Re: The real silliness

I don't think the distinctions are stupid and meaningless per se, but they way that they are often used here is so simplistic as to be meaningless in the end. You would consider me an anti, and yet much of society, when presented with my position in full, probably wouldn't. I do not fit easily into your categories.

Just for the record, I do not consider you an actual anti. I simply consider you to have certain anti views, particularly in regards to contact and in your perception of minors (even though I do recognize that you feel minors should have more rights than a bona fide anti would). That is not the same thing as being a full blown anti. And as I have acknowledged with kea, some people in the community do not fit neatly into either category, and are actually what kea has described as being 'agnostic' in their views. But even though not everyone fits neatly into the categorizations, the majority of people in the community do seem to.

Ad hominem attacks aside, why don't you actually try to see where kea is coming from here. He has a valid point.

His point was that the anti-contact and pro-choice distinctions are not real, and the only reason you think he has a valid point is because you, like him, dislike seeing the distinctions mentioned for political reasons. That is disingenous, not valid.

This is insulting and has little to do with the reality of our situation. Of course people here have different ideologies--more so, I think, than many of the "pros" are willing to acknowledge. Even within the pro-contacters there is disagreement about how much contact is too much, etc. Shall we also make up some categories for them? Pro-blowjobbers vs. anti-blowjobbers, for example? Why aren't we discussing that distinction every day here? I'll tell you why: because you and a few others have taken it upon yourselves to set the agenda for the entirety of GC, and that means putting people in one of the three categories you've set up for us.

I never said that all pro-contactees agreed on absolutely everything, but simply that they agree on the basics; just like not all youth liberationists agree on absolutely everything without exception, but on the basics (which is why groups like NYRA and ASFAR can still work with each other and still consider each other to be allies rather than opponents; the same could not be said for "child advocate" orgs that are protectionist rather than liberationist in their views). Of course there are disagreements about certain details, and there probably are indeed sub-categories of each stance, just as there are sub-categories of Republicans and Democrats. GC has always been predominatly pro-choice, and that is not going to change if we can help it. We need a "green zone" where we can receive support from others who share not only our attraction base, but also our ideology. The reason some of the few anti-contact and agnostic people on this board are unhappy with the "agenda" (as you call it) is because the fact that their views are the dominant views almost everywhere else outside of these pink walls isn't enough for them. You want the pro-contacters to embrace people with your views everywhere imaginable, which is akin to gay rights activists being friendly and supportive of the small number of gays who dislike the idea of their community having the right to marry or co-habitate with a partner and that all gay people should either try to "cure" themselves or remain celibate. The pro-choice faction of the MAA community is the most marginalized, oppressed ideology in our culture, and it's frankly laughable that the relatively small number of anti-contact people in the community (and certain agnostics) believe they are some sort of marginalized group. They can't stand the fact that the MAA community itself has a majority of pro-choicers, much as the popular students at a college cannot stand a single club on the campus that isn't controlled or dominated by the popular people (and since I was once a college student, I noticed this phenomenon very clearly; perhaps I should tell you about it sometime). This is the same sort of situation here. I'm sorry that it irks you and kea that the pro-choice majority within the MAA community defends our little green zone on the Web so strongly, but if we can deal with being greatly in the minority in virtually every single place outside of these pink walls, then I like to think the anti-contact MAAs (and the agnostics) can deal with being in the minority here. GC doesn't have a specific agenda, but it has traditionally been predominantly pro-choice since its inception, and since the pro-choice stance is greatly marginalized outside of this community, you shouldn't expect us to avoid acknowledging the existence of--and challenging, when warrented--the anti-choice few when they attempt to form a prominant presence here. Everyone of every ideology receives support when they ask for it, and I certainly remember everyone--including me--giving you that support when PJ unjustly cost you your job, and during the times you had emotional breakdowns. So you really have nothing valid to whine about.

Yes, but you are setting up a class system where the "pros" are the special ones at GC and everyone else is barely tolerated. You suggest we serve a purpose, so we who do not conform strictly to your distinctions are useful, but otherwise you'd be trying to drum us out of the movement.

