Professional Twitter-Hater

Both of these resistance groups are a response to Israel's violent occupation and invasions in the region. Hezbollah emerged in 1982 after Israel invaded Lebanon. Hamas was created after the first Intifada in 87.

You then publish research.

Your research, performed exclusively within your jurisdiction, claims that patients receiving Bone Unhurting Juice still suffer from osteoporosis, have many different health issues associated with calcium deprivation, and your conclusion is that you've revealed a flaw in Bone Unhurting Juice research.

Except… You're the one giving the patients osteoporosis.

You are accepted as a leading voice of reason by the Association for Concerned Parents of Boneitis Fakers. Countries condemned for their treatment of Boneitis patients flock to your research.

The research where you admit that your approach to Boneitis treatment is giving patients osteoporosis.

There continues to be no evidence to suggest that calcium deprivation does ANYTHING to benefit Boneitis patients. You make the calcium deprivation more intense because of your publications.

Mengele comparisons are not just appropriate at this point, they are necessary. You should not be in the position of authority that you have, because you are actively harming your patients.

Actual Boneitis experts in your country who offer Boneitis treatment without calcium deprivation get shut down because you say they're being irresponsible.

You keep shitting out more and more self-incriminating research.

Opinion piece writers call your critics "extreme" and "lacking nuance."

Your critics are rightly pointing out that you are a hack elevated to the position of an unaccountable petty tyrant held to no standards, allowed to scrutinize others from a position of unearned authority.

Most of your critics are your patients.

You should resign. You do not.

This makes you evil.

You suggest that bone unhurting juice is the culprit despite knowing about surveillance bias and that your ideological allies are giving them osteoporosis.

You publish the data in a paper with an overtly deceptive title and hand it to right wing grifters and demagogues to use to further abuse your research subjects.

This is a level of acedemic malpractice would not look out of place in 19th century medacine

You should lose your license and your research position. you do not

this makes you and the system evil

Navigating gender dysphoria? Be heard and be counted in the science.

[pt: DO NOT TAKE THIS SURVEY]

"Maya angelou's family killed a pedophile that raped her, and that just traumatized her more. "I thought that I had caused the man’s death, because I had spoken his name. That was my seven-and-a-half-year logic. So I stopped talking for five years." Read I know why the caged bird sings."

and here is my comment:

the fantasy of killing a pedophile to defend your child is... an escape from reality. as with all fantasies where a single act of violence stands for a lifetime of effortful care. it lets us off the hook for the day to day labor of actually protecting the human beings around us. it gives us an excuse to look away from what abuse actually looks like.

it allows us to ignore that setting boundaries is a daily practice. it allows us to ignore the subtle ways in which we punish children for having boundaries. it allows us not to think about things we can do, the effort we can put in, in smaller repeated ways, to be kind and caring. to be safe to talk to.

it is a grand gesture that, were you to actually go through with it, would neither prevent the harm that you fear nor help your child to heal from it. it is an idea with no bearing on reality for 99.99% of people, while rape and abuse are a reality for a large fraction of people.

it is not useful to imagine killing a pedophile. it is not useful to claim you would kill a pedophile. it wouldn't be useful to actually attempt to kill a pedophile in almost any situation.

it is useful to think about how you can help your child know they can get help. they can say no. they can tell adults to stop. they deserve to be comfortable. they deserve to be informed.

the entire point of the post is that your child will not be saved by your imagined wrath. the entire point is that your day to day actions, and your attitude towards children as people, are more impactful to your child's well-being. far more realistic. more important.

not least because your child doesn't need you to be wrathful. they need your love. they need care. they need attention.

meanwhile, the public performance of wanting to kill child abusers doesn't do anything to child abusers. most child abusers believe they are doing the right thing for their children.

saying you want to kill abusers doesn't signal anything good to children, either. as others have said, it makes children more afraid to speak up and ask for help. that might be their mom, their coach, their troop leader. it gives those abusers leverage; the children cannot tell if they want things to be stable.

and it makes it harder for adults to BELIEVE children, too! because if their child was really abused, then they've staked their honor on committing that violence, even if it was against their brother or spouse or grandpa or pastor or neighbor or their other kid's favorite babysitter. and if they don't want to do that, well... then they must decide whether they believe completely their child, or whether their child's boundaries must really be respected, or... if maybe it's impossible to know.

how many abuse survivors have tried to disclose, only to be told that so-and-so wouldn't do that, or they didn't mean it, because so-and-so loves you and we all like so-and-so. this dichotomy goes both ways, psychologically. if a child abuser is entirely evil and has to be killed, then someone who's not entirely evil and i don't want to kill can't be a child abuser. this must be something else. there must be a mistake.