What's too "Loony Left" for you?

Use of the term pedophile doesn’t mean requiring pedophiles to carry around a sign identifying themselves as such, and doesn’t deny them opportunities for professional help.

The perspective of an advocate for child sex abuse victims may be useful.

“There is a nascent movement, largely led by parents of youth who were labeled as abusers, to push back on sex offender lists and to rename the offenders with more forgiving labels,” said (Marci) Hamilton, founder and CEO of Child USA."

“They may have a point with child-on-child abuse, because when it comes to juveniles, they can receive treatment that will dramatically reduce their likelihood of repeating the crime. Few, however, receive the therapy they need. But this movement is undermining child protection when they seek labels like “minor-attracted persons” for all perpetrators, which normalizes this heinous crime against children.”

“Child sex offenders have earned the moral stigma attached to “pedophile” or “ephebophile”, which refers to adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents, Hamilton argued.”

“Attempting to make the perpetrator a victim rather than the child is another example of how our culture persistently tends to favor adults to the detriment of the children,” she said. “These sorts of labels muddy the clarity we need to actually protect all children from child abusers.”

It’s not unreasonable that adult sexual attraction to children should carry a stigma.

Even if they have never acted on that attraction?
('Cause what you’re quoting clearly is referring to people that have.)

Yes. If the existence of a stigma will deter at least some religious figures and youth coaches from acting on their desires, it’s worthwhile.

Note that the linked article concerns a prison therapist stumping for the term “minor-attracted persons”. Her clients have already acted out.

ITT I am unsure if “loony left” is meant to mean absolutely any batshit crazy idea anyone has ever seen someone spout or legitimate proposals put forward by left leaning people/groups with the power to see those proposals get enacted (or at least enough power to consider it a serious possibility).

I’m personally coming from the concept of the “batshit crazy idea.”

This would seem to qualify as loony left…

The name ‘monkeypox’ is sticking around — despite racism concerns : Goats and Soda : NPR

Monkeypox is named monkeypox because it was first seen in monkeys. There’s no racist connotations whatsoever. Yet someone’s worried that because there have been historical racist connotations with the word “monkeys”, that they need to change the name of the disease.

It seems too… sensitive or maybe paranoid? I mean nobody’s throwing a fit about the monkey bars on playgrounds, or the term “monkeying around”, or “monkey business” or any of the other myriad terms that have the word “monkey” in them.

Is that you Randall?

I believe that’s what happens now in virtually all unionized workplaces.

What if the stigma also prevents people from being open about their mental state (something that they cannot help) and makes them less likely to seek help to manage it?

It don’t think the effect of stigmatisation is necessarily an easy calculation to make.

In what way are they prevented from being open about their predilections to mental health professionals?

Should there be a stigma that inhibits “minor-attracted” persons from conducting youth ministries or working as pediatricians??

If the stigma is so great that it discourages them from even approaching mental health professionals in the first place the lower the possibility of them opening up.

There have been huge strides taken in lifting the stigma regarding all kinds of mental health conditions and more people are reaching out to mental health professionals as a result.

“stigma”? no. “sensible process of safeguarding”? yes.

The less people feel able to be open about it, the less able we will be as a society to ensure that such safeguarding is effective.

I doubt that in a psychiatrist’s office, the receptionist calls in to the doc to say “That pedophile’s here for his appointment.”

Would people prone to violent sexual fantasies/acting out be more likely to seek help if we renamed rapists “unwilling sex-attracted persons”?

I think that is too flippant. I’ll do you the courtesy of assuming you know that isn’t the scenario I’m talking about.

If a person comes the realisation that their preferences make them a greater risk of committing those acts then I’d want them to seek help before they do anything.
They aren’t a “rapist” at that point, I don’t see that insisting we call them a “rapist” would do anything to assist them in doing so. If a more specific and less pejorative term helps then at that point then why not?

In any case ISTM the “MAP” wording is already well on the way to being ruined by (a) -chan/reddit edgelords who are using it to troll, up to and including creating “MAP Pride” flags uncomfortably similar to the trans pride flag and (b) RW panicmongering media and socials vectoring how “this is the new euphemism the pedos are using to normalize it!!! hide your children!!!1!1

that is my understanding as well, but open to correction if it’s different in US police workplaces?

You are exhibit A for hearing what you want to hear, and ignoring reality, thank you for stopping by to make that point. What you claim to “know” is simply what you have chosen to believe based on your biases, disconnected from any sort of factual basis.

And that’s what most of the “loony left” boils down to, people misunderstanding what they heard, and then demanding that what they think they heard is the reality, and doubling down on their claims. We have you as an example, as we have @Tatterdemalion with their wild misrepresentation of the Marketplace podcast, creating fantastical boogiemen based on their misinterpretations.

That you “predicted” that someone would disagree with you is no great feat, as what you said was not actually based in reality, and needed to be corrected.

If I predict that you will double down further, and insist that your interpretation is correct, should I pat myself on the back as you do so?

And sure, I acknowledge that. I acknowledged that in the last post, just because you chose to not quote it doesn’t make the words disappear. I pointed out a few examples where cancel culture was used to silence voices and dissent. Just because those examples came from the direction of the right wing doesn’t invalidate it, just because the right has been using cancel culture to their advantage for decades doesn’t mean that when they do it it doesn’t count. Your insistence that it only counts when the left does it utterly blinds you to reality.

OTOH, every time I’ve seen examples of the “Loony Left” cancelling someone, once it is put into context, I generally see people of privilege having a slight amount of that privilege taken away because of spewing of hatred and racism. Your claim that it is “unthinkable” is entirely a fabrication of your own imagination and bias. There are sure to be counter examples out there, it’s a big world, so I’m sure there must be, but as of yet, no one has been able to come up with one.

Did you have one in mind?

A reminder to everyone, you are allowed and even encouraged to challenge the content of a post, but not allowed to attack the poster.

This exchange is getting personal and needs to stop. This is IMHO and not the Pit.

This topic was automatically opened after 12 minutes.

MSN Flash* star

Ezra Miller has broken their silence

Miller, who is nonbinary,

Their and Non-Binary = too special for your normal ‘words’ = too loony