577
submitted 4 days ago by Sunflier@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

By law, we had to make certain redactions.… But we said to Congress, any congressman can come in and spend as much time as they want looking at everything unredacted.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] DarthFreyr@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

I'd say the "why" is that if you take a word whose non-colloquial definition is just "attracted to children/minors" and use it to mean "assaulter of children/minors", you inhibit the ability for someone to admit to the former to seek help to prevent becoming the latter. And I don't just mean from mental health professionals who may be trained to find that distinction and provide the necessary help anyway, a person's first line of support is often family, friends, a partner, etc. It's not just pedantry, language has a pretty significant effect on perception and perception is the closest any of us can get to reality. Also, it's very common mental health practice to separate thoughts from actions, and if there is someone sitting on the edge between the two, I'd really rather that they have the mental health to not cause such an abhorrent victimization to occur, instead of trying to remove that boundary between thinking something and acting on it.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

This is a colloquial discussion of sexual crimes against children, and your hypothesized edge case is so far off the beaten path it might as well be in Narnia.

It's not just pedantry, it's Lemmy. You really cannot get more colloquial than here.

No one is stopping anyone from getting help for anything, and it is ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise.

Getting help for anything is about hitting bottom, some limit against which you can no longer bear the cost of challenging. So if your real and genuine concern is truly that some offender be not offended by the colloquial use of the word pedophile, they should not be in this thread chock full of those very obviously mocking them, and neither should you.

[-] DarthFreyr@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Edit: New last paragraph is probably more helpful than the rest of the original post.

The point was about the conflation of terminology in colloquial use, not limited to one specific instance. My "edge case" was that someone with bad thoughts or someone they might go to for support (not just a professional) would hear/read the conflation; in what way is that broad a scenario "in Narnia"?

I have no idea what your intent was in saying that this is Lemmy and language is used colloquially here. Yes, that's what we're discussing?

Attaching the meaning of "has committed sexual crimes against children" to a person who must admit to having sexual thoughts about children in order to get help for said thoughts is going to add to the difficulty of admitting that. Being thought of as someone who has committed reprehensible and criminal acts that haven't actually done would certainly not be a motivation to speak up. It would be an extremely limited view of human behavior to assume every single factor can only have an all-or-nothing effect on what they end up doing. What is ridiculous about what I actually said, not just a strawman of it?

I'm sure the colloquial use of mental health terminology never impacted anyone who didn't actually do anything violent or destructive, right? Surely we never had trouble with people not getting help for that, since obviously we "don't care" about the people who only have bad thoughts, and the context is very clear that the words we used actually only meant the criminals. There's never been a some sort of stationary bike of terminology or something caused by the use of words with specific meanings as something totally different, everyone knows that the language we use in one space would never affect how those things get treated elsewhere. And the queen handing out Turkish delight would never turn out to be evil.

One definitely does not have to "hit bottom" to get help, and in fact it's often much more effective to deal with a problem before reaching the point of no longer being able to bear the cost of challenging it. My concern is not about "being offended", it's about doing what is actually effective to prevent people from acting on sexual thoughts towards children based on everything we know about preventing people from acting on other unhelpful thoughts. Maybe to you that's less important than being able to mock sexual offenders online? Your use of the word "offender" (as in sexual offender, ie the distinction trying to be made, what my post never really said anything about) here would seem to indicate that you have either not paid attention to the answers when you "keep asking why", or you actually consider the thought or attraction alone an "offense". You seem to do more fighting any responses you get than trying to understand (even if still disagreeing with) them.

Maybe it doesn't fit your image of those who disagree with you, but I do think those who have committed sexual offenses against children do deserve to be shamed for that, should face consequences, and I'm not particularly bothered by mocking or deriding them (especially in the case of "elites" or others who are definitely not wanting to get help for or "resist" urges). But I'm also pretty categorically opposed to "thought-crime", so I personally hold a distinction between a term that means "has bad thoughts" and a term that means "does bad things". And unless society decides to invariably execute or imprison forever any offenders, I think that there also needs to be some sort of treatment or plan to prevent someone from wanting to seek out another offense; and that just a risk of punishment or rules about staying away from children is a pretty crappy way of doing that.

Edit: I don't think we disagree on the big things: 1) anyone "participating" in Epstein's ring is a bad person; 2) the most important thing is a) preventing offenses against children and b) not compounding the harm after the fact. I think the disagreement is about if there is value to distinguishing between the term 'pedophile' as "a person with sexual thoughts or attraction towards children (ignoring the whole age/hebe- thing for now) and a term like 'child molester' (or similar) as "a person who commits a sexual offense against a child (again ignoring details like exact age of consent or whatever, below whatever one picks)"; ie is there a difference in how we would treat those people, what impact might distinguishing the terms have, in what situations would that impact apply, etc? My understanding is that we both recognize a difference in the definitions and would respond differently. I and others have said that it does make a difference whether we (collectively, in demonstrating language meaning by use) use the term 'pedophile' to mean the second definition, one who acts/assaults, instead of only relating to "is this person sexually attracted to children?" without connection to "has this person sexually assaulted children?"; also that neither definition falls completely within the other. (At least) I have claimed that maintaining a distinction does, in an indirect and as-a-general-rule way, contribute to the 2a goal of preventing offenses against children. You and others have said that, at least within the context of this thread since it was pointed out, it is not helpful to care about the distinction, and that taking the time and effort to do so detracts from 1a and (as I understand) 2b. Additionally, that the argument of distinction supporting 2a was not sound. I think the 1a-detraction only occurs if you pre-suppose mixed usage and conflated meanings, and consider engaging in other discussions like "is word choice important?" to be inherently taking away from the main idea of "bad people doing bad things". I can't claim any close knowledge about 2b, but I also don't see any argument that everyone using only action-oriented ("child molester", "sex offender", etc) or intent/behavior ("grooming", "predator", etc) language (or even just generic derogatives), without using language that (is claimed to) also maps to non-included groups (ie 'pedophile'), would further victimize someone; is that something you'd argue for? Overall, is that a fair statement of positions?

