Friday Ephemeraren’t
Still laid low by this damned bug, so this week you’ll be throwing together your own pile of links and oddities in the comments. However, being heroic, I’ll set the ball rolling with a rock-stacking simulator; some near misses; an inopportune twang; someone taking things literally; the thrill of an educator’s pretty nails; and how to tell you’re in San Francisco.
Oh, and I guess this is good to know.
More than enough for one of them to send the other to the Gulag..
Heh, quite.
“More diversity waiting to embrace your children:”
Y’know, reading the CR article, I’m not sure this guy’s quite as crazy as he first appears. Not quite. Bear with me.
Love the sinner, hate the sin, right? This was precisely the argument over legalising homosexuality in the ’60s: Forget the fact of homosexual attraction, because however much you might want to, you can’t change how people’s minds work. So does what consenting adults do among themselves in private cause actual harm to anyone else?
Clearly in this instance it does – one half of the equation is, by definition, very much not a consenting adult – so the situation is rather different. But I think what he’s saying is that by taking the stigma out of it, you encourage pederasts to self-identify, and might therefore be in a better position to protect kids from them.
I don’t think that works, because even in the most non-judgemental happy-clappy inclusive kumbya society, the simple knowledge that admitting your desires will result in being kept away from the object of them is a strong disincentive towards doing so. Historically, pederasts have put themselves in positions, as teachers or leaders of youth organisations, where they can fool the world and themselves that they’re helping children. If anything, there’d be an even greater incentive for that kind of deception, especially the self-deception.
So he’s wrong. But not in the way I first thought. I wouldn’t trust him within a mile of any kids but, having read what he has to say, I think it’s possible – maybe – that he does actually mean well.
Either that or he’s a monster with bloody good patter. Tough call.
Gah. I spent about half an hour writing that comment, and it never occurred to me that what he’s saying is basically, “Treat them like alcoholics”: admit your proclivities, and we can try to keep you from them.
What worries me is that he spent months writing a whole book on it and doesn’t say that.
I do not consider myself to be a Christian.
I would have hoped that those who are Christian would have preferred “Love the repenting sinner, but hate the sin.”
Since I suspect that a true believing Christian thinks the original quote is superior is a factor upon my not considering myself to be a Christian (it is not the only factor).
Not quite going along with sam here. I would say it has turned out there IS harm in legalizing gay marriage. First, gay couples can adopt which I do not believe is in any way good for the kids adopted. Second, if it is now legal and normal, they want gay sex taught in sex ed. Not ok with me.
Y’know, reading the CR article, I’m not sure this guy’s quite as crazy as he first appears. Not quite. Bear with me.
You give him more credit than I do. I have zero confidence that he makes that argument in good faith. Zero. Given my experience with the left, I am certain that he is disingenuously using that argument as a wedge that he intends to eventually lead to legalization of child molestation.
You give him more credit than I do.
Does it matter? Even if the dude is completely sincere and this is as far as he’s ever willing to go, that just means that the next article in the ratchet will feature someone else who’s effectively indistinguishable from him but espouses views on the (currently) wrong side of the ‘outrage/clickbait/push the Overton window’ vs ‘scare the normies’ divide.
It sounds like the ‘legacy’ of the infamous North American Man/Boy Love Association [NMBLA] still lurks just below the surface amongst trendy ‘intellectuals’ hiding in sheltered workshops and schools of social studies in the US.
Here, I know what’s good for what ails ye . . . ping.
Get well soon
Here, I know what’s good for what ails ye . . . ping.
Bless you, madam. May your drawers be soft-touch.
Cody wishes to educate you about what is valid.
May your drawers be soft-touch.
Furniture or underwear?
Furniture or underwear?
Why not both?
I just want to let glit know that thon is valid, that vir pronouns are valid, and that seir identity is valid.
Computer says no.
Computer says no.
When not talking about her mental health issues and visits to psychiatrists – and, of course, talking about herself, or themself, repeatedly and at length – our non-binary being tells us that, “The times I feel most masculine are, like, when I’m wearing heels and in full make-up.”
Cody wishes to educate you about what is valid.
No.
I get what Sam is saying, and were our legal system/society somewhat normal in its functions, as long as a pedo refrained from being near or touching children I do regard them in a similar way. But the problem is we can’t seem to keep those who do harm children locked up. We let them out then write ridiculous laws that effectively legislate them out of being in any physical spaces. Thus their lawyers then effectively gut our laws for their absurdity. There’s no bloody common sense to anything these days so managing the problem outside of extreme measures is virtually impossible. Which then drives more of it underground.
By “more of it” I mean the most extreme, child harming types. Obviously not those visible on the surface NAMBLAs that are feeling their oats on social media.
