Ever since the story broke last October, I have debated whether to write about the DoorDash Girl.
On the one hand, this is certainly not the kind of news item that should be on our radar screen. On the other hand, there is a very important lesson that emerges from this story that is a clear and frightening sign of the times.
I assume most American readers know what DoorDash is (I only found out in October). DoorDash is a freelance courier service that restaurants or other retail shops use to deliver online or telephone purchases to the customers. It is a competitor of Uber Eats. Here in Israel, we have those Wolt motorcycles.
Any capable person with a vehicle can sign up to be a DoorDash delivery person and make a handful of cash. Many folks do it, some for basic income and some for money on the side.
This event took place on October 12, 2025 in Oswego, NY. A 23-year-old woman who was driving for DoorDash was called to make a delivery. I would guess that this woman is not married and indications are she does not even have a boyfriend.
The call was to a man’s home with explicit instructions to leave the delivery outside the door and not to bother ringing the bell or coming in.
According to her, when she arrived at the home the door was wide open. It seems that the door was not locked and may have been slightly open but nothing in her TikTok video confirms the claim that it was wide open. The man inside was not fully dressed, incapacitated and unconscious on his couch after drinking alcohol. A little bit like Noach. ויתגל בתוך אהלה.
Instead of just leaving the delivery as instructed, or taking a blanket and walking backwards to cover up the indecency, she did a true maaseh shel Canaan (or Cham). She pulled out her cell phone while outside the home, and recorded the man while he was totally unconscious on his couch. She didn’t just tell her immediate family members (if she has any), but rather posted the video online to the entire world – currently more than only eight people. It is said that up to 30 million viewers viewed her revealing video on her TikTok page.
In the Noach story, Rashi says that Noach was physically assaulted and, although intoxicated, he was unequivocally the victim. But this woman, after filming and posting this man’s “deficiency” complained to her DoorDash superiors that she was se%ually assaulted on the job. The complaint was forwarded to the Oswego Police Department and they investigated the matter obtaining statements from both the driver and the customer.
The police determined that no actual se%ual assault (SA) occurred. Moreover, they determined that the woman violated two felony offenses. For this she was arrested and later indicted. She is now charged with unlawful surveillance in the second-degree and dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first-degree. She now faces up to four years in prison for each felony which, could add up to eight years in the pen.
In an Oct. 16 statement, DoorDash said that the driver’s DoorDash account was deactivated along with that of the customer. “Posting a video of a customer in their home and disclosing their personal details publicly is a clear violation of our policies,” read the statement in part.
But it seems that after she lost her job and faced prosecution, she went absolutely berserk. In some of the online versions of this news story, they show an excerpt of a TikTok video that she made after being fired where she can be seen screaming at the top of her lungs, “How can I be fired? I was SA’ed! I am the victim!”
She is saying that the mere fact that this person was in his own home totally unconscious and totally unaware of her presence, and that he was not covered below the belt, and that the door of the house did not prevent her from trespassing is his act of SA toward her.
Thank G-d, she didn’t get anywhere with this. At least upstate NY is not half as crazy as is metro NY. But it is very disturbing all the same.
Even if she couldn’t convince her employers, the cops, or her viewers that she is a victim of SA, she certainly convinced herself. It’s not that she’s pulling a ruse and she knows it, and is just trying to “get away with it”. No, from all appearances she truly believes it. And this makes a big difference when liberals like her do indeed get positions in the DA’s office. Yeah, it didn’t play in Oswego and it wouldn’t play in Peoria, but it might play in Manhattan or Chicago.
I have no idea what the millions of viewers thought, but it’s a safe bet that there is at least a fair minority on her side. In a world where clearly stated definitions become subjective, anything goes.
This is not a new tactic. If the events don’t fit the crime, just redefine the crime to fit the events. This is how they put vaguely defined crimes on the books such as “bribery” and “racketeering” and “conspiring to...” to nab crooks and politicians (more or less synonymous) and Kosher meatpackers to help fill the prisons and justify the hard work of prosecutors.
However, in the past, this used to be done on the sly. In today’s world, it is done blatantly and shamelessly. Hence, the shamelessness of the DoorDash girl.
בעקבתא דמשיחא חוצפא יסגיא.
This is no more apparent than in the two-year-old debacle of the ICJ accusations against Israel. We know that the South Africans, who are the genuine Bnei Cham, wanted us to be prosecuted for “genocide”. Thus, they filed a complaint to the International Court of Jesters Justice (ICJ). As we know, all Jew haters worldwide have been chanting the “genocide” song ever since October 7, but when an international court needs to apply judicial process to the claims, the stakes are much higher.
Firstly, the court at least needs to present a façade of jurisprudence to retain a sense of impartiality and credibility. This is no small feat for them. Secondly, in so doing, the court needs to have clear definitions of the terms and apply them judiciously. Thirdly, they need to establish “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the conditions for prosecution, as defined, are being met.
