The unifying theory of what Katie covers is "the downtrodden of the powerful". It's a valid niche, even if it doesn't cover everyone you want to see covered - but rest assured, someone else is covering what you want.

W/R/T these dudes, dunno what to say. If I were discord or any other host, I'd be shitting my pants too. What's my liability if one - any - of the participants in the group does eventually abuse a kid? I'm probably getting dragged into a lawsuit at very least. Given the way social media outrage works today (Just finished reading Ngo's piece on restaurants) collateral damage is to be assumed.

Lastly... I think we're all suffering the effects of societal de-norming ("Anomie", an old word for a recurring problem in societies) and I think I'm fine with a general set of norms... and not being a pedophile I think is one of them.

@1 what does a "not being a pedophile" norm mean? Just not acting on it? Bold norm there. Or should this guy be quiet and not let you hear about him, or not exist, or what?

I see some pretty strong anti-pedophilia norms around already, really. What are you thinking is missing?

@Sportlandia "not being a pedophile" is not something anyone has a choice over one way or another. The attractions are not chosen. Actions based on them are. So I'm not sure what you are getting at there with your discussion of social norms. How about the social norm of "not persecuting people over 'thought crimes'?"

@pansack There are tons of non-offending pedophiles seeking help and support to remain that way. You'd be surprised. Any chance to help these ones to not offend is a chance to prevent child abuse before it ever happens. I agree that there are potentially harmful issues from an ethics standpoint if we decide to fight this battle based solely on biological arguments. Also, there is no such thing as "normalizing" pedophilia. You'd have to be more specific on that. Pedophilia exists. None of those pushing for better help for non-offenders are making the argument that it's a normative thing in the population. If you're talking about "normalizing" in the sense of "making it seem right/moral", well, that's something quite different, and again, the attraction itself is unchosen and amoral. Acting on it is where questions of right and wrong come into play, and it's clear that for non-offending, anti-contact pedophiles, they believe (as most of society does, and rightly so) that to sexually abuse a child is wrong.

This Dr. Cantor's a real slime ball. He says he wants to help pedophiles by saying "oh they didn't choose to be that way" but at the same time, his whole theory affirms what the general public wants to hear, in that they're somehow inferior. Or messed up whatever you want to call it. His theory was debunked by the german team, however, and nobody's replicated this experiment except him. Bias much?