Debate Guide: Social Media and Trolling

Social Media platforms such as Twitter require a different debating strategy to bulletin boards, due to the fast-moving, character-limited type of discourse that is permitted. This page contains three guides:

• The first is a guide to using Twitter, which goes into some technical detail about how to avoid censorship and other challenges. This is a shortened version of our advice given to Twitter users who want to make a positive contribution to the destigmatization effort.
• The second is a guide to trolling techniques in general.
• The third is a primer for alternative-right trolls who seek to take advantage of MAP discourse.

MAPs have been visible on Twitter for most of its history

Twitter Guide

Fancy the idea of putting these techniques into action, or just discussing them with an actual person? See Joining PCMA chat

Due to its size and openness to Liberal minorities, Twitter is one of the better platforms for MAP Activism. Even then, Twitter suspends accounts without any notice/warning/reason, and randomly requests phone verification, usually every few weeks on an active account. MAPs and Allies have successfully evaded censorship against these stacked odds, and avoided account suspensions by using some basic tips and tricks while tweeting. Some have surpassed 1500+ tweets, when using a more cautious mix of pro-c and anti-stigma content. Following initial suspensions, Twitter users can employ virtual numbers to verify a new account, and these come as cheap as $0.1 per verification. An entire industry has sprung up around phone verifications. Care must still be taken to use your account prudently, and it should ideally last for 300+ tweets. The longer it lasts, the more followers you gain (if you do some moderate “organic” following – say 15 MAP/Ally accounts per session) and the more reach you will have within this group, and possibly even beyond it.

Remember, when we are debating, our aim is not to directly convince the 1-2 people with whom we are conversing in a thread, but to broadcast our message to passive readers. These undecided “lurkers” may not be interacting in the thread but will still be reading our tweets.

Precautions

• 1) Always clear your cookies (from Twitter and T.co) when switching between/creating new accounts, or even better, open Twitter in Incognito mode, so that it does not save cookies and tracking details. If you happen to open a new account once a previous one is suspended, you ought not to be running the same IP or cookies and give your game away. Consider a browser fingerprint emulator/extension like Chameleon, to hide your digital signature.

• 2) Always use a VPN, there are many free VPNs available. Also, remember that for each account, you should always connect to the same country’s servers whenever you log into the VPN. This helps prevent Twitter’s algorithms getting suspicious and asking you to re-verify. This also hides your real IP address and adds an extra layer of security.

Account creation

High-quality accounts (with serviceable email verifications) can be purchased in bulk for as little as a 50cents a piece from websites such as AccFarm, and we will often have them lined up in chat, ready to go, so just ask.

Manually creating an account on Twitter is also simple, when you use our phone verification facility. Twitter will ask you for a username, password and phone number. You can use whichever name you want, or use this website to generate a random username. Try to pick a username which doesn’t have many trailing numbers, as it looks suspicious and such accounts are more likely to get suspended. If you are modifying an account you purchased, remember you are free to change the username a few times, and probably should, initially.

Have the phone verification service (e.g. SMSPVA.com) open during your account creation, so you can hire the number as you go through the process. You will need the number to proceed, and it may cost as little as 5 cents of credit. The country of the number you hire usually doesn't have to correspond to the IP address you are using. Remember, before logging out of your first session with the new account, you must immediately delete the phone number from Twitter control panel. This is because you will not be able to re-verify with the same number. Removing your number forces them to come looking for a new one, once the time comes to reverify (usually every 6 weeks or so). Twitter may ask you to solve a few small puzzles during or after account creation. This is to verify that you are not a robot.