To do so, they would need irrefutable evidence of incidents where civilians (non-combatants) were being targeted for hostilities or even combatants with no regard for the safety of civilians in the area. Even if an isolated incident or two is found, it needs to be established that this is the policy of the body that is accused and not an anomaly carried out by renegades.
They weren’t able to do that. So the next step was to move the goalposts. As such, in December 2024, our great friends from Ireland wanted to “broaden” the definition of “genocide” for the good of the poor civilians who weren’t being targeted. As I wrote above, if the events don’t fit the crime, just redefine the crime to fit the events.
Needless to say, such a move would open a Pandora's box and eventually come back and bite those who push for it. As far as I know, this did not get anywhere. Yet, the fact that a “concerned” sovereign nation could push for it tells us a lot about where we are.
Another “redefinition” of bad behavior is one that I have written about in numerous previous posts generally in regard to the Malka Leifer affair. But this one is a double whammy. The bad behavior in question is: pedophilia.
In my preamble post 10 years back titled Thinking Like a Jew, I stated the true definition of pedophile (from Wikipedia). Here is an excerpt:
Pedophilia - a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive se%ual attraction to prepubescent children.
Notice the word prepubescent. This means a child who has not yet reached puberty. For a girl, the cutoff would be about 12 and maximum 13.
This indicates that any se%ual offender who is just as eager to assault a person beyond puberty as they are one below puberty doesn’t fit the definition of pedophile. This person doesn’t really discriminate and, as such, there is no primary or exclusive attraction to children. More so, one who hasn’t even offended a prepubescent child at all.
But, just like the “anti”-genocidists, liberal folks need to demonize and dehumanize the offender to the utmost. Hence, they redefine a pedophile as one who experiences a se%ual attraction to children. Somehow, they dispense with the modifiers, “primary or exclusive” and “prepubescent”.
To help accomplish this, they utilize today’s liberal redefinition of the term "child". In today’s world it basically means any person, at any age, who cannot think for themselves, which technically includes any liberal person at any age.
By broadening the definition of child, not only do they broaden the definition of pedophile (hence the double-whammy), but they also broaden the definition of genocide. Countless times we have heard the news announce: “There have been a gazillion civilian deaths – mostly women and children…”
Hey, if a 15-year-old post-puberty boy who is trained to fight, is armed to the teeth, and is present on the battlefield constitutes a “child”, there will be many such “children” on the casualty list. And if this applies to a 17-year-old and to a 19-year-old and to a 21-year-old – and I don’t even think it ends there – there are bound to be lots and lots of dead “children”.
These first few “redefinitions” (SA, genocide, pedophile, and child) all have to do with defining - or redefining and broadening - crimes.
I have one more redefined term to discuss. This one is not meant to broaden the crimes to fit the events, but to legitimize the punishments. The term is…Justice.
What does the term “justice” really mean?
Let’s check out Wikipedia. Here is what it says:
In its broadest sense, justice is the treatment of individuals fairly. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from the Institutes of Justinian, a 6th-century codification of Roman law, where justice is defined as "the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due".
So justice means fairness. And here is an amazing corollary: the term “justice” is more applicable to the perpetrator than it is to the victim. It means that if one is accused of something, or sued for something, the defendant must be treated fairly. Lynching a suspected horse thief is not “justice” even if he really is a horse thief.
Yet, somehow it came to mean something else. It is redefined as "seeing to it that a wrongdoer gets his comeuppance". In my previous Sinas Chinam post (June 18), I made a big fuss out of this. Currently, justice is redefined as prosecution, punishment and retribution. Somehow, now, a victim gets justice, not a perpetrator.
How did this come about?
In my very first post about the Malka Leifer affair - Mesira XII: Justice is Blind...and Deaf - Midas Ha"Din" – I explained how today’s concept of justice is built. I made a few points. Here are the main ones:
The human being abhors monotony and craves drama. As such, whenever possible, a monotonous event will be dramatized to the utmost.
The human being firmly believes that good should be rewarded and evil should be punished and, as such, has a craving to administer justice and to exact revenge.
The normal human being (not a psychopath) cannot conscience unjustified violence. As such he must have some battle-cry or pretense which he will swear by to justify his actions. (E.g., righting a wrong - serving justice, avenging the "victim".)
This says that there is a universal bloodlust for crime and punishment. If the crime does not exist, it needs to be created. The old definitions need to be “broadened”. If the consequences of the crime are not debilitating and they do not mollify our bloodlust, they need to be intensified. Whereupon, they are explained away as “doing the right thing”. Fairness has nothing to do with this. The ends justify the means.
This is the power of sinas chinam. This is the craft of Haman and Amalek, the duplicity of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. It’s a trap that many of us fall into to this day.
Revised definitions, a ruse by another name, may not play in Oswego and Peoria, but they will play on Broad-way.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment