pedophile
anti_dan
9mo ago
The death penalty might have been more cost effective than lifelong imprisonment in 1800 or 1900, but these days it is not (thanks to the efforts of the anti crowd). Clinging on to it for reasons of tradition only seems weird, like running a coal powered train line through some suburb.
The fight is worth it merely to distract that crowd. They aren't the types to stop fighting battles, and if you can have them spending years on end getting death sentences reduced to life in prison, that stops them from shifting the focus to getting pedophiles sentences reduced from life to 3 weeks or whatever cause celeb comes next.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
10mo ago
man of wealth and taste
It's spelt "felon". Or "pedophile" in the tabloids (or even "paedophile" in the British tabloids). Although I agree that His Royal Highness the Duke of York wouldn't dream of going to Jersey to chase B&T jailbait - he did his kiddie-fiddling in Manhattan.
Nuanced opinions like Martyrmade are always appropriate. Conversely people slandering him should be subject to pressure against their speech, or outright restricting their rule violating behavior based on the setting it happens and people disagreeing him without trying to label it nazi apologia, or being angry, but happy for him to have his views, are welcome.
In general these idiotic taboos must be made themselves taboos. It must be taboo for people to be intolerant of deviations from Hitler maximally evil, Churchil, FDR, Stalin, did nothing wrong, and that WW2 was unavoidable. People enforcing them by trying to cancel others must face cancel culture and are greatly harmful to our culture.
I am in favor of just people in moderated discussions at least temporarilly banned from "fuck you", "nazi, or more sneaky ways to attack his character in that light. And in general there should be a norm in media and in society against this kind of reaction towards people exploring such issues.
We need to enforce a minimum level of respect towards people deviating from immoral demands for black and white maximalism. Rather than them being subject to excessive rhetorical reaction, or cancel culture.
Obviously Martyrmade is right that WW2 is used to promote warmongering todays, far left agenda, and an anti right wing and anti european prejudice.
In general, the maximalist narrative for black american slavery, WW2 narratives, is part of a general black vs white, erroneous maximalist narrative. The very idea that it is sacred for people to have only one excessive view, is ridiculous, and part of weaponized history. It is directly related to the cultural far left excesses of today.
The antifa fanatics are damaging our societies while people like Martyrmade are trying to fix those problems and counter their damage, even with his own culpability of errors.
A synthesis of views from debate between people like Martyrmade and people who share his preference against both nazism and antifa types, who have some disagreements on areas he might get wrong, would be a way for a productive way this issue to be handled, that includes an opposite side.
The "fuck you nazi apologist" types (both saying it overly or sufficiently pushing in that direction with more polite language) have nothing of value to say and we would be better off if they stayed silent. And the people who talk about how they love the german deaths in dresden, and in general all the suffering of Germans, support Palestinian, Iranian, Russians today to die, supported Hiroshima bombings, supported the death of southerners in USA and for more of them to have died in the 19th century, support the destruction of right wingers, support authoritarian imprisonment of both them and of non self hating Europeans, support the extinction of Europeans, have a very monstrous ideology, and these kind of people we genuinely shouldn't allow them to use WW2, slavery, holocaust, colonialism, as weapons. They represent an evil, which actually shares part of what has been pathological among nazis in the way nazis are presented. In my own view there is a propaganda and fog of war but the nazis did do sufficient atrocities, and acted in a sufficiently murderous imperialist manner against other nations to deserve a negative reputation.
Even though other bad guys factions have used them in their propaganda overly, as a means of justifying their own immoral agenda. Still, as far as Europeans are concerned, the antifa faction is more hostile and destructive to it than the Nazis were. And more justifiable to suppress it than neonazis a million times over, considering the damage it is doing and its destructive nature and ideology.
Of course, I don't think our culture would be great if instead of one set of immoral reaction that is today too pervasive, the dominant narrative was a different one, and it was of Hitler fanboys. The antifa types genuinely have always been bad guys, including in the time the nazis were active, both the antifa far leftists and nazis held immoral ideologies. There is a better alternative to both and Martyrmade is part of that better alternative.
Kudos to Martyrmade/Darryl Cooper for his courage. Although I disagree with him on some aspects. I think it is true that Churchil wanted the war, and pushed for it, I am not sure I buy the willingness of Hitler to take back conquests for peace after the invasion of Poland if I got my timing right. x So on some of his points he might have overreached while promoting valid points that people don't want to hear elsewhere. But in any case, I don't really care about such details, the WW2 taboo and the antifa narrative is the problem. In general Martyrmade is pushing in the right direction and doing so while knowing he will get slander thrown at him. His courage and willingness to do this is praiseworthy. The world needs more courageous and sensible people like Darryl. He is a good man.
