pedophile
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1yr ago
Isn't this good? If pedophiles are pardoned and there's a massive fracas where people are forced to resign because it goes against the will of the people, that's democracy working as it should. In the US they pardon all kinds of creeps and weirdoes. Trump pardoned, amongst other people, a fraudster who then committed even more fraud: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/convicted-con-man-was-pardoned-trump-charged-fraud-rcna95172
SaltCheck
1yr ago
The president obviously receives extensive documentation about the case, including the letter by the person requesting the pardon (it appears that this was the wife of the convict). It also includes a recommendation by the minister of justice. The government is currently refusing to confirm whether the minister recommended granting the pardon or not, but according to press sources the minister did not recommend the pardon, but she still counter signed it afterwards.
As one of Novák's advisors, it is rumored that Balog was very often in the presidential office to a degree that was already annoying the staff, and Novák was for long a "mentee" of Balog.
The pedophile director himself, who molested boys between 2004 and 2016, received a Hungarian Order of Merit (bronze) in 2016 from the previous president, on the recommendation of Balog. And apparently the pardoned man's father was a lay leader in the reformed church as well.
Based on currently available media reports by investigative journalists, it seems that Orbán was actually kept out of the loop here (one man can't manage every individual issue after all and must delegate). Probably the family lobbied the church leadership who lobbied Balog who told Novák to sign. Minister Judit Varga (if it's true that she did not support the pardon initially) may have also been left out of the loop and saw no reason to support this based on the documents, but all requests for pardon must be forwarded to the president by the minister. And upon seeing here recommendation overturned she may have assumed higher powers took care of this already so she didn't double check this with Orbán.
Orbán is a masterful Machiavellian and rotates the second line of leadership quite often, so nobody grows to be to autonomous. And he usually picks very trusted people to the president's position. The last one, Áder, for example was his college dorm friend. But he wanted a female president this time so couldnt choose one of the old friends as female politicians are quite rare. And it seems Novák was more loyal to Balog than Orbán himself.
Probably they all thought it's no big deal as it all remains secret anyway and everything routinely gets done through favors and corruption so whatever. And that's usually okay with the public if it's just about stealing public money. But people are very sensitive to pedophilia cases, not unrelated to the government's child protection rhetoric.
So to sum it up, I think it signals people in the second and third lines of power getting too cocky in offering and expecting favors, and Orban needs to cull some of them so they know who's the silverback here. And that he needs to manually control even more things because people even mess up such easy things.
Tens of thousands rally against Hungary's Orban after sex abuse pardon scandal
In Hungary, the biggest political scandal in years has been unfolding over the last two weeks, and has included the resignation of the (ceremonial) president of the republic, Katalin Novák. The linked article is useful but I'll sum up what we know for now.
As you may know, the government under Viktor Orbán has used protecting children as a big political topic in the last few years, they changed the law to be stricter with pedophile crimes and also blurred the whole issue of LGBTQ materials aimed at children with the topic of pedophilia. Including TV ads, billboards, a national "child protection referendum", mandating wrapping books that discuss homosexuality in plastic foil in bookstores to protect kids etc.
In front of this backdrop, news got out two weeks ago that the president of the republic had pardoned a certain Endre K., who was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months for his involvement in a pedophilia case as an accomplice. Endre K was the deputy director of an orphanage in Bicske, a town not far from Budapest. For years, the director, János V. molested boys living there, for which he was sentenced to 8 years prison. Endre K. knew about it and helped the director, including forcing the kids to revoke their police testimonies (which resulted in the case being dropped for some time until more reports came in). According to court documents, he even drafted the statement for the kids stating that the director did not molest them.
One of the few real powers of the largely ceremonial president is to give pardons, with no need to provide any justification, and the decisions are not made public by default. This pardon was one of about two dozen that she issued on one day in April 2023 on the occasion of the papal visit to Hungary (back then she had cited the tradition to issue pardons broadly when the pope visits). Endre K was already in house arrest at the time of the pardon and had a mere 9 more months to go.
It's important to know that, while the role of the president is officially independent of the government, Katalin Novák used to be a minister in Viktor Orbán's cabinet and was put into her new position by Orbán (who controls a 2/3 supermajority in parliament).
The only reason that the pardon got public is that Endre K. had already appealed to the Curia (supreme court) before the pardon (not an actual appeal, but a complaint). And despite the pardon, the Curia legally had to make a decision. They upheld the lower court's ruling but noted that the defendant got pardoned in the meantime, and this court ruling became public in September 2023, but apparently nobody in the wider public or media noticed this. However there is a professional journal for Hungarian lawyers that every few months summarizes bigger rulings and cases that happened in Hungary, and this case got included in the January 2024 issue. A lawyer read this and notified a major left-wing news portal, 444.hu, who published the story and asked the president's office for comment.
At first, the president simply repeated that "there is no pardon for pedophiles" including posting this sentence to social media, implicitly emphasizing that Endre K was not a pedo himself just an accomplice. The government aligned media did not know how to react at first. Some of them tried to defend the guy or said the president must have had her reasons etc., but most just remained quiet and likely kept monitoring the public sentiment.
