(02-23-2023, 01:11 AM)parsifal Wrote: [ -> ]i'm unsure whether it makes more sense to revive this thread or "acceptable targets" but either way it needs to be mentioned how uniquely cruel normalcattle become as soon as a straight man intimates any attraction towards girls aged 17 or younger. of all the things one can say, even if you outright proclaimed "i hate niggers" you would not be attacked so viciously. i have seen it too often that a man who makes the mistake of being honest about his feelings finds himself the subject of unanimous outrage. they take this as license to say the nastiest most sadistic things imaginable and no matter how many concessions he makes it has no effect. any attempts to defend the position are met with absurd fallacies and hyperbole, it's as if there is a chip implanted in their brains programmed to send them into a bloodthirsty frenzy when the taboo is violated.
i was witness to this earlier today when a man who simply said "i think minors are attractive" in an online game instantly became the target of absurd vitriol. i am not exaggerating when i say i was the only one not telling him things like "i hope you never find happiness in your life" or "you deserve to be fed to a wood chipper" in response to such sacrilege as "i just want to hold hands with a teenager." another example this brought to mind is this tweet, which despite the apologetic tone and sympathetic situation of the man in the greentext the overwhelming majority of the comments are, well, see for yourself. notably in both of these instances, the backlash is disproportionately excessive. objectively, admitting to having feelings for a girl who is not even below the age of consent in most of the united states is anodyne but the normie sadism it elicits is nonetheless unmatched.
The categorical thought-killer that it is is quite interesting. You are right, you can literally make a more palatable argument for lolocaust denial than anything related to the AoC. Most of them don't even try to argue, just post some stupid groid reaction image.
This reminds me, I had a friend on rwtwt who devolved into one of those progressives in all but name, you know, the "I love everyone, I don't hate blacks, I just think we're better off apart" type... the "once you get older, you'll understand!" type. He was previously one of two leaders of a mildly significant sub-community; a schism between him and the other leader precipitated this transformation into a holier-than-thou quasi-libtard who, in lieu of actual life experience or achievements, carried himself as just oh-so-
mature, above the angsty teens. One of his most strongly held "convictions", reinforced by his liberal inclusion of whatever less-than-mediocre, boring, cookie-cutter-personality egirls wanted to join his group and their subsequent longhousing of him (if only I had known that word back then...), was a knee-jerk adverse reaction to simply joking about pedophilia or anything resembling it. (Predictably, he tried to turn me against the leader of the other splinter faction of the group.) He insisted that to allow anyone to joke about it would result in the group eventually becoming populated by unironic pedophiles. It can happen to anyone! I believe this phenomenon is just one of the most prominent and strongest symptoms of the "longhousing" of our culture; it has all the telltale marks of women's rhetoric: emotional arguments, appeals ad populum, personal attacks in lieu of logical arguing. The list goes on, and you alluded to this in your post.
Maybe off-topic, but I am endlessly amused at the cognitive dissonance women must possess to convince themselves and then one another that women are pristine, vulnerable flowers in a world full of monsters who want to take advantage of them. One of the purest reflections of this is that they will
all attack you for what you mentioned, and try to sic attack dogs on you if available, from OF prostitute to radfem. (The "trad girls" on Twitter do this as well, though I block them on sight, as they're really just "feminists wearing trad dresses".) This connects to what I said earlier about their rhetorical tactics; it's why you can't allow them a say in anything important, they drag down discourse as such. Anyway, once you even raise a finger in defence of the opposite side, you're condemned regardless, if only for not having the tact to hold your tongue, as this isn't something you argue if you care about your perception by others.
Well, normies will just go wherever the current takes them. The fact that their brains short-circuit or they come up with tenuous bullshit in defence of their "but that's wrongthink!" instinct is evidence of this. What Protected category do you think will be proscribed to criticise next? My money's on blacks.