Way to many people lack common sense

You read rape stories
Wtf

Just because she reads rape stories doesn't mean she acknowledges it or sees it as okay.

if you read carefully, they continue to state that the people don't have commkn sense for NOT seeing the sa/rape.

you need to read it.


Thank you! And good day!

If you read carefully, he understood. That makes me doubt your abilities.
Look at his first sentence: “see your pov (rape/SA) or lack common sense”. We have NEVER said anything about it is not SA. It is SA.

You need to read carefully.
On your other comments I can’t respond too. Your points don’t make them wrong. Your points show you need to read the read the dialogue and scenes better. Did he forget or is it you. Your points don’t make you right. Your pov don’t make you right.
Saying we lack common sense for not seeing rape don’t make you right. Saying see rape or lack common sense doesn’t make you right.

This whole war is just people who lack common sense trying to terribly convince people that it's rape when it really is not:

"beg?"- yes he did beg because Dan was. clear that he didn't want it but Joo insisted in exchange of money.

"doesn’t read carefully"- if u read carefully and didn't lack comprehension skills, u would know that Joo is very aggressive and Dan shows clearly that he despises it.

"opinion"- Literally the law classifies that as rape

"Is it to Joo? "- No it's to the reader to demonstrate how inconsiderate Joo was to Dan. He didn't care nor even realise that he was hurting Dan more so because he took advantage of him- which is rape

"Completely misses chapter 4 when Dan is crying. "- Yh Dan cries and is in peak distress and all Joo does is ask him, "are u crying?" with distaste look on his face and even though Dan just brushes it of, we as readers are meant to understand that Dan is lying to himself for the sake of his safety in that moment, contributing to Joo hurting Dan as he somehow doesn't realise but it's clear and instead continuing and even threatening him.

"This is biased"- no ur just a dumbass end of

"Key word WE."- Exactly, WE know that Dan is in pain and wants it to and it's extremely clear however Joo doesn't realise because he doesn't care how Dan feels but instead just want to take advantage of him.

"I am a rape crisis counselor."- Ok that don't tell me
shit because a social worker and the LAW would disagree with ur view.

"This only fit one scene."- No it's multiple but even if it was one scene, that confirms that rape is in the manhwa and Joo is a terrible human being.

"Jaekyung never “took advantage of one's financial situation or using materialistic goods.”"- he did because he's rich or of a higher social class who uses money to get sex out of average people/everyday person simply due to that money is essential, it's need to afford basic essentials for everyone but because of this the value of money can heighten due to one's situation, for example, Dan.

If u actually did ur research as an apparent Rape crisis councillor, u would know rape comes in many forms, for example, Dan's first experience with Joe.

Which is why I say u people lack common sense and are complete dumbasses with ur shitty argument but i'll give u credit for trying.

Have a goodnight

If people like that can become rape crisis councillors then I can become a mathematician.

Guys that person is not real, ain't no way it isn't a troll or a social study in the making lmao
I refuse to believe someone as deluded as that exist and knows how to use the internet

Cool story, bro. Opinions. Misusing words. Shows lacking comprehension skills. Law wouldn’t be: they would throw it out before it got to court. You should you don’t care about the story or gave a carefully honest read. It is biased. With false assumptions to back your opinion.
You are talking about yourself. You are forcing your pov with the financial situation. Pathetic. You are just trying to degrade me because I don’t share your fee-fees.

If you have to lie about the story or force a pov. You lost. If you have to attack me and insult me. You lost.

If you want to have a constructive debate with someone, the last thing you want to do is to insult them or resort to name calling because that usually makes your opponent go into attack or defensive mode and from that point on, anything you say is considered invalid in their mind. If you want to convince someone you’re right, calling them an rape apologist or saying their opinion is something the should seek professional help on isn’t the way to do it.

These people resort to name-calling and attacks because they lost, and they know it. They have no more logical arguments and are now just hoping that name calling and attacks will get them favourable opinions from their party. Because they are full of ego, childish, impulsive, and self centered. People have become outrageously defensive and aggressive in our culture.

