New Book Alleges Walt Disney Was A Pedophile

[brekin]

Searcher08 wrote:

Describing Walt Disney as a 'White Christian Married' pedophile presents race, religion, and marriage status classifications in the same bogus way. Child abusers will often opportunistically abuse the children they can get, even if they are attracted to a different gender of child.

I get that and that makes sense. But this specific article
alleges that Walt's young victims were all male.
That would make Walt possibly a gay pedophile.

He was also married to a woman and had kids so maybe he had adult heterosexual
relations and was also a gay pedophile. Or he was possibly bi and had both
adult heterosexual and homosexual relations, etc

Wouldn't it be nice to explore without getting accused?

[psynapz]

psynapz wrote:

brekin, whycome you don't trust the board to wordwrap on your behalf?

Whycome, indeed dear psynapz? Oh, I don't know just a feeling it may not make as much sense.

You think your posts might make less sense if you don't break the lines with hard returns? Readers view the page at a variety of widths on a variety of devices, which is why automatic wordwrap is so nice. The browser can reflow the text to fit the window. But not when it's hard-wrapped. It's kinda fascist, when you think about it.

Also, just in case my offendometer isn't malfunctioning, I was just curious dude. Same reason I asked JackRiddler why he puts a period on its own line before and after the content of his posts. Just wonderin'. Carry on, sorry about the OT...

Oh and also also, if you haven't seen Idiocracy, there's no reason you'd find the word "whycome" the least bit funny, so don't feel bad if you don't. If you do, then indeed indeed.

slomo wrote:

Really, I find this kind of shit boring, but... is it really additional information that we need to know that he was a gay pedophile and not just a pedophile? I mean, does that make it worse?

I think it's worse that the first thing some people worry about is the politics of word combinations
instead of the allegations.

There's no need to assume that the content of a poster's first post in a thread constitutes their first thoughts about the thread. That's a leap. Like gay = pedophile.

In my case, others had already said it best, and/or from the looks of it, were about to, so I went secondary with my lesser concerns and those least likely to be represented here by others. One of which being completely and utterly OT. Can't speak for slomo though.

As for the general philosophical point on worrying about the politics of word combinations, we know. You made that sort of stance abundantly clear in the misogyny thread. There's a big divide amongst the RI intelligentsia about these sorts of things I've noticed. Another case in point: the clit thread. People got offended at an anatomical photo because it so happened to be an actual vagina assaulting their eyes without warning. Who is right? I don't know. I hope we can just evolve past the debate altogether somehow.

[brekin]

psynapz wrote:

psynapz wrote:
Quote:
brekin, whycome you don't trust the board to wordwrap on your behalf?

brekin wrote:
Whycome, indeed dear psynapz? Oh, I don't know just a feeling it may not make as much sense.

You think your posts might make less sense if you don't break the lines with hard returns? Readers view the page at a variety of widths on a variety of devices, which is why automatic wordwrap is so nice. The browser can reflow the text to fit the window. But not when it's hard-wrapped. It's kinda fascist, when you think about it.

Also, just in case my offendometer isn't malfunctioning, I was just curious dude. Same reason I asked JackRiddler why he puts a period on its own line before and after the content of his posts. Just wonderin'. Carry on, sorry about the OT...

Oh and also also, if you haven't seen Idiocracy, there's no reason you'd find the word "whycome" the least bit funny, so don't feel bad if you don't. If you do, then indeed indeed.

This is funny. I thought when you were talking about "trusting the board to wordwrap on your behalf" you weren't talking about formatting but some type of "defining terms by consensus". I'll try to not do so many hard returns. And sorry, I didn't think whycome was a word in usage.

slomo wrote:
Quote:
Really, I find this kind of shit boring, but... is it really additional information that we need to know that he was a gay pedophile and not just a pedophile? I mean, does that make it worse?

brekin wrote:
I think it's worse that the first thing some people worry about is the politics of word combinations
instead of the allegations.

psynapz wrote:

There's no need to assume that the content of a poster's first post in a thread constitutes their first thoughts about the thread. That's a leap. Like gay = pedophile.

In my case, others had already said it best, and/or from the looks of it, were about to, so I went secondary with my lesser concerns and those least likely to be represented here by others. One of which being completely and utterly OT. Can't speak for slomo though.

As for the general philosophical point on worrying about the politics of word combinations, we know. You made that sort of stance abundantly clear in the misogyny thread. There's a big divide amongst the RI intelligentsia about these sorts of things I've noticed. Another case in point: the clit thread. People got offended at an anatomical photo because it so happened to be an actual vagina assaulting their eyes without warning. Who is right? I don't know. I hope we can just evolve past the debate altogether somehow.

