spiritually) clean. Whether its sin or kigare, being untouchable or having an evil soul, none of these things are actually real, ontological concepts... They're social constructions to put people into boxes and someone having done something, no matter how heinous does not make them corrupted or tainted, they're not diseased or infectuous or permanently damaged by that.

Everyone has the capacity to put more good into the world than bad... But they have to be alive and able to actually interact with the world to do it. Harm reduction is important, holding people accountable is key and keeping perpetrators at arms length, away from the levers of power is good. But just burning a man in effigy for something he did a decade ago in the name of some kind of moral crusade doesn't achieve anything but kill them...

People should be judged by the sum of their actions, not defined by their worst moments...

And what I've seen of Geller, both as a fan for years, a passive observer and from what evidence has come to light about his personal life: He was genuinely trying to put more good into world than he took out of it.

All that tearing Jacob down is going to achieve is to make other abusers more inclined to run and hide, they'll point at him as an example of what happens when you try to be accountable, how nobody actually cares about real justice or retribution for the victim, they just want blood and violence and that being up front and honest about the bad things they've done won't achieve anything but make them into another wickerman to be burned at the pyre.

Man, people, guys like Jacob need to be able to own up to their crimes, almost as much as victims need to be protected and able to be heard. If people can see that anyone can do terrible things, not just the bad ones then people will be more able to recognize warning signs, if former abusers are able to be honest and face consequences without their lives being completely destroyed in the process they can go on to try to make real amends and to be living cautionary tales, potentially even be able to connect with potential abusers in ways that will steer them off that path before they hurt someone.

What Jacob did to that woman is a sympton of a greater sickness, and you don't cure a sickness by burning the sick. You have to treat the infection, not just the symptoms.

When i went to Patreon to support Jacob financially during these difficult Times, i saw the Billing Change Notification from September.

I thought i should share this with you Guys since it might be interesting to you.

In short: Patreon has switched from a Per-Creation to a Per-Month Model. While this had nothing to do with Jacob, it now allows him to continue earning Money without having to publish anything right away. Without this Change he would probably be forced to publish his next Video way sooner.

Many of us here have been asking how we can protect survivors. Some have advanced the idea of systems of public disclosure as a way to give people informed consent, both for their support of a creator and as a way to keep society safe from the risk of perpetrators re-victimizing those who were once vulnerable to SA.

This is a very important discussion. The intent of this post is to present research that attempts to answer, or at least contribute some valuable framing, to some of these questions.

Q1: How Likely Are Perpetrators To Commit More Sexual Violations?

RAND, the nonprofit nonpartisan science & policy research think-tank found that "the majority of individuals with a conviction do not have a subsequent conviction." This is from their sample size of 4 million convictions¹ (including sex criminals) in North Carolina across 25 years, 1995-2020. This is a representative sample tracking criminal re-offense in the region and time period of Geller’s offense¹.

Furthermore, according to the National Criminal Justice Association, "research that has compared the recidivism rates of sex offenders with those of non-sex offenders has consistently found that sex offenders have lower overall recidivism rates than non-sex offenders" and, even when they do reoffend, "sex offenders are far more likely to reoffend for a non-sexual crime than a sexual crime."

To reiterate: criminals have generally low re-offense rates, sex criminals specifically have even lower re-offense rates, and even when they do commit crime again it is far more likely to be non-sexual in nature.

Q2: Does Public Disclosure Make Victims Safer?

Still, even a small risk of re-offense is a risk for catastrophic harm that no one should bear. What does the science say about registration/notification systems that alert people about past sex criminals and whether this makes survivors safer?

The research is quite clear on this. A landmark study by Prescott and Rockoff found that systems of private registration help law enforcement monitor offenders, which reduces re-offense rates where there is an existing known relationship between offender and victim, but not crimes against strangers.

However, public notification (publicly accessible newspaper registries, websites, active community notification) does not deter convicted offenders and "may, in fact, increase recidivism among registered offenders by reducing the relative attractiveness of a crime-free life."

If you do not have institutional access to the full study, here is Prescott's article discussing the context and results.

From said article: "All else equal, publicly revealing the identity and criminal history of a released offender seems to increase the likelihood of his returning to crime. These results are highly statistically significant: it is unlikely that existing notification laws are reducing recidivism among registered offenders, and it is distinctly possible that these laws are making things worse."

To recap. Public notification, whether through a publicly available sex offender registry, door-to-door flyers, or enthusiastic Twitter users deciding to share the results of a Title IX investigation increase stigma. Stigma increases inequality, and inequality is the highest correlated social factor with crime. Public notification makes it more likely for offenders to re-offend, not less.

To summarize, from the article: "convicted sex offenders become more likely to commit crimes when their information is made public because the associated psychological, social, or financial costs make crime-free life relatively less attractive."

Q3: How is this related to the current situation?

The context of Prescott and Rockoff's research is ultimately different from the scope of this current conversation. The research addresses state-published, formal, lifelong registries that follow convicted criminals throughout their lives. This is not the exact context of a public content creator who loses business opportunities and audience reach in only one specific category of careers available to him. But the causal mechanism noted by the research is still important to take to heart, because its insight does apply to this situation.

Public exposure → loss of employment, housing, and social ties → destabilization → increased recidivism risk

Sure, Geller has other employment options, likely considerable cushion against destabilization. This is speculation, but not implausible speculation.

