Nick Fuentes defends child grooming on his podcast. A former supporter disavows him, yet a majority of right-wingers in the replies proceed to side with Nick and defend pedophilia
Minor correction from a mental health professional here: in a classical sense, neurosis has very little to do with authoritarianism. If you're referring to the OCEAN personality scale of neuroticism, then there might be some relation, because that has to do with a tendency towards negative emotions, but when most people refer to neurotic behavior, they're referring to it in the classical Freudian sense, which is more about self-destructive anxiety and depression.
Are... are you unironically posting a political compass meme in support of your argument? What's next, you're gonna bust out the ouija board? Gonna read some chicken entrails? Are you gonna call Miss Cleo and get her opinion?
All these words and people I don't know. I had to Google "baked alaska person" and he is the right wing personality but based on my Google definition of based (fuck, am I old?) It seems like he is the one arguing against pedophilia, I am so confused.
'based' in this context usually means that something is commendable, admirable or cool. So yes, Baked Alaska is the only one arguing against pedophilia, while the others are praising Nick for defending it.
Ffs so they are arguing with eachother now... over pedophilia? I'm getting this right?! I hate this, and I know that the word grooming is soon going to lose all meaning like gaslighting did.
Am I missing something? Isn't grooming definitionally not pedophilia? I know people will be apt to downvote this because they'll inexplicably assume I'm defending grooming, but in seriousness, isn't grooming defined as building a trusting relationship with a minor (without sexually abusing them) so that when they cease to be a minor they will instinctively consent to sex? I.e. don't groomers, by definition, strictly have sex with adults?
No, you're actually wrong on this account. Grooming is definitionally the emotional manipulation that is performed specifically in order to get away with sexually abusing a child. One example of this kind of grooming involves doing illicit non-sexual activities with a child in order to seem like a "fun adult" who "let's them get away with bad things" and to get the child to practice "keeping this our secret" so that when the direct sexual abuse starts, the child is already in the habit of hiding illicit activity from other adults.
Premeditated as this suggests is so fucking disgusting
The upcoming pedo paradox, holy fuck I'm glad I'm not in a position to have to weigh in on that. I use that as my example that sometimes life gives you agency, and therefore a responsibility to act, but only gives you bad choices.
Future pedo dilemma
Do nothing, risk pedo offending or reoffending
Society gives the pedo a lifelike sex robot...at their preferred age (where that otherwise wouldbetter be strictly illegal) thus curbing and satisting their worst drives.
Both answers are terrible. But assume yr a judge, which one sucks least? If they haven't offended do we show compassion? Do we only help them curb their desires after we know they'll actually do it? That person would NEED it the most, but then it'd be like we are rewarding them.
What do ya do?
I'm of the mind that if they've violated someone they should be chemically castrated.
Afaik refraining from abusing them isn't part of the definition. Anybody cozying up to a minor with the ultimate goal of having sex with them is grooming, whether or not they wait until they're of age.
All the calls of pedo are coming from inside of the "Right wing house", the Left isn't accusing anybody of grooming, however we definitely should be with the amount of priests, pastors, coaches, and cops who get caught molesting kids.
It's by design though, the Right wants to lower the age of consent, and they are using terms like "groomer" heavily against liberals and LGBTQ folks, because they want a justification to exterminate them once they get the camps going.