The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The @Salon Pedophile Click-Bait Magical Internet Outrage Marketing Machine

Posted on | November 5, 2015 | 71 Comments

The liberal blog known as Salon-dot-com has spent the past 20 years losing money at a rate of more than a million dollars a year. Total losses by Salon-dot-com during the course of its existence are, as I said in 2012, “probably somewhere between $20 million and a metric buttload.” A few years ago, the proprietors of Salon-dot-com tried to sell it to another media company but negotiations reportedly broke down because nobody could figure out what Salon was worth, if anything. Exactly what the “investors” at Salon-dot-com aim to achieve — beyond providing employment for liberal writers — is uncertain, but profit is certainly not a goal. Promoting pedophilia on the other hand . . .

“I’m a Pedophile, But Not a Monster” was the headline on a particularly egregious recent example of Salon-dot-com’s habit of making soi-disant “counterintuitive” arguments on behalf of sexual deviance. Over the years, they have done this with every imaginable perversion and fetish. Nothing is too weird or too kinky for Salon-dot-com, whose editors are enthusiastically in favor of every kind of sex except normal sex. Your regular variety of husband-and-wife, penis-and-vagina sexuality — no, Salon-dot-com never has anything to say in praise of the kind of normal sex that normal people have. Instead, they’re always looking for the Confession of Strange Sex story, “How I Worked My Way Through Grad School as a Bisexual BDSM Dominatrix-for-Hire” or something.

The pro-pedophile stance of Salon-dot-com could be seen as just another example of their attempting to get cheap clicks, boosting their traffic by appealing to readers with perverse sexual appetites, i.e., Obama voters.

So when Salon-dot-com provided a platform to self-confessed pedophile Todd Nickerson, the Internet went wild with condemnation. The peasants in the online village wanted to take their digital pitchforks after Nickerson, to burn him at the Internet stake. Announcing himself to the world as a Creepy Dude Who Wants to Have Sex With Kids was not the kind of gesture for which pedophile Todd Nickerson could have expected to be praised, and yet the creepy dude nonetheless pretended to be shocked — shocked! — by the angry reaction:

I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My
week inside the vile right-wing hate machine
My pedophilia essay outraged the right. My attempt to
humanize a real problem brought out their nastiest rage

You see? According to Salon-dot-com, you have nothing to fear from the Creepy Dude Who Wants to Have Sex With Kids. Instead, Salon-dot-com would have you believe, the real danger is “the vile right-wing hate machine.” It is the eagerness of Salon-dot-com’s editors to promote this bizarre worldview, in which Republicans are more dangerous than pedophiles, that makes “investors” willing to lose millions of dollars year after year to keep that crappy web site online.

Breitbart.com’s John Sexton had the distinction of being singled out by Todd Nickerson as an example of “vile right-wing hate,” and you see what that is about: Nothing says “right-wing hate” in the liberal mind more than the name “Breitbart” — you remember him, the guy who exposed a Democrat congressman as a pervert? Democrat politicians are perverts because Democrat voters are perverts who support Democrat policies that promote perversion, which are always praised by the Democrat perverts who write for sites like Salon-dot-com. Mothers are warning their children: “Stay away from that creep — he’s got an Obama sticker on his car. He’s probably a Salon-dot-com reader!”

Democrats are people who will tolerate anything — radical Islam, an illegal immigrant crime wave, transgenderism in public schools, rioters demonizing the police — as long as this “tolerance” is sold to them as “progressive,” and if they can convince themselves that the alternative to tolerating these things is to vote Republican. So if your son is being molested by his middle-school teacher, or your daughter is being “groomed” by a pervert on the Internet, you’re supposed to shrug this off as the necessary cost of “tolerance.” Actually wanting to do something to protect kids would make you part of the “vile right-wing hate machine,” and how can a Democrat voter even imagine doing that?

