Response to KamilBeylant SecurityConcern attack paste  (called "On Boychat.org, Kamil Beylant and his buddies") 

 

by Kamil Beylant, @securityconcern  Jan 15, 2017

 

In 2016, an ambitious young woman with strong computer and internet skills took a liking to a feisty older Alabama woman, known as ‘Mattie’ to her friends (nickname altered), who was plugging away day after day reporting child pornography accounts to the administration of Twitter.com.  Mattie was, and is, a warrior, and tended to accompany her reports with hashtag slogans, like #OneBulletOneCure and #EatShitPedo.  She posted many statements and memes suggesting that anyone experiencing attraction to persons under circa 20 years old should be hung or shot.  Nominally, her interest was limited by the age of consent, but in practice, she tended to treat posters of barely-legal 18+ pornography as pedophiles and give them the full treatment.  ‘Anna,’ the young computer adept, shared her revulsion to child porn and pitched in to help her out.  

 

Mattie had one problem.  She despised pedophiles so much that she had also attacked a community of non-offending pedophiles and supporters that had grown up on Twitter to publicize the message that having pedophilic orientation did not necessitate doing acts of child sexual exploitation.  This group, with many members focused around a website called ‘Virtuous Pedophiles’ (virped.org), had the position that sex with children, including young teens, was flat-out unethical and could never be allowed.  The group had interconnections with a large group of academic researchers studying minor-attraction and/or sex offenders, and it also kept up somewhat strained relations with tweeters who had affinities to a law-abiding form of the older-style pedophile-liberation/youth-liberation activist movement. The latter group advocated eventually legalizing consent for at least some people currently classed as children.  These two polar-opposite ‘political parties’ of lawful pedophiles and supporters, abstinent and pro-sex, shared a common interest in combating the violent Victorian deviant-bashing impulses that tended to disrupt reasoned discussion of minor-attraction issues.  

 

For a couple of years, Mattie pumped occasional clips of her theoretical bullets into the non-offenders while she was busy reporting the offenders.  They responded by digging up an old disclosure of her real-life identity and situation (d0x) that had been published on encyclopediadramatica.se, and using journalistically relevant parts of this info in news-style articles critical of her tactics.  She had long been aware that her identity was ‘out there,’ but now, the re-publicizing of her ancient d0x was a problem.  The reason was that she had also begun helping vigorously with the Anonymous campaign to track and delete ISIS accounts on Twitter, and was machine-gunning ISIS members with reports, cusses, and memes showing women’s butts.  There was an apparent risk that, with her identity known, she could be tracked down and taken out of commission by a terrorist.  This wasn’t very likely, but it couldn’t be ruled out.

 

Anna decided to make a project of defending Mattie.  She hooked up to one of the super-mega-botnets that had recently become available and launched a distributed-denial-of-service (DDOS) attack against two websites that had hosted the news articles, boychat.org and boywiki.org. Her attack was helped by new mechanisms making many poorly prepared service providers all but helpless against such tactics.  The upstream web hosts of the two websites couldn’t handle the illegal ping barrage and soon suspended the websites. Anna also threatened other website owners with lawsuits and had the Encyclopedia Dramatica d0x removed, as well as several pastebin.com copies of the news articles about Mattie.

 

My role in this story, so far, was as a researcher contributing info to some of the news stories on Mattie.  The author, Bernie Najarian, was a long-time collaborator who had written an extended series of news exposés on people and institutions who, in one way or another, were afflicting pedophiles whose intentions were obey the law.  My position on Mattie’s activities was that she needed to be critiqued for hate posts that were targeted to include law-abiding people. I also believed her method of reporting child porn content was flawed: she ignored Twitter’s request to fill in a discreet ‘child sexual exploitation’ report form and instead tweeted the offenders’ account information in her own timeline.  This practice made her timeline a temporary porn link bulletin board for up to two days per link before Twitter finally suspended the offending accounts. Anyone who has read law-enforcement documents about the activities of illegal porn collectors knows that short-lived links are their bread-and-butter.  It was obvious that Mattie’s timeline, despite her hostile wording, was thus a prime source of temptation that might introduce new people into the danger-seeking milieu of child porn collection.  Many of the accounts she pointed at linked to dozens or hundreds more, so she was effectively a gateway to a limitless child porn world hiding in the open within the huge Twitter website.  It wasn’t clear if she was effectively reducing the volume of child porn accounts, or unintentionally increasing it.  

 

One of my projects since 2013 has been defending the two websites DDOSed in the pro-Mattie campaign against cyberattacks by the Anonymous movement and other hacker-harassers.  I do this even though I disagree with many of the opinions that are posted on those sites.  Boychat, in particular, is run as an open forum, focused on sexual attraction to underaged boys, and it is unusually strongly dedicated to free expression.  It tolerates a wide range of content, all of it legal, but potentially including content like openly racist sentiments that are widely censored elsewhere (though not, for the most part, on Twitter).  It has seven rules

 

1. Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions.

2. Do not request, offer, or post links to illegal material, including pictures.

3. Don't annoy the cogs. (= the site administrators)

4. Do not reveal identifying details about yourself or other posters.

5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.

6. Do not post admissions of, or accuse others of, potentially illegal activities.

7. Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18.

 

Rule 5 is interpreted in a way that it doesn’t exclude controversial items like advocating that the age of consent be lowered or eliminated, or recalling (possibly fictionally) pleasant memories of sexual encounters with adults from one’s own youth – though not with erotic detail that would break Rule 1 or with advocacy that would break Rule 5.  Citing peer-reviewed scientific data is always allowed, including studies like those by Bruce Rind and colleagues showing that historic intergenerational sexual encounters are frequently pleasurably remembered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy).  

 

Boychat.org, in principle, promptly bans anyone who appears to be enacting, or advocating enacting, pro-sex theories by becoming involved in illegal sexual exploitation.  In reality, these days, illegal pedophiles have the dark web as their meeting ground, and boychat.org is seldom troubled by illegal content.  Any dubious links briefly posted there are more likely to come from harassment trolls than from the minor-attracted, registered board posters.  The wide catchment of the website among different boy-attracted pedophiles has made it of interest to researchers, and several major academic surveys of pedophile histories or attitudes have been made by posting for volunteers on the board.  Top researcher James Cantor, from Toronto, Canada’s Center for Addiction and Mental Health, has a registered name on the board.  

 

Anna appeared briefly on Twitter as ‘Anon Batwoman.’  Mattie sent a tweet addressed to her and to me saying “Boychat and Boywiki are fried to a crisp.” Anna replied to her with “and they will be until they remove your name…from their stupid site PERMANENTLY.”  I tweeted back a couple of reasons I found Mattie a valid subject for news coverage, and Anna retorted “You might not agree with her, but she is a wonderful activist who does great work for children.”  