For your bio (biography), unless you are aiming for “MAP Visibility”, avoid writing anything like ‘MAP, NoMAP, Pro-C, Anti-Contact’ in your bio. Ideally, a “normie” account should read like a list of interests. Common phrases include "opinions my own" and "RT does not = endorsement". Other useful identities are "researcher" or "academic", although these are harder to fake for obvious reasons. If you are impersonating a MAP, civilian or MAP-adjacent person (proshipper, zoofur, anime fan) go with a popular character from a fandom, maybe (for your display pic). This way, you can blend in with existing communities on Twitter, if you have reasonable knowledge of them. If you want to use a fake “real” identity, use the notorious trolling tool TPDNE to create a random face. Please note, however, in the past, some haters have figured out when others have been using AI generated faces as profile pictures. So, in order to avoid that, put the image into a free photo editor (photoshop CS2, GIMP, etc) to remove color, increase shade, distort the angle, or rotate slightly to put the eyes off-level. You can also add noise and very slight blurring effects with such photo-editing tools – making it look more like a user-shot photo. Alternatively, just claim upfront that you are “anonymous researcher/student” or “citizen journalist”, and use a silhouette, TPDNE face, avatar or random object as your display pic. Anonymity is entirely plausible and realistic, given what you are going to be using the account for!

Engaging

When you first get started on Twitter, start following the account of prominent researchers and organizations (Prostasia, Virped, James Cantor, Michael Bailey, Michael Seto), then your fellow team members. Tackle new frontiers every day, and keep it fresh. Don’t reply to tweets that are too old, as not many people are likely to view them. There are ways to find new places to engage:

• Search Query (advanced), e.g. With the brackets as the search box[ pedophilia min_retweets:1 ]. You could alternatively filter results such as [ pedophiles min_retweets:1 ] [ pedophilia min_retweets:1 ] [ pedophile min_retweets:1 ] [ MAP Pedo min_retweets:1 ] [ "minor attracted" min_retweets:1 ] [ CSA min_retweets:1 ] [ "Child Sexual Abuse" min_retweets:1 ] or introduce more parameters, e.g. [ pedophilia min_replies:5 min_faves:5 min_retweets:2 ].
• Check your associates' Twitter accounts and see whom they are engaging with/followed by.
• Automatic feed or private list. When you follow people with similar agendas, you are likely to get their tweets in your feed automatically, you can start out from there. Or just set up a “list” with selected users (perhaps even antis), and save it as private; visible only to you.
• Search using Twitter’s explore feature.
• Look out for Quote Retweets. These are one major way information proliferates and metastasizes.
• Retweet useful content. If you agree with an argument, share it, or give your own take. The same if you strongly disagree. Try not to waffle or fence-sit.

Debating strategy

Take a look at your fellow MAPs and allies and see the conversations they are engaging in, the tweets they are replying to and join in with a conversation thread – perhaps a fork that has not yet been answered. Try to reply to the latest tweets. Check a Debate Guide/Debate Script, as well as checking for any relevant info-meme or research excerpt graphic that suits the situation. Try to reply to some of the Tweets for which you have a good comeback, as Quote Retweets.

The most effective way of debating as an activist is to quickly establish the truth claims or assumptions of your opponent, and then baldly refute/discredit them without support, pointing to the fact that research or common sense says otherwise. This looks more plausible and more “disinterested” than forming a full, fact-based rebuttal in that one instant. If and when you are challenged, unload all the relevant research (including info-memes and research graphics) within 2-4 consecutive tweets, before your opponent can even reply. State upfront that you are not there to debate, just to correct bad assumptions, and aim to leave the conversation at this point. Move on to a new target. New targets will bring in new passive readers. Over-long “marathon” threads achieve very little for every half hour of time we invest in them, and risk dragging viewers away from your substantive arguments at the top of the thread! Long, tiring threads tend to betray the participants’ (including your) emotional investments and logical flaws, while casting no new light upon the subject at hand.

On the value of infographics

You can use the linked Infomemes and Research based excerpts above, free of attribution. Use them in the relevant place as much as possible. They are a good way to attract viewers to your tweets, and overcome character limits. Don’t forget accounts and testimonies (including your own experiences). People are far more likely to believe an argument, if it is attached to an emotive anecdote and a human face.

Sidestepping the censors

Censorship has been the biggest hurdle facing MAPs, not only on Twitter, but on all other platforms. Here are a few basic rules to avoid censorship:

• The first rule is to avoid using the word “child(ren)” or “kid(s)” as much as possible (most "CSA" involves 12-16 year olds). Use words like “they”, “them”, “minor/youth/young person/teen” instead of “children”, especially when juxtaposed to “adult”. Avoiding “child” (or its synonyms), “adult” and “sex” in the same tweet allows prejudiced viewers to “assume the best” of your argument, and is less of a red flag for “selfish” “pedo-logic” or someone who is thinking with their dick.

