Posts by Irari

I don't like awards for this reason: it's very subjective.

Music, painting, dancing, etc. are all arts. If we judge them at it's core, it's really about how well they are able to evoke a feeling from the audience.

Speaking from a literature standpoint, technicality, rules and "quality" in writing are often broken for the sake of delivering a specific message to the readers. The same applies for any arts.

Thus, it is extremely unfair to judge arts and give awards. Charts will be biased. Judges will be biased. People should stop objectifying something subjective and just enjoy the moment.

Quote from BIGnorBANG

Only Hybe and its stans were this. As for the stock price, I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if Hyve were to be worth more broken up than it is now 😂😂😂

That's very valid. I wonder what's the excuse now that people are reporting that NJs are the money makers.

I hope so, but unlikely.

I wonder how this will play out since BSH is still in the USA. And WHY is he still there? There's so many things going on with his company, and I haven't heard from him. It feels like someone is advising him to lay low in LA until this passes.

To be rich

Quote from Yama-Chan

https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=387410

Quote

Another user partly criticized NewJeans “for being immature and reckless for making the abrupt, one-sided announcement,” saying they make up a significant portion of HYBE’s sales.

It's so contradicting--some were saying that NewJeans aren't the money makers of Hybe. Now, some people are crying that they are. sighhhh

Quote

“They are too young to judge how their words can affect the stock price, and I must say HYBE is simply unprofessional in taking care of its artists

Why should they care about the stock price?

I love seeing civil and proper conversations. More threads should be like this--people admitting where they're wrong and acknowledging perspectives.

Quote from Kataphract

I shall create a hasty timeline for reference.

You've stated that you've seen no issue with Cookie or Baby It's Both, to which I expressed my deepest concerns.

You've mounted a defense to your claims, as (potentially) a tour de force of your reasoning that led you to believing that neither song was naught of issue, a defense that I later deconstructed - in an exchange with you - and hopefully nulled. I hoped I had shown the little amount of reliability your defense offered, and, by proxy, how little your original statement had in terms of reliable validity.

Addressing your most recent reply to Irari, I did mark the scientific quotes with a relevancy flag. the bulk of my argument was against the reliable validity of your claims (not whether or not they are true). While I personally think your claims are false, I do not have the time budget to spend proving it false via thorough and conclusive research, hence the deconstruction via fallacies.

You said it yourself, we're dying on vastly different hills here.

My statement of problem, stated here again, is that minors performing sexually euphemistic songs is inherently wrong and harmful.

I have stated in a much earlier post that I find the lyrics to be euphemistic but with built in plausible deniability. I bolstered my claim via the probability calculation that even plausibly deniable sexual nature is lower than the mathematical bar for "is or isn't sexual" via, implicitly, definition by mass observation (reality is perception, modified with large N populations, accounting for the inability to read the writers' minds, and the myth of objective truth with a focus on literary works).

Via these posts, I have then established my reasoning that in this case, Baby It's Both can be sexual, and thus mathematically can be assumed that it will be sexual for a subset of the listening population, which triggers the issue of minors performing sexual songs.

Taken together, I can then say it is true that illit, with Baby its Both, performed a sexual song. This however, due to the probablistic origin, is not mutually exlusive with its complimemt "Illit did not perform a sexual song (Baby its both)". I have established Illit had met the problem statement.

Your arguments that the song is benign and thus is ok was not foundationally supported by sound reasoning or evidence, and was what I thought was a non sequitur. Your arguments relied so heavily on your specific "Big Apple" cultural context and the Anchoring Effect it has caused that it deeply undermined and savaged any impetus for me to be convinced. I explicitly pointed these out to directly confine your claims to the realm of opinion, to be taken only at a future reader's will.

