TW: SA. NOT FOR MINORS.
There has been a person known as Jacob Geller. Was accused of serious allegations and has eventually been confirmed by him himself.
It is a bit sad that this has happened. It would be better for this world for it to never happen, and I do hope the pain he caused will go away or has already go away.
There has been debates about the concept of rehabilitation, what it means to forgive, and arguments about who should or should not have a platform here and there, and I've noticed someone made an article called "What Do We Do With Jacob Geller", and even though the writer does in fact argue in favor of punitive justice (as clarified by said writer that society should keep judging rapists not mattering on change, and that the person should somehow not have a right to not disclose what they did even though people have a right to not disclose everything about themselves), it was disgusting that people were calling someone that ("rape apologia"). It's still just as bad even if said person was disagreeing with punitive, or defended his right to exist in the public eye as long as no longer a threat (he has a right to exist in his own 'public space' as part of freedom of movement and freedom of speech), or suggesting a good society would (but without literally forcing anyone to actually engage with him) give him a second chance or otherwise redemption.
Criminals are human beings and have human rights. There is objectively a difference between people and action and the only thing we should never defend is the action itself. We should be focusing on prevention. Saying this is not "rape apologia".
Apparently, some people think that defending against punitive justice ideology, arguing that a person is no longer a threat should have a platform, reasonably arguing that redemption means letting a person have another chance to exist in the public eye, is somehow the same as being a "rape apologia".
Its not.
https://libcom.org/library/what-rape-apologism
Rape apologia is when you are defending the action the perpetrator did or defending them to continue it.
Calling redemption believers or rights defenders (e.g. arguing that he has a right to have a platform if he's changed) who did not defend the action of this guy "rape apologia" is false information and knowing the stigma of that word, its actually harmful.
Punitive justice is not justice. It does not help prevention and alone has nothing to do with going after the crime. Yes there are debates and theories about whether a person is a threat or not. Perhaps its not entirely unreasonable to be concerned about Jacob's claims of him changing because we don't know him, 10 years is not that long, and he focused a lot on his career that does not involve changing for the good. But we also dont really see evidence that he continues doing it (but that doesn't mean people should be obligated to follow him either) either. So a person can be within their right to still trust him if they so want to in good faith or defend certain things having nothing to do with the action.
Arguing that Jacob's omission does not mean he hurt more people with that alone (because rights) and therefore does not mean he's still automatically the same, or that he had a right to his own spaces, or that its not a good society to keep judging a person that no longer wants to harm, is not, whatsoever the same as "rape apologia" because it objectively is not. None of these are defending his actions and the idea that condemning the action means punitive punishing the person is delusion and has been disagreed by human rights activists, prison abolishments, reformist, and experts.
It also waters down the term and creates less focus on what is actually wrong. That is disgusting and those people attacking other people with that label is morally wrong.
Again, its entirely within anyone's right to disassociate with him. Nobody should be forced against their will to actually engage with him.
But its also within anyone's rights to criticize the way people judge people, to suggest ideas for humanity sake, to speak against moral arbitrator arguments, that kind of stuff. It's within my right to say that a society should (a suggestion) welcome human beings that used to offend back, and realistically detail whether the person is a threat or not. To help lower recidivism rates too. This alone is not the same as forcing people to personally engage (I guess the term 'welcome' can have different meanings) with these type of people.
But apparently the moral arbiter weirdos on Bluesky, and some other places literally think their rights are being violated or that they think are free from criticism and if anyone reasonably criticizes them, they are automatically a "rape apologist" or a "rape apologia", which is an insult to even some real victims. Basically, it's a "I can say anything I want against certain people, but if you say anything back, it's an outrage or a serious harmful problem.".
These arbitrary weirdos are against human rights.
Also, Resetera is a backwards hivemind. Some people were having different opinions about how he could be handled in good faith, and many are being banned just for, in good faith, agreeing with an article that I mentioned here. Maybe its due to the "why are we rushing rehabilitation when he just admitted it" ideology but lack of evidence of re-offending for 10 years is a reason to believe someone is changed, and isn't fair to assume without evidence that he's still a threat and then treat people as defenders of a person raping someone. We don't know for sure of either way but going after those who has reason to believe he's not a threat is not ethical and the reasoning why would be just as biased as disagreeing with a person who is out of jail for 10 years and believed the person's changed.
I might make a separate article about Resetera later. They recently banned a lot of good members because of some extremists being admins there.
Finally Some Disclaimers:
I dont know him. I am not trying to go on a freak out against reasonible criticism towards him. I even think its weird to spread this message saying that he's changed just because he said he is when we don't know him, was only 10 years, and a couple of other reasons. I won't call anyone a disgusting label that had the word 'apologia' in it if some argues he's changed if its reasonible and in good faith however.
I think what I find terrible for the purpose of this article is that there are literally weirdos acting like people are not allowed to debate these things, using "rape apologia" without knowing what is against it, flat out lying about people other than that, and that kind of stuff. It's a joke, and I do hope there are better leftists than these weirdos who think they are superior.
