MAP Forum

• Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.
• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give homosexual protectors a just cause (to exploit the sense of fairness).
• Make gays look good.
• Make the victimizers look bad.
• Get funds from corporate America.

>Portray kinds as victims:

Kinds must be portrayed as victims of nature, not people who willingly choose their attraction. Who would actually choose to be part of the world’s most hated group anyway? As far as you know, you were born kind and cannot change it. Efforts at “therapy” must be considered harmful and damaging to your identity. Frequently compare it to bleaching blacks or reformation camps. Currently the social orthodoxy is “get them the help they need before they hurt anyone”. You must change this to “thinking they need help is offensive because they aren’t hurting anyone.” By appearing as victims, the majority is instinctively inclined to protect and defend.

>>Strategies For Acceptance: Linguistic

He who controls language controls the debate. Why do you think transpeople insist you use their preferred pronouns? It’s not just semantics, the words you use are *vitally* important and the pedophobe knows this, which is why she often screams about “rape”, “predators” “abuse”, “molestation” and “exploitation” in situations which obviously don’t warrant such terms. Even sneakier is the use of the words “victim” and “survivor”, which imply that most children die from sex.

Call out these verbally violent attacks and shut them down before they get off the ground. They are entirely baseless and offensive- plus they cross the line into hate speech done with intent to defame and attack a minority. Especially when the term “predator” is used, you can joke that kinds want to eat children for dinner and gobble them up. Getting everyone laughing at how ridiculous these people sound will help immeasurably. The only way to do that is through satirical video.

Luckily, we have some “power words” we can use for ourselves.

“Kind” is the most important one, because it has positive connotations while “pedoph***” does not. This is the main reason why gays pushed so hard for people to start using “gay” instead of homosexual, and we need to push even harder. P*do or any of it’s variations must be treated as a slur.

“Pedosexual” is the second most important powerword. Once people get over it’s initial novelty it will cement the fact that pedosexuality is an inborn orientation and cannot change.

“Childhood sexual freedom” is an alternative way of framing the debate, and one that will lead to more success. Instead of looking it at from the perspective of the adult, view things from a child’s perspective. You can then attack pedophobic logic as “ageist” and make fun of bigots for claiming children are too stupid to understand their own bodies. The genius of this approach is that it turns pedophobia into an attack on children’s intelligence, not kinds- which is closer to the word’s original meaning anyway. “Scared of what children are capable of, are you?” “You aren’t the one who gets to make that choice. It’s not your body..”

“Child Victimizer” is the powerword you should use against most of the gauntlet pedophobes throw at kinds on a daily basis. The catch is that *pedophobes* are child victimizers. CVs don’t care about children, only using them as political tools to fuel their self-righteous moral outrage. They take “think of the children” too far and start thinking *for* them while denying their voices.

“Sex Oppressor” can be used in a joking manner to call out those who sincerely believe in juvenile panic switch theory.

“Adult-child sex” must be used in place of the inappropriate term “sex abuse” because it devalues the term. Child rape should be used to denote abusive instances of ACS.

Avoid calling them victims or survivors. Use neutral terminology such as “adults” or “children”.

When it comes to rights, “children’s rights” sounds a bit dishonest (although it’s true), so “kind rights”, “body equality”, “bodily autonomy” “sex freedom/liberation” or even plein ol’ “sex-postivity” should be used instead. Turn the tables and use emotional language to label your enemies. Words like “intolerant”, “childish”, “ageist”, “backwards” , “bigoted” , “prejudiced” , “ignorant” , “hateful”, “hypocritical”, “oppressive”, “maniacal”, “stone age” and similar paint a vivid mental picture. Present your opinion as “common-sense”, “modern”, “21st-century”, “progressive”,”love-affirming” “compassionate”, “provocative”, “liberating” and the like.

Language frames a debate and puts it in a human context. Master it or it will master you.

Fragment wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 1:22 pm https://www.boywiki.org/en/(Boylove_Ess ... st_Century

Has anyone read this essay from 2015? Whether it was written by a troll or a MAP has not been confirmed but it is still an interest read with potentially useful strategic ideas for MAPs.

It's largely based on "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer It's Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90's", a book written in 1989 that highlighted the path to assimilation for gay and lesbian people. I think the LGBT community was already following the trajectory laid out when the book was written, many states had already legalized sodomy. Homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disorder. 47% thought gay sex should be legal with only 36% thinking it shouldn't be legal. But it was still far from the level of acceptance today and there was still a lot of work to do in confronting homophobia. Looking back, the path plotted in the book seems to have mostly been successful. Namely:

• Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.
• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give homosexual protectors a just cause (to exploit the sense of fairness).
• Make gays look good.
• Make the victimizers look bad.
• Get funds from corporate America.

How far these can be applied to MAPs is, as usual, suspect. The lack of AAMs fighting alongside us will always be our biggest challenge- confronting accusations of us being self-interested at the expense of children. A framing that doesn't focus on that is important. I think the "victim" narrative is important there and something that the VirPed generation slightly misfired on. Rather than being seen as "victims" they ended up being seen as "monsters that are working hard not to be monsters". "I'm not a perpetrator... but I could be if I stopped controlling myself" was kind of the message that ended up being conveyed to a lot of people. Rather than focusing on the lack of offending, the focus needs to be more on how MAPs are being offended against. When someone says "I think all p***s should be locked up to protect the children" we should never say "I can understand how you feel like that", we should call them out on their oppressor attitude.

Fragment wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 1:22 pm The lack of AAMs fighting alongside us will always be our biggest challenge- confronting accusations of us being self-interested at the expense of children. A framing that doesn't focus on that is important.

Fragment wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 1:22 pm I think the "victim" narrative is important there and something that the VirPed generation slightly misfired on. Rather than being seen as "victims" they ended up being seen as "monsters that are working hard not to be monsters". "I'm not a perpetrator... but I could be if I stopped controlling myself" was kind of the message that ended up being conveyed to a lot of people. Rather than focusing on the lack of offending, the focus needs to be more on how MAPs are being offended against.