It sounds like the ‘legacy’ of the infamous North American Man/Boy Love Association [NMBLA] still lurks just below the surface amongst trendy ‘intellectuals’…
Lurking among natural allies? None of the writers, editors, professors, and literary critics that I talked with in the 70’s and 80’s ever even hinted that one of the writers they praised was a member of NAMBLA, although when I later found out about this I learned that he didn’t hide it. Eventually one begins to suspect that these intellectuals are, in general, a truly vile bunch.
“what is valid”–you have got to be kidding. No one can keep all that straight, nor are we obliged (in a sane world) to pamper complete strangers and feed their delusions. Lots and lots of these people want to be really important, and lecturing the whole world on how to speak is the ultimate in narcissism. It is also clear that they are profoundly confused about what it means to be male or female.
ccscientist, I didn’t say gay marriage. I was talking about the legalisation of homosexuality itself in Britain back in the ’60s. Given our host and his good gentleman, I can’t say that it, in itself was a bad thing at all. It’s fine. Live and let live. (Most of us did anyway. We just held this legal threat over people in case it proved useful.) It’s when we’re asked to accept that a gay relationship is exactly the same thing as a heterosexual one with, for example, the right to offspring, just as we’re now asked to accept that a man in a dress is a woman, that things start to go off the rails.
And for the record, I tend to agree with Boobah and WTP. I don’t trust him one bit, and I hope I made clear that I think his idea is fundamentally flawed. (In fact, reading WTP’s comment again, it’s exactly what I was trying to say.) Indeed, I guess the point is that a reasonable-sounding argument, perhaps even meant well (although that’s open for debate), is actually far more insidious than one which is obviously evil.
“Is FullFact a solidly reliable fact-checker?”
I was sceptical, but I looked up Glyphosate as a test and they did have a long piece about the flaws in the studies used against it and the fact that pure Glyphosate being carcinogenic has no real bearing on the likelihood of cancer from normal agricultural or garden use. So I hold out hope.
Doubting Rich: Thank you. Much appreciated.
David, November 12 was International Exploding Whale Day. How could you have missed it?
How could you have missed it?
The shame just won’t wash off.
[ Enacts Macbeth. ]
When not talking about her mental health issues and visits to psychiatrists
I wish these toxic narcissists would stop trying to appropriate autism as a “you don’t get to judge my behavior CUZ” card. It really cheapens and distorts what people on the autism spectrum struggle with every waking moment. More than anything else, they want to fit in and be accepted. They work hard to pick up on social cues and to behave appropriately.
The last thing they need is to be targets of these Cluster B personalities looking to exploit them and/or their condition.
The shame just won’t wash off.
I forgive you.
[ Offers packet of chocolate biscuits ]
“[I]t’s not who we’re attracted to that’s either okay or not, okay. It’s our behaviors and responding to that attraction that are either okay or not okay.”
While I’m fully on board with the “it’s the behavior, stupid” in most things, to completely ignore attraction, compulsion, inner feelings, etc, is wrong.
If a “feeling” keeps a person from living a complete, fulfilling life as an adult then that feeling must be dealt with. And pedophilia is an “attraction” that is ultimately an attraction that is as much a sexual fetish as bestiality. And it’s an exploitive fetish that not only keeps the fetishizer as a human incapable of peer relationships but treats their “attraction targets” as objects, not fellow beings.
The pedophile is locked in on prepubescents, when object A starts maturing then the pedo must move to object B. This is wholly unlike either hetero or homo attraction where people make intimate, bonded partnerships that last through years.
This kind of mental illness should not be “normalized”, regardless of outward behavior. It’s a mental illness that needs to be monitored.
Mr. Vaughn did the axe swap better
Stevie Ray used ridiculously heavy strings. When that snapped, he was lucky it didn’t take some of his fingers with it.
November 12 was International Exploding Whale Day. How could you have missed it?
I think you might be mixing up our David with another one, out of Florida.
Now, if the whales in question were some of the humanoid ones previously featured on this blog, that might be something else. Alternatively, our host might be concerned about exploding Wales, if nothing else because the fallout would rain down on his part of the sceptred isle.
“Please, treat vem with respect”
Respect is earned. At best, you get courtesy and civility.
This is wholly unlike either hetero or homo attraction where people make intimate, bonded partnerships that last through years.
While I understand the general point and mostly agree, a significant number of hetero and homo attractions lack any desire or even need for a bond. Well, not one lasting longer than 15 minutes anyway. We tolerate them, obviously to our detriment. It’s a morality thing that at its base is sufficiently private such that enforcing it as law would require undermining the civil liberties of the general population. Granted, in a more morally oriented society it is not a problem. But if things were different…well, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
Alternatively, our host might be concerned about exploding Wales, if nothing else because the fallout would rain down on his part of the sceptred isle.