 

Mattie continued posting memes suggesting all pedophiles should be hung, and I realized I couldn’t buckle to oppression.  As someone who was involved with 20th-century gay activist movements when they were equally heavily bullied, I set in to make sure that the news stories on Mattie couldn’t be suppressed.  I checked pastebin.com pastes I’d made of the boychat stories (some readers have trepidations about links to legal pedophile websites) and found they’d been removed by the host.  I repasted the information in alternate paste sites in Eastern Europe.  Those pastes were also removed after a week or so.  In the meantime, the content of the two DDOSed websites, including several other articles I’d worked with Bernie on, was still offline, or available only on ‘onion’ hosts requiring the use of Tor proxy servers.  Bernie, who, as an Armenian-American, had taken an interest in Soviet/Russian matters as a youth, knew enough Russian to paste the articles on a Russian paste site, where the admins merely wave their shapkas at American lawsuit threats.  To convince Anna that press blackmail couldn’t succeed, I relentlessly linked the articles (which had no info identifying Mattie other than the conventional newspaper data of name, age and hometown, the last part now out-of-date) on my Twitter.  We were deadlocked.  In frustration, she mined past boychat posts for any info that might show the site sponsored reprehensible views, and also mined my back tweets for anything that might embarrass me.  She wrote up her results on an Italian paste site in an article called ‘The Concept of Non-Offending Pedophiles on Boychat.Org.’  Bernie soon reproduced this attack piece on boychat.org so that the other posters there (now on the onion site since the clearweb site was offline) could see what was going on.  

 

Mattie and her Anonymous and #OpPedoHunt colleagues put out a burst of publicity about this new pitbull attack-piece.  I and others responded to it, and I linked the Mattie news stories on my timeline every day.  

 

In some dialogue with an angry Anna on one of her temporary Twitter accounts, I detected a note of reason.  I hinted we might negotiate.  About a week later, she came back with a frank suggestion that we should discuss the problem.  Usually, I don’t exchange direct messages (DMs) with attackers or unknowns, because it allows the opportunity to produce defamatory fake dialogue, but this time I sensed an honorable person and I took a chance.  Anna told me she had already contacted me earlier by DM while posing as a new non-offending pedophile contact, and had subtly probed me to see if I secretly supported illegal actions.  I and several non-offending pedophiles she had contacted this way had all passed the test of having the same views in private as in public.  She was ready to work with us to get Mattie out of harm’s way.  

 

We worked out an agreement in which the non-offenders and supporters, plus boychat.org and boywiki.org, would remove any material linking the real name of Mattie.  We would turn a blind eye to her live-listing of porn links.  Twitter clearly had ambivalent reactions to Mattie and was suspending her accounts almost daily.  Possibly if there was assurance that no non-offenders would report the accounts for violations of the terms of service, they would last a little longer.  In return, Anna would guarantee not to DDOS the websites and Mattie and her core friends would agree to leave the non-offenders in peace.  I found that I appreciated the chance to cooperate with Anna.  Meanwhile, Bernie had approached the boychat.org and boywiki.org administrators and they had agreed, with no problem, to remove the text about Mattie.  Only one poster on boychat.org made a strong exception to compromising with press self-censorship, and his proposed alternative solution – referring the website to its server through disposable cloud links – clearly didn’t excite the board administrators.  In my case, I thought that if Mattie was going to leave our group alone, she’d done her time in publicity jail and could be released.  I was very glad to delete the relevant belligerence about her from my Twitter account.  

 

The only thing that was left unsettled in the whole process was that the kill-piece about boychat and me in the Italian paste site couldn’t be removed by Anna or by abuse reports from me.  I was reluctant to respond to it because, firstly, I didn’t want to seem to take responsibility for every wacko opinion that had ever been posted on boychat.org, and secondly, because it referred to a conversation I’d had with a Twitter account that I’ll pseudonymize as Manzarek.  The Manzarek part of the article re-opened a can of worms that I thought we had done a good job closing, and I had no urge at all to drag Manzarek back into a discussion that he was glad to have left behind.  I was happy to have reached an accord with Anna without having to write a response to her  frustrated slagfest, and it had had now been reduced to historical trivia, just like the equally unremovable Russian pastes of the Mattie articles.  

 

Unfortunately, the large cadre of neo-fascist trolls who are prospecting to serve as brownshirts in the aftermath of theTrump election have rediscovered this document, and I’ve recently seen repeated references to its content.  I realize that I have no choice but to answer the accusations it makes, even though the original accuser herself no longer has a stake in the matter and probably wouldn’t levy a lot of the accusations today.  

 

The opening paragraph is a sarcastic blend of some of my positions mixed in with statements from other people and satirical inventions.  Its purpose is to contradict the idea that the non-offending pedophiles I advocate for can truly exist as otherwise normal, law-abiding people.  It says “Apparently, our culture is at fault for stigmatizing pedophilia and refusing to acknowledge that “most people have deep-seeded feelings for pedophilia and lust for children.”  Our culture IS at fault for historically stigmatizing and inciting violence against anyone other than plain vanilla heterosexuals.  On the bright side, it has largely lost its revulsion towards gays and lesbians during my lifetime, though the hate level was high when I first came out as gay. Our culture is on an uphill slope.  Because child abuse has caused great distress to many people, there has been a strong impetus to preserve the old anti-gay custom of Victorian deviant-bashing for the special case of pedophiles.  This is completely unnecessary, since law-abiding pedophiles don’t cause the harm, and anyone committing child abuse is criminalized and handled by the justice system.  Non-offenders encourage the reporting and support that allows such crimes to be reported.  

 

“As for the text seeming to be a quote, “most people have deep-seeded feelings for pedophilia and lust for children,” I’ve never said this, as can be seen by the eccentric rendering of the common expression ‘deeply seated’ as the colorfully agricultural ‘deep-seeded.’  I have no personal opinion on the population prevalence of pedophilic attraction, and usually refer anyone who asks about this to the summary made by @enderphile1 from contemporary scientific literature:  (https://medium.com/pedophiles-about-pedophilia/of-pedophilia-and-child-molestation-50fb042a46d)

 

 

[quote]

 

All we have regarding the prevalence of pedophilia is estimates … Michael Seto estimates that about 1–2% of the adult male population are pedophiles. These are very conservative estimates. Sarah D. Goode in her book Understanding and Addressing Adult Sexual Attraction to Children talks about ~10% of adult men admitting — through anonymous surveys — to being sexually attracted to children to one degree or another.”  

 

[end quote]

 

The proportion appears to rise considerably in scientific tests for attraction to post-pubescent teens, but I’ve never seen any point in stressing this. Where is the profit in confronting heterosexual men with the contents of their earnestly blockaded subconsciousnesses? Why would we want to induce a hebephilic version of ‘homosexual panic’ in them?  Let those who can ignore attraction to minors do so in peace.  

 

The article goes on to say “Critics of the so-called ‘non-offending pedophile’ movement rightly and staunchly resist any attempt at ‘normalizing’ pedophilia.” This straw-man argument is another inheritance from 20th-century anti-gay rhetoric: it’s never been clear how a group forming less than 5% of the population would be ‘normalized’ in any conventional sense of the world.  The majority generally forms the norm.  If we merely mean “staunchly resist any attempt at making the occasional meeting of a non-offending pedophile an experience that isn’t seen as frightening,” then I fail to see the problem.  Even if one is cautious about non-offenders and worried that they may someday release themselves from their anti-rape revulsion, that caution needn’t entail overblown irrational dread.  The most extreme campaigners against ‘normalizing’ will insist flat-out that accepting minor-attracted people who uphold and support the age-of-consent laws is tantamount to socially legitimizing child rape. This breathtaking irrationality serves to punish people for supporting the age of consent laws and is thus completely self-defeating.  The most bigoted ‘anti-pedo’ campaigners will accept no socially cooperative behavior from pedophiles.  They are effectively campaigning, in the real world that lies beyond their fantasies, in favor of pedophile misbehavior and alienation.  The shrieking Victorians are de-facto enemies of child welfare.  

