Pronouns in her intro, using the word “folks”, calling pedos a “marginalized group”, calls the word pedophile a “hurtful insult” that is “hurled at people” to “slander” them, says being a pedo is “not a choice”.
5 years ago this would be satire.
15 years ago liberals would laugh at you for saying the slippery slope would get us here.
I think it's still fine as a direct address, "Hi folks!" or other similar usages. It only grates on me when used to refer to a generic, unspecific, "<x group> folks" set of unnamed people. Usually also when the speaker claims to be speaking on their behalf.
"Hi" is no good. Too corporate speak. "Hiya folks" invokes old Donald Duck, which ironically is pure corporate speak, but seems much less currently-sanitized.
The left’s argument that gays are “born this way” flies directly in the face of their trans argument that trannies can choose to transition at any time.
These fucks always take it too far. A few years ago I might have agreed with some of that...the attraction to children is often involuntary. But that was before I realized that they just want to normalize sex with children, so I'm not feeling particularly generous anymore.
Involuntary or not, "mental condition" or not, you can't pussyfoot around this shit; pedophilia is bad, and acting on it is abominable. If we can treat the non-offenders to help them before they go full monster, great, but we can't do so by normalizing or destigmatizing this bullshit. And actual child touchers? Yeeeaaaah, we all know what should happen to them.
So, yeah, it doesn't even matter if there's some truth here...the agenda itself is one of the most monstrous of all humanity, and should be dealt with extremely harshly. You can't hide behind words and fancy redefinitions of language. Child-touchers deserve certain things, and child-toucher-adjacent deserve at best utmost suspicion and never ever ever being allowed around children.
Treating them as victims, even if some of them are, is an absolute recipe for disaster. The people advocating this, the ones that aren't pedophiles, are monsters right up there with pedophiles. But most of these people are pedophiles.
Part of the problem there is that the left is pretty much against self-control.
They're against rules in general, they're really against rules you are supposed to uphold yourself (for people they have ideologically, captured, of course. More normal people would be on the trains to the camps already if this lot were capable of making the trains run on time). They probably view it as some kind of psychological torture - after all, isn't just far easier to submit to your basest urges and then play language games to make the inevitable fallout someone else's problem?
Part of the problem there is that the left is pretty much against self-control.
It really is frustrating, how different the mindsets are. I'd be happy to reach some sort of actual compromise with leftists...unfortunately leftists live in a completely different reality, so such a thing is impractical at best.
There's that saying that that liberalism is a mental disorder. That's not quite right, but I think leftism largely is, and the leftist mindset is pretty fucking damaged. They're cultist narcissists who have decided they're morally superior to everyone else, and no one else understands what they do, and their opponents basically aren't even real people. It's twisted.
They're against rules in general, they're really against rules you are supposed to uphold yourself...
Which is sad. I'm against not all, but plenty of rules, but think you do have to have consistent personal principles. The blank slate, post-modernist, everything is valid bullshit is evil. There have to be some rules - in my own personal opinion as few as possible, as more than that is infringement - and you have to have standards you hold yourself to. That concept is completely alien to the types of people we're talking about.
There's that saying that that liberalism is a mental disorder. That's not quite right, but I think leftism largely is, and the leftist mindset is pretty fucking damaged.
Agreed. Unfortunately, liberalism - for all that I am a liberal - does fall victim to a leftie ideology specifically designed to infiltrate and destroy liberal ideologies and then wear them like some kind of skinsuit trophy.
I'd be happy to reach some sort of actual compromise with leftists
Also agreed, unfortunately, the only kind of "compromise" lefties seem to acknowledge is the one where you're dead, your children are gay and they're dancing on your grave. A lot of lefties simply do not seem to know how to de-escalate - it's not a skill the leftie ideology prizes - instead preferring to escalate until it reaches the level that involves the authorities, who will always come down on their side.
