We must respond aggressively to the backward narrative of 'victims'

[Scorchingwilde]

Using the "victim" label to wish death upon MAP members who are not harming anyone is unjustifiable, and those people deserve a response proportional to the violence they promote.

We are currently discussing the possibility of a Threat Tracker sub-forum, where we could collect information on people posting such comments. Many of our detractors also post hateful or threatening content toward non-MAPs, which can be forwarded to their victims, employers, or law enforcement. In fact, I have already started doing this with people who made death threats toward me.

I would support the proposition if it didn't involve any kind of doxxing. The victims of threats need to know so they can take measures to stay safe from the people who really mean it, and the internet hosting so many death threats against MAPs has a chilling effect on the discourse.

Also worth mentioning, there was a tool helpful in the transgender community online that one of us could model an add-on or database after - Shinigami eyes (https://shinigami-eyes.github.io/). Essentially, it would be a color coded username flagging tool in a browser, or for more general use a database of internet users' usernames who are known either as allies to MAPs or explicitly anti based on their public posting history. Information gets sent in and verified by everyone who finds an anti in the wild. Groups and organizations that have made statements about us can also be gathered. You could even structure it so that those threatening or wishing death on us are tracked separately from general anti-MAP hate, which would be especially useful for safety.

[Kierkegaard]

It's hard responding to victim narratives because many of them were actually raped and subjected to horrible abuse as children, but almost all use their trauma as an excuse to dehumanize and advocate for violence against MAPs in general. So engaging with them aggressively and meeting vitriol with vitriol puts us in the position of looking like we're making light of actual rape and abuse.

It's like when conservatives use incidents of immigrants raping women as racist anti-immigrant propaganda. It's bad faith sophistry which aims to put anyone who engages with it in the position of appearing to be pro-rape, while simultaneously pinning blame for something universally recognized to be awful on a stigmatized minority group. If you stick up for the group, you must support the awful thing they're being blamed for.

I think the best way to respond to "victims" of CSA who demonize us, whether they actually are victims or are just people who decided to have consensual sex with adults as a teen which they now regret, is to basically ignore them and focus on putting our own independent messaging out there showing what loving, safe, healthy adult-child sex and sexual relationships look like. It's not worth it to take the bait and engage with bad faith narratives directly.

[bnkywuv]

I'm honestly on the fence about this "hurt people hurt people" narrative and all of these claims that sexual abuse made them who they are. There are loads of accounts of people who come from abusive families who do not hurt people or use their trauma as weapons. Not all people who are raped or mistreated turn out to be hateful. This seems to be more of a personality thing.

Hurt people who are good natured usually DON'T hurt people and will try to amend things they've done because they know how it feels and do not wish to hurt others. It's the ones who can use it to maintain public image, exploiting for attention and justifying hatred and oppression who weaponize it.