Idk man. People who are obsessed about “killing pedophiles” and wears a “shoot your local pedophile” t-shirt are, more often than not, extrememly right-wing anti-LGBT neo-nazis and think leftists and drag queens are, somehow, “pedophiles”.
Pizzagate all over again.
Every time these memes get reposted I can’t help but feel they’re trying to get Q’s Storm or whatever shit going.
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.
And here I thought you were going to counter with ahimsa or non-violence by urging violence is wrong. Nope, still lemmy.
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.
Edge case which is acceptable :
A systemic pedophile who went to pedo Island owned by his best friend is evading justice by literally being the one who appoints judges.
That is a reasonable case for lynching
As opposed to supporting the police, which never harms or terrorizes innocent people.
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.
I fuckin’ love performative justice! Let’s virtue signal about killling people doing fucked up shit to children!
Yeah, thats never lead to innocent people being killed on an industrial scale!
I’ve seen too much right-wing LGBT = pedophilia propaganda to jump at this one.
Yeah. The criminal justice system doesn’t always get it right, but it’s still a better system than anyone being able to have anyone else lynched by calling them a pedo on unsafe evidence.
Yeah. Which is wrird since our communities tend to be pretty good about taking care of that problem when it surfaces.
Depends. Are we talking paedophile in the sense of Epstein or in the sense of LGBTQ person?
Because right-wingers tend to call people who are not paedophiles paedophiles (very often just LGBTQ people), while protecting actual paedophiles like the republicans who are fighting to keep child marriage legal in the USA.
Yeah, this kind of vague, “kill your local pedophile :)” sentiment is often just an anti-LGBT dogwhistle and makes me uneasy.
If someone is going to post shit like this, and not actively tie it to the very obvious class dynamics of wealthy human traffickers, conservative Christians who promote child marriage, and politicians who protect them (without also being Anti-Semitic), then I just kind of assume it’s a thinly veiled call for violence against queer people
I really hate how right wingers have bastardised the term to mean “LGBTQ people” meanwhile tons of right wingers are actually paedophiles
When you want to do violence but it’s generally frowned upon so you have to find a way to justify it
Donald?
Aww come on, let them have their fun! It’s refreshing to see some people acting with a civic mindset!
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.
I always worry about this. Ive got some specific non-vanilla stuff that I didnt ask for and cant change. Lucky for me its nothing illegal or harmful, just non-standard.
It could just as easily have been the bad.
it can also easily become the bad, which is why “i have nothing to hide” morons need to be yanked by the ear
Yeah you can see that with trans people. They’ve always been in kind of danger, and the easy target for the butt of a joke, but they’ve become a political target seemingly out of nowhere.
Plus a lot of child molesters aren’t even attracted to children, just the power and control it gives them.
I think that it’s also the fact that children, due to being inexperienced and lacking knowledge and strength to defend themselves, which makes them easy targets.
Explain how that’s makes it better.
I did NOT say or imply that it makes anything better.
In fact, expanding the pool of potential abusers to those that just want power over others makes it worse.
Well, given sufficient leverage, they could sate themselves abusing and damaging adults!
So n9t, like, much better.
It doesn’t make acting on it in that way any better, because it’s the same thing. Though assuming no action occurs, it’s probably an easier chestnut for a psychiatrist to crack or at least direct to healthier channels.
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.
However, they’re not anticipating the next part
I think we can easily retort “All pedophile killers are pedophiles!”.
Right, but at this point pedophilia does exist as an actual phenomenon, which the right uses to build a culture of fear and suspicion in which they can frame all their arguments credibly.
Like people are actually worried about child abuse, for many good and bad reasons. So without addressing the fear and the underlying desire for just governance then no amount of political humanism will get through. People are, irrationally, more afraid of pedophiles than they are willing to criticize the cultural implications of the meanings of words.
That’s not your fault, you aren’t creating or reproducing this phenomenon and I largely agree with you. I just think its time to start coming up with better criticisms than trying to poke logical holes. The right is fighting a war and we are having an intellectual debate. I’m a firm advocate for scientific intellectualism, while exploring even philosophical implications of your plans and actions. I think this is logically strong, but practically weak argument.
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.
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.
Okay but is rape as a weapon of terror during wartime as practiced on children still pedophilia if the perpetrator literally just punched a clock and popped a viagra or even military issued strap-on? or would that just be normal war crimes? Serious legal qiestion.