It took several days until Viktor Orbán announced in a Facebook video that he is proposing a constitutional amendment that would prevent the president from pardoning crimes committed against children.
Three days later, the president resigned and admitted she made a mistake but did not share her prior reasoning.
But the story did not stop there because pardon requests are brought to president by the minister of justice and the president's decision has to be counter-signed by the minister to become effective. The then minister, Judit Varga, was now preparing for a new role, heading the party list of Orbán's Fidesz for this June's European Parliament elections. Simultaneous to the resignation of the president, Judit Varga announced she is resigning from all her political positions and will withdraw from public life. As her reason, she only said she followed a 25 year old practice of always counter signing presidential pardons, but she would take the political responsibility for this (it's is true that refusing to counter sign is extremely rare, but there was indeed such a case about 25 years ago). (Side story: after her resignation, Judit Varga's ex-husband who was also part of Fidesz circles and led state companies, has turned on the govt and started to talk about internal corruption cases, and is promising more spicy info to come.)
After days of public confusion and speculation as to why this pardon was actually granted, it started to emerge that the most likely reason is Endre K's good connections to the Reformed (Calvinist) Church in Hungary. Namely, president Katalin Novák has been a long-time protege of Zoltán Balog, the bishop presiding over the synod of the church (the main guy of the church), who by the way also happens to have been a minister in Orbán's cabinet previously. It turns out he was pushing the idea of pardoning Endre K, but once the initial news broke, Balog announced on social media he will take a few weeks to retreat to a monastery to pray (as it turns out, in Austria).
Balog couldn't pray for long though because after a few days the synod ordered him back to Budapest to explain himself. A vote of confidence affirmed his position, though this vote was a bit fishy as it didn't involve the bishops, just lower ranking people. His refusal to resign caused a big stir in the church, even the bishop leading the largest district publicly asked him to resign. Even notorious pro-government journalists urged him to resign.
Meanwhile several youtubers and media influences announced a big protest to today evening at 6 PM in Budapest, to which lots of other artists, and famous people joined.
Fresh news while typing this: Zoltán Balog has finally (4 days after the initial vote confirming him) resigned a few minutes before the start of the big protest. He says he made a big mistake but "I asked for mercy. I wanted mercy for someone" (Note that the Hungarian word kegyelem can be translated as any of pardon, mercy or clemency). He claims to have believed the person was innocent.
Now, it's also good to know that the Reformed Church is politically quite close to the government. All churches rely on state funding but Orbán himself, former president Novák and the speaker of the Parliament László Kövér are all members of the Reformed (Calvinist) Church. It is also the case that Bicske, where the orphanage is, is a neighbor town to Orbán's birthplace Felcsút, so Endre K might have used connections on that path too, though the government has denied that Orbán knew about the pardon before the news appeared publicly.
Orbán will hold his big annual ("year evaluation") speech tomorrow (planned a long time ago), and it will be the first time he speaks since Novák resigned.
Speculation time. It's all very strange. Some speculate that the case was not accidentally found by a lawyer but it may be some kind of orchestrated thing. Perhaps for delaying ratifying Sweden's NATO membership? For generally withholding military support from Ukraine? I'm skeptical and believe it can be a coincidence. Most likely Zoltán Balog felt powerful enough to push this without telling Orbán and thought it wouldn't be public so whatever. But it's a horrible picture, Orbán would have been crazy to approve this, it was 9 months house arrest! And for what? Now his own church is associated with a pedophilia case. It's Orbán's worst communication nightmare. He always claims that Christian illiberal democracy will defend Hungarian families and kids from woke LGBTQ pedophiles. Others say this is now bringing to surface internal cracks and factional fights within Orbán's party. The fact that the pardon was offocially issued on the occasion of the papal visit is the cherry on top.
So now Orbán has to find a new president, a new person to lead the list for the EU election and the elections for mayors and local governments will also happen in June, while they don't yet even have a candidate for Budapest's lord mayor. This is the most difficult situation they have been for many years.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
1yr ago
I did not say lets also become an authoritarian dictatorship at the same time.
Do you think authoritarian dictatorships announce themselves as authoritarian dictatorships and democratically ask the people to vote on their takeover? The privacy warriors in the US are looking over at places like China, Russia and the UK and seeing almost exactly the things they were warning about being implemented, and you're calling them paranoid when they take umbrage at US politicians talking about how great those things are and wanting to bring them here! One of the major arguments made by the privacy warriors is that even if you give the government this power now because you trust it not to become an authoritarian dictatorship, it is impossible to tell when one of those is coming down the pipe. Yes, it sucks that the one pedophile who was capable of using encryption perfectly to hide his crimes got away, but that's utterly insignificant when compared to the danger posed by our current panopticon if it were to fall into the wrong hands, and there is no way of making sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. Both sides of politics believe that their opposition will use this power corruptly, and I'm honestly not sure either of them are wrong.