• Try to focus the debate on the topic which you are arguing, like brain development, Age of Consent, psychological harm, etc. In this way, you should not be drawn into using words like “child” or ”children” by an opponent, thus conceding their misplaced assumptions about the very young age of the subjects, and losing the debate. When needed, make use of numerical ages instead of saying child, i.e. “13y/o” or “someone who is/was 13”. Instead of “sex”, use words that do not imply penetration (relations, sexual activity). Point out when they try to introduce hypothetical infants, etc as an absurd device.

Example - rewording:

If you want to say - “When a child has sex with an adult, it does not always cause trauma”:

Research and anecdotes indicate that when they are sexually active with an adult, harm does not always follow” or...
Many youth, even those who don’t initiate the activity with an older person – do not show the stereotypical signs of trauma”.

When they state that "a child cannot consent to sex":

“Consent” is essentially when a minor's agreement to sexual intimacy is deemed valid by the law in his or her jurisdiction. Who sets these rules?

• Avoid directly “glorifying pedophilia” (it’s counter to the terms and conditions). Don’t say “pedophilia is normal and natural”. Instead, go with “sexual intimacy is a natural thing; unrelated to arbitrary age limits for most of human history”. In general, try to limit the use of the word ‘pedophilia’, unless necessary. Also, whenever possible or whenever reference is needed, try to use the word “adult” instead of MAPs. This reduces any undue attention on the identitarian group; after all minor-adult sex is a topic for the whole of society, and doesn't "belong" to MAPs.

• Use info-memes (linked further up) when appropriate. They cannot be easily detected and interpreted by algorithms and they are almost immune to censorship. They also attract attention (increasing engagement/clickthrough). Info-memes help bypass the word limit on Twitter, and you can use your tweet to summarize what is inside.

• Similarly, to bypass the character limit, just write your reply in a document (word/notepad) and insert the screenshot as an image. You can use tools like LightShot, which makes it easy. And you can insert the screenshot as an image in your tweet.

• Sometimes it might happen that you get noticed and people start a mass-reporting campaign against you. If you feel that the risk of a ban is high, first block whoever is doing this (and their associates) and then change your username – even going "private" in your settings.

• Use mass-blocking tools (or ask our group admin for the most recent blocklist). Unfortunately, we are not aware of any app that allows *community* sharing of blocklists, and automatic blocking from a raw list.

With MegaBlock, you can not only block the user from an account that has published a tweet that has been offensive to you for any reason, you can also do the same with all those who liked the tweet. Usually when someone is a violent and arrogant type of enemy, all their followers are of the same kind. They will often co-ordinate to harass you, so you can block people along with all their followers with the Chrome Extension, Twitter Block Chain.

Tips

• Do not follow more than 10-15 accounts per session (especially in one fell swoop), Twitter perceives it as suspicious behavior and may ask to verify the account.
• Do not reply to tweets in quick succession in a short period of time (particularly with identical replies). Twitter sees this as spamming and this is the quickest way to get your account suspended. Limiting yourself to around 1 tweet per minute also allows you to compose more intelligent and less bot-like responses.
• Do not engage in flaming, i.e. abusive or violent words, this is again another way to lose the account quickly. We have to be assertive but civil as we are already on probation for our beliefs.
• Pick and choose your battles carefully. You will find various kinds of people on Twitter, there are some you need to avoid, some you need to engage.

• Avoid: You will find people who encourage violence (‘go kill yourself’ or ‘pedos deserve to die’) or engage in/incite mass-report campaigns against “pedos”. Such people are not worth engaging with. BLOCK them, unless you feel that you are uniquely able to bait some truly atrocious/bannable behavior out of them while remaining civil. If they have made a bannable comment, you may also REPORT them (particularly if they are high profile) – we had success using this function against the influencer Marina Camacho (aka Holistic Honey). Remember that Twitter takes comments encouraging suicide very seriously.
• Engage: There are some people who are willing to partake of civil discussion. Others will be so ignorant as to make you look good by comparison. These are the people whom you need to target.

