Inactive Alison Rapp / Maria Mint / 123grapeman - Pedo Defense Force, CP Advocate, Whore. Husband Jake Rapp found his balls and divorced her.

[MiloWuCollusion]

That selective reading:

I've never seen such blatant selective quoting. Take notice the highlight in the top right, folks. The highlighted part says:

"Men who like kids"

WHOA.

The real quote is

"men who like kids/kid things"

Oh... And in context of the full quote:

"Don't hate on sex workers, furries, women with big boobs, men who like kids/kid things, ppl who like pop music, romance plots etc."

...is even more harmless and is something we could all hopefully rally around as a positive, progressive view.

This is what I meant before that she speaks often about acceptance. So many people are tuning in just now and are missing what she has been speaking to for a long time. Part of the message has been she doesn't want judgement cast on people and would rather have more acceptance. Acceptance for body types, acceptance of gender or gender-fluidity, even acceptance of allowing men to not be so institutionally "masculine". This is just ripe for selective quoting in a bumbling attempt at character assassination.

From neogaf.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

https://kiwifarms.net/forums/deep-thoughts.14/

Strictly speaking I'm talking about the concrete facts regarding AoC law in the US (where Ms. Rapp lives) and the dissonance between it and her political views. Establishing that gives more context about Rapp herself, which is probably needed to keep this thread from being a "pedofork lawl" shitfest. But you're right, going back and forth on the actual social and ethical merits of AoC has no place here.

But this is now turning into a circle jerk. Let's go back to watching the growing twitter war. I swear that place is like the Syria of the internet.

Edit:

That selective reading:



From neogaf.

I do not understand the mental gynmastics this guy is doing. I can't see any context where that doesn't read "Don't hate on men who are into children". Am I just stupid?

 

[Melkor]

Holy fucking shit. It's happening.

 

[AnOminous]

Rapp thinks only about "child sexual agency" without considering how easy it will be for children and teens to be sexually victimized under such a legal change.

Most extremist arguments like this completely disregard the actual social harm they would cause if you took them seriously and enacted laws (or got rid of them) based on nonsense like this. It's really just a version of extreme libertarianism where, for instance, you'd get rid of fraud laws because you assume everyone is intelligent enough to avoid scams, and ignore the fact that there would then be a proliferation of such economy-wrecking activity.

Thirteen year olds are just not, by and large, mentally developed enough to avoid sophisticated (or even average) adult predators. Anyone sensible would realize this. Anyone sensible actually already has. That's why there are laws to protect them.

But if you start with the nugget of some general academic concept like "child sexual agency" and then take it to its extreme conclusion, it would indeed logically lead to exactly the result of doing what Rapp suggests.

There's really nothing so dangerous as an intelligent, well intentioned extremist so impressed with their own sophistry that they'd inflict their idiotic theories on the world. Luckily, SJW nonsense like this is likely to be rejected. At least in most places.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

Most extremist arguments like this completely disregard the actual social harm they would cause if you took them seriously and enacted laws (or got rid of them) based on nonsense like this. It's really just a version of extreme libertarianism where, for instance, you'd get rid of fraud laws because you assume everyone is intelligent enough to avoid scams, and ignore the fact that there would then be a proliferation of such economy-wrecking activity.

Thirteen year olds are just not, by and large, mentally developed enough to avoid sophisticated (or even average) adult predators. Anyone sensible would realize this. Anyone sensible actually already has. That's why there are laws to protect them.

I'm reminded of this video:

Basically it's a reverse To Catch a Predator. This guy collaborated with several parents to demonstrate just how easily kids in their early teens can be victimized. The youtube creator posed as a Girlfriend-Free Boy in his mid teens on Facebook and contacted a handful of girls ages 12 to 14. He would build friendships with them, then suggest they meet up somewhere. The guy would be waiting there with the girl's parents, who were always shocked their daughter just took an anonymous stranger at face value. One of them even got into a van that pulled up in front of her house just because the driver said he was her Facebook friend's brother.

