Average “radical progressive leftist” “””prison abolitinist””””

[G@yWad69]

“Pedophiles should get a 100 year prison sentence without parol and be raped and beaten daily and tortured and expiremented on on the weekends. They should also be rounded up and gassed like what hitler did to the jews. Rapists should be exploited for non stop slave labor. Everyone else who commits a crime should get a ten dollar fine and five minutes timeout.”

Its no surprise that the prison abolition movement isnt taking off. Probably because its hypocritical bullshit virtue signaling and not actually “prison abolitionism” but, “weed should be legalism”. I dont know if actual “prison abolitionists” exist. But so far I have never met a single “woke radical progressive leftist” who actually believes or supports in anything even remotely abolotionist of prison, unless its for the “good crimes” they like like smoking weed and shoplifting makeup from walmart. Lmao ur not a prison abolitionist then, stop lying about being one to virtue signal. Same with “rehabillationists”. They are always like “every human being deserves a second chance and life is better for everyone when rehabillitation is introduced, even for the people you dont like, except for pedophiles and rapists, who should get their arms and legs and dicks chopped off and hung from skewers attached to their spine and used as pinatas at birthday parties, because I dont like them, I am such a good person give me brownie points!”

Whenever I see a so called “prison abolitionists” or “rehabillationist” I just ignore them because I am aware that they are just shitting out their mouths and falsely claiming the title to virtue signal and the only crime they actually believe should have any form of reform done is just smoking weed and Maaaybbeee shoplifting.

[aeterna91]

Yeah, there was a left who maintained a stance of abolishing prisons and was not so hypocritical about sex between adults and minors (for example, Foucault), but it's now extinct. All that remains is what you mention: people willing to defend the harshest penalties for all sexual crimes, whether consensual relations between adults and minors or actual sexual assaults.

Punitive attitudes and puritanism managed to infiltrate the left in this way. Because, at the end of the day, what they have are puritanical values in which they consider sex to be something negative... what bothers them most about sexual assault isn't that it's assault, but that it's sexual. Touching someone's butt without consent seems much more serious to them than punching them in the face and breaking their nose.

However, antipunitivism is still considered a positive value... so we have this huge contradiction, a left that prides itself on being antipunitivist while not being so at all.

Sometimes they try to rationalize it, which is pathetic, because then it's even more contradictory. They end up saying things like “you can't reintegrate sex offenders” when, in reality, the recidivism rate for people convicted of sex crimes is lower than for many other crimes.

[Officerkrupke]

Being to able to rehabilitate all groups of people means ALL groups.

[Not Forever]

Once, I had a discussion with someone who was very close to the idea of "abolishing prisons", and when the conversation turned to pedophiles and rapists, they immediately brought up the death penalty or committing them to asylums, considering them “irrecoverable” people who should never interact with society again, as if they were evil by nature. (I mention evil because they wouldn’t respond this way to crimes committed by mentally ill people.)

Which is "funny", since prisons were originally meant to avoid applying the death penalty for every offense.

For me, prison’s sole purpose should be to reintegrate the person into society—help them study, give them a job and support—but well, that’s just my view.

[BLueRibbon]

This raises an interesting philosophical question.

If MAPs are not treated as actual people, should we be expected to behave like people? Do we have such a moral obligation?

[G@yWad69]

This raises an interesting philosophical question.

If MAPs are not treated as actual people, should we be expected to behave like people? Do we have such a moral obligation?

No, we dont. If we arent humans then we arent obligated to follow human laws or human “morals”.

[G@yWad69]

Conservative: "Children can't understand being gay or transgender, it's just confusion and grooming"
Leftist: "Children can understand attraction and gender, and they are able to determine which one they identify as."
Same leftist after bringing up pedophilia: "Children's brain are too underdeveloped to consent to anything, it's just confusion and grooming"

This is exact example brings up a blinding hypocrisy in the left/lgbt that I genuinely believe, if not confronted(which it wont be because that would be “lItErAl PeDoPhIlLia aNd GrOOmInG”) is what will lead to lgbt rights being removed and becoming illegal again. A big part of the lgbt gaining rights, after betraying MAPs for assimilation of course, was that there sexuality comes from birth and not from “grooming” and that they want nothing do to with kids. But now, they are saying that sexuality DOESNT come from birth and is instead “groomed” into “children” by “pedophiles”, and that attraction to children doesnt count as a sexuality or as gay because in their own words “children arent a gender. So if you are an adult man attracted to boys, that doesnt make you queer because “children arent a gender”, but what they fail to realize is that that directly implies that male children attracted to other male children arent queer because in their own words, “children arent a gender”, and that would mean that only male children attracted to male adults can be queer, but that cant be right either, because children being attracted to adults is “grooming” and children should only be with/into other children. So this logic directly erases the existence of queer children/being “born this way” and implies that queerness is either artficially created once you are 18 or older instead of being a natural inborn and innate characteristic or is a result of “grooming”.

