The unfortunate inevitability of political violence

[BLueRibbon]

Unless you live entirely off-grid, or never read the news, you will doubtless have heard about the assassination of Conservative pundit Charlie Kirk. His shooting shocked many around the world, but it didn't surprise me at all. As a MAP, I've seen the extent to which people can be demonized, and how their voices can be drowned out entirely, with both the right and the left more or less equally to blame. When a person feels they have no voice, what are they to do? Many will suffer in silence, perhaps become a recluse. Others will grow bitter, possibly lashing out from time to time. For a very small number of people, the response can be altogether more violent.

In this article, I will discuss political violence in light of the effective collapse of peaceful political participation. I will look at it from both a MAP and non-MAP perspective. It's important to remember that this is a nihilistic philosophical discussion, and I don't want readers actually going out and engaging in political violence. If you feel you may be unable to distinguish between theoretical discussion and a call to action, please do not proceed with this article.

Full article

[Officerkrupke]

Good article Brian.

Ive often thought that we are denied the conditions necessary for free speech and debate: presumption of good faith.

But if you believe being a MAP is inherently dangerous, this leads not to listening openly but guarding against MAPs trying to “groom” you into their POV.

[BLueRibbon]

I was tempted to go into more detail about why MAPs are not dangerous, but... my articles are already long enough, and few people have functional attention spans these days.

Thank you for reading.

[PorcelainLark]

Nonetheless, when every platform in existence bans MAPs' rights to defend themselves publicly, the result is the same as if the state itself had banned their speech. In practice, MAPs have no right to speak.

I think people need to acknowledge social media does in practice function like a public space. Musk was a stopped clock when he talked about that, it a shame someone as emotionally stunted and egotistical as him was the one to push that idea. I don't know what the solution is; publicly owned social media, maybe?

For those who challenge the extreme views of social media communities - whether they be on Facebook, on Reddit, or wherever - a ban can be expected. Actual debates, or even polite discussions, are never had.

They actually rationalize it too. They call it "concern trolling".

In June, a major non-violent protest group called Palestine Action broke into a major British airbase, damaging two military aircraft that were used to support Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people.

The UK has definitely overreached in terms of censoring pro-Palestine protestors, but I don't know if I'd call that example straightforward censorship.

The inability to have healthy debates, and to be listened to, has historically resulted in violence.

Maybe, though social media gives a new option: getting further drawn into a solipsistic bubble detached from the rest of the world.

And yet violence toward them is fine, implicitly endorsed by social media platforms and even the government.
...
MAPs are state-sanctioned non-humans to be hunted with crossbows.

I think this has been getting worse. The younger generations have cavalier attitudes towards everything. Consider the example of Jack Teixeira, he leaked classified documents on his gaming Discord server. I don't know if young people believe in anything or even have moral codes anymore, and when we have people like Trump being one of the most powerful leaders in the world, can anyone really blame them? The best of humanity is sinking, there's only so much selfishness and irresponsibility that you can have before society collapses.

It will inevitably keep happening until the bullying of MAPs ceases, which is quite a pity because the vast majority of MAPs just want to be left alone to live peaceful lives. Indeed, Mu's survey of the MAP community in 2024 revealed that far from being sadistic predators, most MAPs are incredibly kind and gentle toward children, arguably less 'predatorial' than your average adult-attracted man.

I wonder about this. The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are male, and the number of female violent criminals is quite low. If pedophilia is the result of prenatal hormones, maybe lower aggression is hard-wired in pedophiles in a similar way that it seems to be in women? I say this because I feel like if anyone would have a strong motive to do an attack, it would be MAPs; but I can't really think of any examples. Even among the angriest MAPs I've seen online, I don't get the same vibe from them you get when learning about killers.

Ive often thought that we are denied the conditions necessary for free speech and debate: presumption of good faith.

But if you believe being a MAP is inherently dangerous, this leads not to listening openly but guarding against MAPs trying to “groom” you into their POV.

I don't know how you deal with that. Thinking of pedophilia as morally equivalent to cannibalism, torture, or euthanasia is very hard for me to understand. I can understand what it means when you hear something so repugnant that you can't even engage, but I don't see how pedophilia could fit that category; it can't sexuality since that's ubiquitous, so maybe it's denial that minors are interested in sex? Or maybe it really is that people never really got over their shame and guilt about sex; they practice unmarried sex for pleasure, but they feel guilty when minors are interested in the same things?