Back in undergrad there was the idea of "removing the stigma just enough so they seek treatment before they hurt anyone." Its a logical thought and I could have agreed to it in another world, because preventing suffering is more important than the thrill of retribution after they do it.
But we don't live in a world where that idea can be trusted in the slightest. It will just lead to more abuse, and less punishment when they do. So now, they get the rope or the cliff.
I said something similar. There's some grain of truth in what people like this say...but their motives can't be trusted, and the outcome of what they're advocating for would be monstrous on a level rarely seen in human history.
Their argument would have a lot more merit...if it wasn't clear that the powers that be were trying to normalize actual sex with children.
It's irrelevant if this particular crazy lady with problems glasses is also a pedo; she's absolutely being used by pedos and other degenerates, if she isn't one herself. Historically, she probably is though. The people who usually push this kind of acceptance are themselves either child touchers or aspiring child touchers.
Wouldn't the proper ideas be "reinforce and bulwark the idea that client-patient confidentiality is a thing" and "no matter what fucked up thing is in your head, your shrink has heard worse"?
The stigma doesn't matter. If you tell a tax lawyer that you sold weed illegally, their response should be "well, that's a sole proprietor farming business with a variety of expensible items", not running to facebook to publicize it. And it usually is. Because everyone knows lawyers and financial consultants adhere to client confidentiality. But for some reason, people don't seem to have that association with psychologists. Plenty of stigma against being in an active criminal enterprise, but the Mafia employs accountants and consultants.
So why would stigma be the issue with this case?
If anything, MORE stigma is useful. "If you're fucked up in the head in any way, go see a confidential brain-doctor, get it sorted before you get more fucked."
You don't need the "thrill of retribution". You just need to highlight that the DSM 4 is the definitive edition, DSM 5 is fanfiction, and get treating.
Getting people into the room is the hardest part across the entire industry. Most people who go to therapy have little need for it, and those who do don't recognize they have a problem to begin with. They've either built such a cushy headspace its doesn't even register its wrong, or they have justified it entirely.
Also the confidentiality clause is required to be broken if you are an immediate threat to yourself or others. Look at the immediate reaction most people have to just hearing the word pedo. They will absolutely consider you an immediate threat to children and report you. So there is good reason for not trusting that confidentiality either.
So the stigma problem is "getting help before you are a shaking mess one bad day from snapping" and the much more general "actually getting help instead of justifying it to yourself."
They're vilified and marginalized because the fucking deserve to be. If you're a person sexually attracted to children you are...the WORST piece of shit garbage human being to exist, topped only by a person who actually follows through with those urges. Fuck you.
Yep. The idea that they should be, in any way, "supported" is vile.
Anyone willing to publicly admit to being sexually attracted to kids is way too comfortable with the idea. They should be ashamed and in fear that their secret will ever get out.
These same people would happily demonize heterosexual men who have a normal attraction to women. They'll find innumerable ways that it's unacceptable for men to enjoy the presence of women, and rationalize any pathological fear of men by women.
I'd almost be on board with 'they're sick and can't help it, we should encourage them to get help before they offend' but in clown world? Big fucking NO. We know the slippery slope is 100% real and it's so steep it's more like a cliff. We know they'd make it mandatory to throw children to the (pedo)wolves rather than ever hurt the feelings of someone with a mental illness.
The time for humoring any of their social advocacy has passed. We must not move another inch.
Also a reminder to use Nitter! There are many web addresses that are less slow than the most commonly used Nitter.net (likely because they go to different servers that are less backed up). For example, nitter.it
Try out private messaging apps like Session and Signal and talk to your friends and family about getting them as well so your conversations can remain private.
You can call a person with child-rape fantasies a MAP as long as he doesn't act on his urges, but someone who rapes a child is a pedophile and doesn't need understanding; he needs to be tarred and feathered and made to live in exile or in prison.
Sad part is, he's mostly correct (the fact that MAP and pedo are not synonyms is important), but takes it a bit too far and comes off sounding pretty dang creepy. Complete with picture of a fifteen year old in a bikini, and challenges to not find that sexy.