 

The article then, showing a pattern that is often seen in online dialogue, moves on to the topic of child pornography.  I believe that many people have stored up years of outrage about sexual abuse and, when they locate a lawful pedophile or supporter online, experience an overwhelming urge to target this outrage.  When they realize that the person they’re talking to rejects sex with children, they immediately switch to child porn as the topic to channel their rage through.  This probably seems a safe bet, since there are many porn downloaders in the world and essentially all men, according to many studies, occasionally resort to porn.  The problem is that non-offenders also reject child porn.  They hate to see children being harmed.  Again, then, the outraged people are ‘preaching to the choir;’ they and their targets share the same views.  

 

It might seem incredible that a group of males would completely abstain from photographic stimulation. I’m sure, however, that many do, since anything on one’s hard drive or browsing record that is suggestive of erotic interest in children may lead to a lot of trouble.  There are zillions of friendly and guaranteed non-exploitative YouTube videos showing kids doing normal things in ways that might be taken as arousing, but since YouTube tracks everything you look at, even completely legal visual stimulation is highly risky.  It is easy enough to defuse one’s eros with imagination alone, and that wise practice is surely prevalent.  In contradiction to some lingering B.F. Skinner reinforcement psychology that misdirects peoples’ thoughts about such things, one cannot inflame, augment or induce desperation in one’s sexual orientation by taking one’s eros down a notch on a regular basis.  That’s just basic male self-management: see the movie ‘There’s Something About Mary’ if you need a reference.

 

The article then goes on to boychat.org.  It says “These days, pedophiles are scrambling to find a new online home as their havens are shut down one by one. Most have migrated to boychat.org to express their grief and anxiety over the seizure of other child pornography websites, as well as the arrests of some of the highest ranking leaders of one of the largest pedophile forums on the internet.”  In reality, boychat has had a mostly stable population of posters since it was revolutionized after 2008.  It has never hosted any images, let alone pornography – the sole exception being one signature picture per registered name that, if showing a photographed child, has to be a childhood photo of the poster him- or herself.  I first began to read some of boychat’s content in 2012 when I saw that it was under attack by Anonymous.  

 

Thanks to some historical articles posted in boychat and in boywiki, I could see that for several years prior to 2008, boychat had had a criminal fugitive called Jon Schillaci as its moderator; you can read his Wikipedia if you want to know all about him.  After his arrest, the website was taken over by unnamed moderators determined to run it as a strictly legal forum.  At around the same period of history, starting from 2004, Tor hidden services, the dark web, gained considerable popularity.  Any pedophiles who had previously been posting on clearweb boards and wanted to carry out any illegal traffic rapidly moved to the dark web.  There was one exception: a very large, legal and tightly monitored discussion board called boylover.net whose administrators, unknown to nearly all of the nearly 70,000 members, were carrying out some illegal traffic among themselves and their close friends.  This board was raided in 2011 in Europol’s Operation Rescue.  The board itself turned out to contain no illegal content, but by looking for hints of illegal intentions among hundreds of thousands of private personal communications in the site, the authorities managed to identify about 150 people, two tenths of 1% of the total membership, who needed to be raided for illegal activities.  The displaced legal membership of that board mostly went not to boychat but to another, similar legal board whose administration was strictly kosher.  Because boychat was a primitively formatted, completely open discussion board with no illusion of privacy or ability to host audiovisual material, it was far less popular than the other board.  Its deliberate avoidance of any illusion of private communication prevented any false sense of security among the posters.  The administration’s freedom-loving, laissez-faire attitude about flaming and offensive content made boychat a stressful social milieu (a situation that has much improved since then). Its one advantage was that it was fully accessible to the public (except where blocked by ISPs) and to web crawlers like Google, making it an excellent site to publish news stories that were censored elsewhere.  

 

Anna’s article speculatively connected me to boychat.  She said “Kamil Beylant (aka @securityconcern on Twitter) is one of the leaders of boychat.org, a website dedicated to ‘non offending pedophiles.’”  In reality, I’m strictly a reader. Around 2014, I took on the project, along with a couple of other people, of combating the attempt by a project called OpPedoChat to extinguish all legal online communication by pedophiles.  Boychat turned out to be a very helpful venue to expose the activities of these online tinpot dictators. Indeed, when Michael Crockett, TheAnon0ne, the ringleader of OpPedoChat, was arrested for ‘intentionally attempting to damage a computer,’ the news appeared as an anonymous post on Boychat. (http://mycitypaper.com/Blogs/Man-charged-with-attacking-Philagov-affiliated-with-Anonymous-looks-like-he-did-it-in-support-of-Ori-Feibush/) My journalist colleague Bernie Najarian registered a name with boychat and posted a series of articles there.  

 

Anna went on: “When he is not found harassing, reporting and doxing pedophile hunters on Twitter, Kamil spends the majority of his time attempting to normalize and justify pedophilia. On November 4th, 2016, he wrote, ‘It would be too unbalanced if we only ever talked about criminal pedophiles and never about lawful, clean living ones.’”  This content is marred by spin-deception, in that it uses ‘normalize and justify pedophilia’ in a way that suggests I support or extenuate illegal activities.  In fact, I support only law-abiding pedophiles and their communication media.  Since pedophilia, like all sexual orientation, is not chosen, I don’t feel any onus to ‘justify’ it, since it is a biological happenstance with no underlying cultural or philosophical rationale.  A minority of people get minor-attraction handed to them as a random biological draw, and there’s nothing they or I can do about that arbitrary allotment except manage it well after it’s happened.  

 

Anna was correct that I will try to reason with and, if necessary, report for harassment people who are attempting to suppress or bedevil lawful pedophile Twitter accounts.  On the other hand, they may do whatever they wish with illegal accounts, with my full support.  If anyone appears to be trying to organize online slander or offline mob violence targeted at lawful pedophiles, I feel it is my duty to make those people as responsible as possible for their pogrom activities.  As a Twitter poster, I cannot d0x anyone, but I can certainly provide information to others who will publish the journalistic triad of name, hometown and age in the context of a news story about their activities.  There are many cases where there is insufficient material for an interesting story and nothing happens.  In the case of ‘pedo hunters’ associated with the Anonymous movement, most are aware of the simple methods of assuring d0xing is not possible, and I don’t bother with trying to trace them. In numerous cases, however, someone who knows who these people are has contacted me and I have been able to verify the information.  Very little of this information is ever published.  

 

Mattie was unique in having made online enemies for over a decade and already having an extremely defamatory d0x, loaded with outdated personal info and photos, published in Encyclopedia Dramatica.  It was easily found because she, apparently unworried about it, consistently published unique, distinctively worded slogans in her new accounts that were also prominently mentioned in the 2009 d0x.  

 

I am not sufficiently interested in finding out anyone’s personal info to maintain a subscription to Radaris or any other aggregator/personal info site.  Some years ago, I did have such an account, and I decided it wasn’t cricket.  The amount you can find out about people in the USA for $30 per year is overwhelming.  There’s nothing like it in any other country.  I don’t believe I have any reason to pay for such access to personal details.  

