thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
My guess is - if the symbol is really a pedophile symbol - it was poorly thought out edginess. And I am highly suspicious of the symbol's veracity, because I've spent most of my life on the dark side of the internet (and am fluent in hobo code) and never saw it before.
I expect it probably was a symbol used by a group of pedophiles at some point, but it's almost certainly not a common or universal one since there is no single pedophile community and instead lots of small groups and individuals that don't associate with or even know about each other.
And there are ways that pedophilia is terrible that don't extend to being homosexual—acting out of pedophilic desires tends to involve power dynamics and large differences in maturity and judgment that wouldn't necessarily be present in a homosexual relationship.
None of the people who sexually abused me when I was younger were sexually attracted to me. None of them saw me as a sexual partner, and in some cases probably didn't even see what they were doing as sexual. I was just a doll they could poke and prod and tease to get funny reactions out of. There's a widespread misconception that not being motivated by sexual attraction makes behavior okay, or at least not sexual, while being motivated by sexual attraction makes behavior not okay, and the LGBT movement (and they are by far not the only ones, EDIT: but they are the topic of this chain) can burn for all I care for their contributions toward reinforcing that misconception in an effort to push all the blame for the harms they cause solely onto my demographic rather than facing their own contributions to harming kids.
It's also possible to read his comments as saying that he would prefer no such thing, in which case I have a lot less sympathy with his argument.
I don't think prefer is the best word to use here. I'm sexually attracted to children, so by definition I'd prefer to be able to act on that. I'm also extremely risk-averse and terrified of inadvertently hurting them (or less sympathetically, terrified of them hating me for it) to the point I'd rather avoid getting involved in such relationships at all than risk having to experience that, so I have few qualms with some level of repression. I resent repression that just amounts to hiding who I am attracted to because people are disgusted by it rather than because it risks harming kids (eg, banning pedophilic fiction, discrimination in activities that don't involve interacting with children). And I have very little patience for other groups openly engaging in more risky behavior that I avoid, while claiming it's okay specifically because they aren't pedophiles and ignoring, downplaying, and/or blaming pedophiles for the fallout when that risk plays out.
I don't begrudge you that position. But similarly, I see no reason to care about people being intolerant of you--supporting your group is not something I can afford. Hence my original comment.
No, it is exactly the same thing. You just don't want to admit it because doing so would require either admitting that such repression can be expected of some groups in a tolerant society (and thus it is on the table for gays) or admitting that the LGBT community is not actually a tolerant one (and thus must cede the moral high ground).
I'm pretty confident most people expect me to avoid relationships, if not interactions altogether, with people I'm attracted to.
And this is a problem why exactly? They expect me to similarly repress myself if I'm to live and participate in society, so why should I care if other people expect it of them?
I agree TheSchism is a place with a viewpoint and that that viewpoint leans to the left. I think it's the culture of the sub that enforces that far more than the moderation though. The only bans I can recall for things other than personal attacks were given to left-leaning posters, which makes me wonder if I'm just overlooking instances where right-leaning posters actually got less leniency or if it is the culture of the sub biasing the expectation of how right-leaning posters would be modded.
a mod whose name I don't remember and is no longer on the mod team list
I'd guess mcjunker, since I don't recall any of the other early mods having been particularly active.
or crossed the "no violence" line
The rules prohibit "glorifying violence", which isn't the same as "no violence". TW clarified that pretty early on.
For a close to home example, I don't think anyone at The Schism "hates" white people in the way, say, Hannah Nikole-Jones or Tema Okun does, but I think many of them would engage in a lot of hemming, hawing, and sanewashing why those attitudes make sense in context, or why they should be tolerated (but the opposite equivalent wouldn't be, a la the fiasco last month with Impassionata- I strongly doubt the mods would've tolerated a right-wing rant half as long), etc etc. Or why slurs are so much worse at certain targets, but basically don't matter towards others.
Do you have any evidence to support these claims? I find that the mods there are very hesitant to give out bans at all or even warnings for that matter, and as @drmanhattan16 notes, there's been plenty of right-wing or at least anti-progressive ranting in the sub over its lifetime. I vaguely recall @gemmaem discussing this hesitancy in a comment early on, though I'm having trouble finding a link to it with the reddit api fiasco making searching for old comments a bit troublesome at the moment.
What postwar German movie is comparable to, say, Amelie, The City of Lost Children, Léon, The Fifth Element – just off the top of my head?
Lola Rennt and Die Welle come to mind.
