[AnonymousBosch]

(10-17-2015 03:22 PM)RaccoonFace Wrote:  

Check out this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments...ey_offend/

and this one, though with less replies: https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comm...ey_offend/

The replies are shocking. I can't comprehend how people just accept this shit...

Note the first comment:

Quote:

Thanks for posting this article. This completely changed how I see pedophiles. Through the media and day to day life they are painted as monsters, which makes us forget that they are actually just people.

Media subversion is an extremely-reliable way to shift the Overton Window - the scope of ideas the public will accept - in the name of 'Progress'.

Step 1 accepted for this reader: "They're not bad people".

Note this comment:

Quote:

It's only natural for people to be afraid of their embarrassing sides being exposed for public ridicule or their more scary sides exposed to vigilantism. Pretty much why the rules are like that to begin with.

Everyone has something they'd prefer to hide, after all. Usually several somethings.

SJW's always project. It's why they, without fail, always have compassion for the bad actor in any situation. They don't identify with goodness: I read recent Slate article with a Millennial writer discussing "What I Learnt From Rereading [Stephen King's] 'The Stand", and immediately waited for him to state his fascination with Harold Lauder, (the 'Judas character').

Entirely as expected:

Quote:

The nominal protagonist of The Stand is Stuart Redman, a taciturn Texan who captures the epitome of a certain masculine ideal: even-tempered, humble, and practical. He’s also bland as hell, and despite his prominence in the novel, remains a cipher throughout.

Contrast that with Harold Lauder, a fat, put-upon nerd whose neediness and frustrated sense of entitlement drive him from nebbishy outsider to homicidal madness. Harold’s weight is referenced repeatedly, but even without it, he’d still be more distinctive than Stu, and what makes him so fascinating is the complex mixture of revulsion and sympathy with which King depicts him. Harold is a fuck up, an embarrassment, a toxic concoction of arrogance, lust, and misery. Yet his presence dominates the book to the point where characters are constantly talking about him when he’s not around, fixated on him as much as their author is, for reasons they can’t entirely grasp.

As expected, the flawed character who betrays the group is the one he identifies with, from that I can guess that he physically and emotionally resembles Harold rather than Stu.

His Av Club profile:



Earlier picture:



Any co-incidence he identifies with overweight, acne-written, pretentious wanna-be writer?

The characters are constantly talking about Harold because they recognise him as a threat to the group, but don't act because they want to believe the best in him. In a way, they're moderate Leftists. Of course, Harold, believing morality is subjective, doesn't rise to meet the standards of the group, but betrays them all for his own lusts.

As such, I'd never leave this writer alone with a child.

Back to the comments:

Quote:

Of course actual child porn is always harmful, but if simulated porn provides some outlet it seems like that would be good to use. I think there is some evidence that people who watch porn are less likely to rape so I wonder if it would hold true for cgi porn for pedophiles.

A progressive arguing against Anita Sarkeeisan's claims that video games cause Sexism. Of course, if pressed, he'd say it's 'totally not the same thing'.

Now note this clutch of comments:

Quote:

It's amazing that this is controversial. People are so idiotic, by fear presumably*, to have any reservations against this.

* What is the fear? Fear of their children being hurt? Or fear of pedophiles and their acts? Hmmm, if only there was a word for this 'fear' that implied the problem actually the person doing the judging, not the transgressor. Like, well, 'Pedophobia'.

Remember my theory of progression. This guy is already hitting the further three of them:

Quote:

New Research Shows they're not Bad People > They can't fight their programming -> we need to have compassion for them -> stigmatised word for pedos replaced with 'enlightened' one -> public shaming for using stigmatised word -> educated people need to be tolerant -> love is love -> support these people or you're ignorant -> you're pedophobic! -> Leftist president sends congratulatory tweet.

Fucking progressives:

Quote:

If they join the program before they've hurt any children, then why should they need to be registered? You want to punish people before they have actually committed a crime?

Meanwhile, mandatory classes teaching men not to rape at English Universities...

[Days of Broken Arrows]

^^^^^^^

To add to the above comment, there is one other thing going on. As fewer and fewer people from the chattering class have kids, fewer will identify with parents and parents' concern with kids.