A fallout of consonants. Some elements are unstable due to too few or too many neutrons balancing the protons. Same thing with languages. It’s a wonder that Wales did not go critical long ago. Don’t doubt me; this is science.
BTW, my wife asks who I’m writing to. I told her Paulina Porizkova. That she really misses me and has been having a hard time of it since that guy from The Cars died. So if she asks you, tell her you are Paulina Porizkova. I wouldn’t want her to think I’m lying to her. I understand marriages are based on trust. Or at least I read that somewhere.
Darleen re autistics: “They work hard to pick up on social cues and to behave appropriately.”
Yes we do, but we never fully master social functioning as such neurotypical [NT] interaction, always driven/underpinned by NT sentiment, is so complex that even the most skilled of us are always at risk of offending someone, somewhere simply by being truthful or, in NT terms, being tactless. In a social setting we are always ‘on guard’. The process of reading normative social interaction and then responding correctly is extremely draining, hence we tire easily and need to escape to our safe solitude to recharge. The situation is made worse when emotionally needy NTs choose to take offence at our bluntness and inability to feed their emotional need. However their emotions belong to them, not us; we are not responsible for their emotional welfare. [Unfortunately the autism ‘field/industry’ is ‘owned’ and run by social welfare and allied professionals who tend to be high on emotional need/empathy rather than logic and reason. Such people actually do considerable harm to us and then take offence when they receive a negative response.]
This excellent article may be of interest and is one of the best statements about ‘being autistic’ I have found: http://planetautism.com/jane/unf.html
Jim
[Enacts Macbeth.]
Out, out brief (spermaceti) candle.
Out, out brief (spermaceti) candle.
A sad fate, especially since only a half hour before it had been a guided missile with a nuclear warhead.
And nobody paid any heed to the smashed bowl of petunias nearby. That’s heartless Oregonians for you.
Getting “journalists” to even read a synopsis of what they are commenting on is a major achievement To expect them to actually make enough of an effort to report and comment intelligently is really too much.
Getting “journalists” to even read a synopsis of what they are commenting on is a major achievement
Well, when the truth is a priori, who needs analysis based on facts?
Well, when the truth is a priori, who needs analysis based on facts?
Would it be unfair to use their standards when deciding whether they should be deported to North Korea? Asking purely out of intellectual curiosity.
By the way, regarding Midnight Mass, I have to say the set-up was better than the pay-off. The priest, who rather carries the thing, is sidelined for the finale, and the last two episodes are full of mayhem and running about, which ends up being less engaging than what preceded it. The director and writer, Mike Flanagan, is at times quite skilled. There are some neat scenes and a coolly odd atmosphere. But as with The Haunting of Hill House, he seems to struggle a bit with concluding his stories.
the set-up was better than the pay-off
That seems to be a very common problem with TV and movies today.
There’s no bloody common sense to anything these days so managing the problem outside of extreme measures is virtually impossible. Which then drives more of it underground.
I’ve worked with a lot of people who were sexually abused as children (which is the greatest predictor of pedophilia as an adult) and this is a very real problem. Many of them simply do not see adult-child sexual interaction as a problem – you may remember the interview Milo Yiannopolous gave where he opined that some 14-year-olds were likely capable of sexual consent. That’s part of a defense mechanism; the victim chooses to see what happened to them as consensual because then they weren’t a helpless victim. Or worse, because their body reacted to the stimulus they can’t reconcile that with the emotional trauma and so convince themselves that it must have been consensual and therefore it must be possible for children to consent.
In a perfect world you want these people to be open about this because it opens the door to addressing these dysfunctional coping mechanisms (and not coincidentally, helps identify people likely to offend). But they’re not stupid and they’ll keep quiet about these beliefs unless they think they’re among the sympathetic.
Which is a long-winded way of saying I agree with Sam. That professor isn’t speaking in good faith because she’s eliding the fact that she’s talking about a paraphilia. The “it’s okay to be attracted to children as long as you don’t act on it” justification is false because it’s not okay to be attracted to children in the first place; it’s a symptom of a serious problem.
That seems to be a very common problem with TV and movies today
It’s the “are we getting another season or not” problem all over again. You have to leave a lot of loose ends at the end of your season or you have nothing to do with the next one. If you then don’t get another season, you have a bunch of unfired Chekhov’s guns. Locke and Key was one of the most obvious examples of this: charging towards a tense, telegraphed climax all season, and then in the final episode a watered down conclusion with the inevitable cliffhanger. It could not have been more obvious that the original ending was rewritten once they knew they were getting a second season.
Movies are starting to suffer from this now because no one just makes a movie any more, everything has to be a franchise that can be milked across multiple releases.