pedophile
ControlsFreak
6d ago
For a start is it really lefty beliefs?
I believe that both the respondents and the Deputy Solicitor General are trying to represent beliefs that could be described as "lefty", by virtue of their respective positions.
If you think that the general zeitgeist is that addicts can be cured and it didn't used to be, you can just say that.
Evangelis and Corkran seem to agree that addiction to drugs is immutable (to some extent; Evangelis is a bit less clear here). Evangelis thinks that this is a distinguishing factor from Robinson, thinking that the Robinson Court, at that time, also viewed it as some sort of immutable, which contributes to an argument of it being a "status". Corkran disagrees, thinking that the Robinson Court simply got the facts about addiction wrong, that they thought it was mutable (but it's really not), so they were thinking that mutable things could still be a "status". Thus, Evangelis thinks that Robinson supports mutable things being not a status and immutable things being a status, while Corkran thinks that Robinson implicitly supports both mutable and immutable things being a status (dependent upon some other features, apparently).
So, it appears that the general zeitgeist is moving toward the idea that addicts can't become not addicted to drugs, and some portion thinks that it didn't used to be that way.
So the definition is "An addict is someone who has at any point in the past been addicted to X AND still has that desire."
Why wouldn't we short-circuit that to just "has that desire"? What is the AND doing, besides pointing to past conduct? Should "pedophile" be defined as "someone who has any point engaged in pedophilic conduct AND still has that desire" rather than "has pedophilic desires"? Should "homosexual" be defined as "someone who has at any point engaged in homosexual conduct AND still has that desire"? I honestly can't help but point out that this is feeling suuuuper epicycl-y.
According to this Twitter thing, race-IQ is the most taboo topic. It's more taboo than "are pedophiles harmful or not?"
In general, I find the outrage over this topic a lot more interesting than whether or not blacks have lower IQ than whites.
Speaking of which, what are the implications if blacks have lower IQ than whites? That doesn't tell you about the IQ of any individual standing in front of you. For that, you would just test them?
What's important about this finding? What policy would we change? Is this actually a proxy for acknowledging IQ exists and that improving society through education won't work in a meritocracy because some people will never be doctors no matter how hard we try?
Stated another way, I can't think of any policy we would change to address low IQ blacks that wouldn't also apply to low IQ whites. Race is almost irrelevant.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
21d ago
The main issue is that he was a single issue poster, and after being told to knock it off, he mostly does the very bare minimum to try and skirt it.
As we've said before, Holocaust denialism is not a verboten topic here. Far from it, I struggle to think of any viewpoint we censor, we've got open pedophiles here, and in most places on the internet they'd get banned the moment they even hinted at it.
But his behavior is clearly in bad faith, while at the time @somedude contested the ban, I was the only mod up and checking, I did talk to the others and we're in consensus that his behavior is unacceptable.
hydroacetylene
21d ago
Look, this forum doesn't ban content. Well, at least not officially, I'm sure if I posted furry porn and some ads I'd catch a ban for it. But we don't ban viewpoints. I'm OK with that, even if there's a few viewpoints I'd rather not have to deal with and would probably ban if I was dictator of the universe.
But the trouble is that there are a few viewpoints attracted to forums which don't ban viewpoints, which proceed to repetitively post the same thing in lengthy screeds over and over again. As you note, holocaust denial is one, pedophile apologia is another one, incel screeds are probably in that category these days, there's a few others I'm missing. And that just gets annoying, so at a certain point you have to have a rule against it. And one-issue posting is probably the best you can do in that regard; I can minimize a single 10,000 word comment supporting pedophilia but if it takes over the forum I would seek a new forum.
hydroacetylene
21d ago
Skookum got banned for one issue posting, and I think we've had a pro-pedophile poster and the teen liberation guy banned under it as well. It's definitely not a common think to get banned for, but it's been used before.
Obviously the vast majority of medical marijuana users have no actual reason for using beyond wanting to get high. But to the extent that medical marijuana replaces opiates for chronic pain, this is a net positive. In all other ways, except maybe for the like three people who actually have the kind of cancer it works on, it’s a bad thing.
