War of adjacency
|NewgonWiki's series on |
MAP culture war
and war of adjacency
|"Normalization" | "Groomer" | Trans Kids
Validity Policing | Lolicon Debate
MAP & LGBT Alliances | Proship
Pedophobia | Vigilantism | Moral panic
Activist model | Feminism | Queer
Ageism | Censorship | Hoax pedophilia
Anti | Pro-recovery | Alternative Initialism
Transage | Kinky Kids | Assimilationism
|Template: Adj - This template|
The term refers to how social contention surrounding MAPs is/will be uniquely influenced by their relationships with "adjacent groups", both in reality and as perceived by the wider public. Such adjacent groups might be LGBT, particularly trans people, with the addition of lolicons and "invalids" such as zoophiles and self-identifying/externally identified paraphiles of various types. He further adds that at least the initial phases of this battle will (uniquely) be confined to an abstract, theoretical online space.
Before moving on to our bifurcated movement, it will be worth mentioning something else of import – namely the “adjacency anxiety” sparked within the LGBT Community by the emergence of the MAP. Very often this is expressed in the form of distancing, or – in its more aggressive form, “validity sadism” (Newgon). The term “Queer”, for example is now being rigorously policed as an exclusive member’s club – by those with seemingly no reading of, or regard for Queer Theory and its founders.
Today’s LGBT adjacency anxiety and validity policing represents a counter-clockwise “retour” of the post Save our Children, post-AIDS realignment of the Gay Community. At that point in time, “consenting adults in private” had become the slogan for aspirational Gays who were wary of a resurgent moral majority (De Orio, 2017). It would surely be a glib remark to say that the founding fathers of Queer Theory would be “turning in their grave” if they could see the LGBT gatekeepers of the present day feverishly attempting to deny “love”, “pride” or “queerness” to less fashionable minorities on the basis of “problematic” or “invalid” sexual identities. Critical analysts of that age would most probably have been unsurprised to witness this kind of behaviour, after their contemporaries voluntarily (albeit with clear incentive) submitted to the guiding hand of bourgeoise orthodoxy in the 80s and 90s. The curious behaviour of modern Social Justice gatekeepers, merely represents the crude act of “passing down” disciplinary processes invested in them by the elites as their newly appointed, identitarian “middle managers”. They inherit the stratifying methods of the guiding hand, shaming and punishing other deviants with the same strategies of “invalidation”, “erasure”, “denial of lived experience” they still decry in reactionaries.
The war of adjacency
Assuming at first, a basic level of visibility for MAPs, adjacency anxiety will surely then prove to be an excellent weapon for them. Their status as the undesirable party gives them the power of blackmail, and the ability to present themselves as the true rebels or rock stars of identity politics, when others around them are panicking. When the mainstream LGBT is forced (too many times) to defend itself; to play politics, there is no doubt that considerable damage will be done to their public image. By disenfranchising and disillusioning an incoming generation, they will “date” themselves badly and contribute to radicalisation within their own ranks. Recruitment to the MAP Movement, via adjacent groups is an inevitable consequence of this “war of adjacency”.
Co-operation with other minorities could then emerge, but only under a specific set of conditions or circumstances. One such avenue concerns the emergence of “paraphilia” as a wedge issue in the ever-expanding identitarian maze that is social media. Many adjacent, non-MAP commentators on social media have expressed their distaste with the LGBT Movement, preferring to identify as Queer, or under more specific identifiers. With increasing strain emanating from the intersection between unicorn identitarianism and “paraphilia”, splits are already forming and alliances will doubtless be redrawn. We will address this phenomenon later – proposing the formation of a united Invalid Movement.
Eroticised, infantile transgender aesthetics are likely to become a wedge issue, and a highly provocative one at that – not only sparking adjacency anxiety within the LGBT alliance, but confirming the warnings of conservative and radical feminist opponents when such characteristics are identified in “groomers”. One media outlet [Reduxx] appears to have been set up with the sole purpose of gleefully pointing out such examples of neo-queerness (or invalidity, as we like to call it).
The battle is, and will initially be about abstract ideas – roleplay, anime, fiction vs reality, sex dolls, VR, gender identity’s intersection with an attraction to minors, etc. This is why fighting that war in an abstract, online space affords us a degree of certainty and protection, and will benefit us in the long-run. We may be able to take a mile in abstract, theoretical gains, where in the real world, we would only have taken an inch.
Nevertheless, there are some potential downsides of this battle playing out in an abstract, theoretical space. One of these might be the false allure, or rabbit hole presented by the modern LGBT Movement’s brand of unicorn subjectivism to younger, less experienced MAPs. The LGBT Movement has become relatively meaningless and mired in endless such identities; a luxury of having attained its dominant position within the establishment. The 21st Century LGBT are not so much a “movement”, but instead an animal farm of colourful noise; a compendium of essentialist claims made “real” from subjective reality. Emboldened by left-establishment social justice orthodoxy, they are in effect no more than Queer Theory in the form of a Happy Meal, presented each week with a new toy.
- Dan Lievre (2021). Yesmap/NOMAP: The birth of a bifurcated MAP Movement, future challenges and navigations. Unpublished and incomplete paper on political strategy, circulated within peer group.