MAP Forum

I would like to discus some hypocrisy i repeatedly see (how original i know). I am writing about how activists when they see someone who supports their political beliefs they see no problem with it; example Greta Thunberg, who only really saw push back about "their a kid their opinion doesn't matter" from detractors of climate activism. Many youth LGBT activists are praised for being so well educated and just are seen as well obviously the youth should have their opinions not be criticized for being too young, but then ironically enough, when the youth says something that the general left disagree with, they argue that the youth is being brainwashed. I just find it insane they dont see hypocrisy of their actions. Myself I think no matter your age as long as your arguments are strong and logically consistent you should be able to argue them.

I have encountered similar cases of hypocrisy, and not necessarily only toward activists who take the “wrong” positions, but also toward those who fail to meet expectations—those activists who have an idea but lack sufficiently solid arguments to support it, and instead of criticizing the individual, blame is placed on their age.

As if there were no people in their thirties or forties whose ideas are supported in an equally vague and incomplete way, or as if there were no young people capable of presenting a logical, coherent, and well-founded line of reasoning.

I can still understand criticism when it is directed at an eight-year-old child whose worldview is filtered through their parents (which does not mean it should be invalidated, but rather that they can be given new information to help change that worldview). But when we are talking about people who attend university… no. They have the tools; if they do not use them, it is simply due to lack of interest or because they have social motivations for engaging in activism. (And there is nothing wrong with that—many things are done for social reasons; people who truly spend their entire lives deeply engaging with a single subject are rare.)

Adults only use youth activism when it benefits their populist organizations. They allow them to speak at the UN and other public venues. Critics use their age to accuse them of incompetence. But no one says their standard mantra that "their brain is not yet developed and they are not able to understand" promoted things. When young people say anything non-negative about inter-age sex, they are brainwashed into thinking they have been taken groomed and deceived. Real groomers are social workers, they gain trust and instill "approved beliefs" . In the past, racism and homophobia were "approved beliefs" , and young people adopted them from their adult parents as "normal behavior model". Now, condemnation of inter-genaration relationship is considered "normal model".

These are the very things that traumatize people emotionally. Not being taken seriously because they're not the age of consent. People learn that their opinions don't matter and so they don't speak up when they should.

Not Forever wrote: Sat Dec 20, 2025 2:37 pm I have encountered similar cases of hypocrisy, and not necessarily only toward activists who take the “wrong” positions, but also toward those who fail to meet expectations—those activists who have an idea but lack sufficiently solid arguments to support it, and instead of criticizing the individual, blame is placed on their age.

As if there were no people in their thirties or forties whose ideas are supported in an equally vague and incomplete way, or as if there were no young people capable of presenting a logical, coherent, and well-founded line of reasoning.

I can still understand criticism when it is directed at an eight-year-old child whose worldview is filtered through their parents (which does not mean it should be invalidated, but rather that they can be given new information to help change that worldview). But when we are talking about people who attend university… no. They have the tools; if they do not use them, it is simply due to lack of interest or because they have social motivations for engaging in activism. (And there is nothing wrong with that—many things are done for social reasons; people who truly spend their entire lives deeply engaging with a single subject are rare.)

Eight- year-olds do have their own views. Why are disrespecting them saying they are influenced by their parents. I watch music performances from artists that age. Please don't say that you think that they were forced by their parents.

DANAT4T wrote: Mon Feb 09, 2026 12:00 pmEight- year-olds do have their own views. Why are disrespecting them saying they are influenced by their parents. I watch music performances from artists that age. Please don't say that you think that they were forced by their parents.

We are all influenced by the environment around us—I am right now, you are right now—and I have never considered the (inevitable) influence that every person experiences, without which we wouldn’t have opinions about anything (we would live in a vacuum, unable to process any thought), as something that invalidates a person’s opinion. We are machines that reprocess information.

What I was talking about is the filtering of information that people usually experience through their parents, from things like parental controls to deciding who they are or aren’t allowed to spend time with, and so on.

