Parts of the article might not be correcly converted. For best experience, go to the Tor site.
http://ttauyzmy4kbm5yxpujpnahy7uxwnb32hh3dja7uda64vefpkomf3s4yd.onion
Why pedophilia in particular is such a great tool when it comes to arguing for mass surveillance
People in the government rarely have the interests of the public as their primary goals. This has been like this since the invention of governments. But while with kings and queens of the middle ages it was apparent that it's the case, politician now a days with democracy, which allocates some control to the masses, have to pretend that they care about this thing of that thing, so that the masses would choose them to form the government. There is no reason to be a politician if you aren't fighting for some sort of control over the masses. Very rarely politicians are genuine, and even those that are, are swapped into the same scheming and manipulations of the public as any other ones. The competition demands thins kind of vicious behavior. The unfortunate truth is that for those manipulations of the masses, there should be mechanisms for such manipulations. And if the masses can get away from those mechanisms by forming ways to preserve their rightful freedoms, the government has to intervene and scheme something so that the freedom itself would sound like a bad idea to the masses.
Surveillance is a very powerful tool of manipulation. It is so much simpler to argue with a person, who you know a lot about. And it is so much simpler to find and punish those who are against your pursuits. So governments around the world have to scheme reasons that make evading surveillance a semi-criminal act. And they have just found the perfect thing to do their arguing with.
In my last article where I talked about a yet another attack on Richard Stallman, I observed a rather strange tendency from both sides of the Right and Left political dimension to vilify certain types of sexual non-conformity. Though both have different reasons to vilify those types, and both seemingly believe that the other doesn't vilify the types.
It is sort of apparent that those arguing for surveillance dropped to some extend their "fighting terrorism" excuses. And a reason for that partly stems from the non-equal relation to terrorism from both sides of the Left and Right political dimension. While it seems like Left would be against terror since terror represents a sudden burst of short-term oppression. It seems like the left is thinking about terror differently. Terrorism, for the Left, it seems, is an expression of being oppressed and not an act of oppression in it self. While for the Right terrorism represents violent pressure to conform to something other than the traditional values. When Palestinians attacks Israel, for the Left it is rebellion against oppression, and therefor almost okay, and for the Right it is attempt at corruption of values. Therefor unapologetic. When Israel attacks Gaza, for the Left it is the oppression itself, therefor unapologetic, and for the Right it is defense of values. Therefor absolutely necessary. While in reality in both situations the murder is just murder. And murder is a form of oppression. Very rarely people consent to be killed.
Perhaps some 2 decades ago, when terrorism was a hot new topic in the United Stated of America, people actually looked, even if briefly, at the murder as is. As murder. And using terrorism for excusing surveillance worked like charm. Even big pro-freedom fighters were briefly okay with United States suddenly listening to every conversation in hope that it will prevent the next nine-eleven from happening. But since today about a half of the population of the planet sees terrorism as a kind of rebellious expression of being oppressed, the "fight with terror" excuse no longer has the same merit. And therefor is being fazed out for a bit more personal excuse.
Governments try to find arguments that are global in nature. They don't want to say one thing to the left and another thing to the right. This would make them look bad, if one from the other side would take a peek at what is being said to the first party. And also it would make for a logistical nightmare to separate the excuses. So politicians have to find excuses that they think would persuade both sides of the political dimension, even if different sides would see the issue differently. And even if the excuse in itself is devoid of any logic, or commits a horrid fallacy that makes what they are arguing about with it, cause more of what they are claiming to be trying to stop with it.
Pedophiles are just right in the sweet spot for these kinds of excuses. From the Right it is a non-conforming sexual behavior, too perverse to be allowed. And from the Left it is oppression, akin to rape. Even the law itself happened to be slightly persuaded by the Left's view on it, calling the act "rape" regardless of how consensual it was in reality. The funny thing is that the Right believes that the Left is in support of Pedophiles, since they believe the Left is in support on all sexual non-conformity. And if they see a Leftist expressing dislike toward pedophiles, they see a hypocrite. A similar misunderstanding coming from the Left at the Right. Since pedophilia is supposed to be oppression and the Right is in support of oppression, therefor the Right must be in support of pedophilia.
