Retracted Article from British journal calls us a " Covert Pro-Paedophilia Organisation"

I don’t really have time to respond but he calls people who disagree with him "pedophiles’ ’ and puts air quotes over the word experts so it really shows the level of this article. I say he because from what I can tell it was published by one person and not a group of researchers.


The journal took it down because it contained misinformation. I wouldn’t put too much time into it


Take a look at the rest of Naude’s blog, hosted at the same address, in which he compares Black people to animals, lectures a Black author to “recant, repent” over his anti-racist book, minimizes Europeans’ responsibility for slavery, condemns gays for their “failure to reproduce offspring” and more. Just another reactionary whose sole interest in pedophilia is his ability to weaponize its stigma against minorities.


That’s an awful lot of text to show he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about.


Reading through some of his articles, yeah I can sort of see where he’s coming from, but then I look back at the material he’s pointing to and I wonder if he’s even in the right headspace, or is even internalizing it the way it’s intended to be. He seems to have an issue with metacritical thinking and analysis.

I’m looking through the paper in question and noticing some egregious flaws in both his definitions, how he frames things, and more specifically, how he fails to account for and exclude his own biases, all of which seem to support an overt, or perhaps preferential, lack of metacognition. One would assume that metacognition would be a prerequisite for someone who specializes in linguistics, but I guess that’s too much to ask.

I’m going to need some time, but I’d like to review this paper and address some of his claims. Many of which are simply and provably false, while others have a degree of nuance to them that require a more structured level of engagement to show how/why they’re wrong.

Many of his points about virtual child pornography being a form of CSAM are wrong both as a matter of semantics and common definitions, as well as claims of child-like sex dolls. “Correlation is not causation” used to be the standard, but when it comes to persons such as this whose investment in academia are that of a socio-political nature, anything that would initially support one’s preconceived biases and further their goals is enough.

The only thing of note in which he brings up is a recently-published article that claims to have found a link between the consumption of CSAM and the heightened risk of subsequent direct contact with children, a study that, upon reviewing the materials, does not comport with established empirical consensus on the matter.

This paper is a blatant attempt at discrediting the Prostasia Foundation, and I’d like to see it remain unpublished.
Yeah… I’m definitely writing up something here soon. This needs a thorough rebuttal.

Oh my god… How is this person a professor in anything… Some of these attempts at attacking key principles of Prostasia’s platform are flat-out wrong!

He quotes Dr. Walker out of context!


How is that rebuttal coming along?