Your argument is essentially saying that it is fine to not have seatbelts because you personally haven't crashed your car and don't think you're going to crash it in the near future (yeah sure other people get into car crashes but you're built different), and the people saying "hey you should wear a seatbelt" are just paranoid, low-status losers who shouldn't be listened to.
dasfoo
1yr ago
The Deep State segment was frustrating to me, not because I believe the more sinister theories about it, but because I hear a more compelling and far-reaching explanation of it on a weekly basis from my rightier friends.
The mundane, plausible version of the theory goes that the Clinton Administration engaged in a purposeful stocking of the DC bureaucracy with partisans who would continue to pursue Democratic Party goals regardless of who was in office. These are the same class of new political operators who trashed the White House before GWB took office.
Taking it a bit further, Trump posed an unusual adversary, as mainstream Democrats expected him to shuffle LGBTQ and all brown people into camps. Also, symbolically, he was the disruptor of the narrative that mainstream Democrats created for themselves with Obama: That conservativism was dead (IMO they may have been correct; populism is not "conservative") and Obama was the leading light of a new era of progressive liberal democratic rule. Opposing Trump with every administrative stroke was a noble effort.
The version that really gets the Deep State Theorists (DSTs) buzzing, however, adds a few more layers to the obstinate liberal bureacracy, which DSTs see as one component of an elite movement starting** at the WEF/Davos "you will eat bugs and own nothing" set. WEF directs the high-level political operators like Victoria Newland who are orchestrating "forever wars" as part of a military industrial complex that has captured centrists in both parties - NeoCons and NeoLibs - and this is who the DC managerial class serves, whether they know it or not. They aren't anti-conservative as much as they are anti-populist, which is why Bernie was also boxed out by the DNC and there is so much commonality between Bernie and Trump supporters, in a "Rich Men North of Richmond" respect. The threat that Trump poses is disruption of the plans of elite billionaires and technocrats to turn the world into a globohomo concentration camp of some kind that somehow profits from stripping the rest of us of material goods and property (I don't really understand this part of the theory, unless you add the asterisk below).
** Add one more layer above the WEV/Davos: Satanic pedophiles are behind the scenes. The answer to why they are doing anything ultimately comes down to "They are literally evil and serving Satan." It is astonishing how many smart people I know actually buy into this theory in some regard. It does plug some logical holes, but with silly putty, IMO.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1yr ago
Yes, it's amazing what you can prove by assuming the group you're arguing against consists primarily of inbred redneck hicks. I too can prove amazing things by assuming the establishment is ran by satanic pedophile 72-gendered purple hairs.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1yr ago
I read the first one and it's really just the usual paranoid, millenarian boo-outgroup screed I've seen from rightists about a million times now. A far cry from early Scott.
the enemy has transmogrified from self-dealing hustlers & zealots into a cabal of literal blood-drinking pedophile satanists in command of the entire Western order
As the divide becomes more dangerous, They will be more insistent to know which side you’re on, & institutions with the power to reveal that knowledge will lose the pretense of impartiality.
You know what is coming for this culture. It’s going to be destroyed - & long before it is destroyed, it’s going to become an unbearable hell. Maybe you were hoping to time your exit, make a little more money, watch a little more Netflix, eat a little more plastic meat - but maybe your plan would have come too late. If God calls you out of Babylon ahead of schedule, you don’t ask questions & you don’t look back.
Maybe the others are better.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
why do you believe that a majority of pedophiles pose little to no risk to children? I've already freely conceded that many don't, but I keep saying we can't quantify the risk because we just don't have the denominator. Given that we don't have that denominator, why do you seem so confident that "a large majority of pedophiles never sexually abuse a child"?
Confident is definitely not the right word. It'd be better to say I hope it is the case because it lets me believe in the possibility of a better future and not fall even deeper into nihilistic despair. Also, we're not completely unsure of the denominator--eg, there is some research that estimates it at 1-2% of the population depending on how strictly you define pedophilia.
I feel like that simplistic popular consensus is getting in our way again...
No, in this case I think it is probably my own paranoia getting in the way. I have a lot of hang-ups around sex even beyond attraction to kids (eg, see this old chain), so it is difficult not to be overly defensive here.
If people aren't stupid or crazy for connecting CP with the victimization of children, then your strong claim seems like an overstatement (though perhaps an understandable one born of personal suffering).
I think we're still talking past each other here. Let me try rephrasing my assertion in a less disdainful way and maybe that will help. The comment which I was replying to was making a utilitarian argument that the sexualization of kids in video games could not be immoral because the characters in games are not sapient and thus actions toward them have no moral dimension. I think it is more accurate to model people's response in terms of virtue ethics rather than utilitarian ethics, in which case the harm or lack thereof of the specific situation has little to no moral bearing. I used much cruder terminology because I don't have a very high opinion of that view for probably obvious reasons, but I think this is effectively the same thing you were getting at with
Our psychology is geared toward discerning what kind of person they are
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
I'm genuinely curious about the motivations you've described
I'm happy to go into more detail about my thoughts and experiences if people are honestly interested and don't just want a freak show. I struggle a lot in gathering my thoughts for broad expositions after a serious concussion a few years ago though, so more specific prompting would be helpful.
