3 ms·
Not necessarily but they would talk about "normalizing" and advancing certain unwelcome attitudes and behavior. Let's say they "recreated" a Srebernica scene -
by mc32 4y ago
Not necessarily but they would talk about "normalizing" and advancing certain unwelcome attitudes and behavior. Let's say they "recreated" a Srebernica scene -it would certainly be controversial. No one would accuse them of massacring the actors --less so if they used CGI --but never the less is it would be considered beyond the pale and would be denounced by virtually everyone and for good reason. It's gross. It's repugnant. What they did was and is repugnant as well.
- p0pcult 4y agoMy only horse in this particular race is that--repugnant or not--this ad campaign does not constitute pedophilia, grooming, pedophilia normalization, or the like, as is claimed (for example) in the sibling to your comment: >Just like the Balencia [sic] photos constitute pedophilia flirting with ritual abuse. Furthermore, that, these moral panics are dangerous and (specifically in this case), constitute attempts at stochastic terrorism and political destabilization.
- mc32 4y agoWe'll have to disagree.
- p0pcult 4y agoCeci n'est pas un pipe.
- naturedaily 4y agoI agree that moral panics are undesirable. But by saying "these" you imply that this is all this is: a moral panic. You would have to be able to see this as more than just panic, or you will deem anyone in this debate under the spell of moral panic. You then cannot accept good faith on counterarguments. This is not pragmatic. Yes, polarization is used to pit right against left. We could all join hands on this: It is repugnant to use vulnerable children for marketing that reeks of pedophilia. Do not focus on those screaming global cabal of satanist abusers, and certainly do not make it representative of the position of your political opposition. How far are you willing to go to concede on this topic? Or should we let such politicized events destabilize us without a fight (through debate).