 

The article then returns to the child pornography false-accusation theme.  It says, “Meanwhile, the mere notion of ‘non offending pedophiles’ is not only an oxymoron, but a phrase that was invented for the sole purpose of creating a legal platform where pedophiles can continue to promote, exchange, and distribute child pornography.”  This is simply a spin invention cooked up to make lawful people look bad.  It’s self-evident that taking a reasonably prominent public position posting about lawful pedophiles on Twitter, even pseudonymously, would be a ridiculous risk for anyone to take if they were also dealing in child pornography.  One Anonymous operative who styled himself a ‘pedo hunter’ had access to an individual who was able to read Twitter’s internal web logs.  One ex-offender in the non-offender group was found to have an alternative sock account used for legal role-play, but no non-offender had a sock account connected to Twitter’s child porn trader population.  Years of accusations that all the non-offenders probably had alternative porn trading accounts were shot down in a single stroke.

 

Just as some computer programs have entrenched bugs, the human species has a flaw that allows us to attribute uniform behavior to people who are viewed as minority groups.  Popular interest in stereotypes about things all Jews do, or all women, or all blacks, are unquenchable no matter how unfounded they are shown to be.  The idea that no pedophile in existence anywhere could put together his or her sexual orientation with ethics and legal behavior is not just preposterous – it’s odious.  It is only supported by this destructive bug in human thinking.  We need to get to know our fallible brains well enough to recognize that the notion of an all-sneaky, all-conniving, all-deceptive, all-self-centered, all-antisocial, all-unethical minority group is ALWAYS an illusion.  The only exception is for the one taxon legitimately defined by those exact characteristics – sociopaths.  Any racial, gender, religious or sexual orientation group will contain a small minority of sociopaths, but the characteristics of sociopaths can’t be attributed to any other minority en masse.  As long as you live, you will always see this sort of stereotype being believed in by people who have yielded to this bug – and those people are especially active right now – but if you have any grip on rationality, you can be certain that the group uniformity the bug proposes is not possible.  “Non-offending pedophiles” cannot possibly be an oxymoron, and evidently is not one.  

 

The article says: “…Many of their members are now in jail for engaging in criminal pedophile behavior, as shown here (two encyclopediadramatica.se links given).”  

 

The Schillaci era, pre-2008, in the history of boychat, included a number of people who were convicted of illegal acts.  Some of them who have become non-recidivist ex-offenders remain as posters on the board today.  Boychat is a very open forum and anyone obeying the legality rules stated above can make a post there.  As is true for all other websites, even the ones demanding real-name registration, there is no way of knowing who might be an unarrested offender.  If the poster produces a clue disclosing or hinting at offending, he or she is banned.  New, naïve posters who look like they may be wobbly about offending are warned by multiple posters not to break the law.  Due diligence has been done since at least 2010 onward to ensure that illegals do not post on the board.  Since anyone interested in doing illegal acts has the entire dark net to resort to, there is no reason for him or her to come to boychat.  

 

The article then goes on to a section called “The truth about boychat.org.”  It begins with a reprise of the all-duplicitous minority concept.  As evidence, a boychat post from 2009 is shown in which an angry poster denounces board members as hypocrites who put their own appetites above respect for young people.  Since the board up to 2008 was run by a criminal who backstabbed a family that tried to help him, this criticism may have been largely justified.  I have no additional perspective, since I wasn’t aware of the website at that time.  I only know it from its legal period, and my current impression is that the criminal element is gone. There are some posters there with left-libertarian views who would drastically reform the age of consent, but these people are, in my opinion, naïve dreamers rather than predators, and they are not involved in detectable illegality.  I disagree with them vehemently, but since I have no registered nick at boychat, I have no venue to argue with them on the board. (Anyone can post on the board under a non-proxy IP address, but to use an IP connected to a VPN, Tor or other detectable proxy system, the person must register a ‘nick’ before being able to post.)

 

One item that is making the rounds along with this Italian paste is a screenshot of a provocative boychat post from 19 Jul 2016, by unregistered poster ‘anon’ (i.e., not a regular poster on the board and possibly a provocateur) with the inflammatory title “2yr olds are fair game…”  (https://www.boychat.org/messages/1480076.htm) The image of this post has been widely circulated to curry outrage at the idea that some boychat posters think that two-year-olds “are fair game.”  In fact, the dots at the end of the title indicate a continuing sentence, and the whole sentence, finishing in the body text of the post, is “2yr olds are fair game is the impression I get from some posters here.”  ‘Anon’ then goes on to talk about his innocent moments with a two-year-old and to express his horror that anyone could interpret such moments as sexual.  In short, the poster is an adamantly lawful person and non-predator.  We don’t know his sexual orientation, except that we know he claims to read boychat.  He doesn’t expand on what is his “impression” is based on.  The outrage raised by his clickbait title is misdirected.  

 

The post, though, caused longtime boychat poster and boywiki admin Etenne to ask “Who is advocating having sex with a 2-year-old?”  I also had never seen such a thing on the board.  Very long-time member Django, however, knew the answer.  Django claims to be an east coast prosecuting attorney who has put many sex offenders in prison.  “Two former posters,” was his answer.  “To start with...they both were embryo-fuckers... Thank whatever Deity you subscribe to they're both in prison...FOREVER.”  

 

A separate response by Django identified the posters by nickname: Aztram and p(chad).  The former is listed in Encyclopedia Dramatica as Harold Spurling.  The latter I haven’t traced; the name is from many years ago.  Aztram, we know, was arrested in 2008, in the final year of boychat’s lawless Schillaci period.  He got a 40-year sentence.  Schillaci himself got 20-50.  Django’s relief at having them locked up illustrates the difference between the contemporary boychat and the pre-2009 version.  

 

The second bullet point in the “Truth about boychat.org” section of Anna’s article accuses boychat posters of d0xing a Twitter user called Dayna.  In fact, this person was not d0xed in any way: her methods and rhetoric were criticized by Bernie Najarian, but no personal information was published.  Dayna claims on Twitter to be a teenager of around 17-18, and assuming that were true, d0xing her would be harsh. The false statement that she was d0xed seems to have been calculated to cause outrage.  It was based on a gamble that no one would check the assertion by looking at a pedophile website.  

 

The third bullet point says “Some members of boychat.org will harass victims of pedophilia on Twitter and deny that they were ever victims, unless they identity their names and addresses for the purpose of ‘journalism.’ This is done in an attempt to invite the victims to dox themselves in order to further harass and intimidate them later.”  (Two links given here are omitted because they identify the Twitter account of the mentioned ‘victim,’ and this Twitter account currently includes the surname of the individual involved, who I am pseudonymizing as ‘Manzarek’ in honor of the keyboardist of the classic rock band The Doors).  

 

Before I start describing my encounter with Manzarek, let me draw a parallel.  You can judge as you read along whether it’s accurate.  

 

Suppose I were a Jewish businessman in Berlin, 1934, dealing with a customer, when a bystander decided to light into me as a member of a cheating race.  “Many people, including me, have been victims of shady business deals where a Jew cheated them and made them suffer,” the man says.  

 

“I and my associates are ethical.  We consistently oppose cheating,” I say, always willing to clarify that there are well-intentioned Jews.