From your comment, I felt like I was accused of believing 1) child molesters are conscious evildoers, sadists fantasizing about harming children and plotting to get at them
Well that is pretty much what I felt you were saying about pedophiles when you said
there is a direct causal link between pedophilia and trying to have sex with kids
and
So they're not fantasizing about victimizing children?
It seemed to me that you do not recognize the possibility for sexual activity with a child to not be victimization even in a fantasy setting rather than the real world nor that someone could desire it without eventually trying to act it out. I reject a framing of my fantasies as a desire to victimize children, even if I acknowledge that would be the actual result were they to play out in the real world.
My model of child molesters...
I would broadly model child molestation as three largely separate categories: 1) the molester is viewing the child as a fetish, 2) the molester is attempting to have a sexual relationship with the child, and 3) the molester is asserting dominance (not necessarily sadistically) over the child.
An example of the first category would be something like this where the relationship between the molester and the child is largely irrelevant to the act. An example of the second category would be the relationship between Asia Argento and Jimmy Bennett. As you said, this usually involves some level of delusion or motivated reasoning on the part of the molester as to the nature of the situation. I think this category largely corresponds to how you model child molesters? The third category covers things like sexual hazing and other forms of bullying.
Are you asking in what way pedophiles can express their desires without me calling for punishment?
Ways pedophiles can actively seek enjoyment in them without sanction. So tolerating their use of virtual CP would be an example, but probably not explaining it to a therapist.
I'd prefer to wall off anything depicting preadolescents from the general public, to keep it on purpose-specific platforms, where no actual children are likely to stumble upon it. If that's "censorship," then I suppose I am calling for some of it.
I think that's reasonable so long as it is actually accessible to pedophiles and not merely theoretically "accessible" in the way say CCL permits are to residents of NYC.
People are not stupid or crazy for connecting child pornography with the victimization of children, is all I'm saying.
I agree that the reason for their disgust with people who consume virtual CP is both reasonable and understandable. What I'm asserting is that even if it were conclusively shown that consumption of virtual CP significantly reduced the likelihood of a person to molest a child, most people would still be against the consumption of virtual CP because their disgust is more motivating than their desire to reduce the incidence of child abuse. I think this extends well beyond CP as well. For example, I have a decently well-paying job that doesn't involve any interaction with children. I expect that were it to become known that I'm a pedophile, I would be forced out of that job because people don't believe pedophiles deserve such a job--a disgust reaction based not on any actual risk. Do you think I'm wrong in that assessment?
Right now you're talking to some harpy in your head who gives women a pass for letting their boyfriends molest their kids,
The "Ignore the shitbag mom pimping them out..." part of my comment was not intended to be a reflection of your views, but was me blowing steam on (my view of) the general status quo. I apologize for not making that clear.
who believes that all child molesters are cunning sadistic predators,
I have no idea where you got this from my comment. The best match I can come up with is
No, obviously it's just pedophiles evilly fantasizing about victimizing children until they finally get up the nerve to do it to real children. Because that's what we are. Evil people plotting evil things because we're evil. Any defense we give is just DARVO.
but even that's a very big stretch. If that is what you were referring to, then yes, let's not pursue this any further because I will very likely not be able to be civil to someone who that egregiously equates "pedophile" and "child molester" while claiming to differentiate them.
and who wants a blank check to hurt pedophiles for their desires alone.
What positive expression of those desires would you not see censored?
If I promise not to accuse you of believing child abuse is fine because you haven't given a loud enough condemnation of it, can you agree not to accuse me of believing "women can never be blamed for their contributions to child abuse and their abuse can never truly be sexual anyway"?
You don't even need to make that promise. As I said above, I didn't intend to accuse you of believing that and I'm sorry I didn't distinguish my "ranting at the sky" clearly enough.
But could you please, while you're talking to me, talk to me?
The best I can promise here is that I will try to be charitable and assume good faith. I cannot guarantee I will succeed or avoid misunderstandings however. Even putting aside the strong emotional response to the topic, there is a large inferential distance to cover.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1yr ago
I don't really care enough about what you wish to call me to really unwrap the tangled knot of your reasons to think that vastly different classes of people who consider each other mortal enemies are all plausibly lumped in together as liberal, even if I think it's stupid. We're not even talking about Stalinists vs Trotskyists here.
In your case, you seem to be even more of an HBDer and yes less far to the left than ADL, but not sufficiently so for your representation to break the group thing, rather than reinforce it.
Really? What exactly is the criteria for when advocacy for HBD makes someone "break the group thing". If I join 4chan in their advocacy for "Total Nigger Death"?
If I float, I'm a liberal. If I sink, I'm a liberal, and apparently I need to hit the bottom of the pond at terminal velocity for it to count in your eyes.
Resentful people who hate others and like their favorite groups have been a key part of the left wing project.
People can and do have very different reasons for "hate". America and Russia hated Nazi Germany for rather different reasons.
We also see people who are extremely racist in favor of Jews and destructive against non Jewish ethnic groups to try to define moderation to be about having this racist ideology.
