I first caught wind of Nintendo PR specialist Alison Rapp via a message thread in which someone linked to her blatherings on “intersectionality”; let’s just say I recoiled from the stink.
However, my reaction to her wasn’t anywhere near as adverse as those more invested in the gaming world. As a result of her off-the-clock SJW sermonising and her on-the-clock employment at the the company’s Treehouse translation branch, already irate Nintendo patrons linked Rapp with the latest spate of “localisations” (read: censorship) imposed on Japanese games for Western markets, calling for her termination—post-haste!
As if their perfectly rational smear-by-association wasn’t a strong enough cudgel, the baying gamer mobs soon happened upon a veritable Excalibur of an épée with which to skewer their scapegoat: the dread spectre of paedophilia. A number of hit pieces emerged against Rapp, their writers clutching pearls over what they described as her “advocacy” of kiddy-fiddling, and, again, calling for her firing. The furore even crossed over to this side of the pond, with trashy tabloid The Daily Mirror picking up on the story of the Nintendo paedo activist “who wears a ring through her nose” (the deviant!).
In short, a group of anti-SJW gaming enthusiasts formed a virtual pitchfork-wielding mob in order to drive an SJW out of employment for her unpalatable views, in a manner akin to, well…SJWs.
So, what lies at the heart of this irefest? Where do these allegations of paedophilia advocacy come from? From the links and screenshots provided by Jim Kelly in the thinly-veiled smear piece which caught the Mirror’s attention, the chief components of this allegation consist of a paper by Rapp, published in 2011, arguing against pressuring Japan into toughening up its child porn prohibitions, and a series of tweets criticising age of consent laws which penalise adult/minor sexual relations.
Whilst I can see how that would trigger those caught up in the perceptual pretzelisations of paedomania, I struggle to find much of anything to get worked up about. A reading of Rapp’s 2011 paper clarifies her stance on child porn for those of sufficient reading comprehension; while she sees the creation and distribution of live-action kiddy filth as “another matter entirely”, she likens penalising possession of it, and its cartoon counterparts, to be tantamount to thought-criminalisation. It’s a viewpoint I’ve encountered before, from thinkers as diverse as Libertarian Alliance director Sean Gabb and Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge, and one which, I think, has enough in the way of logic to warrant more than a reflexive dismissal of its proponents as Lostprophets frontmen (or Islamic icons) in the making. After all, viewing footage of infidel-beheadings, “witch”-burnings, and mob-meted murder hardly makes me a dogma-drunk lynch mobber—I’ll leave that shit to those who’d crucify Rapp and I for holding these opinions—so how does someone watching, or even owning, the worst kiddy porn automatically equate to, y’know, actually fucking kids (or even wanting to)? Perhaps the motivated incuriosity of the paedogeddon pushers simply makes some eager to find out what all the fuss is about. That or they just like looking at the pudenda of their pubescent peers.
But such a defence fails to stand up in the face of this pretty little paedophilia advocate’s desire to lower the age of consent, allowing adults to actually fuck kids…right?
Well, I guess…if your definition of “kid” or “child” is anyone under a state-decided age of majority rather than some primary-schooler yet to see her first cunt hair. Depending on the word-voodoo of the local legal codes, the scenario of an adult hooking up with, say, a 16-year-old will either be seen by rulers and residents as totally kosher or a crime against God, Man, and the laws of nature. Those below the line of license, we’re told, lose all notions of agency and consent when faced with an amorous adult advance; thus, any coital contact between the two parties amounts to psychic, as well as physical, rape, what with teenagers being notoriously and categorically sex-averse.
Under this framework, Megan Stammers, the 15-year-old who ran off to France with her maths teacher, Jeremy Forrest, in 2013, was an unwilling abductee of a child, snatched from home and hearth by a libidinous predator. Many affirmed the narrative, casting Forrest as a “pervert”, “paedo”, and “nonce” as required; other concerns, such as the betrayal of the trust placed in him by his wife and employers, fell into near-obscurity.
More recently, footballer Adam Johnson found himself cast as a kiddy-fiddler for engaging in off-pitch ball games with another 15-year-old; such was his predatory prowess, he even had his “victim” bragging about her ordeal—back of the net!
Although I struggle to see why any adult male would go out of his way to exchange words, never mind bodily fluids, with teenage girls, given how annoying they tend to be (neotenic appeal only goes so far, fellas!), I struggle harder to see said teens as anything other than complicit in such couplings. Prizing consistency, I generally view such hook-ups as no worse than the tide of teen-male-fucks-female-teacher stories deluging the press, the very same stories which inspire high-fives from those who kvetch about “the CHILD” and “that fucking nonce” once the genders flip. As obnoxious as she can be, Katie Hopkins’ assessment of the Johnson case strikes me as much closer to the truth than all the herd-animal hand-wringing over “grooming” and “child abuse” (Stefan Molyneux, eat your heart out!).
(As a side note, I wonder how many of the “anti-SJWs” out to ruin Rapp for acknowledging adolescent agency criticised those who kicked up a stink over the late David Bowie’s decades-ago dalliances with underage groupies a month of two back. Hypocrisy can be a helluva drug!)
With all that in mind, it’s almost tragicomic that I find the SJW “p(a)edophile advocate” the more sensible, less retarded party in this dispute; her “anti-SJW” detractors come off as rabid fanatics, afflicted by sloppy inferences, mind-mangling moral panic, and a hotheaded herd mentality; all less-than-endearing qualities around these parts, not to mention amusingly reflective of those they claim to oppose.
With her working for a censor-happy branch of a major games company and being—despite her own thoughtcrime—a card-carrying SJW, there might indeed be a case for her as a self-undermining hypocrite, doing much more than PR for Treehouse’s truncated “translations”.
Such a shame that the pitchfork posse fail to make it.
My problem has to do with SJW’s presuming that government will step in to ensure all outcomes. Likewise, when private employers tow the thought-crime party line, we have something akin to Fascism.
I am reminded of Roosh’s famous “thought experiment” to make rape legal when performed in private property. If such was the case, then women would be forced to choose wisely when going into a private place with a man, but without a chaperon, say. Same for kids. If parents don’t want their kids to be fondled, etc., then, they need to supervise them. Expecting the state to be The Grand Supervisor is folly. Back when the state allowed private fraternities, say, to form pools such as to self-ensure (and self-police) then there was community investment in “community standards”. No more.
Unsupervised children tend to be victimized. For some, this is their only way out of poverty. Gets complicated but when it is Feminists and SJW’s adjudicating which is “rape” and which is “consent” then the results are always twisted, regardless of the beautiful rhetoric.
There’s a tradition in China and related Third World Countries for a gentleman to “groom” a minor female via her caregivers, who he may have selected as such given that they have a good reputation to giving the desperate daughter of impoverished parents an escape route by training her in social graces, telling her who her invisible “benefactor” is, until she is deemed “of age” (younger than in The West) and otherwise properly appreciative of her leg up in life. Then, she gets to meet this “benefactor” and become his, in some way, as wife or mistress. This is the way of the world.
However expecting the government to administer such an enterprise for the benefit of its loyal apparatchiks? What could go wrong? Everything. Nowadays, the government insists on being every child’s pimp.
I can hardly blame this incident of turnabout-is-fair-play under the circumstances of today. How else can anyone get a female fired today? Find her cooking the books? Nowadays that would be “misogyny” too. I don’t care how beautiful is her rhetorical position. If she found a rival coworker harboring porn she didn’t like? How would she behave when under the presumption that chivalry toward any female’s feelings is the standard?