By law, we had to make certain redactions.… But we said to Congress, any congressman can come in and spend as much time as they want looking at everything unredacted.
By law, we had to make certain redactions.… But we said to Congress, any congressman can come in and spend as much time as they want looking at everything unredacted.
Funny, that’s never been an argument I ever had to make for myself, somehow.
It’s no cliché for me. I live with a survivor. When it comes to sexual offenses against children, the kids are the ONLY ones I think about. Adults can take care of themselves, and so can you, which is why it’s amazing to me how offended you are by someone taking the children’s side.
So much so that you actually reduce the position of caring about survivors and their loved ones to merely, in your own word, a cliché. You can’t even discuss what I actually said; you’re forced to erect strawmen: “The downvoted response reeks of the old attitude of oh look a pediatrician lets beat him!” and calling any level of pushback against your insistence on honoring the nuance of pro-pedophilic understanding “the frenzy.”
I don’t need that level of distracting drama, and didn’t employ it: that’s ALL your own.
And it does not mean you don’t, either. But this wasn’t about taking time to understand, it was about holding up and defending your all-important nuance that moves eyes away from the crime and toward “understanding the offender.” I don’t stand for it where it’s just a feint to derail discussion away from the victims and onto an arbitrary line in the sand. That helps no one at all, and that’s where you are right now.
Funny thing, I can actually sympathize with offenders, and have specifically had to do exactly that in my own life to be able to support those offended against, which is a tightrope your rhetorical nuance doesn’t hold a candle to, and one you obviously cannot begin to understand.
And I would not ask you to: caring about the actual children whose lives are destroyed is just “cliché” to you, you’ve made that clear. By the same token, your claim to precious linguistic nuance means nothing to me at all, nor does your estimation of me personally: turns out you know nothing about me either.
You know nothing about me.
I am not continuing a discussion with someone who clearly wants to just yell and call me a pedophile. Continue protesting on behalf of others.
I might add you words can be taken out of context, if you try hard enough.
If you could point out, for me and others, exactly where in my writing I specifically did this: “yell and call [you] a pedophile.”
Very obviously, I didn’t. If I had, you wouldn’t have had to lie about it, which begs the question of why you are so threatened by what I said about pedophiles and pedophilia that you took it as a personal attack, against you specifically, which you then countered with an obvious, demonstrable lie?
Which brings me back to my original point, that I think you have gone out of your way to prove for the rest of us:
There is NEVER any time in which defending the linguistic pedantry of pedophilic nuance is a valid stance: it is ALWAYS about something else.
If I had “yelled” (lol) or called you a pedophile – which is not a term I throw around as a pejorative if only because the thought of what they do is vomitous – if I had literally done this in reality, you would not have had to lie, distort, or employ such over-the-top amounts of hyperbole.
Instead, you’ve gone out of your way to make my point. Like this:
Nice try. It’s not the first time a pedo defender has tried to tar me with their own brush. You can’t even do it in a straightforward way.
But let me clear it up for you: I genuinely believe, from a very viscerally deep place in my soul, there is nothing as inhuman, as indefensible, as revolting, as UNNATURAL, as sickeningly self-indulgent, as the sexual use of children for ANY purpose, understandable or not. And I have a post history that proves it.
Speaking of which, my profile bio hasn’t changed in three years. You should check it out.
And thank you again for going out of your way to prove what I have known all along: the overwhelming defense of tiny differences in language used to describe pedos is never innocent, and never just about nuance.
You need to take a chill pill. I am female. I am a survivor of sexual assault and I spent a number of years in the care system alongside girls who suffered at the hands of abusers.
I am not a defender, or apologist. Yet somehow you seem to have made much of your persona attacking and calling other it. I think you need to take a look at your attitude because honestly it’s hangers on who shout about stuff like this that set off far more bells in my mind.
So you cannot actually point out where I yelled and called you personally a pedophile?
Funny, because if I had, you easily could. Instead, you make up a non-verifiable identity that is supposed to tug at my heartstrings and make me go away shamed. Dude, you are so not the first one to try this.
Everything that comes out of you is distortion, redirection, and extreme hyperbole. And again with the accusation, not so veiled this time:
Only when people defend that horrific, vomitous, repellent, life-destroying shit. I was enjoying my morning coffee when you decided you needed to defend the nuance of pro-pedophilic “understanding” and even now are coming back at me with nothing but demonstrable lies and accusations made of air.
Dude. You are the bell, lol. If you want me to stop calling it out, maybe stop ringing it so hard for the pedos.