"hehehe, she's been waiting for like half an hour here" <== passive aggressive criticism.

, I said it was more controversial.

I dare say even agreeing that we don't solely choose our sexual interests, when it comes to our actions I insist we treat those as the result of free will, aka choice.

When I'm not typing from a 4in screen I can pull up the references, but the peer reviewed studies on genetics hardly illustrate that sexual orientation and identity are dominated by it. Twins studies do show that identical twins more often share orientation than non-identical, which gives a correlation to genetics. However, I'll pull up the studies but last I reviewed them, more than half the identical twins in the studies did NOT share the same orientation. That is an arguably compelling indicator that genetics does not solely determine orientation.

Other twin studies comparing other behaviours like religion show a similar pattern. Studies with twins on violent and aggressive behaviour show an even stronger "genetic" component than the orientation studies, and nobody has any qualms about being politically incorrect declaring that violence is a choice and not a birth attribute...

There's plenty wrong with decimating their natural habitats and then shooting them when they have nowhere else to look for food.

Animals might not understand how to write a contract but they understand territory very well.

We walk through their land and then we get upset if they aggressively defend it.

And the vast majority of this habitat loss is so someone can stick a cow on the land because that's what consumers are demanding. We're effectively replacing the planet's wonderful biodiversity with 5 animals and 5 types of crop to feed these farm animals. We must change our consumption habits, otherwise nature will change it for us in about 50 years.

There's little question that she put the trampoline on the fenceline to provoke Billy to create drama for more videos, knowing she would react and they could film it.
If I were Billy, I would set up a permanent mannequin orgy in my yard so mom would want to block her kid's view of my yard...but that's just me. Dad taught me that to manage people effectively, you need to get them to want to do what you want them to. Granted, he meant by making them want to please you, but sometimes you just have to get it how you can. ;-)

Dogs that bark outside at 6am deserve calls to animal control every time it happens. The woman recording is also a provocative bitch to say 'barking is what dogs do at 6am, we won't stop it.' Billy could sue her for that in many jurisdictions, but knowing Billy she'll likely harm the dog instead. She is not the nice, reasonable person she presents herself as in her videos, she's a passive aggressive provocateur....but Billy's a total nutjob.
Intentionally provoking nutjobs isn't smart, even if it's how you make money. Good thing for them both this is almost certainly fake/comedy.

Hello, I'm ashamed to admit it but I have had jerk off many times with the rape scene, with that said, I once thought that maybe even the film's director is trying to put the blame on the woman's side, since from a wicked interpretation it's her fault to have changed the more quiet and polite guy for the sexually aggressive and still wanting to have him being down like the other guy and since she did not get that treatment she left the party and insisted to go without company even though her ex-boyfriend volunteered to accompany her, I'm not trying to justify that violence, rape is bad, no matter the background of the victim, men should not rape under any given circumstance

I feel I should offer explanation for my confusion....especially since I don't think I'm alone in what I thought.
I only knew what tv news had said about Aziz, which was nothing like the article. I'm not a fan, so I know nothing else about him beyond a few tv appearances and his nerdy image.
TV implied a normal date, followed by consensual, but awful, sex, and didn't reflect her accusations in the least.
This written described behaviour wouldn't be acceptable with an open minded prostitute, forget a date.

But, I think this spotlights the problem with not making distinctions, it allowed the day long argument without ever discussing actual facts and accusations, because without distinctions, it didn't matter if he was just a bumbler who's bad at sex or an aggressive monster.

I think there needs to be a clear line set for #metoo (though I'm unsure how or exactly where that line belongs) so it cannot be painted as just bitter people seeking revenge for a bad date.
That is how the Aziz thing looked without reading the article and just going by "news".

No, you miss the point.
Distinctions are important.
It matters hugely, recognizing the difference between violent rape and an uninvited shoulder rub, just as it matters making the distinction between a spanking and attempted murder....not just legally but rationally.

I wholeheartedly disagree that making those distinctions about gradients of wrongness in any way denies the ability to see that both are wrong.....except for the brainless who can't do both.

Public shaming IS a sentence, one that harms your job, finances, family, and future. I have no problem with fair public shaming, but lumping a bad date in with real rapists is as fair as lumping you in with kidnappers and murderers because you slapped a disobedient child's behind.

He denies he did anything to intentionally make her uncomfortable or pressure her, which is what she accuses him of.

NO SIR. THAT IS YOUR POSITION, you said until overboard sentencing becomes a problem, there's no distinction needed between bad sex and forced sex.
Yes, it's not cool, but it's also not abuse unless it is.

If, like this woman, she #metoo'd that you were an octopus that ignored all her nonverbal signals to stop, your denial wouldn't mean much, and most people would just call you a rapist....just like his denial means nothing to you and you're more than willing to let him be lumped in with rapists and abusers.

You lumped them together in your post about how making distinctions is out of fashion. It's like you said stop eating broccoli, sugar, and bacon, then balked when I said broccoli is good for you, you only meant deep fried candied broccoli. Come on.

Don't expect me to read what you mean and ignore what you write...I absolutely hate that.
Don't be sexually aggressive...do be weird.

Yes, distinctions matter immensely.

No, grading offences is proper, otherwise you put rape and going Dutch on a date at the same level because they both upset the date.