Rapp would no doubt be appalled by the parents' behavior. These young girls are, in her world, old enough to be making their own decisions on this stuff.

 

[Mr Pizza]

Anyone got spare time to read this whole gallery lol

So I've started reading it. It's extremely difficult. The first massive paragraph is run-on sentence after run-on sentence. I know my writing tends to be kind of choppy in contrast and all, but this is really bad.

For example: "The creation, dissemination, and possession of child pornography is severely criminalized in many countries, and continues to be a topic of intense controversy in countries that have "lagged" in passing laws condemning the trade (though the word "trade" is misleading, as most child pornography is created, disseminated, and consumed almost entirely free of charge)."

This is the second sentence and the rest of page one doesn't bode well for the rest of the paper. It's also highly opinionated (SURPRISE SURPRISE WHO WHOULDA GUESSED!) for what is supposed to be a scholarly article (lol). Not to mention its fucking disgusting.

 

[seagull]

I don't get this bit, because if I remember correctly, she's tweeted saying that she doesn't support the abuse of actual children. However, I'm uncertain how else I'm supposed to read a paragraph about Japan's long and proud history of kiddy diddling with a few sentences stuck on the end about how pedophilia is only an attraction that isn't inherently dangerous.

Overall, it's confusing because in the paragraph about "pedophilic interests" she talks about things that would be considered to be the sexual abuse of children, but at the end of the paragraph says that pedophilia is not "the sexual offending of children."

 

[GREEDY FIREMAN]

I don't get this bit, because if I remember correctly, she's tweeted saying that she doesn't support the abuse of actual children. However, I'm uncertain how else I'm supposed to read a paragraph about Japan's long and proud history of kiddy diddling with a few sentences stuck on the end about how pedophilia is only an attraction that isn't inherently dangerous.

Overall, it's confusing because in the paragraph about "pedophilic interests" she talks about things that would be considered to be the sexual abuse of children, but at the end of the paragraph says that pedophilia is not "the sexual offending of children."

My response:
"If Japan decided to jump off a cliff would you jump too?"

 

[Loxiozzz]

Anyone got spare time to read this whole gallery lol

I read everything. I hate myself.

Brief summary:
She basically said that everything went to shit when people got more serious about how fucked up it was to own child porn, and that allowing people to own it would reduce actual child abuse because they would only use photos to fantasize. Child porn also creates no true victims if its just pics or drawings. Blah blah freedom of speech Japan. Also, we put morality above protecting children when we made child porn illegal. Criticizing Japan for having less strict laws on kiddie porn means we are pressuring them and forcing western views on them. It would result in the loss of part of their culture. Tradition should not change. It's cultural imperialism. Morals shouldn't encourage change.

The meaning of pedophilia is distorted on the Internet when it comes to those who just download or view kiddie porn. There is no evidence that shows that viewing child porn promotes child molesters. She compared it to how playing violent video games =/= violent acts. Just because the majority doesn't agree, doesn't mean there should be a law against it. She compared this to WW2, saying that violent warfare and crime against Jews and the Roma were acceptable( I may have to re read that part. Her writing is retarded). We should reflect our own actions before we tell Japan to do something about their laws. Pressuring them is wrong, and will damage the relationship between them and the west. Stopping kiddie porn won't stop kiddie diddlers. The US is a hypocrite for telling other countries to strengthen restrictions on the matter.

There is nothing wrong with owning it. Punishing people for owning it will encourage child prostituion and sex trade. Being against it is anti-child. We should be more focused on healthcare and the economy. There should be more research done on this. People who watch violent shit on TV are more apt to believe that the world is violent. It doesn't mean they'll hurt anyone. This is also said for child porn. Don't infringe on the rights of other countries. This is not the cause of child social issues.

I don't know what to say. This whole thing is just one big

 

[DragoonSierra]

Strictly speaking I'm talking about the concrete facts regarding AoC law in the US (where Ms. Rapp lives) and the dissonance between it and her political views. Establishing that gives more context about Rapp herself, which is probably needed to keep this thread from being a "pedofork lawl" shitfest. But you're right, going back and forth on the actual social and ethical merits of AoC has no place here.