Agreed, I'm all for respecting people's feelings. But I think some people haven't examined closely what they have hitched their feelings to.

[psynapz]

LOL, yes, the board software.

Agreed, I'm all for respecting people's feelings. But I think some people haven't examined closely what they have hitched their feelings to.

See, AD obviously feels the same way, but his relentless approach to enforcing such examination doesn't seem to really get anywhere on here. It fills a lot of pages, that's for sure. Isn't there anything more important we could be discussing, like the tentacles of the octopus or something? We were getting somewhere with that once, I thought. Now we're talking about whether or not gays are pedophiles, the other way around, or something in between. I thought we were more intellectually evolved than that here?

Oh, brekin, while I have your attention, I suspect you might be wondering how to get the quote thing to say who wrote it. It's like this:

Prepend it with [ quote="whoever" ] (no spaces, obviously -- I'm preventing interpetation by the board software) instead of just [ quote ]. Use the same closing quote tag at the end as you regularly do.

[Searcher08]

Searcher08 wrote:

Describing Walt Disney as a 'White Christian Married' pedophile presents race, religion, and marriage status classifications in the same bogus way. Child abusers will often opportunistically abuse the children they can get, even if they are attracted to a different gender of child.

I get that and that makes sense. But this specific article
alleges that Walt's young victims were all male.
That would make Walt possibly a gay pedophile.

He was also married to a woman and had kids so maybe he had adult heterosexual
relations and was also a gay pedophile. Or he was possibly bi and had both
adult heterosexual and homosexual relations, etc

Wouldn't it be nice to explore without getting accused?

When I hear 'gay pedophile' - this can be unpacked as a pedophile who happens to be gay in adult life. This is very different from saying he is a pedophile who was attracted to children of the same sex,

Anyway, I take it that 'gay' and 'straight' in common usage refer to the sexual preferences of one adult for another adult; a sheep shagger is a sheep shagger - there are not 'gay' sheep shaggers and 'straight' sheep shaggers' because those relate to adult humans not ovines.

[Simulist]

I think it's worse that the first thing some people worry about is the politics of word combinations instead of the allegations.

This isn't about "politics" at all to me; it's personal.

From time to time, ever since I first came out as a gay person, I've been surprised to find that there are many, too many people who actually believe that the words, "gay" and "pedophile," are very nearly synonymous -- and this is horrifying to me. Horrifying not only to be regarded by some people in such a vile way, but horrifying also because unfounded and cruel prejudices like this have actually impacted my life.

It didn't matter, for just one example, that I have never touched a child inappropriately -- and have positively ZERO inclination to do so! -- a relative of mine that I'd always been close to before I came out as a gay man suddenly didn't want me around her son after I came out. Her reason? Well, "protecting her children," of course! She said she had no other reason than "the fact" that "everybody knows" that "things can happen to young boys" when "homosexual men" are around.

Tragically, this bitterly cruel and unfounded prejudice against gay men is not at all uncommon I've discovered.

And such bigotry is fueled, in part, by the words we choose to use and how we choose to use them.

[brekin]

Searcher08 wrote:

When I hear 'gay pedophile' - this can be unpacked as a pedophile who happens to be gay in adult life. This is very different from saying he is a pedophile who was attracted to children of the same sex,

Anyway, I take it that 'gay' and 'straight' in common usage refer to the sexual preferences of one adult for another adult; a sheep shagger is a sheep shagger - there are not 'gay' sheep shaggers and 'straight' sheep shaggers' because those relate to adult humans not ovines.

Well, I don't read the categories that way.
I'm sure some are non-exclusive while others have strong preferences.
But why don't we just say "New Book Alleges Walt Disney Was A Pederast."
This thread is reminding me of the Monty Python Life of Brian follow the shoe or follow the gourd
dilemma.

P.S. psynapz thanks for the quote tip, I'm trying to perfect it.
Proof, I would say that I am open to reasonable suggestions.

[Project Willow]

I'm going to add my voice to this.

This is rich. Because I think it is silly to not break up gay & pedophile in a sentence I now have disdain for all gay people?

The conflation of the two, homosexuality and pedophilia, through the use of phrases like gay pedophilia is, at best, a weapon to support the continued unequal treatment of homosexuals in society and under the law, and at worst, an incitement to hatred and violence towards them. Some theorists believe it is exactly this particular conflation between child abuse, and consensual adult sexual activity, that places homosexuals into a scapegoat role where upon them all the repressed rage from countless, unaddressed child sexual abuse experiences can be safely projected.

