FormerFlash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

historian said:

---

The only things the Dems are good at are lying snd projection. They have decades of experience. And there are far too many Americans willing to believe them.

---

That is what really fascinates me about how the ultra-left views the world ... it's like a make-believe land. Without a hint of irony or self-awareness, they can at the same time proclaim:
1. Men and women are 100% the same
2. There should be no sexual morality
3. A drunk girl asking for four threesomes was raped

You cannot make it up.

---

You do understand that if you are "for" sexual morality, the men could have declined to participate? There seems to be a ton of things we don't know, and I am not saying the men should be prosecuted. I am saying that if what the men did was legal, it was still immoral. So I don't understand why the right is so eager to see them as victims.

---

I would ask you to share what "we don't know," but we know specifics are always the Kryptonite to the radical left.

For anyone that has a basic functioning brain, the men are victims because they are being attacked by a national lynch mob and uniquely prosecuted by the state of New York for the crime or participating in multiple legal sex acts with a woman who actively wanted to "sexually liberate" herself."

I know you're have a rough day with the synapses firing, but this is actually really simple.

---

In some regards, it doesn't matter what we don't know. Common sense should tell you, the frat boys, and any 'casual observer' that an environment laced with alcohol, drugs, text invitation messaging, a female and multiple men having sex is ripe for non-consensual allegations, and should be avoided, reported in real time to law enforcement, and stopped if possible.

---

So I will attempt to explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

First, it's odd that the ultra-left has made this a weird political issue and dispensed Talking Points. It is a local story with no bearing on the world, but yet it has become oddly tribal.

Second, let me set up a basic framework: people that are intellectual and rational let the facts shape the narrative; people that are emotional and irrational let the narrative shape the facts.

Third, one of the mutually exclusive realities below must be true:
1. You're a sexist and paternalistic misogynist who believes that women are inferior emotionally and intellectually and lack the same agency ability as their male counterparts.
2. Women are sexually liberated and can rape men just as easily as men can rape women.

You will not pick one because it causes you to actually define a specific position. However, your inability to do so continues to reveal to the board that you're an anti-scientific, emotional, tribal extremist.

Intellectuals try to explain these simple things to you guys, but we are continually flummoxed by your anti-intellectualism ... but I will try and post it very simply: we are confused because you continually preach sexual liberation and no sexual ethics and then feign outrage when it occurs. You're just not intelligent or serious people.

---

Your premise is wrong, and your arguments smack of incel fantasy.

---

Incorrect. Your lack of principles makes it impossible for you to make consistent arguments. One minute women are equal and the next minute they need protection by men. As noted, you're more concerned with narrative than facts and as usual taking an oddly tribal position for something that needs to not be.

---

I find it laughable when you talk about principles. The idea that you think a woman who is intoxicated, under the influence of drugs with a group of frat boys lining up for sex is acceptable on the grounds of good moral principles is despicable.

---

Stop being intentionally dishonest. Moral and legal are two separate standards. Every person on this thread has been in agreement that the activities of both the men and the woman are morally reprehensible. The debate is over whether or not they were illegal. The drug use was illegal. The gross and perverse sex was not. By her own admission, it was her body her choice and she saw nothing wrong with what went down. That is until her reputation suffered enough that she retroactively changed her tune. After this is laughed out of court, I hope these young men sue her, the school, and the sate for defamation of character.

---

Yes, this is the bottom line

DAC said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

historian said:

---

The only things the Dems are good at are lying snd projection. They have decades of experience. And there are far too many Americans willing to believe them.

---

That is what really fascinates me about how the ultra-left views the world ... it's like a make-believe land. Without a hint of irony or self-awareness, they can at the same time proclaim:
1. Men and women are 100% the same
2. There should be no sexual morality
3. A drunk girl asking for four threesomes was raped

You cannot make it up.

---

You do understand that if you are "for" sexual morality, the men could have declined to participate? There seems to be a ton of things we don't know, and I am not saying the men should be prosecuted. I am saying that if what the men did was legal, it was still immoral. So I don't understand why the right is so eager to see them as victims.

---

I would ask you to share what "we don't know," but we know specifics are always the Kryptonite to the radical left.

For anyone that has a basic functioning brain, the men are victims because they are being attacked by a national lynch mob and uniquely prosecuted by the state of New York for the crime or participating in multiple legal sex acts with a woman who actively wanted to "sexually liberate" herself."

I know you're have a rough day with the synapses firing, but this is actually really simple.

---

In some regards, it doesn't matter what we don't know. Common sense should tell you, the frat boys, and any 'casual observer' that an environment laced with alcohol, drugs, text invitation messaging, a female and multiple men having sex is ripe for non-consensual allegations, and should be avoided, reported in real time to law enforcement, and stopped if possible.

---

So I will attempt to explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

First, it's odd that the ultra-left has made this a weird political issue and dispensed Talking Points. It is a local story with no bearing on the world, but yet it has become oddly tribal.

Second, let me set up a basic framework: people that are intellectual and rational let the facts shape the narrative; people that are emotional and irrational let the narrative shape the facts.