As for the antifa ideology, this is an ideology which justifies by distorting and enforcing an one sided narrative of history a lot of evil and unreasonable stuff, including the persecution of dissenters from that. One of the most notorious, well in addition the current program of destroying and persecuting the native people of Europe, includes what this movement did in previous decades. Putting German children in the homes of pedophiles while claiming that not doing so would lead to a new holocaust.
This applies to slavery of blacks as well. In the past like in WW2 until more recently, there was more debate. But the people claiming slavery of American blacks was the worst type of slavery ever succeeded in cancelling people with more nuanced views. Helen Andrews argued that this was an erroneous narrative, but in general it is in service of the woke progressive stack agenda. And part and parcel of various frauds that it is less taboo to question, that are now encouraged, that Andrews did expose such as the lies on the Congo, or the Indian mass graves hoax in Canada. For if maximalist narratives are unquestionable, it will encourage as it has other blood libel accusations that must be unquestionable.
In conclusion, respecting dissenters and even favoring nuanced peoples while disrespecting maximalist fanatics is a good thing. We genuinely actually need to gatekeep against the personalities whose reaction is to be more hateful towards southern people today over 19th century grievances, or Germans, or whoever, than many people that lived the events nearer that times had more timid reaction. The idea that maximalism serves stop a genuine neoconfederate, neonazi threat, is preposterous. It serves an evil antifa faction agenda and a foreign nationalist agenda, and of hatred against groups I mentioned and of a supremacist agenda that weaponizes a black and white narrative to promote a caste system.
People need to be deradicalized and to get over their immoral grievances. I wonder if in another 80 years, people will be weaponizing WW2, slavery, colonialism, the holocaust the same. Hopefully we manage to put an end to it and move on. There were never an ideal level of discourse, with antifa type organizations like ADL active and influential but discussion was actually more open on several of these issues in the past and it is in near decades that the maximalist antifa types have managed to become more dominant and to pass their hate speech laws and enforce their cancel culture, to the world's detriment. And especially to the detriment of the people under such regimes. Culture can change to a healthier level again by removing hate speech laws, promoting the right voices, instead of cancelling them, while disrespecting the antifa ideologues.
TIRM
10mo ago
Thanks for this explanation.
Incidentally, have you actually been modded on reddit for accusing pedophiles from a century ago? Or I suppose modern youtubers on the infamous recent tack of "I thought they were very short sexy goblins".
So leftist pedo history doesn't repeat but it often rhymes?
Short list of some modern ones: Noah berlatsky, Sophie Lewis, jacob breslow, Katie Cruz, Allyn Walker, Randy Wicker, etc.
I've ragged on the pedophiles there more than the family abolitionists, but mostly because there's so many of the latter in academia that it's impossible to keep track: it's basically the default position now. Didn't include obvious examples like Vaush and "Ana Valens" because that would of course be called nutpucking or whatever.
Also despite their irl relevance in destroying communities, I didn't include any of the revcom Antifa lumpenprole "spiteful mutant" demographic, because most don't have any coherent policy statements.
The general theme is "after the revolution we can destroy the last of existing society and rebuild it to satisfy our fetishes." They make up a big chunk of the low level propagandists in communist revolutions for the usual party loyalty reasons, but inevitably get purged once the state has to deal with the consequences (in the Soviet case, an unmanageable number of orphans from post-war free-love couplings)
The west is in an usual situation where these types get to run a permanent social revolution because the real one never happens, and the damage they do is (currently) being absorbed by the surplus produced by capitalism.
For example, you are all paying every gay men tens of thousands of dollars a year to take AIDs prevention drugs, and that's why your "health insurance" is so high. Whereas Cuba's public health system doesn't do that because there is no surplus.
anti_dan
10mo ago
Of course one must see media interference in public opinion, if one operates from the base assumption that the GSA in the 90s was a pedophile club. How else could one explain that the rest of the country doesn't see it?
Well covering up the link between pederasty and homosexuality is a long running media interference operation. That doesn't mean people still dont get a bit skeezed when they notice a guy jumping up and down to run the boy scout camp.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
10mo ago
It's more a real bad mental model of how the public perceives a teacher advising the GSA club. Which is the important part of an election prediction.