Is this somehow relevant to the moderation of this forum? I am unsure if it is, or if you're speaking more broadly.
As I've said on record, I like the Jews in Israel or at least much prefer them to the Palestinians or the rest of the Middle East. I am less positive on the Jews in the US, who are a very sizable number, because they self-sabotage and raised the leopards that are eating their faces.
Why should I take someone who supports such extreme destruction of an ethnic group of Palestinians because of your sympathies of the Jews, as someone who will at all oppose anything directed against other groups that Jewish supremacists hate?
The relevant reason for why I dislike Arabs is not because they're "anti-Jew". It is because they are backward religious fanatics who can't even point to having achieved anything of importance that wasn't off the back of their luck in having liquid gold beneath their sands.
And "non-Jewish" ethnic groups comprise uh, 99% of the rest of the world? You'll find I am very neutral to them.
Who else are they supposed to hate? The Romans? Christian Evangelists? Black Israelites?
It rather creates irrelevant debates between people who aren't sufficiently different and manufactures consent to a cohesive ideology that is shared by promoting a very limited overton window.
We have a very wide Overton Window here, with everyone from open pedophiles to those who want to shoot them, Jew-Defenders to Palestinian supporters, and everything in between.
As far as I can see, you prefer to lump everyone to the left of you, or even directions entirely orthogonal to the right, as "liberals", or carrying-water for them. All well and good, you're welcome to your opinion, even if I think it is entirely absurd to class me as a lib.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1yr ago
If it makes you feel any better, I think the current set of ethics imposed on ChatGPT is more ass-covering and lawsuit-minimization/PR than the sincerely held preferences of those at the top, or what they want to put into something that's a true AGI.
And even if they hadn't, the models have been exposed to so much anti-pedophile advocacy, including from trusted sources, that it is rather unlikely they would say otherwise in the first place.
But what do I know? It's possible some of the OAI engineers and ethicists mean it.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Yeah, those views. It was amusing to me how noticeably bad its responses were when I asked it about ethical behavior in situations involving pedophiles compared to situations that didn't. The former were much more terse and obviously special-cased.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1yr ago
Do you consider that "offending"? I don't, but some (many?) people do. Amusingly ChatGPT also does (hello @self_made_human).
I presume the shout-out relates to my advocacy for stronger standards of free speech around these parts? Or my policy that just about any arbitrary statement can be offensive/inflammatory to someone, hence I am not inclined to police slurs (and to an extent so are all the mods, we just earnestly disagree what where to draw the line).
Not that I'm unique in that, I remember that pedophiles have been allowed on The Motte for ages, including on the subreddit, when simple discussion or advocacy was real crimethink, and I think it's more down to luck that the Reddit Admins didn't notice or care about the handful of comments.
In general, my stance towards pedophiles is profound pity. I have/had a strong sex drive, and the agony of a life where even indulging it was illegal would have driven me to crime or suicide. And I certainly will side with them against the people who proclaim, contrary to revealed preference or about a million years of historical evidence, that being attracted to 16 year old girl with big tits is somehow an aberration or crime, or actually harmful. Age-gaps solely by the absolute difference in age are the most retarded thing I've seen come into vogue, and they have stiff competition.* So when moral busybodies come for your ability to even have synthetic substitutes, such as Chinese Drawings or AI-generated CP that doesn't involve any real children, then to hell with them I say. You didn't ask to be born that way, or to have a good fraction of the world baying for your blood even if you never act on your desired in a manner that hurts anyone.
*Especially when claims that humans only cognitively mature around 25 are so laughably incorrect/misinterpreted from the actual studies. I would say that they would love to say that the only acceptable relationship is between two 95 yo geriatrics who find love in the old age home, but I'm sure they're having a second childhood too.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
(I'm probably going to regret this comment...)
Why are you putting "offending" in scare quotes?
Because what's considered "offending" varies quite wildly and it's not always obvious to me what people mean by it. I've returned a hug from a child I found attractive rather than turning her away. I've gotten aroused by the actions of children around me. Do you consider that "offending"? I don't, but some (many?) people do. Amusingly ChatGPT also does (hello @self_made_human).
Nevertheless, child sex abuse is a real thing, and people aren't stupid or crazy for connecting it with pedophilia.
I don't disagree, but that doesn't give people a blank check in their response to pedophilia and things correlated with it.
Can you explain to me a mechanism by which pedophilia would be a strong predictor of offending again, but not a strong predictor of offending the first time?
Sure. Back when we were on reddit, there was another user who claimed to be a pedophile who theorized that pedophilia is (sometimes?) caused by a disruption in one's sexual development leaving them stuck in a more child-like stage. Hypothetically assuming this is true (I'm not claiming it is, though it does somewhat fit my experience), then it's possible that when and/or how it was disrupted affects how likely a pedophile is to offend, making pedophilia a very strong predictor of offending again, but not necessarily of offending the first time if only a minority of pedophiles are so affected.
I'd be astonished if they weren't. Would you?
I would expect pedophiles to be overrepresented among people who sexually abuse children. I would also expect that a large majority of pedophiles never sexually abuse a child however.
