Remove ads

RWBY Thread III: Time To Say Goodbye

Reader mode
Stop: So gotta few things that need to be said real quick.
  • Staff Post
    • so gotta few things that need to be said real quick.
    We get a lot of reports from this thread. A lot of it is just a series of people yelling at each other over arguments that have been rehashed hundreds of times since the end of the recent Volume. And I get that the last Volume - and RWBY in general, really - has some controversial moments that people will want to discuss, argue about, debate, etc.

    That's fine. We're not going to stop people from doing that, because that's literally what the point of the thread is. However, there's just a point where it gets to be a bit too much, and arguments about whether or not Ironwood was morally justified in his actions in the recent Volume, or if RWBY and her team were in the right for withholding information from Ironwood out of distrust, or whatever flavor of argument of the day descend into insulting other posters, expressing a demeaning attitude towards other's opinions, and just being overall unpleasant. That tends to happen a lot in this thread. We want it to stop happening in this thread.

    So! As of now the thread is in a higher state of moderation. What that means is that any future infractions will result in a weeklong boot from the thread, and repeated offenders will likely be permanently removed. So please, everyone endeavor to actually respect the other's arguments, and even if you strongly disagree with them please stay civil and mindful when it comes to responding to others.

    In addition, users should refrain from talking about off-site users in the thread. Bear in mind that this does not mean that you cannot continue to post tumblr posts, for example, that add onto the discussion in the thread, with the caveat that it's related to RWBY of course. But any objections to offsite users in the thread should be handled via PM, or they'll be treated as thread violations and infracted as such.
     
    Last edited:
  • Staff Post
    • Redium said:
    That's a bit of a leap. All we see is Roman in military custody some time after the Breach. Given how slow legal proceedings can move, he could very well be awaiting trial and General Ironwood is holding him since he's a terrorist and major flight risk.

    Ironwood being physically torture happy has no basis in canon. He believes in military might to suppress terrorists but he also listens to Ozpin's council, it's only when that doesn't work that he increases military action. The cell that Roman is kept in is tortuously small, but that might be a limitation of being on an airship.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I dunno, 'I have the authority to keep you here as long as I like' doesn't exactly sound like he's just holding on to Roman until a trial can be held. Unless he's bluffing, but given how Roman hasn't been seen during this Volume and didn't make it into the OP, he probably isn't.
     
    Renu said:
    You could say "But she touched his balls, that's fondling", to which I would answer "No. You're strawmaning. You're wrong, and you should feel ashamed not to agree with me".
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Where I live it's sexual assault. There was an (in)famous case a few years ago where a 16-17 year old was convicted of sexual assault of a minor for punching his bully in the dick.

    Even your quote:
    Renu said:
    "Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape."
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Agrees.

    Touching someone's genitals is an inherently sexual act and is by definition sexual contact. Even if you don't consider inflicting pain on someone's genitals fondling, then it still falls under "Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact [...] that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient." Based on his pained expression of surprise, I sincerely suspect that Junior did not consent.

    Sexual assault is a significantly broader umbrella than you believe. It includes everything that 1) includes contact between aggressor and victim, 2) is sexual in nature (regardless of whether it was based on what was touched, what touched, or what was done) and 3) was done without express 'Yes, please!' consent.

    Azecreth said:
    I dunno, 'I have the authority to keep you here as long as I like' doesn't exactly sound like he's just holding on to Roman until a trial can be held. Unless he's bluffing, but given how Roman hasn't been seen during this Volume and didn't make it into the OP, he probably isn't.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    That's a common bluff. He could be deadly serious but at the same time, playing hardball is a common tactic for interrogators. Him saying it isn't a definitive smoking gun.

