You cannot be talking about "respectful" discourse while continuously blocking people you have a discussion with, I know I'm not the only one. But same, I also don't want to continue a discussion with someone who can't even identify rape, non consent is rape.
I blocked people who can’t have a respectful discourse. It is not productive. Your argument doesn’t make sense.
What discussion? Where were you respectful? Where were you having a conversation. You never tried.
Attacking me with insults isn’t a discussion. You told me not to take you seriously as you were harassing me.
I can identify rape. That is why there is no rape in Jinx.You are deflecting again And I discussed how non-consensual acts can encompass a wide range of behaviors beyond the legal definition of rape. While rape is indeed non-consensual, not all non-consensual acts meet the criteria for rape.
The one that is “losing” is you. You have not done anything to refute the facts or debunked. You have posted your opinion which shows how misinformation you are.
Also do you know you and T800 is the same opinion, same phrasing, and same behavior. It is odd you posted on that topic. It is like you know about that strawman argument of a post. You showed how much of an aggressor you were there with how much you misrepresent me and making this comment here mean nothing. Your comments are irrelevant and hold no value.
Your argument doesn't make sense. Rape is literally defined as forcing someone with sexual intercourse by threats or violence, sexual assault is touching someone's private parts non consensually. Dan saying "stop" during sexual intercourse and horse face not stopping and THREATENING him with "no money then" as well as BEATING him is rape. I don't know how you can be talking about factual stuff and how you're saying you're not downplaying anything while constantly saying that Dan isn't getting raped when he is. You are so heavily focused on calling out my "bullying" when you're out here writing takes that doesn't even have an argument to begin with, your words not mine. Then what's your reasoning then? To have a meaningful discussion? About what? I've constantly replied how horse face's actions are rape because they are! By definition they are! And yet you continuously reply that it's sexual assault, ok sure! Let's call it that for the sake of the conversation, what are we doing exactly? You're just correcting me is that it? Well you're not. Because it's quite literally rape, you can easily look up the difference and their individual definition. Here let me copy paste for your easy access.
Rape: you commit the crime of rape if you have non-consensual sexual intercourse with another person by means of physical force or threats
SA: you commit the offense of sexual assault if you make sexual contact with a person, as in touching a person's intimate parts, without that person's consent.
And what has been happening in those smut panels? Dan constantly saying "stop" horse face THREATENING him with their contract, and BEATING him. He's literally using both physical force and threats. It is nothing as down played as touching private parts non consensually.
You cannot be saying you want a meaningful discussion while constantly cherry picking those you have a discussion with, that just makes you closed minded. I'm aware that I am harsh with my words but the mere fact that you admit to "skimming" "not reading everything" "stop reading midway" doesn't make you a good conversationalist either. THATS what makes you a hypocrite.
To clear some misinformation.
When people excessively criticize or misrepresent a story because they dislike it, it can be driven by various factors (like saying "Jinx" has rape due to malicious motives, not as a genuine reader):
1. Bias or Prejudice: Preconceived negative opinions about the genre, themes, or specific elements of the story.
2. Moral Outrage: Reacting strongly against aspects of the story found offensive or problematic.
3. Confirmation Bias: Focusing selectively on aspects that confirm negative views, ignoring positive or neutral elements.
4. Trolling or Malicious Intent: Deliberately exaggerating or misrepresenting aspects to provoke reactions or discredit the story.
This behavior, often referred to as "bad faith criticism" or "trolling," can hurt people and deflect from constructive dialogue.
———
fellaine has made some baseless accusations with many problematic statements and tactics.
“This story literally fetishizes rape and romanticizes abuse.”
**This is their malicious intent by misrepresenting Jinx.
“The mere fact that the fans lightens the term by simply saying that it's "toxic" and complimenting it by stating that it's interesting is something else, it lightens the weight of the power dynamics presented, as if they're not in a slave and master relationship now, where said slave is continuously beaten up and taken advantage of sexually.”
**more malicious intent towards the story and readers who may not be fans. Dan and Jaekyung never a slave/master relationship. Theending of season 1 shows Dan isn’t a slave. They are boss and employee and what is seen is elements from the Korean culture.
