The pics thread

[CiG]

Salon deleted the articles they hosted which were written by a self-admitted pedophile, but they were archived here and here.

Overall, I think there's a slow-motion attempt on the more fringe progressive section to separate pedophiles from child molesters by pointing out that you can be a non-active pedophile. It's not the same as saying pedophiles are just like homosexuals and Mort is correct when he says the left by their own ideology could never truly support pedophilia because it inherently needs a rape victim to be what it is, but to some degree there is an attempt to generate sympathy for non-active pedophiles.

 

[The Ozzman]

It isn't. Any portrayal of the LGBT community as defending pedophiles has been an attempt by trolls to undermine progress made by the LGBT community.

So basically a child can be a pedophilia victim at age 8 because they can't consent but also can consent to saying they identify as something other than their biological sex? I call bullshit.

 

[Mort Divine]

So basically a child can be a pedophilia victim at age 8 because they can't consent but also can consent to saying they identify as something other than their biological sex? I call bullshit.

Considering gender identity is largely solidified early on in a child's development call it all you want.


"Core gender identity is usually formed by age three.[7][8] After age three, it is extremely difficult to change,[7] and attempts to reassign it can result in gender dysphoria.[9] Both biological and social factors have been suggested to influence its formation"

 

[The Ozzman]

I didn't even know how to tie my shoes at age 3. Utter trash viewpoint tbh.

What did you identify as at age 3? Serious question.

 

[CiG]

I didn't even know how to tie my shoes at age 3. Utter trash viewpoint tbh.

What did you identify as at age 3? Serious question.

...This isn't going to end well.

 

[Mort Divine]

I didn't even know how to tie my shoes at age 3. Utter trash viewpoint tbh.

What did you identify as at age 3? Serious question.

Honestly, I don't remember much of my childhood, but I imagine the same as I do now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[The Ozzman]

...This isn't going to end well.

>"This isn't going to end well"
>Ends with a noncommittal

Probably the best outcome you can have with Mort tbh

 

[Krow]

I don’t remember much of anything from before middle school. Three year olds chew on rocks and eat shit if left unchecked. Telling them they aren’t a girl is probably similar.

 

[The Ozzman]

I don’t remember much of anything from before middle school. Three year olds chew on rocks and eat shit if left unchecked. Telling them they aren’t a girl is probably similar.

You probably also had parents who cared

 

[CiG]

If my parents taught me money management and invested in my future with a strong emphasis on education, I'd take some weird gender identity issues on balance. Useless cunts.

 

[Einherjar86]

So basically a child can be a pedophilia victim at age 8 because they can't consent but also can consent to saying they identify as something other than their biological sex? I call bullshit.

Why? The former involves a relationship between two people; the latter involves an individual person's sense of self-identity, and eight is smack in the middle of formative years. The eight-year-old isn't making a decision that involves the livelihood of another human being. It's a completely personal process that the eight-year-old probably doesn't fully understand. But then why prohibit any given eight-year-old from playing with certain toys, or dressing in certain clothes, or performing as a different gender than their biological sex, just because they don't fully understand the political valences of what they're doing? They're not actively hurting anyone else.

Unless you count having to address them by their chosen gender as "hurting" you. Which, if that's the case, then I'd say you have larger issues to worry about.

That pic isn't saying that homoesexuals et al are comparable in their behavior to paedophiles. Some irony though in having a priest as the victim .

It's a political meme, and as such it's referring to poltiics. LGBTQ++++++ is an impossibly big identity politics tent (not in numbers, but in perspectives/interests, when differences start to be highlighted) that lacks the ideological and emotional ammunition to repulse paedos from utilizing similar arguments to jump in.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understanding how these two things follow.

It seems you're saying that the meme is criticizing how LGBTQ values might be coopted by pedophiles because they aren't homogeneous or coherent enough. Given the incoherence of the image itself, it's impossible to extricate the conflation of LGBTQ members with pedophiles. It only appears obvious to you because you're on the defensive side and the image isn't specific enough to prove that it's conflating LGBTQ members and pedophiles. But given its composition, I'd say it's aiming to provoke that response. And it certainly can be read either way, which is problematic.