We are not "setting up" such a system...it's existed since GC was first created. It's not official, but as this forum is predominantly pro-choice, the anti-contact minority (along with the agnostics) need to expect to get challenged when they attack our ideology. As for drumming you out of the movement: in many ways, the anti-contact people are opponents to the pro-choicers, and we see you as Uncle Toms and assimilationists with good reason. We flatly disagree with that ideology, and any anti-choice MAA who enters the movement--particularly in the future when it gains more momentum--are going to be greatly at odds with us, and that will include, in some instances, aligning themselves with the elements in society who are our enemies. There are many anti-contact MAAs who do that, including some who work with PJ and AZU, and some who have worked for Mike Echols in the past, so I think it's extremely justified for the pro-contact people to be wary of the anti-contact MAAs when it comes to politics and activism, as well as with personal info. I don't mind the anti-contact people being here, as I enjoy honing my skills by debating with them when they challenge the pro-choice ideology, and I love exposing their arguments as largely emotionalistic rhetoric that is not scientifically supported or compatible with democratic precepts. But I do like to know who they all are, because I do like making friends here, and I do not want to unwittingly give my personal info to someone who is solidly anti-contact. There are a few anti-contact people here who I am friends with and do trust, such as Sancho, because he doesn't try to oppose the pro-choice ideology in a "loud" manner, he speaks his mind on it, but he doesn't get confrontational with us, he doesn't insult us or younger people, he listens to us when we talk to him, and he accepts the fact that GC is predominantly pro-choice and probably always will be. Never has anyone here failed to offer him support and encouragement when he has needed it. Look to him as an example if you feel you or Leon aren't tolerated here sometimes.

Spoken like a true cult leader: Cult Characteristics

Okay, let's break this down, Lat, and see if it's truly justifiable to call pro-choicers a "cult" mentality.

AFA - 8. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

I hate to inform you of this, Lat, but many anti-choice MAAs only want to be accepted by the pro-choicers so that they can serve as fifth columnists in our political movement for emancipation. Is it just my imagination that certain MAAs, like Twilight Sky, is on good terms with AZU and has taken up the self-shaming, assimilationist tactics? Whenever you critique the pro-choicers for having an "us vs. them" mentality, what you are actually saying is, "Do not acknowledge our differences, because it will be harder for us to establish a beachhead among you if do. Accept opponents amongst your number, because if you don't, then you are being intolerant." This is the very tactic that got the Democratic Party infiltrated by the corporatists and "centrists," and this is why that party is now enacting policies that are entirely against progressive principles. It's interesting that you try to use those same political tactics to try and establish a "bipartisan" mentality on GC (to use political parlance). You think all of us are too stupid to understand that this is what you try to do whenever you talk of "tolerance." We tolerate the anti-contact people here perfectly when they ask for support, or when they have something to offer the community with things such as sharing special moments with girls. But when they try to insinuate themselves into the movement of a group that has a diametically opposed socio-political agenda, with a diametrically opposed set of tactics, then that is and should be a whole different story. Your "cultist" insults are not going to convince us to welcome people into our activist movements when they are clearly opposed to most of what we are trying to accomplish, and who align themselves with our opponents.

UC Berkeley - All The Answers - Provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create. Support these answers with material produced or "approved" by the group.

So telling us that we should "approve" your insistance that we avoid fighting for youth liberation and promise society that we will take a permanent vow of celibacy forever will make us more tolerant and less "cultish" in your eyes?

Totalism - "Us against them" thinking. Strengthens group identity. Everyone outside of group lumped under one label.

Once again, the argument that labels are never apt. Guess who this argument benefits?

Motive Questioning - When sound evidence against the group is presented, members are taught to question the motivation of the presenter. The verifiable (sound documentation) is ignored because of doubts over the unverifiable (presenter's motives). See Opposer Warnings (#2 above).