After several encounters with people who are openly homophobic, I personally hold that view. I believe this misdirected rage is exactly what motivates the worst of violent acts committed against gay people, like the torture and murder of Mathew Shepard.

So to my eyes brekin, what you are doing is insisting on a right to participate in a process that causes other people harm, grave harm, and then complaining when that's pointed out to you by the very people who are subject to that harm and so have both an expertise and investment which you cannot, in any way, match.

You're mirroring the mindset of members of oppressive groups, beside being just, in my world anyway, plain wrong.

[eyeno]

simulist wrote:
It didn't matter, for just one example, that I have never touched a child inappropriately -- and have positively ZERO inclination to do so! -- a relative of mine that I'd always been close to before I came out as a gay man suddenly didn't want me around her son after I came out. Her reason? Well, "protecting her children," of course! She said she had no other reason than "the fact" that "everybody knows" that "things can happen to young boys" when "homosexual men" are around.

projectwillow wrote:
I believe this misdirected rage is exactly what motivates the worst of violent acts committed against gay people, like the torture and murder of Mathew Shepard.

Unfortunately the outing of Catholic priests and Rabbis will make this worse too. Don't take that wrong, they need to be outed, but unfortunately it will reinforce the stereotype considering that priests and rabbis are such public figures and hold stations of respect within society.

projectwillow wrote:
So to my eyes brekin, what you are doing is insisting on a right to participate in a process that causes other people harm, grave harm, and then complaining when that's pointed out to you by the very people who are subject to that harm and so have both an expertise and investment which you cannot, in any way, match.

I've never seen brekin express disdain for gay culture. I am willing to give him benefit of the doubt in that he is probably trying to defend the fact that he quoted the article title accurately. However brekin, maybe "oops, I see what you are saying, nothing personal, i'm not a homophobe" would have been better. You may not be homophobic but you may be digging a hole here.

I hope I don't get hosed for saying this but also "gay" is usually used for men and "lesbian" is usually used for women. These terms do have a little gender attachment to them. Maybe brekin is thinking in these terms also?

[brekin]

Simulist wrote:

brekin wrote:
I think it's worse that the first thing some people worry about is the politics of word combinations instead of the allegations.

This isn't about "politics" at all to me; it's personal.

From time to time, ever since I first came out as a gay person, I've been surprised to find that there are many, too many people who actually believe that the words, "gay" and "pedophile," are very nearly synonymous -- and this is horrifying to me. Horrifying not only to be regarded by some people in such a vile way, but horrifying also because unfounded and cruel prejudices like this have actually impacted my life.

It didn't matter, for just one example, that I have never touched a child inappropriately -- and have positively ZERO inclination to do so! -- a relative of mine that I'd always been close to before I came out as a gay man suddenly didn't want me around her son after I came out. Her reason? Well, "protecting her children," of course! She said she had no other reason than "the fact" that "everybody knows" that "things can happen to young boys" when "homosexual men" are around.

Tragically, this bitterly cruel and unfounded prejudice against gay men is not at all uncommon I've discovered.

And such bigotry is fueled, in part, by the words we choose to use and how we choose to use them.

Yes. That is horrible and unfortunate that you had that experience (especially with a relative.) And
no doubt there are too many people who think they are synonymous. But what happens is your personal
experience informs your political outlook. It couldn't be but otherwise. Me and you know that being gay
and pedophilia aren't related at all. But we both know that there are some gay male individuals who are pedophiles (pederasts, whatever) just as there are some straight individuals who are. It sounds like you have suffered unfairly by association and that is wrong. When someone is both gay and a pedophile what should we do though when we have to describe them? I'm fine with using the word pederast, but what if the person is a female who prefers young girls? Do you understand it becomes political when
you discourage others from using certain word combination's because of your personal experience? I wish it were as simple to break up certain words to reduce bigotry, but it goes beyond that. And honestly, as we all have said most people who are that ignorant think the two terms are synonymous, so it would be redundant for them to use both of them together.

I'm not going to take responsibility for all the ignorant people out there. I know there are a lot of ignorant people out there who also equate being an African American man is synonymous with being a sexual predator. That is unfortunate and repugnant. But if a individual African American man is a rapist; then that is just a fact. We can do all kinds of semantic and logical acrobatics, but it is what it is. I can understand the concern with those who would take a specific case and generalize it maliciously or ignorantly but
really, take it up with them. I respect a black males experience and can empathize with having to unfairly deal with the perception from some people he is a criminal, but when he starts advocating which descriptive words can be place together; that is when his personal experience becomes political.

