what do either of those things have to do with pedophilia? This is all over the map. This is just ‘things you don’t like’.
ALSO: you’re still doing the thing I’ve been talking about, which is citing far right news outlets that are talking endlessly about the subject, pretending it’s something the left in general embraces. Hell, did you read the Guardian article you linked?
“a media obsession with the subject has done more: a sustained hue and cry exemplified by the News of the World’s notorious “name and shame” campaign in 2000, which brought mobs on to the streets to demonstrate against the presence of shadowy monsters in their midst. As a result, paranoia about the danger from solitary, predatory deviants far outweighs the infinitely more real menace of abuse within the home or extended circle.”
You literally posted multiple daily caller links, which happens to be the specific media outlet I mentioned earlier.
No, they just abuse little boys and pretend they don’t (catholic priests, not attacking all religions. Or even all Catholics. But everyone knows exactly what I’m talking about). I don’t see how ‘not being open about it’ is a saving grace.
Are you saying the articles are made up? That the things cited in them are not true? Or are you must making a lazy argument to avoid the substance of the articles?
Just because you can use a source material to support a position, doesn’t mean you should.
Like, I could point out the increasing likelihood of a home invasion by citing There’s a Wocket in my Pocket, but I don’t think it’d be an entirely convincing argument.
And for what it’s worth, the only beauty pageant parents I know who dress their eight year olds up in crop tops to parade on stage for a panel of grown men are hardcore Trump supporters (often Southern). In my eyes, that’s basically right-wingers sexualizing (their own) children.
I’ve never made an argument that pedophilia doesn’t exist. From the start, I’ve said that right wing media is responsible for convincing its audience, erroneously, that pedophilia is a thing that is largely embraced by the left. I’m not sure what you’re missing.
But, since you are asking me to address the specific content in those two articles, I can, and I can also address how I believe they make my point.
The headline of the first article is ENTIRELY misleading. The headline suggests that the conference was based on normalizing pedophilia, but when you read the article, it actually talks about a small group of mental health professionals who want to change the definition of pedophilia in the DSM to not JUST include individuals engaged in criminal activity, but ALSO those who have not. This does not indicate to me any sort of ‘normalization’. It’s an expansion of a definition within psychology. As far as I can tell, this group, that is ALREADY a tiny group in the first place, doesn’t have aims outside of that. The only ‘evidence’ that they have more sinister motives is the opinion of some law school professor cited in the article who BELIEVES they are up to something else, or that what they are doing would have bad results. I don’t see evidence of that. So, A) this group seems far more benign in intention than the headline suggests, and B) even if we are to assume that they AREN’T so benign, they are indeed a very fringe group, and one that the APA states is not affiliated with them.
Article 2: It’s an article about pedophiles THEMSELVES wanting to be ‘normalized’. No shit Sherlock. Pedophiles want to be pedophiles. How is this even news? And again, not a mainstream group, EXTREMELY fringe.
And yet, the clear intention of both articles is fearmongering, suggesting normalization of Pedophilia is on the horizon.
Hopefully this addresses your concern that I’m not willing to engage with the source material, and hopefully it further clarifies my position on how right wing media treats the subject.
I disagree. It’s teaching kids that people who look different, or are different aren’t neccessarily scary or bad.
I don’t see anything wrong with saying “I used to be a man, and now I’m a woman, now shut up and listen to the darn book!”, Or “'i’m a man and I love my husband the same way your mommy loves your daddy. No more questions till the next page”.
My dad asked his friend who grew up going to Catholic church how many priests he’d had to sleep with. (They’re good enough friends that this was a totally acceptable joke to make between the two of them.) The dude had no idea that this was a thing. He was shocked to hear about priests doing this. He stopped going to church as soon as his parents couldn’t make him, so maybe he’s just out of the loop, but I do not understand how one can not know about this.
(I know this really isn’t a laughing matter, but this particular situation was funny to me.)
What you actually said at the start was “The left absolutely isn’t the side making it mainstream” when the topic was normalizing pedophilia. That implies it is the right. If you had said “The left absolutely isn’t making it mainstream” I would have ignored it and moved on. The right is certainly bringing attention to it more than the left, but that is to be expected.
I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. It IS my position that the right wing media is, indeed, pushing a narrative that this is a mainstream left idea, that the left is like pushing hard for pedophilia to be normalized. It’s almost a daily talking point in conservative media. I’m not implying that the right is turning it into a big deal, I’m saying it outright. Far right wing media is wholly responsible for misleading it’s readership intentionally on this subject, mostly through outrageous headlines. As I mentioned, the content of these articles is often far less incendiary, but these media outlets know full well most of their followers are like Pat: they just read headlines and share the fuck out of them.
why? I don’t understand why this is to be expected, other than I guess as a strategy to vilify and dehumanize people on the left without justification? I guess to that end, this is how the right engages in politics (quite successfully at that), but I don’t see it as an inherently Conservative view that pedophilia’s bad. It’s a 99% of humans view, on both sides.
Who calls who racists, bigots, and all the other garbage when they are disagreed with. I would say the left villainizes people more based off emotion than the right.
Both sides are cancer, but one side is the perpetrator of cancel culture and it isn’t the right.
The right likes to call it a boycott. I grew up in a conservative circle. From what I remember, some conservatives in the 90s were boycotting Disney and Target. Mostly for supporting gay rights.
You are right though. Both sides are guilty of thinking the other side is something different than it is. Vilifying each other.
I have a tough time saying one is worse than the other. What is worse being called a pedophile or an uneducated nazi? IDK?
I totally agree here.
My problem is that “The Big Tent Party” never seems to vocally call out that evil.
That gives the conservatives a talking point. If the Liberals were to vocally call out pedophilia, why would the conservatives see any advantage to make a point about it?
Both are bad, but if I had to choose - I would rather be called an uneducated nazi.
Boycotts are okay though. That is just speaking with your money. Everyone does this. You aren’t actively trying to get people fired for a belief or going after their job for using the wrong pronoun.
It is just done over different things IMO. Some on the right certainly wanted Kaepernick fired for kneeling as an example.
I guess I don’t have an issue with the cancel stuff. If you don’t like what someone said or did, shouldn’t you be free to say what you want back in response? Maybe you think they are unfit for a role because of what they said. Isn’t it okay to say that? Seems like censorship to not allow it.
I am not saying they don’t have the right to voice their opinion, but going after someone’s job because you don’t agree with them politically is pretty shitty regardless of what side you are on.
It sets a bad precedent and now it is going both ways more - fighting fire with fire. All it does IMO is breed more hatred for the opposing side.
I have no issue with people holding different views and discussing them and agreeing to disagree, but when you make it personal there is a problem.
It should be allowed, but it makes you an asshole if you do it. Just like you are free to stand on a street corner yelling the n-word at the top of your lungs, but you are an asshole if you do it.