    How much time occurred between the Vytal Festival and the Breach anyway? I assumed it wasn't much. From the time a criminal is arrested to when they actually face trial can be months and the trial itself could take months on its own. Given how the Grimm are attracted to negative emotion I suspect the media only really talks about convictions instead of dragging out the circus for every aspect. The US is the exception in most of the West for publicizing trials, most are gagged until the verdict has been rendered so as not to prejudice the jury or drag the name of an innocent person through the mud.
     
    Man, for some reason it didn't sink in that we'll be getting sad Yang.
    But Velvets here, so we've got that going for us!
     
    Nah, this is the start of the 'Velvet unleashes the box of doom and slaps a bitch' arc. CInder, you goin' down.
     
    Renu said:
    Wow, that's incredibly stupid. Where do you live?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Canada.

    I agree, everyone thought it was stupid. The teachers thought it was stupid, the principal thought it was stupid, the police thought it was stupid. It was a fight, what do you expect?

    Unfortunately, legally, there is absolutely zero tolerance for any type of sex crime committed and even less tolerance for one committed against a minor. It didn't matter if the bully committed assault and battery, sex assault is never justified legally so it cannot be committed in self-defense, it's always criminal. The prosecution must proceed and the judge must sentence to... I forget how much time he got exactly but it was between 1-2 years in jail, years of probation and addition to the sex offenders registry.

    In general, I dislike mandatory minimum sentences and this is a primary reason why.

    At the same time, that also helps convict those who have committed serious sex crimes. It's a like a net, if your net is too lose then you'll have a large number of offenders get away with it, if it's too tight then you have a higher instance of stupid cases where someone really shouldn't have been convicted (but also a higher instance of offenders caught). It depends on society's tolerance for risk in sending an innocent person to jail and the offense's heinousness. Some countries would rather let ten guilty people go free then send an innocent one to jail, others would convict that innocent person and send all the guilty ones to jail.
     
    Redium said:
    sex crime
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Redium said:
    sex assault is never justified legally
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    ... The point being made is that "touches sexual organ" should not, in any way, be the primary criteria for making something a "sex crime". Calling striking someone in the groin "sexual assault" is stupid, because that means they'd be prosecuting anyone who has been taught basic self-defense, where one of the first things you're typically taught is "strike the groin, it'll hurt them and they'll let go".

    What I'm saying is that the law you're talking about is dumb and punishes entirely legitimate self-defense strategies. Like, using that interpretation, I repeatedly committed sexual assault every time I sparred against a female classmate in karate class.

    What Yang did wasn't self-defense, but was entirely non-sexual. Calling it sexual assault doesn't really convey what she did.
     
    Azecreth said:
    This doesn't exactly imply good things.



    Do we think Ironwood would settle for peaceful persuasion on something this important?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I suppose it was more the international waters that had be confused. Sorry.

    Redium said:
    He operates a bar publicly. He has to have at least have a minimum level of respectability to avoid the police coming down on him. Think more honest gentleman mafia than gang.

    Plus, given Cinder's personality, I can totally see death threats being involved in convincing him to testify. Given how it took one not!Huntress to overwhelm him, what would he do against Cinder who's at least on the level of Glynda?

    Batman's also a vigilante. IRL, he'd be arrested just as quickly as the criminals, the only difference is that he has the protection of plot and a complete break down of law and order in Gotham city.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    While this is true, I would assume its not a level of respectability that would leave him feeling confident in calling the police in to investigate Yang's bar brawl.

    I wasn't ever really denying he might testify against Yang, just that her trashing a mafia gang and a bit of their base isn't an especially bad thing and that he was unlikely to seek legal recourse given he didn't do so.

    In this context I was referring more to how fans react to think. That is to say when Batman trashes the Penguins bar or dangles no name mooks from building he gets cheered but when Yang trashes a mafia controlled bar she seems to get jeered.
     
    azoicennead said:
    ... The point being made is that "touches sexual organ" should not, in any way, be the primary criteria for making something a "sex crime". Calling striking someone in the groin "sexual assault" is stupid, because that means they'd be prosecuting anyone who has been taught basic self-defense, where one of the first things you're typically taught is "strike the groin, it'll hurt them and they'll let go".
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    If self-defense instructors tell you to strike the groin it's almost certainly with your foot or shin. There's a difference between hand and foot when it comes down to it, a hand is considered more 'intimate' on the contact level than a foot and, aside from a few foot fetishists, is one of the most common things used to commit sexual acts.

