only extremists oppose this very normal thing
I’m going to explain Merrick Garland’s press conference by talking about the way this person talks about pedophilia. There will be some offensive language, but it’ll clarify something about our culture that has become enormously important. Stick with me — this will make sense in about three minutes.
1.) She’s trying to normalize something that’s sick, outrageous, far outside the mainstream, and generally condemned.
2.) But she hangs new drapes around it in an attempt to hide the shape and location of the Overton window — to shove you toward a new idea of what’s acceptable and reasonable.
Credentialism: “I’m a licensed professional counselor.”
Presumptive victimhood: “They are probably the most vilified population of folks in our culture.”
Assumed expertise that pathologizes ordinary perception: “Most folks are making incorrect assumptions about them without actually knowing much about them.”
The mantle of specialized professional language: Pedophile, as a term, “has moved from being a diagnostic language.”
So: Some of you may mistakenly think that it’s wrong or bad to be an adult who wants to fuck children, but as a licensed clinician with a professional background and deep training in this field, let me assure you that you are mistaken. If you oppose my redefinition, you oppose expertise; you are, as an untrained layman, contradicting my specialized professional knowledge. You are operating outside of your knowledge, assuming things that you aren’t qualified to assert. You have to accept my redefinition, because of my specialized knowledge and my professional standing as a credentialed expert. See, it’s quite ordinary and acceptable for an adult to be sexually attracted to children. It’s just another sexual preference, really, like being into brunettes or being turned on by lifeguards.
So then we look at the spectacle of three dozen or so federal agents raiding the home of a former President of the United States, and we say, this is not normal. This is outside the realm of the expected and the acceptable.
Now, here’s Merrick Garland’s statement on the raid, in full:
Good afternoon. Since I became attorney general, I have made clear that the Department of Justice will speak through its court filings and its work.
Just now, the Justice Department has filed a motion in the Southern District of Florida to unseal a search warrant and property receipt relating to a court approved search that the FBI conducted earlier this week. That search was a premises located in Florida, belonging to the former president. The department did not make any public statements on the day of the search.
The former president publicly confirmed the search that evening, as is his right. Copies of both the warrant and the FBI property receipt were provided on the day of the search to the former president's counsel, who was on site during the search.
The search warrant was authorized by a federal court upon the required finding of probable cause. The property receipt is a document that federal law requires law enforcement agents to leave with the property owner. The department filed the motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president's public confirmation with the search, the surrounding circumstances and the substantial public interest in this matter.
Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy. Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor. Under my watch, that is precisely what the Justice Department is doing.
All Americans are entitled to the even handed application of the law, to due process of the law, and to the presumption of innocence. Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations.
Federal law, long standing department rules and our ethical obligations prevent me from providing further details as to the basis of the search at this time. There are however, certain points I want you to know.
First, I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter. Second, the department does not take such a decision lightly. Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search, and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken.
Third, let me address recent unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department agents and prosecutors. I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked.
The men and women of the FBI and the Justice Department are dedicated, patriotic public servants. Every day, they protect the American people from violent crime, terrorism and other threats to their safety, while safeguarding our civil rights. They do so at great personal sacrifice and risk to themselves. I am honored to work alongside them.
This is all I can say right now. More information will be made available in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time. Thank you.
He’s like a pissy accountant, disappointed with you people for misreading the ledger. He is an expert, explaining technical matters to you that are within the realm of his professional expertise: “The property receipt is a document that federal law requires law enforcement agents to leave with the property owner.” You probably didn’t understand that, see, because you aren’t an expert like he is. He’s explaining this to you in a way that shows that you don’t have his specialized knowledge.
“Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy,” which is why we just did something that no one has ever done before in the 246 years since the creation of the country. This doesn’t have to be proved; it is asserted, from behind a lectern, using the authority of a job title. You don’t have that job title, do you? Then how can you argue with the man, prole?
“I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked.” It’s self-explanatory that it’s unfair to criticize or question the role of powerful people who, being armed, have a process by which they can force entry to your home. Their work is presumptively proper and decent; to even think otherwise is necessarily and inescapably indecent.
This maneuver is everywhere in our culture: My specialized language actually reveals that your non-credentialed perception of reality is incorrect. To doubt Dr. Fauci is to question science, and a demand for informed consent prior to the injection of a pharmaceutical product into your body is similarly an act that shows you don’t believe in science. So ignorant!
Science is the act of putting this into your body, so shut up.
Sex with children is actually quite badly misunderstood by people who aren’t credentialed. Really sad that these people are so terribly misinformed, but of course they’re just tragically uneducated.
And of course, anyone with a correct understanding of the professional ethics of federal officials understands that, my goodness, there’s just no possibility that a raid on Donald Trump’s actual bedroom could be intrusive or an abusive display of power.
I mean, don’t you even understand? What are your credentials, anyway?
Once you see this maneuver….
Well, I AM a credentialed expert as a BPS Counselling Psychologist (not a counselor but actually a field that lies within the expert areas of Psychiatrists and Clinical Psychologists but without prescribing capacities). The harm is not enacted on the perpetrator but on the child. This approach dismisses the destruction of the child’s world view that it is fair, and adults will not harm me., known as shattered assumptions. This harm is also seen in physical abuse cases -note ABUSE. And abuse results in traumatic scarring (PTSD).
Dismissing paedephelia as simply another ‘choice’ disregards the impact on the child entirely. A child cannot consent as in ‘actions of two consensual ADULTS. Assuming that children have legal capacity turns our understanding of childhood on its head. We see children as ‘innocent’, unknowledgeable of impacts of actions and requiring protection from parents.
And where will this ‘reframing’ lead? See the grooming gangs in Britain where police dismissed family and victims by saying a 12 year old can give consent. Or see the Programmes of Sex education down to 3 year olds in Wales and across many US States.
Paedephelia and cannibalism are the last taboos from Judeo Christian ethics. They’ve been reframing what is ethical for some time such as all the C19 decisions that an individual does not have bodily autonomy. And if this is carried forward into society, children will know from an early age that they too have no rights to what happens to their bodies.
What of rape? I do wonder how this counselor would reframe it. ‘Someone who likes to physically or mentally overpower another to force sex’? It has been somewhat decriminalised through it’s parcity of prosecutions in the grooming scandals that involved both minor attraction and rape. So let’s just say it’s ok.