Yes, that's a very popular conspiracy theory among his online supporters. It's founded in literally no material evidence of any kind, but that's never stopped a conspiracy theory from gaining traction.

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I thought there was a lot of basis for this. Testimonials from the girls in question, where the escalation to "rape" from "broken condom" was after learning about there being another girl. The definition of what can end up being translated as "rape", is also not the same as one typically assumes when hearing that word in English. "Tampering with a condom, such that it leads to unprotected sex", can be considered "rape". Yet, the act can still be consentual. The other I believe accused him of taking advantage while asleep. Which would be fair to say, not lost in translation. But, she also didn't mind him staying at her place for more days.

It's been a while, so the details might be off here. Something along those lines at least. Also, naming the accused, was awfully strange, as it is just not done in Sweden for cases like this.

Probably enough information here:

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks-rape-sweden-embassy

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In 2010, a Swedish woman initially referred to in the press as Miss A said that Assange had tampered with a condom during sex with her on a visit to Stockholm, essentially forcing her to have unprotected sex. She has since spoken publicly under her name, Anna Ardin. Another woman, referred to as Miss W, said that during the same visit, Assange had penetrated her without a condom while she was sleeping.

What part of this does not seem like rape?

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not sure I understand what you are asking. Do you need help with reading? Not really interested in that. Maybe see if there is a class near you. Good luck.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think you're the one who doesn't understand. I'm effectively accusing you of rape apologism. Because that's what you're doing. You're saying an act of rape, assuming it happened, doesn't really "count" or that the people involved who believe they were raped were "asking for it."

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I’m effectively accusing you of rape apologism. Because that’s what you’re doing. You’re saying an act of rape, assuming it happened, doesn’t really “count” or that the people involved who believe they were raped were “asking for it.”

Aha. I see. Then I wasn't wrong about suggesting improving reading skills. It might also instead be related to logic and inference. In either case, sounds like a you-problem. Good luck with that!

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

I'm not the one who posted an article they didn't even bother to read first.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why would the spooks leave material evidence. The conspiracy doesn’t have to be very large to work.

[–] DrCatface@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

username checks out

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I have to say that the suggestion that the absence of any evidence of a conspiracy is itself evidence of a conspiracy is some truly 10/10 pants on head conspiracy-brained logic. Very impressive.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Nah. People think that conspiracies need to be some large crazy hyper complex operation with many moving and confusing parts, but they don’t have to be. It’s far easier to keep things under wraps if your conspiracy is small — only involving a handful of people — and, you have the ability to throw people in jail for the rest of their lives if they leak it i.e. the US security apparatus. I could see a small team of spooks being given the free rein to concoct a honey trap for assange and making it stick, all without any real public physical evidence. It’s not the wildest thing versus all of the Q-anon nonsense.