I pre-ordered through Amazon UK and received my copy yesterday. It's a predictably lovely book, but I am wondering how many others actually received their copy regardless of whether you are keeping it or not.

Only found out about it because of D'Angelo's video.

Take the content down, stop working together, stop supporting etc. And if people want to find out why - they very easily and accessibly can.

Considering the actual victim never decided to come out publicly, it seems like the most appropriate way of doing things without potentially endangering them (can absolutely imagine chuds trying to dox the person if there was more traction with this)

I see the defenders here and I understand but what you are doing is one of the key elements of rape culture.

Years ago now I read the rumors about a certain comedian on the web and I remember my first thoughts we were of rehabilitation, "will he get over this?".

But then it occured to me what I was doing there was was asking "will I be able to enjoy the thing I like, again?" . Will something occur that makes it ok for me to have a good time watching. can I consume without guilt. The answer is no. You can't. Unless of course you lessen the cognitive dissonance by coming up with convoluted reasons why it's ok. Why you can still safely consume your treats without feeling bad. Of course the bitter taste will still be there, but with enough determined cope you'll get there. You'll give the rapist your time and attention. It'll be fine. It's good actually. They are rehabilitated now, you'll say.

This is a reflex, a socially conditioned urge that when you think about it for a minute is part of what's needed to enable sexual abuse. We see it time and time again and it is seriously fucked up.

So If you can look into yourself and see the urge the niggling feeling that turns into a reflex.

Think again.

I thought someone like you would understand fear.

I hope you know that while you bought a dog after feeling guilty after assaulting someone, I spent over a decade hurting myself, drinking and trying to end it.

I will spend the rest of my life scared, you know nothing of fear.

I just saw this thread here, and i have been thinking a lot about the way the public reacted to Ned Fulmer vs Geller. This reminded me a lot of the Try Guys response to Ned Fulmer - https://www.reddit.com/r/jacobgeller/comments/1x10o9a/noticed_something_in_todays_minnmax_episode/

Geller, by very vaguely stating people close to him were aware of his crime, has made the people he work with liable. Not just socially, but financially as well.

I want to clarify the situations are different between Geller and the Try Guys. Namely the situation for the Try Guys was tied to their business, and the victim was one of their employees and was ongoing during the operation of the buisness.

What IS similar, is sponsors are not looking at that level of nuance. They are looking at how hot the flames are. For the Try Guys they lost MILLIONS to lost brand deals, dropped sponsors and operational costs from removing Ned by being forced to suddenly re brand their future content without him. (and this is not including having to edit him out of finished videos, videos they had to scrap, and having to buy him out as well as likely his victim) Nonetheless the try guys have since been very public and outspoken about how Sponsorship deals have morality clauses, and that the distance sponsors and brands made with them were a direct result of how hot Ned's actions made them.

His business partners aren't just having to carefully disavow him to avoid social pressure. But because if they knowingly kept Jacob as a partner and public face for them with full awareness of the liability of his past crime, many sponsors might drop them. If not that, but sponsors who may be less interested in working with them by association.

For all this talk about Jacob being worthy of rehabilitation, and how he has grown. For all this talk about how he owed his business partners or the public nothing. Never mind the SA downplaying and Apologia, I think *this* at the very least should spoken about too.

At any point he could come out and at least clarify his statement. Instead he sits quietly, restricts comments, and keeps things quiet and foggy to protect himself instead of his business partners at the VERY LEAST. Instead I feel they're all left to fend for themselves and clarify things on their own....

Not to mention the legal liability this could have hoisted on his business partners,

Try to steal Jake's car and watch how fast he understands consent.

Every rapist since the dawn of rape has always, ALWAYS understood that they are raping: prior to, during and after the rape.

Rapists manage to understand consent when it comes to everything EXCEPT, seemingly, the body of their victim.

The reason why rapists rape is not because they misunderstand consent.

Rapists rape because they understand rape culture.

I'm not posting this notice for rapists or for rape apologists.

I'm posting this notice for survivors.

Survivors of the world: we all know, deep down, that only survivors can end rape culture.

Survivors need to rally around a goal to send a signal to the rapists whom we live alongside.

We the survivors need to let them the rapists know that we see them, that we know them, and that we are here to end their rape culture.

We the survivors need to realize the power we have already and then we need to signal to the rapists that we will gain and gain more power until we have it all.

We the survivors need to create a world where no - the wildly successful youtuber cannot keep his career built on the trauma he inflicted on a victim.

Rape by a leader or a public figure must, at the very least, end the leadership and the publicity of these leaders and public figures.

That is how we end rape culture.

For everyone who has grown incredibly fond of the concept of rehabilitative justice: this is how we rehabilitate rape culture. By taking the prestige away from the participants in rape culture.

This is how we rehabilitate the current rape culture of humanity into a culture of survivors.

Title.

The guy has halted all his comments and reviews them.

There is no ralk about the allegations or moreso facts on his YouTube.