When have the anti-contact MAAs ever presented "sound" evidence against us? We have engaged in debate numerous times with the anti-contact people, and almost everything you argue is based upon emotion, opposed to various scientifically verifiable findings, and very much against the core civil liberties that America is supposed to be founded upon, not to mention extremely ageist and based upon cultural assumptions without asking for evidence to back up the assumptions. And you honestly suggest it's wrong to question the motives of people who use arguments that are mostly based upon emotion, moralism, and cultural beliefs/assumptions over and above scientific empiricism and civil rights?

Coercion - Disobedience, including even minor disagreement with group doctrine, may result in expulsion and shunning.

If that was the case, then why have certain people who are anti-contact, like Sancho, found peace with the pro-choicers on this board? And many of us have minor disagreements with each other and still co-exist peacefully with each other. We have both mentioned that there are minor disagreements with pro-choicers, and I do agree that there are certain sub-categories of both pro-choicers and anti-choicers, and even one sub-category of pro-choicers who outright disturb me and who I do not consider allies (these pro-contact people are against most aspects of youth liberation accept giving full sexual rights to underagers, and I'm sure you wouldn't like them any more than I do). There is a huge difference between doctrine and dogma, and the anti-contact MAAs mostly operate according to moralizing dogma.

Cult Information Centre - 2. Peer Group Pressure
Suppressing doubt and resistance to new ideas by exploiting the need to belong.

Since when are the anti-contact ideas "new" to this community? Since when can these ideas be considered something that the pro-choicers haven't heard hundreds and even thousands of times per year, every time we watch a TV show, read a magazine article, or an online article that covers this topic? I think it's laughable to suggest that what has been the mainstream argument for 150 years now should be considered "new" to the pro-choice faction of this community. It's actually the anti-contact people who refuse to listen to ideas that are new, or at least new in the context of something they weren't brought up to believe and accept without question during the course of their lives.

4. Rejection of Old Values
Accelerating acceptance of new life style by constantly denouncing former values and beliefs.

Which is assuming that old values and beliefs were always valid and correct. I guess by this definition, the women's suffrage movement was likewise "cultish."

6. Metacommunication
Implanting subliminal messages by stressing certain key words or phrases in long, confusing lectures.

Our posts are confusing? If you say so.

17. Finger Pointing
Creating a false sense of righteousness by pointing to the shortcomings of the outside world and other cults.

You're right. The sex offender registries, the erosions of civil liberties, the suppression of all aspects of youth sexual expression (such as sexting and uploading of provacative pics on socnet sites), and arresting people for looking at pictures, all of which are fueled by the sex abuse hysteria and the "pedophile panic," shouldn't be considered shortcomings of this culture. What reason do you or other anti-contact MAAs want to be part of the movement if you are so approving of our culture's good old values and the laws that enforce them?

Rick Ross

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. (For example, telling people to stay away from counselors because all or most of them are out to get you.)

Yup, the outside world just loves MAAs. All the MAA-friendly and youth-friendly laws out there just prove this. It's not like we are ever censored for our views or subject to civil commitment or anything like that, right? As for the thing about counselors, while some people in this community do indeed have a strong and near-absolute distrust of mental health professionals (MHPs), then how do you explain many pro-choicers' involvement with B4U-Act? I'm a volunteer for that org too and I fully trust the MHPs who are members of the org.

And so on. Now, I know what you're going to say: just because GC shares a few of the characteristics of a cult doesn't make it a cult. You're right, but it indicates that it is on the wrong path. I have a feeling that if you all could meet in real life and form a large group, it would be a cult before long. The anonymity provided by the Net is partly a protection against that.

I have met several of my fellow MAAs in person at the last B4U-Act workshop, and will do so again in the future. That shed my anonymity right there. You only think GC is on the wrong path because the majority of posters here are adamant about protecting their green zone and do not treat mainstream views that hurt us and oppress younger people we are supposed to love as "new" and compelling ideas.

No, but odds are we all share at least some goals, and in my opinion the most important one--that of assuring we are not persecuted just because of who we are.

Indeed we do all share that goal, but our suggested tactics for achieving that goal are vastly different and often diametrically opposed. Pro-choicers often believe that a combination of civil rights activism aimed at acquiring full emancipation and support for youth liberation to some degree is the solution. In contrast, the anti-contact people believe that the activism should be geared towards making assimilationist bargains with the general public and avoiding youth liberation for the most part.