Obviously language isn't completely value free, but I'm not going to worry about purely descriptive terms when they represent what is being discussed. If I thought the original article was implying gay=pedophilia then I would have trashed it. But because both alleged facts were new information on someone who was otherwise thought to be straight and interested only sexually with adults it clarified very quickly what the subject matter was. I'd be concerned if everyday gay and pedophile was being thrown up together in threads, but that isn't happening, and while I respect and understand people who have suffered unjustly would be more aware and sensitive to supposed negative associations I also think they at times need to understand that it is a leap to assume most people on this forum are subscribing to those associations when they see to words together strung together in a sentence. I welcome of course when people point out possible negative associations but I think they need to also understand that they may not be existing in the particular case.

I'm sure priests go batty when they see Pedophile Priest together in the same sentence and worry the association will stick in people's minds but only the ignorant are going to assume you can't have one without the other. I assume when we post things here that the average reader on the forum can handle thinking for themselves. I'm cool with trying to reduce bigotry but assigning motives to descriptive words which are accurate in a given situation is not going to do it. Your relative is a fool and a bigot. Getting them to stop pairing those words together would do nothing because they are one in the same for them. Those who are thinking know they are separate and can handle them together without confusing "+" with "=".

[brekin]

Project Willow wrote:

I'm going to add my voice to this.

brekin wrote:
This is rich. Because I think it is silly to not break up gay & pedophile in a sentence I now have disdain for all gay people?

The conflation of the two, homosexuality and pedophilia, through the use of phrases like gay pedophilia is, at best, a weapon to support the continued unequal treatment of homosexuals in society and under the law, and at worst, an incitement to hatred and violence towards them. Some theorists believe it is exactly this particular conflation between child abuse, and consensual adult sexual activity, that places homosexuals into a scapegoat role where upon them all the repressed rage from countless, unaddressed child sexual abuse experiences can be safely projected.

After several encounters with people who are openly homophobic, I personally hold that view. I believe this misdirected rage is exactly what motivates the worst of violent acts committed against gay people, like the torture and murder of Mathew Shepard.

So to my eyes brekin, what you are doing is insisting on a right to participate in a process that causes other people harm, grave harm, and then complaining when that's pointed out to you by the very people who are subject to that harm and so have both an expertise and investment which you cannot, in any way, match.

You're mirroring the mindset of members of oppressive groups, beside being just, in my world anyway, plain wrong.

Heard the drumming huh? I wish the world was as black as white as you make it PW. It is easy to believe you can never be wrong when you are on the side of the angels and generalize out from a specific example to the tragedies of a oppressed group.
What you don't understand is you and a few others are the ones conflating homosexuality and pedophilia. To me they were separate categories but related in one person. Walt was alleged to be gay. Walt was also alleged to be a pedophile. Walt was
alleged to be a gay pedophile. That is just logic. If people confuse the two that is there failing.

If some people want to try and make others feel guilty because some ignorant people don't understand the two can exist in one person, but not in all others, that is there bag. What i don't understand is why don't you go after those who are the members of that oppressive group and not try to shame those who are sympathetic to those who are oppressed? Perhaps you wouldn't get the same injection of righteous indignation? It's getting rather sad the mock trials that happen to those who won't bend to the preventive double think of a few.

[Simulist]

I'm going to add my voice to this.

This is rich. Because I think it is silly to not break up gay & pedophile in a sentence I now have disdain for all gay people?

The conflation of the two, homosexuality and pedophilia, through the use of phrases like gay pedophilia is, at best, a weapon to support the continued unequal treatment of homosexuals in society and under the law, and at worst, an incitement to hatred and violence towards them. Some theorists believe it is exactly this particular conflation between child abuse, and consensual adult sexual activity, that places homosexuals into a scapegoat role where upon them all the repressed rage from countless, unaddressed child sexual abuse experiences can be safely projected.

After several encounters with people who are openly homophobic, I personally hold that view. I believe this misdirected rage is exactly what motivates the worst of violent acts committed against gay people, like the torture and murder of Mathew Shepard.

So to my eyes brekin, what you are doing is insisting on a right to participate in a process that causes other people harm, grave harm, and then complaining when that's pointed out to you by the very people who are subject to that harm and so have both an expertise and investment which you cannot, in any way, match.