It is my understanding that your attempt of defense was to potentially assail the validity of my statement of problem to defend your original claim. However, not only were your attempts irrelevant, they lacked sound universal reasoning, as stated earlier. I defended my problem statement by breaking your claims' validities regardless. To avoid the Fallacy fallacy, I did not then declare your arguments are universally and patently false, instead reducing my "this is false and dangerous" conclusions to the confines of my personal opinion. I intentionally leave the door open that you might be able to attempt a demolition of my problem statement again, to reaffirm the logical or evidenced foundation of your original claim after thoughtful preparation.

being petty again

Also please make a clear statement of what your main claim of your defense is, in future. From time to time I have percieved that it was:

1. "Baby It's Both is not a sexual song."

2. "Baby It's Both is sexual but negligibly so."

3. "Sexual songs do not affect underaged listeners."

4. "Sexual content in songs is so widespread that it [somehow] nullifies your problem statement."

5. "Sexual content might affect underaged listeners, but not meaningfully."

With what do I base my opinion on? I make an equivalency between euphamistcally sexual and sexual wording. I consider the act of singing or talking about sex in the first or second person a low grade sexual act, mitigated by the non-equivalency of actions and words as well as consent to performing the act (i.e. it is not coerced). I guess I'm overreacting in hindsight because the age of consent in California is 18 (as I think it should be, or slightly higher) but it is 16 in the ROK, which Iroha has been 16 for a few months. Now one might detect false equivalencies, the motte and bailey fallacy, or a mistake of mission creep in the terming of what is a sexual act. I will leave that door open, i invite rebuttal.

Display More

This reads like the rebuttals my PI used to get. All you need is a title like "When a Personality Psychologist Smokes too much," or "Why are we comparing apples to oranges?"

Quote from Varenka

I have no idea how to break up quotes properly because this doesn't let me format this post in BB Code. I'm sorry.

I don't find the studies too relevant because the type of music their investigating to see what negative effects, if any, there could be on teens listening would exclude, by their definitions, this Illit song since it wouldn't be degrading. If anything, the finding published within them would bolster my opinion.

The sample sizes in the studies are 14-15 (high school freshmen) and (12-15 until they are 15-18--following them over three years), so these seem to be the age group that would be included in Illit's demographic, so it seems that most would comprehend what is being said if the lyrics were sexual in nature according to the Silverman-Watkins results you cite.

In the Martino paper previously cited (sample are ages 12-15 over a three-year period), they say

Emphasis mine. Sexual content was already widespread even thirty years ago.

From the same study, an example of non-degrading lyrics:

vs sexually degrading:

And one of their findings is as follows (emphasis mine):

If we look at the previously cited Primack study (sample seems to be 14 to 15):

Now in what universe are these lyrics "degrading" compared to the examples that I took a screenshot of in another post and the examples cited here:

This song is not in the "degrading" group of either study. Mere sexual references, as claimed in the two studies previously posted, are not inherently harmful. The emphasis is in the contents of the sexual references themselves.

Of course, these studies are about listening to music, not singing it. These are just two studies (that were conveniently cited so I read, but I wasn't going to research this on my own time ). And you, having the educational experience here, say that this is not a well-researched field, so there's probably not much. (This doesn't include all of the other issues in publishing within academia.) But let's not pretend that teens don't sing these songs.

And, I understand your point about looking at this from a Korean perspective, but I'm not Korean, and I'm not going to pretend to be able to see things from the perspective of a culture that I'm not that familiar with. Also, this is an English version to an already-existing Korean song, so I suspect that they're targeting English speakers, so I think a western perspective is okay here in the same way a Japanese version would be aimed at Japanese speakers primarily in Japan.

Display More

Quote from Varenka

I have no idea how to break up quotes properly because this doesn't let me format this post in BB Code. I'm sorry.

I don't find the studies too relevant because the type of music their investigating to see what negative effects, if any, there could be on teens listening would exclude, by their definitions, this Illit song since it wouldn't be degrading. If anything, the finding published within them would bolster my opinion.

The sample sizes in the studies are 14-15 (high school freshmen) and (12-15 until they are 15-18--following them over three years), so these seem to be the age group that would be included in Illit's demographic, so it seems that most would comprehend what is being said if the lyrics were sexual in nature according to the Silverman-Watkins results you cite.

