this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2026
464 points (97.2% liked)
Videos
17413 readers
105 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Alledged rapist. And the original accuser firmly said he never touched her, even though the media/tabloids happily claimed so.
It's possible some enablers around him like Makeeva or Letz would spike woman so they'ld sleep with Till (would match him getting angry when Lynn refuses to do so) but that doesn't mean he himself was aware of it. Makeeva was fired shortly after the allegations.
Authorities both in Germany & Vilnius investigated and found no evidence to continue on.
Doesn't mean he's not a weirdo with an unhealthy interest in sex, but decadence isn't "if you're famous they let you do it".
I'm certain that Lynn was drugged (random bruising is an indicator), but I'm uncertain it was Till, and until there is stronger evidence than now-retracted tabloid articles, I would consider him innocent until proven otherwise.
Yes, and that's why he posted a photo with Boateng, another male perpetrator of violence against women, to portray himself as a poor victim of media coverage.
The man created a system in which young women were specifically targeted (affectionately referred to as the “slut parade” by the band and staff), taken to an isolated room with others, where their cell phones were taken away, where drugs were available, and where they had to ask security guards to let them out.
There are also anonymous reports from people who contacted journalists but, at the latest after Linnemann's major legal offensive against other victims, no longer dared to file official charges or even venture into the public eye in any way. Others, who have spoke out at first, have backtracked because German law requires such things to be proven beyond a doubt, otherwise you make yourself liable to prosecution. However, this is almost impossible, especially in sexual criminal law. Lindemann's lawyers would have done anything to destroy these people.
Another reason, of course, is the countless people who want to defend their idol at all costs. They are just as depraved as all the Trump fans who still cover for him despite all the reports of rape. Disgusting.
I don't need a court ruling to form an opinion. German law is a joke in this area anyway. Even what is known for certain is enough for me to identify him as a disgusting person. And I am very sure that we don't know everything. Stop defending him. Stop protecting perpetrators.
At least it's now a good indicator of what kind of man you're dealing with. Just ask him what he thinks of Till Lindemann.
I'm not fanatically defending or accusing anyone based on my feelings, I'm trying to be objective and rational.
This mob mentality "everyone not agreeing with my view is disgusting and a fanatic idoliser" argument isn't helping your case.
Arguably, you don't want camera phones near an artist doing illegal drugs. You don't need to be a rapist to find that logical.
That said, I don't tend to follow "celebrity news" and definitely not German football, so I wasn't aware of his friendship with Boateng (up to 10min ago). Having read the cliff notes, his choice in friends does say something about Lindemann's character.
I hope you are wrong simply because that means those women weren't violated. But honestly, the firing of Makeeva sadly indicates she did spike those women to provide to Lindemann's parties. How much he was involved, I don't know. It wouldn't be the first time an entourage does shitty things to keep the golden-egg-laying artist happy without their knowledge. That's unfortunately too common to exclude it at this point, although I wouldn't advice anyone to rely on it being the case.
But if you wonna convince people he's a rapist, maybe try presenting evidence first, rather than just ordering people what to do. People tend to be more accepting of a conclusion they made themselves.
This is unhinged lmao. If you don't want people to take pictures/videos of you doing illegal drugs backstage, there are at least two way more logical options that also have the benefit of not violating a person's rights:
I think it was more about inviting them to do drugs with him than to watch, and you wouldn't want any selfies of that going on instagram.
Yes, obviously doing drugs around strangers is a bad idea. But if you truly insist on inviting strangers to do drugs with you, asking them to not bring any cameras in the room seems like a good move PR-wise.
And you see how that makes it seem like you're defending that behavior right? By sane-washing it? By making it seem like an appropriate "solution" instead of the bad behavior it is?
The point was more that the argument of "no phones allowed" doesn't really make a sex-on-drug party any worse.
Nobody points to Al Capone sane-washing tax-fraud. Nobody argues about what an evil cunt he was based on his tax returns either. It was just the logical consequence of his racketeering, violence and general mob-boss-ness. The only reason people know about his tax fraud is because it's how he got caught. From a moral perspective, it makes no difference in how people consider his character.
Similarly, in this discussion about sexual abuse, not allowing phones backstage at a Lindemann afterparty is of no real consequence. You wouldn't be allowed to bring a phone to a drug party, whether it's organised by Charles Manson or the freaking pope. I wouldn't go to a gay orgy in Brussels expecting to keep my phone around, it's just part of the package.
Now if there wasn't any drugs backstage and you still weren't allowed to bring your phone, yeah, I think that would be a red flag, because the obvious reason for it is now missing.
Are you saying that it's ok to have sex with someone if they're drugged, inebriated, or otherwise impaired, as long as you aren't "aware" that they're drugged, inebriated, or otherwise impaired?
By you saying "aware" I'm assuming you're insinuating "Wir habben das nicht gewusst" ?
No, I'm not ok with pretending not to know someone can't consent.
But I'll Devil's Advocate this one: There was alcohol & drugs present and being used consensually. I'm going to assume Lindemann did so as well. If at some point someone looks inebriated, are you gonna think it was involuntary? If two people go to a bar, meet eachother and agree have sex, is that abuse? And what if they both willingly got drunk first?
Imho, the key factor is intent, trying to make somebody do something against their (sober) will is always wrong. Spiking someone's drink is coercion, because you force them into another state of mind without their consent. But if a stranger at a party at a bar acts drunk, would you immediately think they got drugged? Or does one's informed consent to get inebriated also include the common consequences? And would you think differently if that person was drunk at a work party vs a dive bar?
I don't know enough specifics to be certain what happened either way, but as someone who has willingly opted to get inebriated in the past, I always considered the consequences as part of that choice. (As long as the inebriation occurred voluntary) I'm aware that some people may see that as a "blaming the victim" argument, but I do draw the line at knowingly abusing someone's state of mind vs both parties being inebriated and trying to have fun.
The main logical discrepancy I see is Lynn's account of Lindemann running off angry. If he was a serial rapist, he probably wouldn't do that, he'ld coax her into having more of her spiked drink until she was too inebriated to say no. I think Makeeva got those women just high enough to agree to try some (more) drugs to get them going, to make her look like she knew how to pick the party animals.
But that's just my opinion based on the evidence I've seen. YMMV
This situation isn't comparable to consenting adults meeting at a bar. Providing drugs and alcohol to "entice" women into having sex is predatory behavior, whether or not the women partake consensually or not. Play devil's advocate if you want, but I don't think that behavior deserves defending/rationalizing/whatever you want to call it.
So you've never asked a romantic interest or Tinder date to have drinks? Because the moment you pay the bill, how is what you're doing any different?
No, I've never employed the aid of drugs or alcohol to obtain enthusiastic consent before engaging in sexual activity with any of my partners. If there's no enthusiastic consent, I do not pursue sexual activity. Using drugs or alcohol as an aid in acquiring enthusiastic consent is predatory.