What you see happening in these comments is a bunch of people who (most likely) are not parents, don't plan on being parents, and therefore have no maternal or paternal instincts. This puts them in a different mindset than adults in previous generations who might have had one or two kids already at their age.

When you're a parent, your perspective changes. Your kid becomes the priority and you're a lot less likely to "intellectualize" a defense of a pedophile and more likely to run him out of town (see the book or movie "Little Children").

These people can't put themselves in the place of someone whose child will be victimized. That's not real to them.

If the future brings fewer parents and more childless adults, I wonder if this kind of thinking will become a trend. These comments may show a turning point in our society. I can't imagine anyone even making them in the liberal Clinton years.

[AnonymousBosch]

Yet another 'coincidence', this time in the Independent. The Left is pushing this shit hard.

Not All Pedos are Bad People

Quote:

In my studies of the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1980s, many members admitted sexual feelings for children which they had been able to contain or turn to social good. Some gravitated toward occupations such as schoolteacher or social worker, where they could enjoy the company of children without plotting abuse. This fitted with personality profiles indicating that they were gentle, rational and not disposed to harm anybody.

[Dr. Howard]

(10-23-2015 02:18 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Yet another 'coincidence', this time in the Independent. The Left is pushing this shit hard.

Not All Pedos are Bad People

Quote:

In my studies of the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1980s, many members admitted sexual feelings for children which they had been able to contain or turn to social good. Some gravitated toward occupations such as schoolteacher or social worker, where they could enjoy the company of children without plotting abuse. This fitted with personality profiles indicating that they were gentle, rational and not disposed to harm anybody.

The world has gone crazy. "they gravitated to occupations where they could do good...like schoolteacher or social worker...where they could enjoy the company of children without plotting abuse"

are you kidding me? Thats like saying "Buffalo Bill turned his perversion into good, he opened a beauty salon where he could paint women's nails and put lotion on their skin...without plotting abuse"

Do people not know the biblical advice for temptation or the social advice for addiction? If you are an alchoholic you don't get a job in a distillery so you can "smell all the booze without plotting to drink it"

That statement in the article does have a positive angle though. It reinforces my idea that there is legitimacy to that creepy (I'm using the word correctly here) vibe I get from sweaty, glasses wearing, jared fogle looking men that choose to be scout leaders, children's musicians, childrens pastors, CLOWNS, ice cream truck drivers etc. They are choosing that profession in the same way that I would choose to be a niche accountant for strippers and porn stars.

edit: holy shit, there actually is an accountant that is an 'adult entertainment specialist' http://www.xxxtaxprep.com/ and he 'personally meets with all his clients'

[AnonymousBosch]

(10-23-2015 03:44 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

It reinforces my idea that there is legitimacy to that creepy (I'm using the word correctly here) vibe I get from sweaty, glasses wearing, jared fogle looking men that choose to be scout leaders, children's musicians, childrens pastors, CLOWNS, ice cream truck drivers etc. They are choosing that profession in the same way that I would choose to be a niche accountant for strippers and porn stars.

Yeah, because I grew up poor in a very rough area where parental supervision of most children was very lax, I fought off multiple attempts by pedos to get their leg over and was forever having to watch out for my older sister, who was the most naïve person alive.

For all this talk of 'witch hunts', pedos don't hide. They put themselves in highly-visible positions with unsupervised access to children, and are blatant about it, and the parents never seem to see it. They expect the abusers to be lurking in bushes, not right under their noses.

The most common tell, which was when I'd be put on alert that I was going to have to guard my junk was the parents all commenting on "How good [the pedo] is with children" or "The children just [love] the pedo." Meanwhile, they'd eventually get you alone, and you're just waiting for the bullshit to start, then they'd ask you if "You've masturbated yet." Meanwhile, you're eight, and wonder why the adults can't see what is so bloody obvious to you.



Happy and well-adjusted at thirty-five.

[rudebwoy]

3 Former Aussie PMs connected to Pedo Ring.....

http://sputniknews.com/asia/20151023/102...-Ring.html

Pedos run the Government..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFZRQcSMeeM

UK Media trying to normalize Pedo..

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/not-...04201.html

[Rutting Elephant]

(09-30-2015 08:49 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

To Catch A Predator, a show that is nothing but a 2 Minute Hate for Middle America, where they 'arrest' (but never prosecute) 25 year old men for trying to have sex with a 15 year old (inappropriate, but not paedophilia).