But this is now turning into a circle jerk. Let's go back to watching the growing twitter war. I swear that place is like the Syria of the internet.

Edit:


I do not understand the mental gynmastics this guy is doing. I can't see any context where that doesn't read "Don't hate on men who are into children". Am I just stupid?

I can possibly spin that as a typo. Like she forgot the apostrophe in "kid's." But its not considering the context aka the pedo article she complained about.

 

[Vorhtbame]

Well whaddaya know, people will interpret the things you say in context of other opinions you've expressed. How unreasonable. I mean, that would be like if a guy kept expressing a wish to kill you, and then he mails a letter to your home address that says, "Now I know where you live". I mean, it's two separate things, right? No reason to be worried.

 

[Mr Pizza]

I read everything. I hate myself.

Brief summary:
She basically said that everything went to shit when people got more serious about how fucked up it was to own child porn, and that allowing people to own it would reduce actual child abuse because they would only use photos to fantasize. Child porn also creates no true victims if its just pics or drawings. Blah blah freedom of speech Japan. Also, we put morality above protecting children when we made child porn illegal. Criticizing Japan for having less strict laws on kiddie porn means we are pressuring them and forcing western views on them. It would result in the loss of part of their culture. Tradition should not change. It's cultural imperialism. Morals shouldn't encourage change.

The meaning of pedophilia is distorted on the Internet when it comes to those who just download or view kiddie porn. There is no evidence that shows that viewing child porn promotes child molesters. She compared it to how playing violent video games =/= violent acts. Just because the majority doesn't agree, doesn't mean there should be a law against it. She compared this to WW2, saying that violent warfare and crime against Jews and the Roma were acceptable( I may have to re read that part. Her writing is retarded). We should reflect our own actions before we tell Japan's to do something about their laws. Pressuring them is wrong, and will damage the relationship between them and the west. Stopping kiddie porn won't stop kiddie diddlers. The US is a hypocrite for telling other countries to strengthen restrictions on the matter.

There is nothing wrong with owning it. Punishing people for owning it will encourage child prostituion and sex trade. Being against it is anti-child. We should be more focused on healthcare and the economy. There should be more research done on this. People who watch violent shit on TV are more apt to believe that the world is violent. It doesn't mean they'll hurt anyone. This is also said for child porn. Don't infringe on the rights of other countries. This is not the cause of child social issues.

I don't know what to say. This whole thing is just one big

Thank you for taking the time to do that.

 

[Loxiozzz]

Thank you for taking the time to do that.

Np! But I think I have autism now.

 

[Without A Gout]

I'm usually not a fan of firing people for shit they do on the internet, but in this case I'm all for it. Why? Because the pedophiles most likely to act on their urges are the ones that have unrestricted access to children and teenagers. As a PR rep for a Nintendo app mostly played by children and teenagers, this could become very, very toxic if one day she decides to act on these urges.

And no one should be using Japan as a role model for porn standards of any sort. These are the kind of people that openly read hentai on subway trains and have used women's underwear kiosks. Just stop. Now.

 

[Pikonic]

She hasn't done anything illegal.
However, Nintendo is an organization that needs to care about it's image. If they think someone they're affiliated with is hurting their image, I believe they have a right to cut ties. An American woman, who works marketing visual media to children, speaking out about lowering the aoc to 13 and more lax CP possession laws simply looks bad. It's not about her breaking laws or advocating breaking laws, it's about dumb 40yo mothers thinking twice before buying Mario Party 29 because it might contain nudity.
The Ravens cut Ray Rice after the video went public, despite knowing about it beforehand. The Patriots cut Hernadez before he was officially arrested. When the FBI knocked on Jared's door, Subways in my area closed down for an hour to remove and destroy his image from the stores. CNN fired Justine Sacco over an unfunny, slightly offensive tweet. UCLA expelled that white bitch who ranted about Asians on YouTube. Those donglegate guys got fired. Numerous people have lost their jobs over shit they've said on Reddit. None of them did anything legally wrong at the time (charges were never fired against Ray Rice, Jared and Hernadez were eventually arrested/convicted) It was about protecting the image.

