CF speaks a lot of sense.
Why is not repeating the mistakes of the past a dangerous attitude?
My step-dad used to physically abuse me. No paedo stuff, but the fucker used to hit me when my mum wasnât about. He actually left me hanging on a coat hook for a few hours.
unionhotel, on the periphery of my life at the time, beat the royal fuck out of him when he found out. It never happened again, so the step-dad tried redirecting his anger toward me ma.
She beat the royal fuck out him, again, and he spent some time looking like a panda before leaving the house for good.
These days, Iâm an unofficial patron saint of step-children. I pay special attention to anyone that is in a similar family situation to myself, thatâs to say, a kid from a first marriage where other kids have come along afterwards. Thatâs one example from my life, but the general principle is this; if youâve been through any kind of bad experience, the correct reaction is to ensure that it doesnât happen to others, not create new pain in others thatâll never heal your own.
Originally posted by @pap
Why is not repeating the mistakes of the past a dangerous attitude?
Thatâs one example from my life, but the general principle is this; if youâve been through any kind of bad experience, the correct reaction is to ensure that it doesnât happen to others , not create new pain in others thatâll never heal your own.
I think itâs pretty clear thatâs not what KRG is suggesting.
With regards to the other highlighted point that would be ideal but, for whatever reason, in a lot of cases abusers abuse. Iâve no idea how that works psychologically but I would suggest that your attitude, while understandable, is probably not part of the solution.
The reason is because they choose to, despite knowing the pain it has brought to their own lives.
Iâm not offering my attitude up as a solution, TCK. Iâm simply explaining my viewpoint.
1 Like
Originally posted by @TheCholulaKid
CF speaks a lot of sense.
Well, heâs certainly not bunging live grenades into the thread, retreating to a safe distance and watching the carnage.
Firstly, I am, sincerely, sorry to hear you experienced that. I am massively, massively lucky to have had an incredible step-dad that has looked after me as best he could. Canât begin to imagine what that is like.
I do, honestly, get where you are coming from, or at least understand the argument you are making. I canât personally put myself in the same scenario, as I simply havenât got that experience. I do largely agree with the broader point.
I do think the issue may be a bit more complicated though. Seeing the victims come forward and speak (how fucking brave are they, btw - apologies, tangent) it is clear that this has had a profound affect on their lives, understandbly. It has shaped who they, how they see the world, how they think and how interact with others.
I donât think thereâs anything controversial in equating sexual abuse as a child (well, Iâd argue any age really) to trauma. Trauma at a young age can have massive developmental issues. It can have a massive affect on how the victim develops socially. Things like relationships and interactions with others are often (obviously not always) affected. Victims often internalise or normalise the abuse they have sufferred.
Yes, these people are still absolutely responsbile for ther actions. They are still commiting abhorrent acts, which should obviously be punished. But I do honestly believe that there are (as far as it is possible to use such a phrase, I agree it isnât nice to do so when it comes to child abuse) some mitigating circumstances here.
If such a huge part of our development, both physical and mental, takes place in childhood - the people we go on the be as adults is so massively influenced by what we experience around us as children. I canât defend the actions of an abuser who was abused, I do understand the sentiment of âthey should know betterâ. It is an understandable response. I do disagree though that these people are worse.
If you are raised in a cycle of abuse, itâs probably not all that surprising that you pick up some abusive tendancies. Surely, this is an area where we could do a lot more in terms of prevention. Ultimately, I donât see that what you are saying is about not repeating the same mistakes as the past.
I donât really understand how we as a society can move past this, or look to prevent repeating the mistakes of the past if we donât actually look to understand why this happens, or how we can better prevent it.
I personally believe that having a better look at society as a whole, and trying to change the messages we normalise into people at such a young age would have a much better effect.
4 Likes
Apologies, that post is riddled with errors. Trying to tidy it up, so editing accordingly. Not trying to trip anyone up.
NOt sure there is any carnage here - Tramps admitted he was a bit pissed last night and was perhaps a little OTT in his interpretation⌠Seriously not sure why anyone would find TCKs comment that controvercial⌠It actually highlights the problem that there seems to be a âsetâ agressive way we are expected to react - go out with the nail-studded baseball bat and beat the fuck out of these people and if we dont we are are somehow apologists for them? The alternative POV is that this helps no one sort thsi problem out⌠which is my POV.