• If you are getting too overwhelmed with the number of replies, limit yourself to 1 reply per person (with an adequate graphic and/or link), or choose the low-hanging fruits, whose arguments you can easily counter. Don’t stress yourself too much, and don’t hesitate to use the block button.
• Keep checking your analytics once in a while for now many people viewed your tweets, also don’t get disappointed if the impressions and engagement is poor. You can check it for both individual tweets and also for your complete profile. To check the individual tweets, click on the three lines on the right most side below your tweet.
• If any of your tweets blow up and get lots of comments, encourage others to join into the conversation via your DMs or thru a chat client.
• Take screenshots of your best tweets and their analytics. Re-use the rhetorical methods in the more successful examples (see the section on baiting in the below trolling guide).
• Don't spam or squat hashtags, but be aware of their potential uses. Perhaps invent a catchy hashtag and promote it as a meme. Viralization of a tweet increases the risk of a suspension or a ban, but ultimately, we are here to create a buzz around our topic.
• Work with others - i.e. one friend can make baity comments, while numerous others take advantage of the commotion by interjecting with intelligent commentary and rebuttals.
• It is recommended that you refer to the classic Debate Guide before you begin, or at least the scripted version.

Trolling Guide

Trolling is a strategy that has worked for some MAP Activists, and not worked for others. Always pay attention to the T&C and norms on the platform you are using.

What is our aim?

As an activist troll, we are not aiming to convert the apparent target to our way of thinking. We are using them as an appliance to recenter our radical ideology as "wise" or "street smart" by eliciting a predictable reaction before an audience. Demotivation of the target might be a side-benefit, but our real target is the "lurker" and less confident viewers who are not as inclined to come down on one side or the other. With this in mind, we make use of memes and links to information sites, to elaborate on our position without getting wordy.

Should you create an identity?

If you have the time and the will, by all means create a persona. Generally, these days, a conservative or alternative-right persona works best, because conservatives are assumed to be more counterculture, outrageous and un-PC. We must also consider that online, liberals are more suspicious of imposters because their accounts aren't getting banned every weekend. As a result, liberals and SJW hive drones tend to have more followers, more connections and more shared "respectability" codes to conform to in polite and plausible company. So, the woke or SJW pose is more of a long-term project, and may require some understanding of key tenets such as standpoint theory for example. Another classic activist troll pose is the "Researcher", since it is harder to pin a researcher as that "anonymous person with too much knowledge on a topic". Why not identify explicitly as someone who anonymously baits, or explicitly exposes and corrects hypocrisy in liberals?

A word about dishonesty. If you are employing exaggeration, be plausible in your dishonesty by employing hyperbole and sarcasm. This way, you are less likely to come off as some kind of conspiracy-loon, and more the master troll.

Choosing your 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. 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. 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 puncture the comfort bubble.

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. 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. Don't get involved in protracted philosophical debates - always cut back to the original absurdity of your target's position, using new angles and reference material.

The perfect bait

This tweet, picked up by Jordan Peterson, is a near-perfect example of baiting

This strategy may work as a pinned tweet/new thread, as well as a reply.

• 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, 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".

In-thread strategies

Entering abruptly

Make an entrance. 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), get personal:

I'm going to be quite honest, you're a fucking idiot. Evidently mid-witted, with an IQ between 80 and 110. How do I know this? Because you are simply regurgitating the BS you have been taught by whatever mainstream, or phoney-"alternative" media is in vogue with your groupies. For you, it's a flight to security, but sure as hell looks retarded from the outside. Now hear me out...

That's obviously an extreme example, but it sets out the kind of dramatic entrance that is likely to provoke either extreme irrationality or a block. So we are looking at a risk-reward decision here.

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 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 audience. It's important that you don't defend your absurd proposition in the first reply - just throw it out there in all its nakedness, coming across as plausibly dishonest or mocking in tone.

Play the target

Study your target and make personalized attacks (see one classic example) on their ideas as "typical" of their group - identifying why they are angered by something, in order to provoke that anger or elicit a partial concession. For example, with religious fundamentalists on a MAP topic:

I guess you god-wary appreciators of incestual rites were always going to be outraged by a load of liberals getting their hands on *other* people's kids

Or -

It appears that as a god-fearing woman, you are simply outraged by the idea of a man and a boy experiencing erotic pleasure *outside* of sacred walls. What could I do to ease the pain? Declare all public toilets property of the Catholic Church?