Of course one must see media interference in public opinion, if one operates from the base assumption that the GSA in the 90s was a pedophile club. How else could one explain that the rest of the country doesn't see it?
gattsuru
10mo ago
pedophile adjacent clubs for kids
This is a really bad mental model of what GSA clubs look like.
anti_dan
10mo ago
Ive never met someone like Walz. Every person who served I know underplays their service. Every teacher I know doesn't start pedophile adjacent clubs for kids (except the one who was arrested for giving 16 year olds booze and we all knew was a creep). Walz is an outlier in my life in that he simply lies about everything in very important ways. Much more important than Trump saying he had the biggest crowd somewhere. If Walz was in Vance's position he'd already have dropped out, that is how bad he is and how extreme the Democrat media advantage is.
wants the language used to be effective, i.e. to get as much hate as possible across to B,
This is completely wrong. Do you talk to cockroaches? Do you care that they understand how much you hate them?
The point of hateful speech about cockroaches is to convince other people to chip in for an exterminator visit, not to make the cockroach feel bad.
If you hate someone that much, you shouldn't be talking to them at all. You should be sending evidence he's an embezzling pedophile to his boss/wife/landlord.
At the very least you should be leaving no identifiable public evidence that you hate someone.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
10mo ago
The writing was on the wall for a pretty long time now, and technologically nothing stands in the way of making an uncensorable service, but all these alt-tech CEOs keep making the same single-point-of-failure architectures
An "uncensorable service" where the only users there are like-minded people is not what the DR wants, certainly not what it needs. It needs to be present in the public square. That's why Musk's turnabout of Twitter censorship is so monumentally important. You have DR perspectives getting huge engagement with mainstream audiences. You have anti-Semitic posters publicly ratio'ing the ADL's annual memorial-post to the murdering pedophile Leo Frank. That is the stuff which is actually dangerous. All the DR being herded into some uncensorable service which gets no engagement or audience from the mainstream is worthless.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10mo ago
Sure, but on this point I'd have to ask your thoughts on celebrating the solution to a problem that was still being described as a far-right conspiracy theory just a few months ago. What's next? Are we going to celebrate the vanquishing of pedophile satanists when the next palace coup happens?
The last few years have been a bit rough for me politically speaking, in that although I have since childhood intellectually understood that most people are unthinking morons when it comes to politics, the last few years have really viscerally made it apparent to me.
I am no Republican, but at this point I also cannot imagine myself voting for a Democrat. After the 2020 riots and the way that Democrat supporters ran cover for them, after all their soft-on-crime policies, after their years of childish propagandistic attacks on the right and on Trump... no, can't do it. Obviously the Republicans are also guilty of a lot of bullshit, very much including childish propaganda, but then, I'm not about to vote for them either.
The last few weeks have been sobering for me, I intellectually understood that electoral politics is about optics, not about anything substantial, but it has been rough to see the signs of the vibe shift that you refer to happening on social media. Especially, I am annoyed by the completely blatant astroturfing that both sides engage in. Pretty much every prominent political account on X, for example, is either an astroturf account or is run by someone who is so partisan that their writings are indistinguishable from an astroturf account.
I will echo what @plural said:
Really, below Trump imo because Trump is a liar and a blowhard and I certainly don't take his insults as the dead serious "I would murder you and it would be completely fair and right" attitude that people have about Trump.
I feel much the same way. While Trumpists are guilty of many things, they do currently not worry me on the visceral level that the left does. It is quite likely that part of this is just because the right is not as strong as the left, and if it was, the right would worry me just as much. But for someone who has read as much about history as I have, the hardcore lockstep groupthink of the modern left is very concerning. It raises alarm bells in that it is reminiscent of totalitarian leftist movements from history. Maybe this is just my version of what leftists do when they worry about Trump creating a fascist dictatorship. I am not sure.
Another reason why the left currently worries me more is that their delusions are deeper than the right's delusions. The left tends to believe in grand systemic delusions like "hardcore socialism is a good idea" or "modern America is horrifically racist against black people". The right, on the other hand, tends to believe in more surface-level LARP delusions reminiscent of thriller novel plots, like "the Clintons are running a pedophile organization and Trump is just pretending to spend all his time on Twitter, he is actually leading a secret special ops campaign to round them up" or "Klaus Schwab wants to make us live in pods".
