Yeah, I left this a few days to see if anyone would provide anything substantive.
It seems my assumption was correct.
The claim is just the general hatred of fong and a wilful hyperbolic interpretation of a tweet. So I am going to conclude that there is no evidence of r*pe.
Do better
Oh, good, another one who doesn't understand what "evidence" is.
I assume most of you faggots reported Elliot to the police, given that A) you hate him and would relish him being locked up in a male prison and B) you have undeniable conclusive proof regarding him being a rapist, so we should expect to see him jailed any time soon once you pass your amazing dossier of evidence over to the coppers.
Your fantasy about perspectives here is odd, and you seem to struggle with discernment. To clarify: I (speaking only for myself, ofc) don't "hate" LFJ. I have no feelings about him at all, beyond irritation and disdain, I suppose.
But my feelings - as yours, [
what's the appropriate crass insult equivalent for "ballsucker" in this particular situation? I'd like to be sensitive to the differently-balled amabs in the room.] - are irrelevant when it comes to the truth of what happened during The Night of Broken Branch. But something did happen, something LFJ felt was necessary to cloak in insult and accusations of lying and mental instability about a supposed good friend, someone he even admitted he harmed. He did that even as a supposed victim of sexual assault himself.
Not everyone who doesn't have a Gomer Pyle well, golllllllleeee response to your "nuh-uh" sputtering necessarily thinks there is sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction for rape based on the utterances of LFJ. OBVIOUSLY NOT THE CASE. However, again, this isn't a Court, and no one here - yourself included,
obviously - is bound to abide by legal standards of proof. No one is saying he's going to be arrested and jailed for rape. Literally no one. But if you think his comments are not FUCKING WEIRD FOR A TRUE & HONEST DINDU, you're out of your got-damn mind.
And again: per LFJ, he himself was raped, and he has publicly named and shamed that person. That person has not been jailed for raping LFJ. That person has not admitted raping LFJ. LFJ has offered no incontrovertible, conclusive "proof" of being raped by that man. LFJ's testimony would - fyi, idiot - be "evidence" (provided not excluded for some reason), but so would, "no, I didn't" from his accused. How those are weighed is the thing. Is LFJ or someone reading LFJ's accusations wrong to conclude his accused acted as described (if he had described it, which he didn't, but that's another issue). Are you saying victims' accusations are never to be given any weight if their victimizer is not locked up in jail?
Please explain your way out of the tautology.
And lol, slightly OT but since you mention it: no woman on this earth thinks "undeniable conclusive proof" guarantees jail time for a rapist.
