Pedophilia in SocJus Circles

Personal screed to help vent a little

For however many years, there’s been attempts to normalizing pedophilia, but recently with the increase of progressive Newspeak there’s seemed to be an increase of defenders of pedophilia and pedophiles. This became a major topic of conversation, at least in some circles, when Todd Nickerson wrote his piece for Salon I’m a pedophile, but not a monster”. Following the outcry against this pedophile (or Minor Attracted Person as he describes himself) for defending his ‘sexuality’, there were a slew of responses such as from the National Review that defended the piece.

The first few times I saw people defending pedophiles I thought it was just some freak occurrences. Like when Polygon’s Ben Kuchera wrote on a web forum “Pedophilia isn’t a moral wrong, its societal. Your society says its wrong, there’s does not. Why get upset about it?”. On a certain level this could be said to be true, on another it could be said to be beyond sick, depraved and devoid of any sense of humanity. What is truly disturbing though, is that his stance is not uncommon.

When Christopher/Sarah Nyberg was outed as being, or at least having been, a pedophile by Breitbart, There were more than a few that came out to his defense to decry the ‘transphobia’ and “kink shaming” that they saw at work. I recall the Houston Press’ Jef Rouner raising more than a few eyebrows, when as a method of cheering up the outed pedophile he took to twitter to message Nyberg a picture of his daughter dressed up in a cute outfit. Which I bring up, because for weeks/months after this incident, Rouner actually defended Nyberg and stating how there were no laws broken (even if some online chatlogs implied Nyberg had a collection of child pornography). Which is absolutely true, pedophiles such as Nyberg and Todd Nickerson are not breaking any laws simply by masturbating to thoughts of children. At the same time, I have to say I really don’t care if pedophiles aren’t breaking the law simply by being pedophiles.

But the strangest thing to me, or at least what used to seem strange, is that it’s often those that would identify as proponents for Social Justice that come out in defense of pedophiles. Social Justice at heart seems to involve cultural Marxist ideology, so I suppose it’s makes sense that they’d defend the indefensible. Because cultural Marxists view all cultures and groups as being of equal value, they see it as an injustice, or rather social injustice, when a culture or group is not being valued the same as others. If you have the stomach for it, you can actually find pedophiles quite openly defending their ‘sexuality’ on twitter with an air of moral indignation. I find the way they argue to be interesting since it mirrors how I see #BlackLivesMatter or Feminists will speak about their beliefs regarding blacks or women being victims of society.

Though it can act as a bit of dark humor how they jokingly lament what could happen to them under a Trump presidency.
In typical fashion, they try to differentiate molesting children from violence

Every time someone defends pedophilia or pedophiles it always seems to involve progressive language, logic and/or denial of objective truth. Such as when Nyberg was outed, few individuals like Joshua Idehen, Jesse Singal, Jef Rouner, and so on, really seemed interested in addressing what evidence had been found (the Breitbart articles touch on it a little, but you can google if you desire more). In place of objective truth, there’s instead a focus on subjective truth, or in other words what they feel is true rather than what they can prove is true.

Rather than dig through past examples of this sort of nonsense, one can just look at what’s happening with Alison Rapp right now. The Mirror quoting her:

Rapp wrote: “Criminalising the the possession of a type of media — whether violent video games… controversial political or religious texts, or child pornography — is tantamount to criminalising thought, and should be above countries like the U.S. and Japan who have such strong freedom of speech protections.”
Rapp also claimed there was only “sketchy correlations between child pornography and the actual abuse of children”.
“Men who like kids” http://archive.is/ZeUnV

This resulted in an outpouring of disgust over social media when it was noticed, and the natural response of Social Justice types coming out to decry the disgust (of condoning child pornography) as just terrible.

I wouldn’t see these individuals defending Rapp, or in other instances where individuals defend pedophilia/pedophiles, as all that strange if they at least tried showing empathy by addressing the claims against them. When a subject like abortion comes up, even if you think abortion should be legal, you can easily see how the emotional argument is present and has to be addressed to some extent. Yet when Social Justice types argue, there’s never that sense of empathy present in their arguments as you can never see them wanting to acknowledge others’ complaints. Instead there’s a great deal of dehumanization as they try portraying those they disagree with as bullies, harassers, liars, and so on.

I don’t really have much of a point here other than to ramble on a bit, mostly because thinking too much about the discourse I’ve seen ends up leaving me feeling sick to my stomach (which would probably help my waistline). But I have to wonder what it is exactly that makes anyone think it’s appropriate, or even laudable, to reject generally accepted social morals regarding protecting children and looking down upon those that would openly fantasize about harming them.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.