I took a break from it, but I may resume it once I have time. Naude comes across as very ineffective, if not incompetent when it comes to their criticisms.
The fact that the only journal to publish his defamatory piece is one that’s very new and with very little to no peer review or oversight shows how much credibility he has.
Naude is a linguistics professor, and a very opinionated and biased one, at that. I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to try and deplatform him, but I’m not sure how the university he works for will engage with this, nor am I all that familiar with SoKo academics in particular.
@terminus I would like to know your thoughts on the matter, if you have the time?
Oh, I just spit their own threat back at them… With my own Chinese flair, of course: Nine familial exterminations - Wikipedia After all, there are 2 ways to end cycles of vengeance.
Damn, he still riding the “high” of getting rejected from that journal. For a reactionary who complains about “critical race theory” he really wants those victim points.
He got published in ‘The Public Insight’, a relatively new publication with very little, if any, meaningful or consistent peer review or quality control, as there are also papers which go against some of the core tenets of Naude’s thesis published by the same journal.
I suspect that Naude’s paper might get de-published there as well, since it’s full of bigoted and defamatory statements about other academics, like Allyn Walker, and others (not to mention the Prostasia Foundation itself).
Edit:
I just checked out The Public Insight… is this a proper academic journal or a right-wing/centrist-right blog?? What the hell am I looking at?
an interesting point alaric naude brought up was the motives behind the creation of B4UACT.
hhhe doesn’t link the source and gets the name wrong. but it is real even though some links have died:
I’m not sure what the issue in those posts is supposed to be. Their goal is to help MAPs find support. They’ve never claimed to be a prevention organization afaik, even if that is one of the impacts of their work. They don’t advocate for changes to laws or do any lobbying work. It’s a research and support organization.
I mean he may well be pro-c, but I’m still not sure how that’s relevant to B4U-ACT. The goals of the organization weren’t to change laws, so how would somebody’s contact stance affect those goals?
Just curious since your post seemed to imply some malicious motive in its formation whereas I read those posts as more indicative of his plans regarding future projects, separate from the organization.
it is relevant to the impression other people have of the organization. It’s brought up in Dr Naude’s paper in order imply a malicious motive behind that organization. while i think their goal is mostly providing therapy and sponsoring research, the name “B4UACT” does imply an interest in preventing child sex abuse.
i think b4uact may be anti contact now, but i do not know. In anycase, i imagine the therapists and researchers they work with would probably be anti contact.
I know of one Forum Mod (and that is essentially the extend I know about that orgs staff) that is pro contact. so they at least don´t have the hard line that other non Contact Orgs (like virped, wir-sind-auch-menschen usw) drive.
They talk more about their views on issues like contact stance here. They don’t take a moral position since it’s irrelevant to their focus on improving MAP wellbeing. Still, they discourage people from breaking laws, and to my knowledge, they’re not involved in any advocacy for changes to existing laws. That stance allows them to connect with pro-cs and other groups who may be at a higher risk of breaking laws without that support.