 

[CiG]

It's simple really, pedophiles are opportunistically taking advantage of the "born this way" rhetoric. It's disgusting tbh.

 

[Einherjar86]

Fair enough, but the meme doesn't specify "pedophile rights"; it specifies "LGBTQ rights," which means it's conflating the two. It's ostensibly about those who identify as LGBTQ, and then crudely qualifies that identity as pedophilic.

 

[CiG]

I don't agree with the meme because I don't have to be a rabid progressive LGBT activist to know that the LGBT as a specific political unit isn't pro-non-consensual sex (or simply rape) so there's no danger of pedophile rights becoming a pillar of the LGBT.

However, you cannot ignore this weird new trend of trying to gain sympathy for non-active pedophiles. There are literal articles that have been written by noteworthy left-wing media orgs like Salon.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

It's not exactly a new trope though, to conflate gays to pedophiles. CiG is partially right that some pedos are being opportunistic, but the primary opportunists are the internet reactionaries.

edit: just to expand on that, CiG, some non-pedo idiots are sympathetic to the idea, yes, but I think the Salon article can partially be written off as a terrible editorial mistake and lapse of judgement.

 

[CiG]

All sides of the political spectrum jump on any chance to fear-monger using the safety of children. The right hunt down pedophiles to be outraged about like the left hunts down racists. The right uses pedophilia jokes by leftists to claim there's a normalization of pedophilia on the rise, the left writes racist messages on a wall or a napkin and then contacts the media about it.

A bunch of ghostbusting "what about the children" fools all around.

edit: just to expand on that, CiG, some non-pedo idiots are sympathetic to the idea, yes, but I think the Salon article can partially be written off as a terrible editorial mistake and lapse of judgement.

I'd agree if there weren't two of them and I'd agree if they weren't suddenly deleted because Salon decided to write a bunch of articles about Milo Yiannopoulos and his tacit acceptance of pedophilia by not reporting the adult who molested him to the police.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not exactly a new trope though, to conflate gays to pedophiles. CiG is partially right that some pedos are being opportunistic, but the primary opportunists are the internet reactionaries.

My thoughts as well.

At any rate, this is the pics thread, so all I'll say is that meme was pretty callous and logically incoherent.

 

[Dak]

Fair enough, but the meme doesn't specify "pedophile rights"; it specifies "LGBTQ rights," which means it's conflating the two. It's ostensibly about those who identify as LGBTQ, and then crudely qualifies that identity as pedophilic.

LGBT (the specific acronym on the meme) is not merely limited to those letters anymore though. The meme isn't well done, it left off a critical portion of the acronym to better make its point (aside from the priest thing); "Q+" is widely accepted at this point and the + is infinite, and all of it is encapsulating sexually non-normative populations: both in sexual practice and/or identification. This includes paedophiles by default.

re: The "paedophilia requires a victim" argument. This is an increasingly difficult argument for the left as they have been recently arguing for more autonomy of children both sexually and politically, just not specifically in the area of consenting to sex with adults. These arguments won't be difficult to turn to other purposes.

Unless the left just continues to Mort at everything they don't like: "No, just no. Fuck off." It's ostracism but it's not an argument.

 

[The Ozzman]

This is an increasingly difficult argument for the left as they have been recently arguing for more autonomy of children both sexually and politically

This is my argument. If children are granted this autonomy to determine their sexual preference, couldn't this stem to preferring to date adults? If the children consent, where does that leave the people in the movement who are anti-pedophilia because rape is lack of consent. With consent, the 'rape' or 'lack of choice' argument is negated. Where is the line drawn? The slippery slope is becoming a cliff at this point.

 

[CiG]

Libertarians and AnCaps should be happy because before sexual consent for children comes along we'll have child labour laws repealed. Then we can create a military force of children who hunt down pedophiles for profit.