Second, what's up with nuclear waste? Specifically, if the waste is really a nothing burger, as I see argued often, why do I see (other) experts talking about how to communicate how bad it is to people 10k years in the future. What are those other experts thinking and why are they wrong?
Nuclear waste isn't really a "nothing burger", but the stuff that they claim we'd need to warn people 10k years in the future about is about as dangerous as many toxic but non-radioactive industrial chemicals that we use all the time (ie, ingestion or long-term exposure is bad, but just being around it isn't too dangerous) without worrying about such long-term disposal. Focusing on radioactive waste is therefore special pleading. They will also usually not make this clear to people, letting their audience infer that the long-lived waste is actually much more dangerous than it is by emphasizing the more severe dangers of short-lived waste products.
Yes, and we're not aligned with one another. An AI (completely) aligned with me is likely to not be (completely) aligned with you.
Why would we expect to be able to successfully align AIs when we haven't been able to align humanity?
I'm referring to arguments such as the one made by Mark Greene in this article that homophobia prevents platonic physical intimacy between men.
What about that is an upside for someone who hasn't committed a crime and doesn't intend to?
How is that a windfall for us? As far as I'm concerned, the "left's" behavior you cite is just making my life all that much harder with no upside for me. They are normalizing sexual and sexualized behavior in kids, rubbing my attractions in my face while making interacting with society feel even more like navigating a minefield than it already does all the while dumping the blame for problems it causes at my feet because they supposedly don't have sexual motivations. And I'm supposed to be delighted by this?
Every poece of literature, every lesdon was always about where was being touched not by who.
To an extent, I agree that's what is taught in lessons, though I think the emphasis on female over male victimization in such lessons as well as the greater emphasis on bigotry bad in other lessons works against it. But what's taught in lessons matters little when boys actual reports are downplayed and ignored, when boys are told that them being creeped out by someone's lesser behavior is no big deal and that making a big deal about it is shameful (due to bigotry) they learn to not report later more egregious behaviors expecting the same treatment.
Certainly not by men, who were if anything more reported. Even for actually innocent things.
Yes, men are often reported for innocent behavior. This is I think rooted in the same bias that causes boys' complaints to not be taken seriously: men are seen as sexual actors, so their behavior is seen as more sexual while behavior directed at them is seen as less sexual.
I strongly disagree. We teach kids about bad touching in certain situations (notably straight men touching girls) and completely downplay and excuse it in others (notably women and gay men touching boys). Or, at the very least, that's what my experience was growing up being repeatedly told that such touching (including on multiple occasions directly grabbing my penis) wasn't sexual and I was being too sensitive. Maybe the movement has gotten better in the years since, but I don't see it from my perspective.
I didn't say advocating kids not reporting it, I said teaching kids it is shameful to. By associating discomfort with being touched with homophobia and teaching that homophobia is bad, they end up teaching kids that their feelings of discomfort being touched are shameful thus making them afraid to report it.
And teaching kids that they shouldn't talk about sex and its shameful (the traditional approach) also enables people to take advantage of that shame so kids are too scared to cone forward. Thats what i have seen to be enabling abuse in practice.
On the other hand, teaching kids that it is shameful to report being molested, because only homophobes would be uncomfortable with it, also enables abuse in practice.
The moment the LGBT movement started making and accepting arguments equating being uncomfortable being touched in certain ways with homophobia they crossed the line into being apologists for child molestation. To the extent that they continue to tolerate such arguments, they absolutely deserve the groomer label.
Do the TERFs you hang out with have problems with women making such claims? For instance, extending government-provided fertility treatment to single women and lesbians? I suspect not, as feminism and especially radical feminism has long been focused on the destruction of reproduction as a fundamental human experience involving a man and a woman into one solely involving a woman by breaking the ties between sex and reproduction, reducing men to subhuman servitors existing solely to provide resources and genetic material to women. Surrogacy is rejected because it would equate women's role with men's, reducing them to a mere cog in the process of reproduction rather than being in control of it.
Louisiana's legal system is really weird by US standards, being (AFAIK) the only civil law jurisdiction in country. I imagine at least part of the reason you get the impression you do from it is due to it having different failure modes than common law systems, making those failures stand out more.
It may be rare in men as a whole, but still common enough in some notable subsets of men (eg, athletes in certain popular sports) to create the stereotype.
I think it would be more accurate to say that wokeists are responsible for the age of consent increasing over time but simultaneously want activities traditionally seen as sexual that they believe shouldn't be considered sexual to be free from that restriction.
More options
Context Copy link