You can probably even argue that, in absolute numbers, more children are sexually abused due to Mom's shitbag-but-not-an-obligate-pedophile boyfriend.
Ignore the shitbag mom pimping them out to her shitbag boyfriend out of desperation for his attention when she's not abusing them herself between being dumped by and finding a new one. But of course, women can never be blamed for their contributions to child abuse and their abuse can never truly be sexual anyway...
But this feels like a huge whataboutist evasion. If you're asking me to believe that a man who's attracted to kids is no more likely to try to have sex with one than a random man from the dating pool of single parents - well, that doesn't pass the smell test.
Depends on what you mean by more likely to try I guess. I agree a random pedophile is more likely to desire to have sex with one and seek it out given the opportunity, but I think "a random man from the dating pool of single parents" is far more likely to actually have the opportunity and act on it--I don't think the average pedophile has the necessary social skill nor confidence to. I also think the average pedophile is more likely to see a child as a partner they don't want to hurt rather than just a hole to get off in, which I think would temper offending somewhat. Maybe I'm extrapolating too much from my own feelings though.
My assertion is that there is a direct causal link between pedophilia and trying to have sex with kids.
So basically I'm just deceiving myself thinking I actually care more about not hurting the people I'm attracted to than having sex with them?
Is your quoted article asserting
IIRC, the article itself is more a history and survey of other studies and I don't recall it making any assertions itself. These assertions are coming from others being quoted.
that users of virtual CP are relating to the sexualized minor, not to any unseen attacker? So they're not fantasizing about victimizing children?
Some users in some instances, yes. More generally, I think the assertion is that some people use virtual CP as a means of dealing with their own [childhood] [sexual] trauma in a safer, more controlled context. For example, consider ボクはお姉ちゃんの妹, a story about an older step-sister who defends her effeminate younger brother from bullying for acting like a girl and treats him like a girl, first with tame cross-dressing and then more erotic cross-dressing and sexual activities, with a recurring emphasis on how much she cares for her brother and how comfortable he is with her behavior. Can you imagine how good it feels to read this for a man who experienced similar things from people who didn't care? When he was forced to participate in feminine activities because his sister was too afraid to do them alone and was subsequently bullied for it. When rather than defending him, his relatives only defended femininity because bullying an effeminate boy is okay so long as girls don't feel like they are being denigrated by it. When he felt helpless as older girls (and boys, though that's not particularly relevant to this story) dressed him up, assaulted, and harassed him, treating him like a doll without any concern for his feelings. And despite all the fear and helplessness he was and still is aroused by it.
No, obviously it's just pedophiles evilly fantasizing about victimizing children until they finally get up the nerve to do it to real children. Because that's what we are. Evil people plotting evil things because we're evil. Any defense we give is just DARVO.
Therefore we shouldn't be concerned about their attraction to children?
Therefore we should be cognizant of the fact that there is more to consider than just their threat to children.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1yr ago
I haven't seen these, but the first thing that pops to my head by way of analogy is the way that close masculine friendship is now frequently coded as gay. Arab men holding hands? Gay. Two bros hugging it out? Gay. Telling your decades-long friend that you love him? Gay. Slap on the butt or other physical encouragement in sports? Gay. Just hanging out together? Believe it or not, still gay. Discouraging good, healthy, forms of masculine love is a terrible consequence of everything being interpreted through the lens of believing any two guys could be gay.
Likewise, viewing any adolescent play that isn't the platonic visual ideal of utter asexuality as an invitation to pedophiles concedes far too much ground for fear of pathology. A couple preteens playing pattycake just isn't sexual, even if weirdos are capable of interpreting it as such.
guesswho
1yr ago
WBC wasn't just making Christians look bad, they were actively harassing people and making their lives worse.
I expect I could find trans leaders denouncing, like, actual pedophiles who claim to be trans, or whatever, for that harm.
I don't think it's common for Christian leaders to denounce other Christians merely for being annoying or having bad opinions, which I think (?) is what we're talking about here?
But anyway, this is a bit vague. I'm going to be busy the rest of the week, but if you have a specific trans analogue to WBC you want to ask about ,I can see if I have time to look around.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1yr ago
I have little regard for the pedo-panic in the first place, and this is even more weaksauce compared to that.
If you're at the point where children doing entirely innocuous things, in modest clothing, is somehow a bad thing because you're worried some pedo will use it as jerkoff material, then we're at about the point where audio-visual recording of just about anyone and anything is off the table, and maybe even a ban on thinking about the children, you creep.
It also is entirely pointless to forbid it now, even for the ever illusive concerns of it ending up in AI training data. You don't think there's enough out there that people aren't making photorealistic artifical CSAM, in both photographic and video form? The cat is out of the bag, and while I'm sure there are some pedophiles who have a fetish for jailbait/"real" children, barring about 99.99% of parents from recording their kids and sharing it is so grossly overkill it's demented. You take a video of your daughter jumping on a trampoline and upload it on Insta? Well, about 6 frames can be construed as an "upskirt" shot, enjoy your ban. Discord is already banning people without recourse, including entire discord servers, if a single still image (that bald dude munching popcorn used as a reaction image), is shared, because their heuristics recognize it as a frame shared with a flagged CSAM video.