Also because i get the feeling a lot more people would be fans if it was.
AFAIK, pedophilia refers specifically to the sexual attraction to children. When it’s used as a weapon per your scenario, it’s both a war crime and child rape.
Like, if adult men as sexually assaulted as part of war crimes (and that’s distressingly common), the perpetrators are likely not gay or bi-; they’re ‘just’ committing atrocities.
So i proposed hypothetical child rapists who are not pedophiles? I think i get, like, a thousand pedantry points. And i think an extra hundred silver on my next rimworld start.
Only if the system concents and is 18+
As someone who have been a victim of (non-sexual) child abuse, this is just extremely infuriating since I know what they go through, but what they go through is 100x worse. Horrible people like my parents just won’t die soon enough. I hope my parents and those on the epstein list spend an eternity in hell.
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.
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.
I giggled.
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?
Yeah now I do lmao.
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.
This is right, but we have the law to not do it ourselves based on subjective judgement.
Well… while an objective law is important… Don’t get me wrong - if anyone would do anything to my girl I’d personally rip their reproductive organs out and force feed that to them
This is understandable, probably I could do the same if my kids were harmed, however I hold the position that (objectively speaking) the law should deal with this kind of crime.
Beating the shit out of pedophilephiles?
Pedophilia is a mental disorder Just saying mind your words
Nah, pedophilia is a paraphilia. And if someone suffers from pedophilic disorder, it’s kinda impossible for anyone other than healthcare to know that – unless they’ve made some attempts to abuse someone.
To be fair, paraphilias were listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as disorders before that definition was moved in DSM-5 to paraphilic disorder to be distinct from paraphilia (no longer de facto a disorder).
Anyway, pedophilia is a paraphilic disorder, which makes it a paraphilia and a mental disorder!
DSM
Miss me with that American junk. But with the same logic, would you also say that gender incongruence is a mental disorder? It’s in the same books, in similar sections. It’s faux pas to call something a mental disorder without focusing on why it’d be that.
The ICD (and I would hope the DSM) focuses mostly on the distress the patient gets from their condition. Someone’s attraction to kids, without any actions, isn’t enough to get diagnosed, as it’s simply a paraphilia. If they’re distressed by it, or act out, then it’s a diagnostic criteria and something they’d be able to get treatment for.
Gender incongruence may be in the same book now, but being in the book does not necessarily mean it is a disorder (e.g. paraphilia). In fact, in DSM-5, gender incongruence (they call it gender dysphoria) was actually renamed from “gender identity disorder” to avoid the word “disorder”.
DSM-5 defines a paraphilic disorder as “a paraphilia that brings distress, or when satisfied, brings harm to self or others” (paraphrased). I think pedophilia fits that description, because “if satisfied”, that’s what we’d consider “bringing harm to others”. Perhaps the ICD has a different definition?
I mean, I didn’t set the standards or write the books. All of these things have way too much complexity to properly categorize in the ever-shifting standards of society in different geographic and cultural regions, so of course different countries and different experts would treat these things differently. That also means what counts as a “mental disorder” can vary wildly from region to region. I daresay this is a universe where you and I are both right on the matter!
I’m not sure about the criterion differences between the ICD and DSM-5, and I for sure do not know enough to be an authority on the matter.
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.
Yeah, that might be a bit extreme. I was mostly thinking about violent rapists when I said that. Sorry.
We all have these emotions from time to time, esp. when thinking about horrible criminals. That is only natural. As long as we do not act on hate we should be good.
Stop thinking about violent rapists so much. Can’t be healthy for you.
Yeah
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.
Any reason, no matter how made up, is good, right?
Talk to some ex cons who did a year or ten.
Death sentence is barbaric and stupid though
Only because the state cannot (demonstrably so) execute justice in a just and equitable manner. Frankly, it’d be fucking dumb to be against the death penalty if (IF) the state could guarantee that the correct person is correctly judged for the correct offense.
Of course that reality is a loooong ways away from this reality, so… death penalty remains a path for the state to unjustly murder innocents. Though IMO, locking innocent people up for the majority of their life is still a gross misjustice akin to the death penalty being executed on an innocent person, but baby steps I guess.
True
Beating up Trump, Musk and co? Hell yeah.
What if we didn’t need the nental gymnastic, they are roping democracy with memetic manipulation and demographic hacking. 1700s democracy didn’t understand the power of computers, we badly need to bad the exploits and pulp the exploiters.
