I wasn’t being pedantic about the technical definitions of words like “pedophile”. I’m saying, outside of this type of assertion, we almost never use “child” to mean “teenager”. And I don’t care for its usage in this particular context, not because it’s technically/ colloquially incorrect in itself, nor that they’re only using that word to load the sentiment with emotional weight. I think it SHOULD have emotional weight, regardless of the victim’s age.
My care is that, in attributing the “wrongness” of the action to the incorrect fact that they are “children” as that word is typically understood, you make an easy target for someone with an opposing view. You undermine the very valid sentiment you are attempting to make with someone who will likely see your choice of words for what it is, an emotionally manipulative exaggeration, and then shift to arguing semantics or simply disregard your point because of that blatant exaggeration.
I do recognize the apparent irony here that I’m the one arguing semantics in this case. But I am on the same side as the person in this post and yourself. I’m not negating the point being made that these were vulnerable girls who are in no way to blame for this. I’m critiquing the technique of making that point by borrowing the emotional weight of words where they don’t belong. Similar to how Isreal throws ‘antisemitism’ around to dodge criticism of their government. That word means something else entirely but it would be convenient to your side of the argument if they let you apply it here. It’s a bad strategy and it makes those words ultimately meaningless and thus powerless when they’re applied to anything convenient.
You undermine the very valid sentiment you are attempting to make with someone who will likely see your choice of words for what it is,
Yeah, and what you do with those people is you call them pedophiles and stupid and then you throw rocks at them.
Why are you capitulating to the enemy? You know they will deliberately misunderstand you at every turn, yes? There is no magic word spell you can cast that will make them see reason.
You yourself said we should choose our words carefully because they would otherwise click their tongues at our methods. They’re wrong, who cares what they think? Just call them stupid. Say they’re deliberately missing the point because they’re pro-pedophilia. Get other people to do that and bully them out of the community.
You talk about strategy, but think about what you’re doing here: you’re bickering with people you ostensibly agree with, and not with them.
The battle is not for the minds of the people that are pro-pedophilia. It is for the minds of the young people that will otherwise end up being indifferent to the pro-pedophilia people becuase they get convinced that they aren’t actually pro-pedophilia, but just think the victims are partially to blame. “Why did she get in the car? What was she wearing? Maybe she really wanted it.”
You talk about strategy, but think about what you’re doing here: you’re bickering with people you ostensibly agree with, and not with them.
In my very first comment, I called out them for the bullshit term, “underage women”, that they used. I call out “them” all the time on their bullshit. I also call out poor strategy on our side because how else to you improve without feedback and constructive criticism? Two things can be true.
People indifferent to pedophilia are concerned with the subtle differences between teenagers and very-young children—a distinction the law does not make because in the context of a 40-year-old predator it is irrelevant? What are you talking about?
If they say the child victims are partially to blame, you know, uh… rocks.
I called out them for the bullshit term, “underage women”, they they used.
Are any of them here? This discussion is only about strategy, and I’m telling you, this is not a direction worth going in.
Nobody likes tone policing. People do like big lawn chair moments: that is, when wrestler A gets tossed a lawn chair from the audience and uses it to beat wrestler B to the ground. Then they do like a big “hoorah” or something.
What I’m saying is that you are diluting the emotional strength of the message under the pretense that a message too emotionally strong will be too much for some people to hear—which is ridiculous.
You said the message should carry emotional weight, didn’t you? If our opponents are against emotional manipulation, how can you guarantee ‘teenagers’ isn’t still too powerful for them? At what point do you cut them off as enablers of the wrong moral position?
By trying to play the semantics game early, before they’ve even said anything, you’re already ceding the argument that these semantics even matter. You can just skip the game entirely. If they try to play it with you, don’t.
I wasn’t being pedantic about the technical definitions of words like “pedophile”. I’m saying, outside of this type of assertion, we almost never use “child” to mean “teenager”. And I don’t care for its usage in this particular context, not because it’s technically/ colloquially incorrect in itself, nor that they’re only using that word to load the sentiment with emotional weight. I think it SHOULD have emotional weight, regardless of the victim’s age.
My care is that, in attributing the “wrongness” of the action to the incorrect fact that they are “children” as that word is typically understood, you make an easy target for someone with an opposing view. You undermine the very valid sentiment you are attempting to make with someone who will likely see your choice of words for what it is, an emotionally manipulative exaggeration, and then shift to arguing semantics or simply disregard your point because of that blatant exaggeration.
I do recognize the apparent irony here that I’m the one arguing semantics in this case. But I am on the same side as the person in this post and yourself. I’m not negating the point being made that these were vulnerable girls who are in no way to blame for this. I’m critiquing the technique of making that point by borrowing the emotional weight of words where they don’t belong. Similar to how Isreal throws ‘antisemitism’ around to dodge criticism of their government. That word means something else entirely but it would be convenient to your side of the argument if they let you apply it here. It’s a bad strategy and it makes those words ultimately meaningless and thus powerless when they’re applied to anything convenient.
Yeah, and what you do with those people is you call them pedophiles and stupid and then you throw rocks at them.
Why are you capitulating to the enemy? You know they will deliberately misunderstand you at every turn, yes? There is no magic word spell you can cast that will make them see reason.
How is choosing your words accurately capitulation?
You’re letting them control the conversation.
You yourself said we should choose our words carefully because they would otherwise click their tongues at our methods. They’re wrong, who cares what they think? Just call them stupid. Say they’re deliberately missing the point because they’re pro-pedophilia. Get other people to do that and bully them out of the community.
You talk about strategy, but think about what you’re doing here: you’re bickering with people you ostensibly agree with, and not with them.
The battle is not for the minds of the people that are pro-pedophilia. It is for the minds of the young people that will otherwise end up being indifferent to the pro-pedophilia people becuase they get convinced that they aren’t actually pro-pedophilia, but just think the victims are partially to blame. “Why did she get in the car? What was she wearing? Maybe she really wanted it.”
In my very first comment, I called out them for the bullshit term, “underage women”, that they used. I call out “them” all the time on their bullshit. I also call out poor strategy on our side because how else to you improve without feedback and constructive criticism? Two things can be true.
People indifferent to pedophilia are concerned with the subtle differences between teenagers and very-young children—a distinction the law does not make because in the context of a 40-year-old predator it is irrelevant? What are you talking about?
If they say the child victims are partially to blame, you know, uh… rocks.
Are any of them here? This discussion is only about strategy, and I’m telling you, this is not a direction worth going in.
Nobody likes tone policing. People do like big lawn chair moments: that is, when wrestler A gets tossed a lawn chair from the audience and uses it to beat wrestler B to the ground. Then they do like a big “hoorah” or something.
Cool, been out there throwing a lot a rocks and lawn chairs? Talking awful big game. Let’s see the action then. Put up or shut up, as they say.
C’mon. I’m not trying to make enemies of you.
What I’m saying is that you are diluting the emotional strength of the message under the pretense that a message too emotionally strong will be too much for some people to hear—which is ridiculous.
You said the message should carry emotional weight, didn’t you? If our opponents are against emotional manipulation, how can you guarantee ‘teenagers’ isn’t still too powerful for them? At what point do you cut them off as enablers of the wrong moral position?
By trying to play the semantics game early, before they’ve even said anything, you’re already ceding the argument that these semantics even matter. You can just skip the game entirely. If they try to play it with you, don’t.