4 ms·

You are asserting that people who are not far-right do not care about the abuse of minors, which is a nonsensical belief with no connection to reality and compl

You are asserting that people who are not far-right do not care about the abuse of minors, which is a nonsensical belief with no connection to reality and completely undermines whatever point you're trying to make. But it is a good example of the over-the-top rhetoric being used around this exact issue.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
I am not claiming what you say I am. You said: "It [pedophilia] has become the visceral hook that seems to emotionally motivate a lot of the far-right, not unlike abortion." I am claiming that pedophilia motivates many people, not just the far right. It is beyond me how you could misread that claim into something that would lead you to reply as you did. [Edit: My use of "ought to" may be the problem. The left, based on their positions, should be emotionally, viscerally motivated to oppose pedophilia. If they aren't, then that is an inconsistency in their position. But I think that they (or at least many of them) are motivated. So, to sum up, I'm not sure why you singled out the far-right in your initial statement.]
- standardUser 3y ago
  "...they ought to also care about sexual abuse of minors." That implies they do not care about the sexual abuse of minors, but they ought to. "There is absolutely nothing about real pedophilia that makes it a far-right-only concern" And implying that anyone, anywhere would think that it is a "far-right only concern" is absurd framing. It's make-believe nonsense.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Yes it's your use of ought to, and no there isn't an inconsistency. Being "emotionally, viscerally" motivated, to the extent that it's very obvious, tends to make people do stupid and counterproductive things. You shouldn't be demanding that. > I'm not sure why you singled out the far-right in your initial statement. Because of their horrible politicized accusations that take attention away from the actual problems.
- notahacker 3y ago
  It's much easier to misinterpret your statement that the left ought to care about paedophilia as a claim they don't (even if that was not your intent) than it would have been for you to interpret the OP about "obsessions... real and imagined" as a claim that paedophilia in general is a far right only concern... Particularly in the context of the appeal of an ad dubiously associating a California tech co with paedophilia to people who believe stuff like Pizzagate and Q because they're inclined to suspect everybody they don't like is in league with the paedos

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

I am not claiming what you say I am. You said: "It [pedophilia] has become the visceral hook that seems to emotionally motivate a lot of the far-right, not unlike abortion." I am claiming that pedophilia motivates many people, not just the far right. It is beyond me how you could misread that claim into something that would lead you to reply as you did. [Edit: My use of "ought to" may be the problem. The left, based on their positions, should be emotionally, viscerally motivated to oppose pedophilia. If they aren't, then that is an inconsistency in their position. But I think that they (or at least many of them) are motivated. So, to sum up, I'm not sure why you singled out the far-right in your initial statement.]

standardUser 3y ago
"...they ought to also care about sexual abuse of minors." That implies they do not care about the sexual abuse of minors, but they ought to. "There is absolutely nothing about real pedophilia that makes it a far-right-only concern" And implying that anyone, anywhere would think that it is a "far-right only concern" is absurd framing. It's make-believe nonsense.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Yes it's your use of ought to, and no there isn't an inconsistency. Being "emotionally, viscerally" motivated, to the extent that it's very obvious, tends to make people do stupid and counterproductive things. You shouldn't be demanding that. > I'm not sure why you singled out the far-right in your initial statement. Because of their horrible politicized accusations that take attention away from the actual problems.
notahacker 3y ago
It's much easier to misinterpret your statement that the left ought to care about paedophilia as a claim they don't (even if that was not your intent) than it would have been for you to interpret the OP about "obsessions... real and imagined" as a claim that paedophilia in general is a far right only concern... Particularly in the context of the appeal of an ad dubiously associating a California tech co with paedophilia to people who believe stuff like Pizzagate and Q because they're inclined to suspect everybody they don't like is in league with the paedos