Almost all of the men were prosecuted and convicted, except for one sting which a judge invalidated en masse.
This is can be verified, often with links to local media, by searching names and handles at perverted-justice.com and viewing the conviction reports attached to the chat logs. (Plenty of IRTs talking dirty )
If you mean the show didn't have much courtroom drama, that's due to the varying lengths of trials, if any, and the boring nature of those proceedings. NBC did tack on updates with convictions on occasion.
A lot of the guys were much older than 25, up to septuagenarians.
Agreed, the marks mostly weren't pedophiles, but there were times when a 11-12 year old decoy was used, which is getting close.

[wi30]

The public should continue to view pedophiles as:



Not:

[Tytalus]

If someone recognizes that they are a pedophile & wants help to not be a pedo, what is the problem with that again??

[wi30]

Because the majority recognize they are pedophiles but want help changing the legislature and public opinion to justify their perversion.

[El Chinito loco]

(10-23-2015 02:18 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Yet another 'coincidence', this time in the Independent. The Left is pushing this shit hard.

Not All Pedos are Bad People

Quote:

In my studies of the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1980s, many members admitted sexual feelings for children which they had been able to contain or turn to social good. Some gravitated toward occupations such as schoolteacher or social worker, where they could enjoy the company of children without plotting abuse. This fitted with personality profiles indicating that they were gentle, rational and not disposed to harm anybody.

The paragraph before is full of gems too..

Jesus christ..

Quote:

Paedophiles do exist, but there are very few of them and not all are child molesters. It is possible to be attracted to children as a sexual orientation without acting upon those desires.

If I was an inspector working for Scotland yard the first thing i'd do is open up a folder on the person writing this article.

[TheWastelander]

Salon is at it again.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/27/the_pedo...socialflow

Quote:

The pedophile I could not help: He was not a monster or a molester. The system destroyed him anyway

He was kind, sweet and intellectually curious. He was also a pedophile. I knew I could help -- until he was jailed

DEBRA W. SOH


I will never forget Jacob. He was an early, twenty-something-year-old young man whom I encountered in my days of working as a research assistant in a sexology lab.

He had all-American looks, with a fresh face and delicate, blond hair. Cheerful and intellectually curious, he was interested in topics like computer programming and machine learning. He wanted to understand the physics of the MRI scanner we used.

He was also a pedophile.

But Jacob had not touched a child. He had contacted whom he thought was a 10-year-old girl in a chat room and made plans to meet up with her. When he arrived, he discovered he had been corresponding with an undercover police officer, and was arrested for luring a minor.

This is how he ended up in our forensic facility and in my office, with me sitting across from him with a clipboard, asking if he was interested in taking part in our research study.

He agreed to participate, wanting to help scientists, and himself, better understand why some men are sexually attracted to children. More importantly, he hoped that one day, we would find a cure. After completing the study MRI and interview, he asked if I could send him the images of his brain, because he was curious to see what it looked like.

A few days later, I learned that Jacob had been incarcerated.

There is a very important distinction between pedophiles and child molesters. Pedophiles have a preferential sexual interest in prepubescent children. Some pedophiles are child molesters, but not all are. Similarly, not all child molesters are pedophilic. (That is, people will sexually abuse children for reasons that aren’t related to sex, such as antisociality, being under the influence of alcohol or other substances, or because the abuser has easier access to a child than a consenting adult.)

I am not saying that we should condone pedophiles who act on their desires. I am saying that we should not judge people who were not given a choice in terms of whom they are attracted to. Research has shown differences in the white matter of pedophiles’ brains, demonstrating that their sexual interest in children is hard-wired and can’t be changed, akin to a sexual orientation.

Not every pedophilic man is as prosocial as Jacob. But many do not offend against children, despite being uncontested by our society as the most deplorable scum to exist, and mandatory reporting laws that make it virtually impossible for them to seek professional help for the problem without a cost to their personal lives.

And so, they struggle on a day-to-day basis to control these urges with little to no support from the world around them. They understand the implications of such acts and don’t want to go to prison. Many also don’t want to exploit a child. But feeling isolated and like you have nothing to lose is a precarious place to be when straining to resist temptation.

