Young South Korean Men Revolt Against Feminism in South Korea

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,305
248
68
Finland
one of them gets blind drunk and is taken home, where the other takes advantage.
Well, Saudis have not one but two solutions to this. Remember the equilibrium between freedom and safety?
Lots of "normal" people when hearing about a rape will find it doesn't fit their idea of rape and thus doesn't count. They had consensual sex in the past, the victim consented to some stuff, the rapist took the victim out to dinner and was owed sex, they were married etc.
All of these increase the likelihood of consensual sex. Funny enough, false accusations fit the modern idea of rape. Now, it's not the statistical truth, but this stuff is always case-by-case so either the accusation is false or it isn't.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,282
2,872
118
Country
United Kingdom
I am merely saying it's overlooked. They data we keep is insufficient to reach a meaningful conclusion.
We have an enormous preponderance of data pointing overwhelmingly in one direction, and we also have the unanimous testimony of almost every organisation and research body working in the relevant sector.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
528
278
68
And to add to that, it's not just the rapists. Lots of "normal" people when hearing about a rape will find it doesn't fit their idea of rape and thus doesn't count. They had consensual sex in the past, the victim consented to some stuff, the rapist took the victim out to dinner and was owed sex, they were married etc.
I don't think the first example is used the way you are presenting it. Every time I have seen that argument being used it is not consider rape as not being rape but instead to question the validity of the claim that a rape occurred. Let's not forget rape is unfortunately hard to prove and often reported too late and as such it often ends up being a "he says, she says" type of case. And in such a case, where evidence is scarce, using documented past events can sway people one way or another.

The second one is a hard one because I have seen it being used in "grey area" cases where the argument was mainly about the culprit not being aware they were going too far due to a lack of negative consent and previous clear consent towards other acts. And when used to defend "obvious" rape, well, than it's like the last examples brought up; rarely see it used and actually seems to belong to specific (toxic) sub-cultures with very f*cked up morals. And that is essentially the issue with Terminal's point, "men's culture" doesn't seem to do what he (or you?) seems to claim it does. Some sub cultures where certain specific values/habits (still) persist may foster these toxic/harmful behaviors but you can't just associate people who do not belong to those sub cultures and who look at them with contempt just because they are "men".

I personally liked Agema's police officer example a lot more because it refers to a much more widespread behavior of people refusing how one could commit an atrocity because they are one of their own without actually rationalizing the actual crime committed. It also had the nice addition of them not being able to see the warning signs because they either displayed similar behavior (without the same motivations) or because they decided to interpret his "toxic" behavior as "joking" as it would better fit the image they had of him.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
528
278
68
If you cannot provide useful evidence of something existing, there is no compelling reason for anyone to act as it if exists.
But this can easily lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Take anti white racism, in studies about racism (at least those that make it into the media or politics) it seems that whites are never asked about the racism they face (or the results are filtered out?) so off course it is easy to claim it "doesn't exist" or at the very least isn't meaningfully existent. And since everyone who brings it up is instantly labelled as "far right" there is also very little motivation to dig into it. I remember hearing about a study which was ordered by Macron's government about discrimination on social media which was dropped mid-way because "it didn't yield the expected results", heh I wonder which direction the results were going to... It is very easy to create an environment in which certain data points are purposely ignored and not studied in order to avoid confronting some inconvenient truths and being able to just repeat the same old tropes ad nauseam without anyone being able to meaningfully question them.

Now I wouldn't dare claim racism against whites is as prevalent as against certain minorities and wouldn't make the same claims as tstorm but I would wager certain toxic behaviors and crimes are severely understudied and underestimated because the prevailing agenda doesn't care about them. Actually no, it's not only that, it's also because the prevailing agenda benefits from underestimating them.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
15,494
1,172
118
I don't think the first example is used the way you are presenting it. Every time I have seen that argument being used it is not consider rape as not being rape but instead to question the validity of the claim that a rape occurred. Let's not forget rape is unfortunately hard to prove and often reported too late and as such it often ends up being a "he says, she says" type of case. And in such a case, where evidence is scarce, using documented past events can sway people one way or another.

The second one is a hard one because I have seen it being used in "grey area" cases where the argument was mainly about the culprit not being aware they were going too far due to a lack of negative consent and previous clear consent towards other acts. And when used to defend "obvious" rape, well, than it's like the last examples brought up; rarely see it used and actually seems to belong to specific (toxic) sub-cultures with very f*cked up morals.
Taking the US as an example, the first state in the US to criminalise marital rape did so in 1975, the last in 1993. Before that, it was judged impossible for a man to rape his wife. That is, obvious rape would have been legally defended. 1993 is in my lifetime, and in the lifetime of more than half the people currently in the US. Even today, some parts of the US treat marital rape differently, and less severely than rape outside marriage, some have changed that relatively recently.