Attraction to 14-17 year olds makes sense... when one is a teenager. That's why I can only laugh at this ridiculous piece of reasoning:
When YOU were in high school, did you ever want to fuck a girl? Are YOU a pedo? Simple as.
Huh? I would have been in the same age group. I probably had 'crushes' at age 9 on girls of the same age group; but it would be a total farce to extend his reasoning to claim that this justifies adult attraction to nine-year olds. Obviously a normal man's attraction changes as he ages. A 18-year old man isn't going to find a 60-year old woman much of anything, but hundreds of millions of 60-year old men around the world genuinely think 'she's at least as beautiful as when we first met' about similarly aged women.
And thus I have no attraction whatsoever to girls aged 14-17 at the age I'm at. And, indeed, if one didn't lose one's own attraction to girls aged 14-17 as one grew up, then I'd seriously be questioning one's sanity.
That's why things like hebephilia, and much more importantly ephebophilia are words. Because they describe the important distinction that is the foundation of the attraction beyond "dudes, gross like kill yourself wow you're just wrong."
Hebes aren't any better than pedos. But ephes aren't incredibly abnormal, and are closer to "abuse of power" than pedos when they commit a crime.
"You should never grade evils, Kruber. For if one is the worst, then you might be tempted to kinship with the least." or something to that effect? Because objectively speaking, and your very next line, you deny your own point. Doesn't make for good point-making when you refute yourself. They're somewhat closer to biological normalcy, against victims with more mental, social, and physical defenses/treatments. They are better.
If you could pay a singular nickel, so a cost exists to you, and change all pedos into ephebes magically... I'd pay the nickel.
Much like if I could change all muggers into pickpockets, I'd pay the nickel. Similar crime domain, but the one does less harm.
Better if both were gone, but if you said "I'd prefer to keep the nickel and keep those pedos around", I'd be highly suspect of you.
Pedo is pre puberty. Hebe is early puberty. A minor difference, but one so irrelevant to the damage caused that they are no better. Its not grading evil, its defining the sin.
I'd also pay the nickel, but the ephes are still criminal at times because the law exists regarding age of consent. If they are not foul of it, then its not a crime but it is slightly suspect if their only desire is for those still in the immaturity of teen years.
That's why things like hebephilia, and much more importantly ephebophilia are words.
The professions of psychology and the law - the only two that matter on this topic - do not recognize those words at all. Reddit gets into those words for some reason, but they're just kind of made up and ass pulled.
Was literally taught them in my psyche undergrad. There has been over a decade of debate over the hebe inclusion, wherein the big block against it was the abuse of it to avoid stigmatization.
I don't care about reddit. I care about properly defining crimes with real criteria. DSM 5 putting pedo to 13 or lower and absorbing hebe is fine, the two are barely any different in suffering caused.
When YOU were in high school, did you ever want to fuck a girl? Are YOU a pedo?
No because I was IN HIGHSCHOOL DUMBASS. So it was fine to be attracted to high schoolers.
There can be young love between kids too, if you were attracted to a girl at like 12, is it fine to be attracted to a 12 year old now? Fucking of course not.
It is not ok for anyone to be attracted to anyone 2-3 years apart until both people are 20 ( or more comfortably 25) and then age stops mattering.
You're trying to be way too specific, and it comes off as pedophilic.
Pronouns in her intro, using the word “folks”, calling pedos a “marginalized group”, calls the word pedophile a “hurtful insult” that is “hurled at people” to “slander” them, says being a pedo is “not a choice”.
5 years ago this would be satire.
15 years ago liberals would laugh at you for saying the slippery slope would get us here.
I actually like the word, it's a shame these fucks ruined it, like they've ruined so many other things.
I think it's still fine as a direct address, "Hi folks!" or other similar usages. It only grates on me when used to refer to a generic, unspecific, "<x group> folks" set of unnamed people. Usually also when the speaker claims to be speaking on their behalf.