[Officerkrupke]

I was tempted to go into more detail about why MAPs are not dangerous, but... my articles are already long enough, and few people have functional attention spans these days.

Thank you for reading.

You’re welcome.

On Kirk, I would have expanded on his “free speech” views ,and added that he supported the Professor Watchlist, which has a chilling effect on speech.

[BLueRibbon]

The UK has definitely overreached in terms of censoring pro-Palestine protestors, but I don't know if I'd call that example straightforward censorship.

They're literally dragging people away for holding signs saying they oppose genocide and support a non-violent protest group.

It will inevitably keep happening until the bullying of MAPs ceases, which is quite a pity because the vast majority of MAPs just want to be left alone to live peaceful lives. Indeed, Mu's survey of the MAP community in 2024 revealed that far from being sadistic predators, most MAPs are incredibly kind and gentle toward children, arguably less 'predatorial' than your average adult-attracted man.

I wonder about this. The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are male, and the number of female violent criminals is quite low. If pedophilia is the result of prenatal hormones, maybe lower aggression is hard-wired in pedophiles in a similar way that it seems to be in women? I say this because I feel like if anyone would have a strong motive to do an attack, it would be MAPs; but I can't really think of any examples. Even among the angriest MAPs I've seen online, I don't get the same vibe from them you get when learning about killers.

As a MAP, I have an odd mix of very masculine and very feminine interests, but people would definitely not describe me as feminine. I'm also very aggressive, albeit not violent as an adult.

On Kirk, I would have expanded on his “free speech” views ,and added that he supported the Professor Watchlist, which has a chilling effect on speech.

If you want to write something like this as a response, I can publish it as a guest article.

[PorcelainLark]

They're literally dragging people away for holding signs saying they oppose genocide and support a non-violent protest group.

Sure, but that's not the same thing as "damaging two military aircraft". I mean you could argue it's morally correct, but I don't know if vandalism really counts as an act of free speech.

[BLueRibbon]

They're literally dragging people away for holding signs saying they oppose genocide and support a non-violent protest group.

Sure, but that's not the same thing as "damaging two military aircraft". I mean you could argue it's morally correct, but I don't know if vandalism really counts as an act of free speech.

1. Vandalism is a far cry from mass violence perpetrated against humans or other living creatures. The UK's 'anti-terror' laws were pushed through ostensibly in response to 9/11-level atrocities. The extreme powers afforded by those laws should not apply to property damage.

2. The people holding placards haven't vandalized anything as far as we know. They just held placards supporting Palestine Action due to their broad opposition to the genocide in Gaza. Arresting them for 'terrorism' is absolutely insane.

[PorcelainLark]

If you mean treating holding placards as terrorism is ridiculous, I agree with you. I thought you were talking about censorship and freedom of speech.

1. Vandalism is a far cry from mass violence perpetrated against humans or other living creatures. The UK's 'anti-terror' laws were pushed through ostensibly in response to 9/11-level atrocities. The extreme powers afforded by those laws should not apply to property damage.

I mean you could argue it's morally correct, but I don't know if vandalism really counts as an act of free speech.

2. The people holding placards haven't vandalized anything as far as we know. They just held placards supporting Palestine Action due to their broad opposition to the genocide in Gaza. Arresting them for 'terrorism' is absolutely insane.

In June, a major non-violent protest group called Palestine Action broke into a major British airbase, damaging two military aircraft that were used to support Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people.

The UK has definitely overreached in terms of censoring pro-Palestine protestors, but I don't know if I'd call that example straightforward censorship.

[G@yWad69]

Good article Brian.

Ive often thought that we are denied the conditions necessary for free speech and debate: presumption of good faith.

But if you believe being a MAP is inherently dangerous, this leads not to listening openly but guarding against MAPs trying to “groom” you into their POV.

The stupidist bs the antis ever did was invent the magical concept of grooming which turns regular ass displays of love and affection into a form of “abuse”, worse than brainwashing or manipulation, equivilant in its severity and strength to literal super powered mind control. And on top of THAT, they are now claiming that pedos can even groom GROWN ASS ADULTS. So we can magically mindcontrol not even children, but grown adults as well, and suspicously, we cannot groom people into anything actually useful like grooming people into lowering our rent or freeing us from prison or buying our groceries, but the “grooming” is somehow, by some strange magic, only possible when it can be weaponized by antis to deny any agency or autonomy in anything pedo related.