>>2843562There’s no point with engaging in glownonymous. They’re just a bad faith troll trying to derail the discussion with emotionally-charged waffling.
And the whole “kill all criminals” thing is an extension of retributive justice and the support for the death penalty which I usually find distasteful since more often than not its advocates rely heavily on idealism and appeals to emotions.
Beyond treason and for recidivist criminals, I don’t see any appeal for the death penalty, especially since any government can use it to execute dissenters. And with a GOP-leaning unprincipled SCOTUS, I doubt previous precedents will stop republicans from increasingly expanding capital punishments onto non-fatal offences beyond treason.
Now, there are cases where preventative justice and rehabilitative justice can be justified, but it’s just a fact that child poverty and dysfunctional families lead to a greater likelihood for CSE. Various studies have been conducted showing that family background contributes to more harm than the sexual act itself:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370523396_Perceived_Parental_Attachment_and_Psychological_Distress_Among_Child_Sexual_Abuse_Survivors_The_Mediating_Role_of_Coping_StrategiesSo I do think the reason behind the right wing’s attempt to push this moral panic down everyone’s throat is to both shield the families from scrutiny and to push stranger danger which would redirect public focus onto hysteria for the other as opposed to inwards towards the very institution of the family that contards love to pedestalise.
Besides trying to galvanise the public towards bigotry via cheap shots at lurid sensationalised sex crimes, there’s the fact that many young male chuds DGAF about child safety as much as being more easily prone to outrage and disgust (as one user ITT pointed out) on the top of pushing a sexual hierarchy that favours them by demonising other male sexualities whilst favoring theirs. Hence why many of them don’t care about Epstein whilst constantly moralfagging over the occasional brown or white gay pedophile.
That’s why I refer to it as a moral panic: Not because it never happened, but because the scale and extent has been greatly exaggerated to the point of distortion by chuds who politicised the subject for their own gains and to distance it from broader issues of family dysfunction and child poverty.
I think this also shows why chuds are basically liberal: Much of their discourse on the matter is based less around treating systemic issues but moreso over recognised victimhood.
Though it becomes a bit of a boring debate over whether all problems can be attributed to individual agency or to society. The individual is very obviously a product of society, innate drives and impulses not withstanding. What I think is notable is that the term victim has special legal status and typically involves not systemic neglect and oppression but mistreatment by an individual or singular corporate/state agency.
One of the reasons that victimhood is very popular is it assigns unique individual worth and experience to suffering and provides a concrete legal claim. Fired from your job for extremely arbitrary reasons or a bad economy? You have no special victim status. Fired because you were a woman or gay/trans, or black? You do have special victim status. Its important not to stay too much mentally in the 2010s though, some conservatives have been successful arguing about reverse discrimination in the legal system.
It explains a lot about identity politics on both sides that the reaction to woke was to try to create a specific form white young male conservative grievance, even if it doesn’t collectively affect them such as the moral panic over “gruming gangz” (the extent of which has been exaggerated to the point of mythology, such as the “1 million rapes” which in itself is based purely on political extrapolation as opposed to hard data).
The current backwards movement means that special legal allocations/considerations for minority groups are less enforceable. They already weren't particularly binding but often were felt to be so bc of high profile cases and corporate HR rhetoric.
Victimhood tried to address social ills through individualistic narrative and legalistic litigation which still broadly focuses on the individual even if social groups are considered. The point of Civil Rights law wasn't to undo liberalism but to provide special consideration to those prior liberal states had systemically discriminated against Mission creep was obviously a factor as it often is but its notable that the justices felt that once systemically created injustices were addressed such forms of "positive discrimination" would no longer be needed.