 

“Doesn't matter,” he responds.  “As long as Jews continue to cheat Gentiles, Jew-cheated survivors will oppose you. By denying this, you are directly contributing to why it's harder for people cheated by Jews to recover.”

 

“I oppose cheating completely and work actively to strengthen the ethical Jewish business community.  That effort is fully benign,” I say, trying to show a meaningful positive effort is being made.  

 

To my surprise, he comes back with, “Not when it actively works against the recovery of cheated Gentiles by implying you're anything but monsters.”

 

Huh?

 

“I'm not ‘implying’ non-cheating Jewish business people are ‘anything but monsters,’” I respond to this strange proposition. “I'm telling you factually, straight-out, that they are not monsters.”

 

The man replies, with a glint of oncoming political catastrophe in his eye, “You are now erasing the lived experience of a survivor. You Jews are ALL monsters. You don't get a say in this.”  

 

My jaw drops.  This doesn’t seem to be the most reasonable person in Germany.  

 

What will you judgment be?  Victim, pure aggressor, or victim reacting by becoming an aggressor?  

 

I can’t reproduce the entire Manzarek conversation in its original form, partly because the account that began it all, that of the troll @MischiefArises, has been deleted.  

 

Here’s some actual blow-by-blow excerpted from a discussion that went on for four days. I will just reproduce a fraction.  I should mention before I begin that the avatar material of @Manzarek on his home page includes the word “troll” and appears to rate his trolldom as “rank A.”  

 

Mischief Arises had accused me of “wanting to fuck kids.”  

 

Securityconcern to @Mischief_Arises:

 

You don't know anything about me. I am a consistent exponent of NOT "fucking kids." (meme attached explaining support for non-offending pedophiles only, and support of an age of consent circa 16)

 

Manzarek to @Securityconcern, Mischief_Arises:

 

 Doesn't matter. As long as child abusers continue to abuse children, child abuse survivors will oppose you.

 

This was the first appearance of Manzarek, who must have been reading the timeline of Mischief Arises.  

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern, Mischief_Arises:  

 

Heard of YesAllMen? You are directly contributing to why it's harder for child abuse survivors to recover.

 

Comment:  He appeared to be referring to the ‘NotAllMen’ hashtag, which you can read about in its Wikipedia article.  Or he may have been alluding to its follow-up, ‘YesAllWomen.’  ‘Not All Men’ satirized clods who’d try to divert any discussion of sexism or male violence against women by interjecting that not all men were like that.  This was different from our situation, since the feminists using ‘not all men’ overwhelmingly agreed that not all men were violent against women. The interjection from the special pleaders was therefore beside the point. Manzarek, on the other hand, was offended at the suggestion that ANY pedophile might not harm children, as you’ll see.  

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek, Mischief_Arises:

 

The effort to strengthen non-offending pedophile culture and provide safe counseling against abuse is fully benign.

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern, Mischief_Arises:

 

Not when it actively works against child abuse survivor recovery by implying you're anything but monsters.

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek, Mischief_Arises:

 

I'm not implying non-abusers are anything but monsters. I'm telling you factually, straight-out, that they are not.

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern, Mischief_Arises:

 

You are now erasing the lived experience of a survivor. You are ALL monsters. You don't get a say in this.

 

Comment: how he proposed his ‘lived experience’ could indict millions of non-offenders he’d never met is one of those mysteries of the human mind.  I rose to the defence of the innocents wronged by this assimilation.  

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek, Mischief_Arises:

You don't get a say in what I get a say in by phoning in misdirected hatred against innocent people.

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek, Mischief_Arises:

And name-calling is not a contribution.

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern, Mischief_Arises It's not name calling when it's describing literally exactly who you are/how you behave. You're a monster.

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek, Mischief_Arises:

 

Your attempts to drive me into monsterdom are thwarted by my ethics that prevent all monstrous acts.

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern, Mischief_Arises You've no ethics as long as you make backhanded comments to child abuse survivors and say "not all pedos".

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek:

 

My comments are all direct. I revile your abuser, but no anti-abuse non-offender is guilty by imagined association

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek, Mischief_Arises:

 A law-abiding person who harms no one, does good when possible, supports respect and opposes hate is not a monster

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern, Mischief_Arises:

 

You don't get to decide whether you're a monster or not. ESPECIALLY when up against child abuse survivors.

 

Comment:  The idea that a person couldn’t decide not to be a monster seemed preposterous, even evil.  The basic premise of human morality is that you can and should choose to do good.  Generally, the only people who are believed to be stuck in monsterhood are minority group members who are being evaluated by fanatical bigots.  A few horrific, Jack-the-Ripper-type offenders are more broadly considered to be monsters, but lawful people with no criminal record or record of ethical complaints are generally conceded to be non-monsters.  Since Manzarek called himself a troll and came in commenting with a troll, I had to face the possibility that his entire approach was just trolling.  

 

It’s by no means unknown for a troll to claim falsely to be a victim, a teenager, or any other type of sympathy figure in order to increase their trolling leverage and put their trollee at a disadvantage.  

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek, Mischief_Arises:

 At this point, I have to face the possibility that you are simply another troll trying to pose as a survivor

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern, Mischief_Arises:

 

So now you're erasing the existence of a real child abuse survivor because they're "simply another troll".

 

Kamil Beylant to Manzarek, Mischief_Arises:

 You're still tagging in your troll friend. I can't erase an already fictional existence.

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern, Mischief_Arises:

 

Congratulations on ending on that note showing that you truly are a monster. Also:

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern:

 

Twitter tags users that were already tagged automatically. You are now also quite literally victim blaming. Just stop LMAO.

 

Kamil Beylant to Manzarek:

There is nothing automatic about your leaving in your troll tags. You do it persistently and deliberately. Showing off to your mates

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern:

 

1st: learn how Twitter works (both mobile & desktop does it automatically), 2nd: stop victim blaming, 3rd: stop erasing me.

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern:

 

This isn't about you it never was nor will it ever be. You are a monster who erases the existence of child abuse survivors.

 

Kamil Beylant to Manzarek:

There's no excuse for your persecution of the innocent. Guilt by association is a crime against humanity. You've erased yourself.

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern:

 

It's not guilt by association - learn how to fallacy. And I have erased myself? ...What? How? Also:

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern:

 

You are not innocent as long as you keep finding excuses and continue to perpetuate you not being monster.

 

Manzarek’s absolute insistence that his alleged victim status gave him the right to appropriate all epistemology, and declare anyone he liked a monster, reminded me of something that had happened elsewhere in my life.  I had once become involved in a bureaucratic mega-battle between two Eastern European officials who were each trying to destroy the other’s career.  They had both grown up under Communist propaganda and borrowed heavily from its methods to use an ironclad, unrelenting set of destructive spin tactics against one another.  They slashed and pecked each other verbally like fighting-cocks in a fight to the rhetorical death.  I had a chance to ask one of these people if he didn’t know he was exaggerating and could perhaps avoid bringing out the worst in the other person by sticking a little more rigorously to the unvarnished truth.  “I wouldn’t give him the satisfaction,” he huffed.  Manzarek’s alleged victim privilege that could turn anyone he wanted into a monster seemed to come from the same combative wall of steel.  