Right, because "anti-contact" people are all untrustworthy, no exceptions.

I didn't say all of them without exception are. I trust Sancho, as I noted before. But I do not trust the "loud" and confrontational anti-contact MAAs who are quite possibly either working with the antis off the board or who are likely to do so in the future, and who periodically have emotional breakdowns. Are you going to ignore people like Twilight Sky, or even some of the things you have done in the past, Lat? I will show you some measure of respect by not reiterating them here, but if you insist that I do, I will. And you know all the things I mean. Would you suggest that the pro-choicers on this board should trust the likes of Leon, who openly attacks us, insults us, condemns us, has admitted to working with offline agencies who are clearly anti-MAA in the past, or who routinely has emotional breakdowns due to guilt and shame over their attraction base? Is it "cultish" of us not to trust such individuals?

Number 4 of Rick Ross's list applies here--you are setting up a false dichotomy using fear to persuade people here that only those who belong to the in-group are trustworthy. It's a load of horseshit. You may not be aware of this, Dissident, but I already know who you are, and that's because someone you trusted leaked that info to me. I won't say who it is, but he doesn't seem to post here anymore anyway. The fact is, I just don't care about any of that.

I think I know who you mean, and I won't mention his name here either, but I will be mindful of that individual from now on if he ever returns. And if we are referring to the same person (and I think we are), then you will notice that I started expressing some misgivings about him in many ways during his later months here. He used to come off as pro-choice during his early days here, which is why he earned my trust, but later he started displaying some protectionist attitudes and came out against youth liberation when he was drunk in chat one day (and you know how honest people often are when they are inebriated). I think you have just proven how important it is not to trust certain people with your personal information, and you have given much evidence that ideology has a lot to do with it. It's not so much about having an "in" group here, it's about people who are less likely to be opponents, less likely to be emotionally disturbed and constantly having doubts about their attraction base, and less likely to dislike or condemn pro-choicers. You may say you don't care about anyone's real identity, but that doesn't mean I would have trusted you with it. Considering the main characteristics of anti-choice people like yourself and Leon, I think it's hardly a bunch of horseshit--or any kind of shit--to be wary of sharing personal info with such individuals.

And yet I have it because someone you did trust gave it to me. That's something I never would've done, ever.

Need I bring up the Eeyore thing again? I won't, but just remember what you once threatened to do. And do you seriously think I should share my personal info with the likes of Leon? Be serious, dude! The only reason I trusted the person in question is because he pretended to be pro-choice, when in actuality he had heavy protectionist leanings, and when he found out I didn't, he became dispirited with me. The point is, he wasn't fully pro-choice. Once again, people who have anti inclinations are often not trustworthy. I am not saying that all pro-choice MAAs are trustworthy, but I do think it's cogent and reasonable to say that they are much more likely to be trustworthy with personal info than many anti-contact/anti-choice MAAs are. Goddess only knows what you will do with my personal info (assuming it's accurate) the next time you have one of your periodic breakdowns and decide pedophilia is evil again. And if you try to suggest you will give out what you believe to be my personal info if I challenge you strongly enough, then feel free to do so, because no one will ever intimidate me into shutting my mouth. Too many good people have left this board in the past out of fear that they would be outed, or after they had been outed. I am out in real life, anyway, so almost no one who knows me will be "shocked" to see that I post on a board like GC, and that includes my girlfriend, who is well aware that I'm a hebephile and pro-choice in ideology, and that I post on a support board for MAAs.

Says the guy who's afraid to trust anyone who doesn't fit into his preapproved ideology.

Says the guy who refuses to make friends and trust personal info with people who are opponents of mine, who may possibly work with antis either now or in the future for all I know, and who have severe emotional problems that includes periodic breakdowns where they obviously loathe anyone who is pro-choice and feel guilt and shame over their own attraction base. It's interesting to see how you try to convince people to keep their guard down. I'm sorry, Lat, but with a few exceptions, many anti-contact MAAs, based upon past behavior, have rightfully earned their status of untrustworthiness.