Well realpolitik admits that you must be willing to make concessions when someone in a position to hand you significant gains is making concessions of their own. In order to do this a movement needs an accommodating acceptable public face. But there are a few things to remember.

Maybe that's so when the minority position has the numbers to be able to demand concessions with the possibility of some significant negative impact if those demands aren't met, but that isn't us. Not yet. Not even close. And at any rate, what has the all-or-nothing tactic gotten us thus far? It certainly hasn't gotten us 'all', so what's left? You do the math.

Those sides are dependent upon the others who won't back down. The NAACP and Sinn Fein needed their more radical counterparts to remind those in power that behind the heroic restraint lies a lot of very justifiably angry people who have other options than the bargaining table.

Well, were not Sinn Fein. Hell, most people here aren't even willing to step out of their comfort zones and proclaim who they are in real life, much less be willing to fight openly for their beliefs. So, all I see are a bunch of people making unreasonable demands from the virtual shadows, which just winds up being fodder for the Antis to use against all of us, including those of us who are out, either by choice or through a series of unfortunate events leading to their outing and/or arrest. If we had the numbers who were willing to stand up and fight, I might agree with you. Come back and talk to me when you and those who agree with you are willing to actually put their money where their mouths are and/or put their asses on the line in some tangible way. But, as it stands, this whole thing is basically just a mockery of those groups who did exactly that, and a dangerous one for those few MAPs who are actually out in the open.

Because of this interdependence its very important just how the moderates represent their differences with their brothers. Respectful disagreement and a focus on separate goals are possible without tearing down the other. "We don't use those tactics," "we prefer to focus on other objectives," are all ways of distancing onesself without disparaging people involved in furthering the cause.

The problem is that when your position is an absolutist one, you can never really respectfully disagree. You can claim that as some kind of ideal, but in practice you will always find fault with anyone who views things differently than you do. You see VirPed as selling out their brothers; I see them as somewhat misguided but essentially sharing the same goal when it comes to society's treatment of us.

And for Ghod's sake, you never play into the stereotypes in making claims about your people. The NAACP never implied that their disagreement with Malcolm was due to him giving in to the violence black men are "prone to." If they had, they'd have been shooting themselves in the foot.

Let me get a better handle on this. I have not read the VirPed site in depth, and I do not recall much about Ethan's posts here to that effect. Can you give me a rundown on the positions of Ethan's that you find contentious? Beyond that, my thought is that if Ethan sincerely holds the view that MAPs generally are dangerous, I would challenge that view at face value rather than try to smear him as an Uncle Tom. That's a form of poisoning the well, is it not?

When VirPed argues that Peds are inclined to change or repeal the AoC laws because they think with their d*cks when it comes to LGs, then they're admitting that their reasons for reassessing the CP laws are because Peds can't stop thinking with their d*cks when it comes to pictures of nekkid LGs.

Well, you have to admit that it does look mighty suspicious to outsiders that MAPs seem to be the only ones clamoring for dropping AoC laws. True, it is poisoning the well to take that position in a debate about the AoC, but on a meta level I can certainly understand it. It's a common sense perspective, and in the end simply calling foul on the grounds that it's poisoning the well isn't going to convince many Nons that the claim itself is wrong. That needs to be addressed in realistically.

And indeed, I see it as likely true in many cases, because human beings on the whole are notorious for "thinking with their dicks"--history is chock full of examples. Why would MAPs be more noble on average in that regard than the rest of humanity? And we are in an especially precarious position because our inability to have sex with our preferred partners is bound to generate desperation. In the end, I don't think it serves our best interests to try to position ourselves as somehow transcending the need inherent to sexual desire and its tendency to obfuscate and influence our beliefs and behaviors. We are no more immune to it than is anyone else. Humans are animals at heart, and sex is an important aspect of animal being. Therefore, let's not try to pretend we are better or less animalistic than other humans and just address the issue logically and at face value.

And of all the people to hang in effigy; B4UACT? And why? Because B4UACT focussed on working with MHPs but wouldn't make a claim against an issue largely irrelevant to their work?

This is extremism. They might've well asked, "are you now or have you ever been a Communist?" When you're talking about the real progress made by B4UACT, this sideshow isn't the issue. But to VirPed it is significant enough to break with them over. And significant enough to cast aspersions on their motives.

It isn't enough for VirPed to succeed in their own way doing something different. They must try to tarnish anyone who either disagrees with them, or Ghod forbid, remains neutral, like B4UACT.

By denouncing B4UACT these extremists have shown that they have no interest in being the public face of a more inclusive movement. They can't tolerate dissent. And what they can't silence at home, they will impugn everywhere else. They could've remained silent about the "motives" of others and focussed on what they believe. But they've chosen to make their unfounded slurs central to their public identity.

I appear to be missing some vital info here. Are you saying that VirPed has criticized B4UACT on the grounds that they have refused to come out against legalizing sex with children? If so, can you point me to the relevant sources?

When they sell the public on the notion that Ped desires are somehow exceptional in their selfish ability to cloud judgement, they're promoting a slur that sets us back.

Again, I personally do not see the matter as exceptional. All humans are subject to all sorts of biases, and we are no different. I don't think it's smearing us particularly to recognize that we too are to some degree beholden to our drives. I DO think it would be smearing us if it was claimed that we alone are subject to these frailties. That is simply not true.

I was thinking about that too. But his war over the GM was largely lost because GC cannot be a group that only exists to create a community consensus and issue press-releases. We are primarily a celebration of girls and girllove; not a very good place to launch one's candidacy from.

It wasn't just about GMs that Dissy spoke up in favor of more classiness at GC. Another issue was the way things are worded, particularly in post subject lines. Essentially, what I got from him was that he was generally in favor of presenting GC in a better light to the public, although with the caveat that we should not attempt to diminish or hide what we actually believe. I respect that, although I do think there is a time and a place to make certain claims or demands, and we are far from the point where we can proclaim, "We're widespread, we're ped, get used to it." Or whatever.

And if we REALLY wanted to create a public front for outreach; then internal rifts and negativity would not be what we wanted the public to see. If THAT was our goal, then Ethan with his disparagement would've never been allowed to post.

Nor would just about everyone here (including you), or at least we'd all would have been banned long ago the minute we disagreed on anything with another poster.