Third, one of the mutually exclusive realities below must be true:
1. You're a sexist and paternalistic misogynist who believes that women are inferior emotionally and intellectually and lack the same agency ability as their male counterparts.
2. Women are sexually liberated and can rape men just as easily as men can rape women.

You will not pick one because it causes you to actually define a specific position. However, your inability to do so continues to reveal to the board that you're an anti-scientific, emotional, tribal extremist.

Intellectuals try to explain these simple things to you guys, but we are continually flummoxed by your anti-intellectualism ... but I will try and post it very simply: we are confused because you continually preach sexual liberation and no sexual ethics and then feign outrage when it occurs. You're just not intelligent or serious people.

---

Your premise is wrong, and your arguments smack of incel fantasy.

---

Incorrect. Your lack of principles makes it impossible for you to make consistent arguments. One minute women are equal and the next minute they need protection by men. As noted, you're more concerned with narrative than facts and as usual taking an oddly tribal position for something that needs to not be.

---

I find it laughable when you talk about principles. The idea that you think a woman who is intoxicated, under the influence of drugs with a group of frat boys lining up for sex is acceptable on the grounds of good moral principles is despicable.

---

Stop being intentionally dishonest. Moral and legal are two separate standards. Every person on this thread has been in agreement that the activities of both the men and the woman are morally reprehensible. The debate is over whether or not they were illegal. The drug use was illegal. The gross and perverse sex was not. By her own admission, it was her body her choice and she saw nothing wrong with what went down. That is until her reputation suffered enough that she retroactively changed her tune. After this is laughed out of court, I hope these young men sue her, the school, and the sate for defamation of character.

---

Yes, this is the bottom line

---

I am not surprised, but I still find it strange the left has made this such a tribal issue. There is nothing political about it - if anything this is exactly what the left normally celebrates. It is also not surprising but strange they have no idea how hypocritical their positions continue to be - they can never speak in clear principles but just weird tribal victim language.

Is it possible that the left's angle here is an attempt at purging frats?

This mans jersey sales gotta be through the damn roof pic.twitter.com/0e13pwTnnu

— Crack Amico (@CrackAmicoRAP) October 13, 2026

Realitybites said:

---

Is it possible that the left's angle here is an attempt at purging frats?

---

Yes and no. I think much of the reaction from the LWNJ is the usual "we base all our opinions on the people involved" ... so in their weird, racist playbook fraternity members are all wealthy white men, so they naturally hate that class ... that's why when it came out that it was a community college catalog of a gang bang, they really do not know what to do. Some are stull dug in like Flat Earth - but if these guys had been in the flag corps this never would have been a story.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Is it possible that the left's angle here is an attempt at purging frats?

---

Most American colleges are uncomfortable with male only groups

That view is also increasingly prevalent in other areas as well.

Suspending all fraternity social events and parties for the rest of the school year because of something that happened two years ago (which has not been shown in court to be a crime) is grossly disproportionate. Collective punishment is, itself, a form of injustice. https://t.co/GySb12fj8r

— Russell T. Warne 🇺🇸🇨🇱 (@Russwarne) October 13, 2026

---

This is what happens when lynch mobs are in charge of justice.

I think this is less about fraternities and more against the continued attack on young men by women and Beta males.

SipEmBears said:

---

Maybe it's just me, but when a person is incapacitated, they cannot consent and that is take. I don't. Are what she texted a few days later. Pretty easy to see that any reasonable person would see this as a rape if a person was unconscious.

---

That drunk, non-sensical post is hard to decipher; however, I suspect it is just you.

SipEmBears said:

---

Maybe it's just me, but when a person is incapacitated, they cannot consent and it doesn't matter what she texted a few days later. Pretty easy to see that any reasonable person would see this as a rape if a person was unconscious.

---

Are you trolling or have you just not read any facts on the case?

The only semi-unconscious person in the room was one of the males that she continued to try oral sex on. Would that make her guilty of rape?

90sBear said:

---

SipEmBears said:

---

Maybe it's just me, but when a person is incapacitated, they cannot consent and it doesn't matter what she texted a few days later. Pretty easy to see that any reasonable person would see this as a rape if a person was unconscious.

---

Are you trolling or have you just not read any facts on the case?

The only semi-unconscious person in the room was one of the males that she continued to try oral sex on. Would that make her guilty of rape?

---

It's a good point: All these young people were engaged in heavy alcohol use and drug use (so all in an altered mental state…could any give consent?)

And in fact one of the young men reported to school officials he was passed out and claims Jane doe "sodomized" him during this group sex scene….and that school officials had that info… all while he was asleep/passed out….if true then there is no way he could give consent for that when he was not conscious

She would have been violating his right to consent

[Matthew Ingalls torched school officials in an email, accusing them of gender discrimination and entrapment.

"You received information that I was sodomized by her while I was incapacitated back in November, and you never once thought to alert me of my rights under these procedures as a survivor of this assault?" Ingalls said in a letter to Cornell's Title IX investigator in February 2025, according to ABC.

"The very fact that I had to bring this to your attention now in February confirms my worst fears: that this process is rolled [sic] with gender discrimination."

