45 minutes ago, long-time user Rondomi posted a topic on the Comradeship space titled "On Paraphilia".
This will be the only surviving trace of that thread which has been scrubbed away, a single screenshot that instantly gives away what their topic is really about (and proves that this topic did exist):
In this long screed that we will not be copying from (and that you won't be either, just in case you saw that thread and what was in it), they make the defense of pedophilia under semi-clinical terms wielded like a wobbly club.
They conflate terms like "paraphilia", which is a blanket clinical term used by therapists to determine how to help their patients, with pedophilia itself. We don't have any illusions about engaging with their blatant defense of pedophilia, so that is where we will leave our argumentation. There is no argumentation to be had and there is no need to engage with the argument.
Suffice to say, Rondomi was not making a "what if" thought experiment or trying to engage with the idea. Rather, as was made evident by the content of their post, they were trying to create acceptance of pedophilia within Lemmygrad by abusing communist language, clinical language, and finally using pro-pedophile language that they no doubt learned from such groups which they seem to be spending time in. This wasn't just an off the cuff moment, this was planned, elaborated, and carefully typed.
In other words, if you are in contact with Rondomi, we highly advise banning them from every space you share with them and blocking off all contact with them.
That is the only point of this thread.
The other point is that we will keep comments open for a few moments. If you wish to go off on Rondomi, you can do it here. But just in case this needs to be said, be aware what happened to their account when you do so.
It wasn't defending paedophilia directly but rather promoting tolerance of paedophiles using some rhetorical tricks like saying that vilifying them discourages them to seek help (making them look like the victims) and using weird stats like how only a tiny majority of paedos commit SA (portraying the group as relatively harmless ignoring the fact that many unaccounted in this stat consume media that is commoditised SA). I am not too deep into paedo lore but these tactics have been prominently previously for example when they started calling themselves MAPs which, incidentally, was also used in the removed post.
Edit: Maybe it was defending it directly and I don't remember it. The post is not fresh in my mind but I just remember the parts that I understood.
Because that is definitely how communism will gain traction in the west: by accommodating pedophiles LMAO
I remember when MAP used to mean Multi-Animator Project. It's such a shame that perverts appropriated that term.
The gist of it was that not all MAP commit CSA and therefore it should be accepted and decoupled from the term paedo.
I have worked in mental healthcare and I have met some MAP who were clients of mine. They were people who couldn't control their intrusive thoughts on that subject and needed help, and wanted help. I do not disagree with that sentiment.
The post, however, was trying to argue that because some people are MAP, we should therefore see it as something normal and have acceptance for it. Which is imo wrong. There is no consent possible between adults and minors when it comes to this. It should not be viewed on the same level as homosexuality, trans people, etc.
If the post was just trying to start a debate about, for example, lifting the taboo on making treatment for MAPs available, I'd say it was sort of acceptable. But it was not doing that. It was trying to make MAP normalized.
I agree with you, pedophiles need treatment. It's obvious their sexual attraction is not under their conscious control, since the condemnation and judgement of pedophiles is so big, no one would consciously choose to be a pedophile. There are studies which links sexual attraction to children to sexual abuse in childhood too.
I disagree however with watering down, or diluting that with a lighter term, MAP, because it's inadvertently promoting pedophilia through euphemism. Whether they are a rapist or not, a person can be a pedophile, and that's it, we need to accept that situation. But the act itself, to have sexual attraction to children, is a dangerous thing, because we know children cannot truly consent.
So the negative charge that comes with the term pedophilia did not come out of the blue, it's a historical development. Pederasts in Greece certainly did not have this taboo over the word describing them. Creating a "neutral" word only removes this historical meaning describing the act. So the question is, should we use euphemisms for pedophilia?
I agree. We shouldn't use euphemisms at all. I hope that that's not what my comment makes people think lol because that wasn't my intention.