"Fuck the kids in every way but that", or why America is a hypocritical monster

[BLueRibbon]

A major purpose of the 'war on pedophiles' is supposedly the protection of children. Perhaps the most vociferous aggressors in this regard are the USA and the UK. It is therefore not surprising that, earlier this year, tarty Trump fangirl Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla) announced she was to re-introduce a set of bills which would, among other things, "mandate the death penalty or life imprisonment for anyone found guilty of 'producing, distributing, or possessing child pornography". In this article, we will take a depressing look at MAP oppression in America set against the backdrop of wanton disregard for the well-being of children on its own shores and in the countries whose merciless destruction it actively funds and foments.

https://www.map-union.org/perspectives/ ... al-monster

[Fragment]

Hey all, I recently read a bold piece of writing that some of you might have seen:
Fuck the Kids in Every Way But That (or Why America is a Hypocritical Monster)

It's a long, sharp-edged critique of how the U.S. (and to a lesser extent the UK) weaponizes child protection rhetoric—especially around MAP-related issues—while blatantly harming children in other contexts (wars, poverty, immigration raids, school shootings, etc.).

My Take:

• What Works:
  The piece does a fantastic job exposing the double standard: how kids are supposedly "protected" from MAPs with draconian laws while the state happily destroys their lives in other arenas. It links modern moral panics back to the 19th-century "purity crusades," which gives useful historical context. I also appreciate how it connects domestic issues with global atrocities, showing how the U.S. imposes its distorted child-protection narrative worldwide.
• What Feels Risky:
  The aggressive tone is a double-edged sword. Insults like "MAGA whore" and "Trump twink" may resonate with a frustrated audience, but they risk undermining the deeper points for people who might otherwise engage seriously. There's also a risk of conflating state violence (like wars) with personal offenses (like image possession), which is a nuanced philosophical leap that might need more precise framing.
• Philosophical Challenge:
  The piece fully rejects the concept that possession of illegal images harms victims, which is a bold and controversial stance. While it’s valid to challenge overblown revictimization narratives, denying any potential harm—whether symbolic, psychological, or indirect—might alienate those on the fence or wanting a more evidence-based argument. It's a high-risk, high-reward approach.

Final Thoughts:

Overall, I think the core message is powerful: the U.S. (and others) use child protection as a political bludgeon while enabling or committing huge harms elsewhere. That hypocrisy needs to be called out.

BUT... I wonder whether the aggressive style limits the reach of the argument. For MAPs and allies already angry and radicalized, it's cathartic. For outsiders? Probably off-putting.

What do you all think? Did this article resonate with you? Did the tone work for its purpose, or do you think it risks alienating potential allies? Keen to hear your thoughts.