I get what you're saying, but I think the word's pretty suspect on its own by this point, too, sadly. Even "Hi folks!" sends up red flags.
"Hi" is no good. Too corporate speak. "Hiya folks" invokes old Donald Duck, which ironically is pure corporate speak, but seems much less currently-sanitized.
"Hydra Folks" is where its at.
Don't asshole wokies spell it "folx"?
The idea of "born this way" is deeply ingrained in society, which seems weird because they also believe in "blank slate" which is the exact opposite.
The left’s argument that gays are “born this way” flies directly in the face of their trans argument that trannies can choose to transition at any time.
That's true.
And every action is a choice.
Makes me believe that she is in fact also a pedo.
If the shoe fits, bitch.
Give it a week.
This person is definitely a pedo.
These fucks always take it too far. A few years ago I might have agreed with some of that...the attraction to children is often involuntary. But that was before I realized that they just want to normalize sex with children, so I'm not feeling particularly generous anymore.
Involuntary or not, "mental condition" or not, you can't pussyfoot around this shit; pedophilia is bad, and acting on it is abominable. If we can treat the non-offenders to help them before they go full monster, great, but we can't do so by normalizing or destigmatizing this bullshit. And actual child touchers? Yeeeaaaah, we all know what should happen to them.
So, yeah, it doesn't even matter if there's some truth here...the agenda itself is one of the most monstrous of all humanity, and should be dealt with extremely harshly. You can't hide behind words and fancy redefinitions of language. Child-touchers deserve certain things, and child-toucher-adjacent deserve at best utmost suspicion and never ever ever being allowed around children.
Treating them as victims, even if some of them are, is an absolute recipe for disaster. The people advocating this, the ones that aren't pedophiles, are monsters right up there with pedophiles. But most of these people are pedophiles.
Part of the problem there is that the left is pretty much against self-control.
They're against rules in general, they're really against rules you are supposed to uphold yourself (for people they have ideologically, captured, of course. More normal people would be on the trains to the camps already if this lot were capable of making the trains run on time). They probably view it as some kind of psychological torture - after all, isn't just far easier to submit to your basest urges and then play language games to make the inevitable fallout someone else's problem?
It really is frustrating, how different the mindsets are. I'd be happy to reach some sort of actual compromise with leftists...unfortunately leftists live in a completely different reality, so such a thing is impractical at best.
There's that saying that that liberalism is a mental disorder. That's not quite right, but I think leftism largely is, and the leftist mindset is pretty fucking damaged. They're cultist narcissists who have decided they're morally superior to everyone else, and no one else understands what they do, and their opponents basically aren't even real people. It's twisted.
Which is sad. I'm against not all, but plenty of rules, but think you do have to have consistent personal principles. The blank slate, post-modernist, everything is valid bullshit is evil. There have to be some rules - in my own personal opinion as few as possible, as more than that is infringement - and you have to have standards you hold yourself to. That concept is completely alien to the types of people we're talking about.
Agreed. Unfortunately, liberalism - for all that I am a liberal - does fall victim to a leftie ideology specifically designed to infiltrate and destroy liberal ideologies and then wear them like some kind of skinsuit trophy.
Also agreed, unfortunately, the only kind of "compromise" lefties seem to acknowledge is the one where you're dead, your children are gay and they're dancing on your grave. A lot of lefties simply do not seem to know how to de-escalate - it's not a skill the leftie ideology prizes - instead preferring to escalate until it reaches the level that involves the authorities, who will always come down on their side.
This has always been the golden goose since the “gay” rights movement began. They want to rape your kids and they think it’s funny.
Yep. It comes straight from 'the father of the sexual revolution', Alfred Kinsey.
It was ALWAYS about this, from the very beginning.
Back in undergrad there was the idea of "removing the stigma just enough so they seek treatment before they hurt anyone." Its a logical thought and I could have agreed to it in another world, because preventing suffering is more important than the thrill of retribution after they do it.