A promising solution would be a program such as Germany’s Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, which allows pedophiles to seek free, confidential support before sexually offending against a child, instead of only after they have become involved with the legal system. Dunkelfeld has indeed been successful in lowering the rate of child sexual abuse.

As for Jacob, his life was essentially over. And the most unfortunate reality is, even when the day comes that he is released from prison, he will still struggle with the same sexual attraction to children, and again find himself in the position of doing so with minimal support in the community.

I tell friends, colleagues, and strangers I meet (as I believe birthday parties present an excellent opportunity to enlighten people on the matter), when they fail to understand why I am sympathetic towards pedophiles, “How would you feel if you couldn’t ever have sex with anyone? What if you also couldn’t look at the porn you liked because it was illegal, and couldn’t confide in anyone for support?” By this point, most people begin nodding their heads in agreement.

The backlash that Todd Nickerson faced upon publicly writing about his personal struggle with pedophilia is a reminder that we, as a society, have far to go in challenging the way we think about this emotionally charged subject. But our current approach is not working.

If we want to prevent child sexual abuse, we must start by listening—for once—to the requests for help from men like Mr. Nickerson.

Debra W. Soh is a sex researcher, neuroscientist, and writer at York University in Toronto, Canada. She has contributed to Harper’s, Pacific Standard, Men’s Health, and many others.

[TheWastelander]

[AnonymousBosch]

Big surprise. Debra W. Soh is a unconvincing tranny. After the last few years of 'media enlightenment', I'm utterly-convinced that to have a healthy, functioning society, marginalised voices need to be marginalised. They're fundamentally-broken people, absolutely out of touch with morality and normal mental functions.



One of her tweets:

Quote:

Being educated > being outraged.

Back to my Predictive Steps for the Process of Normalisation:

Quote:

educated people need to be tolerant

which then naturally becomes:

Quote:

support these people or you're ignorant

Also:

Quote:

I am saying that we should not judge people who were not given a choice in terms of whom they are attracted to. Research has shown differences in the white matter of pedophiles’ brains, demonstrating that their sexual interest in children is hard-wired and can’t be changed, akin to a sexual orientation.

See. It's just a sexual orientation! 'Love is love' is coming.

Also note this passage:

Quote:

A promising solution would be a program such as Germany’s Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, which allows pedophiles to seek free, confidential support before sexually offending against a child, instead of only after they have become involved with the legal system. Dunkelfeld has indeed been successful in lowering the rate of child sexual abuse.

As mentioned in an earlier in the thread, there's absolutely no measureable evidence that Dunkenfeld had lowered rates of abuse. None. Everyone involved feels like it must be a good thing, and therefore helping. Remember, with leftists: feels = reals.

Once again, not one voice of a victim.

[Scoundrel]

Quote:

But Jacob had not touched a child. He had contacted whom he thought was a 10-year-old girl in a chat room and made plans to meet up with her. When he arrived, he discovered he had been corresponding with an undercover police officer, and was arrested for luring a minor.

"He was not a monster or a molester," says the headline. No, he merely went to meet a 10 year-old girl he had met online and was busted by cops, To Catch a Predator-style

(Note, by the way, that the age range for To Catch a Predator's decoys is generally around 13-15.)

Every article I've read of this kind has focused on pedophiles who (supposedly) have never acted on their desires, and (supposedly) never, ever would. Now we have a Salon.com article which brazenly describes a pedophile who went to meet somebody's 10 year-old child — yet we're still supposed to view him as innocent and misunderstood.

[Dr. Howard]

(10-28-2015 02:14 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Big surprise. Debra W. Soh is a unconvincing tranny. After the last few years of 'media enlightenment', I'm utterly-convinced that to have a healthy, functioning society, marginalised voices need to be marginalised. They're fundamentally-broken people, absolutely out of touch with morality and normal mental functions.

.....

Second big surprise, she's a professor at a University in Toronto (York University).

[Troutslayer]

   

[The Beast1]

(10-28-2015 03:32 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(10-28-2015 02:14 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Big surprise. Debra W. Soh is a unconvincing tranny. After the last few years of 'media enlightenment', I'm utterly-convinced that to have a healthy, functioning society, marginalised voices need to be marginalised. They're fundamentally-broken people, absolutely out of touch with morality and normal mental functions.

.....

