Effectiveness and possible negative results [about disruptive activism]

[Peace]

Perhaps this is the incorrect place [we moved it - mods] to post, but since it's about disruptive ideas, I suppose there isn't a better place.

I only recently came across the idea of trolling and ragebaiting as a tactic to promote MAP acceptance; most of the time I assumed most activities were being pushed by bad actors who wished to smear the MAP community. I know that the point is to get people to believe the "normalization" of pedophilia is inevitable, or that their disgust towards pedophilia is sometimes hypocritical. Has there been a lot of success in really changing minds in a meaningful way with these tactics? They don't feel viable or effective to me, but that's just my first impression reading over the trolling guide.

My main worry is that this sort of trolling could end up harming the wider MAP community. We're constantly fighting misinformation about our attraction and our aims, and I don't want this trolling to result in adding even more to that burden. What, if any, sorts of steps are taken to reduce collateral damage? I'm concerned that when you stir shit up, it's MAPs who will end up covered in that shit.

[Eden]

I'm curious as to how effective it is, too. I suppose though, if done correctly, trolling could be pretty useful in exposing certain absurdities related to map phobia.

Admittedly, back when I was still doing the whole map twitter thing, I did engage in trolling when it came to hardcore antis. People like that aren't amendable to having their minds changed, so at the time I figured why not take the piss, ya know? xD

[Jim Burton]

How do we propose going about engineering visibility without being outrageous or disruptive in some way? My Zara Degeneres sock being a prime example.

In my experience, the only solution is projecting anti-contact philosophies, and even then, you are going to be controversial and have your account suspended.

[Peace]

How do we propose going about engineering visibility without being outrageous or disruptive in some way? My Zara Degeneres sock being a prime example.

In my experience, the only solution is projecting anti-contact philosophies, and even then, you are going to be controversial and have your account suspended.

My problem isn't necessarily outrageous or disruptive ideas, but rather with deliberate misinformation which other MAPs will then have to disavow. I'm thinking topics such as "adding P to LGBTQ+." I'm concerned that trolling could end up with MAPs having to clean up the mess with no real positive end results.

[Jim Burton]

The P hoax thing, I believe was pushed by 4chan and James Cantor. We don't really have any control over that, although I have seen really cringe efforts from MAPs that came close. The present promo ad for PCMA is one example, but PCMA is barely an activist group any more, so thankfully they stay away from attempting (and failing at) ragebaits, and stick to sealioning.

When I troll, which is now very rarely [i.e. never] because of my failing health, I'm aiming to make people melt down in public and amplify my message. I'll use 2 accounts if need be, or 1 account pretending to be an anti who "reports" the wrongthink. Most of the time, they are very happy oppressing us silently, so my only intention here is to unmask the hate; I don't see this as a negative outcome, and take pride in it.

[Fragment]

Trolling shouldn't be about amplifying negative messages. It should be about promoting visibility. I forgot who said it, but the first fight is the fight to have a fight.

Jim's Zara account did a great job of promoting visibility without amplifying stereotypes. Posing as a sex educator that supports adult-minor sexual contact and getting retweeted by Jordan Peterson. I can't see any negatives coming out of this.



Misinformation will emerge, that we'll have to combat. But that will emerge regardless of our actions. But misinformation is less damaging to us than being silently hated and mostly ignored.

[WandersGlade]

I agree with Peace, in preferring to avoid creating more misinformation about MAPs. However I'd go a step further: there's already so much animosity and instability in our current culture, is it right to contribute to it? Even from a practical perspective, doesn't recognition and don't social institutions depend on having a society where people have a higher degree of mutual respect and trust? Unless we are content to see society slip further into anarchy and nihilism, I think trying to engage civilly and in good faith is the best choice in the long run.

[Fragment]

I think trying to engage civilly and in good faith is the best choice in the long run.

And what gets people to the table to discuss issues in the first place? Awareness. Even if part of that awareness is misplaced.

The phrase "minor-attracted person" being tweet by someone like Jordan Peterson is a big deal. Even if it requires "ragebait" to get him do so. The screenshot linked above had 280k views. Because it was outrageous.

Having people saying "pedophilia is one step from being normalized" is great. Because people will then start to turn to organizations like Mu whose goal is respectful engagement. People will want to know WHAT is being normalized. And when they start to ask, we are there waiting to engage civilly and in good faith.

Ragebaiting and disruption isn't for its own sake. Getting people mad needs a clear goal at the end of it. Otherwise it IS meaningless and self-defeating. But just like protests in the street, it is one tool that we can employ. One tool that we have in the digital age that previous civil rights movements did not have.

[Peace]

I guess I don't see how people hearing about MAPs will necessarily push them towards sources like Mu versus another misinformed source (or no source at all, as plenty of people take what they see on Twitter at face value). Perhaps the solution is to have people who troll or ragebait coordinating with people engaging in good faith.

[Fragment]

Perhaps the solution is to have people who troll or ragebait coordinating with people engaging in good faith.

That, indeed, is the hope.