They also say that they want nothing to do with kids because they arent “groomers” and that kids cant have a sexuality and shouldnt be taught about anything related to sexuality by adults or even other kids because they “cant consent” and it is “grooming” and kids are “innocent”, then turn around and bitch and whine about lgbt books being banned and drag queens not being allowed for story time or 18+ pride parades. Oh but-I thought that kids couldnt consent to sexuality right? I thought you said that kids were asexual and aromantic and “innocent” and any expression of sexuality in them, espcially if it involves adults, was a result of “grooming”. And gayness is a sexuality is it not? And children are pure, innocent, and asexual and aromantic, right? Which means if they claim to have a sexuality(which includes being gay or lesbian), by your own logic, it is the result of “grooming” by “pedophiles”, so once again, by your own admission, “queer” children arent really queer and are just “groomed” by “pedophiles”.

And of course, instead of the left/lgbt facing this blinding hypocrisy by admitting that kids ARE naturally sexual beings that CAN CONSENT and are not “ruined forever” if they dare to break away from that pure innocent virgin mold, they double down. They put “minors dni” on everything and make pride parades 18+ or completely sanatize it of anything queer except for maaaybeee handholding or kissing and go hysterical when queer kids do anything acrually, yknow, queer?? Which will save them from “the pedo smear” sure, but directly calls into question the whole “born this way” narrative, because you cant claim that your sexuality is an innate characteristic that you were literally born with then also claim that all lids are “innocenct” and “asexual” and “blank slates” that are incabpe of having a sexuality unless it is “groomed” or “sexualized” into them by “pedophiles”. Now conservatives are asking the queer adults “whos to say that you havent been groomed by pedophiles and thats the only reason your queer? Whos to say that you arent grooming kids into queerness” and they have no answer, except for “I pinky promise its not “grooming”, this doesnt count as “real grooming”. Which is a bullshit defense that makes no sense, because there is no such thing as “real grooming” in the first place, as it is just a weaponized insult to instantly demonize any relationship or activity the moral majority finds “innapropriate”. Which includes not only every MAP relationship, no matter how healthy or loving, but can and WILL include the lgbt and their relationships, as there is no way to completely eliminate children from their sexuality, since children are born with sexuality and they are also legally adopting children now. Banning kids from thier movement and throwing all queer kids and Maps and queer Maps from their movement to avoid being “problamatic” will lead to their downfall and I dont feel bad for them one bit. The conservatives will just keep exapanding thier definition of “grooming” and “pedophillia” and “csa”, and since all these terms are extremely vague and just used as insults in the first place they will technically be 100% correct. And if the left/lgbt dont want to fight back because it would be “problamatic” to “literally normalize pedophillia” then all that they have worked for will collapse and I wont feel bad for them one bit

[G@yWad69]

Conservative: "Children can't understand being gay or transgender, it's just confusion and grooming"
Leftist: "Children can understand attraction and gender, and they are able to determine which one they identify as."
Same leftist after bringing up pedophilia: "Children's brain are too underdeveloped to consent to anything, it's just confusion and grooming"

This is exact example brings up a blinding hypocrisy in the left/lgbt that I genuinely believe, if not confronted(which it wont be because that would be “lItErAl PeDoPhIlLia aNd GrOOmInG”) is what will lead to lgbt rights being removed and becoming illegal again. A big part of the lgbt gaining rights, after betraying MAPs for assimilation of course, was that there sexuality comes from birth and not from “grooming” and that they want nothing do to with kids. But now, they are saying that sexuality DOESNT come from birth and is instead “groomed” into “children” by “pedophiles”, and that attraction to children doesnt count as a sexuality or as gay because in their own words “children arent a gender. So if you are an adult man attracted to boys, that doesnt make you queer because “children arent a gender”, but what they fail to realize is that that directly implies that male children attracted to other male children arent queer because in their own words, “children arent a gender”, and that would mean that only male children attracted to male adults can be queer, but that cant be right either, because children being attracted to adults is “grooming” and children should only be with/into other children. So this logic directly erases the existence of queer children/being “born this way” and implies that queerness is either artficially created once you are 18 or older instead of being a natural inborn and innate characteristic or is a result of “grooming”.

