It's On Us "Autocorrect" PSA translates casual conversation to reveal rape culture

[Mistame]

No, someone is perfectly capable of saying yes or no unless they're so drunk they have no idea wtf is going on or are passed out. Not ambiguous at all.

Was about to make a similar point. The most disturbing part about the conversation is people honing in on the "drunk" aspect rather than the important part: Consent. Saying, "You can't consent when drunk" isn't just stupid, it's fallacious. Trying to apply subjective levels of intoxication to the ability to consent negates the aspect of consent altogether. If someone is so drunk they actually don't have to faculties to be able to decide whether or not they want to have sex, they're more than likely unconscious or just about to pass out, which inherently negates any affirmative consent. If someone is drunk, can talk and says no, it's rape. If someone is so drunk, they can't talk or they're unconscious, it's rape. If someone is drunk and consents, it's not. It's not a difficult concept.

[Samesnotatroll]

People thinking things doesn't automatically make them right and the things real.




I'll take "The difference between the definition actually applicable in society and the way some random crackpots want to change it for $200, Alex".




Not only has this been addressed, but this interpretation makes no sense. If the interpretation that it's about how rapists justify their own action is "100% accurate and logical", then why are texts by Bro #2, a person that, judging by the context, was not present there, not only autocorrected as well, but autocorrected to statements that outline this indeed being a rape (in somewhat accusatory manner)? Is the idea supposed to be that this text chat is an internal monologue of the rapist with Bro #2 being the rapist's conscience? Because aside from this far fetched grasping at straws to salvage this theory as valid (and that wouldn't make it an example of a rapist justifying the rape to others as claimed), under this overall theory Bro #2 is being lied to and shouldn't have the data to autocorrect the way he did.

Don't know how to break it to ya, but you seem to not have gotten it.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

I don't get why we're debating this.

The forefront now that exists everywhere is, we know there's shit and we hate the shit, but what do we do about it?

Does Bro 1 tell Bro 2, "You're trying to rape her stop it." and Bro to say "Okay my bad?"

Does The People say to congress "You're fucking us, stop it, start doing only the right things, stop fucking us." and congress say "Okay our bad?"

No.

So fuck all this shit. There's nothing we can do but continue to descend into lawlessness. None of it matters.

[TheLimonTree]

Drunk people do not have the ability to say no.

Ah, shit. You mean when I was at the bar last night and declined another drink, I just imagined it? Now I have to go question my very perception of reality.

[Mehrunes]

Don't know how to break it to ya, but you seem to not have gotten it.

Don't know how to break it to you, but I pointed out the logical flaws in that interpretation and you couldn't address them for shit.

[Noradin]

Well of course she's not going to go to the police and claim "I was raped with consent". Her claim will simply be that "I was raped". But the facts of the case would prove that she was not raped. She may feel unhappy, hurt and betrayed by the outcome of her encounter and by the actions of the guy, but it doesn't make him guilty of rape. She wanted to have sex with him (her pillow talk the next morning prove this), he obliged. He was under no obligation to pursue a further relationship with her afterwards (which is what she is actually upset about).

That would still lead to a he said she said kind of situation, and not create any kind of "proof" that would help in court.

Again I agree, but would add that the definition of "neglect" depends on the specific context of the established facts of what happened

Certainly they would.

- - - Updated - - -

A court case always comes down to convincing a jury. That's just the jury being the executive branch.

Not al countries use juries, some use professional judges only.

[Polyxo]

Again, easy rule for the creepers here. If someone is fully willingly and actively going to participate in sex, it's okay. If not, it's not.

[Noradin]

Don't know how to break it to you, but I pointed out the logical flaws in that interpretation and you couldn't address them for shit.

The use of logic is frowned upon in this thread, so please stop