These “progressive” perverts celebrate the murder of innocent babies in the womb, and want to “humanize” child molesters, and you are guilty of “vile hate” if you disapprove of their agenda. But wait, look, here is yet another writer at Salon-dot-com, lamenting that an “intellectually curious” pedophile was arrested for trying to meet with a 10-year-old girl:

I tell friends, colleagues, and strangers I meet . . . when they fail to understand why I am sympathetic towards pedophiles, “How would you feel if you couldn’t ever have sex with anyone? What if you also couldn’t look at the porn you liked because it was illegal, and couldn’t confide in anyone for support?” By this point, most people begin nodding their heads in agreement.

(Are they nodding in agreement? Or are they thinking to themselves, “How can I keep this fruitcake away from my children?”)

The backlash that Todd Nickerson faced upon publicly writing about his personal struggle with pedophilia is a reminder that we, as a society, have far to go in challenging the way we think about this emotionally charged subject. But our current approach is not working.

So “we, as a society” are to blame for the “personal struggle with pedophila” of Creepy Dudes Who Want to Have Sex With Kids.

The “investors” at Salon-dot-com are willing to lose millions of dollars a year to make sure that message is delivered to the Democrat voters who read Salon-dot-com. Because “our current approach” — banning child pornography and putting child molesters in prison — “is not working,” you see. And for whom are these laws “not working”?

Creepy Dudes Who Want to Have Sex With Kids.

Also, “our current approach” is bad for the Democrat Party, because if pedophiles and child pornographers are serving long sentences in federal prison, they can’t vote for Democrats anymore.





 

Category: Liberals

Comments

71 Responses to “The @Salon Pedophile Click-Bait Magical Internet Outrage Marketing Machine”

  1. p35flash
    November 5th, 2015 @ 12:12 pm

    “Dude, you have sex with children.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvv5IBo7dpQ

  2. NorBdelta
    November 5th, 2015 @ 12:23 pm

    The degree of warped morality of Salon writer astounds me, paedophilia? The article isn’t even about getting help, it tries to normalize it, such as having a stutter. Disgraceful.

  3. NeoWayland
    November 5th, 2015 @ 12:23 pm

    I’ve got two main rules when it comes to sex. “Consenting adults” eliminates most problems.

  4. RS
    November 5th, 2015 @ 12:27 pm

    I steadfastly refused to click on the Salon link when it showed up a few weeks ago to avoid giving them traffic. That said, the fact that such could be published speaks volumes to the current state of our societal decay. Those of us with a passing acquaintance with Biblical prophecy see where we’re headed. It is not pretty.

    Maranatha.

  5. RS
    November 5th, 2015 @ 12:29 pm

  6. Fail Burton
    November 5th, 2015 @ 12:35 pm

    Anyone’s who’s studied gay feminism and its racist partner intersectionality knows that each demonizes normality. According to black gay feminist Audre Lorde that can bizarrely include being “thin.” That is to be expected of a cult which seeks to prove its sexual abnormality is anything but that. In short, normality becomes oppression. It goes without saying that type of ideological atmosphere is going to both attract and provide cover for the sickest sexual perverts in America. So why are we surprised a social justice movement largely based on gay feminist theory is claiming pedophiles are oppressed and that I have pedophobia as it were. There is little doubt this is an attempt to normalize pedophilia and that the next step is probably incest and who knows what else? These people can’t help themselves; it is core to their philosophy an not a random event.

  7. RS
    November 5th, 2015 @ 12:44 pm

    There is little doubt this is an attempt to normalize pedophilia and that the next step is probably incest and who knows what else?

    Spot on. (I can’t “upvote” because I refuse to register.)

    The point is, these people are playing to a very limited group of sycophants. Generally, they exist north and east of the Potomac and west of the Coast Range. They may pontificate all they wish, but they should remember. The people in the “flyover” hinterlands place the 2nd Amendment somewhere between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in their canon.

  8. physicsnut
    November 5th, 2015 @ 1:45 pm

    Well – the NYTimes has a thing “transgender students and high school locker rooms”.
    Every day they push this stuff.

  9. Daniel Freeman
    November 5th, 2015 @ 1:59 pm

    I honestly can’t understand why California doesn’t declare independence, unless they’re just staying in the Union to keep meddling in everyone else’s business. It’s not like they think they need us. Ditto for New York.

    (Texas is probably just staying in as a favor to the rest until those two leave.)

