I don’t think Carter’s a paedophile. I do think he’s an idiot.
I’ve always felt that the burden of responsibility for clear and concise communication rests with the person who is doing the communicating, not the listener/reader. Were I his secretary or assistant, and if I had a chance to see that communication before he posted it, I would have immediately flagged that and strongly suggested that he rephrase and be more concise about what, exactly, he was trying to communicate.
That’s one of the problems with twitter. People’s brains become directly attached to their thumbs, and they often don’t think things out before popping off about one thing or other.
Given the moral turpitude rampant in politics in general, and in the Republican party particularly, I think it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption. I’d be willing to bet 50 quatloos the good senator is busted with child porn within the next 24 months.
Flip it around to see the error of your ways.
He is saying that those with potential are attractive.
In this case it’s motivated mainly IMO by political hatred. This Republican is part of the self righteously hated ‘other’ from POV of a certain (unfortunately common) type on the left, and anything goes in attacking ‘them’ because ‘they are evil’. Even some of the responses here are people who just can’t help themselves from also doing that.
Somewhat separately there is now paranoia about pedophilia. That isn’t necessarily as partisan though also tends to be more common on the ‘anti-traditional’ side of the cultural divide which tends to overlap with the leftward side of the political divide. OTOH anti-traditionalists can argue that previous versions of society were too complacent about finding or even tolerant if they knew about sexual abuse of children. One might argue that realistically in flawed human societies you’ll never have the strictly ‘just right’ balance. If some people aren’t freaking out about child sexual abuse, and some people’s reputations aren’t unfairly tainted, some other people will letting it go on under their noses. But obviously there are many cases now where people get carried away with saying stuff is ‘creepily close to pedophilia’ when it’s actually fairly apparent the ‘creepy’ statement has nothing to do with child sex.
Another example would be ‘daddy daughter date’ where the ‘ooh that’s creepy’ brigade insists that ‘date’ must mean a social engagement ending in (or one side looks for it to end in) sex. Which is ridiculous. The word has been used more broadly than that, to also generally refer to two person or small non-sexual social gatherings, forever. But again political hatred is often behind quasi-deliberate misinterpretation of what people say.
I’m sorry but there is no way around the fact that a "daddy daughter date’ is creepy as fucking hell. Taken further, the Purity Ball celebrations strike me as something that appeals to a similar mindset that goes on daddy daughter date and are creepy as fuck cranked to 11. A father and son spending time isn’t a “daddy son date”, it’s “boys night”. So don’t tell me there’s no stink of misogyny about both those religious conservative (IMO) memes. If that sounds like political hatred to you, then so be it. To me it sounds like exposing and correcting outdated notions about women as part of moving towards a more just society.
I can’t find a transcript of the hearing, but I was able to watch a little bit of the video. And it’s pretty clear to me that this is not what he’s saying.
They’re talking about changing the way they deal with unaccompanied minors so that it no longer seems appealing to send children out on their own to try to cross the border (presumably with the help of the various human smugglers) where the children are at risk increased of exploitation. And he is clearly implying that “attractive children” are being kidnapped and exploited as they try to get to the border.
I’m not sure how that would make him a pedophile (I’m comfortable acknowledging that some children are going to be more attractive to sex traffickers and their customers than others without questioning my own sexuality), but others may disagree. In any event, I don’t think he’s using “attractive” to mean “potentially productive residents”.
The original Star Trek episode, “The Gamesters of Triskelion”!
I had to Google it. My memory isn’t that good! LOL
Right; it’s like someone being an “attractive” candidate for a certain job. It’s nothing about how they look; it’s what they bring to the table.
Explain to me the utility of the “attractive” modifier/qualifier. Should we worry less about children who are not deemed “attractive”? Do they matter less?
I suspect the answer from the congressman, with some benefit of afterthought, would be, ‘no, all children’s lives matter!’ Which is what he should have said in the first place.
Did you three bother doing a little Googling? Are you just assuming he must be saying that, or did you read something I haven’t found? What children are “bad guys”, don’t have potential and bring nothing to the table?
A quick search leads me to believe that Falchion described the context of the comment accurately.
This is not complicated, it’s just the endless game of people trying to claim the high moral ground vs someone they don’t like. People do it non-stop. It’s annoying. It reduces the credibility of people making the claim amongst people with brains, but why should they care about that, they stay safely in their hives all the time.
So only the people who voice opposition to traditionalist (conservative) views “stay safely in their hives all the time”? Non-PC traditionalists are independent, original, non-hive mind, free thinkers… is that your position?
Nope, I’m talking about latching onto a word or phrase that’s at worst ambiguous and trying to say it definitively means “X.” Both political sides do it and people do it constantly on things that have nothing to do with politics. Ascribing intent when it’s not known.
Happens here a hundred times a day. Every time someone says “Wait, are you saying that…”
You just did it yourself.
Words and phrases have meaning. Due to the influence of social and cultural change, those meanings sometimes change. Nothing wrong with asking for clarification or, zOMG, suggesting that the word or phrase that was okay to use in the past is no longer acceptable today. Or is there?