    If your self-defense instructor did tell you to strike the groin, they should also have told you that doing so in the middle of a violent confrontation is often extremely difficult where the enemy can resist you. The groin is a small target, less than 1% of your body's surface, and can be completely protected by proper stance. Going for the face or eyes is generally more debilitating.

    Okay, so if touching a sexual organ isn't beyond assault... if someone lays their hand on a woman's vagina, without penetrating, and then digs their fingers in to inflict pain on her, all without her permission, you'd still take it the same way? After all, it's exactly what Yang did only with the genders reversed.

    azoicennead said:
    What I'm saying is that the law you're talking about is dumb and punishes entirely legitimate self-defense strategies. Like, using that interpretation, I repeatedly committed sexual assault every time I sparred against a female classmate in karate class.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I assume you mean by punching them in the chest? Consenting to spar would cover you since it's obvious to a reasonable person that such would occur in regular sparring. If you didn't consent to spar, then it's automatically assault, but striking is different from using your open palm, enveloping the particular body part and then crushing it. What Yang did was to deliberately attack someone's sexual organs to cause them pain.

    azoicennead said:
    What Yang did wasn't self-defense, but was entirely non-sexual. Calling it sexual assault doesn't really convey what she did.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    It was an attack, with deliberate intent, directed against someone's sexual organs with the intent of causing them pain.

    It meets the criteria of: 1) physical contact, 2) sexual (due to the target and striking instrument) and 3) not with express permission.

    The only reason I think you're resisting it so much is twofold:

    1) this is a really common fiction trope. Taking a shot to the groin is hugely played for comedy in pretty much everything, really. Five seconds on youtube can get you a 30 minute montage on nutcracker after nutcracker.

    2) Yang seems like a really nice person and this contradicts your view on people who commit sexual assault. Other than that once incident, every indication we have about is is that she's deeply caring to her teammates and wants to do good in the world. Now imagine your average sex criminal, they're almost certainly scum, something that isn't even fit to scrape up off your boot but instead deserves to be trod on. That's probably an exaggeration, but it isn't by much. Even murderers can be understood but sex criminals, rapists, are this great vile other that automatically brings loathing to mind when the word is uttered.

    Combined, the fact that Yang didn't really do anything 'out-of-the-ordinary' for her genre and she's a good person makes it hard to see. This, but especially the latter, is a huge problem when dealing with this issue and why trials so often die in the cradle. A lot of people aren't believed because they accuse otherwise ordinary, respectable individuals! In fact, more often than not (by a ridiculous margin) they're likely to accuse people who are close to them: family members, lovers, friends and acquaintances.

    Even people who commit unambiguous examples of sexual assault might not consider themselves or what they did to fall under that umbrella since they're not the horrible incarnation of living scum that the average person pictures. For most people, it's easier to think 'They really wanted it' than the accused they're looking at is 'Evil'.

    Zam said:
    While this is true, I would assume its not a level of respectability that would leave him feeling confident in calling the police in to investigate Yang's bar brawl.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    It's hard to tell but I'll concede you're arguing the most likely scenario. Maybe they were called but when they figured out a huntress-in-training was involved, called it off. It's difficult to tell since we see so little of Junior's operation. Some criminal organizations are perfectly willing to deal with the police, take advantage of them, and use them against their rivals.

    Zam said:
    In this context I was referring more to how fans react to think. That is to say when Batman trashes the Penguins bar or dangles no name mooks from building he gets cheered but when Yang trashes a mafia controlled bar she seems to get jeered.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Ah, then I agree with you in that case. I was only arguing about what people might say about Yang from an in-universe perspective where they 'know' that she'd blatantly assaulted and maimed Mercury.
     