Both of these types of delusions are ludicrous, but the left's delusions actually worry me more. Leftists actually believe their delusions deeply in some important way, whereas the right-wingers who have bought into typical right-wing delusions are largely, I think, just doing it for fun on some level, although most of them are not consciously aware that they are doing it for fun. The way I would put it, and of course these are generalizations: the left think that they are engaged in a deep meaningful struggle against an evil enemy, which has to end with the complete overthrow and eradication of that enemy from the earth - meanwhile, the right think that they are in an X-Files episode about wacky conspiracies. Clearly the former is much more likely to lead people to fight hard politically than the latter.
The right is also easily satisfied. The left is never satisfied, if they win one battle against what in their delusional world-view is the evil oppressor, they immediately find another level of supposed oppression to battle against. The right, on the other hand, is happy any time they get some kind of win, and they immediately start relaxing and celebrating. The left is deeply committed to the fight, they are in it to win it. Their entire perspective of the world is that it is an epic and grueling battle of good against evil, and the evil must be destroyed. The right, on the other hand, kind of just wants to relax and go watch some football, even if the football is interspersed with ads containing left-leaning propaganda. The left is not like this - if they go watch some fun TV show that is interspersed with ads containing right-leaning propaganda, they will form ranks and march on social media against it.
I find it interesting that the entire alt-right, the whole ecosystem ranging from 2016 Trumpist meme populism to hardcore 4chan /pol/ white supremacy, is both notably leftist in some key aspects of its psychology, and also clearly more committed to the fight and in many ways better at fighting it than mainstream right-wingers are. I say leftist because the alt-right, in their populist economics, their sense that they are oppressed by shadowy elites, their obsession with race and sex and the cultural meanings of both, is very reminiscent of a leftist movement. Forgive me Curtis Yarvin! It is too long that I did not understand one of your central points, but I do now, and the point seems to be true - leftism is, simply, politically more effective. Even people with right-wing views become more politically effective if they adopt a leftist psychology and political attitude.
I do not think that either side is currently strong enough to overthrow our liberal, small-r republican system of social organization, but the left currently seems stronger than the right, and both sides are alarming in different ways, so I am currently more alarmed by the left. Also, while I find a large fraction of right-wing policies to be insane or just simply unappealing, the right is currently - and again, this might just be because they are weaker - more open to intellectual dissent than the left is. I find a large fraction of left-wing policies to also be insane or just simply unappealing, but at least on the right there seems to be a bit more room for thought, a bit more space for dissenters, whereas on the left it is "either you are with us, or you are with the enemy".
My deep political offline conversation with the average committed right-winger is kind of like "Hey man, we don't agree but whatever, it's fun talking about this stuff". My deep political offline conversation with the average committed left-winger consists of me trying to get them to question their ideas while gingerly ballet-leaping my way over the various minefields that, if I stepped on, would cause them to classify me as Adolf Hitler. Don't get me wrong, I also often just straightforwardly speak my mind with leftists in the mode of just "chatting about politics for fun", and this has not brought me any harm. Most leftists I know in person are not about to go report me to the thought police, they are not totalitarian. What I mean is that in those occasional really deep political conversations that one engages in, the ones where both people actually care about talking about the politics in a meaningful way rather than doing it just for fun or to vent, I have found that right-wingers are generally more easily accepting of disagreement, whereas with left-wingers you have to slowly seduce them into letting go of their instinct to assume that your disagreements with them mean that you are Hitler.
I am annoyed by how weak the Republicans are. Increasingly, 2016 seems to be a flash in the pan. For all their macho posturing, the reality is that today's right-wing is soft, easily bullied, and unstrategic. Think of when Greg Abbott bussed those migrants to blue cities. Didn't it seem like a brilliant political move? Well, part of why it seemed that way is because that was one of the very few things that any right-wing politician has done in the last few years that actually seemed like a good chess move. It's hard to name any others. Also consider that despite years of bluster about how guns are a bulwark against oppressive government, pretty much nobody on the right who believes that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump (which I do not believe, but many do) did anything about it with their guns. The bluff has been called, and I think on some visceral level the left understands that they can push the right a lot harder than they currently are pushing before the right would actually react with anything other than online whining.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
10mo ago
An appeal to the dissident right from the Russian opposition about the arrest of Pavel Durov
Just like what’s happening in France today. In 2017, Putin accused Telegram of helping terrorists and pedophiles and tried to pressure Pavel Durov to provide the FSB with keys to decrypt private messages.