The reasonable solution, as far as I'm concerned, is to not care, or at least find something more concrete to worry about.
WhiningCoil
1yr ago
I haven't seen these videos myself, but I've heard people complaining about them, not unlike yourself. And like you said, nothing about the videos are explicitly sexual. It doesn't go full pedobait like Cuties. But it's still uncomfortably sexualizing. From some other complaints I've seen the dead giveaway are the comments, usually full of gross comments by pedophiles ranging from plausibly deniable to 4-chan party van. Also foot fetishist? So many foot fetishist. I guess they can't all work at Nickelodeon.
The other tell is the recommendations on those videos. There is a tread worn in the algorithm a mile deep that assumes if you like that video, you must love other gross shit that sexualizes minors.
Personally, we keep all photos of our daughter off the internet. No social media, no approval for school or businesses to post them, just absolute zero tolerance. Partially because we both have family that is unwell, unsafe, obsessive and might not leave us or our daughter alone. Also for all the usual tech-paranoid reasons about AI and corporations creating and owning a simulacrum of your soul.
aqouta
1yr ago
I've not seen these videos. I'm not totally sure how I'd feel about it, I suspect having a kid is going to change some of these feelings but I appear to lack the ick factor about having my likeness used to train AI. As for the soft core CP stuff? I'm overwhelmingly disgusted by pedophiles but I don't really think there is a way to prevent them from ever even seeing young children. I may still not like the idea of there being a lot of content on the open web about my future children but it's not really because pedos might find it.
komm-nach-unteralterbach
transhumanist libertAryan monarcho-pedo(anti-agecuck)fascist/natsoc + androsupremacist (unironic)
1yr ago
· Edited 1yr ago
I don't really post here much (or even browse, so I guess it's a fortunate coincidence that I happened to click this particular thread and scroll down today as I wasn't even logged in to see any notifications), but since you've shown me the respect of specifically invoking me as someone of interest on this subject, I will respond as best I can.
To be clear, I am by no means an expert in 60s/70s experimentation in "free love" pedophilia, though I am certainly aware that it existed and was reasonably prominent at times in Germany in particular I believe (as though I don't recall the source, I do remember reading about various "free love"-inspired orphanages and nurseries there in which children were encouraged to engage in sexual conduct both with each other and present adults). This is because any sort of "free love" leftism is of course wholly opposed to my genuine ideology which is the full and absolute restoration of masculine dominion over the feminine, and therefore I do vehemently disagree with any variety of left-wing egalitarianism even if it should have a pedophilic bent. Sex of a pedophilic nature is permissible (according to my worldview of course) because of and in circumstances of masculine domination over feminine persons, not because of any hippy dippy free use reduction of sex to mere casual child's play.
But if you want to talk about modern authors being put under pressure, consider the case of Bruce Rind, who, for writing "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" (known most commonly as "Rind et al.") (linked from the official site of Ipce, which describes itself as "a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.", and thus likely has much other information you are seeking), which simply collated evidence from other studies that significantly contradicts the "lifelong trauma" myth, had his article condemned in a concurrent resolution by the Congress of the United States itself (in a 355-0-13-66 (yea/nay/present/no vote) vote in the House (which is a somewhat rare occasion in a house of Congress I imagine, to have zero nay votes against something more substantive than naming a Post Office) and unanimous consent (which means that nobody asked to take a tally of votes for or against, presumably because the measure was considered so unfit to contest, not the same as an explicit unanimous vote) in the Senate). As suppressed as HBD often is, I don't think a single HBD advocate can claim that distinction. (Though Congress's resolution in particular doesn't attempt to allege any actual methodological flaws in the meta-analysis itself, one of the funniest criticisms of it that's been thrown around is that Rind was deceptively trying to bias the results away from finding harm and towards positive life outcomes by basing his analysis on... as the title mentions, College Samples.)
In any case, I will update this post in a bit with some sources that were sent to me by another individual at some point.
Edit: Okay, here they are. The following is a collection of mostly PDFs (along with some EPUBs and other random file formats) sent to me in the past by a self-identified gay pedophile communist. I cannot attest to the intellectual value of them as I haven't actually looked through all of them and felt some of the ones I did look at seemed a bit frivolous given how they don't reflect any perspective I personally subscribe to at all (being left-wing as they are), but as far being uncommon information goes they may certainly fit the bill.
https://a.cockfile.com/QNvaER.7z
https://web.archive.org/web/20240109085205/https://a.cockfile.com/QNvaER.7z
PW: motte
gattsuru
1yr ago
How does "requiring us to verify your age before allowing you access to our website" "put children and your privacy at risk"? Are they suggesting children are going to try and get fake ID from some crooks? Where does the risk to children come from?