1 Like
Youâve raised an interesting point with normalisation, KRG. Any destructive behaviour is far more likely to occur when mutually validated by peers and/or previous life experience. Itâs one of the reasons I personally believe that paedophilia is likely to be more frequently occurring amongst those that attended exclusive private schools. If some of the reported practices are even half true, youâve got to figure elite institutions are going to act as one hell of a normaliser.
Anonymous have a piece on their news site about the normalisation of child sexual imagery in one of their reports.
There is no question that something dark is going on within the USâ entertainment industry. One of obvious example is how the music industry has been openly marketing sexualized songs, videos, and lyrics to children while also using pop stars, like Miley Cyrus, to sexualize children and even babies. In the music video for her song âBB Talk,â Cyrus, who also began her career as a child star, sings âfuck meâ while wearing a onesie.
She later provocatively poses in a crib, with a baby bottle, and while wearing a diaper and baby bonnet. Was this Cyrusâ personal decision to include this in her video or a choice made on behalf of a sick industry seeking to normalize their behavior by popularizing such images? Rihanna and Katy Perry are other pop stars whose videos and songs are often marketed directly to children despite their sexual overtones. Considering that numerous psychologists have found that âmusic videos socialize young people by communicating ideas about expected behavior, relationships, and male and female roles,â this suggests that this mass marketing of sex to children as well as the marketing of music videos that combine childhood imagery with lust is indicative of the pedophilia obsession in the entertainment industry and is meant to normalize such depravity.
http://www.anonews.co/global-pedophile-ring/
As some chap once said, violence begets violence and hate begets hate. Whatever you are brought up with, surrounded by and experience daily is the norm. That is what life is for you. Look at South Africa today. The abolition of apartheid should have been the path to freedom yet today it is a country with an astonishing record on sexual abuse and violence against women. Why is that? I wouldnât profess to know the answers but I am willing to suggest that generations of people growing up with violence as a core part of each day will struggle to free themselves from the shackles of that mentality.
2 Likes
Been saying similar stuff for years, pap. Youâve seen what I get called crazy, liberal, SJW etc.
Which is part of why I take such an issue with just labelling these people monsters, sickoâs (in this case, also not overly fond of the connections to mental health) - as a tool for casting off any responsibility society has in creating norms and not examining what we can actually do to take steps break these cycles and prevent both the creating of child (and/or sexual) abusers and the prevention of abuse.
I do not believe these people are created in a vacuum.
Whilst Iâve got my crazy-bleedinâheart-SJW hat on, and as another example of how societal norms hurt people. I wonder how many of the victims of abuse in football (who appear to be mostly young men at the minute) stayed quiet due to the sexism rampant in society. We teach kids from infants that âboys donât cryâ, or that âmen are strongâ, this kind of shit is insidious and affects so many aspects of society. Men that are abused often donât report it, or seek help as they feel weak, or that they should have stopped it.
Eric Bristow (quite rightly, condemned by many) demonstrates that these attitudes exist, and serve as an example of how societal attitudes can play into these things.
Anyways, Iâve posted entirely too much for my liking recently. Got work to do and Iâm off out shortly, so gonna log off.
Be nice to each other and enjoy the rest of your weekends all 
6 Likes
Actually think itâs six of one and half a dozen of the other there, Chutters. The pair of them have been beefing on the Career Advice thread. Their reaction to each other on this thread was a clear case of wanting to see the worst in stuff. I would have a ton more sympathy with the non-handgrenade-view had TCKâs next post not been about MrTrampsâ narcissism.
Up until that point, the thread had been people expressing their disgust in terms that they felt comfortable with on a highly emotive and controversial subject. I was really not surprised to see that there werenât many posts, and that the few that existed were about total condemnation.
This is a deeply shameful episode at our club. The fact that weâre going to cop shite on it on the stands is meaningless in comparison to the wrecked lives of anyone affected. For these boys, Southampton Football Club was supposed to be the vehicle through which they realised their dreams, yet they each went through a living nightmare, unable to speak out because theyâre shit scared of making waves and/or being thrown out of the team. This went on under our roof. Itâll be difficult to look at the club of that era with quite the same eyes.
Up until TCKâs post, everything had broadly reflected the above, even if using different language to reflect it. Afterwards, people started talking about whether the language was Daily Mail, whether TCK was sticking up for offenders, whether Tramps was a narcissist, whether TCK was out of order for his comment, whether, whether, whether⌠FFS, carnage.