Second big surprise, she's a professor at a University in Toronto (York University).

Don't dignify the creature Doc, call it for what it is:

It!

[Troll King]

COLUMN: We're promoting pedophile culture

Quote:

We’ve coined some new buzzwords and terms recently, like cultural appropriation and rape culture, but even more recently we’ve noticed the phrase “pedophile 
culture.”

Todd Nickerson wrote a column for salon.com titled “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster” in September, and in it he discusses his sexual attraction to children and his unwillingness to act on it.

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear “pedophile” is the word “sick.” The person is mentally ill, and these sexual urges he has for children are sickening. I’m going to assume anyone who’s not a pedophile would think the same.

Nickerson explains in his article why he shouldn’t be condemned a monster because he would never harm a child. He even writes that pedophiles like him who neither molest nor want to molest children might get even more upset than “non-pedophiles” when reading about cases of sexual abuse involving 
children.

He asks for understanding and support for “non-offending pedophiles” like him who love children and would never want to hurt them.

But what’s even more disturbing in Nickerson’s column than coming out as a pedophile is an entry where he admits to spending a good duration identifying as a “pro-contacter” — a pedophile who believes sex with children should be legal and ethical. Even more disturbing is his question about whether he could marry an adult in the future despite being a pedophile. He asks, “Can I ever love and want her as much as I do a child?”

Not only are some of these pedophiles sexually attracted to children, but some aren’t even capable of being attracted to adults. You know, people their own age.

In one of the many responding articles to Nickerson, Alicen Grey raises many exceptional points in her article, “You’ve heard of rape culture, but have you heard of pedophile culture?” at 
feministcurrent.com.

Her article sheds light on the dark fact that, while pedophilia might seem taboo and massively hated, that it is actually not the case. Grey writes that “pedophilia is actually rewarded and celebrated” in our culture.

Grey supports this argument rather accurately, defining it as “pedophile culture,” with examples like Pornhub’s top category’s being “Teen.” Grey also mentions the rise in labiaplasty and hymenoplasty, procedures that reduce women’s labia and reverse women’s vaginas to “virgin-like tightness.” I’d say all of these are a pretty strong indicator of our society’s sexual desire for pre-pubescent women.

She concludes in her article that Nickerson’s plea for our support and understanding isn’t support but our submission, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Women are constantly dominated by the patriarchal society we live in and aiding Nickerson would only be supporting it.

However, paraphilic disorders, which pedophilia is categorized as by the American Psychiatric Association, is so stigmatized in our society that I can’t help but to wonder if we should totally condemn these “non-offending pedophiles.” If people like Nickerson are supposedly unwilling to act on their desires and asking for our help so as not to offend, then shouldn’t we help them? And to be clear, I don’t believe in support their desires, but I believe we should help them change. If not for them, then for the innocent children.

[email protected]

@IDSPeyton

[MMX2010]

Could someone post a picture or two of Peyton Hurst, the author of the article that Troll King just posted?

[Bear Hands]

Quote:

Grey supports this argument rather accurately, defining it as “pedophile culture,” with examples like Pornhub’s top category’s being “Teen.” Grey also mentions the rise in labiaplasty and hymenoplasty, procedures that reduce women’s labia and reverse women’s vaginas to “virgin-like tightness.” I’d say all of these are a pretty strong indicator of our society’s sexual desire for pre-pubescent women.

Translation: Men cannot like youthful women without being pedophiles, so men should be on board for pedophile acceptance too. If they do not want to be labeled pedophiles, start showing spinsters attention.

The author and the referenced author seem incapable of understanding the difference between "virginal," or "minimally damaged," and "undeveloped." Whorishness is just assumed once a woman develops.

"Pre-pubescent women" is bullshit phrasing that seems like an attempt at manipulating language to reduce the difference between women and girls. I honestly cannot tell if this article is supposed to be subtle support for pedophilia, the first of many steps towards normalizing it, or an actual condemnation. It pretends to condemn pedophilia but the manipulation towards normalization is evident in the language.

[AnonymousBosch]

(10-29-2015 12:47 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Could someone post a picture or two of Peyton Hurst, the author of the article that Troll King just posted?