  10. DeadMessenger
    November 5th, 2015 @ 2:01 pm

    I’ll see that Passion song, and raise you this one. : )

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A5t7Uoanryg

  11. DeadMessenger
    November 5th, 2015 @ 2:04 pm

    If Texas seceded, I’d instantly move there.

  12. NeoWayland
    November 5th, 2015 @ 2:06 pm

    Money.

    California is desperately addicted to Federal money. Even more so with that high-speed rail project.

  13. concern00
    November 5th, 2015 @ 2:10 pm

    When the libs are warping the factual realities of gender and race, the arbitrary concept of consent won’t last long.

  14. slp
    November 5th, 2015 @ 2:36 pm

    Stay away from that creep — he’s got an Obama sticker on his car. He’s probably a pedophile.

    NAMBLA has been trying to mainstream pedophilia for years.

  15. CrustyB
    November 5th, 2015 @ 2:45 pm

    When I read the headline “I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine” I thought, OK, that’s Robert’s snarky headline. Let me click on the link to see what the actual Salon headline is. It was this:

    “I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My
    week inside the vile right-wing hate machine”

    My God. My God.

  16. Durasim
    November 5th, 2015 @ 2:53 pm

    “How would you feel if you couldn’t ever have sex with anyone?”

    Uh, feminists repeatedly chant and snarl that persons (that is, male heterosexual persons) are not entitled to sex. Ever.

    If somebody is not entitled to something, then it is perfectly possible that person will never attain it in their lives. But if an adult male person dares audibly lament that he cannot find consensual intimacy with other adults, feminists immediately denounce him as some fulminating rapist lying-in-wait who deserves worse.

    http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/

    So why is it such a pitiable tragedy and grievous injustice if a pedophile has to go his entire life without experiencing the sensation of violating a child?

  17. FenelonSpoke
    November 5th, 2015 @ 2:59 pm

    In the same edition it had an article about the militant Atheist who’s responsible for the trying to get the “Beezebub loves the little children” statues placed as an alternative to posting of the Ten Commandments, and who tried to do the Satanic Mass at Harvard. Apparently, according to the Salon writer, the Satanist is brilliant in thinking that the culture needs an alternative to the prevailing Christian thought. As a Christian I’m apparently supposed to be afraid of him but I just think he’s a coward; He’s not taking his little routine to do anything against radical Islam. And the Satanist /Atheist looks hideous. I assume that was deliberate. Brilliant? He’s a mountebank

  18. NeoWayland
    November 5th, 2015 @ 3:14 pm

    I’m not sure what one has to do with the other. I mean, consent pretty much speaks to self-ownership.

    I always thought the ‘race thing was arbitrary. The only one that makes sense for me is ‘mutt.”

  19. Alexander Moon
    November 5th, 2015 @ 3:38 pm

    Not really. The left is quick to undermine the definitions of “consent” and “adult”.

  20. Whitney
    November 5th, 2015 @ 3:41 pm

    normalizing pedophilia is becoming a thing for the left now. Utterly vile
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/not-all-paedophiles-are-bad-people-we-need-to-have-a-sense-of-proportion-a6704201.html

  21. concern00
    November 5th, 2015 @ 4:31 pm

    Yes means yes means no means no along with the arbitrary assignment of an age for consent makes for a fertile battleground for the “progressives”.

  22. Art Deco
    November 5th, 2015 @ 4:35 pm

    Man’s an idiot. First, in a display of self-destructive exhibitionism, he elects to tell the world he’s a paedophile. Then, he allows himself to be conscripted into Salon‘s silly political wars, babbling inanely about ‘right-wing bile’, as if rejection of and revulsion regarding paedophilia were a peculiar characteristic of (a) people invested in political ideology and (b) people invested in starboard ideology. I have news for the readers of this tripe: people who never vote and give no thought to any sort of topical question on public affairs think paedophilia is disgusting. They’re not likely on balance to be any sweeter to you than someone who reads op-ed pages and blogs.