In the Martino paper previously cited (sample are ages 12-15 over a three-year period), they say

Emphasis mine. Sexual content was already widespread even thirty years ago.

From the same study, an example of non-degrading lyrics:

vs sexually degrading:

And one of their findings is as follows (emphasis mine):

If we look at the previously cited Primack study (sample seems to be 14 to 15):

Now in what universe are these lyrics "degrading" compared to the examples that I took a screenshot of in another post and the examples cited here:

This song is not in the "degrading" group of either study. Mere sexual references, as claimed in the two studies previously posted, are not inherently harmful. The emphasis is in the contents of the sexual references themselves.

Of course, these studies are about listening to music, not singing it. These are just two studies (that were conveniently cited so I read, but I wasn't going to research this on my own time ). And you, having the educational experience here, say that this is not a well-researched field, so there's probably not much. (This doesn't include all of the other issues in publishing within academia.) But let's not pretend that teens don't sing these songs.

And, I understand your point about looking at this from a Korean perspective, but I'm not Korean, and I'm not going to pretend to be able to see things from the perspective of a culture that I'm not that familiar with. Also, this is an English version to an already-existing Korean song, so I suspect that they're targeting English speakers, so I think a western perspective is okay here in the same way a Japanese version would be aimed at Japanese speakers primarily in Japan.

Display More

I appreciate you taking the time to go through these sources! While I do see and understand your perspective, I believe there's a miscommunication with what my concerns are. Maybe I didn't explain it properly and clearly:

My concern isn't the people and kids consuming Illit's music. It is not Illit's job to ensure children don't do risky behaviors. That is the role of parents, education and mentors.

However, it is Belift and Hybe's job to ensure Illit isn't sexualized, educate Illit what the song can possibly entail, and ensure their reputation in their country/culture isn't ruined.

The girls live in Korea and have beliefs rooted in their culture. They're not westernized. While the song was meant for western fans, it doesn't change that the group's culture doesn't match with the western ideals. None of the girls are English speaking and perhaps they do not understand the underlying tone and how their song can easily be misinterpreted.

Illit's marketing, styling and songs are very dollhouse--their image is that of very young teens. Their age doesn't matter because their companies are pushing them to this type of theme that isn't matching with their age. Sure, that's debatably okay. But now, with an image of young teens, the company is letting them sing a song that can easily cause misunderstandings. This makes them vulnerable to more sexualization within their country and other places.

This is why it's not okay for Illit to perform these songs. Listeners and fans only consume--children singing these songs, while its impact is debatable, is one thing.

Illit is delivering the songs. They're the subject. They're front and centered. Everyone is looking at them, and Hybe and Belift are setting them up to be taken advantaged of. Their culture isn't as forgiving as the west which can damage their personal lives.

My concern is Illit--they're the subject, and their company is setting them up.

To add: your perspective is very valid and is one thing when it comes to the consumption of media, music, etc. And I love how you're bringing these topics up. It really makes me think about the need for studies when it comes to teens performing/singing sexually suggestive/sexual innuendos.

My first ever Kpop song. I remember this releasing and my classmates raved about it and did a ton of dance covers. It was unique

Quote from Varenka

I can skip most of your post and just go here since this gets to the crux of the issue: I said my personal feelings in regards to this based on my experiences and at no point did I try to elevate my opinion to a fact. At most, I attested to a descriptive norm of what teenagers around me partake in and used it to inform my stance. If there are no studies, as you claim, to help guide one way or the other, I'm not sure your list of criticisms of my reasoning are very strong.

Which is to say, out of interest, if you have no studies to back up your opinions. What are you basing your opinions on then?

