This is a very obvious trick from the right.
“Kill all pedophiles!”
Yeah most people will say pedophiles are really bad and nobody wants to defend them, so they’ll either agree or let it slide. However, they’re not anticipating the next part
“All trans people are pedophiles!”
“All gay people are pedophiles!”
“All immigrants are pedophiles!”
Once you define a group of people as being subhuman and unworthy of human rights, then there is a strong motivation to expand the definition of that group to include more people that a lot of people don’t like and won’t stick their neck out to support for fear of getting labeled as part of that group and oppressed like them. The circle then just keeps growing as the machine needs more people in the outgroup to oppose. If there is broad consensus that pedophiles (or people who commit any type of crime) are a danger so foul that the people who might commit said crime should be summarily executed to subjected to torture, then oppressed minority groups will just be identified with said crime. Think about how panic about urban theft and murder was used to advance policies that harm racial minorities in the late 20th century, and how panic about “bolshevism” was a major driving force of the Holocaust. Nothing good comes from this path.
deleted by creator
No one’s going to argue that there aren’t going to be edge cases that are hard to criticize, but in general, supporting any kind of systemic vigilante justice always leads incredibly quickly to innocent people getting lynched and cycles of reciprocal violence.
I heckin’ love the state’s monopoly on violence!
The state always maintains a monopoly on violence. Otherwise you’d have a terrorist show up and the state would be unable to stop them, invalidating one of the core purposes of the state which is to provide security.
Provide security for whom?
Well in a democracy, presumably the people who vote for politicians. In a democracy with a constitution that guarantees rights and security for non voters then them as well.
That sounds nice but I don’t think that’s exactly the case in practice. There are often people who the state defends at the expense of others, who will never realistically receive any kind of justice from the state. I think things are also generally much better when these people are scared.
I’m not trying to advocate for violence against anyone specific but sometimes I think it’s best when people stand up for themselves (and the people) to show that they’re willing to enact some kind of justice in a corrupt system. Thinking of vigilantes in general as immoral and barbaric while thinking “democracy” alone can help you just plays into the hands of those who wish to exploit you imo.
Pic unrelated
Change generally comes about from mass mobilization. The French have gotten more concessions from the government and the rich through mass strikes than Americans ever have firing guns. I’m not naiive to the idea that it’s all purely 100% peaceful protest, but one man with a gun rarely makes a significant change in the overall direction compared to hundreds of thousands of people turning out and threatening the economy.
And that’s the thing, the state generally maintains a monopoly on violence against small groups, it’s near impossible for them to threaten violence against the population as a whole without creating a totalitarian state.
At the end of the day guns aren’t going to be what stops injustice, convincing enough people that the injustice is intolerable is.
That’s a quite reasonable response, but I will say that no actual revolution is likely gonna not involve a lot of violence. And yeah… protests are almost always gonna come at the very least with the threat of violence (for a reason). Plus, figures who do something violent that many see as ultimately justified can create awareness that could lead to more pressure on elites.
I just don’t think it’s productive to condemn violence in general. I don’t think violence not done by the state is in itself bad. Obviously a lone wolf going after random people they think deserve it isn’t gonna directly enact real change, but going on about how peaceful you are seems counterproductive.
Mass mobilisation and vigilante justice aren’t mutually exclusive, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.
Pic unrelated
That doesn’t require a monopoly, just more force than the terrorist can produce.
It requires not allowing the police to be outgunned by terrorists.
Notice that it was after the LA bank robbery in the 90s, where two guys had tons of body armour and military rifles and outgunned the LAPD with their 6 shooters, that you suddenly saw every single police force across the country militarize and buy assault rifles, body armour, and APCs.
Notice how in the UK their cops still patrol without guns.
The state will always maintain a monopoly on the top level of violence. The idea of gun ownership to oppose the state is laughable. Notice: right now, no gun owners using them to oppose the state.
I agree those people are foolish, but my statement was about the relationship between terrorists and the state.
- A state like the US will always have more firepower than a single terrorist group.
- A population where everyone is armed will also almost certainly have more firepower than a single terrorist group, too.
The power dynamic is between the terrorists and anyone who would oppose them, not just the state. You also reference police, when terrorists are basically always ultimately handled by a military force, which will have a monopoly on violence regardless of how one ignorantly attempts to organize or arm their police.
A population where everyone is armed will also almost certainly have more firepower than a single terrorist group, too.
It will also arm a whole shit of load terrorists, and people just having a bad day.
The power dynamic is between the terrorists and anyone who would oppose them, not just the state.
Yeah, and now you’ve raised the floor massively.
when terrorists are basically always ultimately handled by a military force
[citation needed]
I feel like the phrase “state monopoly on violence” has so many loaded words in it that people see it and assume it’s a bad thing by definition, when in fact it describes a cornerstone of all civilized society.
when in fact
Citation needed
is
What does that even mean?
cornerstone
And here i was thinking this was the hard emotional and cultural labor of communication and coordination. Or maybe you’re just a fascist?
of
Im glad we can find a little common ground. Fully endorse.
civilized
Absolutely not. Almost definitionally not. Unless youre a big anti-civ type with very gross definitions because it disgusts you
society
Kind of feels like its antithetical.
This kind of rhetoric doesn’t sit well with me. There is a difference between being a pedophile and abusing children. Pedophilia is a mental disorder and I can imagine that being attracted to children is pretty damn terrible if you’re also trying to do the right thing. I think there needs to be acceptance towards pedophilia (not towards abusing children) so that the affected people feel safe in talking about their condition and get the appropriate help (so that they don’t end up abusing children).
That’s a sane take on a emotional matter. I agree.