This is what causes so much interesting controversy when people like Richard Stallman try to argue that pedophilia might not be oppression after all. Or at least not in all of its forms. One side attacks the man for their reasons and the other for their, which starts a fire of reactionary discussions and a lot of hypocrisy thrown around from both sides. When I watch people like DistroTube reviwing the Stallman Report I cannot help but be amused by the uncomfortable shaking of the person speaking. As if he suffers through an immense cognitive dissonance just to be able to produce the words that support's Stallman against, what he believes is the attack from the Left. He himself cannot like the things Stallman said. The best argument DistroTube could have in response to the attack is that those were just words. And that nobody should take those words that seriously. There are very few people that can actually support not just Stallman himself but his views too. Because in order to do this, one has to be outside of the Right / Left political dimension.
The government knows how much fire can be spread by using "pedophilia" as an excuse for reduction of this or that human right. The arguments write themselves. They just have to suggest a topic like this and let the two sides of politics slit each other throats over it, without actually listening to one another. Very few can focus at the very least at the government's true motive. But expressing any criticism of the excuse starts another debate, another fire, another bickering and head smashing, over and over again. How dare you?! No, how dare you?! ... kind of way.
The funny thing is that the excuse itself, as I foreshadowed kind of misses the mark. The oppression to stop oppression is at the very least counter-productive. Why are they trying to ban encrypted messaging? Oh, that is because pedophiles can use them to send private pictures of children to one another without being detected. But why is it bad for them to send private images of children to one another? Well, because those are private images. You know, privacy is important!
This is the same logic people like Stallman are attacked for. Why should we infantilize children, stripping every ounce of possible freedom away from them? Oh it's for their safety. You know there are pedophiles that can rape them. But why is it bad for those pedophiles to rape them? Oh because rape is a form of oppression. And what's so bad about oppression? People that are oppressed have no freedom.
If you are trying to suggest that there is any flaw, any mistake in this debate, the thing that is going to happen is the thing that the government wants to happen. More fruitless fighting. More attacks, more disagreements. More people finding more reasons that go farther and farther away from logic to justify why they think Stallman or anybody else is wrong about this. From simply, "private images should stay unseen because privacy is important", to "looking at this image re-oppresses the victim". Which is kind of same argument. But it becomes almost spiritual at this point, forming a sort of semi-religion, based on reasons against oppressing kids, as excuses to oppress kids.
And what happens to those victims? What happens to little girls who survived "statutory rape" ( a form of rape that is rape only on paper )? Well they are being taken away by social workers against their will. Put into prisons. And brainwashed, often violently, out of wanting to have sex with people older then them. If those prisons are Right wing, they will be promoting a traditional view, where they are taught to be good wives to nice men, and never have sex outside of marriage. And if those prisons are Left wing they will be taught that consenting to sex with an older man is not feminine enough. That it is allowing for more oppression. And that it's the girl's duty to say no. But those girls should be the victims! Why are we treating them as the perpetrators? What did they do wrong, if they are the victims, to be treated as if they are the criminals themselves? Oh right: They challenge the status quo. How dare they?!
The ironic thing though, I don't think this oppression is intentional. People probably think that they are doing the right thing when oppressing those girls. That whatever their doing helps either the girls to be more normal, or fights with the problem in some way. Many parents that oppress their own children do that out of fear. Their child when born, doesn't really posses any experience about the world. And seeing the child so helpless might establish an unfavorable first impression, which will lead to failure to realize that the child is growing, that the child is leaning and that the child knows what the child wants. Making an arbitrary limit at which, at least by law, this growth is noticed perhaps takes some of the burden away. And maybe if not this, the child would still receive the same paternalistic treatment that was given to him from the very beginning. But is that enough? Or are we allowing for way too much oppression?
Organizations like Free Range Kids are formed around the idea that we are oppressing our own children too much for their own safety. But they almost always carefully avoid the topic of pedophilia. People like Stallman don't do that. Stallman thinks things through. And perhaps he arrives at a conclusion that for him make a lot of sense. That make a lot of sense for a lot of people, if they stop fighting for a moment and try actually listening to what is being proposed. Stallman never proposed to legalize child-rape. He proposed stopping oppression of children. Including giving them the right to consent. Which is absolutely not the same thing.
But you know people. They hear "pedophile" they come to scream. I foresee that the comment section will be entertaining.
Happy Hacking!!!
Comments work only on the Tor site:
http://ttauyzmy4kbm5yxpujpnahy7uxwnb32hh3dja7uda64vefpkomf3s4yd.onion
http://ttauyzmy4kbm5yxpujpnahy7uxwnb32hh3dja7uda64vefpkomf3s4yd.onion