Welcome to Part 2!

16. Another thing antis are not concerned about is how destructive their supported legal policies can be to a society purportedly based on democratic principles. The forms of censorship, bulldozing of unpopular opinions via corporate and/or state power, laws that undermine due process by being based upon the infamous "erring on the side of caution" type of assumptions, denial of full legal citizenship to certain demographics, legal suppression etc., are important tools of a fascist regime. The police state and surveillance society thrive on the above-described policies. The antis will argue, from an emotional standpoint, that a borderline police state and surveillance society is entirely worth it if that is what is required to keep kids "safe."

17. Many antis openly claim they are against fascism or a police state. This may or may not be true on a case-by-case basis, but even those who truly do not want a borderline police state seem to operate on a naive belief that draconian laws can be confined to only a few such policies on the penal code, rather than what history has demonstrated always tends to be the case instead: such laws often start out "small" and then proceed to spread like cancer cells within an ostensibly democratic framework.

18. Antis also have little to no concern, or at least a grudging tolerance for, policies and institutions that are known to routinely cause demonstrable harm on both a physical and/or emotional level for kids if these in particular are considered cherished staples of the status quo they are in basic support of. Again, this includes maintaining the integrity of the nuclear family unit as the preferred norm, no matter how insular and oppressive it has become. The continued use of the personal automobile is tolerated as the preferred form of fast transportation because of its convenience. The authoritarian, standardized school system is given no major opposition since it's perceived as necessary to indocrinate younger people into accepting that same status quo. And also as noted before, a national policy of pre-emptive war/imperialist agenda that demonstrably hurts countless kids in foreign nations is readily tolerated and even cheered because of their excessive brand loyalty to the government in general. Censorship policies that ultimately hurt kids by depriving them access to important information that may help them make intelligent individual choices are tolerated because free access to such info could end up undermining the integrity of the narrative on a wide scale (though it's already starting to happen, thanks to the advent of the Internet), undermine continued adult control over the ruling apparatus (be it corporate or state), undermine the incessant age segregation that is an important component in keeping the faux, emotionally fueled narrative from being undermined too severely.

19. Antis have no problem with lying or at least greatly exaggerating if they feel that tactic is required to serve what they consider to be the greater good. This includes many who are basically decent (if sometimes troubled) individuals; they simply believe it's sometimes a legitimate way of doing what they insist is best for kids. I personally had one anti-choice MAP tell me that in so many words during an impassioned debate in the GC chat room some years ago: "If it truly helps kids in a certain instance, then LIE!" Many antis obviously take umbrage if they are accused of lying, but the fact remains that some of them believe it's an entirely justified thing to do if they feel their perception of the greater good, and the continued preeminence of their viewpoint, sometimes depends on it. In fact, the concept of the Noble Lie is an established aspect of philosophical thought that has often been a subject of debate in ethical scholarship circles.

20. Antis on the Left will often notably pander to minority groups who have already mostly achieved their acceptance as fully recognized human beings -- e.g., the LGBTQ community -- within the framework of WEIRD societies in an effort to "prove" they are inherently open-minded and bereft of bigotry. Thus, their attitude towards MAPs and youths cannot possibly be due to ignorance or bigotry, because people on the Left are by definition always above all that, right? Of course, this duplicitous notion forces them to ignore their more ignorant pre-Stonewall counterparts, who were either openly anti-gay/trans when it was fashionable to be so in the mainstream media & social circles; or, who kept silent on the issue so as to avoid accusations of being gay themselves, or at least as "promoting deviancy." Along with ignoring the fact that their counterparts of the late 19th century and earliest days of the 20th had no problem with miscegenation laws or segregation practices even if they did not promote them to the extent that the conservatives of the South did.

21. Because antis on the alt-right side of the fence are pretty much in opposition to minority groups these days due to the mutual competitive hate-fest for social & political dominance now ensuing due to the current popularity of identity politics (to which both the Right and the Left are equally guilty of wallowing in), they tend to do less of the above described pandering in their condemnation of MAPs and youth rights and may unfortunately even attempt to use the pedo panic to hurt their identitarian opposition. That, in turn, tends to provokes their rivals on the Left side of the identity fence to attempt to counter this by upping the ante on being antis (to coin a catchy phrase). But that leads to a whole other topic not suited for this post.

22. Another major factor of antis is a desire to be popular or at least accepted by a mainstream society that they basically support and respect. They want to be part of the crowd, and the idea of being ostracized is not tenable to them. Some are emotionally troubled due to being heavily burdened by societally imposed guilt for their feelings, whereas others are mostly bereft of this and simply want a position of respect, acceptance, and professional success among those who own the plantation, metaphorically speaking. Pro-choice MAPs and even our non-MAP supporters, you will note, are most often individuals who do not support or overly respect the status quo as it is for various general principles, and are more interested in making changes -- to varying degrees of revolutionary modification, and not always the same type of economic changes, of course -- than simply maintaining the status quo as-is with maybe a bit of superficial tweaking here and there.