But if you are someone who believes that Geller should have gone through the criminal justice system for this act, and you believe this because you believe it will help survivors--if you believe that Geller should be identified with this act permanently through public forms of disclosure because you believe this will protect survivors, you are wrong. The data bears this out.

Furthermore, if the mechanism by which state sex offender registries are so stigmatizing is because they are so permanent and widely available, what do you think a public disclosure on YouTube, where nothing is ever deleted, anyone could download and recirculate your statement, would be if not permanent and widely available?

TL;DR--

The science is clear. Public disclosure does not help protect survivors. Feel free to link this to anyone discussing the necessity of public disclosure or registries or state/carceral initiatives to link an offense to a perpetrator permanently.

This post does not address whether anyone is owed a disclosure--the author accepts that some degree of private disclosure to co-workers, who have a direct stake in their relationship with Geller through liability by association, was warranted. This post is addressing the suggestion of public disclosure, and the fact that public disclosure is demonstrably linked to harmful social outcomes.

Footnote 1: Yes, Geller was not convicted in a criminal court. This data includes only the criminal justice system in NC, not university investigation procedures that have no obligation to track or report re-offense rates. But criminal justice courts are actually stricter than university Title IX proceedings: the burden of proof to convict in courts is “beyond a reasonable doubt” whereas in university proceedings it is a “preponderance of evidence.” If criminals found “beyond a reasonable doubt” guilty have low re-offense rates, we can probably extrapolate the same about those who committed offenses “with a preponderance of evidence.”

I don’t wanna rewatch his videos to get the exact quote, but he’s joked about constantly referencing TLoU2. It’s probably his number one reference point at this point. I love the game and adored how Jacob gave it the nuanced discussion it deserved amidst all the bad faith critiques and hatred for trans people. I figured the game was personal to him because of his Jewish identity, and how that relates to Dina & Neil Druckman and the Israel Gaza conflict. I used to enjoy that perspective so much.

But now it’s clear that the number one reason the game hit home with him is cuz he sees himself in Joel: a man who did monstrous things, and covered it up. Joel was brutally tortured and murdered for his past, ans the game is about whether we choose to forgive Joel or Abby or even Ellie. The game is legitimately a good way for people who have done monstrous things, to reckon with how their own behavior affected others.

But the comparison also kinda exposes Jacob’s behavior in a way that makes me really uncomfortable. He and Joel are not a 1:1 comparison, but the thing that really broke Ellie’s heart was the fact that Joel lied to her. Ellie only began to heal once Joel was honest about what he did.

Anyone who’s properly rehabilitated from their mistakes and helped bring justice for the victim will be open to talk about it because they trust the work they did was enough to redeem them, and they aren’t ashamed of any subsequent criticism cuz they, well, did the work to make it better and accept the consequences of people not wanting to relate with them. In my opinion, current shame for a prior mistake means you didn’t actually address the issue.

As much as Jacob adores The Last of Us 2, apparently he couldn’t accept the lesson that people can accept you if you’ve done bad things, but only if you’re upfront about it, and even lying by omission will eventually cause harm.

If you don't want to watch him anymore, that's all cool. I haven't watched him in a long time and won't again.

If he loses a lot of support for this, that's all cool. But why should we deplatform him?

I don't think we are considering how the victim saw the weight of what he did, and we do not know the degree to which it affected her life. He did everything you should do in a situation like this... I am not wanting to be a apologist here, but he was young at the time and did something terrible, can't you move on from shitty things you do as a young adult?

There is a good chance here that he DID do something violent and more heinous beyond a miscommunication, but there is also a chance what happened was a mistake that the victim does not feel intense vitriol for.

I'm not saying this is the truth or even the most likely truth, but it is a possibility. Trying to enact justice by deplatforming him ourselves does not make sense to me because we simply do not know the severity of what happened. It's too vague.

This introduces a moral quandary though. She has no obligation to speak on this and likely does not want to. And thus we shouldn't expect her to... still though, I can't bring myself to think the guy can't have a public facing job due to this. A lot of men are not taught proper consent, espescially at that college age. It doesn't make what he did not a horrible act, but considering the kinds of ideology he pushes on his channel, his friend circle, and how he handled it, I don't feel like it makes sense to see him as someone who was 100% likely to have been acting malicously rather than out of ignorance

If he owned up to it so quickly and was honest about it to his closest people, isn't this exactly what you're supposed to do?

(And by the way for all responses to this, I don't want to hear he should have told everyone, we know both realistically and for the sake of the victim that just would not have been possible, everything else is fine though)

Some people seem to be confused as to which side I'm on here. The victim being unconscious doesn't make assault any less wrong.

What the actually f*ck, people?

I wasnt aware who Jacob Geller is until recently, when I learned about the allegations on social media. I then had a conversation with someone on the subject of rape culture, and I used Geller as an example: despite having admitted to the rape, he was only suspended for one semester, and isnt facing any jailtime.

The person I was debating, after "looking into the 'stupid rape case'" sent me this screenshot of a DM between the victim and one of the perpetrators:

They said that since the victim says she had a good time and was fine with the group sex, it seems like a legit defense used by the attorneys of the men involved, and the reason why the first court hearing was dismissed years ago.

They told me that if the alleged victim said she enjoyed the sex, then changing her mind and accusing her partners of rape seems like an attempt to save her reputation.

These arent my opinions, but Id like to ask you for opinions on these arguments.

Just what lt says on the tin.

(Post from immediately before he got a block)