What can a bizarre video teach us about combating MAP hate?

[BLueRibbon]

I'm not a huge fan of the modern information via YouTube and TikTok culture. Unfortunately, most people apparently disagree, and so much MAP-related discourse takes place on such platforms. Browsing for examples, I came across a documentary published by Channel 4, an 'edgy' major TV network from the UK. The documentary is not an impressive piece of work; a panel of regular people, only one of them capable, interview a MAP wearing perhaps the most terrifying mouse mask ever created. The MAP, nicknamed Mouse, is from VirPed, and predictably defensive and apologetic. He uses ridiculous terms like 'CSAM', believes that all AMSC is wrong, and so on. However, he does stand up for himself when it comes to his decision to do volunteer work with children. Overall, he does astoundingly well at presenting the VirPed position, however limited that position may be.

In this article, I'm going to consider what we can learn from the panelists' comments. First, I'll discuss what was said, before analyzing their positions and then touching on the implications. I recommend first watching the video yourself, as it's not long and you may pick up on things I missed.

https://www.brianribbon.com/home/what-c ... g-map-hate

[Learning to undeny]

Only 1 of the three participants was open-minded, but there was a consensus among the youtube comments that she should have talked alone with the mouse. Meaning the others came off as too close-minded to the public.

[BLueRibbon]

Only 1 of the three participants was open-minded, but there was a consensus among the youtube comments that she should have talked alone with the mouse. Meaning the others came off as too close-minded to the public.

Yes, the comments were mostly quite reasonable. I plan to discuss them in the upcoming article.

[Not Forever]

I noticed, when reading the comments, that in general everyone agrees in considering the first girl as the more… uh, rational one, the one more suited to discussion. And even though the other two people were in fact more emotional (the man constantly gave me the impression that he was playing a role, as if he wanted to present himself on television as someone with principles), honestly the one who bothered me the most was precisely the first girl.

The reason is that she seems like the kind of person who goes along with you during the discussion and then, as soon as she turns around, resets. Is it possible that she discovered the existence of MAPs on that exact occasion? That she managed to draw parallels with homosexuality only when faced with an emotional argument?

I agree with the post, I agree with the fact that there was some common ground, etc., but what I saw was more a preservation of pre-existing narratives than a real openness, because I just can’t believe that all of that discussion was genuinely new to her. I’m convinced that once the discussion was over, she went right back to the statements she made at the beginning.

Not that the other two were any better: the second girl seems like a lost cause who needs things explained with little drawings; the guy, as I already said, seemed like he was trying to prove something. But the first one… I don’t know, I’m decidedly pessimistic.

Maybe it’s just my prejudice, but it really seemed more like a way of presenting herself than genuine curiosity, a real intention to understand. As if there were even something to understand in the first place—like, really, is it that hard to grasp? Is it possible that at twelve years old I knew more about this stuff with a couple of hours on the internet?