“It's called criticism, maybe if you read something worth while for once you would have broadened your vocabulary enough to know about it.
But since you continue to rot your brain with rape plots I suppose that's a tas but too much to ask.
***it is called bad faith criticism. This had ad hominem. No constructive dialogue
“your replies are so funny, are we gonna act smart on rape porn now? "Too many assumptions" too many rape scenes ”
***this is a baseless accusation. When bullies or trolls use the tactic “you are making me laugh” many cases they are not laughing they are trying to provoke people or/and hiding they are upset. They are misusing terms. There is no rape in Jinx. Yaoi is not porn.
“you mentioning strawman arguments and fallacies like it's your lifeline will not change the fact that this manhwa is problematic. The dedication put into protecting garbage is honestly laughable. Being pretentious with your words doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look stupid. This IS rape porn. The power dynamics and non consent presented in each chapter DESPITE them being in a contractual (isn't even followed because horse face continuously uses the loophole that in the end, he has the power) relationship is enough.”
***this misrepresent my comments and what I am doing. I am not projecting Jinx. This person is deflecting with ad hominem arguments. This person mocks me and falsely accuses me.
“OH then shall we describe their relationship as a "story featuring sexual coercion with an imbalanced power dynamic resulting in a toxic relationship, that involves sexual assault and physical abuse"? honestly, your arguments are so soulless, you're not even here to present any valid points, just here to say "you're illogical" to any other person. You're just spouting technological arguments for the sake of it, as if saying "erm it's actually sexual assault" to an argument that states that this is rape porn, which by the way, still stands to reason that it is. Non consent is still rape. Which was shown MULTIPLE times in this manhwa, Dan saying "stop" "wait" etc. and horse face not stopping and instead threatening him with "you don't want the money then" is rape. That's rape. You should read on consent more, because saying "stop" even in the middle of it, and your "partner" not following through and instead threatening you with your very much evident power dynamic is rape, as well as yes, coercion and manipulation.”
**more baseless accusations while misusing terms and misrepresenting the story.
“And no I'm laughing at your replies actually, like I said, it makes you look stupid, I've been giggling at your AI looking arguments. “
**they are not laughing. They are mad they are wrong.
“To Persistent Quill since I can't seem to reply to you, did you get so hurt by my replies that you blocked me or something? AHAH
**Try to understand that other people's opinions are just their opinions, not truths or facts. In order for them to hurt me or insult me. I would first have to value their opinions. They are already said don’t take them seriously as they write bad faith criticisms with ad hominems and strawman arguments.
“ohhh so you blocked me because you can't face that your pretentious replies aren't as smart as you think they are! Plus the fact that you ignored my take on how non consent is rape, it is, it is rape and you're still deflecting from it. You acting smart defending said problematic behavior is not a productive discussion, you preach so much about "haters" silencing those who likes this manhwa but block me, rendering me unable to directly reply to your nonsensical takes. You're a hypocrite and a rape defender.”
**First sentence is a strawman argument. What I am saying is factual. Since they are trying to make ME look stupid by posting facts that shows they are not laughing but upset at the facts I post because they know they are wrong. They ignore my comment already explaining non-con. Thier opinion isn’t factual why interact with misinformation as if it was valid? They are trying to using my words against me showing they have been mad at my calls out. They are not using my words effectively. It is followed by more strawman arguments. Blocking someone, especially someone with malicious intentions isn’t silencing them. It is protecting you from them and setting a boundary. That is relating two different things. They are overly aggressive with trying to make me look stupid showing the truth has made them mad. They are not laughing. They are from that hate group that is targeting me. That “hypocrite and rape defender” is their nonsense narrative.
“You cannot be talking about "respectful" discourse while continuously blocking people you have a discussion with, I know I'm not the only one. “
**this is a mispresentation as I block aggressors that is not having a discussion with me. The main purpose is to harm others instead of a respectful discussion. I don’t have to take their hostility. Some people might just want to provoke you. It is recognizing when a discussion is not worth your time.
⁃
“But same, I also don't want to continue a discussion with someone who can't even identify rape, non consent is rape.”