But after months of struggle and rallying, we managed to defend Telegram. It still operates in Russia today, virtually free of censorship. Although it’s in an increasingly precarious position.
Since then, Putin opened a criminal investigation against me, and my entire team was forced into political exile. We won the battle but lost the war.
Because back in 2017, we were naive and thought it was a uniquely Russian problem. We actually thought Putin was a backwater dictator preventing Russia from joining the family of free nations. Unfortunately, we couldn’t have been more wrong.
As it turned out, Putin was the trailblazer. He set the example for the rest of the Western political class with his censorship, destruction of privacy, and surveillance. It turned out, the West was simply trailing behind.
I’m now in exile in Latin America, witnessing the same silencing of people unfolding under Lula’s rule in Brazil. Reading about people getting arrested for tweets in the UK, and watching Pavel Durov get arrested in France. Something even Putin didn’t dare to do at the time.
These are not isolated issues. The political class is waging a global war against the people. It’s not just Pavel who came under attack in France last night; it’s our privacy and freedom of speech.
... I implore the global right to apply their resources to support Pavel Durov. We have what it takes to save Telegram and finally start winning.
The founder of Telegram was arrested in France and faces 20 years in prison. The charges ostensibly surround the use of Telegram for criminal activity, but the Guardian notes:
The app was also used widely by far-right agitators plotting anti-immigration rallies in England and Northern Ireland in the wake of the stabbing of three children at a Southport dance class last month.
The anti-racism campaign group Hope Not Hate concluded that Telegram had become the “app of choice” for racists and violent extremists and “a cesspit of antisemitic content” with minimal moderation or effort from the app to curb extremist content.
At the height of Twitter censorship, probably 95% of the Dissident Right was banned from Twitter and all went to Telegram. The only contingent of the DR left on Twitter were the Bronze Age Pervert-types who extoled "The West" and race realism but otherwise promoted a philosemitic undercurrent among the right-wing. This all changed with Musk's acquisition of Twitter/X and now nearly all of the banned are back on that platform.
Yesterday Elon Musk also gave exposure to the Telegram founder's claim that the FBI tried to recruit one of his engineers to introduce vulnerabilities into the application through open-source dependencies.
It's hard to overstate the fragility of "freedom of speech", although admittedly I mostly care about expression and information-sharing related to the topics that I consider true and important. And those are the political topics which are only actually threatened at this point. The political persecution of Durov not only threatens Telegram, basically what became the last "internet Ghetto" of the Dissident Right, but it puts pressure on all platforms to conform to EU censorship standards, which are becoming more stringent year after year. TikTok is likewise being banned for not sufficiently curtailing speech according to the interests of the Jewish lobby.
You have the EU censorship regime, the international NGO apparatus like ADL and Hope not Hate which put enormous political and financial pressure on platforms and governments to censor this speech. The current state of Internet discourse is also proof positive of Elite Theory. Only someone like Elon Musk could do what he did with X and (for now) get away with it. Musk himself has related growing scrutiny and lawsuits by the federal bureaucracy against his businesses as retaliation for his "free speech" policy in governing X, and I think he's almost certainly correct.
It really is, at this point, one man standing against the impending total-internet censorship of the Dissident Right. People were making fun of Musk for overpaying for X, but it's an important lesson, a lesson already known by many, that you can't put a price on memetic control over the collective consciousness.
legally, what is the difference between this and my web browser, which doesn’t restrict me from typing “Nintendo, Disney, and Coca Cola are run by pedophiles”?
A recurring policy trope in technology policy discourse is calling for bans on emergent capabilities on the grounds that new technologies, by lowing skill floors, allow ordinary people to break unwritten on which the social order depends. From iron swords in the late bronze age to generative AI, elites presented with new technology say "we must ban $NEW_THING to preserve the social order!". When this agitation succeeds, it leads to technological stasis, and technological stasis reduces the area under the curve of human welfare over time.
Smart policymakers should deal with these negative "skill externalities" of new technology by writing down these previously unwritten rules and enforcing them directly, not by attempting to limit the new technology itself.
For example, we dealt with the ability for the general public to operate heavy machinery at 55MPH by creating regulatory and liability systems for automobiles, not by banning automobile disruption of railroads.
