rigorousintuition.ca

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

Oh and, we're not beyond stereotypes here. We only wish we were.

Simulist wrote:

Oh for God's sake. "Black rapist" is a similar sort of rubbish as "gay pedophile" -- even if the guy was in fact a "rapist" and "black."

Terms like this further misconceptions about entire groups of people.

And you ought to know that.

Look this is getting ridiculous. If someone is a black rapist, Muslim terrorist, or gay pedophile
that is what they are. If they are a white rapist, Christian terrorist or straight pedophile
that is what they are. Just because one group may be oppressed by a majority group at times
doesn't mean we can't use descriptive identifiers when it is relevant.
Sometimes race is a relevant descriptor regarding rape;
like what was the attackers description? Sometimes religion is relevant to terrorism when
you need to see if it was belief motivated and sometimes sexual preference is relevant to
pedophilia when you need to know what gender the perpetrator victimized.

brekin wrote:
I'm sure those previous two words can affect perception, but then I assume intelligent readers
are aware of how they are being affected and can adjust accordingly.

Simulist wrote:
Since you're "sure" the term "gay pedophile" can "affect perception" and since you only "assume" that "intelligent readers" can "adjust accordingly," then knock it the hell off.

K?

I'm not sure if you are reposting edited material I've already answered on purpose but as in my above post I already
explained this:

Everything can affect perception. I honestly think "gay" is a bad start.
I'm with James Baldwin who said sexuality should be a verb not a noun.
And what do you suggest, "...new book alleges he was a pedophile who was exclusively interested in the same sex." ?
What would you tell your friend over the phone if you had to relate this?
We start to get into a silly circles within circles like this thread where people are not so much offended at what a
sentence says but offended at what it possibly implies and some people may associate it with.

And when I "assume", "intelligent readers" can "adjust accordingly" I do so with all manners of built in prejudices that words
contain, or possibly relate to. Do you realize language would break down if it was scrubbed of all implied, possible offensive relationships?

And really, give me a better working two word label to identify someone who is both gay and a pedophile and I'll use it.

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?

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.

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.

The reason I would guess they didn't specify Walt Disney was a "white pedophile" is maybe because everyone knows Walt Disney is white and so his race isn't relevant.

Actually, quite a number of people know that Disney was potentially gay, so I don't think this statement stands either.

You can parse the language as much as you want, but it seems clear to me that at a subconscious level "gay pedophile" is, for you, a double-slur. I won't take that away from you - it's your right to rank sexual practices any way you wish - but I will not refrain from naming it.

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.

Really? Because the horrendous sex practices of a dead guy who has already been revealed to be a Nazi sympathizer are somehow more relevant than the struggles a significant minority faces today? I will grant that Disney's legacy (i.e. the company he founded) has quite an influence on the young minds of today - some would say a destructive influence - but I'm not sure how the fact that he may have been a pedophile relates to the corporate practices of The Walt Disney Company, today. If so, you might as well condemn Alice in Wonderland (the original text) as well.

Keep digging...

brekin wrote:
Quote:
The reason I would guess they didn't specify Walt Disney was a "white pedophile" is maybe because everyone knows Walt Disney is white and so his race isn't relevant.

slomo wrote:
Actually, quite a number of people know that Disney was potentially gay, so I don't think this statement stands either.

Wrong, news to me. Walt Disney as far as I know is not well known as being gay. Are you saying in the public consciousness
he's known as being gay, like say Elton John, Liberache or Ellen Degeneres? "quite a number" knowing he was "potentially"?? gay is
nowhere like knowing his race was white.

You can parse the language as much as you want, but it seems clear to me that at a subconscious level "gay pedophile" is, for you, a double-slur. I won't take that away from you - it's your right to rank sexual practices any way you wish - but I will not refrain from naming it.

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.

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...

When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you

If your heart is in your dream
No request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star
As dreamers do

Fate is kind
She brings to those who love
The sweet fulfillment of
Their secret longing

Like a bolt out of the blue
Fate steps in and sees you through
When you wish upon a star
Your dreams come true

[ From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/d/disney-ly ... yrics.html ]

I hope this never changes to "When you dish upon a star". It was the song that launched my sense of wonder.

peartreed

Yeah but what's that "their secret longing" thing all about??

Listen, at the risk of getting trashed by both sides, I would just say this.

Simulist is a highly respected member of this forum (at least by me, so I'm assuming with others) and I've never seen him call out anyone on Politically Correct speech issues.

I would trust him to be quite reasonable if he's pointing out something that is offensive.

At the same time, I understand Brekin's bristling at being asked to basically censor what he wrote, especially since he was copying it from a headline somewhere else.

If it was me, because of my respect for Simulist, I would respect his point of view on this and just chalk it up to not understanding the point of view of the gay man, since, presumably, Brekin isn't gay.

You know, the whole "walk a mile in my moccasins" thing.

At the same time, I don't think it's wrong to specify the allegation that Disney may have been into boys instead of girls, especially since specific boys are mentioned.

BUT if you think being a "gay pedophile" is somehow worse than being a "straight pedophile", well then you deserve to get trashed.

But only Brekin really knows the answer to that question.

brekin wrote:

brekin wrote:
Quote:
The reason I would guess they didn't specify Walt Disney was a "white pedophile" is maybe because everyone knows Walt Disney is white and so his race isn't relevant.

slomo wrote:
Actually, quite a number of people know that Disney was potentially gay, so I don't think this statement stands either.

Wrong, news to me. Walt Disney as far as I know is not well known as being gay. Are you saying in the public consciousness
he's known as being gay, like say Elton John, Liberache or Ellen Degeneres? "quite a number" knowing he was "potentially"?? gay is
nowhere like knowing his race was white.

You can parse the language as much as you want, but it seems clear to me that at a subconscious level "gay pedophile" is, for you, a double-slur. I won't take that away from you - it's your right to rank sexual practices any way you wish - but I will not refrain from naming it.

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.

Hi brekin

My take on it is that calling someone a 'gay pedophile' or 'straight pedophile' doesn't actually make sense. It isn't a useful distinction - it is like trying to classify carpets by the eye color of the person who would buy it.

From Wiki

Typology

Early research in the 1970s and 80s began to classify offenders based on their motivations and traits. Groth and Birnbaum (1978) categorized child sexual offenders into two groups, "fixated" and "regressed."[112] Fixated were described as having a primary attraction to children, whereas regressed had largely maintained relationships with other adults, and were even married. This study also showed that adult sexual orientation was not related to the sex of the victim targeted, e.g. men who molested boys often had adult relationships with women.[112]

Later work (Holmes and Holmes, 2002) expanded on the types of offenders and their psychological profiles. They are divided thus:[113]

Situational – does not prefer children, but offend under certain conditions.
Regressed – Typically has relationships with adults, but a stressor causes them to seek children as a substitute.
Morally Indiscriminate – All-around sexual deviant, who may commit other sexual offenses unrelated to children.
Naive/Inadequate – Often mentally disabled in some way, finds children less threatening.
Preferential – has true sexual interest in children.
Mysoped – Sadistic and violent, target strangers more often than acquaintances.
Fixated – Little or no activity with own age, described as an "overgrown child."


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.

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.

Set the semantics aside

Possible stuff to consider;

Influence of the transgressive impulse on the formation of art. (Code is everywhere)

Pedophilia as validation that the subject is 'in control'.

Why do we find so many of our cultural giants to have such abusive personal lives?