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.

[OnionPetal]

But why are MAPs such extreme pacifists?

Part of this is generational. Years ago, I remember a university professor giving Facebook's Privacy Policy as a reading assignment. The professor was baffled by how unmoved the students were to learn how severely their privacy was being stripped away. 'In my day, we would all be rioting in the streets!' the professor exclaimed. 'Don't you care??' The students barely shrugged.

So it's not just MAPs. The current era seems to be characterised by a culture of complacency. It's not an excuse, but a reason. I'm not certain of the cause: All the rebellious school kids are 'medicated' into submission? Are young people so addicted to social media that they don't care about anything beyond the next scroll? Identifying the primary sources of this cultural complacency could give us something to work with in tackling it.

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

Getting another Stonewall is a bit more complicated than riling up MAPs into a frenzy of rage, like that 'mad as hell' scene from The Network.

For the many MAP activists who want another Stonewall, it's important to consider why the 1969 Stonewall was effective, and some major differences that could affect a 'repeat success' when translated to MAPs' issues.

Stonewall came after a good decade of progress decriminalising homosexuality. Illinois had already decriminalised 'sodomy' in 1961, the winds of change were blowing, and the entire 1960s was a decade about cultural revolution. By the time of the Stonewall riots in 1969 New York, most sodomy offenses had been reduced to misdemeanors, punishable by fines or short jail stays. Same with simple possession of gay porn magazines: usually just a fine or short jail stay. There were no offender registries, and no federal laws against 'sodomy.' So by and large, gay people did not face the same life-ending consequences for their civil disobedience that MAPs would face today for the same offenses.

Why was Stonewall needed at that time? Obviously, there was no 'social media,' and so gay rights activists did anything they could to get mainstream media attention. The vivid media coverage of the riots was a tipping point - a culmination of a decade of activism that coincided with shifts in professional psychology's framing of homosexuality, and highly organised public activism. Coverage of the Stonewall riots was a key moment that led to increased resistance and support, but it was part of a broader cultural movement of highly organised activism, including pamphlet distribution, public demonstrations, and TV interviews. This activism saw significant growth and support in the years leading up to Stonewall.

So back to the present. With more access/control over alternative digital media today, I think it's fair to ask: Is a Stonewall needed for the 'mainstream media' coverage? Would it really be a similar 'tipping point' that swayed the public today if cable news broadcast a bunch of adults violently rioting because 'they want to r@pe children'? You know that's how they'll portray it, and it won't do much for that 'dangerous' MAP stereotype. Would coverage of a MAP riot today have a lasting cultural impact, or would people quickly move on to the next media outrage a week later? I'm not convinced that we need the TV or newspaper coverage today in the same way it helped the Stonewallers of 1969. And with a bit of ingenuity, you really don't need a riot to get digital media coverage these days.

But what would a MAP Stonewall look like today? In 1969, gay lovers rioted together in a gay social space. For MAPs, would it just be a gang of angry adults? Or would their young friends be with them? I don't want to think about how dangerous that could be for young participants, but it's irresponsible not to. And after the Waco massacre, it's pretty clear that the American public would be happy to see children slaughtered by law enforcement, all to 'save them from paedophiles.' I struggle to envision revolutionary optics in a culture of such complacency. [This is not to dismiss the merits of local activism, but I have been known to weigh risks heavily when considering IRL activism.]

I really don't know if another Stonewall is just about winding up MAPs with aggressive anger - so many MAPs struggle not to let their lives be consumed by rage as it is. Maybe you can get a mob of people to shout, 'I'm mad as hell!' But an angry mob does not a Stonewall make. In order to be worthy of that comparison, MAPs first need to be comfortable meeting in public, being interviewed, and passing out pamphlets. Ideally with successful organisational alliances and cultural momentum.

I think the reason we don't see another Stonewall, is because we're not ready for it yet.

[oolhlh2]

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?

There is being brave and there is being naive.

• We are banned on major social media platforms.

• If we decide to enter relationships with children we will become another criminal statistic.

• If we decide to rally we will probably be shot or stabbed.

• If we decide to create an offline group we will eventually be ambushed either by law enforcement or hostile vigilantes.

With this amount of push back, there is only so much that you can do in my opinion.

I always envy the nazis. These guys are worse than us yet they get support because they are an ally against us.