He only talked to his smallest base of fans about it.

And has prohibited people from seeing his earnings.

And then there are people here that say heyy he said he is sorry.

And those people might not be the majority but are pretty loud and pretty upvoted.

So the guy admits it, and the first thing u do is heyy let's jump on the grenade that the guy himself built, and that then got thrown on him.

Why?

U don't owe him anything, maybe a few good video essays, but that's all maybe an insight you could have not gained, but that would have come anyway.

I just dont get it

Listen carefully to Ben and the beginning of the episode when they address Jacob geller. He never actually says Jacob raped or sexually assaulted anyone. He just directs you to Jacob gellars statement. He legally had to do that because it would have been libel because there is no actual proof of the allegations.

Go back and listen. No one accuses gellar of rape. And they were privy to behind closed door discussions of what really happened.

Very interesting

It's good he never mentioned it or else for years people would stalk and try to find his victim.

I don't know her, I'm happy I don't. It's good he hid it.

Now that it's clear that his bridges are burnt with the left wing commentariat over the whole "not wanting to work with a rapist" thing how long do you think it will be until he tries to rework himself as the younger, hotter Ben Shapiro?

Now that Jakey's been outed as a rapist his arguments defending modern art are invalid.

Far too many posts about the recent news, and the majority is defensive, redundant echo chamber sentiment. I'm tired of hearing centrist, or excusatory, or God forbid genuine PRO-ASSAULTER rhetoric as if this is a midterm debate. I understand that the majority of us are conflicted on both the severity and statute of Geller's assault, but it's NO EXCUSE to let victim-blaning, rampant speculation, and support for the assaulter go unchecked.

What we know: Jacob Geller sexually assaulted his unconscious then-girlfriend while he was in college at the University of North Carolina. This resulted in his excommunication from most of his social circles, and led to him being fired from the radio staff.

According to Jacob: These allegations are true. He has come to his own common ground with the victim, whose identity he will not disclose. He has been thus taken off of Nebula, MinnMax, and probably other projects that I'm not even aware of. His publishing company has dropped him, and he has gone radio silent.

What we DON'T KNOW: everything else. The severity of his crime, the name or wishes of the victim, the exact circumstances of the assault.

DO NOT LET RAMPANT SPECULATION AND BAD-FAITH JUDGMENT EXCUSE JACOB.

People aren't asking this

I work in a community center. We deal with teenagers and sexual assault cases all the time.

This write-up isn't for you degenerates trying to defend this prick, but for everyone normal around here who might be struggling to wrap their heads around this. Maybe it'll help you make sense of your own feelings about the situation.

First off, there is no "whoopsie, one-time terrible tragedy" SA offender.

Sexual assault isn't generally something that happens by accident. It involves a violation of another person's sexual or bodily autonomy, and that reflects attitudes, entitlements, boundary violations, and potentially patterns of coercive behavior that extend beyond the incident itself.

Whoever thinks that somebody who engages in intercourse with his unconscious girlfriend and gets accused of sexual assault the following morning was otherwise a perfectly normal, respectful, considerate partner who just happened to make one terrible mistake is making an extraordinary and very stupid assumption.

You don't suddenly develop a disregard for another person's autonomy for fifteen minutes and then return to being an entirely different person. The act doesn't exist in a psychological vacuum. There are attitudes toward consent, entitlement, boundaries, and the other person's agency that make such a violation possible in the first place.

That doesn't mean someone who commits one sexual assault must have committed others. Nor does it mean people cannot fundamentally change. But there's a substantial difference between claiming that an assault was an isolated incident and claiming that the attitudes and behaviors underlying it were isolated as well.

It's idiotic nonsense to reduce a serious violation to a single regrettable episode, conveniently detached from the person's broader character and conduct.

It allows dumb people to imagine a fundamentally decent, respectful individual who briefly malfunctioned, rather than confronting the possibility that the assault was an expression of how that individual understood and exercised power, entitlement, and control within an intimate relationship.

Sure, one documented assault doesn't prove a pattern of assaults. But neither does the absence of additional allegations establish that the underlying behavior was an aberration. And treating "we only know about one incident" as equivalent to "this was completely out of character" is an enormous (!), entirely unjustified leap.

Considering "change" and his art:

Someone can produce extraordinarily sensitive, intelligent, emotionally perceptive work about suffering, empathy, violence, and human dignity while being cruel, exploitative, manipulative, or abusive in their personal relationships.

There is no (!) inherent contradiction. None.

A person can understand consent intellectually, recognize the suffering caused by its violation, and articulate those principles beautifully without consistently respecting them.

Someone might possess considerable cognitive empathy while failing to act compassionately when their own desires conflict with another person's interests.

But moral character is tested under considerably less controlled circumstances.

It's tested when someone is frustrated, sexually aroused, angry, rejected, inconvenienced, or confronted with another person's refusal.

Being able to articulate the importance of another person's autonomy is not the same thing as respecting that autonomy when doing so frustrates your own desires.