 

I’m afraid my heart began to be hardened against Manzarek at this point, because another experience he was reminding me of was reading the tweets of British child abuse campaigner Shy Keenan.  Shy, who actually IS a victim who successfully prosecuted her stepfather-abuser, gives no quarter to the idea that any pedophile could be a non-abuser. She retweeted a grotesque, Mengele-flavored joke extracted from her autobiography, ‘Broken,’ nine times in the years 2011-2014.  “How many paedophiles does it take to wallpaper a room?  Depends how thin you slice ‘em!”  I realized that as sympathetic as one might be for actual victims, allowing their quest for disseminated revenge to grow malignantly until it ended in the torture of innocents who would never victimize anyone couldn’t be allowed.  

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek:

 

Your arrogance in calling harmless and unoffending people monsters isn't justified by anything whatsoever.

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern:

 

It is very justified when monsters like you are making backhanded comments at child abuse victims instead of stepping down.

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek:

 

No one but a troll could possibly be so persistent in calling innocent people monsters. You are merely another online sadist.

 

Comment:  the factor that tipped the balance of doubt for me, at that time, was that Manzarek appeared to be schooling with trolls, and called himself a troll.  A quick glance at his timeline also showed that he’d been involved in numerous incidents of apparent trolling.   He had a consistent pattern of coming into conversations on high attack mode.  

 

The best example I can show of this now actually occurred a few months after our conversation.  Manzarek participated forcefully in the infamous gang-trolling of actress Leslie Jones that ended the tweeting career of Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos.  

 

 

KimJongUndress to Autochtoon, JumpingTheFrog Jul 18, 2016

 

Leslie Jones calling herself @Lesdoggg is like Rebel Wilson calling herself Fat Amy so other bitches don't call her that behind her back.

 

Leslie Jones ‏@Lesdoggg Jul 18 Manhattan, NY to KimJongUndress

 

You literally made no sense.

 

Hoppetokins to Lesdoggg, KimJongUndress

 

The fact that you don't understand this explains why your comedy is so bad.  Fat Amy = fat. Lesdoggg = dog Get it?

 

Lesdoggg Jul to Hoppetokins, KimJongUndress

 

No I don't get cause you not funny you dickless fuck you enjoy picking on women. Explains why you a Virgin

 

Uberdriver2016 to Nero (Milo Yiannopoulos)

 

Notice how quick it @Lesdoggg plays the sex card. Typical liberal (many poop emoticons)

 

Lesdoggg to uberdriver2016, Nero.  

 

Shut the fuck up. And you have a uterus, you really should be cheering for women. Bitch

 

Manzarek to Lesdoggg, uberdriver, @Nero

 

That complete lack of moral highground. A+ job at sinking to your opponent's level showing how vile you are.

 

Comment:  It isn’t exactly championship ethics to set upon a woman being ragged as fat and talentless by the vast not-so-Breit-bart ‘shitposting’ torment gang and accuse her of being ‘vile.’  

 

Tweeter @elibyronbaldrsn, a white supporter of Black Lives Matter, objected strongly to Manzarek’s ‘vile’ comment.  

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek

 

…Wow, "shows how vile you are." This person's mind is so ugly if he can say that to the victim of abuse and harassment.

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

I gotta say, he really had me going. For a while there I genuinely thought he was a decent person who was just bad at social cues.  Silly me.

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek

 

He blocked me, cuz apparently telling the truth is unpardonable, but in case he deletes the evidence... (screenshot of ‘vile’ tweet)

 

Manzarek to Elibyronbaldrsn:

 

Here I'll unblock you so you can take a hint (because obviously you're blind deaf and dumb): Stop @'ing me. Leave me alone.

 

Comment:  Manzarek now makes a jump from hostile interjection to claiming to be a victim of abuse.  

 

Manzarek to Elibyronbaldrsn:

 

For the past half an hour you've been intentionally tagging & abusing me in this manner, even after we ended our convo. :/

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

Yeah, and then I found out you were a filthy lying harasser from the start. Zero sympathy, fuck you.

 

Manzarek to Elibyronbaldrsn:

 

That was you. You twisted my words and have been doing FAR worse than I've ever done.

And NOW you swear at me? Good going.

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

You fucking abusive victim-blaming lying piece of shit, you piled onto a woman being harassed and lied about it. Go to hell.

 

Manzarek to Elibyronbaldrsn:

 

Twisting words again! (smiley)

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

Nobody should believe a word that comes out of your mouth, you've already demonstrated that. Accuse away, abuse apologist.

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

See how you fucking like what you did to her. Asshole.

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

1) abuses already-harassed woman online

2) accuses the one who calls his fuck-ass out of being abusive. (link to tweet)…

 

Manzarek to Elibyronbaldrsn:

 

 lmao trying to turn this into a competition

 

1) abuses already-harassed gay disabled man online

2) continues to be abusive

 

Comment:  This is one of many convos in which Manzarek plays victim one-upmanship.  Being gay, disabled and allegedly sexually abused as a child are by no means all the victim cards he holds in his hand.  The foul-mouthed Eli calls him on it.

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

No. You don't get to claim to be the victim after the shit you said to her.

 

Comment: but Manzarek can always out-victim his critics.

 

Manzarek to Elibyronbaldrsn:

 

And now you're victim blaming!

You went out of your way to do everything that you accused me of doing. Good going dumbass.

 

Comment: In a frantic attempt to get a notch higher on the political correctness pole-climb, Eli decides to interpret ‘dumbass’ as an ‘ableist’ discriminatory comment, like ‘retard.’  

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

No. I'm pointing out, yet again, that you were a disgusting abusive harasser and you're co-opting the language of victimhood to …

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

… shield yourself from the consequences. It doesn't work like that.

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

(and oh hey more ableism, whee!)

 

Manzarek to Elibyronbaldrsn:

 

Since when is "dumbass" ableist? Is "idiot" ableist, too? (broad smile emoji)

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

Um, YES? Welcome to the conversation, where've you been the last few years?

 

Manzarek to Elibyronbaldrsn:

 

Your analogies are shit, loser.

 

Manzarek to Elibyronbaldrsn:

 

Harassing abusive DARVO case @elibyronbaldrsn uses words wrong.

 

Comment:  Eli doesn’t know he’s up against a professional-level victimization claimant.   Manzarek pulls out some top level psychologese.  I refer to this sort of thing as psychobabble trolling.  There are many trolls who will accuse every counter-argument of being ‘deflection’ or ‘gaslighting’ or ‘narcissism,’ etc., in between cusses, death threats, schoolyard shaming and false accusations.  The psychobabble troll is a distinct subspecies of troll.  

 

Here’s what Wikipedia says about DARVO:  

 

[quote]

 

“DARVO is an acronym to describe a common strategy of abusers: Deny the abuse, then Attack the victim for attempting to make them accountable for their offense, thereby Reversing Victim and Offender. This may involve gaslighting and victim blaming.

 

Psychologist Jennifer Freyd writes:

 

    ...I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. [...] [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. [...] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.

 

[end quote]

 

The DARVO accusation riles Eli up considerably.  

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

Ooh, and he uses ableist insults. Ladies and gentlemen, he is a PRINCE. (link to ‘dumbass’ tweet)

 

Elibyronbaldrsn to Manzarek:

 

but I'm the DARVO example, okay. We see you. You're only lying to yourself now.

