Anarchist anti c

[anarkiddo]

One thing that has disappointed me about this community is that no one has proposed an anarchist anti c philosophy that is compatible with youth liberation.

The reason for this I think is because any one who has tried has started from an unrealistic premise. That some kids will not want sex if we liberated and informed them about consent.

I believe it is possible to acknowledge that and not to punish it as an anarchist, while still being anti c. We should all check our privileges and recognize that both appropriate (guiding empowering) and inappropriate (stigmatizing violent) disapproval are a thing.

A while ago I joined a fediverse instance which some one close to me said had some anarchist anti cs, but I was disappointed. It turned out the leader of that instance was a conservative american cishet posing as some kind of creepy moralistic transgender stalinist and had been accused of doing things to other minors. They tried [redacted - Jim] and the whole thing was run like a cult with brainwashing and programming of actual children to tolerate this leader's behaviour towards them.

Im not interested in legitimizing abuse. Do we have anything approaching a reasonable anti c anarchist philosophy here?

[BLueRibbon]

If you outline your argument here, we'll be happy to debate it with you!

[Fragment]

I'm strongly anti-c for minors that don't want sex with adults. I'm also strongly anti-c for minors that don't want sex in general. Actually, I'd hope they would be starting points for everyone in our community.

I'm also strongly for youth lib and youth empowerment.

If you're against locking people in cages, though, you're an ally of mine. Even if you think on a moral level teens cannot consent to sexual contact with adults.

[Jim Burton]

One thing that has disappointed me about this community is that no one has proposed an anarchist anti c philosophy that is compatible with youth liberation.

The reason for this I think is because any one who has tried has started from an unrealistic premise. That some kids will not want sex if we liberated and informed them about consent.

I believe it is possible to acknowledge that and not to punish it as an anarchist, while still being anti c. We should all check our privileges and recognize that both appropriate (guiding empowering) and inappropriate (stigmatizing violent) disapproval are a thing.

A while ago I joined a fediverse instance which some one close to me said had some anarchist anti cs, but I was disappointed. It turned out the leader of that instance was a conservative american cishet posing as some kind of creepy moralistic transgender stalinist and had been accused of doing things to other minors. They tried [redacted - Jim] and the whole thing was run like a cult with brainwashing and programming of actual children to tolerate this leader's behaviour towards them.

Im not interested in legitimizing abuse. Do we have anything approaching a reasonable anti c anarchist philosophy here?

Anarchist anti-c is interesting because it acknowledges you can be anti-c without policing young people's behavior. Youthlib anti-c is interesting because it demonstrates MAPs can be anti-c and support young peoples rights. It kills DeYoung's "appeal to higher loyalties" criticism.

I assume you are talking about n/n/i/a (the instance), and there's no problem with mentioning it here. I did redact your claim about their admin's behavior, though, as these need to be sourced whenever they are made afresh. Another group I am part of are actually collecting examples here (Newgon project, not one of Mu). So feel free to email me screens via Yesmap contact (email me first, I'll reply with my address). The other accusations are vague (conservative, really?) and have been made elsewhere, so whatever, just don't make new ones unsupported please. I'm also highly skeptical there is a grooming ring anywhere in MAP Fediverse as implied by people like Erin Holmes and Deadwingdork, or the pro-c stuff about a "cult".

Here is my response to the anti-c youth lib "argument" btw. That initial argument and the opinions of his minor-MAP orbiter were part of the Mu consultation, so will be taken account of when developing our positions. But on a personal basis, I can make very little sense of them. Leftist youthlibs would have to support either discrimination or vigilantism to be anti-c right? Or just be more like you, and not act like morality police.

[FairBlueLove]

I'm strongly anti-c for minors that don't want sex with adults.

Hi! I'm new here, so pardon if some terminology is not yet clear to me... What does it mean being "anti-c for minors that don't want sex with adults"? Being pro-c doesn't involve disrespect for the minors, so, if the minors don't want sex with adults, it is clear to me that pro-c would respect this. As it is in any acceptable adult-adult relationship.
Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of your sentence, in that case I would be glad if you would elucidate further. Thanks!