Your post cites two studies that I don't think are relevant to whether this song is appropriate or not? I'll put it in a spoiler since I don't see the relevance and don't want to take up space:

Display Spoiler

Martino, S. C., Collins, R. L., Elliott, M. N., Strachman, A., Kanouse, D. E., & Berry, S. H. (2006). Exposure to degrading versus nondegrading music lyrics and sexual behavior among youth. Pediatrics, 118(2), e430–e441. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0131

Primack, B. A., Douglas, E. L., Fine, M. J., & Dalton, M. A. (2009). Exposure to sexual lyrics and sexual experience among urban adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.11.011

The conclusions you quoted indicated something really specific:

"Multivariate regression analyses indicated that youth who listened to more degrading sexual content at T2 were more likely to subsequently initiate intercourse..."

"The 711 participants were exposed to 14.7 hours each week of songs with lyrics describing degrading sex (SD=17.0). Almost one third of participants (n=216) had previously been sexually active. Compared to those with the least exposure to lyrics describing degrading sex, those with the most exposure were more than twice as likely to have had sexual intercourse..."

They both hedge on the term "degrading." I "shopped" around for the two studies since the links you provided didn't define what "degrading meant. The Primack study suggests the following as degrading vs non-degrading:

"References to sexual intercourse in popular music lyrics are generally either degrading or nondegrading (Table 1). Degrading sex is defined as sex that (1) is based only on physical characteristics and (2) contains a power differential instead of being mutually consensual.12,21,22 Degrading references constitute two thirds of all sexual references in popularmusic,12 and in particular may promote early sexual activity. This is because they may encourage youth to play out the described roles (sex-driven male partner and acquiescent female partner) rather than resolving their true desires and anxieties surrounding sexual activity.14,"

As for the first study:

"In our coding scheme, lyrics classified as degrading depicted sexually insatiable men pursuing women valued only as sex objects. These types of portrayals objectify and degrade women in ways that are

obvious but do the same to men by depicting them as sex-driven studs whose individual desires are subsumed in their gender role. Adolescents who listen to a lot of music containing these objectifying and limiting characterizations of sexuality progress more quickly in their sexual behavior, regardless of their race or gender..."

Illit's song would be "non-degrading" by either standard (which in some ways bolsters my point about this being a benign song relatively speaking since one of the studies suggests that 40% of popular music listened to by teens to be "degrading"). So even these studies don't seem to support the idea that the teens that would be listening to this song would be "harmful" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Display More

I believe the two sources they provided aren't irrelevant to the topic. The problem is that everyone is discussing a gap knowledge. The topic, the influence of sexual innuendos in songs and media on young adults, isn't a heavily researched topic. The sources provided earlier provides a foundation, and one can use those to form their own opinions on the topic. These two primary sources are really good studies to discuss possible influences and base a hypothesis around it.

To add, the problem with the "non-degrading" and "degrading" is its validity. It's up to interpretation whether or not the participant comprehend the innuendos as sexual or not. Per Silverman-Watkins et al., (1983), they found that adolescents do have a comprehension of these innuendos with 14 and 16 year-olds having the highest comprehension while 12 year-olds somewhat understand it and find it funny. Comprehension is the key-word here. If the viewers comprehend this as something sexual, then that's the problem.

Children and young adolescents mimic what they see and what is normalized. This can lead to early risky sexual behaviors due to them barely comprehending the full meaning and consequence of it. Frankly, children are dumb. We've all been there before (kids saying racist jokes because it's funny and others laugh, kids doing dumb decisions online and doxxing themselves, kids getting into things they shouldn't, etc). These things stem from children lacking the full understanding, but understanding just enough. If songs such as this become a norm, it gives young children enough information to act but not enough for them to be aware of the consequences.

I write this coming from both experience, academic and work (child development research). In addition, Illit is marketed towards a specific demographic based on their styling, music and marketing. I've also noticed that people discussing this is normal in the western world (not just here but other medias). We're not only talking about the west, but also Korea and Asia where it's a more conservative culture. Think about how this can influence the girls in their world and culture, how they will be viewed and sexualized. They're primarily Korean based.