    If I read the gay lobby correctly, they’ll keep away from this and concentrate on manipulating prosecutors and judges into declining to enforce age-of-consent laws so that they can get their hands on teenage boys. That way, they get what they want without public campaigns to induce state legislatures to lower statutory prohibitions, campaigns which would be a minefield and would append their objects to those of ordinary men attracted to jailbait, which would kill their cause with various and sundry constitutencies. It’s a reasonable inference that the market for ephebes among homosexual men is vast. For pre-pubescent children, not so much.

  23. Art Deco
    November 5th, 2015 @ 4:43 pm

    IIRC, NAMBLA was ca. 1978 a welcome if obscure participant in gay parades. SIECUS was also at that time in the business of advancing the view that adult-juvenile sexual conduct was a big meh. There was a culture shift in the next half-dozen years and NAMBLA came to be toxic in ways it had not been and Harry Hay was one of the few prominent promoters of homosexuality who was also congenial with NAMBLA.

    I doubt gay lobbyists are all that sympathetic to men attracted to prepubescent boys and the sort of characters who invade comboxes offer the preposterous thesis that sexually molesting a boy is something other than a species of homosexuality, and, in any case, that’s no one we know. The thing is, that there are children and there are ephebes, and a taste for the latter is anything but unusual among male homosexuals.

  24. NeoWayland
    November 5th, 2015 @ 4:56 pm

    Ah, we’re discussing two things using the same name. The age of consent is different from the act of consent.

    I’ve known 14 year olds that I would trust with my life. I’ve known 40 year olds that I would not trust to pick greeting cards. It seems to me that the voting age is a reasonable compromise, and it seems to me that should match the age someone can sign a legally binding contract.

    It’s really about the age when we expect someone to take responsibility for their own actions and accept the consequences.

  25. NeoWayland
    November 5th, 2015 @ 5:06 pm

    But the left doesn’t control me or my choices. I’m pretty sure that they don’t control most conservatives either.

    Believe it not, some on the left have bigger problems with me than conservatives do because I don’t do the groupthink or victimhood thing.

    If the nasty ole liberals can change the definitions, then enough stubborn people can change it back.

  26. Saltyron1977
    November 5th, 2015 @ 5:45 pm

    Sure it’s click bait. But it also baits out the pedo-supporters (so we know who they are). Then again, it also serves as a reference point for arguing “legitimacy” of the pedo argument – “see, Salon thinks it’s ok!”.

    And this is all part of the plan to legitimize it and legally protect it – “pedo isn’t harmful to kids – society’s view of it is”. It’s a small step from criminalized act to protected class, and the left wants to take it.

    Be sure to thank a homosexual rights supporter for this, because that argument couldn’t have been made without them.

  27. Saltyron1977
    November 5th, 2015 @ 5:47 pm

    Very good. Spotting the legal word play. And that’s exactly what they are doing.

  28. Saltyron1977
    November 5th, 2015 @ 5:49 pm

    Winning argument 15 years ago, but I’m afraid that argument will no longer work with the SCOTUS these days.

  29. RKae
    November 5th, 2015 @ 6:04 pm

    I’d like to thank Salon for setting it down in type for posterity: Being disgusted by pedophilia is a right-wing stance.

    They said it, not me.

    Never let them forget this — ever.

  30. Grandson Of TheGrumpus
    November 5th, 2015 @ 6:14 pm

    Oh! That’s what that was about!
    I thought it was some “double-amputee” thing… well the mental picture it gave me, (remember, I’m stuck in a wheelchair…) was just that: some people were poking fun at those who had “high amputation”, (or it might be termed “radical amputation” now…) on both legs.

    Combined w/the mental picture, (and two sleepless nights) it made sense.

    Anyway, my thoughts are that the cure for an active pedophile is exile, for life, to Antarctica, w/a full pack… and they additionally would be permitted to take their favorite stuffed animal for company.

    See. I’m not completely heartless.

  31. Lulu
    November 5th, 2015 @ 6:28 pm

    I don’t see how incest can remain illegal given the decision by SCOTUS on homosexual marriage — they basically said people had a “right” to marry whomever they want because love (and yes it was that stupid). Lower courts have ruled that as marriage exists for the desires of the petitioner and has no expectation of children or the effect upon said children — this means that you can’t ban incest on the birth defect/best interest of the child claim. Pretty much your only argument left according to our courts is that it’s icky, but they got rid of that argument with their ruling years ago legalizing sodomy.

