4 ms·

Where have you gotten the impression the 'progressives' and 'liberals' would have any qualms about calling out how dodgy these videos are?

whatshisface 8y ago
By "liberal" I mean more liberal than average, which requires pushing back or at least not supporting at least one taboo. By doing so you put yourself at risk of dismantling your own ability to keep any taboos around, even the ones that actually are right. I'm not talking about political groups; by any measure in urban areas the political group called liberals would be just "normal," or "average." Progressive doesn't mean "Democrat," a Democrat in a blue county that believes things should be the same tomorrow as they are today is by definition a conservative.
- iad 8y ago
  What are these lost taboos you're referring to? It sounds like you're saying people ought to go back to being homophobic, for example, because it will save us from a slippery slope to pedophilia?
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    What slope? Some people are already there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vux3-uFNtLw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vux3-uFNtLw
    - iad 8y ago
      Some people have always been there. That doesn't mean they got there because not being homophobic is a slippery slope. Your video seems to be about a pedophile who is upset that the LGBT community isn't inclusive of pedophilia. I don't understand what point you were trying to make by linking that.
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        The point is that that some people are already using the good ideas like tolerance about what people do in the bedroom to sneak outright pedophilia in there. Where you see someone complaining that not everybody accepts it, I first and foremostly see someone who does accept the argument they are making, otherwise they wouldn't be making it. That doesn't not count just because not everybody on the planet agrees with them. And if you think that's just the one person that exists, rather than an example for many persons that exist, that's a very bold assumption. And in Germany for example, there is quite the long and sordid history regarding that, among other things with people trying to legalize "consentual" [sic] sexual relations between minors and adults, but I don't know if there is anything thorough in the English language about it: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A4dophilie-Debatte_(1970er_und_1980er_Jahre) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A4dophilie-Debatte_(1970e... And that was directly in the wake of working against discrimination of homosexuality. For some naive people, it all fell under the umbrella of "being different sexually", and for pedophiles, that was how they tried to get a foot in the door. This sentence > Die Debatte über die Legalisierung pädosexueller Akte ist historisch eng verbunden mit der Forderung nach Abschaffung des § 175 (StGB) translates to > the debate about the legalization of pedosexual acts is historically tightly connected with the demand to get rid of [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175 ] Or hey, this http://www.taz.de/!5143954/ http://www.taz.de/!5143954/ An article about an article that appeard in 1979 in the taz, declaring pedophilia is a victimless crime in the title. One sentence from that: > Bei einem Blick in die Archive wird klar: Teile des linksalternativen Milieus sympathisierten mit Pädophilen - zumindest boten sie ihnen einen ideologischen Rahmen. translates to > A look into the archives makes it obvious that parts of the alternative left scene sympathized with pedophiles - at least they provided an ideological framework to them. So, that already happened. And it absolutely was fueled by being overzealous about being liberal and progressive -- that's not what made anyone a pedophile, but that's how some people fell for the schemes of pedophiles, and let themselves and their networks be used. That's a fact. I'm not familiar with similar things in North America but I wouldn't outright bet on not finding anything if I had the nerve to go looking, which I don't at this time. edit: there's ignorance, and there's active suppression of information. what a cesspool.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
PavlovsCat 8y ago
Just look at all the comments calling it out getting downvoted into oblivion, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19168083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19168083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19168256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19168256 They don't say what they disagree with, but they punish the poster. That's much more active than just having a qualm about calling something out, it's attacking people who call it out. And of course, this thread isn't very active to begin with, yet is already getting flagged by many, even jumped from the second page back to the first, but will still remain penalized and at best at bottom of page 1 for a little while [edit: nope, vanished from page 1 in the time it took me to write the rest of this comment, there you go]. Again, apart from the people who have qualms calling anything out, additional activity to suppress the calling out that takes place. That's not an impression, that's a fact. More generally, consider how 'pointing out that something could be rephrased as "think of the children"' is some kind of mic-drop killer argument for many here, as if that would automatically disqualify anything, like a Nazi comparison does in the minds of some: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22think%20of%20the%20children%22&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22think%20of%20the%20children...

