Why are MAPs so (too) peaceful?

[BLueRibbon]

I wrote in response to a BC thread on the failure of MAPs to turn any kind of corner:

Outside of places like BC and Mu Forum, the average MAP is a mess, wracked with guilt, desperate to be told they'll be accepted so long as they never even glance at a child on the street.

MAP hysteria is state-sponsored and socially sanctioned bullying, and our weakness and desperation is gold dust to the vile cunts that profiteer, whether they do it for financial or political gain, or even for more hits and subscriptions on their preferred streaming platform.

Our detractors may freely write KYS, openly call for our death... whatever the fuck they like. All the while VirPed types beg for love and forgiveness like an abused shelter dog that is never going to be adopted. I shudder to think how thoroughly whipped and beaten down the average pedo on the street feels. I imagine a lot of them are in denial.

We need to be way more aggressive. Where are the pedos fighting back during those awful 'pred' stings? If someone got in my face like that about me being a MAP, I wouldn't be groveling for repentance. It would be the last thing they did.

There has been no MAP Stonewall because most MAPs just aren't angry and aggressive enough.

But why are MAPs such extreme pacifists? And how can we change this?

[bnkywuv]

We're loving. Lovers, not fighters. Plus if we fought, we'd just be labeled as even more violent and heinous than we are already portrayed.

I think higher levels of ocytocin receptors could be why.

[DANAT4T]

No more Mr. Nice Guy. We need to form the MAPoslavia Anti-Victim Committee.

[BLueRibbon]

We're loving. Lovers, not fighters.

There's no reason why one can't be both.

Plus if we fought, we'd just be labeled as even more violent and heinous than we are already portrayed.

Maybe at first. But if enough bullies got hurt, they'd eventually move onto another target.

[John_Doe]

It seems to me that most people are very docile. They can rebel against individuals or certain groups but they don't want to rebel or wage war against the whole world, they will probably want the approval of a valued in-group or some group that they think highly of. If the mob says that someone is wrong, they will probably cave. There's a perceived authority that sometimes comes with "well we can't ALL be wrong, can we?" That's definitely interpretation or me considering ideas. It's the best that I can come up with because I don't see why being sexually attracted to prepubescent children would make you a kinder, more caring person. Regardless of orientation, I doubt the average person would stand alone against 'the entire world' because they are that confident in their own judgment and 'the world,' for the most part, seems to think that pedophilia is deeply pathological and evil. It's too much to resent 'everyone' when you assume that you're in an extreme minority group.

In the past it's seemed to me that self-identified MAPs/pedophiles tend to be even more disagreeable and sadistic than the general population but I don't know how objective my assessment was/is. It really makes no difference in terms of how I feel about individuals or the morality around 'pedophobia.'

There's no reason why one can't be both.

It's interesting you say that because I've always had a hard time compartmentalizing those attitudes (if 'fighters' are hateful, which I don't think they are but you might if you think that MAPs are too peaceful. There's a kind of compassionate warrior I admire in their strength and willingness to defend/protect what's right without being hateful or not wanting what's best for their opponents) which is why other people seem to have permanently damaged my natural personality (I know that sounds like such a drama queen thing to say, it comes off as self-aggrandizing and sounds like a victim complex but my decades-long experiences with them are why I have become so naturally guarded and find it difficult to show love or sympathy with the vulnerability that requires, that might not be the best way to put it but I can't connect with them emotionally or be unguarded around them). My personality doesn't like 'loose ends' (or maybe I should say inconsistencies), my natural approach is either love and care for everyone or loving/caring for some seems meaningless (all or nothing). I don't 'love' all people, even though I don't wish harm on anyone, but I don't think I can be perfectly at peace or even see myself as a 'good person' if I don't have complete sympathy for all possible sentient beings. It might have to do with my tendency toward 'purity-ism' or perfectionism and maybe even (again, as self-aggrandizing as this might sound) idealism. It's hard for me to switch back and forth between the at-peace feeling I get when I feel connected to random birds or chipmunks and see their happiness as mine and how I feel about average human beings.

[Anonymous_Lover]

We're loving. Lovers, not fighters.

There's no reason why one can't be both.

Plus if we fought, we'd just be labeled as even more violent and heinous than we are already portrayed.

Maybe at first. But if enough bullies got hurt, they'd eventually move onto another target.

100%. Its happened before that some pedo-hunters got their comeuppance, one or two has even been killed from what I recall. But, the problem is that people who fall into these stings tend to be low iq folx sub-5s that are lonely and are often clearly suffering from sort of mental disorders. They are generally not part of the broader MAP community or directly influenced. Clearly, the best thing is not to fall into an obvious trap in the first place but I suppose that it could happen to anyone. It could happen to anyone though, in theory, and with AI even otherwise reasonable MAPs might fall into the trap.

We should be putting out propaganda telling MAPs to be armed particularly for any encounter in a state where its legal to be and if a person has no circumstances that could lead to even worse jailtime. Really MAPs should be armed in general, this would do quite a bit to deter the bullies as you put it. Inevitably, enough would back off they'd choose different targets, not that I relish violence, but the situation makes it inevitable.

[Grunko]

But why are MAPs such extreme pacifists? And how can we change this?
[/quote]

I think MAPs want to be on the good side of society. Possibly because MAPs are in reality better people than everyone and are more open minded. I think part of the issue is that MAPs are trying to ensure they don’t do anything that harms or makes other people uncomfortable but forget that they are also human too: MAPs would may told by many others to ensure their behaviour and actions don’t have a negative impact on other people but society don’t seem to respect that they may do things that could be very harmful or have negative impact on MAPs. Many MAPs try to be respectful to other people but many people aree quite disrespectful to MAPs like therapists.