oh come the fuck on
ABDL is not fucking pedophilia what the fuck
Get this fandom space tumblr shit out of your brain I fucking beg you
Yeah fuck it
the "taboo" fucking kink mentioned and gross is just goddamn diaper stuff.
Come the fuck on
I should have seen that coming. It is always people being weird about people enjoying diapers.
"Hurf durf lets conflate the abuse of children with the sensory enjoyment of padding, piss and such, yes, literally accusing people into losing bladder control of being predators"
fuck off.
Forgive me for this ramble but I want to add to this post by talking about the sentiment that "bad people don't deserve to live" a little more explicitly--
There's two things anon satirizes that I think we should all look out for:
- The fear that thinking deeply makes one a bad person
- The idea that "Bad Person" is some sort of immutable category
One: how are you supposed to know something is wrong unless you've examined it deeply?
Thinking deeply does not make you a bad person it makes you someone able to robustly defend their ideals. People who don't give adequate consideration to the beliefs they hold can be made to change these beliefs into something which harms others when confronted or when the fashions change.
To pick an uncontroversial example: Is murder wrong because if I endorse it online I'll be bullied? ... or is murder wrong because it violates a human's autonomy...? Is human a meaningful concept or should all sufficiently intelligent being have their lives respected...? Historically why is intelligence a problematic metric...? Is the rule then that we value the inherent beauty of any pattern making system...? Is that too abstract?
If you choose to not think deeply about, in this example murder, and claim that it is bad because you'll be bullied online. Then murder becomes okay if those you worry will bully you change their minds... If you choose to believe it's because it violates human autonomy, you may cave when you are told a group of people are subhuman... (especially if you don't understand historically how these groups are created)... ect.
Thinking and discussing about complex issues without fear is the only way to become a better person... The above example may seem cut and dried, but I urge you to consider--do you have an adequate definition for why murder is wrong? How could you build one? Do you need to for a moment entertain it isn't (despite how upsetting that is)?
At risk of reigniting a discourse on this site from before my time, I find drawn pornography of obviously underaged fictional characters gross, it's a "silence this tag" and feel a bit nauseated, but I also can't find a way to justify it as morally reprehensible. There simply doesn't seem to be any way I can (without fear mongering) link it to any actual harm besides being personally, "grossed out." In this case, the best argument I heard allowed it--because that meant people like me could block a tag. Where did I find the line? When I could demonstrate adequate potential for real harm... I digress...
Here these examples are low stakes, but the same rhetoric is what is used by people on the right to pull ostensibly good people into agreeing with laws and policies which do real harm.
Moral panic capitalizes on your inability to think critically. It manufactures a disgust response and then pushes you to make snap choices against a group of people so you yourself are not, "unclean."
This brings us to...
Two: "Bad People" deserve to live too
The idea that any group can be monolithically identified as "bad," "unclean," etc. is, in my opinion, a proto-fascist urge. I don't mean that people can't fuck up, or that specific individuals may not be able to be beyond help. I don't think we should extend empathy, sympathy, or compassion to oppressors beyond that extended to their victims.Rather, I mean that the concept that a certain group can be immutably bad, and that no individual in it is worth more than, "not deserving to live" is one which is used to justify the criminalization and/or removal of certain groups from society.
Often times, the most violent of these removals can be viewed as logical end states of seemingly less harmless, "bad person," rhetoric.
For example, in the United States, we still allow the death penalty. By itself, this punishment is sometimes hotly debated... after all it's only reserved for those who are actually really bad people, right?
I argue we can view this ultimate dehumanization as a product of the rhetoric which allows the United States' prison industrial complex (something I will not explain in depth here but is essentially legal modern day slavery). The same rhetoric which dehumanizes criminals, keeping the populace tacitly forgiving of one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world, of an occupying police force, naturally ends with executions of "Bad People." (No matter how poorly botched in recent years).
Here I'm trying to illustrate how "Bad Person" rhetoric is used to support hegemonic power.
Perhaps though, the acceptance of this violent rhetoric comes from a more mundane cultural push-- the abstract feeling that people (especially people of certain races and classes and genders) don't change.
So long as we believe in easily identified sets of "Bad People," we will continue to allow systems which brutalize us all.
Anyways I've lost the plot because I'm at work so here have this unedited and unproofread...
