It seems there is a perpetual moral panic coming from a certain end of the political spectrum about people who are coming for your women and children. This begs the question: who are the “groomers” in your neighborhood—the people that you meet, when you’re walking down the street?
This isnt a right or left issue its a pedopilia problem which transends both and given the US as the UK is divided politically almost down the middle it makes sense that both sides have a similar amount of pedophiles/groomers/perverts.
The sooner people stop politizing this subject the sooner it will get dealt with effectively.
Pointing at either sides pedos and saying “hey look why are you talking about our pedos/groomers when you have them too” Is unhelpful to the cause of actually creating policy that deals with it and id say in fact helpful to the cause of allowing it to continue at least in part.
And ill add that any conversation about dealing with groomers/pedos needs to start with holding the catholic church accountable .
We have complete uproar in the UK about pakistani grooming gangs yet the catholic population have been silent for years when well you dont even need me to explain…
No its not. They showed up with lynch mobs during the 2020 election when no one was paying attention. So the right has in fact been menaced by militant transsexuals for years. Thats why theyre looking sideways at trans people.
Absolutely, i enjoy your approach to these topics. It makes no sense linking this to political viewpoints, these exceptions will exist in many groups, we’re back to using exceptions to define the norm, using small groups to discredit larger groups.
Condemn the behavior regardless of who they are or what their political affiliation is. Spending time on arguing who has the most makes absolutely makes no sense and distracts from the main issue which is protecting children.
Except that one of these “sides” is currently leading a moral panic about groomers and pedophiles on the other, so pretending that isn’t relevant only gives them cover to continue doing so, and makes you look like a fucking moron for falling for it.
Once again vague, do you disagree with all instances, are there examples, no real content here to comment on.
If you don’t agree you are a fucking moron.
This reads like the very thing you are condemning, like a twitter soap box post.
Some of the content, like jeffrey marsh encouraging teens to go no contact with their parents and contact them for one on one personal discussions seems sketchy. So i think if you want to have real discussion you should post things you disagree with and open them up to discussion, like i have with that comment. The only post worth reading in this thread was PDA.
By opening a thread and saying, “look at these pedophiles, they aren’t trans” (i’m assuming that is your angle, your opening post doesn’t have any specifics, once again vague) then you are having the same baseless sensationalistic argument you seem to disagree with.
I’m smart enough to know bad people do bad things and trying to extrapolate that to the group and not judging individuals on individual merit is a stupid thing to do. I can however say that certain behaviours like random adults approaching kids and opening private dialogue with them is probably not a good idea regardless of group, political affiliation or ideology. i don’t need to agree or disagree with your greater cause or ideological view, because i focus on behaviours regardless of what any group claims or believes. Christians, priests, trans, republican, it doesn’t matter, dodgy behaviour is dodgy period and should be addressed in that light.
It’s not “vague”. Chris Rufo, a right wing operative has been bragging about doing it for years, along with James Lindsay and a host of others.The fact that you’re ignorant of these things (or in denial) has no bearing on whether or not they’re true.
It was until you posted an example. At least i know where you are coming from.
I don’t believe i’m ignorant, i might be, there are many issues you could be referring to, i gave you one example which was different from this. I can agree that the tweet you posted is stupid, vague and gives no context of what they are referring to. Let’s not write things in the same way here. That would be an example of sensationalistic writing that will allow people to tag whatever emotion or belief they have onto it even though it has no content actually in it. Like wildcard matching in data strings, hope that makes sense.
Edit: I don’t know who that is, or the other guy, will need to check it out.
If you don’t know who that guy is, and what his game is, then by definition you are ignorant. It’s not an insult, it’s an invitation to look further into this issue before making declarative, sweeping statements based on said ignorance
One person does not make you ignorant there are many american’s with many soap boxes. I’m looking at america, canada, asia, etc. (i’m not from the US). Many people in many parts of the world my man, many people in america with many opinions, you obviously feel this guy is some sort of figurehead but i can promise you there will be many similar people just like him.
So i checked wikipedia:
Christopher Rufo is an American [conservative] and senior [fellow] at the [Manhattan Institute]. He is best known for his activism against [critical race theory], which he says “has pervaded every aspect of the federal government” and poses “an [existential] threat to the United States”.
Fuck me, i could throw a stone in a crowded room and hit another just like him, hardly ignorant for not knowing this specific activist.
Long story short, before I waste any more time arguing with your shifty nonsense, midwit bothsideridm doesn’t fly when one of the two sides and the equation is actively pushing the narrative you’re pushing back on.
That’s the point of this thread, and if you don’t get it, it’s either because you don’t want to, or are guilty of participating in it yourself.