Disclaimer- I don’t like pot. I hate the smell of it, I find potheads annoying and contemptible in a way that alcoholics don’t affect me, and I Just Don’t Like Seeing It. If potheads would smoke weed in their living rooms I probably wouldn’t care very much, any more than the bottle of whiskey a night drinkers at home.
And I think that’s the real crux of my objections to weed. It’s the inability of our society to say, ok, this is a bad thing we don’t approve of, but it’s not worth really cracking down on. If it became legal advertising for it would be everywhere, public places would stink like it constantly, and heavy users would get a platform for bitching about discrimination against them. I don’t want those things, and they’re what happened in other states that legalized the stuff. I think there’s probably also some technical arguments about driving, and adolescent use, but they’re not my real reason.
But circling back to my second paragraph- our present society doesn’t recognize ‘stop celebrating things I hate, it’s really annoying and offensive, just get it out of my face’ as a legitimate complaint. There’s something missing there; if I went to a mosque and set up a booth entitled ‘Mohammed was a pedophile’, I would have no right to complain about getting my ass kicked and being physically removed(I’m given to understand that radical Muslims in the US tend to not actually go to mosque very often, so I wouldn’t expect a beheading). But that’s a general principle, and the need to promote things I hate is one of those annoying parts of modern society.
I remember a particularly hilarious example where they used a picture of a model and a bio that straight up confessed to being a convicted pedophile who can't get close to schools.
And they were still getting matches. And the women were thirsty even though the fake user kept reiterating the point. As someone with a far more handsome brother, I should have seen this coming, but still, bruh.
Sure, you quickly get into the Foucault's Pendulum type stuff, and I'm not going to argue for every insane theory. It isn't even necessary to argue for Epstein conspiracy theories truth value. But we're talking about the book here.
When we're studying "Why did QAnon rise right now?" which was the premise of the book, why would we not include this very suspicious and very public thing that happened, widely cited by the primary sources as proof? It seems a very odd omission. The author seems to want to place blame purely on the believers, that they are 100% responsible for choosing to buy into Q, but at that scale we have to look at it in terms of societal causes, and ask how we can prevent it. And part of that should be, hey our institutions need to regain credibility.
As I pointed out, in some ways to the human mind a pedophile cabal is less horrifying. "Lmao you don't know rich people" is a funny gag sure, but which is worse: that the current rich people are pedos and we need to throw them out, or that rich people just don't care that he was a pedo, that they're indifferent to it? An organized moral universe is a comfort, even if it is a dark one.
FiveHourMarathon
You can get anything here except red ink
28d ago
I took a pause on my War and Peace reread to read some other books. I realize the critique of the "finishing quantity of books" approach to reading, but I stick to it anyway, sometimes I just need the feeling of closure. I decided I wanted to read Tolstoy's Sevastopol Sketches to get more insight into War and Peace and Tolstoy's philosophy, then I saw a review of Day of the Oprichnik and thought it would be fun to dive into some modern Russian Lit, then I was traveling for Easter and wanted a light physical book to read so I grabbed my wife's copy of Trust The Plan a reporting book about the QAnon world. One of the reasons I think both E-Readers and physical print has a place in the world is because of social conventions. At a town meeting where I'm not actually working while they're handling other topics but I have to sit quietly for several hours, I can get away with reading on a tablet and no one will really question it, I can at least pretend I'm working or looking at material related to the meeting; while sitting on a tablet at the beach with my in laws is kinda less social and acceptable than sitting with a book.