  32. Fail Burton
    November 5th, 2015 @ 6:35 pm

    It’s funny how this cult often proclaims anyone who disagrees with them is a right wing reactionary. Don’t they realize they’ve overreached by declaring solely conservatives are against pedophilia as an entire demographic?

  33. Daniel Freeman
    November 5th, 2015 @ 6:41 pm

    But they’re the 6th-least Fed-dependent state overall, and only get 68 cents on the dollar back from what they send to D.C.

    If they weren’t paying Federal taxes, they could use their own money for that and still come out ahead.

  34. NeoWayland
    November 5th, 2015 @ 7:11 pm

    It’s not about the rate of return, it’s about the rush. The absolute certainty that government technocrats know better then than average person. The sure knowledge in the back of their head that no matter what California does, the rest of the country will bail them out.

    It’s an addiction.

    There’s also the water issue, but mostly it’s the addiction to Federal money.

  35. Art Deco
    November 5th, 2015 @ 7:20 pm

    Ha ha. The sorosphere goons who edit Salon may do that, but the gay lobby’s too PR savvy to overplay it’s hand that way. In any case, guys in trench coats are not FabULous.

    If they have to make a public effort, something like the Kaitlyn Hunt imbroglio will be the hook, but with more salable inventory than KH, whose mother and father were astonishingly vulgar for people who were arguably middle class.

    I’m wagering what’s up will work through the channel of discourse in law journals – working from legal academics to judges and prosecutors and out of the way of the general media and the public. Some law prof like Kenji Yoshino of Yale will be the point man.

  36. charles w
    November 5th, 2015 @ 7:30 pm

    95% of pedophiles liked what he wrote.

  37. Art Deco
    November 5th, 2015 @ 7:47 pm

    A word from the disreputable Steven Sailer: “It’s a popularity contest. It doesn’t have anything to do with principle. Mormon polygamists are extremely unpopular, so no one is going to do anything for them…”

    A court which is capable of saying with a straight face (much less Anthony Kennedy’s pompous arrogance) that a constitutional provision which was adopted in 1868 requires county clerks (in contravention of state matrimonial law) to issue licenses to pairs of dudes is completely bereft of the sort of integrity which would require the logical consistency you posit. And the legal academy is uniformly happy with that.

    What few people quite say is that the upper ranks of the legal profession are utter frauds – intellectually and morally. Our challenge is to contrive ways of dispute settlement which allow us to sideline and dispose of the upper ranks of the legal profession.

  38. mole
    November 5th, 2015 @ 8:19 pm

    All it is is the continuation of the war on society.

    The USSR had a brilliant long term plan of de-legitimising the “west” through the corruption and degrading of its educational and civil bodies.

    The only thing that went wrong from their viewpoint was that Communism was so crappy a system it collapsed first.

    If this plays out like the gay issues did then you can expect to see the following.

    1: Photogenic and non-creepy looking bloke with just underage girl as a “victim of the justice system”..
    2: Pedos being introduced as characters to be laughed at, but not despised in the general media.
    3: Medicalisation of the perversity Ie” Born that way”.
    4: Sympathy for their condition
    5: Historical figures used as justification.
    6: Refusal on a selective basis to enforce the law.
    7: legalisation.

    Im pretty sure Ive already seen 1-4 in limited ways already.

  39. Benschachar
    November 5th, 2015 @ 8:20 pm

    “But the left doesn’t control me or my choices.”
    They do control the colleges though.

  40. mole
    November 5th, 2015 @ 8:23 pm

    In the UK they had a pretty good run at it already.
    But remember the left are the guys in the white hats.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/pie-controversy-harriet-harman-has-got-this-one-wrong-9162728.html

    Between 1978 and 1982, Harman was legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty). Her husband Jack Dromey, who is Labour’s shadow police minister, chaired the NCCL in the 1970s; Patricia Hewitt, who was later a cabinet minister, was its general secretary. The links between the NCCL and an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange have been known about for years, and are a stain on its reputation.