whatshisface 8y ago

By "liberal" I mean more liberal than average, which requires pushing back or at least not supporting at least one taboo. By doing so you put yourself at risk of dismantling your own ability to keep any taboos around, even the ones that actually are right. I'm not talking about political groups; by any measure in urban areas the political group called liberals would be just "normal," or "average." Progressive doesn't mean "Democrat," a Democrat in a blue county that believes things should be the same tomorrow as they are today is by definition a conservative.

iad 8y ago
What are these lost taboos you're referring to? It sounds like you're saying people ought to go back to being homophobic, for example, because it will save us from a slippery slope to pedophilia?
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  What slope? Some people are already there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vux3-uFNtLw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vux3-uFNtLw
  - iad 8y ago
    Some people have always been there. That doesn't mean they got there because not being homophobic is a slippery slope. Your video seems to be about a pedophile who is upset that the LGBT community isn't inclusive of pedophilia. I don't understand what point you were trying to make by linking that.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      The point is that that some people are already using the good ideas like tolerance about what people do in the bedroom to sneak outright pedophilia in there. Where you see someone complaining that not everybody accepts it, I first and foremostly see someone who does accept the argument they are making, otherwise they wouldn't be making it. That doesn't not count just because not everybody on the planet agrees with them. And if you think that's just the one person that exists, rather than an example for many persons that exist, that's a very bold assumption. And in Germany for example, there is quite the long and sordid history regarding that, among other things with people trying to legalize "consentual" [sic] sexual relations between minors and adults, but I don't know if there is anything thorough in the English language about it: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A4dophilie-Debatte_(1970er_und_1980er_Jahre) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A4dophilie-Debatte_(1970e... And that was directly in the wake of working against discrimination of homosexuality. For some naive people, it all fell under the umbrella of "being different sexually", and for pedophiles, that was how they tried to get a foot in the door. This sentence > Die Debatte über die Legalisierung pädosexueller Akte ist historisch eng verbunden mit der Forderung nach Abschaffung des § 175 (StGB) translates to > the debate about the legalization of pedosexual acts is historically tightly connected with the demand to get rid of [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175 ] Or hey, this http://www.taz.de/!5143954/ http://www.taz.de/!5143954/ An article about an article that appeard in 1979 in the taz, declaring pedophilia is a victimless crime in the title. One sentence from that: > Bei einem Blick in die Archive wird klar: Teile des linksalternativen Milieus sympathisierten mit Pädophilen - zumindest boten sie ihnen einen ideologischen Rahmen. translates to > A look into the archives makes it obvious that parts of the alternative left scene sympathized with pedophiles - at least they provided an ideological framework to them. So, that already happened. And it absolutely was fueled by being overzealous about being liberal and progressive -- that's not what made anyone a pedophile, but that's how some people fell for the schemes of pedophiles, and let themselves and their networks be used. That's a fact. I'm not familiar with similar things in North America but I wouldn't outright bet on not finding anything if I had the nerve to go looking, which I don't at this time. edit: there's ignorance, and there's active suppression of information. what a cesspool.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

PavlovsCat 8y ago

Just look at all the comments calling it out getting downvoted into oblivion, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19168083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19168083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19168256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19168256 They don't say what they disagree with, but they punish the poster. That's much more active than just having a qualm about calling something out, it's attacking people who call it out. And of course, this thread isn't very active to begin with, yet is already getting flagged by many, even jumped from the second page back to the first, but will still remain penalized and at best at bottom of page 1 for a little while [edit: nope, vanished from page 1 in the time it took me to write the rest of this comment, there you go]. Again, apart from the people who have qualms calling anything out, additional activity to suppress the calling out that takes place. That's not an impression, that's a fact. More generally, consider how 'pointing out that something could be rephrased as "think of the children"' is some kind of mic-drop killer argument for many here, as if that would automatically disqualify anything, like a Nazi comparison does in the minds of some: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22think%20of%20the%20children%22&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22think%20of%20the%20children...