I am going to BASH my head against a wall, MY GOD people are ignorant.....

[OnionPetal]

[...] It's an 'emotional position,' it makes me think that any attempt to reason with most people on the subject will be futile. [...]

No you're right. Sometimes it's best to just mock people for their hypocrisy and expose their irrationality. Some of these hysterical 'normies' just need a fainting couch, and an extra string of pearls to clutch.

I don't know what the definition of the slippery slope fallacy is exactly [...] but I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to assume that a first step will probably or might lead to an extreme outcome in terms of practical policy. What I think is unreasonable is rejecting a value or principle per se because the adoption of it or some real life policy it implies might lead to a more extreme outcome in terms of practical policy or the adoption of other principles that aren't logically implied by it [...]

The slippery slope fallacy is basically an argument based on broad speculation. Like, 'Harmless behaviour X leads to dangerous crime Y. Therefore, harmless behaviour X should be banned.' Even though the 'causal link' is speculative at best. It would be like that forecast-based prosecution model.

It would be like arresting people who play violent video games, because you speculate that there's a 'causal link' between gaming and real life murders. That is not a logically sound argument.

[zarkle]

Hell just the other day a whole server was going fucking ape shit and a half because a 15 yo was exposed for dating a 19 yo, once exposed the guy got banned, death threats, banned from the server, the 15 yo turned on him and claimed he was "manipulated and groomed" and everyone counted him as a horrible victim of online grooming while i'm over here like....WHAT DO YOU MEAN they were having fun together and perfectly happy until the whole server white knighted them....

This is an example of strong social norms, where a thick social atmosphere emerges from a taboo behavior/act. Such as your Discord episode. Culture makes the sexual taboo vary, but when the sexual taboo is violated humans get a sense of "creeped out, weirded out, disgusted", and if it is framed as harm against children that directly taps into child protection instincts, which is like adding fuel to a fire. Our goal is to study the neuroscience and evolutionary origin of these behaviors and pick them apart using cold logic. In prehistoric times humans lived in small bands and keeping the band together was paramount, conformity was a mask to keep everyone cohesive. Being non comformist risk being osctracized which meant being kicked out of the tribe and left alone to the elements and starving without food or shelter. In today's world its getting banned from a discord server, but its the same neurocircuit setup. the ancient survival gameplan natural selection favored is still present in today's new environment responding to totally different things. These instincts map onto whatever cultural sexual norms are present, because after all there is no greater way of disrupting the tribe then then fighting over mates or harming kids.


Below I will list the 4 things identified

1) strong social pressure to conform
2) child protection instincts modified to apply to adolescents due to cultural changes
3) social contagion of moral outrage spreading, that's how social animals spread ideas and behaviors
4) tough guy/punish the wrong doer punitive attitudes. To keep the group coherent

You can find more info on this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFKowpj1RIY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftQ3a-0s-88

Leftist in the past have pointed out about moral panic, social contagion and moral outrage regarding MAP rights but they never tied it back to neuroscience and evolutionary psychology like I am doing. I argue that's why 90s boy lover activist never made any real progress, and look I did this all without talking about genes, because I don't need to, I can focus on just the behaviors neuroscience documents.

[zarkle]

[...] It is group think and social contagion but its also child protection instincts kicking in saying "THREAT THREAT THREAT PREDATORY ANIMAL WANTS TO EAT KIDS" and that system is playing a huge role but its still not recognized. [...]

This is what animal like instincts look like in humans, this is why rational people behave otherwise irrational when it comes to child protection

[...] Sadly its even extending to 16 to 17 year olds now about "protecting" them from porn, groomers etc as the under 18 category anymore is automatically framed as "under 18 = helpless child needs protection". [...]

I don't buy it. I mean, if it were only about 'protecting children,' then would governments be able to so easily get away with bombing girls' schools in Iran? Where were all of those 'child protection instincts' as civilian kids got slaughtered by the thousands in Palestine? The kids that politicians called 'human shields' and made no effort to save. And while people condemn any pleasurable contact with minors, corporal punishment (i.e., literal beatings) of children is still legal in many jurisdictions. A kiss below the belt may land someone in prison for longer than a murderer. But people are happy to buy clothes made with forced child labour, if they can save a dollar.