[Jim Burton]

It is a reference to being what some people call "pro-choice" rather than "pro-contact". Most of the users I interacted with during my time running a Matrix server were of this persuasion, rather than insisting on criminal sexual activity as some anti-c's seemed to be alleging 3 or 4 years ago when there were very few pro-c's in the community.

[Fragment]

I'm strongly anti-c for minors that don't want sex with adults.

Hi! I'm new here, so pardon if some terminology is not yet clear to me... What does it mean being "anti-c for minors that don't want sex with adults"? Being pro-c doesn't involve disrespect for the minors, so, if the minors don't want sex with adults, it is clear to me that pro-c would respect this. As it is in any acceptable adult-adult relationship.
Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of your sentence, in that case I would be glad if you would elucidate further. Thanks!

It was partly tongue-in-cheek. There is still some misunderstanding about what advocates of reforming the law actually believe, especially amongst regular people.

But also, I do feel that some pro-c people are excessively optimistic about the number of minors that are interested in engaging sexually with adults. The pro-c position is clearly anti-abuse, though, you're right.

[FairBlueLove]

It is a reference to being what some people call "pro-choice" rather than "pro-contact". Most of the users I interacted with during my time running a Matrix server were of this persuasion, rather than insisting on criminal sexual activity as some anti-c's seemed to be alleging 3 or 4 years ago when there were very few pro-c's in the community.

Thanks for the clarification. Until now, I thought that pro-c meant pro-contact, as opposed to anti-c = anti-contact. ...The way acronyms get created/evolve is surely not pro-c (where c here means "clarity" ).

[Fragment]

Thanks for the clarification. Until now, I thought that pro-c meant pro-contact, as opposed to anti-c = anti-contact. ...The way acronyms get created/evolve is surely not pro-c (where c here means "clarity" ).

Prior to around 2010 there was no real divide along contact lines so there was no label like pro-c and anti-c. Most communities had a mix of both, but it was just a small part of that individual's ideology (arguably pro-c was more common- most organizations definitely were). "Non-offending MAPs" arose around 2005, argued by people like our own BLueRibbon. After that was the public outreach of anti-cs like at VirPed who made exclusively anti-c organizations where pro-c people weren't welcome. It was around that time that the labels started to be used, but pro-c was a label first used by anti-c people, not pro-cs themselves. At first pro-c people accepted the "pro-contact" label, but over time started to question it because it implies "contact no matter what" or illegality. In order to focus more on the consent and choice of the minor in AMSC (adult-minor sexual contact) pro-c people started to use "choice" or "consent" instead of "contact" for the "c".

At least, that's how I understand the history of the terms.

[BLueRibbon]

Thanks for the clarification. Until now, I thought that pro-c meant pro-contact, as opposed to anti-c = anti-contact. ...The way acronyms get created/evolve is surely not pro-c (where c here means "clarity" ).

Prior to around 2010 there was no real divide along contact lines so there was no label like pro-c and anti-c. Most communities had a mix of both, but it was just a small part of that individual's ideology (arguably pro-c was more common- most organizations definitely were). "Non-offending MAPs" arose around 2005, argued by people like our own BLueRibbon. After that was the public outreach of anti-cs like at VirPed who made exclusively anti-c organizations where pro-c people weren't welcome. It was around that time that the labels started to be used, but pro-c was a label first used by anti-c people, not pro-cs themselves. At first pro-c people accepted the "pro-contact" label, but over time started to question it because it implies "contact no matter what" or illegality. In order to focus more on the consent and choice of the minor in AMSC (adult-minor sexual contact) pro-c people started to use "choice" or "consent" instead of "contact" for the "c".

At least, that's how I understand the history of the terms.

The "non-offending pedophile" thing started in 2006, a year before the MAP terminology. We played around with lots of different terms and ideas back then.