I honestly empathize with your opinion. To me it sounds like this is the norm you see, and you got desensitized to it. I think parents should do a better job at explaining, educating and monitoring children's intake of media.

Silverman-Watkins, L. T., & Sprafkin, J. N. (1983). Adolescents’ comprehension of televised sexual innuendos. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4(4), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(83)90013-8

Quote from Kataphract

1. Fallacy of False equivalence.

Minors consuming sexually charged material is not the same as minors producing sexually charged content. They are both bad, however.

2. Fallacy of Argument from Anecdote.

A small sample size, that is not random, nor is it representative. Conclusions drawn are not universally reliable.

3. Fallacy of Relative Privation

This issue is not a sliding scale but of a binary one. Minors singing about sexual scenarios, even with euphemisms is harmful. Using examples of much worse instances does not excuse Illit's instance.

4. The Comparison Fallacy

Kids in NYC is not equivalent to Illit fans or listeners. (No matter how cosmopolitan they may be.)

5. Inference, and Comment (somewhat unrelated)
This quote:

In addition to:

Might be relevant to:

and:

6. To round Fallacies out: Bandwagon Fallacy, Again.

This one is less obvious and may be misapplied, but I think this is valid because of an underlying Comparison fallacy, that NYC teenagers (including you) are indicative of a benchmark for teenagers. Thus this extends the "we all do it" core of the bandwagon fallacy to the "benchmark of teenagers" (<< if one exists lol), and thus creates a true bandwagon fallacy. Feel free to rebut this.

7. Point of Misunderstanding.

I'm not the sole voice nor the sole authority(if I have any) here claiming that Illit's release of Baby It's Both is wrong. Further, I'm stating that the problem is that Illit is producing sexually suggestive songs in the first place, while they have an underaged member in the group, On top of that the fact that Iroha (aged 16) is singing the one section that is particularly egregious in sexual innuendo further bolsters my case.

im just being petty now

phase -> faze
(I'm sticking this here because I think I might be making terms up:
8. Appeal to Common Practice Via Proxy. "All the teenagers do it so what's the issue?" but via (explicitly stated) your POV.

As such I can conclude: your argument and evidence backing it up is fundamentally flawed thus obscuring any validity, if any, in your arguments or statements of premise or effect. As a pursuant of truth, this does not mean your convictions are thusly false,. It simply has not graduated from opinion to evidenced fact. However, person to person, I think your opinion, however, is critically wrong and potentially harmful.

I will concede that I cannot back my point up that underaged idols performing sexually suggestive music is inherently harmful and wrong, because I cannot find research that tests and verifies this notion. However, It is of my strongest opinion, that underaged idols performing sexually suggestive music is inherently harmful and wrong.

Display More

I can't believe I'm seeing proper sources. Might I suggest adding in text citations and proper reference formating please? APA is preffered.

I love this so much

I think it is. I don't mind lip-syncing if you can sing. Sometimes vocals need rest and with intense choreo, it becomes difficult. Idols are humans and everyone has their off days.

My dislike is that they aren't owning up to it. Or, they can't sing while standing, or if the choreo isn't as hard and they're still struggling. I feel like a lot of Kpop these days are 60-80% dancing and the other 10% talking/rapping the same words and 10% singing. Then again, I'm a theatre fan where a lot of people sing live.

I believe the west mostly reacts to KBS well. I haven't noticed any negative or adverse reaction from the west. Furthermore, there are a lot of Asian Americans that have adapted korean routines and styles. I don't think the west ever disliked the current KBS.

How do they decide who gets to preform? And what's the usual criteria for awards? This is the first time I tuned into the MAMA, and it was eeh.

Illit is okay for me. Their songs aren't my cup of tea. As for the girls, I feel like the members have no synergy with each other. Nothing stands out for me.

My favorite so far as been Iroha. I really love her dance--Illit's footwork is fun to watch. Some dances are a bit cringe for me (Magnetic and Cherish).

How does the MAMA even work? What are even the criteria for groups to win an award and/or perform?