Some people pretend to care about 'child protection' (e.g., legislators who want to spy on your online activities). And some people (especially members here) genuinely do care about the well being of children. But 'child protection instincts' are not a prerequisite for irrationality and hysteria. See: the European Witch Hunts and the Red Scare for irrational social hysteria that were predicated on other motives.

European Witch Hunts were all about protecting kids from witch cabals

As ChatGPT wrote

"Yes—there are some striking structural similarities between early modern European witch-hunt narratives and modern conspiracies like QAnon, even though the historical contexts are very different.

Core Similarity: “Evil network harming children”

Both systems often center on the same emotionally powerful idea:

A hidden, coordinated group
Engaged in unspeakable acts
Especially involving harm to children
That only a few “aware” people can see and stop

In European witch trials (roughly 1400s–1600s), people believed witches:

Kidnapped or killed children
Participated in ritual abuse (e.g., sabbaths, cannibalism myths)
Served a hidden, demonic network tied to Satan

That overlaps heavily with QAnon’s claims about secret elites abusing children


_______________

I was thinking weeks ago about about making a thread to address this. The child protection instincts are not perfect, they are modulated by culture and empathy is selective in most humans for in group children (children of the same socioeconomic class) so that excludes little Palestinian girls. The instinct is indeed porous (medicore at times), and by default only applies to the "us" category not the "them" in "us vs them" - but clearly exist, as nothing else can explain the rage of antis, the fear of children being harmed by clicking on webpages of swim catalogs or conspiracy theories like qanon, satanic panic and people who believe Epstein ate kids. We don't see this with communist red scare, and European witch hunts involved kids so I'll checkmate on that.

They aren't in on a conspiracy to pass laws by branding them as protecting children. Age verification isn't a top down centralized scheme. They are actually just stupid monkeys legislating their gut reactions like Nancy Mace or Ana Paulina Luna trying to put the death penalty on touching kids or downloading images of kids, but to be fair their are also reasonable arguments some make that social media can cause harmful peer pressure on kids, but that still doesn't justify age verification in my opinion

On Law and Crime's Youtube channel in cases where children were murdered in non sexual crimes we see very similar moral outrage and parental concern but I admit its always worse for contact sex crimes.

[OnionPetal]

[...] European Witch Hunts were all about protecting kids from witch cabals [...]

Hmm, I thought the primary impetus for the European Witch Hunts was the expanding political power of the Church, which persecuted non-converts as 'heretics,' whilst blaming their supposed 'supernatural powers' on war, famine, and plague.

[...] They aren't in on a conspiracy to pass laws by branding them as protecting children. [...]

A lot of leading commentators in the political and tech space think that 'child protection' is indeed a pretext for eroding privacy law and ushering in mass surveillance.

Age verification isn't a top down centralized scheme.

The identity verification sector is a multi-billion dollar market that has exploded as governments contract with age verification services. We are supposed to believe that these hugely unpopular new age verification laws that are making tech companies rich, are purely to protect kids, with no ulterior profit or control motive?

On Law and Crime's Youtube channel in cases where children were murdered in non sexual crimes we see very similar moral outrage and parental concern but I admit its always worse for contact sex crimes.

For clarity... I never said that 'child protection instincts don't exist.' Yes, healthy societies are going to want to protect their children from harm. But I just don't see any widespread social hysteria about 'child murderers' in the same way that people are hysterical about minor attraction. For goodness' sake, there is not even a 'child murderer registry.'

So while I agree that 'child protection instincts' exist, they are frequently used as an emotionally manipulative pretext for policies with ulterior motives by people who themselves care very little about protecting children from real-life harms (e.g., wars, gun violence, labour exploitation, etc.).

[...] nothing else can explain the rage of antis [...]