Not every thread has to be an arena, least of all this. I repeat; this is a deeply shameful episode for our club. Iâm still backing Sotonians to provide the most considered and sensitive commentary from all of the Saints boards that exist. Weâre not going to achieve that if weâre screaming about the garnish or bringing stale beef to the table.
1 Like
Apparently this fucker (yes I am more than happy to label them!!) is still working in football
I think it reflects very positively on this board, that no one has really been that worried about âreputationâ and more about the victims. This is beyond football or club loyalty. Yes there is a a shame associated with any institution if it failed in its duty of care, but the worse shame is if it knew anything about it and failed to take the approapriate actions. In this case the âgranadeâ has led to some interesting discussion
1 Like
I am not suggesting we suddenly ignore the shameful acts when describing such disturbing behaviours, but that the rhetoric can distract from the reall challenge of looking for answers that will slowly reduce and eradicate these behaviours or at the very least reduce tehe risk and threat to childrenâŚ
1 Like
Originally posted by @pap
Their reaction to each other on this thread was a clear case of wanting to see the worst in stuff. I would have a ton more sympathy with the non-handgrenade-view had TCKâs next post not been about MrTrampsâ narcissism.
Admittedly the narcissism post was a deliberate hand grenade however it was in response to a baseless and pretty unpleasant slur. The original point was lazy but still pertinent and expanded upon eloquently enough by CF.
Originally posted by @areloa-grandee
Originally posted by @MrTrampoline
âSorry, completely disagree with your last statement about âthe only thing folk should be getting mad about is how these people act towards childrenâ - that is simply the emotive reaction that people have been having ever since we have become more aware of these crimes⌠It does not matter how angry you get and how often you call then cunts, shout or scream various terms for them, its made fuck all dfference. We could lock up up an entire generation of paedophiles and this would still not protect children from the next generation - the pitchfork mentality only satisfies that emotion, but does fuck all to protect children.â
What policies would you advocate in contrast to the bolded, and how would they contribute to the ultimate aim of protecting children?
Genuine question. No judgement.
First up the âGenuine question. No judgement.â part of your post is not necessary⌠and is just a tad patronizing and it implies you are usually judgementalâŚ
Will respond to the discussion in a moment but seriously, Chuts, you gotta give me a break on this one. If what Iâve said really does come off as meaning the literal opposite of what Iâve said then Iâm completely fucked. Surely you can see the intent there is perfectly sincere?
Your first foray into the thread was not to give any thoughts to the crimes that have been committed, but to call me up on the terminology used to describe paedophiles. Donât try and ride the coat-tails of someone whoâs obviously made a sincere point that heâs put a lot of thought into, and then piggyback on that with words to the effect of âohâŚerâŚyeahâŚyeah thatâs what I meant! yeah that!â
Your priority was to try and have a dig at me when Iâd expressed nothing more controversial (so much so that in my original post I actually apologised for making a âstupidly obvious pointâ) than disgust at paedophilia. Thatâs all.
Perhaps I could have worded my response better but I did find that pretty shocking.
And I guess, just to close off, all Iâd point out is that in our efforts to find a solution, we should be guarded against overthinking the issue (and hey, Iâm happy to admit Iâm usually the worst when it comes to overthinking things).
Sometimes the purpose of punishment isnât simply an issue of retribution or revenge, but also an issue of social protection of innocent members of society by providing a (fairly crude) deterrence against those who would happily commit crimes if only it werenât for the threat of punishment.
Now granted, it isnât that simple and its clearly a spectrum of issues. Very few people would agree that Saudi Arabiaâs hand-chopping solution to thievery is an optimal solution just because it keeps instances of theft low. Likewise, very few people would recommend no form of punishment for criminals as they accept that on some level, a degree of deterrence is needed. However, I do think that people need to be open-minded either way.
Iâm not riding on anyoneâs coat tails - if you read back through the thread it appeared to be perfectly obvious to several other posters. including CF, what point I was making. I wasnât calling you out exclusively. Nobody else reacted in the same way as you (see Chertsâ Brasseye reference for proof positive of that). Just because you missed the point doesnât mean it wasnât there.
Youâve already shown yourself up more than once on this thread. You should probably quit while youâre behind.