All three were around 200 pages, and easy reads. Thoughts on them:
-- Sevastopol Sketches is fascinating, it really is Young Tolstoy. You can feel the immediacy of the work, Tolstoy served there. You can see how the rhythms of Sevastopol, of siege, really played into his portrayal of other military campaigns, and of military life generally. My feeling on this re-read of War and Peace has been that the core theme of the work is questioning what is real. There are all these parallel forms and spheres of life in the book going on at the same time: Russian high society, the Russian peasantry, the soldiers in combat, the General staff and their politics, the intelligentsia and the intellectual world, the Freemasons and other reformists. You can see the germ of this idea forming here, the focus is purely military, but you have the same passage of officers between the town and the batteries, between life in Russia and life at the front, and decisions being made to privilege one version of life or the other, and the work questions which is real. In many ways War and Peace takes that core conflict of Sevastopol and multiplies it in fractals, adding civilian life and intellectual life and politics and secret societies. If you wanted to read Tolstoy but didn't want to tackle 1400 pages, I'd recommend it, it's a quick easy read and the characters don't suffer from being impossible to keep track of, no character-web necessary here, just a quick tight military novella.
--Day of the Oprichnik I didn't really get. It felt a lot like reading bro-lit in 2024, like Christopher Moore whose recent work I got for christmas or Chuck Pahluniuk or (I'm gonna get in trouble here) Cormac McCarthy, with the gross-out aspect of the daisy chain orgy and the rape scenes feeling kinda unnecessary. I kinda rushed through it by the end, I was getting bored by it once I realized nothing was really going to happen. Reading the Wikipedia I guess there's strong elements of satire of other Russian works I hadn't read, and symbolism rooted in Russian literature and history I didn't get. There's an interesting aspect of "was this predicting the future of eg Prighozin?" but I didn't get a ton out of it to be honest.
--Trust The Plan was ok. I'm glad I read it, but it felt so cowardly. It reminds me of how critically I read most media compared to the average person. The book covers Q from birth to present day. I feel like the overview gave me a better understanding of the ecosystem, and the vignettes of some of the criminal shit believers have gotten up to gave me a taste of just how depraved and insane some of this shit is. I came out wondering at what point Q itself comes to court as a criminal conspiracy, what with all the fugitive harboring? But I felt like the author chickened out when it came to asking the Big Questions about conspiracy theorism. Epstein gets only a passing mention, how do you talk about conspiracy theories and not mention that? The orthodox theory of conspiracy theories I remember from a million history channel documentaries growing up was that people believed conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination because they wanted it all to mean something and not just be a coincidence. At the very least, even if you believe the official Epstein story, that theory fits right in: people want to believe in a pedophile cabal because it's actually in some ways less horrifying than a single pedophile conman who could just, you know, do that. Epstein also vastly undermined the arguments against Q: Jewish financial elites aren't abusing children on secret islands, except that one time they did, but it was a one-off. Or the rest of MeToo, while the author tries to both-sides a little on conspiracy stuff, the world was suddenly full of secret-elite rapists, and Q is in many ways just a mass-hallucinatory-expansion of MeToo. Or the War in Iraq, or the Great Recession and the Subprime Crisis, all cases where elites knew something was fake and gay and going to go horribly wrong and sold the American people a line of bullshit about it.
In other personal news, I successfully completed a side-quest new year's resolution: I went swimming in the Long Island Sound in March. Just under the wire. It was so cold at 6am that at first it felt like dying, but then I'd settle in and swim a half mile. On Saturday I was alone except for two golden retrievers and their owner, it took forever to get into the water because the dogs kept looking at me going into the water and going nuts. What the fuck are you doing you idiot, it's cold!
I'm still losing weight, surprisingly Easter at the in-laws didn't derail me. I brought a single 20kg kettlebell, and did a pentathlon Easter morning, I figured the best way to honor the season was to put some holes in my hands. Maybe I'll get back on that for another season, this time last year I really enjoyed it. Hope everyone had a happy Easter.
guesswho
29d ago
I don't remember the full sequence of events now, but I thought the inciting incident had something to do with information about his rich and powerful associates being in danger of leaking to the public, and then he was disappeared and teh issue was hushed up? I could be wrong.