Oh, maybe you haven't heard... but a huge number of vigilante antis fall into the self-loathing category. See this page on NewgonWiki for more about this demographic. (Be sure to scroll down to view the Gallery of Self-owns!)

nothing else can explain [...] the fear of children being harmed by clicking on webpages of swim catalogs [...]

This one might be more related to the 'disgust' that you have often referenced. This is probably closer to the reasons why society hated and criminalised homosexuality for so long. It was more out of 'disgust' and 'moralising,' rather than actually protecting anyone from harm.

[zarkle]

[...] European Witch Hunts were all about protecting kids from witch cabals [...]

Hmm, I thought the primary impetus for the European Witch Hunts was the expanding political power of the Church, which persecuted non-converts as 'heretics,' whilst blaming their supposed 'supernatural powers' on war, famine, and plague.

[...] They aren't in on a conspiracy to pass laws by branding them as protecting children. [...]

A lot of leading commentators in the political and tech space think that 'child protection' is indeed a pretext for eroding privacy law and ushering in mass surveillance.

Age verification isn't a top down centralized scheme.

The identity verification sector is a multi-billion dollar market that has exploded as governments contract with age verification services. We are supposed to believe that these hugely unpopular new age verification laws that are making tech companies rich, are purely to protect kids, with no ulterior profit or control motive?

On Law and Crime's Youtube channel in cases where children were murdered in non sexual crimes we see very similar moral outrage and parental concern but I admit its always worse for contact sex crimes.

For clarity... I never said that 'child protection instincts don't exist.' Yes, healthy societies are going to want to protect their children from harm. But I just don't see any widespread social hysteria about 'child murderers' in the same way that people are hysterical about minor attraction. For goodness' sake, there is not even a 'child murderer registry.'

So while I agree that 'child protection instincts' exist, they are frequently used as an emotionally manipulative pretext for policies with ulterior motives by people who themselves care very little about protecting children from real-life harms (e.g., wars, gun violence, labour exploitation, etc.).

[...] nothing else can explain the rage of antis [...]

Oh, maybe you haven't heard... but a huge number of vigilante antis fall into the self-loathing category. See this page on NewgonWiki for more about this demographic. (Be sure to scroll down to view the Gallery of Self-owns!)

nothing else can explain [...] the fear of children being harmed by clicking on webpages of swim catalogs [...]

This one might be more related to the 'disgust' that you have often referenced. This is probably closer to the reasons why society hated and criminalised homosexuality for so long. It was more out of 'disgust' and 'moralising,' rather than actually protecting anyone from harm.

I agree age surveillance laws are mixed bag of child protection instincts and big tech's crony capitalist profit incentive. But one of the number one reasons Governments want to spy on people is to protect kids. The way I see it there is not a top down conspiracy by elites to prevent pedosexuality, there are only naturalistic impulses, profit incentives, misguided policy, special interest and delusional law makers. I understand how special interest implies your ideas have partial support.

The Witch Hunts did indeed involve a centralized states full backing their cause unlike qanon which is grass roots. The core danger was witches doing evil magic that needed to be stopped and a large part of that was killing and dismembering children for magic rituals - this is what lead to hysteria. So the witch hunts were more of a classic monarchy assuming it was purging the world of demonic evil, (to save children) where as qanon is decentralized grass roots movements with very loose support by the right wing side of the state going down a conspiracy rabbit hole, they are not the same but fueled by the same instincts.

Child protection instincts don't cause people to make exclusive rational decisions about protect, it causes nonsense like Stranger Danger, moral panics like qanon, and 100s of year prison sentences for image files, ultra costly sex offender registries and child protection bills that keep reoccurring.

[OnionPetal]

Child protection instincts don't cause people to make exclusive rational decisions about protect, it causes nonsense like Stranger Danger, moral panics like qanon, and 100s of year prison sentences for image files, ultra costly sex offender registries and child protection bills that keep reoccurring.

