MAP Forum

Do we sometimes over compensate and expect more hate than we actually receive?

Over a 15 year+ period, I've contributed to blogs, forums, I've spoken out on social media (not recently, I left social media a few years ago) and I've never received actual hate towards me for being a map. I've had people disagree with me, I've had people genuinely interested, I've engaged in discussions with people, but I've never had anyone outright threaten or attack me. There was one time, on a parenting forum where someone launched into me for talking about it but other people leapt to my defense, overwhelmingly people came to my defense which really surprised me, considering it was a parenting forum. That was something like 7 or 8 years ago.

The problem I have is that because I've been out there online talking about map issues and haven't been attacked, I can feel over confident, I think that's a danger I have to look out for. Just because I've had positive experiences so far, doesn't mean I won't run into that one nutter tomorrow.

I've also talked to some non-maps in person and not once has it gone a way as to make me feel in danger or anything, at worst I've been asked to change the subject, at best I've had people show genuine curiosity.

So my question is this. Do we over compensate and expect the worst from people when in fact most people just are not inclined to attack or be unreasonable? Are we using the impression from a tiny minority of loud anti's shake our perspective and drive us into our shells when really most people are more reachable than we expect?

It might be how I approach them, how I raise the subjects since I'm not militant and don't go in head on.

One thing many MAPs worry about unnecessarily is being accused of being a MAP just for obviously liking kids.

Most people, including westerners, think it's nice or at worst amusing that I like children so much.

BLueRibbon wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 3:36 pm One thing many MAPs worry about unnecessarily is being accused of being a MAP just for obviously liking kids.

Most people, including westerners, think it's nice or at worst amusing that I like children so much.

I think you are right. I've done that myself before, avoided kids intentionally, paranoid that I'll look like a map, but then when I do interact with kids, parents love it because I'm entertaining their kid. Same in reverse, when our kids were very young we worried more that they would be a nuisance to others such as other diners. I remember one time in a restaurant an older guy in there came across and commented on our daughters dress and how nice it is to see her running around having fun. He asked to take her over to a machine in a play section of the restaurant so he could get her one of the toys in an egg from the machine. My wife was more than happy, she was just relieved that she wasn't causing a nuisance so she could enjoy her meal.

CantChainTheSpirit wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 2:56 pm [...] Do we over compensate and expect the worst from people when in fact most people just are not inclined to attack or be unreasonable? Are we using the impression from a tiny minority of loud anti's shake our perspective and drive us into our shells when really most people are more reachable than we expect?

It might be how I approach them, how I raise the subjects since I'm not militant and don't go in head on.

Yes, antis are a loud minority (along with others who get their income via MAP persecution). But most people are just dealing with their own problems, trying to survive, and they don't obsess about hating MAPs 24-7. I mean, sure, they've been exposed to the propaganda, but you never know how deeply brainwashed someone is until talking with them.

Context also matters. The way you approach things, the environment, etc. If you are just talking with someone one-on-one, that might be different than if you're in an environment where people can gang up on you. There can always be that psycho who spazzes out on you unexpectedly, so you need to be prepared for that. Aside from that, MAPs should use some basic social skills. Some people do not want to discuss this topic, and you can make it worse by pressing on after someone asked you to change the subject.

Antis are a bit like obnoxious 'radical feminists.' Loud and vocal across social media, but people will start to tire of their hateful hypocrisy. And remember, there was a time when it was very controversial to criticise such a feminist, because you would be seen as a sexist or mysoginist. And people were often banned from social media for criticising feminists (who were pulling fire alarms and posting 'Kill All Men'). We are in a similar era where it is not really permitted to criticise an anti without backlash, but a lot of people want to. And a lot of popular tech influencers are gaining traction with their criticism of bogus 'online child safety' laws. So we could be entering an era where it's kind of edgy and subversive to criticise antis and the surveillance state around this Paedo Panic 2.0.

OnionPetal wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 8:39 pm Yes, antis are a loud minority (along with others who get their income via MAP persecution). But most people are just dealing with their own problems, trying to survive, and they don't obsess about hating MAPs 24-7. I mean, sure, they've been exposed to the propaganda, but you never know how deeply brainwashed someone is until talking with them.

Context also matters. The way you approach things, the environment, etc. If you are just talking with someone one-on-one, that might be different than if you're in an environment where people can gang up on you. There can always be that psycho who spazzes out on you unexpectedly, so you need to be prepared for that. Aside from that, MAPs should use some basic social skills. Some people do not want to discuss this topic, and you can make it worse by pressing on after someone asked you to change the subject.

Antis are a bit like obnoxious 'radical feminists.' Loud and vocal across social media, but people will start to tire of their hateful hypocrisy. And remember, there was a time when it was very controversial to criticise such a feminist, because you would be seen as a sexist or mysoginist. And people were often banned from social media for criticising feminists (who were pulling fire alarms and posting 'Kill All Men'). We are in a similar era where it is not really permitted to criticise an anti without backlash, but a lot of people want to. And a lot of popular tech influencers are gaining traction with their criticism of bogus 'online child safety' laws. So we could be entering an era where it's kind of edgy and subversive to criticise antis and the surveillance state around this Paedo Panic 2.0.

Yes, I've been in situations where there's been the one loud anti who's just annoyed everyone since they're happy to have a civilised conversation then the one anti pipes up and ends up driving everyone against him.

I think approach is important, I never go in with a heavy agenda and I don't focus on the sex part of sexuality. I tend to focus on maps being ordinary people with ordinary lives, good people just trying to get on with their life, most people can relate to that. Or if talking about young people, I tend to use terms like young people rather than children, and again focus on youth rights and remembering our own youth.

It's just putting things into a context people can relate to and not pushing a heavy agenda where it's not welcome.

I think people say very mean things about MAPs because they don't know any personally. If they discovered their best friend, their own brother or partner were MAPs it would be different and maybe would change their mind. We hate what we can't understand.

I think there's an intersectionality component to it. The people online who've been attacked are generally trans women, the antis usually cishet men who see themselves as allies of the queer community. One of the hobbies I can manage while being busy is listening to podcasts, and from one about the history of religious identity and the sociology behind it mentioned that smaller, marginalized groups tend to have much stricter mores and codes, partly out of a fear of outside infiltration or subversion, and partly out of needing to project a good or strong image to larger groups or those with more power. It really depends a lot on how visibly queer you are and what circles you run in socially, and if you're from a racial group viewed as violent in stereotypical depictions. MAPs also get painted with the incel brush by a lot of people, so fatphobia likes to rear its head. Bigger looking men can be seen as scarier, and disgust towards fat women is a pretty big deal in society, and trans women MAPs get hit with an additional one two punch from those perceptions.

The kinds of people you're around impact it too. I currently don't feel safe enough to do community activism without accidentally outing myself because of how tuned in a lot of socially left-leaning spaces are to anything MAP-related. Meanwhile, everyday centrists and even conservatives are busy scrutinizing themselves for every abnormal thing about themselves or looking for a general picture when dealing with people, so if you only have one token 'odd' thing about you you're probably not setting off their radar. When it comes to hate, I think it's less damaging to step on a 'bed of nails' bigot than a rail spike of an anti, so most folks can probably let down their guard some.

harrydubois666 wrote: Wed May 06, 2026 9:42 pm I think people say very mean things about MAPs because they don't know any personally. If they discovered their best friend, their own brother or partner were MAPs it would be different and maybe would change their mind. We hate what we can't understand.

No man disagree, most people would be disgusted and cut contact and maybe even out the guy. The general population of brain rotted retards imo....are so ignorant they are evil.