Post a response:
|
Fragment, I have listened to the first several fifteen minutes or so at the above-address provided by Manstuprator and will listen to the rest tomorrow (it's terribly late, here). It is very long. Long form can be good for making your case but the first minutes will be crucial in keeping the listener. Long can also give you enough rope to hang yourself although I've not heard that, yet. My initial observations: You sound reasonable and rational. That's in your favor. However, the relationship between you and the, obviously hostile, interviewer (and all of them will be hostile) is that of the moral high ground-holder as the interviewer who can barely contain his anger, on the one hand (and who MUST be seen to be angry), and the interviewee "hebephile-explainer" (but really "pedophile-explainer," to anyone listening) on the other. This put you at an immediate disadvantage, one that you almost can't hope to rescue yourself from, although I will listen to the rest to hear how you do. I can only go on pattern-matching from so many past interviews to know that this never, or almost never, works. Actually, I can't think of any instance when it has really worked. Tom's interview on Channel 4 a number of years ago came close to working, in some respects, but in others, Tom doesn't possess the necessary, accusatory outrage which must be directed at our interlocutors. Still, it was, on the whole, useful and I used the audio to make an accompanying, animated YouTube video that people seemed to like. An example of the sorts of things we should be saying: "You speak of my 'child victims.' I have never victimized a child! Do you know who DOES victimize children? The justice system, that's who! One-third of the people being put on the sexual offences registry are children, themselves! Who's protecting them from the police and prosecutors?" Or, perhaps: "The boy I was accused of "molesting," as you call it, refused to make any incriminating accusations against me for an entire school week during which he was pulled out of school against his parent' wishes and subjected to daily interrogations during which he was threatened and lied to by investigators until he finally, on the fifth day, broke down completely and simply repeated back what they wanted to hear! He would later ask my lawyer what he could do to help me get out of jail. Is that your idea of justice for children? Can you imagine how the police and the courts emotionally scarred him?" (this is from my own case, by the way) I am not the best person who's able to deliver that message, either. I can WRITE for that person, and coach them but, unless I'm geared very high on caffeine and testosterone that day, perhaps, I'm not that guy. The thing is: we need to stop relying on, and trusting, others to get our stories and our arguments right. They have absolutely no motivation to do so. When answering their questions, if they're worth answering, we should consider doing so via email, only, where we can control what to answer and how we answer it. I told several interviewers, years ago, including Vice Media's Mike Pearl, that I wouldn't give a recorded interview, either audio or video, but would only answer their emailed questions with my own emails. He was pretty unhappy with that as was another bunch who, after not not getting anything salacious or self-sabotaging from me, decided not to run the interview. It's pretty difficult for them to creatively edit our words when we have their original and our original emails. I let them know that we would post both their questions and our responses on our own website. You could call this approach, or producing our own podcasts or videos, "time-shifting." We would use recorded production and editing (something I once did for a living) to our advantage to make it PERFECT. It's a very gifted rhetorician who can take these guys on live with no ability to edit the final product. I haven't seen any of us do that, yet. Maybe our founders, David Thorstad and Tom Reeves, came the closest. They were radicals and supported kid's rights, an essential framing of this, our issue. They did have the right level of defiance and contempt for how society treats kids. And that needs to feature in anything we do. So, I really think that anything that focuses on "the sick pedophile (or hebephile)" and how can we keep them from being a threat?" is not worth our engagement or time. That's not your intention but it's always theirs. As with the sexologists, they can communicate nothing for us but contempt or, at best, pity and be seen to be providing a warning to society of the dangers we pose. We can't do business with that. We should have our own media with our own agenda, not someone else's media and their agenda. As the kidnapped woman in the bottom of the pit says to "Buffalo Bill" in "Silence Of the Lambs," "Thanks for the scraps, asshole!" We need to stop begging for "scraps" from these assholes! Their traditional media is swirling down the toilet and we can do our own, thank you very much! The VIRPEDS need them to get their gold stars and brownie points because that's what they pathetically crave, we don't need the shit they're willing to give to us. |