Yeah, I see your points, and thanks for following up. I still think it's all a little more complicated than 'child protection instincts' alone causing all these '100s of year prison sentences for image files.' There is something exceedingly punitive about sentences for minor attraction that are simply not imposed in any other 'child protection' context.

[zarkle]

Child protection instincts don't cause people to make exclusive rational decisions about protect, it causes nonsense like Stranger Danger, moral panics like qanon, and 100s of year prison sentences for image files, ultra costly sex offender registries and child protection bills that keep reoccurring.

Yeah, I see your points, and thanks for following up. I still think it's all a little more complicated than 'child protection instincts' alone causing all these '100s of year prison sentences for image files.' There is something exceedingly punitive about sentences for minor attraction that are simply not imposed in any other 'child protection' context.

Culture and Instincts are a two way street interacting like effect and afferent nerves.

I will give two examples of cultural and evolution interacting with each other

-EXAMPLE 1-

1) Humans evolve bigger brains then other apes

2) Bigger brains favor emotions like jealousy and territorialism over mates and all sorts of new conflicts about sex and who gets to mate

3) Evolution favored sexual cohesion to prevent humans from fighting over mates, while also favoring polygamous mating strategies under certain scenarios because it doesn't have one exact goal but many competing/specific strategies to explore so natural selection can weed out what works and what doesn't work, our big brains use moral outrage, disgust, repulsion and the feeling of being "weirded out" as a way to promote these sex negative traits.

4) Culture favors sex exclusive to marriage/loyal partner/partners and do and don't rules about sexuality due to evolved pressures

5) Humans only behave monogamous/spouse loyalty on the surface, the "sexual double life sin" that religions criticize is a part of human nature too, but of course most people are too stupid to realize this.

6)Natural selections unintended irony of favoring both spouse loyalty and promiscuity depending on the circumstance causes enormous cultural drama and moral panics. Because the mating strategy behaviors natural selection favored in a prehistoric world don't work in modern society/city life.

-EXAMPLE 2-
(the classic)

1) Life on Earth's history is a story of very high child mortality (for virtually all animals) in a dog eat dog world

2) natural selection favored strong parental instincts during the Cambrian explosion (530 million years ago) and even proto versions of this BEFORE

3) animals that don't protect their young vigilantly are weeded out of the gene pool

4) natural selection favors a "better completely wrong then sorry" model. Mistaking russling bush in wind for a Tiger is wrong, but it increases survival against the small chance it really is a tiger

5) natural selection favors a repulsion mechanism to prevent incest (westermarck) and possibly prepubescent mating ( because of vaginal tissue damage) its possibly nature selection only favored against penis penetration of a prepubescent's vagina.

6) fast forward to humans with big brains, social cohesion and sexual norms and the need to care for their young. Like I mentioned above in example 1.

7) Due to our large brains common sense evidence emerges that small prepubescent children are too little to handle penis penetration and that violent and manipulative sexual abuse harms them, this triggers the disgust and outrage instincts natural selection selected for

8) certain cultures that go down this route takes worst slice of the pie examples to label all child sexuality harmful. The 99$ peaceful pedos are demonized like the 1$ of morbid and dangerous ones.

9) one particular culture expands the definition of child to 18 due to a long chain of events of prostitution based norm violations in the 19th century and political activism

10) now the same repulsion mechanism that nature selection favored to prevent prepubescent vaginal tissue damage is adapted by culture to apply towards 17 year old teenagers posting pictures of their boobs and butt on Tik Tok

11) Thus a conservative judge who has those strong parental instincts heavily modified by his specific culture will hand out the 100 year sentence to the guy downloading pics of a 17 year olds tits and ass on Instagram.


This is the two way street of culture and evolution interacting with each other, these complex web of interactions shows I have a working model. I don't just blame everything on "instincts" "genes" or "nature" I say those simple words to simplify myself, but when asked I explain the complexity showing what I really mean in detail. I hope I didn't cause confusion when I say "it's all just parental instincts" because I honestly believe that but the nuances are above.



Thus its a never ending feed back loop between instincts and culture.