    Redium said:
    It's hard to tell but I'll concede you're arguing the most likely scenario. Maybe they were called but when they figured out a huntress-in-training was involved, called it off. It's difficult to tell since we see so little of Junior's operation. Some criminal organizations are perfectly willing to deal with the police, take advantage of them, and use them against their rivals.

    Ah, then I agree with you in that case. I was only arguing about what people might say about Yang from an in-universe perspective where they 'know' that she'd blatantly assaulted and maimed Mercury.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I could see such a chain of events happening if Junior did try, I mean, why would the cops 'want' to investigate a criminals operation getting damaged when it only hurt the criminal?

    Oh, yes in that context I agree with you more or less, I was speaking out of universe in terms of fans acting like she's a psychotic monster for beating up a mobster and his cronies, or in regards to the in-universe stuff in the original post things said by those who know her well and have no reason to care for Junior... Though it seems Qrow is not being as helpful as I pictured :(

    Sorry for the mis-communication.
     
    Redium said:
    If self-defense instructors tell you to strike the groin it's almost certainly with your foot or shin. There's a difference between hand and foot when it comes down to it, a hand is considered more 'intimate' on the contact level than a foot and, aside from a few foot fetishists, is one of the most common things used to commit sexual acts.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    A fist is also a pretty effective way of doing damage and I know at least six forms that involve striking the groin with the hand (four from being in a kneeling, presumably manhandled position) so the intimacy thing doesn't hold much water.

    And this from practicing Tae Kwon Do. i.e. the martial art that loves to kick.

    I would honestly love to hear a lawyer explain the sexual intimacy of a closed fist or palm heel hitting at 20 mph and breaking contact in under a second.

    Not saying it isnt the law in Canada. Just that it's also stupid.

    If your self-defense instructor did tell you to strike the groin, they should also have told you that doing so in the middle of a violent confrontation is often extremely difficult where the enemy can resist you. The groin is a small target, less than 1% of your body's surface, and can be completely protected by proper stance. Going for the face or eyes is generally more debilitating.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    It's one more thing which they have to defend and one more opportunity if left open. Heck the eyes and solar plexus aren't big targets either and tend to be reflexively defended.
     
    Last edited:
    Redium said:
    Consenting to spar would cover you since it's obvious to a reasonable person that such would occur in regular sparring.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    And you used an example where someone was assaulted and struck his attacker in the groin as an example for your position.

    Redium said:
    What Yang did was to deliberately attack someone's sexual organs to cause them pain.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Yes.
    That would be "assault".

    Redium said:
    2) sexual (due to the target and striking instrument)
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    No. Just... No.
    Involving the groin does not automatically make something sexual. If you believe that, I'm sorry. I don't have anywhere near the motivation required to explain why that's a terrible position to hold.
     
    Redium said:
    Where I live it's sexual assault.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Touching someone's genitals is an inherently sexual act and is by definition sexual contact.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Redium said:
    Unfortunately, legally, there is absolutely zero tolerance for any type of sex crime committed and even less tolerance for one committed against a minor. It didn't matter if the bully committed assault and battery, sex assault is never justified legally so it cannot be committed in self-defense, it's always criminal. The prosecution must proceed and the judge must sentence to... I forget how much time he got exactly but it was between 1-2 years in jail, years of probation and addition to the sex offenders registry.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Redium said:
    Okay, so if touching a sexual organ isn't beyond assault... if someone lays their hand on a woman's vagina, without penetrating, and then digs their fingers in to inflict pain on her, all without her permission, you'd still take it the same way? After all, it's exactly what Yang did only with the genders reversed.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    It was an attack, with deliberate intent, directed against someone's sexual organs with the intent of causing them pain.