But we don't live in a world where that idea can be trusted in the slightest. It will just lead to more abuse, and less punishment when they do. So now, they get the rope or the cliff.
Exactly this.
I said something similar. There's some grain of truth in what people like this say...but their motives can't be trusted, and the outcome of what they're advocating for would be monstrous on a level rarely seen in human history.
Their argument would have a lot more merit...if it wasn't clear that the powers that be were trying to normalize actual sex with children.
It's irrelevant if this particular crazy lady with problems glasses is also a pedo; she's absolutely being used by pedos and other degenerates, if she isn't one herself. Historically, she probably is though. The people who usually push this kind of acceptance are themselves either child touchers or aspiring child touchers.
Wouldn't the proper ideas be "reinforce and bulwark the idea that client-patient confidentiality is a thing" and "no matter what fucked up thing is in your head, your shrink has heard worse"?
The stigma doesn't matter. If you tell a tax lawyer that you sold weed illegally, their response should be "well, that's a sole proprietor farming business with a variety of expensible items", not running to facebook to publicize it. And it usually is. Because everyone knows lawyers and financial consultants adhere to client confidentiality. But for some reason, people don't seem to have that association with psychologists. Plenty of stigma against being in an active criminal enterprise, but the Mafia employs accountants and consultants.
So why would stigma be the issue with this case?
If anything, MORE stigma is useful. "If you're fucked up in the head in any way, go see a confidential brain-doctor, get it sorted before you get more fucked."
You don't need the "thrill of retribution". You just need to highlight that the DSM 4 is the definitive edition, DSM 5 is fanfiction, and get treating.
Getting people into the room is the hardest part across the entire industry. Most people who go to therapy have little need for it, and those who do don't recognize they have a problem to begin with. They've either built such a cushy headspace its doesn't even register its wrong, or they have justified it entirely.
Also the confidentiality clause is required to be broken if you are an immediate threat to yourself or others. Look at the immediate reaction most people have to just hearing the word pedo. They will absolutely consider you an immediate threat to children and report you. So there is good reason for not trusting that confidentiality either.
So the stigma problem is "getting help before you are a shaking mess one bad day from snapping" and the much more general "actually getting help instead of justifying it to yourself."
As they should be
They're vilified and marginalized because the fucking deserve to be. If you're a person sexually attracted to children you are...the WORST piece of shit garbage human being to exist, topped only by a person who actually follows through with those urges. Fuck you.
Yep. The idea that they should be, in any way, "supported" is vile.
Anyone willing to publicly admit to being sexually attracted to kids is way too comfortable with the idea. They should be ashamed and in fear that their secret will ever get out.
Maps go on the wall.
"...go against the wall." has a better ring to it.
*pop* Noice.
Rope.
Now.
These same people would happily demonize heterosexual men who have a normal attraction to women. They'll find innumerable ways that it's unacceptable for men to enjoy the presence of women, and rationalize any pathological fear of men by women.
they can be "misunderstood" in the woodchipper.
I'd almost be on board with 'they're sick and can't help it, we should encourage them to get help before they offend' but in clown world? Big fucking NO. We know the slippery slope is 100% real and it's so steep it's more like a cliff. We know they'd make it mandatory to throw children to the (pedo)wolves rather than ever hurt the feelings of someone with a mental illness.
The time for humoring any of their social advocacy has passed. We must not move another inch.
But remember, the LGBT movement isn't about child abuse! And slippery slopes never exist!
I want to see her not alive anymore. Like all other pedos.
and some people say there is no reason to hit a woman ever.
Archived Tweet:
https://archive.ph/hnzIw
Backup Video Link:
https://files.catbox.moe/mle016.mp4
Also a reminder to use Nitter! There are many web addresses that are less slow than the most commonly used Nitter.net (likely because they go to different servers that are less backed up). For example, nitter.it
Here's a list of all nitter web addresses
https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/wiki/Instances
Try out private messaging apps like Session and Signal and talk to your friends and family about getting them as well so your conversations can remain private.
https://www.privacytools.io/#messaging
Woodchippers are also vilified and marginalized.