According to separate documents, Ingalls said he was too intoxicated to give consent and claims he fell asleep at one point.]

SipEmBears said:

---

90sBear said:

---

SipEmBears said:

---

Maybe it's just me, but when a person is incapacitated, they cannot consent and it doesn't matter what she texted a few days later. Pretty easy to see that any reasonable person would see this as a rape if a person was unconscious.

---

Are you trolling or have you just not read any facts on the case?

The only semi-unconscious person in the room was one of the males that she continued to try oral sex on. Would that make her guilty of rape?

---

Her 2024 police statement said she was conscious and going along with it while drunk and on ketamine. She even took more hoping she'd pass out so it would legally count as rape.

NY law doesn't treat voluntary intoxication alone as inability to consent. That's why the DA declined charges.
The lawsuit claims a blackout later. Group texts from that night were ugly. Everyone was wasted.

Legally still open. But any man knows not to keep going with someone that gone…..illegal or not. Not a clean "her fault" or "they did nothing wrong."

---

So then why did you post that they were having sex with her when she was unconscious?

In one sentence you write, "Everyone was wasted" and then in another, "any man knows…". Where does the responsibility lie when "everyone was wasted"? Did she sexually assault any of them since by her own statement she was more coherent and there are accusations she did things to one of them while he was unconscious?

As I have said many times, morally I'm not defending any of the guys involved. I just don't see how the same exact criticisms of the men cannot also be said of the woman.

It's not political but the Left politicizes everything. How often do Leftist sports "reporters" ask an athlete's political views during a press conference? Often the subject is completely irrelevant to the competition but they do it anyway. Then they wonder why people don't take them seriously.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Is it possible that the left's angle here is an attempt at purging frats?

---

Yes and no. I think much of the reaction from the LWNJ is the usual "we base all our opinions on the people involved" ... so in their weird, racist playbook fraternity members are all wealthy white men, so they naturally hate that class ... that's why when it came out that it was a community college catalog of a gang bang, they really do not know what to do. Some are stull dug in like Flat Earth - but if these guys had been in the flag corps this never would have been a story.

---

This reminds me of Matt Walsh's "victim hierarchy":

SipEmBears said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

90sBear said:

---

SipEmBears said:

---

Maybe it's just me, but when a person is incapacitated, they cannot consent and it doesn't matter what she texted a few days later. Pretty easy to see that any reasonable person would see this as a rape if a person was unconscious.

---

Are you trolling or have you just not read any facts on the case?

The only semi-unconscious person in the room was one of the males that she continued to try oral sex on. Would that make her guilty of rape?

---

It's just a typical LWNJ that never let's facts get in the way of the narrative.

Guy is just made a nice white girl had a gang bang with a bunch of minorities.

---

you must be fairly young or new here if you think I am a Democrat. Haha

---

I think maybe you're struggling reading ... not only did I not call you a Democrat you also are completely ignorant of the case in question.

historian said:

---

It's not political but the Left politicizes everything. How often do Leftist sports "reporters" ask an athlete's political views during a press conference? Often the subject is completely irrelevant to the competition but they do it anyway. Then they wonder why people don't take them seriously.

---

I have posted it myriad times but this one really flummoxes me ... I mean this girl was acting exactly how the left has been encouraging women to act.

There is some weird, LWNJ podcaster that feigned outranged about this case ... and then someone dug up older episodes where she was encouraging women to participate in three-somes and four-somes.

The left generally lacks and consistency or principles. It's all identity politics.

Redbrickbear said:

---

If we want to have a national debate….maybe we have a national conversation about why left wing activists get to dominate public tax payer owned spaces and engage in intimidation of others….all under state police protection

In this case forcing a man out of a public area for walking around…..

I have learned the female police officer who told me I was "making people uncomfortable" -- while admitting she had no basis for asserting this -- is Officer Karolina Stypulkowski. Latest reported salary: $130,893. She also serves as Secretary of the local Ithaca Police Union https://t.co/G6DJmploTB pic.twitter.com/2IAM765ib9

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 14, 2026

BREAKING: Confrontations as Cornell University "We are Jane Doe" Protesters face off with Michael Tracey in Ithaca, NY

Video by Jonathan Fernandes | Licensing @FreedomNTV Desk@freedomnews.tv https://t.co/44bQBZhl2s pic.twitter.com/SUcfh9KQVB

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) October 13, 2026

---

This antifa style "protesr"...get an inch from someone, stick a sign or umbrella in their face, blast a megaphone 2 inches from their ear and then pretend to be offended when they want you out od their personal space.

GFY

SipEmBears said:

---

Crazy. Let the courts settle it. Everything is tried in the court of public opinion now more than ever.

---

Well the justice system decided. The only reason this is a story is because the left-wing media decided it would become a shill for her ambulance chaser and facilitated a virtual lynch mob that already has punished these men without a trial or judgement. We have seen in cases like Derek Chauvin and Lindsey Clancy how the virtual and real lynch mobs can negatively impact justice. There literally is no reason this should be a national story other than the left-wing press trying to get the loonies worked up and excited to riot like in 2020.

Clearly she does not think men are entitled to any civil rights, not even those in the constitution.