Also, you can’t accept or support someone while being opposed to a part of their existence or identity. If you don’t accept or support someone, you can’t help them. MAPs getting help is literally dependent on people not stigmatizing their attractions.
Plus all this
I’ve always said sincerity is an overrated virtue. “He, or she, didn’t mean to do…” pick your favorite bad action, is so often an excuse. He, or she, may not have meant to, but they did. Actions need to be more important than thoughts. If someone does good, I don’t think it really matters if their intent was not angelic.
I might have some feelings about putting an article about vigilantes (who go after predators based on their actions, despite the fact that they’re erroneously called ‘pedophile’ hunters) alongside sources explaining the problem with stigmatizing attractions ^^; Feels like it might give people grounds to claim that our end goal really is to destigmatize predatory actions >.>
I think people who cause abuse to become more widespread, no matter their stated motives, should be called out, especially if they’re continuing to contribute to the problem years after being told that’s what they’re doing. The article below, for example, was published 2 years ago.
Absolutely, they should be called out; I was more saying that such callouts shouldn’t uncritically be put next to writeups talking about the harm of MAP stigma, if the vigilantes being called out are targeting people based on their actions
I’m not saying that such vigilantism is right even if the targets are identified from actual abusive behaviour (since it’s ultimately counterproductive to fighting abuse), or that it isn’t at least partially driven by (or at least popularized by) MAP stigma (since they uncritically call themselves ‘pedohunters’); I just think that (uncritically) citing vigilantes as an example of why MAP stigma is bad undermines the message, and contributes to the conflation of pedophiles and CSA perps ^^;
Wow. This thread is quite lengthy. I’ll explore it more later.
This may have been explained, but I’ll risk it.
The more one has, the more one has to lose. Such incentivizes beyond just altruism to choose to do no harm. This is why stigma is bad as well as why proscribing dolls and cartoons is bad.
Conversely, the less a person has, the less one has to lose and the less one will feel incentivized beyond altruism to do no harm.
The nonsensical rhetoric that doll ownership leads to harm makes no sense when such incentivizes not to harm.
That’s just basic.
Attraction is an unconditioned response to an unconditioned stimulus. The pair cannot be changed. Behaviorism capitalizes on the pair to develop a conditioned response to a conditioned stimulus. The removal of the unconditioned stimulus, over time, results in the extinction of the conditioned response. That’s basic behaviorism.
No one controls whether one likes the smell of baking bread. One does control whether one acts on it or even pays attention to it. Attraction works the same way.