Now, you can say that most people in the US nowdays view marital rape as a crime, but there'd still be a substantial amount of people who are at least somewhat unclear on that point.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,072
5,447
118
But this can easily lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.
No. You simply cannot reasonably claim something to be the case and then in the same breath argue that the data to support the claim is not available.

The correct argument is to state that something may be the case, and people need to check whether there is.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,484
695
118
Country
USA
If you cannot provide useful evidence of something existing, there is no compelling reason for anyone to act as it if exists.
There is no meaningful data on the number of people taking silly photos of themselves pretending to hold up the Leaning Tower of Pisa, therefore there is no compelling reason to act as if it exists... sure, let's go with that, I guess. Anecdotes are not data, but they are sufficient for establishing the existence of something. If you know that something exists, and you know that nobody is meaningfully attempting to track it, why would you just assume the scale of it?
No. You simply cannot reasonably claim something to be the case and then in the same breath argue that the data to support the claim is not available.

The correct argument is to state that something may be the case, and people need to check whether there is.
You're right. I really should have characterized my position as "I'm not sure that's as obviously true as you want it to be", rather than... oh, wait, that's exactly what I said.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
528
278
68
No. You simply cannot reasonably claim something to be the case and then in the same breath argue that the data to support the claim is not available.

The correct argument is to state that something may be the case, and people need to check whether there is.
I Agree with that but this is about Tstorm's statement regarding people overlooking and under analyzing a phenomenon and in that respect your following statement can easily lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy (depending on what you consider "useful evidence"): "If you cannot provide useful evidence of something existing, there is no compelling reason for anyone to act as it if exists."

If there is no meaningful data concerning a certain phenomenon and people consequently acts as if it doesn't exists than why would one want to consider researching said phenomenon? And if there is little to no research... well, there is little to no data. At some point someone has to say; well what if this phenomenon is actually (more) prevalent and dig into it.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,072
5,447
118
You're right. I really should have characterized my position as "I'm not sure that's as obviously true as you want it to be", rather than... oh, wait, that's exactly what I said.
Not really. Your initial statement more strictly advances the notion that female sexual predation is prevalent, but does not offend against the law or people's sensibilities.

The obvious issue that is that if we know this "predation" exists, but it is not against the law, then it is not predation in the same, relevant context. You could then make an argument that this female predation needs to be criminalised, and that would be a very long digression. But instead you are essentially just trying to claim women are bad as men without useful evidence to do so, even if it's via a bait and switch on what predation means.

If there is no meaningful data concerning a certain phenomenon and people consequently acts as if it doesn't exists than why would one want to consider researching said phenomenon? And if there is little to no research... well, there is little to no data. At some point someone has to say; well what if this phenomenon is actually (more) prevalent and dig into it.
So when Europeans were wondering if they could get to India by going west instead of east, did they all just assume they couldn't and it wasn't worth the bother, or did someone get in a ship and try, even despite the staggering risk and effort required?

The human race has an amazing propensity for exploring unknowns. Some people's jobs are based on doing so. When there's an unknown sitting in plain sight, at least someone tends to investigate it.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,484
695
118
Country
USA
Not really. Your initial statement more strictly advances the notion that female sexual predation is prevalent, but does not offend against the law or people's sensibilities.
I copied and pasted my initial statement.
But instead you are essentially just trying to claim women are bad as men without useful evidence to do so, even if it's via a bait and switch on what predation means.
I have not claimed that, only that it is a leap to claim the opposite, and it's not really a bait and switch if I say upfront that I'm not talking about legal statistics and then never switch what I'm talking about. Perhaps you have confused others' interpretations of my statements with what I actually said.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
7,335
1,632
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I think you're in danger here of assuming forced rape with violent assault. But we know perfectly well a lot of other rape occurs, and I think some of that is something people can much more easily justify to themselves in the heat of the moment. Such as two people out on a night out, they're getting on well, one of them gets blind drunk and is taken home, where the other takes advantage. There are forms of intimidating people into compliance (think some PUA shit), and people can much more readily tell themselves that they had consent, or at least the facsimile of it that is someone not stopping them.

I think you're also looking at this very rationally, and overestimating the rationality of others. I've watched some real police dramas, and I was staggered to see some people, when the police have laid the proof of their sins in front of them, hopelessly protest that they aren't a rapist, or a child abuser. I don't think this is just some feeble last gasp denial as if the police are going to say it's all okay then and withdraw the charges. I think they simply have not managed to fully conceive of what they have done as wrong.
I think you're misunderstanding my point.