We’ve had some success here with a program called “Don’t become a perpetrator”. Pedosexuals (which is the scientific term for people attracted to minors without acting upon their urges) could enter, as long as they hadn’t committed any crime in regards to children or consuming illegal content. They could get psychological help as well as a chemical castration. Preventive approaches like this should be more common.
Not if they aren’t acting on it, geez.
If they woke up one day, realized to their horror they wanted to do some fucked up shit, and then just never did, that’s crappy for them to have to deal with, and they’re a champion for not making it anybody else’s problem.
What’s with all the anti-republican propaganda on here these days?
As a Trump supporter this post directly attacks me.
Edit: The people that took this post seriously should touch some grass
Sadly, sarcasm doesn’t translate well in text - and Trump voters have been guilty of saying the most unhinged shit out loud.
Either satire, extremely un-self-aware, or you’re tacitly admitting to defending pedophiles. At least a certain pedo…
A bad joke may just be a joke, but it’s also just bad.
I thought it was quite funny, and very obviously a joke.
Couldn’t have been more obvious
That makes it even funnier, because of how blatant it was.
Don’t back or defend rapists/pedophiles/felons, maybe then you won’t feel personally attacked.
Trump is a 34x convicted felon (for fraud no less), convicted rapist, accused by dozens of women of sexual assault, who raped his previous wife, hung out with pedophile Epstein (why aren’t the Epstein files released? What is Bondi hiding?) regularly on the Lolita Express, talks about wanting to fuck his daughter, selling Trump meme coins, peddling products out of the Oval Office, Tesla commercials on the White House lawn, selling “gold card” citizenships for $50k (you can come to America as an immigrant, as long as you have/bring money), dodged the draft yet talks trash about uniformed services and veterans, defends the nazi hate group the proud boys, calls voters “stupid”, threatening to take away citizenships of anyone he doesn’t like or criticizes the government (literally what the nazis did, revoke the citizenship of Germans who opposed them)… I could go on, but it’s wasted energy.
When you hang out with turds, you tend to smell like shit.
You know that was a joke, right?
I’ve seen too much right-wing LGBT = pedophilia propaganda to jump at this one.
Child sexual abuse triggers me into a violent rage as that is how I stopped my abusers as a child. No human scares me. Please do not harm children or the world will be full of violence. But also I agree with the comments saying pedophilia is a mental disorder. Also I do not condone violence against them. Please just stop abusing children.
deleted by creator
You’re a pedo in treatment and never touched a child, good.
You’re a pedo who touched children, no more empathy, go straight to hell.
You’re a pedo and the president of the USA? Time to burn the system to the ground
Fuck the system.
Only if the system concents and is 18+
The system is currently 237 years old, which would make fucking the system the opposite of child molestation.
I support treating pedos and murdering offenders. I don’t think you’re guilty until having done anything.
Treating non offenders? Good. Reveling in murder instead of simply putting people in prisons? Thanks no.
You know, death sentence might not be that bad compared to what happens to pedos in prison.
You could even call it merciful.
Death sentence belongs to medieval times. The fact that some prisons are even worse than getting killed only highlights the fact that there is something deeply wrong with some countries.
Depends.
Pedophilia is likely an inherent sexual attraction, much like being straight, or LGBTQ+. It appears that the sexual attraction is not something that the person has control over. There’s no good evidence that it can be changed. Some pedophiles are also sexually attracted to age-appropriate partners, some appear to be exclusively attracted to children. Moreover, it appears to split into nepophilia (infants, toddlers), pedophilia (pre-pubescent children older than toddlers), and ephebophilia (pubescent children and post-pubescent children younger than the legal age of consent).
Epstein appears to have been attracted to post-pubescent girls younger below the age of consent, but he also seems to have had sexual relationships with adult women. E.g., he wasn’t exclusively a pedophile.
Child molestation is a completely different matter. Child molesters can be pedophiles, but they can also be opportunistic sexual predators. A significant amount of child molestation is also incest, e.g., a parent or close relative (almost always male) using a child for sexual gratification because they can (proximity, opportunity), rather than preferring children. Either way, child molesters that sexually abuse children are very high risk offenders; they are often very, very likely to commit the same crime repeatedly.
So, I’d draw the line a line between someone that’s sexually attracted to minors, and someone that acts. The child molester? Yeah, fuck 'em with a chainsaw. Pedophiles that haven’t yet done anything (including grooming!)? No.
Finally, an actual good use of the “chainsaw of bureaucracy”.
But yeah, this needs to be said more.
The problem for me is that it’s hard to see them being more than a potential child molester.
Maybe not so much if it’s like just “the forbidden kink”, but if it’s more of the main show it feels like they’re just so much more likely to do it eventually.
Now I haven’t read any data on it, but it does naturally raise concern to be wary.
But people at large really love an easy target to dump rage on. And I get it, I’ve been in that crowd.
I may have been saddled with a really weird collection of my own kinks, preferences, and desires, but at least all of mine are kid free. And at my age I still call 20-somethings kids.
Well, I understand your emotions but there are more civilized ways to deal with this problem.
The abuser has to pay lifelong alimony to the abused. If the accusation turns out to be false, however, the “abused” has to pay.
Who are these 64 people downvoting
We have courts instead of mob justice in civilized societies for good reasons. One of those reasons is that mobs rarely follow due process. Once you create a class of people it is okay to enact mob violence against, all you need to do is start rumors to take out the anyone you don’t like. People of particular political persuasions. People of particular sexualities. People of particular races. “Oh Jim? Yeah, I heard he’s a pedo - lets run him out of town! (plus then he wont be able to open that donut shop that would have competed with mine…)”
