know what ruins a party? bees

A desire to exert sexual dominance over anything you want. A form of sexual entitlement to have unrestricted access to anything and everything to gratify your desires.

The rebuttal argues that refusing to debate the definition of rape is more dangerous than debating it.

If one person gets to unilaterally decide what rape means without debate, the rebuttal argues that this gives accusers a "get out of jail free card" to destroy anyone's life based on a personal feeling, rather than a provable legal standard which flips the power dynamic. This rebuttal flips this to talk about accusatorial entitlement by suggesting that the true danger is a person who feels entitled to label any encounter they regret as "rape," regardless of the other person's intent or the facts.

Its an ad hominem. By saying "false accusers are often the same people that are not above raping others" is a psychological projection claim. It suggests that if someone is willing to weaponize the term, they are morally equivalent to a rapist.

My post does not say "rape is whatever I feel it is." My post is advocating for a clear, hard line against non-consent, not for subjective, arbitrary accusations. The rebuttal completely misrepresents my point.

My post is about normalizing dangerous paraphilias. The respone ignores this entirely and makes the conversation about false accusations. While false accusations are a serious legal issue, they are statistically rare compared to actual rapes, and bringing them up in a discussion about incest/bestiality is a diversion tactic, not a counter-argument.

The rebuttal ignores that rape laws already have objective standards (lack of affirmative consent, incapacitation, age of consent) that do not rely on anyone's "feelings."

The one valid concern the rebuttal hints at is that due process requires a clear, objective definition. In a court of law, we must debate intent, context, and consent to ensure innocent people aren't convicted.

However, my post wasn't talking about courtroom due process my post was talking about cultural normalization, such as the kind that happens on podcasts and social media.

The response to my original post is a masterclass in reactionary guerilla ontology. Guerilla ontology being a term coined by Hakim Bey and is the radical, subversive act of hijacking and redefining reality, labels, and power dynamics

The response to my post performs a guerilla pivot by redefining who holds the dangerous power. The response argues that the accuser who defines rape subjectively is the true threat, and the accused is the one being subjugated. By flipping the binary, the replier doesn't deny rape exists. Instead, they reclassify the "rapist" as anyone who wields the label of rape without objective debate. This is classic guerilla ontology done by changing the subject of the sentence to destabilize the original power structure.

The response is arguing that if the definition becomes purely subjective ("whatever I feel it is"), the label loses its objective reality and becomes a mere weapon for social control.

By demanding a debate on what qualifies as rape, the replier is engaging in ontological hacking, and is refusing to accept the dominant culture's a priori definition, insisting that the very category of rape must be continuously renegotiated.

The statement, "people who knowingly and willingly falsely accuse others of rape, are often the same people that are not above raping others" is an ontological shock tactic.

In guerilla ontology, you disrupt the audience's assumptions by equating two seemingly opposite categories (the Accuser and the Rapist). The replier merges these identities, suggesting that the accusation and the act spring from the same authoritarian desire for domination. This is a deliberate, provocative recategorization designed to shatter the reader's default moral mapping (where Accuser = Good/Just, Rapist = Bad/Evil) and force them into the replier's new framework: Accuser = Potential Tyrant.

The replier reframes the conflict as Individual Liberty vs. Mob Subjectivity. The replier seeks to position themselves as the defender against the oppressive, ever-shifting whim of the accuser. This is the guerilla move. Co-opting the language of the oppressed and applying it to the accused.

While the replier executes the tactics of guerilla ontology (inversion, deconstruction, recategorization), it is worth noting that Bey's original concept was intended for progressive, liberatory anarchy intent on subverting state and capitalist power.

The replier weaponizes this tactic for conservative/legal-defense purposes. The replier is not dismantling a state structure but is instead attempting to dismantle a moral consensus about vulnerable victims. By using guerilla ontology to equate "defining rape subjectively" with "being a rapist," the replier achieves their goal. The response attempts to move the battlefield to "Who gets to define the abuser?" paralyzing the original argument through semantic warfare.

EDIT: I also want to point out that I highly doubt this is an intentional use of guerilla ontology as the blogs that argue these points frankly don't seem smart enough to know what guerilla ontology is or how to use it.

I believe they're engaging in something aesthetically similar by arguing semantics until the conversation is paralyzed and will treat a lack of response they deem acceptable as victory in the 'debate'. It's the same attitude they had back when they were (and probably still are) reddit atheists and 4channers, their language has just shifted to incorporate the veneer of progressivism. Which is clear when you see the same "debate meeee" attitude those kinds of people have. They still have that attitude that they know it all and are clever enough to outsmart long held societal standards around abuse.