Not Forever wrote: Mon Feb 09, 2026 1:13 pm

DANAT4T wrote: Mon Feb 09, 2026 12:00 pmEight- year-olds do have their own views. Why are disrespecting them saying they are influenced by their parents. I watch music performances from artists that age. Please don't say that you think that they were forced by their parents.

We are all influenced by the environment around us—I am right now, you are right now—and I have never considered the (inevitable) influence that every person experiences, without which we wouldn’t have opinions about anything (we would live in a vacuum, unable to process any thought), as something that invalidates a person’s opinion. We are machines that reprocess information.

What I was talking about is the filtering of information that people usually experience through their parents, from things like parental controls to deciding who they are or aren’t allowed to spend time with, and so on.

Machines? Hell yes! I could create a machine army of nymphets to fight the establishment. They will have aesthetics of young girls and the physical strength of adult men. The powers of the corporate state will be destroyed.

Unrequited_lesbian wrote: Sat Dec 20, 2025 6:56 am I would like to discus some hypocrisy i repeatedly see (how original i know). I am writing about how activists when they see someone who supports their political beliefs they see no problem with it; example Greta Thunberg, who only really saw push back about "their a kid their opinion doesn't matter" from detractors of climate activism. Many youth LGBT activists are praised for being so well educated and just are seen as well obviously the youth should have their opinions not be criticized for being too young, but then ironically enough, when the youth says something that the general left disagree with, they argue that the youth is being brainwashed. I just find it insane they dont see hypocrisy of their actions. Myself I think no matter your age as long as your arguments are strong and logically consistent you should be able to argue them.

i think it all comes down to these hypocrites seeking to meta-defend the small "foothold" they've FINALLY obtained by claiming their Turf with which-ever ideology they've managed to find some semblance of meaningful community in. THAT'S why they are so quickly hysterical or knee-jerk!

You're also dealing with a Society SWAMPED in rhetorical devices such as propaganda (basically, thought management). And then the war-centric meta-game and the values that come with that (Note: Not a good idea to openly discuss the "meta-game", said R.D. Laing, whom i borrowed it from; basically because N.American Society is at heart, very much like Israel (or, if you read Franz Fanon, Africa from the point of view of the non-African settlers) today: A Settler Society.

Where you (no matter what age) are to be First Ignored, then Laughed At, then ATTACKED. And if you can survive this kind of bullshit, you might find yourself being Accepted (as long as your group is viewed as having a 'useful' constituency --in the interests of the Vanguard).

So with LGBTQ youth, you now get privileges in this regard. The Left vanguard, say, in Amy Goodman and her "Democracy Now!" Show will deal with you with "kid gloves". But if you were a teenager marching with NAMBLA back in the late 1980s, you would be allowed NO SUCH PRIVILEGE.

i bet others, if they sidestand me at all, could give better examples. Anyone?

Not Forever wrote: Mon Feb 09, 2026 1:13 pm What I was talking about is the filtering of information that people usually experience through their parents, from things like parental controls to deciding who they are or aren’t allowed to spend time with, and so on.

I agree with you to a point. I think it depends on the culture. Before the advent of 'Nuclear' families (2 parents and two kids), we had Extended families (and more meaningful involvement with the wider surrounding village). That means that very young people were influenced by a wider variety of people in their lives, generally speaking.

Wanted to point this out in case others here are not so familiar with the pressured Norms that N.Americans take for granted. Making sense to you?

anarchist of love wrote: Thu Feb 12, 2026 5:17 amMaking sense to you?

Yes, my point implicitly assumed a somewhat modern and paranoid way of doing things, where the few adults someone encounters are their own parents and perhaps an occasional grandparent or uncle on the weekends, coupled with the fear of letting the child leave the house. But at the same time, there’s the fear that they might see something inappropriate on TV. The fear that they might have friends with a bad influence. The fear that they might read or watch something on the internet that could lead them to antisocial behavior. In short, I had implicitly assumed the worst-case scenario in terms of socialization and learning.