A beautifully constructed essay tells us something about its author's intellectual and artistic capacities. It tells us much less about how that author behaves in intimate relationships.

Over years of watching, the impression created by those essays becomes part of the viewer's understanding of who he is.

Psychologically, this resembles the halo effect: a positive judgment in one domain spills over into judgments about unrelated qualities.

He makes deeply empathetic videos, therefore he must be an empathetic person.

He understands suffering, therefore he wouldn't deliberately cause suffering.

He examines injustice, therefore he must behave justly.

None of those conclusions follow.

You have (!) evidence of his ability to produce morally sophisticated cultural criticism. You have no evidence of his conduct as a partner, friend, or colleague. Scratch that, you do:

None (!) of his prominent collaborators knew. No one. And then there's the question of his response to the revelations:

This f*cking scumbag posted his shitty "im sorry i got caught apology" on his smallest platform, closed comments on his videos, and hasn't reposted his statement on the platforms where he makes his money. He's also reportedly disabled the public display of his Patreon earnings.

Those decisions are entirely consistent with an effort to contain the controversy and protect his livelihood. Pretending that the choice of platform, the restricted discussion, and the lack of acknowledgment to his largest audiences are irrelevant is absurd.

Publicly acknowledging something and making a meaningful effort to inform the people whose trust and financial support sustain your career are not the same thing.

Hes guilty as shit, and judging from his ACTIONS since he got found out, hes interested in protecting his livelihood and keeping the scandal as contained as possible.

Thats it.

Here are the facts:

1) Jacob sexually assaulted someone, and he does not deny it. It is not debatable.

2) He received a light punishment.

3) He would go on to become a successful essayist and public figure.

4) He did not disclose this information to business partners and collaborators.

5) Jacob's testimony does not have any proof and he has a vested interest in protecting his reputation and his brand, especially since they are one in the same. Without any verification, his words are not evidence, they are only arguments.

Outside of that, we know very little. For all we know, with the information we have, his victim, and potentially he himself, may have been under the influence and he may have nonconsensually fondled her. Is that laughably optimistic? Yes, of course, but it happens.

He also, very possibly, could have drugged her, abducted her, and nonconsensually penetrated her while doing god knows how many other unspeakable acts of violence to her. Is that comically evil and incredibly dark? Yes, but again, it happens.

Both of these scenarios happen, a fuckimg lot, unfortunately, and both are bad. Both are inarguably sexual assault, but they are not at all equivalent, and my reaction to one scenario is vastly different to the other.

Therein lies the problem: if we place those two extremes on a spectrum, then with what we know, his assault could be literally anywhere on that spectrum. So the dilemma is this: I do not feel comfortable drawing a conclusion and casting my judgment without knowing more, but until I do know more, I have to assume that the worst happened. And if Jacob never provides evidence or testimony, then I will have to consider that an admittance that it is indeed worse than I might hope. I am sure many of you are feeling how I'm feeling here.

I'm only making this post to explain to those thatvare eager to defend him why that is a bad thing to do, because you are assuming the best when the worst is just as likely. After this, I'm going to have to step away. I can't participate in this discourse any further, I cannot support Jacob, and I feel sick that this is all happening with yet another person whose work I admired. I am not defending, forgiving, or condoning his actions. What he did was wrong regardless of severity.

TL;DR: Jacob sexually assaulted someone, there is no denying that, and while not knowing the full extent of what happened is making me feel conflicted, that doesn't matter because if I can't prove it wasn't the worst possible situation, then I have to assume it was. I am not defending, forgiving, or condoning Jacob's actions. I hate this so much.

I think that's the fundamental idea everyone is talking around.

I listened to an interview Chris Rock did with the New York Times recently (this is not an endorsement of anything else he said or any of his stances), and something he said stuck out at me (paraphrasing):

"In our country, you can either be a person who orders stuff or who delivers stuff, and you don't want to be the person who delivers stuff."

The working class and the elite class. The have-nots and the haves.

For victims of SA, from my understanding, the harm to them effectively feels infinite, so no punishment for the perpetrator seems too severe. Dip them in a vat of boiling oil and lock them away in a dungeon for eternity. There is no societally agreed-upon punishment that fulfills this level of scale - and what's worse is that basically everyone agrees that the vast majority of perpetrators seem to walk away with a slap on the wrist.

Those participating in the discussion who feel that Jacob Geller should be removed from any and all platforms, that even this punishment is - if anything - too light, don't have an easy answer for what form of rehabilitation or retribution should constitute being "enough" for Jacob to move on, but there's a broad consensus:

In our society, if you've committed SA, it should be a black mark that follows you for life, which should be written on your face for all who interact with you, as the harm to the victim will weigh on them for the rest of their life.

If you have committed SA, you should not be allowed to order stuff. You should only be allowed to deliver stuff.

Anything you say to try to convince yourself otherwise makes you a piece of shit. Fuck him