BBUUUTTTTT....

Alison Rappist is a WOMAN IN THE GAMING INDUSTRY. An industry where olny [insert whatever small number you want]% of employees are woman. It won't be hard to rally the masses to get behind "Nintendo fired me for being a progressive woman." The gaming industry is proven sexist, Anitia Skareefuckspelling has a loyal following in the general population and people think she's right. People are stupid, if Rapp says "I was fired because I'm a woman in the gaming industry," people will say "she was fired for being a woman in the gaming industry." Nintendo has a higher percentage of female consumers than their rival Sony and Microsoft. A sexist label wouldn't be good.

It's a tough decision with no winners, glad I don't have to make it.

 

[Vorhtbame]

She hasn't done anything illegal.
However, Nintendo is an organization that needs to care about it's image.

If her job requires her to interact with children personally, they may be opening themselves up to liability if something goes hideously bad. Heck, if a kid makes a claim about it, Nintendo gets nailed as negligent in the public eye, if not in court.

 

[HickoryDickory]

She hasn't done anything illegal.
However, Nintendo is an organization that needs to care about it's image. If they think someone they're affiliated with is hurting their image, I believe they have a right to cut ties. An American woman, who works marketing visual media to children, speaking out about lowering the aoc to 13 and more lax CP possession laws simply looks bad. It's not about her breaking laws or advocating breaking laws, it's about dumb 40yo mothers thinking twice before buying Mario Party 29 because it might contain nudity.
The Ravens cut Ray Rice after the video went public, despite knowing about it beforehand. The Patriots cut Hernadez before he was officially arrested. When the FBI knocked on Jared's door, Subways in my area closed down for an hour to remove and destroy his image from the stores. CNN fired Justine Sacco over an unfunny, slightly offensive tweet. UCLA expelled that white bitch who ranted about Asians on YouTube. Those donglegate guys got fired. Numerous people have lost their jobs over shit they've said on Reddit. None of them did anything legally wrong at the time (charges were never fired against Ray Rice, Jared and Hernadez were eventually arrested/convicted) It was about protecting the image.

BBUUUTTTTT....

Alison Rappist is a WOMAN IN THE GAMING INDUSTRY. An industry where olny [insert whatever small number you want]% of employees are woman. It won't be hard to rally the masses to get behind "Nintendo fired me for being a progressive woman." The gaming industry is proven sexist, Anitia Skareefuckspelling has a loyal following in the general population and people think she's right. People are stupid, if Rapp says "I was fired because I'm a woman in the gaming industry," people will say "she was fired for being a woman in the gaming industry." Nintendo has a higher percentage of female consumers than their rival Sony and Microsoft. A sexist label wouldn't be good.

It's a tough decision with no winners, glad I don't have to make it.

I believe Mom's outnumber the Anita supporters, plus they can speak with their wallets and don't care about SJW Patreons.

 

[2_blank_spaces]

Well, the age of consent can be as low as 16 in some states. But either way you look at it, this chick doesn't realize how fucking awful she sounds.

 

[CatParty]

I believe Mom's outnumber the Anita supporters, plus they can speak with their wallets and don't care about SJW Patreons.

this is why nintendo localized their video games

 

[AN/ALR56]

I'm reminded of this video:

Basically it's a reverse To Catch a Predator. This guy collaborated with several parents to demonstrate just how easily kids in their early teens can be victimized. The youtube creator posed as a Girlfriend-Free Boy in his mid teens on Facebook and contacted a handful of girls ages 12 to 14. He would build friendships with them, then suggest they meet up somewhere. The guy would be waiting there with the girl's parents, who were always shocked their daughter just took an anonymous stranger at face value. One of them even got into a van that pulled up in front of her house just because the driver said he was her Facebook friend's brother.

Rapp would no doubt be appalled by the parents' behavior. These young girls are, in her world, old enough to be making their own decisions on this stuff.

That video is fake and is a horrible way to teach kids by publicly humiliating them.