But, either way, yes this is a hueristic not an immutable law of physics. The fact that it takes being an incredibly high-profile pedophile and sex trafficker for decades, with the full knowledge and in full view of everyone on the planet, to face any consequences eventually, doesn't really disprove my point that the rich are insulated from consequences. It's not an inviolable shield, but it's a pretty massive one.
campfireSmoresEaten
29d ago
Someone blatantly pointing out in the most public way possible that this has always been a fiction, that governments may make figleaf declarations about opposing these types of slander but will never actually enforce them because they actually are inherently conservative entities that are on the side of the privileged and the default, that anyone can make the most vile comments they want and always could without fearing legal reprisals
I don't know if you're an American, but this is just not true. In non-US countries, people have been prosecuted for saying that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin in Canada and I think Finland, for saying that Muhammed was a pedophile, for telling jokes, for saying that Muslims girls are raped by their family members, for saying that Muslim girls are murdered by their family members in honor killings, for saying that Muslims want to kill us, for quoting someone else saying that Islam is a defective and misanthropic religion, for comparing Muslims to Nazis, for saying "Well, when one, like Bwalya Sørensen, and most black people in South Africa, is too unintelligent to see the true state of things, then it is much easier to only see in black and white, and, as said, blame the white."
More: For saying that white people pretend to be indigenous for political or career clout. etc etc etc
hydroacetylene
1mo ago
A gay pedophile, and feyd-rautha was a heterosexual rapist- heavily implying the baron to be a pedophile and feyd-rautha committing rape would have had the weirdo sexual pervert effect without being politically incorrect.
I do think black people have a significantly lower average IQ than whites, that this has a genetic component, and this means that disparate impact civil rights law and affirmative action should not exist.
I don't think this comes from a believe in 'fuck everyone not like me' - I'm happy to work with smart Indians, Chinese, etc. And if I see a black person who's in fact contributing at the same level as a non-black person, I'm happy to work with that person too! (Clarence Thomas, for instance, doesn't seem to be any worse of a justice than the others).
I think most pro-HBD commenters here have beliefs like that?
I don't think most trans people are pedophiles though, or that they're transing our kids in the schools or w/e. I don't think transitioning is a good choice for anyone, but there's not really any concrete relationship between the way it's bad and pedophilia or schools.
guesswho
1mo ago
See discussion here, the whole point is that hatred and endorsing name-calling are not necessary for your policy stance to be 'fuck them' in consequentialist terms.
Ans, yes, there are plenty of non-ideological ways to arrive at a conclusion like black people have lower IQ, or that most trans people are pedophiles, or that immigrants are dangerous and disgenic, or that feminists have gone too far, or etc.
But if you believe all of them at once, I'm not wrong to notice the correlation between that and one of the two dominant ideologies that define most political discussion in the english-speaking world, and guess that your bottom line is being written by a cultural affiliation, rather than the arguments above it.
Hlynka was at least interesting in being both anti-progressive and anti-HBD. Yo need to actually think about things for yourself to find yourself in that position.
That's more interesting than me, and most of the people here. Which makes it valuable to the discourse, right or wrong.
ChickenOverlord
1mo ago
You can say that black people are stupid and trans people are deluded pedophiles every day for years, as long as you maintain decorum.
But if someones recognizes that what you're saying there is 'fuck everyone not like me' and responds with 'hey, fuck you too', that person is not being polite and must be eliminated.
Do you consider there to be any possible explanation for those views other than "fuck everyone not like me?" I don't believe that black people are "stupid," though I do believe that there will be fewer high IQ blacks per capita than whites and Asians. I don't hate them, I just want to stop giving them handouts and discriminating in their favor. And I don't believe that all trans people are deluded pedophiles, just the overwhelming majority of the MtF ones.
Knowing that I hold these views, do you believe that I personally think "fuck everyone not like me?" If so, why?
'polite' being the code word doing a lot of work, here.
You can say that black people are stupid and trans people are deluded pedophiles every day for years, as long as you maintain decorum. That's still 'polite'.
But if someones recognizes that what you're saying there is 'fuck everyone not like me' and responds with 'hey, fuck you too', that person is not being polite and must be eliminated.
Hlynka wasn't interested in maintaining decorum when it was an obvious papering over disrespectful or violent thoughts. I admired how long he was able to act on that disinterest without getting permabanned.
Personally, the masquerade is getting boring for me too. But out of respect for mod wishes, I'll try to fade out rather than flame out if it becomes too annoying to bother with.