I'm not saying that people don't create excuses in their head for why something "doesn't count" as rape. I'm saying that everyone knows that rape is bad all the time as there is no moral justification for rape.

Like I said, with theft someone can say "yeah, I stole _____, but it was because I don't have any money and it was vitally important to my well being." This wouldn't necessarily be a legal defense, but one would not say that what their did was immoral.

With murder someone could say "yes I killed that guy, but it was because I feared for my life" and even if their self-defense claim is legally imperfect, the murder may not be seen as immoral.

There's no such justification for rape. You would never hear someone go "yeah, I raped her, but it's because I was really horny and she wasn't putting out" and for people to go "yup, sometimes that's ok."

People don't try to justify rape, because there isn't a justification. They try to justify why their actions weren't actually rape, or why there isn't enough evidence to prove that what they did was rape, which is a different argument altogether.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,282
2,872
118
Country
United Kingdom
I copied and pasted my initial statement.
...and cut out additional context, which made a more substantial claim.

I have not claimed that, only that it is a leap to claim the opposite, and it's not really a bait and switch if I say upfront that I'm not talking about legal statistics and then never switch what I'm talking about. Perhaps you have confused others' interpretations of my statements with what I actually said.
Perhaps you have confused the position you now want to take for convenience with the one you took.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,484
695
118
Country
USA
...and cut out additional context, which made a more substantial claim.
It doesn't make a more substantial claim. The rest is: " Female sexual predation may not be viewed the same way by society or the law, but that does not make it less prevalent." I effectively said "A is true, but A does not necessarily mean B".
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
5,669
3,730
118
Country
United States
It doesn't make a more substantial claim. The rest is: " Female sexual predation may not be viewed the same way by society or the law, but that does not make it less prevalent." I effectively said "A is true, but A does not necessarily mean B".
So are you saying it's *as* prevalent, or is that statement useless?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,282
2,872
118
Country
United Kingdom
It doesn't make a more substantial claim. The rest is: " Female sexual predation may not be viewed the same way by society or the law, but that does not make it less prevalent." I effectively said "A is true, but A does not necessarily mean B".
Do you genuinely expect people to believe that you weren't implying female sexual predation is as prevalent?

Because nobody would word a post that way unless they wanted to imply that.

And if that wasn't the implication, then it's a pretty useless and unnecessary equivocation that we can handily ignore.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,305
248
68
Finland
There's no such justification for rape. You would never hear someone go "yeah, I raped her, but it's because I was really horny and she wasn't putting out" and for people to go "yup, sometimes that's ok."

People don't try to justify rape, because there isn't a justification. They try to justify why their actions weren't actually rape, or why there isn't enough evidence to prove that what they did was rape, which is a different argument altogether.
These seem the same in essence. Focusing on rape itself doesn't get us anywhere, because there's plenty of ways to be a scumbag without being a rapist. Nowadays when the definition of rape has been extended pretty wide in some places, thinking about tactics to evade possible accusations is a good backup for almost any guy. Even really underhanded tactics are justified, because the alternative is worse.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,484
695
118
Country
USA
So are you saying it's *as* prevalent, or is that statement useless?
It could be more, as, or less prevalent. That's not a useless statement.
Do you genuinely expect people to believe that you weren't implying female sexual predation is as prevalent?
Do you think I picked the phrase "less obviously true" by accident? Do you really think I wanted to say "that statement is untrue", but was feeling really cutesy? "Not obviously true" very deliberately allows for the possibility, or even probability, that something is true, just that it isn't an obvious truth. Terminal put out a significant claim as plain fact, and it deserved to be contested.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,282
2,872
118
Country
United Kingdom
Do you think I picked the phrase "less obviously true" by accident? Do you really think I wanted to say "that statement is untrue", but was feeling really cutesy? "Not obviously true" very deliberately allows for the possibility, or even probability, that something is true, just that it isn't an obvious truth. Terminal put out a significant claim as plain fact, and it deserved to be contested.
I think you picked the phrase "less obviously true" because you prefer insinuation to statement, that's all.

A claim backed up by all available data is strong enough, when we only have pure speculation about the nature of data we don't have going against it.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,484
695
118
Country
USA
I think you picked the phrase "less obviously true" because you prefer insinuation to statement, that's all.
I don't know, I'm pretty forward and blatant in my statements.
A claim backed up by all available data is strongly enough, when we only have pure speculation about the nature of data we don't have going against it.
I hope you understand that if there is ever again a thread about US crime rates by race, I'm going to dig up this post and quote your thoughts on data.