    The problem for Harman, Dromey and Hewitt isn’t that they were advocates of sexual relationships between adults and children when they were at the NCCL. It isn’t even an NCCL press release in 1976 calling for the lowering of the age of consent to 14 – a terrible idea, but not one supported only by paedophiles at the time. It’s that the origin of the attack seems to have blinded them to the fact that they might actually have something to apologise for.

  41. NeoWayland
    November 5th, 2015 @ 9:08 pm

    My first reaction was “Not Hillsdale.” A few years back I did some research and I was impressed that they didn’t take government funding. Not even Federally backed student loans.

    So I wonder, do all government-backed colleges and universities push for the social justice language changes? And does the percentage of the funding they get from various governments correlate to how hard the push is?

  42. Daniel Freeman
    November 5th, 2015 @ 10:32 pm

    Homosexuality, polyamory, pedophilia: one of these things is not like the others, and dudes need to stop getting intellectually high on their own rhetorical supply if they want to literally keep their heads.

  43. Daniel Freeman
    November 5th, 2015 @ 11:45 pm

    1. All they have to do is find a sweet young couple, where he’s 16 and she’s 15, in a state without a Romeo-and-Juliet law. Shouldn’t be too hard. And then if it’s okay for her to have sex with a 16 year-old, then why not 18? Or 21? Or 31? And if it’s okay for him to play ball with a 15 year-old, then why not 14? Or 12 (or 10), if there’s grass on the field? Once your mind is so open that your brain falls out, anything is possible.

    2,3,4: I don’t watch TV any more, but I will never forget the Law & Order episode where the cops were the bad guys for harassing the poor innocent pedo who was valiantly abiding by the court-ordered chemical castration despite it making him fat, and also depriving him of a fundamental human drive and source of enjoyment in life. /puke

    5. They don’t have to go historical. They just have to invert Afghanistan from violating our values to social proof.

  44. RKae
    November 6th, 2015 @ 1:20 am

    And just think: In a few years they’ll look back on those “To Catch a Predator” shows like it’s “Reefer Madness.”

    “Can you believe they used to punish people for that! How narrow-minded!”

  45. Daniel Freeman
    November 6th, 2015 @ 2:12 am

    The water issue could be resolved internationally. They have to be really insecure to need us to back them up. But then, I guess that makes sense with all those fruits and nuts that need safe spaces.

  46. Art Deco
    November 6th, 2015 @ 6:51 am

    No, all three are forms of sexual transgression. They are distinct from each other.

  47. Lab
    November 6th, 2015 @ 8:24 am

    This is a symptom of a civilization collapse. U.S is no longer the world ruler. The recent decision to overturn the one child policy made by china shows what being no. 2 or 3 is like. Horrible. Yet this is the new normal.

    We either focus on the depravity of it an decline further or we dust ourselves off and fight to be no. 1. It is too hard to predict how much further we have to fall before, we stand up and fight for no. 1. That is our only hope.

  48. Ilion
    November 6th, 2015 @ 8:40 am

    That sounds live David Crowder … and the beard looks like his.
    .

  49. robertstacymccain
    November 6th, 2015 @ 8:57 am

    Of course, this was what drew my attention to the “Free Kate” saga in 2013. It was clear that LGBT activists were trying to undermine statutory rape laws by using the photogenic perp (Kaitlyn Hunt) as a wedge to inspire sympathy for homosexuals with underage partners. Had it not been for (a) the courage of the younger girl’s parents, (b) the refusal of law enforcement to be bullied by the “social justice” types, and (c) a determined swarm of online activists who realized the true import of this case, who knows how that story might have ended?

    As it was, of course, “Free Kate” got caught and was sent to jail. I do not like the idea of any unfair prejudice in such matters, but when a 14-year-old’s parents say “leave our daughter alone,” the law should always be on their side.

    This particular slope could prove to be more slippery than most people imagine, unless responsible adults are alert to any encroachment of the law.

  50. NeoWayland
    November 6th, 2015 @ 9:00 am

    Pardon, but should the U.S. be the world ruler?

    Should any nation be the ruler?

    Why?