VinoVeritas
1mo ago
nazi pedophile
That's a whole new kind of "mixed race and belongs in neither camp" lol
Chomos are the lowest of the low and I think the pedos think the same of 'nazis'
curious_straight_ca
1mo ago
No! I'm happy that we allow Holocaust deniers or the (iirc) nazi pedophile from a while ago to post if they follow the rules. But that's the kind of comment I'd expect to see as a reply to iamyesyouareno on twitter, not one I want to see here.
hydroacetylene
2mo ago
We have(or had) more than one actual pedophile willing to write 10,000 word manifestos about it.
Lewis2
2mo ago
This is a good illustration of what I mentioned in my last response to @guesswho. I agree 100% with all of this. People should really cool it with the wood chipper memes when talking about non-offending pedophiles, even as they build statues of Gary Plauche for his actions in dealing with offending pedophiles. It’s just about impossible to say that, though, because no one will believe you’re the ACLU defending Nazis; they’ll assume you’re just secretly a pedo yourself.
Lewis2
2mo ago
Are you talking about MAP stuff?
Largely that, yes, though I also have in mind some of the pedophilia-adjacent things in the trans arena—child drag queens and the like. I largely agree with hydroacetylene’s comment below on how pedophilia could be normalized; I just think he’s missing an additional set of arguments borrowed from the trans movement. If pre-pubescent children can choose to medically transition from one sex to another, it really isn’t a huge jump to give them agency over their sex lives as well (personally, I’d go further and say that allowing transition but not sex is plain incoherent; if anything, it should be the other way around). The case for giving barely-pubescent children sexual freedom is even stronger, and I agree with hydroacetylene that this is more likely for children who opt for same-sex relationships, since that eliminates the concern about pregnancy and since ephebophilic relationships are already more common among gay men. (And yes, I know that technically pedophilia doesn’t include attraction to 12 year olds, but that’s what the vast majority of people consider it.)
In general, though, I tend to look at pedophilia normalization through the lens of the gay rights movement’s history. If you asked the average American in 1960—a time when sodomy was illegal in every state in the union, a year before the famous Boys Beware! educational film was released, and nine years before the Stonewall riots—whether he thought same-sex marriage would ever be legalized throughout the country, he’d laugh you out of the room. Forget marriage, he’d think you were insane if you suggested SCOTUS would rule as it did in Lawrence v. Texas. I think we might be in the same spot today with regard to pedophilic relationships.
This is why I’m not really happy about the MAP and non-offending pedophile stuff I see, even as I agree with pretty much everything they’re saying. Pedophiles don’t choose to be attracted to children, it’s wrong to conflate temptation with action, and it’s a problem that non-offending pedophiles don’t feel safe to discuss their problems with therapists, etc. I wish society would change to make those distinctions clear, but I just don’t trust that the current reasonable concerns raised by MAP activists aren’t a camel’s nose peeking its way into the tent.
You probably could, simply say someone who has that addictive desire yeah. I was just editing your example definition, to point out, that there was a potential exit, in that I could be wrong so that someone who once was an addict and no longer has that desire I would consider no longer an addict. For addiction you can't generally know if you will be an addict until you have experienced it, whereas a pedophile can (and usually will) have those desires before they ever abuse a child. A pedophile who never abuses a child is still a pedophile, but there is no such thing as a cocaine addict who has never tried cocaine because the experience of what it does to you and how it makes you feel is part of developing the addiction.
My point is the zeitgeist already was that addicts can't become not addicted to drugs, I am in my 50's and that is certainly what we were taught about addiction when I was a kid. "Not even once!" Whereas current doctors (like self_made_human) seem to think addicts CAN become not addicted to drugs. So is there some kind of "new science" and does it run the direction you think it does?
My experience would say the opposite, that we USED to believe addicts can't be cured and now we are beginning to believe they can. Which could mean that there never was a really settled zeitgeist in the first place, for things to move on from. And therefore politicians and activists can simply use the version that best supports whatever position they are trying to argue in the moment (or more charitably that whatever belief they have is WHY they are taking the position they are taking).
More options
Context Copy link