They also say that they want nothing to do with kids because they arent “groomers” and that kids cant have a sexuality and shouldnt be taught about anything related to sexuality by adults or even other kids because they “cant consent” and it is “grooming” and kids are “innocent”, then turn around and bitch and whine about lgbt books being banned and drag queens not being allowed for story time or 18+ pride parades. Oh but-I thought that kids couldnt consent to sexuality right? I thought you said that kids were asexual and aromantic and “innocent” and any expression of sexuality in them, espcially if it involves adults, was a result of “grooming”. And gayness is a sexuality is it not? And children are pure, innocent, and asexual and aromantic, right? Which means if they claim to have a sexuality(which includes being gay or lesbian), by your own logic, it is the result of “grooming” by “pedophiles”, so once again, by your own admission, “queer” children arent really queer and are just “groomed” by “pedophiles”.

And of course, instead of the left/lgbt facing this blinding hypocrisy by admitting that kids ARE naturally sexual beings that CAN CONSENT and are not “ruined forever” if they dare to break away from that pure innocent virgin mold, they double down. They put “minors dni” on everything and make pride parades 18+ or completely sanatize it of anything queer except for maaaybeee handholding or kissing and go hysterical when queer kids do anything acrually, yknow, queer?? Which will save them from “the pedo smear” sure, but directly calls into question the whole “born this way” narrative, because you cant claim that your sexuality is an innate characteristic that you were literally born with then also claim that all lids are “innocenct” and “asexual” and “blank slates” that are incabpe of having a sexuality unless it is “groomed” or “sexualized” into them by “pedophiles”. Now conservatives are asking the queer adults “whos to say that you havent been groomed by pedophiles and thats the only reason your queer? Whos to say that you arent grooming kids into queerness” and they have no answer, except for “I pinky promise its not “grooming”, this doesnt count as “real grooming”. Which is a bullshit defense that makes no sense, because there is no such thing as “real grooming” in the first place, as it is just a weaponized insult to instantly demonize any relationship or activity the moral majority finds “innapropriate”. Which includes not only every MAP relationship, no matter how healthy or loving, but can and WILL include the lgbt and their relationships, as there is no way to completely eliminate children from their sexuality, since children are born with sexuality and they are also legally adopting children now. Banning kids from thier movement and throwing all queer kids and Maps and queer Maps from their movement to avoid being “problamatic” will lead to their downfall and I dont feel bad for them one bit. The conservatives will just keep exapanding thier definition of “grooming” and “pedophillia” and “csa”, and since all these terms are extremely vague and just used as insults or are arbritrary legal terms not based in actual reality in the first place they will technically be 100% correct. And if the left/lgbt dont want to fight back because it would be “problamatic” to “literally normalize pedophillia” then all that they have worked for will collapse and I wont feel bad for them one bit

[ironic_clarity]

i'm a leftist, against the death penalty, and against prisons. i believe crime can be heavily mitigated as a social problem with social safety nets designed to make living easier for people. prisons are by and large a form of retributive justice. in a just world, such a thing would not need to exist. rehabilitation is not the goal of prisons, punishment is the goal. in the cases of people who do not want help, something does have to be done, but it doesn't have to be a concrete chamber with iron bars. death penalty and decade-long imprisonment does not prevent crime. social support prevents crime.

doesn't matter what the crime is, rehabilitation is possible without prison cells.

pro-para leftists exist, and i'm far from the only one. also, i'm not interested in debating what a post-prison society would look like (it's a waste of time for me to do so), i just wanted to refute the idea that someone could actually have the views i do.

[John_Doe]

Yep, bring up pedophilia and watch most "radical progressive leftists" instantly turn into hardcore conservatives. It's like magic.

Conservative: "Degenerates should be locked away"
Leftist: "The prison industrial complex is modern slavery and I believe in rehabilitation rather than punishment"
Same leftist after bringing up pedophilia: "These degenerates should be locked away"

Conservative: "Gay people should get help to cure their mental illness"
Leftist: "Conversion therapy is torture. You can't change someone's sexuality and trying to do so is unethical."
Same leftist after bringing up pedophilia: "They should get help to cure their mental illness"

Conservative: "Children can't understand being gay or transgender, it's just confusion and grooming"
Leftist: "Children can understand attraction and gender, and they are able to determine which one they identify as."
Same leftist after bringing up pedophilia: "Children's brain are too underdeveloped to consent to anything, it's just confusion and grooming"

There are probably a ton more exemples possible using this format. In fact I think the above could be used as an effective meme format by MAPs activists.

