Arguments in favor of extremist labels

[Jim Burton]

Some people in our community employ deliberately extreme labeling.

While I don't agree with this as a strategy (normies are too dumb to gauge it correctly, MAPs too dumb to pitch it perfectly), I brainstormed arguments for this approach.

https://www.boychat.org/messages/1629180.htm

Do we have any more arguments supporting the use of extreme, depraved and politically militant self-identifiers by MAPs?

[BLueRibbon]

Extremist ideologies work well only when there is no 'victim'.

In the case of gays, their behavior was considered gross and deviant, but there was never a 'victim' or a potential victim.

When extreme ideologies lead to victims, such as violent attacks committed by radical Muslims, these ideologies become harmful to the movement.

When people joke about being 'proud kidfuckers', it has the same menacing implication.

"We're here, we're queer!" has one kind of impact.

"We're here, we're going to rape your kid in his sleep!" has.... another kind of impact.

[Non Name]

What's so menacing about "kidfucker"? Sure, it's crass and I wouldn't use it to describe myself but it doesn't automatically imply rape. I understand that it will be seen as synonymous with "kiddie rapist" by mainstream culture, but that's exactly the attitude we need to be changing. If paedophiles begin owning the label "kidfucker" and reject the label "kiddie rapist" this might lead to a decoupling of the two terms and a more honest discussion about adult-child relationships.

[Fragment]

What's so menacing about "kidfucker"?

Gay activists didn't lead the fight for decriminalization of sodomy by talking about all the "anal fucking" they wanted to do. People don't want to think too much about sex that they find unappealing. The recently growing backlash against Pride parades is how "in your face" the sexual aspect is. Focusing on the "fucking" puts the more coarse parts of our sexuality at the forefront. Plus it's just not accurate for all MAPs- there are many MAPs that are more interested in non-penetrative forms of sexual expression.

There are, of course, many MAPs who are aroused by the idea of penetrative sex with minors. It'd be stupid to try to deny that. But there are framings that can get attention for the right reasons and framings that can get attention for the wrong reasons. Slogans that make people think and slogans that make people mad.

It's a fine line to walk and I don't think anyone is suggesting that all MAPs need to present as sexless prudes, just that we should think carefully about how certain messages will be received and how others will react.

[Jim Burton]

"We're here, we're queer!" has one kind of impact.

"We're here, we're going to rape your kid in his sleep!" has.... another kind of impact.

Interesting you should say that, because "We're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children" was literally adopted by gays as an ironic catchphrase. They might not have been aiming to be perceived as molesters, but they were certainly trying to use the slogan as extremist visibility engineering. It was being used as a bait.

[Fragment]

Interesting you should say that, because "We're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children" was literally adopted by gays as an ironic catchphrase. They might not have been aiming to be perceived as molesters, but they were certainly trying to use the slogan as extremist visibility engineering. It was being used as a bait.

I feel that the ironic use only came after most of society had reached the conclusion that gays, in fact, were not trying to convert their children. It took decades of denying preying on children before they could come to that point. The choir group that used it knew that only a very small percent of the population would take what they said seriously (and it likely backfired more than even they expected given the right of the alt-right).

There might come a day when a MAP can ironically joke about sexual contact with minors in a public space. I feel we're still a long way from that point, though.

[WandersGlade]

Kind of reminds me of the way mrgirl approaches things, i.e. some things are so uncomfortable you can get around them, so you just embrace all the negative expressions and images people have of something.
Take for example, his song "I'm a Pedophile", it embraces every misconception people had of him to the extreme.
https://fstube.net/w/1vpJp2Vnm6udLx1sg92hkM

However, as cathartic as that is, I'm not sure it actually works because you aren't actually challenging what people believe. Plus it may blur the line between active and non-active pedophiles (however, I think if you're pro-contact, I think logically speaking that line shouldn't matter, but it's a massive risk not just because of potential legal liability, also letting your community descend into nihilism/anarchism and the problems which come with that, but I digress).
Maybe embracing the expression "we're coming for your kids" only works because there's a much higher level of acceptance of LGBT people than of MAPs. Maybe if there were more open MAPs, it would be easier for them to detect the irony because they'd know us personally.