You can call a person with child-rape fantasies a MAP as long as he doesn't act on his urges, but someone who rapes a child is a pedophile and doesn't need understanding; he needs to be tarred and feathered and made to live in exile or in prison.
Sad part is, he's mostly correct (the fact that MAP and pedo are not synonyms is important), but takes it a bit too far and comes off sounding pretty dang creepy. Complete with picture of a fifteen year old in a bikini, and challenges to not find that sexy.
Let's slow it down a bit there, bud.
Exactly.
Attraction to 14-17 year olds makes sense... when one is a teenager. That's why I can only laugh at this ridiculous piece of reasoning:
Huh? I would have been in the same age group. I probably had 'crushes' at age 9 on girls of the same age group; but it would be a total farce to extend his reasoning to claim that this justifies adult attraction to nine-year olds. Obviously a normal man's attraction changes as he ages. A 18-year old man isn't going to find a 60-year old woman much of anything, but hundreds of millions of 60-year old men around the world genuinely think 'she's at least as beautiful as when we first met' about similarly aged women.
And thus I have no attraction whatsoever to girls aged 14-17 at the age I'm at. And, indeed, if one didn't lose one's own attraction to girls aged 14-17 as one grew up, then I'd seriously be questioning one's sanity.
That's what you took from his post? Lol
That's why things like hebephilia, and much more importantly ephebophilia are words. Because they describe the important distinction that is the foundation of the attraction beyond "dudes, gross like kill yourself wow you're just wrong."
Hebes aren't any better than pedos. But ephes aren't incredibly abnormal, and are closer to "abuse of power" than pedos when they commit a crime.
"You should never grade evils, Kruber. For if one is the worst, then you might be tempted to kinship with the least." or something to that effect? Because objectively speaking, and your very next line, you deny your own point. Doesn't make for good point-making when you refute yourself. They're somewhat closer to biological normalcy, against victims with more mental, social, and physical defenses/treatments. They are better.
If you could pay a singular nickel, so a cost exists to you, and change all pedos into ephebes magically... I'd pay the nickel.
Much like if I could change all muggers into pickpockets, I'd pay the nickel. Similar crime domain, but the one does less harm.
Better if both were gone, but if you said "I'd prefer to keep the nickel and keep those pedos around", I'd be highly suspect of you.
Pedo is pre puberty. Hebe is early puberty. A minor difference, but one so irrelevant to the damage caused that they are no better. Its not grading evil, its defining the sin.
I'd also pay the nickel, but the ephes are still criminal at times because the law exists regarding age of consent. If they are not foul of it, then its not a crime but it is slightly suspect if their only desire is for those still in the immaturity of teen years.
The professions of psychology and the law - the only two that matter on this topic - do not recognize those words at all. Reddit gets into those words for some reason, but they're just kind of made up and ass pulled.
Was literally taught them in my psyche undergrad. There has been over a decade of debate over the hebe inclusion, wherein the big block against it was the abuse of it to avoid stigmatization.
I don't care about reddit. I care about properly defining crimes with real criteria. DSM 5 putting pedo to 13 or lower and absorbing hebe is fine, the two are barely any different in suffering caused.
Your reasoning makes no sense.
No because I was IN HIGHSCHOOL DUMBASS. So it was fine to be attracted to high schoolers.
There can be young love between kids too, if you were attracted to a girl at like 12, is it fine to be attracted to a 12 year old now? Fucking of course not.
It is not ok for anyone to be attracted to anyone 2-3 years apart until both people are 20 ( or more comfortably 25) and then age stops mattering.
You're trying to be way too specific, and it comes off as pedophilic.
You're the dumbass. Your whole comment, start to finish, is pure retardation. Go back to reddit.