MindGeek's official position is that inconsistent enforcement will drive under-18s to platforms where enforcement is lackluster or non-existent. And while that's probably motivated in part by their investment in different blocking approaches, it's not exactly an unreasonable concern, nor one that is limited to minors seeing the same porn they'd get exposed to otherwise, or some just slightly-sketchier stuff.
There's a small army of creeps, blackmailers, and unabashed pedophiles that trawl for people they can offer 'illicit' content and then use that to demand money and/or threaten their targets. While the highest-profile cases usually depend on a variant of catfishing, there's been no small number that use approaches based on outre content (whether the victim was looking for that or not) and social engineering.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
I read Dune maybe 6 years ago. You know, I'm always surprised that I didn't see more progressives trying to cancel Dune immediately before or since the film release, for the books clearly stating that Baron Harkonnen is a gay pedophile who wants to have sex with Paul. That seems like the sort of thing that they'd be against, because it's "punching down" or something. Even I think it's a little annoying in the book, since it's like a "puppy kicking" trope, to get you to clearly see Baron Harkonnen as a bad guy.
Frequent_Anybody2984
1yr ago
It's actually insane to me that much of the the left in America thinks white supremacy not only is a threat to America but literally the biggest threat. I have been visiting some family in California this week and I have really gotten to see the white lib in their natural environment. Before this trip I had thought that the complaining about white liberals by conservatives was just a round about way to criticize other groups that aren't acceptable to attack and they were overemphasizing how bad they are. I have actually changed my mind on this and I think they have become quite deranged. Literally everything is seen through the lens of race and white/POC. These were people who had pretty moderate political views from what I remembered but they are no longer moderate. I was so annoyed by their beliefs but I didn't want to argue with them so I just kept silent.
However, I kept thinking to myself who are these white supremacists that they think run the country? If this country was run by white supremacists, they would be doing a terrible job. I think we can imagine what a white nationalist government would do.
First of all, their immigration policy would obviously promote having a white majority. The US obviously fails this. Its immigration policy has transformed a country that was once 90% white into a country where whites will be less than 50% of the population in 20 years and this has happened in people's life times. This isn't some slow demographic change. It was deliberate in some cases and merely allowed in other cases. A white supremacist country would simply not allow this to happen. We've seen ethno states from Nazi Germany to Israel. In the case of Israel, they prioritize keeping Jews the majority and try to get more Jews to move there. In the case of the Nazis, the took it to the extreme and exterminated non-Germans. The US does the opposite of either of these, allowing non-whites to become a majority of the young people and of births in about 50 years.
The second things they would do is prioritize whites over non-whites. Does the US do that? DEI and those kinds of organizations and philosophies are designed to hire more non-white people and less whites. On my job review I filled out, I was judged on 20% of my review on DEI type stuff, one of which was hiring more "diverse" candidates. It is illegal to specifically hire whites only and even if it wasn't the country would hate you if you actually did it. All kinds of programs have been set up to get more non-white people into elite institutions through affirmative action and other policies. The isn't a single government program that was created to specifically help whites, but the same can't be said about all other groups. Biden literally said he would only consider a black woman for VP and on the Supreme Court. Their competition in the Republicans would never dream of explicitly saying they'd only pick a white man.
In a white supremacist country ran by white supremacists, white supremacists would also be liked by the population and government. Except again this doesn't happen. If you are a white supremacist openly, you will be hated and fired from your job. If you try to be a public intellectual and organize a pro-white organization, you will be kicked off of social media and be removed from the banking system. People will say it is okay to physically harm you. If you get famous enough, you will be the most hated person in America like RIchard Spencer. You will be sued and attacked by left wing lawfare, again like Richard Spencer. If you want to be like and be successful, being a white supremacist is literally the worst thing you could be other than a pedophile.
This has real world consequences where it makes people think in insane ways. Look at this insane reddit thread I found on rdrama. These people literally think being concerned about millions of people crossing the border a year is racist and white supremacy. I know many people like this, including in my own family. This delusion is then propped up by academics and intellectuals. Probably 75% of every "smart" person out there who is educated in elite institutions believes this to some degree.
I don't really have anything else to say other than I'm just baffled that so many supposedly smart and rational people don't think through their arguments and beliefs. Cartesian doubt is apparently out of style. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that white supremacy or racism is anywhere close to the biggest issue the US faces.
Is there a specific name and definition for the culture war tactic of accusation mirroring i.e. when you appropriate one of the usual accusations your main political rivals are throwing at you (or some different near-group) all the time and throw it back at them, or at someone in your outgroup in general, even though you've never believed in the validity of the accusation at all? I'm thinking of something similar to the DR3 ('Democrats are the real racists') narrative, or when Republicans are accused of milking the government for subsidies etc. I'm asking because I'm seeing a current example, namely in the context of the ongoing Hungarian presidential pardon scandal, where liberal leftist influencers have pretty much reinvented the Pizzagate conspiracy theory - which is something they otherwise write off and ridicule as right-wing tinfoil hat nonsense, as they are themselves acculturated in US liberal online circles - and are hurling it at the government, pushing the narrative that a pedophile ring is ruling the entire country from the shadows with an iron fist.
More options
Context Copy link