On some level they know they have lost and are upset about it. They know they can’t win the debate with logic. When people have no rational arguments, they resort to ad hominem attacks.
people who resort to emotional attacks throw the other person or persons off balance. If the other person fights back emotionally, the original person quickly uses that to say they can't discuss it anymore because ther other person has gotten emotional. Using emotions is a coward's manipulative move.

Then they lost at being able to control themselves or take criticism. They got upset and returned those insults thinking it would have the same results but failed. Monkey see, monkey do. They failed to see the results were not the same. They lost as soon as they misused rape apologist.
Thanks for sharing your lost. Have a good day
.

It MUST be a troll. I also refuse to believe people with this type of mindset actually exist.

They talk about wanting to be civil, but when people DO converse, they still call you delusional, say you're a troll, a coward amongst other things, say you're attacking them, make themself out to be the victim, and always say we're 'forcing our opinion on them' when really, they are.
And I STILL haven't seen good reasons to prove that there isn't multiple accounts of SA and rape in this story.

They keep saying "we lost" when the only thing we lost was our time arguing and braincells dealing with them.
Besides, this ain't a ball game bro? There is no win or lose, it's a fking petty online argument. Imagine being so insecure you have to say you 'won' an online argument to feel good. Besides, if they thought we were always trolls...why'd they go out of their way to respond? lmao

OH im sure that mingwa had so much planned for the story. But it IS rape. How much more does it need to be spelled out for you? What would YOU consider to be rape, if not half the story we have so far.

You are very right. To explain it in more simple terms: It's called coercive rape. The people in your replies are ridiculous.

I’m puzzled why Sazz revived a discussion from last year unless it was to provoke trouble.

I read the topic.
It seems at first, Side Eye was misled by gaslighting and strawman arguments, as nobody was claiming there’s no sexual assault or rape in "Jinx." I am not so sure by the end of the conversation.

Tmsmyz (TM) was trying to address misunderstandings and have a real conversation about the topic. Despite his efforts over several months (during that time), TM faced harassment from some individuals and was not given a fair chance to discuss the matter. Unfortunately, many dismissed TM’s contributions without fully understanding or engaging with their comments. It really showed here.

let's drive in:

*TM’s First Comment: TM aimed to clarify the difference between rape and sexual assault, noting that while "Jinx" portrays sexual assault, it may not fit the definition of rape. TM stressed the importance of understanding these distinctions and not imposing a single viewpoint. They provided factual information to support their perspective, showing acceptance of various opinions while arguing that "Jinx" does not depict rape. Noted: he allows for the pov of rape even though it is not.

Mikaela’s Initial Comment: Mikaela’s response was hostile and inflammatory, using personal attacks rather than addressing the discussion's substance. Insults like “shrek looking mf” and accusations of having a preference for rape stories undermine productive dialogue and can be seen as bullying. This approach misrepresents TM’s position through strawman arguments and focuses on personal attacks rather than addressing the points about the story.

TM’s Second Comment: TM clarified that "Jinx" resembles a Disney-type narrative rather than toxic stories that are worse. They listed other stories where rape is depicted and later in other topics mentioned their personal aversion to such narratives to where he will drop stories or will only read them once.

ManhwaSpicy (MS) First Comment: MS promoted respectful discourse and encouraged Side Eye to present their arguments constructively rather than resorting to insults. They emphasized the need for diverse opinions to be expressed without derogatory comments.

Side Eye’s Comments: Side Eye aggressively defended their interpretation of "Jinx" with intensity, focusing on their view of sexual assault and rape. Their comments involved personal attacks and did not accurately reflect the story’s events.

TM’s Third Comment: TM continued to advocate for respectful communication and warned against imposing personal perspectives on others. They stressed the need for civility and suggested seeking professional help if someone finds pleasure in causing harm.

Mikaela’s Second Comment: Mikaela’s response was dismissive and condescending, belittling the efforts to communicate and resolve differences. They used strawman arguments to misrepresent the targets' positions, distorting and exaggerating their viewpoints.

Tora’s Initial Comments: Tora provided a detailed analysis, emphasizing the importance of understanding the full context of "Jinx." They argued that Side Eye’s interpretation did not align with a comprehensive understanding of the characters and narrative, aiming to clarify the story’s complexity.