The only Peyton Hurst I found in at Indiana University in Bloomington was this one:



Either the chubby blonde (who'll have blue hair and piercings before graduation), or the older mother figure with man hands who looks like a Tranny, but is probably just masculine for being a strong, empowered woman who raised a feminist drone. Your guess.

She's a feminist drone. Look at the other articles:

- Frat recruitment video full of beautiful, feminine girls is problematic
- Lena Dunham! Lena Dunham! Lena Dunham!
- Deciding not to have kids
- Women in military now because vagina
- Establish intersectionality in activism

Yet another 'educated' woman who is a Schismatic: nothing but a sower of discord. In Dante, their punishment in the ninth circle of Hell is to be split in two. Of course, educated Feminists would laugh at such ridiculous belief with no supporting evidence because they 'fucking love science', and then preach rape culture and the evil patriarchy.

I found this philosophical consideration of The Schismatic interesting:

Quote:

Schism, in all its forms, is simple assumption that “I know best.” My own opinion becomes the truth. My own Biblical interpretation becomes dogma. My own limited understanding becomes the benchmark for all knowledge. My own private interpretation or personal revelation is the only truth and all the truth. The kind of individualism which our society exalts is simply the sin of schism writ large. Each man and each woman a law unto themselves with no unifying factor, no unifying belief, no unifying set of morality, no unifying authority structure.

This is the SJW self-construct in a nutshell, and would explain the need for safe spaces. 'Miss' Hurst's tweets are, naturally, protected.

[Paracelsus]

It's more likely white girl ignorance. It takes five minutes on Wikipedia to identify paedophilia as sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent (i.e. 0-10) children, as opposed to ephebophilia -- persistent sexual attraction towards late adolescent children (15-19). One suspects she's trying to conflate the two together in people's minds.

[infowarrior1]

For people to accept this perversion. It's explained by this phenomenon known as virtue/holiness signalling:

Quote:

Any political system, any organization, even the smallest one, is going to have people in power, and people out of power who want to be in power. Or at least marginally increase their level of power.

Which means you need to challenge those who are in power. The powerful are powerful because they have organized themselves into a power coalition, bound by ties of loyalty. A solid power block where all members are strongly loyal is, for all purposes, indestructible. So the only way to challenge the powerful is to try to incite disloyalty among its members.

More likely than not, some members of the ruling coalition are not very loyal. They’d rather defect. But they can’t backstab the coalition just like that. You don’t do that; it looks bad. Your comrades will go against you. There are costs to defection.

Unless you’re not the only defector. You need a way to signal your intention to defect, so that other disloyal fucks such as yourself (and they’re bound to be others) can join up, thus reducing the likely costs of defection. The way to signal your intention to defect is to come up with a good excuse. A good excuse to be disloyal becomes a rallying point through which other defectors can coordinate and cover their asses so that the ruling coalition doesn’t punish them. What is a good excuse?

Leftism is a great excuse. Claiming that the ruling coalition isn’t leftist enough, isn’t holy enough, not inclusive enough of women, of blacks, of gays, or gorillas, of pedophiles, of murderous Salafists, is the perfect way of signalling your disloyalty towards the existing power coalition. By using the existing ideology and pushing its logic just a little bit, you ensure that the powerful can’t punish you. At least not openly. And if you’re lucky, the mass of disloyal fucks in the ruling coalition might join your banner, and use your exact leftist point to jump ship and outflank the powerful.

Note that this applies to any ideological system. In Islam, the best excuse to defect is to claim to be more fundamentalist. In Medieval Europe, is to love Christ more. In pre-WW2 Japan, it was to be a more fanatic militarist who fights for the glory of the empire.

The same dynamic fuels the flattery inflation one sees in monarchical or dictatorial systems. In Mao China, if you want to defect, you claim to love Mao more than your boss. In Nazi Germany, you proclaim your love for Hitler and the great insight of his plan to take Stalingrad. In the Roman Empire, you claimed that Caesar is a God, son of Hercules, and those who deny it are treacherous bastards. In Ancient Persia you loudly proclaimed your faith in the Shah being the brother of the Sun and the Moon and King of all Kings on Earth. In Reformation Europe you proclaimed that you have discovered something new in the Bible and everybody else is damned to hell. Predestined by God!