You're mirroring the mindset of members of oppressive groups, beside being just, in my world anyway, plain wrong.

You're a gift. Thank you.

[slomo]

slomo wrote:

brekin wrote:
See this is where we get into the best of forum thought crime. It is clear to YOU on a "subconscious level"
that gay pedophile is a double slur for me? Please quote me Mr. Freud substantiating that in any way.

Sweetie, it's not a crime to have disdain for gay people. As I've said numerous times, I'm not in the business of regulating others' thoughts. But that doesn't stop me from calling out a dog whistle when I happen to detect one.

Nothing you have written so far has convinced me that you don't view "gay pedophile" as a double-slur. In fact, the more you write, the more certain I am. "Allegations" indeed...

This is rich. Because I think it is silly to not break up gay & pedophile in a sentence I now have disdain for all gay people?
I think you have the issues with gay being perceived as a slur and not me. Nothing you have written has me convinced that you don't think it isn't a double-slur. You know somewhere in the article or title it would have to be stated that Walt was allegedly gay and was allegedly a pedophile, how should it have been constructed? I ask you as I have asked others, give me a better working two word description to identify someone who is both gay and a pedophile and I'll use it. Both deal with sexuality preference, one gender preference and the other age preference and both being new information about Walt was relevant.

I'm sorry words take you places you don't always go but I'm not responsible for perceived false relationships others will possibly make. The more you write the more certain I'm am you aren't even responding to me but a pre-fabricated political correct straw man that I'm not even behind. I'm not going to kiss anyone's ring just because they shout, or imply, I'm some type of crypto-phobe or *-ist when they disagree with me. Because in the end, Sweetie, you are in the business of trying to regulate other people's thoughts, you are just not very good at it and have to resort to wild accusations which are impossible to defend.

The funny thing is I don't really care if Walt is gay or not. I don't really care if you, or anyone else, are gay or not. Not because "I'm ok with it", but because I really don't care. If that article was just about him being possibly being gay then I wouldn't even have posted it. Interesting maybe, but ultimately who cares. But if he was a pedophile then that could explain much about Disney
and it's culture and related power networks. I'm not going to scrub an article because we find out that he was also gay in it.

[slomo]

I'm going to add my voice to this.

This is rich. Because I think it is silly to not break up gay & pedophile in a sentence I now have disdain for all gay people?

The conflation of the two, homosexuality and pedophilia, through the use of phrases like gay pedophilia is, at best, a weapon to support the continued unequal treatment of homosexuals in society and under the law, and at worst, an incitement to hatred and violence towards them. Some theorists believe it is exactly this particular conflation between child abuse, and consensual adult sexual activity, that places homosexuals into a scapegoat role where upon them all the repressed rage from countless, unaddressed child sexual abuse experiences can be safely projected.

After several encounters with people who are openly homophobic, I personally hold that view. I believe this misdirected rage is exactly what motivates the worst of violent acts committed against gay people, like the torture and murder of Mathew Shepard.

So to my eyes brekin, what you are doing is insisting on a right to participate in a process that causes other people harm, grave harm, and then complaining when that's pointed out to you by the very people who are subject to that harm and so have both an expertise and investment which you cannot, in any way, match.

You're mirroring the mindset of members of oppressive groups, beside being just, in my world anyway, plain wrong.

You're a gift. Thank you.

I'm adding to the appreciation of Willow's careful explanation.

I would have actually preferred if Wombat had left the thread title untouched. As I mentioned before, here and in other threads, I hate language police. However, as a member of the aggrieved group in this case, I absolutely will point out the offense. I'm really sorry that Brekin can't handle the criticism.

Really, Brekin, I would have had more respect for you if you had just come out and unabashedly owned up to thinking that gay pedophiles are worse than "straight" ones (whatever a "straight" pedophile is). The failure to take any responsibility at all - and then trying to project it back on me as if after being an out gay man for 25+ years I would somehow be conflating gay and pedophile and not reacting to a known cultural phenomenon that has an effect on my personal life - is really kind of just nauseating. I mean, for you. I don't really give a fuck at the end of the day. FFS, it's just an internet forum.

[Crow]

Language matters. Adjectives are not bad in themselves, but they can be weaponized. This paragraph is full of salient examples.

From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called “Barbara Morondon,” Eleanor Holmes Norton is a “black pinko,” Donna Shalala is a “short lesbian,” Ron Brown is a “racial victimologist,” and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a “far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist.” Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.

-- from an old article in The New Republic