 

Manzarek to Elibyronbaldrsn:

 

Annnnnd now you're gaslighting.

Thanks! :)

 

The two attack-birds get into heavy back-and-forth with psychobabble insults, each of them contesting for the prize of speaking on behalf of greater victimhood.  

 

It was in the context of having read some of Manzarek’s previous troll-ish arguments that I decided, momentarily, that if he couldn’t find the grace to concede that any pedophile might be something other than a monster, there was no call for me to find the grace to concede his passive-aggressive trolling tactics the crown jewel of victimhood.  

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek:

 

Sorry, but there IS an objective standard of what a monster is, and innocent, lawful, kind people are NEVER included

 

Manzarek to Securityconcern

 

"Sorry but" is a non-apology; this just shows that you don't care about a child abuse survivor who's calling you out. Stop.

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek:

 

You are not a survivor. You are a troll.

 

A prolonged discussion went on that carried over to the next day.  In the meantime, concerned that I might be calling someone a troll when they actually were a victim, I looked through his back tweets to see if he’d ever mentioned being a victim of sexual assault before.  

 

It turned out this assertion had popped out in previous wrangling.  

 

 Kristina Wong ‏@mskristinawong Jan 21 Los Angeles, CA

 

If you ask someone if they are a #feminist and they say, "Depends on how you define #feminism". Just punch them in the face for being fussy.

 

Manzarek to mskristinawong:

 

Physical abuse is funny! LOL!

Would you also make oh-so-funny rape jokes over "fussy" women when they won't say yes or no?

 

Mskristinawong to Manzarek:

 

Quit being such an uptight little anti-feminist and learn to laugh at violent bs. We all know you love violence.

 

Manzarek to Mskristinawong:

 

As a victim of child abuse, no, that would be you projecting.  Explain how criticising your gross "humour" is anti Feminist.

 

Manzarek to Mskristinawong:

 

 Also, isn't it a bit hypocritical/pot-meet-kettle of you to claim I'm anti-Feminist when you joked about punching Feminists?

 

Manzarek to mskristinawong:

 

You made unsubstantiated claims and you refuse to address my points.

Quit using "comedian" as a shield to say awful things.

 

 

Manzarek claims to have been emotionally abused as well as sexually abused.   This aspect comes up when he gets into angry wrangles with miscellaneous tweeters.  

Here, in posts from just a few months ago, he had criticized an allegedly disabled tweeter who showed screenshots of online harassment.  He suggested that the person ‘don’t advertise harassment,’ ‘take survivor experience,’ ‘report and mute abusers’ and ‘focus on hobbies.’   This must have sounded a little like ‘shut about it and get a hobby’ and the disabled person blocked him.  Other tweeters then critized Manzarek, and one told him to re-read the screenshots.  Some back-and-forth psychobabble resulted.  

 

Manzarek to @markystallard @SJWsnoke @TheFrenchRat

 

I re-read them. I was calling out a gaslighter who blames his faults upon his disabilities. Now what?

 

Meninmymentions to Manzarek, Markystallard, SJWsnoke, TheFrenchRat:

 

There's a movie called gaslight it will explain to you what gaslighting is

 

Manzarek to Meninmymentions:

 

And why would I take nonadvice from some rando that just jumped into a conversation and topic that they know nothing about?

 

Meninmymentions to Manzarek:

 

Irony alert

 

Manzarek to Meninmymentions:

 

You jumped into an argument that you weren't a part of, you don't know what it was about, and I mocked your ignorance.

 

Manzarek to Meninmymentions:

 

Regardless, you implied I didn't know what's gaslighting. Hence why I mocked you not knowing the scope of gaslighting.

 

Manzarek to Meninmymentions:

 

Because gaslighting covers more than just emotional abuse to make victims doubt themselves. And I know, as a survivor.

 

Manzarek to Meninmymentions:

 

Stop butting in & defending people's abuse by haranguing others when they call out abusive tactics. Stay in your lane.

 

It’s essentially impossible to have a debate with Manzarek without being accused of abusing a victim.  

 

What sort of emotional abuse does he claim?  It isn’t clear, but there’s one set of possibly related tweets.  

 

Manzarek:

 

You don’t get better representation of women in society by lambasting men for being male, as that spawns a culture of resentment. #feminism

 

Manzarek:

 

I've seen the results of this abuse firsthand from my stepdad who's so emotionally and psychologically scarred that he literally can't cry.

 

We don’t know which woman lambasted his stepdad so heavily that it scarred his mind to the point of alacrima - tearlessness.  Could she also have lambasted Manzarek?  

 

We gained a little more perspective on his reality on the last day of the convos, as a minor-attracted person who is also an abuse survivor (TNF_13), and another person who is the mother of an abuse survivor (ThoughtasWeak), tried to reason with Manzarek about his blanket accusation of monsterhood.  

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13

 

Attacking others won't erase what happened nor stop/prevent abuse. My daughter was abused & has healed & helps others heal

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

 

 If you're here to tell me off and victim-blame me for any wrongdoings, you don't have any moral authority to judge me.

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13

You have no authority to judge anyone, but you do so anyways.

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13

 

As a victim of those who perpetuate damaging "not all pedos" rhetoric and propaganda, yes I do

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13:

U ASSume that Pedo = child molester. It's not. My daughter's abuser wasn't. Not all Pedo's act out. #Education #Prevention

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

 

*facepalm* You're like every other pedophile who misses the point that I am criticising your DISMISSIVE ATTITUDE. :\

 

Comment:  As an exponent of ultra-hard, Stalin-era spin, Manzarek can’t pass up the chance to spin this mother of an abuse victim as another ‘pedophile.’  

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13

U Assume I don't care. I do. But u attacking people won't heal u. U assume Pedo will abuse, but most don't. Learn 2 heal.

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13

 

You quite literally said "I'm sorry but". I don't have to assume you don't care when you openly ADMIT that you don't.

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

 

And again, I don't have to "assume" pedophiles will abuse others because they DO abuse others with damaging rhetoric.

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13:

Uneducated people harm others by spewing rhetoric & not truth about abuse. Educate people on the truth, not spew hate.

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

I have first-hand experience from those who spew "not all pedos" rhetoric so I'm *VERY* much educated on this matter.

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

 

Stop victim blaming.

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13:

I'm not victim blaming. U r only using that as a crutch to attack people who don't agree with u.

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

 

Yes, you're victim blaming by turning it back onto me even though YOU'RE the instigator. I repeat stop victim blaming.

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13:

No, U R attacking me. U don't like what I have to say, so u use victim blame as a crutch, instead of seeing I want 2 help

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

 

How am I attacking you? I don't like the manipulative, bad-faith arguments that you're pumping out & I call them out.

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13:

U say I victim blame. u say I spew rhetoric (not truth). U claim I attack U.... If that's not attack I don't know what is

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

 

You blamed me for "x" - that is victim blaming. "not all pedos" is rhetoric. You barged in. I point out what you DO.

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13:

Correcting you isn't victim blaming. U read too much into things. U don't like truth and will attack anyone who does

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

 

What have you corrected? What truth is there other than the fact that "not all pedos" is damaging rhetoric? Answer me

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13:

Yet, you attack Pedo's for their attraction. That is like them attacking you for being gay. U act on yours, but they don't.