MS’s Subsequent Comments: MS dismissed unnecessary remarks and focused on substantive points. They discussed the importance of consent. MS offered a detailed breakdown of specific interactions and emphasized a nuanced understanding of the story’s events and characters.

Tora’s Third and Fourth Comments: Tora highlighted the distinction between rape and consensual sex, emphasizing that rape involves power and control. Tora criticized those who deny Rose’s status as a rape survivor and challenged those defending Jaekyung.

MS’s Sixth and Seventh Comments: MS noted that Dan’s thoughts are not explicitly voiced, which could lead to misinterpretations of Jaekyung’s actions and Jaekyung misunderstanding the situation. Both Tora and MS engaged in discussion together without attacking others, aiming to clarify misunderstandings.

Aphroditis’s Comment: Aphroditis interacted with TM but did not fully grasp TM’s points. MS effectively managed this situation. By this point TM already left the conversation.

BeloveRose’s Comment: BeloveRose highlighted the deep divide in interpretations regarding sexual assault and rape in "Jinx," stressing the importance of careful reading and respectful discussion.

Side Eye’s Third Comment: This response was aggressive and relied on ad hominem attacks, dismissing and falsely accusing Tora.

Mikaela’s Third Comment: Mikaela’s response was sarcastic and aimed at discrediting Tora.

Anonyzz’s Comment: Anonyzz should reflect on their own beliefs, as their dismissive stance towards others with similar views questions the sincerity of their opinions which should lead to questing their own.

Tora’s Final Comment: Tora rejected Side Eye’s interpretation of the story as rape, critiqued their debate tactics, and defended their perspective.

Sir Donewithyoshit: Admitted to being a troll around this time in another topic, did not contribute constructively, using gaslighting and strawman arguments against the genuine contributors. The only real conversation that happen here is with Tora, TM, And MS.
They misunderstand "you lose" bit. They have never said they won or claimed a victory.
To clarify that when they mentioned "you lose," it wasn't about claiming victory in the debate but rather indicating a breakdown in constructive conversation. The use of insults and attacks, in their view, signifies a loss in the ability to engage in meaningful dialogue.

In conclusion, those who believe the story depicts rape are attacking those who argue otherwise or seek a reasoned conversation. They employ insults, strawman arguments, gaslighting, and deflections instead of engaging in a factual discussion. On the other hand, the genuine contributors (TM, Tora, MS, Rose) have tried to present evidence and reasoned arguments. This debate highlights a broader issue in online discussions about sensitive topics, where aggressive tactics can undermine meaningful dialogue.

It shows the targets have allowed people to believe it is rape and they are not fighting. They left this conversation when it was all personal attacks.

I love that sazz bumped this but it shows how much effort the targets made to have a conversations but was attacked. So being factual, objective reporting, being an adult is not ridiculous. They are not ridiculous for being grounded in reasonable interpretation or analysis. What is ridiculous is how much people do to force people into their own interpretations even when they know they are wrong. TM and the other tagets have genuinely attempted to engage in a conversation. The others here are imposing and forcing their opinions with ad hominems.

Key Points:

**Sazz’s Role:

Position: Sazz believes the story depicts coercive rape and criticizes those who disagree.
Behavior: Attacks and insults those with differing opinions, deflects from the discussion by labeling others as ridiculous.


**TM’s Contributions:
Comments: TM tries to clarify distinctions between rape and sexual assault, emphasizing the importance of understanding these differences. He provides factual information and strives for a constructive discussion. He is fighting "see rape/sa or lack common sense".

Subsequent Comments: Continues to advocate for respectful dialogue and correct understanding, despite facing hostility and misunderstanding.


**MS’s Approach:

Comments: MS encourages respectful discourse and detailed analysis, aiming to address the nuances of consent and coercion in the story. They provide a thoughtful examination of the characters' interactions and the overall narrative.


**Side Eye’s Behavior:

Comments: Side Eye passionately and aggressively defends their interpretation of the story as involving sexual assault and rape. They use personal attacks and aggressive language, which detracts from the discussion.


**Mikaela’s Comments:

Behavior: Mikaela uses hostile and inflammatory language, resorting to personal attacks and dismissive remarks rather than engaging with the substance of the debate.