If the person goes on a long date with you, accepts an invitation to your bed, undressed and engages in sex, asks you to slow down a bit (which means continue, slower, which you do), and continues, sleeps over, and only later complains, maybe relationships aren't for HER. Her date did absolutely nothing wrong. Verbal cues trump non verbal cues in the dark 99.9999999% of the time....pretty much any time there's no gun to your head.

I think the reason they were telling her she was fine was to calm her down, because the more she reacted, the more aggressive the dog would be.

Exactly! Has neither of these people ever been around dogs before? He's messing up her car, but he doesn't seem aggressive or to be growling. Seems like he's playing, he just plays by tearing apart a car .

Look how aggressive they get when he gets close! NOPE NOPE! Im out!

haha, that things just a tad bit more aggressive. Saddly it looks like someone made a automated gun aiming rig and decided to dress it up by plopping an egg shaped styrofoam mock up in the center of it rather then actually build the guns into the egg shaped object like you are supposed to. They didn't even bother with building the same ai as the robots into the gun firing routine (complete with sound effects beeps). The whole portal thing was a complete afterthought.

"Do you want Smugness? Because THAT'S how you get Smugness!" Is all I want to repeat post-shooting / post-"let's not politicize" messaging.

The leftists here have become co-dependantly passive/aggressive.

@drradon -- It was cool to compare this with the limited stuff I can remember from taking an intro to fencing (foil) class in college.

There was a different parry for incoming attacks to each quarter of your body facing the opponent (top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right). And that's just for 2 opponents both using the same general stance and weapon. I'd guess these guys would have different counters for each combination of stance/style, weapon of their opponent, and target area. That's a lot to remember -- although a lot would be relatively consistent across different combos.

I liked the high guard styles (two named "guard of the lady" stood out), because they seemed to pair nicely with "beat attacks" -- where you attack and swing to hit the opponent's weapon rather than their body. Gets their weapon out of position and leaves you in better position to make a second attack that they can't easily parry.

I wasn't very good at fencing. Bad footwork, not good form, and pretty slow on parries. But the one thing that let me win matches was aggression and beat attacks. The instructors and more skilled people could see it coming and dodge or otherwise counter it (especially after they figured out that was the one reliable tool in my box), but it was a fun technique to use for me. Cool to see these guys do pretty much the same thing, but just as a small part of a much bigger bag of tricks than I had.

@jwray I think genetic factors play a role in how aggressive someone is, I just think that in a society as genetically diverse as the US it will be impossible that that is the difference compared to other countries. My guess is that genes only explain a small part of gun violence, and no more than in other countries.

I think the vast majority of the high gun violence can be explained by culture. The US is a dog eat dog world. The mindset of the country seems to be Ann Randish / Neo Liberal / Right compared to similar countries in the rest of the world. The US seems to prefer personal freedom over common good.

In a country with that state of mind, you tend to get that everyone fights for themselves and there is less willingness to compromise. Everyone becomes defensive. Throw in poverty (another part of the same mindset) and guns and you get an explosive mix.

It is a classic prisoner dilemma. Everyone would be better off if they cooperate, yet because of lack of trust everyone defects.

Japan is one of the many places that shows what you can achieve with more social safety. It costs higher taxes and less personal freedom, you get back less death.

Sorry, that's pretty culturally-ignorant thinking right there.

Japanese people are not "meek" or "inhibited" any more so than Americans are. There are different cultural rules about self-expression but there are most certainly loud, aggressive, and flamboyant people here. They just express themselves in different ways than your typically loud, aggressive, and flamboyant American would.

You might think socioeconomic factors were a reason for the lack of crime, but you'd be wrong there too. Japan has a higher poverty rate and lower median income than the U.S.

The low crime rates here can much better be attributed to cultural factors. Every Japanese person is raised with the belief that it is shameful cause problems to the people around them, whether that be family, schoolmates, or co-workers. Getting arrested is about the most shameful thing you could do here. Just being suspected of a crime will likely get you fired from your job, before you are even tried.

And let's not forget the role the justice system here plays. If you get arrested you are almost 100% going to get convicted because the odds are massively stacked against you in the court system. You are basically guilty until proven innocent. Read this for more info about it.

And people here know this. They also know that Japanese prison is hellish. You won't be raped or assaulted there like in the U.S. but you will know exactly what is like to have all of your freedom stripped completely away.

You add to all of this the low unemployment rate of Japan, the high regulation of all weapons (including knives), a robust social system for helping the unemployed (although unfortunately lately a lot of people seem to be falling through the cracks), a nationalized health insurance plan (I pay a $1 co-pay to take my daughter to the doctor and all prescribed medicines are free), a strong social stigma against drug use, and the ability as an island nation to strictly police the borders to prevent the influx of illegal goods (i.e. drugs/guns) and you get the low crime rates in Japan.

tl;dr

There is little incentive to commit crime in Japan because the both social and legal repercussions are extremely severe, and there is little need to resort to crime to survive (plentiful jobs and robust social security). Likewise the opportunity to commit crime is lessened because of the strict regulation of weapons, drugs, and borders.

EDIT: I will say that on more than one occasion I've thought that a career criminal in the U.S. who suddenly found himself in Japan would feel like a kid in a candy store. Because of the lack of crime, people here don't take precautions against it--some people leave doors and windows unlocked when leaving the house, you'll see laptops or iPads left in cars in plain view, and people carry ridiculous amounts of cash on them (I'm talking like on the order of $1000 or more in some cases). On the one hand it can be reassuring but on the other hand I seriously worry about these people when they travel overseas.