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

Wrong, again. I criticised pedophiles for spreading damaging rhetoric. Just, stop being revisionist and manipulative.

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13:

U hate Pedo's because you see them as the person who abused U. U don't want to believe the truth that not all Pedo's offend

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

Assumption - I barely remember the person who abused me. I hate pedophiles for belittling & talking down child abuse victims.

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13:

Many don't want their attraction, and seek help so they don't offend. Why don't U support that? Why attack if they won't act on it?

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

Again I AM NOT ATTACKING OTHERS FOR BEING ATTRACTED TO WHOEVER. Stop being tone deaf. Stop twisting & manipulating my words.

 

Comment:  He insists that lawful pedophiles AND their supporters call themselves monsters and ‘stand down,’ i.e., stop speaking in public, and refers to the Virtuous Pedophiles anti-abuse website as ‘that filth,’ but at the same time claims he isn’t attacking on the basis of unchosen attractions.  His response, in an earlier conversation with others about Salon magazine’s interviews with non-offending Virtuous Pedophiles member Todd Nickerson was to say “yep, they (Salon) have been actively making recovery of child abuse victims/survivors more difficult by spreading propaganda.”  He can’t stand the thought of a pedophile who would act responsibly.  

 

ThoughtasWeak to Manzarek, TNR_13:

 U hate them bcz U think they speak down to CSA's. U attacked one who's a CSA. U won't listen to truth, many don't offend. (TNR_13 is the child sexual assault victim she is referring to.)

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

Stop attacking fabricated strawmen representations of what I've done & continue to do.

 

Manzarek to ThoughtasWeak, TNR_13:

Wrong, again. I criticised pedophiles for spreading damaging rhetoric. Just, stop being revisionist and manipulative.

 

On the second day of our conversation, prior to the dialogue shown above, I had decided based on further reading that I didn’t have any assurance that Manzarek was not victim as well as troll, and I dropped my position that he wasn’t a victim.  I made further comments stating that I condemned anyone who had abused him.  Others remained more dubious about his status than I was.  

 

After reading a couple of days’ worth of arguments from Manzarek insisting on his monster theme and claiming victimhood as backup, Nigel Oldfield decided to weigh in skeptically.  The GhandiOBlocked account he was using at the time has since been suspended and replaced, but I had already copied the relevant tweets into a file.  

 

Manzarek had stated earlier in the conversation that he had successfully prosecuted his abuser.  Note that names of victims are rarely seen in reports of such convictions, and are generally not available to the public, so that Oldfield’s request to Manzarek to evidence his statements about convicting an offender wasn’t a request for his personal information.  In any case, Manzarek’s full name was present in various other online sites where the name Manzarek was used, and his city of residence was also frequently posted.  

 

Oldfield often takes a tough line of not suffering trolls and fools gladly.  

 

 

GhandiOBlocked to Securityconcern, Manzarek:

 

When this 'special' person can quote the location and time/date of the court case, we will accept his victimhood.

 

Manzarek to GhandiOBlocked, Securityconcern:

 

Child abuse victims and survivors don't owe you anything.

 

GhandiOBlocked to Securityconcern, Manzarek:

You are not, yet, you are just a claim-maker ... now, move along.

 

Manzarek to GhandiOBlocked, Securityconcern:

You are just asking me to dox myself. I'm not about to do that as @Securityconcern already shows stalker-related behaviour.

 

Comment:  I had addressed him as ‘Mr. Z,’ having googled the equivalent of the word “Manzarek.”  I’m always amused when people represent basic googling, something done by everyone on the web, as ‘stalking.’  It’s yet another trolling device – to treat one’s public Twitter account that one uses as an attack springboard as if it were inviolate private property that shouldn’t be looked at or connected to other publications and public pronouncements. Dream on, attack-tweeters, if you expect not to be googled.  

 

GhandiOBlocked to Securityconcern, Manzarek:

If you are unable to produce, then please move on and stop being offensive - TY

 

Manzarek to GhandiOBlocked, Securityconcern:

It's not whether I'm able, it's that I don't WANT to - because your colleague displays stalking behaviour.

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek, GhandiOBlocked

 

This 'colleague' is a journalistic researcher, but if there is ever a story in this, only conventional…

 

… journalistic information will be used: name, city, age but never address, DOB, contact info etc.

 

Comment:  This was my assurance that I never put out non-journalistic d0x information on people, not even when supplying research to writer colleagues for a story.  Simply naming someone may be seen as a d0x, but in the case of someone like Manzarek, when a person is already operating under their real name, only contact and official info are left over as potential d0x material.  

 

Manzarek to GhandiOBlocked, Securityconcern

And where have I given you permission for you to write a hitpiece against me? Why would I trust you? LMAO.

 

Securityconcern to Manzarek, GhandiOBlocked

 

I do not write, just research. Your public actions on this timeline don't appear to be a story.

 

As this was just a prolonged wrangle with someone largely acting like a troll, there wasn’t anything newsworthy about it that would make a story interesting.  My statement to Manzarek that there was no story in our discussion was apparently overlooked by Anna, hence her paragraph:

 

[quote]

 

Some members of boychat.org will harass victims of pedophilia on Twitter and deny that they were ever victims, unless they identify their names and addresses for the purpose of “journalism”. This is done in an attempt to invite the victims to dox themselves in order to further harass and intimidate them later.  

 

[end quote]

 

I don’t blame her for the inaccurate reading of our conversation, because the dialogue went on a very long time and, when looked at by seeing the tweets Twitter concatenates together, was always seen in somewhat scrambled form, with parts missing.  It’s virtually impossible to follow Twitter conversations accurately at second hand without looking at the exact time stamp on every tweet you read, and checking the original timelines to look for any that have been missed out in Twitter’s compilation formula.  It’s very hard to follow original timelines beyond the most recent 3000 tweets.  

 

As you can see – and there are many more examples that could be shown – Manzarek’s way of debating typically begins with a hostile, moralistic-type attack, which is then followed up by a defensive claim of victimhood, and hence moral unassailability.  He then tells people to shut up.  Those confronted with this technique almost invariably respond by questioning his victimhood. And so they should.  It’s laid on pretty thick.  He’s been a victim as a sexual abuse sufferer, an emotional abuse sufferer, a disabled person, a gay person, an ‘erased’ member of his Eastern European birth nationality, and, ironically, a victim of online trolling.  

 

This sophisticated and devious method of passive-aggressive online harangue arouses either bafflement or fury in everyone who encounters it.  Manzarek bulldozes down all protestations of good-will and finds only abuse wherever he goes.  Perhaps this is a result of the childhood sexual abuse he ‘barely remembers,’ or perhaps not.  He’d need competent therapy to work this out.  

 

I don’t think being on Twitter is helping him much.  Hence my reluctance to re-open this can of worms.  As a serious campaigner for human rights and dignity, however, I can’t simply let false accusations that I mistreated an abuse victim go unanswered.  My responses may not have been the most adept and ingenious that anyone could possibly have come up with, but made on the fly, I think they were fairly well considered.  The conversation needed a professional psychologist, and I don’t claim to be one of those.  I’m just a regular activist with prior ill will to none, who means well but doesn’t want to be a pushover for trolling.