**Tora’s Contributions:

Comments: Provides a detailed analysis of the story, emphasizing the importance of understanding context and character motivations. Tora challenges biases and misinterpretations, advocating for a factual discussion.


Additional Interactions:

**Eddie and Sazz: Both resort to dismissive and attacking behavior, further polarizing the discussion.


**Sir Donewithyoshit: Admits to trolling and does not contribute constructively to the debate.


Summary of the Debate Dynamics
Targets’ Approach (TM, Tora, MS): These individuals strive to engage in a meaningful and respectful dialogue. They present reasoned arguments and seek to clarify misunderstandings about the narrative and its depiction of sexual assault and rape.

Noted they even tried when they were being ganged up on and treated people like they were humans when they were treated like garbage. They are not ridiculous. How they have been treated has been ridiculous.

Aggressors’ Approach (Sazz, Side Eye, Mikaela, Eddie): The aggressors primarily use insults, personal attacks, and deflections. Their approach undermines constructive dialogue and shifts the focus away from factual discussion to emotional and personal confrontations.

The amount of time wasted writing this biased paragraph lmao

I wasted no time with writing objective comments. My aim has been to provide a clear and objective analysis of the situation. It's not productive to label objective reporting as 'biased' without specific evidence. The real issue seems to be a refusal to engage with the analysis provided. An insult to degrade others with lies is wasted time.

It is biased you labeled "agressors" those who are clearly seeing the story for what it is, a rapist and his victim, and you were pratically kissing the boots of those trying to act as if rape had a deeper meaning here. You said no one was saying there wasn't any rape ? Please who are you trying to fool ? The same people you were praising are literally acting as if the desperate penniless guy who got coerced into giving his body to save his grandma, his only family left, isn't being raped because he signed a contract when he was at rock bottom and had no other choices.

The ones that clearly see the story for what it is are the targets. The aggressors are labeled as such based on their actions.

This means Safety didn’t label you; you labeled yourself as an aggressor. One thing Safety did was put comment after comment into ChatGPT, which is a neutral and objective tool. ChatGPT can identify ad hominems, derogatory remarks, and aggression. There is no bias in the labeling; it is based on behavior. There is no praising either.

Using strawman arguments and misrepresenting others' comments only detracts from a fair and constructive discussion. It's important to address the facts and support arguments with evidence without resorting to personal attacks or exaggerations. The focus should be on understanding the nuances of the situation and engaging respectfully.

Dan was not raped. He was not coerced. Dan had a choice, just as you do. You choose to use strawman arguments and lie about people who have never downplayed Dan’s abuse. They use facts and distinguish between terms. They supported their selves. They are not giving an opinion.

You are using strawman arguments against the targets to make them look bad, treating them poorly, not listening to them, and presenting the story with inaccurate details. You have undermined the targets' points and safety points with ChatGPT. The terms “aggressors” and “targets” are used based on observed behaviors and actions. No one is being unfairly labeled without consideration of their actions and the context provided. Your behaviors and actions prove Safety right, showing you as an aggressor who can’t handle facts or other perspectives on your own.

You blocked Woomb, right? As you said you were?
You were right—they came back with more of their agenda, harming the targets. I couldn't help but laugh when they claimed you praised their targets. I rolled my eyes at their attempt to provoke an emotional response with that strawman argument. They're trying to make the targets look bad for not seeing the abuse as rape, even though they acknowledge it as sexual abuse, sexual coercion, and non-consensual acts. The targets aren't downplaying the abuse, but Woomb is changing the details to make it seem worse and to make the targets look worse. It's just the same petty nonsense.
On a side note.
I called you safety in my last comment. I thought you kept that with a your new name change. lol. I was wrong.

Omg OP could you pretty please come here and block this weird ass cult of rape apoligists (⊙…⊙ ) Or better, just edit your comment and then block them, so that none of us will have to suffer seeing their ridiculous attempt at patting themselves on the shoulder for bullshit like this lol.
PS to all of you weirdos : I know you're all either friends either only one incredible lowlife playing on all these accounts, thanks for giving more of your alts, hope it's the last one.