All of the above is bullshit. But it’s useful bullshit. And humans will believe from the bottom of the hearts any bullshit that is useful enough. There’s some individual variance in the ability to come up and sincerely believe any crap, but there’s always cathartic rituals to prove that the we’re in all in this together, this licensing you to become a true believer. At any rate, the whole point of the above is to signal your disaffection from the status quo. The precise content of your signal is irrelevant. It is completely dependent on the particular ideological ecology of your culture. But the underlying mechanism is the same. You want power, and you signal your intent in the optimal way to minimize the chances of official punishment, and make it easy for others to join your banner.

The degree to which this signals spiral into complete madness depend on how strong the ruling coalition is, and how vital it is to attain power. If the ruling coalition is solid, and has good mechanisms in place to ensure the loyalty of their members, potential defectors will be punished for signalling their intentions, no matter how embellished they are in the language of the state religion. If you are well fed and life is safe and good, there’s little incentive to defect.

However, if the ruling coalition is too large, and hence weak, dispersed, and has few mechanisms of appraising and ensuring the loyalty of its members; or if the only way of ensuring access to food, shelter and security is to have some access to political power; signalling your intention to defect by proclaiming that 5 year olds should be able to be castrated, or by proclaiming that Kim Jong Un can climb buildings like Spiderman, is suddenly a good proposition. And once you do, and succeed, everybody else will be forced to follow your banner, and the new ideological innovation will become an official article of faith. You don’t want to be the last guy that denies that Kim Jong Un is Spiderman.

And again: the precise content of the ideological point doesn’t matter. Your human brain doesn’t care about ideology. Humans didn’t evolve to care about Marxist theory of class struggle, or about LGBTQWERTY theories of social identity. You just don’t know what it means. It’s all abstract points you’ve been told in a classroom. It doesn’t actually compute. Nothing that anybody ever said in a political debate ever made any actual, concrete sense to a human being.

So why do we care so much about politics? What’s the point of ideology? Ideology is just the water you swim in. It is a structured database of excuses, to be used to signal your allegiance or defection to the existing ruling coalition. Ideology is just the feed of the rationalization Hamster that runs incessantly in that corner of your brain. But it is immaterial, and in most cases actually inaccessible to the logical modules in your brain.

Nobody ever acts on their overt ideological claims if they can get away with it. Liberals proclaim their faith in the potential of black children while clustering in all white suburbs. Communist party members loudly talk about the proletariat while being hedonistic spenders. Al Gore talks about Global Warming while living in a lavish mansion. Cognitive dissonance, you say? No; those cognitive systems are not connected in the first place.

And ideological sincerity doesn’t make sense on the face of it. Why would anything like that ever evolve? Given how ideology actually behaves, a gene that made you be coherent with your ideology can’t possibly spread in the gene pool. A gene for being able to aptly manipulate nonsensical abstract points to signal your position and intention vs. the present power structure; now that’s useful.

Leftism evolved, step by step, backstab by backstab, as Christian Europeans signalled their dislike with the status quo by gently pushing the state religion just a little bit further, in the direction most likely to get people on your side, and prevent the powerful from punishing you. Surely nobody can disagree with extending the franchise to our hard working middle class? Surely nobody can disagree with abolishing the enslavement of our fellow humans? Surely nobody can disagree with giving citizenship rights to our women? Surely nobody can disagree with stopping the criminal prosecution of homosexuals?

And so, every little step in the way, power-seekers moved the consensus to the left. And open societies, democratic systems are by their decentralized nature, and by the size of their constituencies, much more vulnerable to this sort of signalling attacks. It is but impossible to appraise and enforce the loyalty of every single individual involved in a modern state. There’s too many of them. A Medieval King had a better chance of it; hence the slow movement of ideological innovation in those days. But the bigger the organization, the harder it is to gather accurate information of the loyalty of the whole coalition; and hence the ideological movement accelerates. And there is no stopping it.

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/...sy-excuse/

[Wutang]

(10-28-2015 02:14 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Big surprise. Debra W. Soh is a unconvincing tranny. After the last few years of 'media enlightenment', I'm utterly-convinced that to have a healthy, functioning society, marginalised voices need to be marginalised. They're fundamentally-broken people, absolutely out of touch with morality and normal mental functions.

She actually wrote a piece on trannies but her conclusions is sure to offend a good number of them:

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior...transition

She did mention how "gender doesn't have to be binary" though.