-** that is a strawman argument and condescending.
“Your argument doesn't make sense. Rape is literally defined as forcing someone with sexual intercourse by threats or violence, sexual assault is touching someone's private parts non consensually. Dan saying "stop" during sexual intercourse and horse face not stopping and THREATENING him with "no money then" as well as BEATING him is rape. “
**I didn’t post an argument. If someone engaged in a constructive conversation would understand what I posted. That also misrepresents the story. Rape is a form of sexual assault. Their definition of SA will exclude rape being SA. Their definition of rape leave out other forms of rape.
“ I don't know how you can be talking about factual stuff and how you're saying you're not downplaying anything while constantly saying that Dan isn't getting raped when he is. “
**I am being factual and, distinguishing between rape and other forms of sexual misconduct is not the same as dismissing the severity of those actions. An attempted rape is indeed a serious form of sexual assault, but it is legally and definitionally distinct from rape. Acknowledging this difference does not minimize the harm or wrongness of the behavior; it is simply about being precise with terms. This person needs to accept their opinion is just an opinion and someone saying it is Sexual Assault not rape doesn’t change any abuse that Dan has suffered. That is a strawman argument.
“You are so heavily focused on calling out my "bullying" when you're out here writing takes that doesn't even have an argument to begin with, your words not mine.
**that is false. How am I heavily focused on calling out their bad behavior? I am objectively reporting. I am not arguing or posting arguments. I am posting facts. Again not using my words effectively or accurately.
“Then what's your reasoning then? To have a meaningful discussion? About what? I've constantly replied how horse face's actions are rape because they are! By definition they are! “
**How about reading my comments instead of imposing meanings? Jaekyung’s actions are abusive but just because they want to view it as rape doesn’t make it rape. And by definition it is not rape. The definition debunks rape in Jinx.
“And yet you continuously reply that it's sexual assault, ok sure! Let's call it that for the sake of the conversation, what are we doing exactly? You're just correcting me is that it? Well you're not. Because it's quite literally rape, you can easily look up the difference and their individual definition. Here let me copy paste for your easy access.”
**Ad homenims argument. Condescending.
“Rape: you commit the crime of rape if you have non-consensual sexual intercourse with another person by means of physical force or threats
SA: you commit the offense of sexual assault if you make sexual contact with a person, as in touching a person's intimate parts, without that person's consent.”
**I know what rape and sexual assault is. That definition of rape leaves out some forms of rape. That definition of SA leaves out many forms of SA. Rape is a form of SA and that definition would exclude rape being sexual assault.
⁃
“And what has been happening in those smut panels? Dan constantly saying "stop" horse face THREATENING him with their contract, and BEATING him. “
**over criticism on Jaekyung. Haters from that hate group use “horse face” so that shows malicious intent. He didn’t beat Dan.
“He's literally using both physical force and threats. It is nothing as down played as touching private parts non consensually. “
**Cherry-picking and using the wrong definitions.
“You cannot be saying you want a meaningful discussion while constantly cherry picking those you have a discussion with, that just makes you closed minded. “
**that is deflecting their behavior on me. It has nothing to do about me or my comments.
“I'm aware that I am harsh with my words but the mere fact that you admit to "skimming" "not reading everything" "stop reading midway" doesn't make you a good conversationalist either. THATS what makes you a hypocrite.”
**It's not hypocritical to seek a respectful conversation and set boundaries against personal attacks. Blocking or stopping reading comments that are purely insulting is a way to protect my mental health and maintain a constructive dialogue with others who will engage in a constructive dialogue. I'm open to discussing different perspectives as long as the conversation remains respectful and focused on the topic and attacking me is derailing from the topic. I don’t read many comments purely attacking someone. That is an strawman argument and ad hominem. That is deflection from who they are. They are daying a lot about them. Their judgement is about themselves not me.
So in the mist of this, fellaine had to locate a post about me to further harass me on a topic full of strawman arguments that don’t reflect what I said.
—-
“LMAO just got back from an argument with them, they blocked me too. “
**what argument? Personal attacks, mocking, and hate faith comments are not an argument or discussion.
“They're so funny!”