I think this was well said. With the first point I think the contradiction is less likely to lie in wanting prison for some but not others but in opposing prison for anyone while encouraging some kind of punitive treatment in other ways (so it's not just about harm reduction. I can remember many, many years ago someone arguing for prison abolition and saying that the community has other ways of exacting justice, i.e. mob violence, so the opposition to prison isn't necessarily rooted in compassion for prisoners, never mind all prospective prisoners, alone).

However, antipunitivism is still considered a positive value... so we have this huge contradiction, a left that prides itself on being antipunitivist while not being so at all.

Sometimes they try to rationalize it, which is pathetic, because then it's even more contradictory. They end up saying things like “you can't reintegrate sex offenders” when, in reality, the recidivism rate for people convicted of sex crimes is lower than for many other crimes.

I've never understood how some Christians will downplay the idea of loving your enemy, loving thy neighbor, charity, forgiveness, mercy, etc. If you knew nothing about Christianity and heard some Christians talk you would never in a million years make the connection between the religion they're talking about and much of what Jesus said (I'm not explaining myself well but it's felt surreal to me at times when someone would bring this up and the response would be something like, "actually, it's a common myth that Jesus was all about love and compassion etc. etc." No, it isn't. It's true that Christianity can't be boiled down to 'love others' alone, there is the concept of sin and Jesus/God is judgmental toward it, but Christians are supposed to have a 'love the sinner, hate the sin' attitude and leave rightful punishment up to God, who still loves and cares for the people he punishes (or allows to be sent to hell, if you want to frame that as just a consequence of separation from God that they brought on to themselves) because the idea is that justice demands it, but the whole revolution that came with the New Testament seems to imply that he doesn't hate those people, it seems more so that duty calls him to punish them). We will always rationalize away our inconsistencies because we're emotional creatures, so I think that's true for every ideological group.

With leftism (which I disagree with on principle, what I understand to be 'leftism,' it's not just that individual leftists can be inconsistent with their ideals but what the ideals themselves seem to be; and I think that they are internally inconsistent) it seems that the emphasis is on compassion for the perceived underdog (more precisely, perceived underdog groups) and not just a universal humanism (i.e. compassion for people of color and the working class and low income people but less so for white men who are white collar criminals or who come from a financially privileged background unless maybe they commit some kind of anti-conservative political violence but then that's not a matter of 'forgiveness' or trying to figure out why they've done what they've done and how it's ultimately the result of society having failed them because we're incentivized to 'humanize' them and see them as patients).

I don't want to elaborate on this right now (it might be somewhat off-topic although it relates to leftist inconsistency) but I've always thought that the preoccupation with homosexuality was shallow when the same people who champion the lgbt might generally have nothing to say about incestuous couples (who don't plan on reproducing and are even in the same age-group), non-active pedophiles, they might shame men for their sexuality (for consuming pornography, expressing attraction to women in scenarios where doing so is harmless and I don't just mean in terms of outward expression but the private sexualization of women that it reveals, obviously age-gap relationships between men and younger women are taboo and I suspect that many people would care less if we were talking about older men with younger men and even less so with older women and younger men, etc.) or in general don't necessarily have a 'love is beautiful, love is love' attitude (e.g. they might be judgmental about someone who has a crush on someone other than their spouse; which I understand in the context of the monogamous ideal but the point is there are limits or conditions on when 'love' is ok, or they might criticize someone for being attracted to this or that individual person for whatever reasons because they can't connect it to the marginalization of a visible group, etc.). There's almost never this sense, as far as I can tell, that it's never inappropriate to be attracted to absolutely anyone. I've never really understood why gay people are so special (I mean no disrespect, it's just that it seems more about supporting a visible protected class than consistently applying a principle that justifies destigmatizing homosexuality to sexual ethics in general. I'm all for gay representation in the media but you're probably never going to see, again, a consensual incestuous relationship between adults or a virtuous non-active pedophile, or some taboo relationship that is mutually desired by both partners or even just someone with an attraction to someone they're not supposed to be attracted to who never pursues a relationship with them for whatever reasons. The latter exists to some degree, 'the forbidden love' theme, but only up until a point). I'm not sure if this is the thread for that.