23. The type of anti who is overcome by guilt and shame believe that allowing these toxic emotions to routinely get out of hand, thereby causing them to engage in behavior that is erratic, unpredictable, destructive to others, and ultimately self-destructive, believes that this makes them a better person - both in their eyes and in the eyes of the public whose approval and validation they want more than anything else. They are very worried that their attractions might make them a bad person, so they engage in self-vilification while ultimately projecting this anger at the pro-choicers in their community, who make tempting targets for viewing as "responsible" for everything wrong with the situation. You will note that they rarely project any of this ire at the greater society, which is ultimately at fault for causing their self-doubt and self-hatred. This is because the teleiophiles currently control the society whose values they are in basic support of, and they usually have to spend a lot more time among them than they do among their fellow MAPs.

Hence, they blame the ideological opposition they receive within the MAP/Kind community as being the main source of their feelings of persecution. Because they feel their destructive behavior (both to others and to themselves) comes from what they consider a good-hearted foundation, they are thus easily able to rationalize almost any kind of behavior on their part. There are also some in the MAP community even among the pro-choice faction who act as enablers for these tortured souls by thinking their mental turmoil means they deserve endless amounts of forgiveness or even coddling no matter how far over the line they go; or that lashing out at others represents one among many perfectly legitimate options for dealing with their pain.

24. Of course, there are many anti-choicers who are not ego-dystonic and self-hating. However, they rarely take those among them who engage in hostile behavior and accusations against the pro-choicers to task, thus leaving the unavoidable implication that they either approve or do not disapprove enough to risk an outcry in saying so openly. To this sub-faction of the anti-choicers, the home team is always more important than policies or codes of conduct in general. And they have no problem with applying selective standards of behavior (more on that below).

25. Antis will often accuse pro-choicers of refusing to compromise. Since a great number of us are law-abiding and strive very hard to remain so, this means that antis seriously believe that being law-abiding and not encouraging anyone to break the law is not enough of a compromise. Hence, they seem to be contending that refusing to keep our ideological opposition to the status quo to ourselves and to cease gathering scientific peer-reviewed evidence that may undermine the cherished narrative of WEIRD society to be indicative of an inability or unwillingness to compromise at all. Which means the definition of "compromise" they are working with is actually a euphemism and request for near-complete capitulation to the side they favor.

26. The anti worldview necessitates that they ignore the lessons of history, including completely ignoring the fact that previous incarnations of the modern moral panics never led to anything other than extreme systematic repression of society as a whole by the state, the destruction of the lives & careers of a multitude of innocent individuals both within and outside the dominant social group(s), and a major setback to positive social progress. They thus have no choice but to insist that for the first time among numerous previous examples in history, this particular form of moral panic is here to stay and this time it's "correct" to support it.

27. As noted before, the anti worldview is largely founded upon a heavy mistrust of their fellow citizens, and the strong belief that such mistrust has to be embedded into legal and social policy for the greater good. As a result, legal judgments made on the basis of often petty assumptions that have no evidence to back them up are rationalized as necessary to ensure "protection" of the vulnerable. The "vulnerable" appellation can be applied to any group that public sentiment so designates at any given time, whether it's demonstrably true or not. The fact that many innocents will have their lives destroyed, and that certain demographics will be disproportionately affected by this -- oh, like, say, adults in general and men in particular, depending on the nature of the accused offense -- is rationalized as a "necessary evil" or some similar platitude.

In short, the rationalization is that the guilty must always be guaranteed a punishment even if we do not know that the accused is guilty in the first place, or who the actual guilty party among a group happens to be. The fact that such draconian and openly bigoted policies will only bring out the worst behavior in the "favored" demographics is not of any concern, because in the eyes of the anti these latter demographics have accrued sufficient moral capital that their conduct towards an unfavored arbitrary demographic considered to be an "oppressor" (read: disliked) are not judged by the same standards. Becoming as bad as your perceived oppressor is simply a form of giving them their just desserts, and true evil can only be committed by those we dislike, not by those we have a strong sentimental connection with, even if the acts committed are identical or very similar.

29. Antis believe that controlling others, their behavior, and even their thoughts can be in their best interests. An important part of their narrative is that older people always know what's best for younger people, even if the evidence -- both contemporary and historic -- clearly indicates otherwise. Again, it's the narrative that keeps adults in a position of power and privilege is what is important, not the reality of the matter.

30. Like many who oppose fundamental change, antis view history as static and relatively unchanging, believing that the values and power structures of the present were either "always" here or that this time they are strong and entrenched enough to last for all eternity (or as least as long as the human race continues to survive), just as all of their predecessors in previous eras did. They may actually know better, in which case their goal is to at least maintain the status quo they favor for the duration of their own lifespan and to maintain favored professional standing & as much social acceptance as possible for that duration.

That is it for now! I await additions from anyone else who may be among the pro-choice camp, and I ask anyone who does so to please not berate me for "failing" to include this or that point, but simply to offer those additions themselves, since no one person can think of everything and this list is long enough already albeit certainly by no means exhaustive. For those esteemed members of the community who are in the anti-legalization/anti-choice camp, I anxiously await your opposition as I've been gone for a while and I can use the honing of my debate skills (*waves to my bud Ethan*). And for those newbies (or even old-timers) who may be "on the fence" over the issues, I hope I provided you with some good food for thought to digest in your intellectual stomachs.