**nope they are upset. Take notice that they have the same opinion, same behavior, and same using of strawman arguments as the op (T800) (not this topic)
“Whenever you call out their problematic behavior they call you a bully, “
**false.
“never mind then that they also engage in taunting comments such as "did my reply hurt you" also the fact that they deem the multiple non consent panels where Dan says stop as not rape??? “
**this reflects them not me.
“Where someone saying stop during intercourse and then being denied of it by being threatened with "you don't want the money then?" is rape!
**what a lose definition of rape. That is sexual coercion aka sexual assault. And mispresenting the story.
“I find it amusing how they think that by being pretentious with their replies that it will make them right, like no. The hypocrisy in also saying they want a "meaningful discussion" and that "haters" /silence/ other readers with their opinions, while constantly blocking people they have a discussion with when they're losing is hilarious. “
** I already addressed this. Opinions don’t change facts.
That is deflecting.
“You cannot have a meaningful discussion if you continuously cherry pick and lable every user as a bully.”
** yes you cannot have a meaningful discussion if your continuous cherry pick and label people as rape defenders or hypocrites. Isn’t that reusing words of someone else trying to hurt them because that person felt humiliated by them. They label themselves as a bully per their words. The targets don’t label them by their characters. They use their words to call them out on their behavior.
So fellanine and T800 seems to be the same person and appears to be from that hate group targeting us.
T800 made a topic on two of the targets and I didn’t even talk to them on that recent post. They targeted me and it is stemming from someone that felt threatened or humiliated and will not leave a group of people alone. They did not make them feel like that.
Blocking someone who engages in personal attacks and harassment is not hypocritical; it's a way to protect oneself and maintain respectful boundaries.
Fellaine and T800's comments reflect bad faith criticism and harassment, misrepresenting the story and my comments. Constructive dialogue is possible only when all participants engage respectfully and factually.
I saw you comment a lot more so I'm gonna say stop being delusional and making things up you can't even tell the difference between rape and prostitute and lastly because someone says he isn't a rapist doesn't mean that he supports him or romanticize what he does
rape and prostitutes are completely two different things. The fact that you have to use this narrative against me to even make a point is. . .because no, non consent is still rape. Just because you like dark media doesn't mean you can change the narrative. Something that is clearly rape is rape. And I would agree that someone saying he isn't a rapist doesn't mean he's a defender or a romanticist, but this person has made multiple paragraphs of "discussion" where they say they don't have an argument, just replying for the sake of it. And the claim is always, it's not rape it's SA, it's not just SA. So what's the motivation? I've clearly made my point that it is rape in the one you replied in. Just because you like Jinx doesn't mean you get to not claim it as what it is. NON CONSENT = RAPE. Even if you're a prostitute, if you're being denied of the option where you can stop during intercourse, threatened and beaten, then it's rape.
I genuinely want to ask a question though. You talk about how dan doesn't actually have a meaningful choice but then again, do you just want Jk to give his money out for free?
I also want to clarify that Jk didn't know about Dan’s financial crisis before the agreement. He didn't know he was in debt either. So saying he exploited him or forced him isn't valid at all. He threatened dan and right after he tells Dan to leave(chapter 2-3) mind you, dan still STAYED. Bro literally told Jk after that if he just puts it in that he might tear that he should prepare first.
Not to talk about how dan even lied about being experienced, Jk asked if he was and he lied? Why? Not to even talk about how Jk actually pauses to check on Dan and what does dan say? “No…you just startled me” Huhh? Rape?
Y'all mistake lack of consent for lack of comfort and it shows. If you really take your time to analyse Jinx, you'll find out that a scene explains something and the next action/reaction completely changes everything. Dan had a choice to leave but he stayed. He prostituted himself and that's a fact. He was aware of what he was doing, not to talk about how he even demand more cash the next time after the first.
I think you should stop saying he doesn't have a choice bc in fact, he does.
It's sexual assault. Not rape.
There's a very distinct difference with SA and rape.
I came here bc of the Olympics video that had so many comments of jinx but after reading the comments I'm not sure whether to read it or not