    It meets the criteria of: 1) physical contact, 2) sexual (due to the target and striking instrument) and 3) not with express permission.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    What is it with RWBY and extremely literal interpretations?

    Unlike most cases in real life, we know what went down. We have context on all characters involved (more on Yang than Junior, but sufficient on all sides). This is not a court: we do ourselves no favors by ignoring said context, critical thinking, and common sense in favor of strict legal definitions. Regardless of what the letter of the law in certain jurisdictions says, a groin attack does not fit the spirit of "sexual assault" (with all the moral connotations that term evokes).

    (Also, sex organs are not solely for sex: breastfeeding and certain bodily functions come to mind. Michelangelo's David is not pornography and nudists are not perverts. Touching yourself is not only a euphemism for masturbation, and contact with others is not always groping.)

    The only reason I think you're resisting it so much is twofold:

    1) this is a really common fiction trope. Taking a shot to the groin is hugely played for comedy in pretty much everything, really. Five seconds on youtube can get you a 30 minute montage on nutcracker after nutcracker.

    2) Yang seems like a really nice person and this contradicts your view on people who commit sexual assault. Other than that once incident, every indication we have about is is that she's deeply caring to her teammates and wants to do good in the world. Now imagine your average sex criminal, they're almost certainly scum, something that isn't even fit to scrape up off your boot but instead deserves to be trod on. That's probably an exaggeration, but it isn't by much. Even murderers can be understood but sex criminals, rapists, are this great vile other that automatically brings loathing to mind when the word is uttered.

    Combined, the fact that Yang didn't really do anything 'out-of-the-ordinary' for her genre and she's a good person makes it hard to see. This, but especially the latter, is a huge problem when dealing with this issue and why trials so often die in the cradle. A lot of people aren't believed because they accuse otherwise ordinary, respectable individuals! In fact, more often than not (by a ridiculous margin) they're likely to accuse people who are close to them: family members, lovers, friends and acquaintances.

    Even people who commit unambiguous examples of sexual assault might not consider themselves or what they did to fall under that umbrella since they're not the horrible incarnation of living scum that the average person pictures. For most people, it's easier to think 'They really wanted it' than the accused they're looking at is 'Evil'.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Calling into question posters' real-life attitudes and opinions is probably not wise. Not considering Yang a sexual assailant is nothing like covering for actual rapists.
     
    The thought occurs, Emerald's Semblance may indeed be a more out of context problem than we realize. I mean, we don't know how long Aura and Semblance's have been studied or used, in the WoR's its always Dust that's cited as how people survived the Grim not souls so it could even be relatively recent or recently re-discovered. But going further than that not only is Em's Semblance sinisterly subtle in its application (from an outside perspective especially) to the point where it leaves no visible traces on the victim or the user but it may not be that common because there aren't that many Hunters. This feels even more likely for Hunters with Semblance's, that is to say there may be less of them than there are other Hunters, and then there'd likely be even fewer with Semblance's like Emeralds which may not even work on Grim so its less likely to develop. Which leads me to my final point, if we accept all the previous premises here's what I feel may be a decent clincher. Why would anyone with a Semblance similar to Emeralds reveal it?

    It seems like a useful secret weapon, somehting that could theoretically make all one on one encounters go the users way and could, as we've seen, allow for personal social engineering, revealing that would be incredibly detrimental to one's ability to use it and if Semblance's reflect someone's personality and soul they'd probably be pretty secretive or treacherous to begin with. And given how subtle it is people with similar Semblance may indeed never have revealed their Semblance or had it discovered? At least not in a way that's widely spread so that everyone knows they are a thing and a recurring problem.



    Also, am I the only one thinking Adam may not have the rest of the White Fang on-board with this whole teaming up with the scary fire woman idea and thus its just his section of the WF and new recruits that are causing all the recent stuff while the rest are doing their own thing and thinking "WTF mate?"
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top