Moving on to a liberal target, why not attack the 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? This potential alt-right attack on liberals has been covered in a separate guide below.

"I'm a Chad. I have bigger balls than you..." bait

Mind reading

Take your baiting even further by going full-on Sigmund Freud, and getting too-close-to-home. To a Gay Man:

Close your eyes and RELAX. Imagine you are in a book shop in the 1970s, with gay erotic literature, some of it with photographic illustrations. Some of that literature covers sex between mature men of similar ages. Some of that literature covers erotic experiences between men and mid-teen boys. There is no pressure on you, and nobody watching. What book are you going to opt for?

Or to the straight male nonce-hater who just posted a pedo in a woodchipper meme:

OH... So I guess you are "one of those guys" who always dates girls in their late 20s? As long as they have a shaven pussy, petite figure, childish face, mannerisms, vocal timbre, etc. But ALWAYS an adult, because as you know, anything else would be sick and perverse!

To the priggish Lolicon consumer trying to distance MAPs (yes, these people exist, in great number - it's a thing).:

Interesting, isn't it, that the one person on here protesting the most about the MAPs, is also the perv with a timeline full of kiddy sex pics. Almost as if you are trying to prove something... to who?

Identify "copes"

Identifying coping strategies in your targets is just mind reading in reverse. It's a frustrating tactic, as it constantly distracts from the debate and puts a burden of presumed mental distortion on your target.

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.

The Degenerate's alt-right Trolling Guide

One under-explored avenue is using common alt-right optics and argumentation to point out that conservatives are "blue pilled" on age of consent laws (effectively the mirror image of what is being argued here)

MAP Activists and the Alternative-Right generally have very little in common, other than 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. This cuts both ways - either triggering normie SJWs by claiming they are red-pilled, or triggering agecuck 4Channers by pointing out that they are blue-pilled (see graphics right).

Often, interrupting cathartic LGBTQ+ echo-chambers with authentic facts about the downtrodden MAPs can yield explosive results, so for no particular reason, let's use this as our example. The reason liberals, SJWs and Pride-affiliated LGBTs react this way is their own sudden realization of the obvious hypocrisy they must display in their distancing of "unapproved" or "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.

A. Your target, therefore, is SJW gatekeepers and kink police with a bio full of neopronouns, and...

B. You needn't even modify your persona; an ironic triggering is better for a number of reasons we won't go into.

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:

1. SJWs often distance MAPs by inadvertently using the 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 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 SJWs are "denying the existence" and "lived experiences" (of MAPs) by not respecting this!

2. Queers and SJWs often claim with dramatic hissing disdain, 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 Harry Hay, Oscar Wilde, Ginsberg and the acceptance of pederasts and pedophiles within the early, post Stonewall Gay Movement. Point to Paternotte's paper, 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.

US Age of Consent law: Social Purity and feminists

3. SJWs, particularly marginalized groups such as NBs, Furries, anorexic/ED community, or ironic lolicon accounts are often the most vicious in their hatred towards MAPs.

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, or worse, and this should be pointed out.

4. SJWs sometimes inadvertently use 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 organisations 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 histrionic assimilation queens 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 "MAP" and conceiving a MAP Flag concept as early as 2009. This is genuinely their own work, as proven by web archive research, and not a trolling campaign. It is the result of queers attacking 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 public perceptions, running scared of less fashionable minorities, just like the inauthentic, sellout cowards they are.

The basic truth of the matter:

It should be pointed out that as native degenerates, liberals and SJW Wokists do not instinctively perceive anything else as degeneracy. Degenerates view most forms of deviance within a morally relativistic/constructivist framework in which "invalidity" 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 SJW employs the quasi-legalistic sophistry of "informed consent", give them this dilemma. Then point out that they are discriminating against and problematizing "sex" like the truest of moralists, but only when it suits their own degenerate worldview. 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 factoid memes to use on SJWs when they revert to bigotry and red pill 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.