If "AI safety" advocates had applied their reactionary policies to automobiles, cars would have been allowed to go no faster than a horse and, in the name of "ethics", been barred from driving trips already serviced by trains.
zataomm
11mo ago
Viscerallly I kind of get it, but legally, what is the difference between this and my web browser, which doesn’t restrict me from typing “Nintendo, Disney, and Coca Cola are run by pedophiles”? I try not to be too much of a libertarian autist, but I have a hard time not seeing this as a tool which can be misused like any other.
The more moral ATF that at least pretends they don't want to bang your kids (not the government one--the pedophile forum)
Yep. You see this in all the sexology pedophilia discussion: the goal of "destigmatization" is to make pedophiles into a dependent ally accomplice class.
"Come out of the closet, it's fine! Oh, but if you ever stop supporting us you'll be thrown in a woodchipper by the other side, so you'd better stay a valuable party member ;)"
It's possibly the ultimate form of bioleninism.
I've checked the various pedophile forums, and there's active debate over whether it's possible for them to use the leftist destigmatism campaign without being used themselves.
They are a refreshingly paranoid and cynical group of people for the most part, much more fun to hang out with than normies.
First, it is possible to offer things other than the opportunity for sex, particularly in the case of pedophilia where the social stigma is extreme. For instance, I would very likely lose my job were I to be doxxed and my employer made aware of my being attracted to kids despite my work not involving any interactions with children. I would not particularly like to lose my job, so making it illegal to fire me just because of that attraction is a nice carrot. Various other forms of de-stigmatization are similarly effective.
Second, some of the methods they currently use to exploit straight male sexuality are very compatible with pedophiles, perhaps even more effectively than with straight men generally. Back on reddit /u/FPHthrowawayB noted
3. This is just my theory, but in addition to pedos being sexually attracted to children, I do think their sexuality is also more child-like. I'm sure you can remember a time when you would have been more interested in seeing up a girl's skirt than seeing her have sex, if you even knew what that was. I think many pedos are still partially stuck in that developmental phase sexually.
I base this on the notion that pedos' interest in NN content is still more than you'd expect even given the complications in acquiring the alternative. Compare it to, for example, zoophiles, who also face similar complications but almost always still share exclusively sexually explicit content as opposed to simply softcore (since animals are rarely pictured "non-nude" of course).
Why crack down on sexualized imagery in media, but not on women and girls behaving that way IRL? Because the former serves men and the latter exploits them.
EDIT: Grammar.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
11mo ago
Their desire is to exploit it to coerce pedophiles into supporting them in various ways.
They have nothing to offer [straight] pedophiles, though, because the method they currently use to exploit straight male sexuality is incompatible with offering them the chance to have sex with women so desirable that the entire history of feminism has been angry old women trying to prohibit it out of misandrist jealousy.
That said, if you're using 'exploit' in the 'legally establishing that our favored groups get to fuck [native] tweenage girls as a treat', then yes, I agree this is how it's going to be used because this is already de facto law in the UK and other countries.
[Non-straight] pedophiles are probably a different story, but they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for that one (and gay men are a favored group anyway so the above exception already applies in sufficiently progressive areas).
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
As with straight male sexuality more generally, they have no wish to destroy pedophilia. Their desire is to exploit it to coerce pedophiles into supporting them in various ways.
Let me know if you want my info dump on pedophile activism in sexology departments, which is the bleeding edge of leftist activism.
This is a good start: https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/B4U-ACT
They've got people embedded at Johns Hopkins now, pushing it into the therapy sphere.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
I guess I view the explicit exemption for pedophilia as unnecessary. The definition of sexual orientation already precludes it. So it was removed for that reason. Rather than because the MN legislature wanted to prohibit discrimination against pedophiles.
wraelk
11mo ago
That seems like what the original wording that was removed in the redefinition Walz signed, "Sexual orientation does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult" would imply?
If someone was a bisexual pedophile, I would expect discrimination against them based on their bisexuality to be prohibited, but discrimination against them based on their pedophilia to not be prohibited. So I'd want to clarify in law that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation for the purpose of discrimination law. That seems like exactly what the pre-revision wording does.
That is a reasonable argument.
I think that you meant "people who have committed sex crimes against children" when you wrote "pedophiles". There is certainly a large overlap between the two groups, but using the one term for the other discards the criminals who are not exclusively attracted to pre-pubescent humans but still fuck kids when the opportunity arises and the poor fucks who find themselves attracted to kids exclusively but don't break any laws regarding their fetish.
More options
Context Copy link