A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Telling me their preferred way to describe pedophiles isn’t gonna win hearts and minds.
I am saying if your kid is being bullied because they think they are trans calling you to tell you doesn't solve the problem. Someone has to talk to the kids involved.
There is a simple rule, respect everyone. I don't care if they are trans, cis, fundamentalist, atheist, or even a Cubs fan (though that one is iffy at times). Show them respect. If a kid wants to talk to an adult about being trans, don't say, "ooh, yuck, go talk to a shrink". If little Susie says she likes Billy but Billy is mean to her, do teachers say, "go talk to the school psychologist"?
If someone is bullying a trans, explain to them why it is wrong.
And? The governor of Indiana has done a bunch of shit I don't agree with lately. The Republicans are no more my friends then the Democrats. They still suck, they just tend to suck less. I believe Holcomb, dumbass that he is, cannot run again. If he could, he would not have my vote in the next election.
And we once again start sliding down the slippery slope that totally does not exist in these instances.
You switched which child was being discussed at the end. It started with informing the parents of the confused child so that a licensed psychological professional could evaluate and talk to the child, with the knowledge of the parents as opposed to a 30 year old education major from IU and a Principal, neither of which who is likely to be remotely qualified to handle that discussion outside of posting rainbow flags and ally stuff on their social media, to the kid bullying them.
Yeah, tell the bully it is not nice to be mean to people. Golden Rule, nobody gives a shit about that and it is what is expected. What isn't expected is hiding a major developmental or psychological issue from parents. I would go to jail for the latter after they removed my foot from the teacher and Principal's asses. They cannot give a flipping tylenol at school without a doctor's note but we are going to trust schools with this?
That's all well and good, but the republicans in Indiana attempted to pass a law that was a culture war attack on something that frankly doesn't exist in Indiana, which is exactly what you said they do not do.
The teacher asks who is doing the bullying and deals with it the same as any other case of bullying.
So what are examples in other states of this being a rampant issue that Indiana republicans are 'getting out ahead of'?
It's a made up issue. Are there examples? Yeah. Are there hundreds and hundreds of them worthy of changing laws? You'll have to show me some facts.
because pretending to be LGBTQ for a little bit is the end of the world? I have lots of friends who pretended to be straight until their 30s. Would have saved them much time and struggle had they been allowed to wear a new costume for a little bit
my wife is hyper liberal and I joke w her that some gay kids today will come out as straight later on. Oddly, she doesn’t laugh. Seriously, some lives will be ruined. But at least there are more viable, acceptable ways to live a life now, no matter how annoying and exhausting the kids of today will make it look.
Back to what I thought would be (should be?) the thrust of this thread...
If I'm the Editor of WaPo, this reporter and her immediate desk editor (the one that approved all this shit) are looking for jobs. And if I'm Bezos and that doesn't happen, the Editor is looking for a job as well.
First rule of journalism is to not make the story about you.
If I'm the Editor of WaPo, this reporter and her immediate desk editor (the one that approved all this shit) are looking for jobs. And if I'm Bezos and that doesn't happen, the Editor is looking for a job as well.
First rule of journalism is to not make the story about you.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I don’t follow your point. If you’re saying that we should be lectured by a teacher that explains we should call Nazi’s something else due to the stigma of calling them Nazi’s then that isn’t an uncomfortable truth: it’s gaslighting. Possibly….wait for it….grooming?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
So….aren’t you happy the governor didn’t pass the law given that it was handled by the appropriate authority (IHSAA)? Isn’t that a bedrock of conservative principles, to pass as few laws as possible?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Bravo. Except that’s probably 70% of all journos under the age of 40.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Yeah nobody is arguing that - well i don’t want to be hyperbolic - I’m not arguing that. Of course kids should feel accepted. What is happening in school aged kids right now - kids in my district included - is that Tik Tokkers like those teachers and other influencers have kids not thinking that being gay is acceptable - they have them thinking it’s the way to be. Couple that with hyper progressive policies on trans kids and puberty blockers and we could have problems.
Teaching acceptance is correct and a must - influencing is not.
I think the legislature overrode his veto. All it takes in IN is a majority. BICBW.
I'm not going to lay that on the teachers. Kids are getting that from their social media feeds and all the "coolness" that's associated with it. And I suspect good ol' Mother Nature will sort things out when the time comes.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Agreed. It’s not just teachers but it is definitely some teachers. And that’s the point.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I don’t know the deets as I’m outside of Indiana in a purple state. That’s why I care about Wokism more - the wind blows a lot here and could go either way.
If the GOP in Indiana planned legislation even though IHSAA was handling properly then I disagree with them. That goes against conservative principles.
