• petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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.

      • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

        • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          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.

          • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            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.

            • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 hours ago

              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.

              • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 hours ago

                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.