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Overall, is that a fair statement of positions?

Not for me, no. But before I start, because the word offender seems to have unfairly implied non-doers to you, I have now substituted the word predator or molester going forward, because it is those who actually perpetrate the physical crime that I am personally concerned with.

In terms of position, to be blunt, it is unfortunate from a research point of view that all the subsets of predatory child molesters are collectively known as pedophiles to the general public, but again, to the victims of such behavior, having to navigate for the rest of their lives all the harm and burden and spiritual and emotional transfers that go with unwanted adult sexuality, that distinction makes no difference.

Instead, one thing always catches my attention, and I've seen it here as well. It is something that all predatory child molesters have in common, and is the shared attribute that I personally believes overrides all of the variations in the research language, especially in regard to perpetrators seeking treatment, which seems to be your area of concern. It is simple human entitlement. To me, this is the distinction in common that overrides all linguistic nuance any researcher could possibly come up with.

Whether predatory child molestation is committed by an incestuous parent, by a batterer whose physical violence then extends to the rape of his wife and children, or by an actual attraction-feeling pedophile, they ALL believe they have a right to the bodies of children.

They ALL see children as objects, to one degree or another, to the extent that many of them have gone out of their way to develop a strong personal defense against their own empathy for the fear, confusion, and pain they cause their underage victims, so that the very real distress of their victims never gets through to whatever humanity they have left.

It is entitlement -- literally that set of beliefs and self-reinforcements that say "I have a right to this child's body, and to engage in whatever damaging, illegal or immoral ancillary behaviors toward that child, his parents, the law, or anyone else that give me my rightful repeated access to that child's body to which I am entitled" -- and NOT any other word, or definition, or set of terms that keeps a predatory child molester of any kind, in my opinion, from seeking treatment for his (or her) paraphilia.

Why would they want treatment, much less participate in the very difficult, soul-baring nature of it, when in the profound sickness of their own belief system it is their right to take that child's body and use it as they wish, and those who would stop them are the real bad guys who just don't understand?

We've seen this especially in the revelations of the Epstein class, but it is there across classes, across races, across cultures, across decades of studies: when predatory child molesters take the bodies of children, it is because predators overwhelmingly believe it is their right to take them.

And to be blunt, there has been a great deal of entitlement shown toward predatory child molesters in this thread, to the point of openly writing off the suffering of the underage victims (now saddled with far too adult burdens to ever be children again) as nothing more than cliché, and doing all possible to completely avoid the subject of this predatory behavior's real lifelong harm to children wherever it is mentioned.

Yet, as I said above, the harm to children is ALL I care about: decades after their perpetrator is sated and has moved on, their own suffering does not end. That is what I am faced with daily, and addressing that specific harm is all that motivates me.

Seeing the entitlement among predators online just pisses me off, because part of it is that they literally believe the rest of us are too stupid to recognize them discussing their appetites openly, and for good reason: people don't know it or see it even in front of their faces because people don't want to know it. But for me, that's secondary: as someone else kindly affirmed here in spite of himself, my interest really is just about the kids, and I came about my knowledge of the entire subject in a hard way. I'm not likely to overlook it.

Now to be clear, you personally didn't reduce their suffering to the single word cliché, someone else did that, though I didn't see any concern in their direction in all you wrote. Maybe that was an accidental oversight, and I'm willing to see it that way in terms of your obvious compassion toward people who are actively trying NOT to perpetrate crimes against children.

And to be honest I appreciate that you are trying to tell the truth as you know it: that much is clear to me.

Your strong distinction between thought and crime is also praiseworthy: just because someone thinks these thoughts or has these desires absolutely does not mean they will do it. And indeed, if you can stop a thought you can stop an action: that's part of the solid truth underneath every success story of overcoming any unwanted compulsive behavior.

But from where I sit, that world of distinction between those would-be predators who only think it, and those who actually act on it, especially repeatedly as many predatory child molesters do, it is not nearly as much a matter of having the thought, but of simply NOT having the humility or empathy or conscience to recognize that their own entitlement to the physical bodies of others literally does not exist in children in reality, much less legally or morally.

And having run into this exact arrogance and entitlement in pretty much every perpetrator, and "defender" of perpetrators, and "explainer" of perpetrators I've ever encountered, I freely admit to having ZERO patience left when it comes to coddling the linguistic nuances of sexual offenses against children.

So I will say this: if you or anyone else is genuinely struggling with refraining from committing offenses against children, you have my heart, and I mean that. Those are not just words. If you are literally white-knuckling your way through unwanted desires trying to find a way out of that inner forest without hurting kids, you and your struggle genuinely have my utmost respect and compassion. It is ironic that the very social structures that prevent people from getting sane research and intervention when they actually want it are the ones that predatory child molesters use to prey upon the unsuspecting and then cover their legal tracks. People that genuinely want help deserve so much better than anything we're giving them now.

No, it's the ones who freely give in to their sickness and conscienceless desires because "it's their right," and "it can't possibly be harmful if they love the child," and "they're treating that kid better than someone else will anyway," and "who cares, it's just a kid, lots of fish in that sea" that should be painfully excised from all contact with society. Just so we're clear.

Thank you again for writing your thoughtful post. It gave me a lot to think about.

this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
577 points (100.0% liked)

News

37194 readers
1801 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS