View source for Essay:Pedophile trolling for beginners

[[File:204 - tagme.png|thumb|From such a low baseline, most fringe opinions can only become more popular, given the right attention. So is there [https://doctorspin.net/no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity/ such a thing as bad publicity] for our group, or can outrage always be mobilized? That is the question the pioneering MAP Activist Organization, [[PCMA]] has tried to answer since 2022]]__NOTOC__
:''For a guide to trolling techniques used <u>against</u> MAPs, see [https://web.archive.org/web/20170630142715/https://medium.com/pedophiles-about-pedophilia/trollology-a-basic-course-17de2dfc0639 this] archived blog post.''

<small>''It is worth noting, as a '''general disclaimer''', [[MAP visibility on Twitter|debating strategies]] involving the impersonation or co-option of otherwise hostile parties (such as radical conservatives, 4chan and groypers) are not uncontroversial within our community. This is especially the case where impersonators deploy pro-MAP arguments, and less so when attempting to project a negative image of anti-MAPs. This guide advises users how to employ impersonation, subversion and black propaganda against those said groups, or while impersonating them. It may also be of use within said groups, or where they share an interest with MAPs - for example, educating the public on the history of MAPs in the gay movement - something MAPs might feel obliged to educate the public about, but conservatives might wish to employ in an aggressive manner.''</small>

<hr>

'''Pedophile trolling for beginners: Insights from the MAP Movement's radical fringe.'''

Incorporating ''why "[[Newgon#"Newgooner" label|Newgooners]]" sometimes impersonate the alt-right''.

April 19, 2024 ◆ '''Jim Burton & PCMA''' DRAFT

<hr>

'''"Pedophile trolling"''' is provocative online behavior most will characterize as "pedophile apologia". It can be initiated by dishonest means, but should ideally result in the deeper contemplation of MAP [[Debate Guide|debate topics]], and spark disagreements between your target and others around them.

As there is no shortage of functioning insane people online, pedophile trolling isn't necessarily the sole domain of [[pedophilia|pedophiles]]. With that said, if you post on sites such as Reddit, X and Quora, and are repeatedly accused by onlookers of being a pedo, you are probably engaged in de facto pedophile trolling, whether you know it or not.<ref>Something of note here, is when bourgeois/bohemian pedophiles from various [[pediverse]] instances perform their routine of sneering at [[Newgon]] and [[PCMA]] vols for "trolling", they betray their total lack of experience in outward-facing activism. It is almost impossible to exist as a MAP, let alone as an insufferably woke one, on mainstream platforms such as Reddit, ''without'' being a ''de facto'' troll.</ref>

If these accusations hurt, [[Debate Guide: Don't be too rational|you should perhaps learn to live with them]], or even to take advantage of your new-found infamy.

Deliberate trolling is a strategy that has worked for some [[MAP Movement|MAP Activists]], and not worked for others. Some of my operatives have tried to debate honestly and logically, only to be accused of being a pedophile. This pedestrian level of debate can be frustrating to some, but not the true pedo troll, who thrives in such situations.

Your success as a pedo troll ultimately depends on your level of skill, ability to impersonate and think like another person, plus the terms and behavioral norms on the platform you are using. As they have little understanding of online discourse, memes or debate-as-performance, the following personality types are '''generally unable''' to troll, or can only do so in a highly predictable manner: 

*Low-IQ.
*Narcissistic.
*Emotional.
*High levels of political "conviction" rather than just enjoying the game. 

The last point includes those with an innate tendency to evaluate situations according to a theory of "justice". As an example, I am none of the first three criteria, but have to put my judgmental tendencies on hold when engaging in pedophile trolling, as I would end up becoming too argumentative and obscure. In the same sense, it is also no coincidence the most radically left-wing MAPs I know, have only had visibility-engineering successes playing themselves, or characters closely resembling the day-to-day on-server personas I am familiar with. Some of these threads (putting aside an obvious failure to mitigate cringe) have been huge successes. But in my experience, it takes a fundamentally cynical, even borderline nihilistic mindset to repeatedly thrive as an activist troll. That is, to be someone who can control - rather than be controlled by the voices in their head; to employ dishonesty to engineer social visibility, as [[PCMA]] did in 2022/23. 
{{Template:MAE}}
I'll explain a bit later, why I feel "morally upright" pedo critics of pedo trolls miss the point, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the same factors I describe above. In other words, there is an unwillingness on the part of most online MAPs to flick a switch in their heads and learn to separate the cruel justice of online discourse from a personalized theory of social justice. Perhaps this an an all-too-human kind of a thing, and I am unrealistically expecting more MAPs to behave like permanently online reptilians, but what I see here is a failure to properly mask easily-dismissed "cringe" aspects of their persona; to undermine existing conceptions of what MAPs are really about. 

To most active participants in online discourse, the idea of being given a lecture on ethics by a self-proclaimed "degenerate" pedophile is laughable. There ''is no'' fine-graded understanding of complex psychosocial phenomena with these people because they are zombies; bovines who will only respond to blunt force attacks, and whose only value to the debate is being forced to double down in increasingly absurd and hysterical ways. This reality is, it seems, too much of a slap in the face for most online MAPs at this point in time; they are too fragile, can't accept reality, won't play the long game, etc. Very few I know have even trolled professionally with a game plan.

==What do we want to achieve?==

Pedophile trolls are not aiming to ''convince'' their target opponent/s, i.e. whoever they are arguing with. The troll uses his opponents as a ''mechanism to recenter his radical ideology'' as "wise", "street smart", "principled eccentricity" by forcing them to respond in a certain way before his real target, the ''wider audience''. Most of those reading a thread will be non-participants, i.e. "lurkers"; generally less confident viewers who are more open-minded and more easily persuaded. With this in mind, the activist troll puts himself in compromising situations by making bald assertions others must ask him to source, then makes use of memes and links to information sites, to elaborate on his position, without himself looking pretentious.

The pedophile troll seeks to come across as [[Wikipedia:Lil_B#Artistry|"based"]] and make people laugh at common hypocrisy; this way, he gets people on his side.

==What are the best personas for trolling?==

Just a note here; you should have a few social accounts in reserve if you need them, as per [[Debate Guide: Social Media and Trolling|our technical guide to social media]], as trolling results in multiple bans. Try to put some organic activity on each account first, ideally unrelated or tangentially so, to your cause.

Generally, these days, a '''conservative or alternative-right''' persona works best, because conservatives are assumed to be more counterculture, outrageous and un-PC. Why not identify explicitly as someone who exposes and corrects hypocrisy in liberals? After all, MAPs suffer a great deal from liberal hypocrisy and liberals who are complicit in carceral state politics and lawmaking.

Liberal or moderate personas do actually work, if there is something uncannily radical and emotionally triggering about them, such as a sex educator supporting anonymity for students who are in sexual relationships with adults. My most successful viral threads - those exceeding 1M impressions used liberal or moderate personas to bait conservatives, but then I only ever used liberal personas to avoid offending MAPs, who I am well aware lean left. Bizarrely, left-wing pedophiles seem completely unoffended by all the personas I used linking pedophilia with strongly coded liberal progressivism and leftism, in a completely '''formulaic and stereotyped''' manner.

And while there is no shortage of (often, completely unironic) woke-pedo rage-bait out in the wild, I maintain that some of the best unexplored opportunities for the pedo troll, might eventually be perpetuated by "traditionalist", "right-wing" personas. We already know we need to a) Inflame mainstream liberals' awareness of their own reactionary hypocrisies to force some to bite the bullet, b) Seed infighting among conservatives that undermines their own predictable attacks on us, and c) Challenge conservative stereotyping of MAPs. What covers all of these bases? Pretending to be reactionary MAPs would seem to be the ''obvious'' solution. 

While I'm in no doubt MAP rights is ultimately destined to be a radical, or at least socially libertarian struggle, I feel this counterintuitive strategy will add a new aspect to the culture war. ''Both'' sides would be fair game, since they would both be vulnerable to accusations of pedophile ideology if pedophilia was stripped of its left-coding. Our struggle for visibility then transcends conventional radicalism; the pedophile himself transcends the political and is in a strange way humanized. He loses his two-dimensional, memetic status and becomes a ''threat'', as literally anybody from any background could be (an ideological) pedophile. 

In support of the argument against my previous brand of woke-pedo baiting, it might also be argued that mainstream liberals are more suspicious of imposters because their accounts aren't getting banned every weekend like the alt-right. This may change as Twitter evolves into X, under its new leadership, but for now at least, liberal and "SJW" type leftist accounts tend to have more followers, more connections and more shared "respectability" codes to conform to among themselves. In this sense, unless you want to get banned inside 2 days, or undermine yourself by posing as a parody account, an SJW persona is more of a long-term project, and may require some understanding of key tenets such as [[Wikipedia:Standpoint theory|standpoint theory]]. You are therefore better throwing out pretty obvious woke-pedo bait for bovine conservatives after just a few retweets of high-profile LGBT accounts and public health agencies. On the other hand, you can create plausible conservative personas within just a few seconds, because conservatives outside of influencer/personality cliques behave, interact and respawn like insects online.

Another classic activist troll pose (and a politically neutral one) is the "Researcher", since it is harder to pin a researcher as that "anonymous person with too much knowledge on a topic". This type of persona has been used extensively by Newgon-supported vols, and is my personal favorite, given I would be ripped apart for pretending to be a reactionary again.

Later on, I will go into a bit more detail about using different personas to attack different targets on different platforms. But a brief word about dishonesty. If you are employing exaggeration, please try to be obvious in your dishonesty by employing hyperbole, (easily read) irony and sarcasm. This way, you "pitch an invisible middle ground" by making your pedo extremism look like unreformed or ignorant "common-sense" and force your readers to concede at least some uncomfortable truths. Most non-participant readers just want to find a moderate position, rather than be wholly convinced, so make your pitch a long way away from where you actually want them to end up. This ultimately just a less formal version of Newgon's ethos, ''[[Activist model#Moderate demands do not preclude radical philosophy|Radical Philosophy, Moderate Demands]]'', but instead of a moderate fixed platform, there is instead a complete absence of formal demands.

==Who and what is our target?==

Middle or low intelligence targets are bread and butter for a troll, as they are easier to bait and manipulate. These tend to be people with biographies indicating an involvement in sports, gaming, "consumption" of popular culture, or cultural/political topics covered by the corporate media. With this in mind, the persona you project should be anathema to your primary target. They need to hate you at the visceral level, so drop targeted coding in your bio depending on your target, such as pagan "witch" symbolism, Zoomer media consumption, MAGA, even Boomercon values.

Remember, people hang out in online bubbles - both conservative and liberal. They do this for group-reinforcement catharsis - simply hearing their own ideas repeated in soothing metronomic fashion. It gives them a sense of certainty that allays the insecurity of living with an average intellect, and also helps them explain away their failings as injustices. Humans are group animals, and each group creates their own culture, in which they are the "good people", and only "their own people's unique perspective" can attest to this - case in point, the Middle East. For this reason, you should expect to be heavily down-voted, "ratio'd", etc, and you shouldn't care one bit about this as your aim is to play the underdog, puncture their comfort bubble and draw in non-participant viewers. Take a look at Newgon's [[Debate Guide]], formulate three basic provocative statements you might make as a response to to an assertion within ''each of the three'' sections. Never overstep those three tide marks with respect to the extremity ''or complexity'' of your verbiage; i.e. stick to your game plan and maintain some integrity of character, however much of an asshole you are.

When it comes to threads/trends, discriminate, but don't be fussy. You can easily throw out the same or similar message a few times, and see who bites. High profile targets on relevant trends are preferred, as are discussions high up the thread. Using search terms/methods from the [[Debate Guide: Social Media and Trolling|technical guide]], try to catch fresh trends, not exhausted conversations, and ride the wave from there. If a thread isn't working, just switch over - disengage and reengage - don't get bogged down with point-by-point rebuttals. If engaging with [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/deboonker deboonkers], first mock them - the idea they are trying to explain their [[Wiktionary:moralfag|moralfaggotry]] to imbeciles online, and losing, is inherently funny. Then cut back to the fundamental absurdity of your target's position, using new angles and reference material.

==Playing your target==

Study your target and make personalized attacks on their ideas as "typical" of their in-group - identifying why they are angered by something, in order to provoke that anger. See, for example, one classic example [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3nYm6oVFag employed against a feminist].

See a nonce-hater/woodchipper/bullets-for-pedos type meme? Identify the posters as vain men who are [[Debate Guide: Self-loathing hatred|just imitating potted machismo]] to impress petite girls in their mid-to late 20s. Accuse them of being "fake ass" "low testosterone pedos" lusting after barely legal females with the most childish mannerisms and features, insisting they remove intimate hair and refer back to them as "Daddy". If pedo-haters deny this and recycle boomer-tier comments about preferring a "real woman", you have pretty much roped them into conceding the entire debate. Most readers will know it's BS.

Ironic [[Lolicon-MAP Equivalence Debate|Lolicons]] (men who enjoy drawn images of little girls, but deny they like real lolis) are kind of easy to mind-read, as they have already said the quiet part out loud. We know they are basically pedophiles, and could simply ask them:

<blockquote>''Given what's on your timeline, who are you trying to convince with statements like that?''</blockquote>

[[File:Ratio3.png|thumb|"I'm a Chad. I have bigger balls than you..." bait]]

===Conventional leftist/moderate woke-pedo bait for Conservatives/Chuds===

[[File:Peterson.png|thumb|This tweet, picked up by [[Jordan Peterson]], is a near-perfect example of baiting]]As described above, this (while conventional and boring) is the most common form of bait served up by MAPs and their supporters, and also confirms the worst fears of conservatives by presenting the ultimate victory of MAPs as "another" "woke" social justice cause. 

The woke/moderate-pedo bait strategy may work as a ''pinned tweet'' on an active account, as well as in replies to fresh/highly active threads. Try to draw conservatives towards your profile by posting flippant comments on threads, while displaying your grand proclamation in the pin. Here are a few ideas:

*Keep it '''simple'''; most people are stupid. If you use fancy language, or terms that most people don't understand, people will continue scrolling when they see your tweet. They won't read it, won't feel anything, and won't retweet it.
*Try to '''confirm their beliefs''' in the first two sentences. This is the hook, the bait, that will make them continue reading. Then continue with something outrageous in sentence 3 and 4. 
:*For example, the captioned tweet starts with ''"It is incredible how strong MAPs and their allies have become. I see them everywhere now."'' Many people believe that pedophiles have a lot of support and are becoming stronger, so this is confirming their beliefs. It continues: ''"It is only a matter of time until the sex fascists will be driven out of society and this insane pedophilia hysteria will come to an end."'' This, of course, goes against their feelings and triggers them. The word "sex fascist" is also an insult to antis. They will feel like they need to object. So they will quote tweet. The tweet finishes: ''"Freedom, at last!"'' Again, this is a huge trigger, because they, of course, don't agree that MAPs should be free.
:*The term "Minor Attracted Person" (MAP) is also a trigger for antis, who see it as a neologism intended to soften the severity of an "heinous crime".

On the other hand, genuinely moderate and conservative MAPs (of which there are many) tend to stay silent online. When they do speak up as themselves, conservative MAPs tend to confound stereotypes but in ways that are rather meek and unspectacular. Some of the most boring, obscure and pointless MAP social media profiles are run by borderline-autistic conservative/moderate MAPs who are unable or unwilling to employ trolling techniques such as those described in this essay.

===Politically conservative personas baiting other conservatives===

[[MAP Movement|MAP Activists]] and the '''Alternative-Right''' generally have very little in common, other than [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity|the ''kind'' of knowledge]] we are positioned to take advantage of. Alt-righters, 4channers and many besides, have nevertheless been able to use a good grounding in MAP-awareness in a variety of successful trolling campaigns. Let's first look at triggering [https://incels.wiki/w/Agecuck "Agecuck" 4channers] by pointing out they are behaving like blue-pilled "normies" (see graphics below). This has been a particularly useful strategy for some of us and mirrors the kind of tactics used by Federal Agents to sow division in hostile groups by playing the "authenticity" card. They might do this, for example, by posing individuals as the most "extreme" white-nationalists who diverge from others in their group by supporting Israel. Naturally, this undermines the solidarity of the far-right on that topic, in effect moving them back towards the center while all the time maintaining the illusion of radical nationalist conservatism.

'''[***Server members: this is where I want your input***]'''

====Gallery of Chud-on-Chud pedophile apologia====

:''There are any number of [[memes and Graphics#Responding_to_Conservatives_(and_their_hypocrisy)|memes and graphics]] dedicated to pointing out liberal hypocrisy.''

<gallery>
File:Redpillped.png|<small>One avenue is using common alt-right optics and argumentation to point out that conservatives are "blue pilled" on age of consent laws.</small>
File:Uspepe.png|US [[Age of Consent]] law: Social Purity and feminists
File:4chanRP.png|Examples of pro-[[Hebephilia|hebephile]], age-gap arguments made on 4chan (unrelated to [[Newgon]])<ref>[https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/269300824/ 4chan thread]</ref>
File:Anti cp system.png|Cunny-pill strategy
</gallery>

===Politically conservative personas baiting liberals===

The reason liberal-left [[anti]]s and LGBTQ+ react in this way is their own sudden realization of the obvious hypocrisy they must display to distance "unapproved" or "[[Debate Guide: MAPs are invalid|invalid]]" minorities such as Zoophiles and MAPs. In effect, they are practicing exactly the same "erasure" they decry in others, thus presenting the perfect opportunity for ironically "enlightened" pro-MAP rebuttals.

Why not attack the [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity|historical dishonesty of the LGBT Movement]], by associating with MAPs for many decades, passing motions against the age of consent, and then breaking with them for completely expedient reasons? Accuse them of being personally aware of this, and vainly trying to deny it. This potential alt-right attack on liberals has been covered elsewhere in this essay.

Try mind-reading as an extension to the above historical argument; begging as to why the aesthetics celebrated by the gay community changed [[Spartacus International Gay Guide|''downstream'' of the in-group's political values]]. And why we have now seen back-slippage towards a femboy aesthetic since gender-nonconformity became more acceptable. For example, on social media channels frequented by gay men, post images of mature male and teen boy models and ask them to declare their preference for one or the other. There is no way they can come out of this looking any better, since the only options for your target will be obvious denial, partial concession, or silence.

====Dealing with the "wokest" antis====

Since you are now dealing with people who have more belief in their ability to explain an  ideology, than the ideology itself, you needn't claim strict adherence to the beliefs ''you'' are espousing. Triggering your opponent sarcastically or ironically is what character-limited social media was made for, and besides, you are ultimately dealing with one form of unseriousness (dressed up as something else), so why not combat it with your own?

To this end, just put "Minor Attracted Person" or "Minor Attracted People" into the search box (perhaps alongside "LGBT(Q)" or "queer") and set a minimum of 2 replies/faves/shares. Inject yourself into a recent conversation and look out for the following troll-prone arguments:

*'''Your target distances MAPs by inadvertently using the "[[Wikipedia:Red pill and blue pill|red pilled]]" argument that MAP is just a euphemism for Pedophilia.'''

So, claim the moral high ground by being technically and politically correct, before getting into the meat of your argument.

Instantly point out that not all minors are prepubescent children, that [[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation|Pedophilia is defined by the APA, US Govt and even Wikipedia]] as an attraction to prepubescent children, and always has been. Go through the many categories of MAP, point out that MAPs are entitled to value neutral terminology, and finally, repeat their tropes back at them; that "[[Wikipedia:Social justice warrior|SJWs]]" are "denying the existence" and "lived experiences" (of MAPs) by not respecting this!

*'''Your target will often claim they have "never had anything to do with the MAPs", and that the idea gays are out to recruit children is a "pernicious myth" based upon the "defamatory" conflation of gay history with the pederast movement.'''

Wrong. Bring up examples of [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity|Harry Hay, Oscar Wilde, Ginsberg and the acceptance of pederasts and pedophiles within the early, post Stonewall Gay Movement]]. Point to Paternotte's paper<ref name="Paternotte">[https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/1363460713511103 The ILGA and the question of pedophilia: Tracking the demise of gay liberation ideals, by David Paternotte]</ref>, which is in and of itself, both highly triggering and awakening for young LGBTs. Also bring up the fact that gay lib only ever cast aside the pederast once he became a liability. The above linked Newgon article on this subject is particularly useful, but you should use sources within the article rather than just sharing the link.

*'''Your target while MAP-adjacent (perhaps a Lolicon, or some kind of [[Paraphilia|paraphile]]), still displays a hatred of MAPs. This is perhaps because many are already part of sometimes marginalized groups such as NBs, Furries, anorexic/ED community, or [[Lolicon-MAP Equivalence Debate|ironic lolicon]]s.'''

Point this out as exactly what it is - ''projection'' of one's guilt and anger onto another minority as a form of cathartic group bonding between beat-down deviants. Point out how they have been successfully "divided and conquered" by elite MSM propaganda, and how for the "respectable" perverts, the MAP is simply "too close to home", as he is a more honest mirror image of himself. 

Obviously, it's a cope, [[Debate Guide: Self-loathing hatred|or worse]], and this should be pointed out.

*'''Your target sometimes even inadvertently uses the red pilled argument that MAPs are "entryists", attempting to become part of LGBTQ+ politics.'''

This is a simply laughable idea, given just how hard LGBTQ+ people are already protesting against MAPs to disown their past associations. In reality, MAPs were at one point part of LGBTQ+ politics - when multiple organizations such as [[NAMBLA]] and [[Paedophile Information Exchange]] were official members of gay and civil rights organizations (ILGA and CHE + NCCL respectively). They even marched in pride events as recently as the 1990s; how more obvious could you get?

MAPs were eventually excluded at the behest of [[assimilationism|assimilationist]] homosexuals and lesbian feminists, for predominantly expedient political reasons. MAPs, have of course despised the "pride movement" ever since this great betrayal, seeking to create their own identities. They have had some success in mainstreaming the term [[Minor Attracted Person|"MAP"]] and conceiving a [[MAP Flag]] concept as early as 2009. This is genuinely their own work, as [[Minor Attracted Person (archive research)|proven by web archive research]], and not a trolling campaign. This is what happens when [[Validity Policing#"Queer"_policing|queers attack other queers]], and was always going to happen.

It is clear projection of panic on the part of LGBTQ+, to suggest their former allies are trying to regain entry into a movement, that has become just as intolerant and authoritarian as the 1980s American Moral Majority. All the pride lobby care about is [[Rainbow Revisionism|public perceptions]], running scared of less fashionable minorities, just like the inauthentic, sellout cowards they are.

You can also bolster your anti-[[degeneracy]] argument by claiming that your target is naive and in denial. They are being manipulated/softened up by [[Wiktionary:globohomo|globohomo]] because as liberals/leftists they don't ''instinctively'' perceive pedophilia as degenerate and have to rationalize for or against it. Tell them they will one day learn to tolerate pedophilia as an identity, just as they have learned to tolerate all of the others. Your target is "natively degenerate"; with no religion and no absolute morals, they view most forms of deviance within a morally relativistic/constructivist framework in which "(in)validity" is determined by political circumstance/convenience. Point out, using the resources on Newgon, how the predominance of rational and relativistic approaches will inevitably lead to MAP and MAP-Youth relationships becoming normalized. This will always be the case unless some moral standards are held to be absolute truths, starting most importantly in childhood.

If the target employs the quasi-legalistic sophistry of "informed [[consent]]", [[CSA dilemma argument|give them this dilemma]]. Then point out  they are discriminating against and problematizing "sex" like the truest of moralists, but only when it suits their own degenerate worldview.<ref>[https://muslimskeptic.com/2023/03/14/atheists-liberals-pedophilia-bestiality/ Muslim Skeptic: Can Liberal Atheists REALLY Criticize Pedophilia, Bestiality?]</ref> Ask them what special argument they suddenly have against other peoples' idea of good sex, given they are so permitting of their ''own'' right to express kinks and perversions. 

There are numerous [[research]] resources and [[Memes and Graphics|factoid memes]] to use on your target when they revert to bigotry and redpilled arguments in their reaction to MAPs trending. The acceptance of MAPs is a natural conclusion of identity politics and social justice theory, so to "own the libs" as they say, just force them to accept their own relative and rational tenets, or swallow their pride.

===Baiting Feminists===

[[Feminism|Feminists]]' weakness is they are generally icked out at the idea of violent hate, and need to distance themselves from reactionary hate towards MAPs by employing a new victimological argument to support every position. This takes a lot of mental energy, and means the Feminist has to redeploy discourse they barely even believe or understand in novel situations. "Feeling" feminists are the easiest to wind up this way, just by asking them to justify their argument in yet another situation until something breaks. Some radfems such as Anna Slatz are the outlier here, have a cool exterior, and openly celebrate the killing of pedophiles. These types associate with hard-right reactionaries in the process, and don't care much about being associated with those communities. You are best (if anything) baiting radfems into saying something so absurd liberals can viralize it.

But in general, Feminists are constantly "tired", very easily worn down and can be "literally shaking" after 3 rounds with an experienced pedophile apologist. Run-of-the-mill Feminists do not take well to accusations of internalized conservatism, contempt/jealousy towards girls and having pro-MAP Feminist literature/lived-experience accounts quoted at them. Their main threat to you is scorning ridicule and ducking out of debates they know they cannot win, so be sure to ask them if they even have an answer to a substantive point in your source material.

===Baiting the religious===

With American religious-right fundamentalists, the obvious angle is to play on the (already extreme, and worsening) stereotypes of Christians  as possessive and parochial, small-minded inbreeds who treat their children as property. Point to the ironic history of clerical abuse and incestuous family relations among those now outraged by the idea of progressive liberals and gays finally crossing the Rubicon and getting their hands on *other* people's kids. [[BLogo|Even the Pope]] has pedophile logos on his overalls! 

If they mention trans kids dismissively, [[Wikipedia:Eunuch|point to the Church's history]] of castrating boys,<ref>See also [[Wikipedia:Eunuchs in the Byzantine Empire|Eunuchs in the Byzantine Empire]] and [https://sci-hub.se/10.1163/157007297X00291 Caner, D. F. (1997). The Practice and Prohibition of Self-Castration in Early Christianity.]</ref> and make a crude comment at how they were doubtless "used".<ref>Cardinal Antonio Barberini and castrato Marc'Antonio Pasqualini is one prominent example, with the tradition spanning back to pre-Christian times</ref> In the case of a God-fearing woman, suggest she is just icked-out at the idea of a boy getting his dick sucked *outside* of sacred walls, where she can't conveniently deny it happens.

'''Embrace Degeneracy!'''

This is not so much a ''Media Matters/Occupy Democrats''-level ''"[[republicans are the real pedophiles]]"'' argument, but an alternative version where the proponent is himself an unrepentant pedophile, surrounded by pedophiles in denial. You should play up and openly celebrate [[MAPocalypse|institutional endorsement of pedophilia]] and Globohomo in general,<ref>[https://glaad.org/globohomo-definition-meaning-anti-lgbt-online-hate/ GLAAD: Globohomo]</ref> for example, one such troll is particularly fond of posting [https://9gag.com/tag/klaus-schwab Klaus Schwab]'s image and variations on his catchphrase - "own nothing and be happy".

===Impersonating [[anti]]s===

One way of starting a viral thread has been to create and season the account of a fake [[anti]] and then tag anti-pedophile influencer accounts when a pedophile or supporter does something outrageous. This gives the troll a degree of control over where and when a piece of controversial pedophile literature is scandalized. In a few instances, PCMA members have been seen to run pedophile trolling accounts alongside fake anti accounts, tagging lists of influencers and then switching their VPN, clearing their cookies and logging back in to their pedophile account to continue trolling up to the point they are banned.

When I was more active inside [[PCMA]], I speculated with the admins over the possibility of running a long-term fake anti account. Most people agreed, shorter-term efforts should be more flagrantly violent and hateful (believe it or not, they are often banned for vigilante activity and harassment). Others were less keen on my idea of posing an "intelligent anti" as a mainstream anti-woke conservative in the mold of James Lindsay. I felt this would add a new dimension to the dedicated anti-pedophile influencer stock, drawing in people who are put off by the violent rhetoric, and more likely to debate over the topic. This could be manipulated by way of discursive entrenchment - an "intelligent anti" account who posed as a one-of-a-kind investigative journalist covering MAPs would be looked up to, and any anti-pedophile arguments or norms he or she criticized could be weakened. For example, our fake anti could start by explaining why consent doxa and evidence-based study of CSA will eventually lead to the normalization of pedophilia, but praise civilizational collapse/moral order type arguments as wise and insightful. Associating traditional, morality-based arguments with intelligent conservatism, and liberal/feminist type consent/power arguments with dumb/violent antis, is an inversion of reality that would be a massive propaganda win for the pedophile.

==Tagging people is the simplest baiting strategy==

In 2022, my alter Jamal Ross used tagging to great effect by [[MAP visibility on Twitter|running two accounts]] that conversed with one another (see gallery for April 18, 2022). I first conducted a detailed study of all the anti-pedo influencers who had spoken up against MAPs over the last 12 months, and others who might just fall for the bait. I used my "naive" pedo apologist account, Andy Parkinson to ask what can be done to avoid courting controversy while continuing to (in effect) normalize pedophilia. I then used my Jamal Ross persona to publish a "shitlist" of such antis, advising him to block the "pedophobes". Of course, this "inadvertently" sends a prompt to each of their accounts, and baits them into sending "bad publicity" to the media-enabled pedo-apologist they believe just caught red-handed. This controversy surpassed 2M impressions and made multiple news stories including Townhall.

You can also run one "pro" and one "anti" account, using the "anti" to drive hoards of chuds to your content by pointing out just how awful, degenerate and woke you are.

==Some in-thread strategies==

These are for consideration, and depend very much on your target opponent and the platform's moderation norms.

===Abrupt and insulting behavior===

Make an entrance, but be sure to respect any language sensitivities/ToS, as this may result in your de-platforming. The politest way to do this is with a myth-and-fact type rebuttal, using a meme and link to a website. If you think you need more impetus (and don't care so much about risking an account ban), you can make personalized insults ''at the start'' of your response, as is the norm on chansites:

*Your opponent is mid-witted, has drunk the kool-aid, has an IQ between 80 and 110. 
*They have an "in-group", and uncritically consume supposed "alternative" media within that group. Said media, you will claim, are actually controlled by elites who are part of their "out group" to occupy and distract them with cultural topics.
*They support ideologies that undermine their self-interest, and repeat the talking points of groups hostile to them. Conservatives supporting the un-conservative idea that all women and child accusers should be believed, can be painted as feminist sympathizers; quisling enemies of masculine virtues such as strong leadership. Since #MeToo, this inference has been easier to make.

While a dramatic entrance gets eyeballs moving, you risk coming off as an asshole. So if you are linking to supporting material while making such comments, make that material "authoritative" and "neutral" - i.e. academic, not ballast from some fringe blog or trashy news site associated with your in-group.

====The absurd proposition====

Very much an optional tactic. This is a proposition or counterargument that you can only just about defend within the confines of conventional western logic. Or an absurd, mocking caricature of your opponent's presumed position, taking it to an almost illogical conclusion. 

The aim here is to ''pitch an invisible middle ground'' to your actual (non-participant) audience. It's important that you don't defend or source your absurd proposition in your first reply - just throw it out there in all its nakedness, coming across as plausibly dishonest or mocking in tone. When another round of discussion has passed, ''then'' use your source material (which again, should be authoritative). As well as looking ten times cooler (i.e. disinterested), this strategy might also force other people to ask for your citations, as if you had to "put in the work" to find them. This not only makes your source material look more authentic, it pitches said material as the discursive "middle ground" between your absurd proposition and your target's moralfaggotry.

===Identify "copes"===

Earlier on, I suggested a few ways you could "mind read" antis of various shades. Well, identifying [[Wikipedia:Coping|coping strategies]] in your targets is just mind reading based on arguments rather than personal features. It's a frustrating tactic, as it constantly distracts from the debate and puts a burden of presumed mental distortion on your target. Virtually every argument they make can be a "cope" for some kind of mental demon which undermines or renders comical their position.

===Dissing in plain sight===

Instead of responding directly to your target, bad mouth them to another person who is engaging with them. Explain how your target will never come round to their way of thinking, pointing out the causes of their fallacious reasoning and inflexibility. This kind of proxy attack can be very triggering; it reeks of snobbery and forces your target to take the initiative in engaging with you.

==Why "Newgon vols" sometimes infiltrated chan sites and impersonated conservatives==

[***This is the last section I will write. Again, I've already covered most of this, but any more ideas?***]

*The complaints are overblown
*As described, more MAPs and pedo trolls should impersonate conservatives, not less.
*Impersonating conservatives undermines conservative stereotypes of MAPs, undermines liberal inaction on our topic and their usual "hoax" defense.

==Notes==

[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Jim Burton's Essays]][[Category:PCMA's Essays]]