Sexual grooming in child abuse cases is an adult ingratiating themselves with a youngster to take sexual advantage of the kid.
Telling a first grade boy that just because he has a penis doesn’t mean he is a boy I don’t think is grooming. It’s just bullshit and must stop.
Last edited:
Seems like the right is attempting to weaponize the G word like the left did years ago with the R word.
Neither are good, but at the same time, I suspect that the vast vast majority of people have very little tolerance for immersing K-3 kids with this stuff.
Neither are good, but at the same time, I suspect that the vast vast majority of people have very little tolerance for immersing K-3 kids with this stuff.
I'm absolutely happy he didn't sign it into law, even though I know it will be overridden. It's a needless law. Period.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
He said people attracted to minors preferred to be called MAPs. He said it on the video. The word pedophile means being sexually attracted to minors. What is your concern?
My concern is that people who didn't know what the prof's research was actually about misconstrued it to have him run out of town. Have you taken the time to learn the context of the debate over the MAP terminology and this particular researcher, or are you just going on the video out of context?
What his argument is is this: "Pedophile" is a loaded and stigmatizing label (undoubtedly), but many pedophiles will never act on their desires (also true). However, many people with pedophilia might not seek counseling because of the stigma (which data support). Therefore, he recommends reserving the use of the stigmatized word for people who are actual abusers, and coining a new term for people who are cursed with this unhealthy attraction but don't want to act on it.
Now, other researchers disagree with his conclusion, although no one can disagree with his facts. They will say that some desires need to be stigmatized, because they are so dangerous. People who suffer from those desires should be pitied, but they shouldn't be cushioned or protected from the stigma simply because they haven't acted on them. Journalist Natalia Antonova rehashes that response to Walker here. I've also seen this argument made in non-academic settings, on television, in episodes of both SVU and Blue Bloods.
Now, I'm not saying Walker is right. I'm not saying Walker is wrong. But this is a legitimate area of discussion among professionals who study pedophilia, criminology, and mental health, and it's a discussion those professionals should be allowed to have.
Instead, Walker was inaccurately accused of trying to destigmatize child abuse, which is exactly the opposite of what he wanted, and was forced to resign because of it.
Libs of Tik Tok purposefully mischaracterized Walker, almost certainly because he was a woke trans person, and thus a righteous target in the mind of the person behind the account, very similar to the way the account (and others, such as the Michigan politician referenced here and in the other thread) misused the term "grooming" in order to cast unfair suspicion on others.
Last edited:
For the record, although I am spending my energy so far in this thread criticizing Libs of Tik Tok, I whole-heartedly agree with your take. The person behind Libs of Tik Tok is a bad actor, but that doesn't excuse what WaPo did. Lorenz, and everyone above Lorenz who signed off on this, should be fired.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I understand this all fully. While the data analysis might yield that pedophiles are unlikely to seek help because of the stigma - I fail to see how renaming them will do anything other than whitewash them. They lie all the time and I don’t see how giving them a more cuddly name will change that. Nor does Walker’s data. Further, when he starts with his Woke “we should refer to groups as they want to be referred” he is essentially giving them power and loses the initiative.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Zero chance a woke reporter is fired for pro-LGBTQ activism. Zero.
I think your argument holds a lot of water. To me, it's similar to Popper's famous paradox of tolerance. In the paradox, it is suggested that the one thing society should not be tolerant of is intolerance itself, because intolerance is the singular threat to a tolerant society, should it gain power. That's unfair in all sorts of free speech and due process contexts to people who happen to be intolerant, but haven't actually done anything wrong.
Similarly, it's unfair to stigmatize people for an attraction they have (and almost certainly desperately do not want), if they haven't acted on it in any criminal way. And yet, the safety of children in our society might require us to be unfair in just this way.
Again, my concern is that this is a legitimate discussion that professionals should have, without fear of being tarred and feathered by an angry mob that mischaracterizes their work.
DBM probably didn't read his own link. Probably thinks he's criticizing NBC.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
What @LibsOfTikTok exposed
Taylor Lorenz recently published a story revealing the identity of the person behind popular right-wing Twitter account LibsOfTikTok
spectatorworld.com
PaywallWhat @LibsOfTikTok exposed
Taylor Lorenz recently published a story revealing the identity of the person behind popular right-wing Twitter account LibsOfTikTok
It’s my understanding (based on some professional experience) is that people with urges which are never acted on cannot be effectively “helped”. Those who succumb to their urges can’t be helped either. They go to prison and if they are paroled courts will usually order chemical castration.
I‘m not sure why we would need a different name for those who don’t act on child sex urges. An alcoholic will see themselves as alcoholic even if they have been dry for decades. Isn’t that mostly the same?
