Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
Someone needs to do a proper study on this, if for no other reason than that the media reaction would be epic.
I'd love to but there's a few issues, like funding. Those with a vested interest (e.g. LEOs and governments) are quite happy to continue as they are, convinced of the rightness of their cause. Those making money from the "industry" (and those are only slightly scare quotes) are equally happy with the status quo. Those with money to spend tend to run screaming from the room if you approach the topic of child abuse imagery with anything other than a mainstream thesis, as they don't want a sniff of guilt by association.
Also, to really study it properly, you'd need to get into the subculture itself, as an observer, but it's a paranoid subculture and literature I've read indicates it's very difficult to gain the trust of the participants unless you're also participating. Which would be very problematic for the researcher as you'd be a) subject to very harrowing experiences and b) breaking the law of most countries. One of the few places it would be legal to do this sort of research without being part of law enforcement, or operating under their aegis, is Russia. And that's a powder-keg waiting to blow for all sorts of other reasons.
It's an area that needs research, I agree (and not just the ST angle) but the public hysteria around the topic (which approaches medieval witch-burning, IMHO) tends to prevent anything other than medical research. It's even difficult to find research into victims that isn't sealed by court order. Easier to demonise than understand, I guess.
Personally, I'm just as horrified by the JonBenet Ramsay subculture of toddler beauty pageants, of sexualising preteens with the clothing choices and makeup and advertising, and how complicit society is in the forming of young female minds to be uber-consumers using sex as currency. I think that has a far wider and more sinister impact (which is not to minimise the impact of CAI on the individuals involved, believe me).
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
I...have to ask how you got from A to B in that sentence. What sort of odd views
Apparently, LEOs around the world find that many individuals who come to their notice for trafficking child abuse imagery also have a fondness for Star Trek, and they posit that it's the acceptance of diversity in the ST philosophy (yeah, right. Tell it to the Klingons because the Romulans won't believe you!) that strikes a chord with paedophiles looking to normalise their behaviour/prediliction/sickness.
Consequently, they tend to look askance at someone who has their home filled with ST paraphernalia - not so much guilty by association but clearly an indicator. I swear they were relating this to me very seriously though I can't swear they weren't pulling my leg just a little, having already ascertained I was a fan of TOS.
However, a Google Search for "Star Trek" pedophilia brings up 4.5m hits and some of the first page links seem to bear this out.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Isaac Freeman,
I object in the strongest possible terms. My mother has never been a member of the Nazi party, and I resent the implication
So what's her explanation for the tattoos, then? Eh?
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Andrew E,
Ermm.... Lolcats?
Well, if you're going to get snitty about it...
note to self: make more work for Andrew
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…, in reply to Lilith __,
But can internet culture be blamed for what he did?
There's an awful lot of people that can't tell the difference between causation and correlation. I see it with law enforcement all the time. For example, they're convinced that child abuse imagery is a precursor to molestation simply because every molester has viewed the imagery first. (They've also got some very odd views about Star Trek, but that's a different kettle of fish).
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Isaac Freeman,
I view it with deep suspicion. It has not a single word about any of my cats.
That's because the cats are in charge and know how to preserve their privacy.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Isaac Freeman,
I believe it also has a practical side-effect: it makes your position stronger, because it connects it with values that are harder to dismiss. “We’re the party of the Left” gets you nowhere with people who think of themselves as Right. “We’re the party of freedom, equality and fair play” is saying something they have to reckon with.
Indeed.
Perhaps people might like to consider the history of the terms - oh Wikipedia, is there nothing you don't know?
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
Just when things were calming down a little...
There are those - yes, even on PAS - that it's better to just ignore...
And some might say I'd be one of them, so YMMV -
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Sacha,
Sigh. Where did anyone *here* actually say that? May be a comforting mantra that helps avoid dealing with any need for change, but it's pretty schoolyard stuff.
Oh, puleeze, Sacha! Tom, facts? Yeah, nah.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Sacha,
can FIRST provide
Bart would be proud that I instinctively read that as the late Foundation of Research Science and Technology.
Ah, yes, FRST, usually pronounced "forced" to rhyme with MoRST. Of course, when I see "FIRST" I immediately think of the tax gathering IT system IRD uses, but that's what 5 years in the belly of the beast does to your perceptions.