An Echo from the Past: Radical Activism vs Liberal Activism

In the past, we know that NAMBLA was accepted by the gay community until pressure was put upon them to amputate the anti-age of consent faction. This was based on the idea that there are good and bad gays. Today, we see something similar among those who supposedly belong to a pedophile movement. What we need to make clear is that these groups are not a part of the anti-age of consent movement. What I'm referring to is that there is a view among the non-age of consent movement that there are good pedophiles and bad pedophiles. The good pedophiles are those who merely have a sexual orientation towards children that they don't act on. What I mean by bad pedophiles is people who are actually not even considered pedophiles by these activists because they supposedly don't have the pedophilic sexual orientation. These people are bad because they have developed relationships with children. There is a similar divide made by some who defend cartoon pornography.

Decades of the gay rights movement since NAMBLA was amputated, no progress has been regarding the age of consent. I expect that will be the same result from those who focus on the sexual orientation pedophile while excluding and shunning the anti-age of consent pedophile. In fact, it's possible this new sexual orientation movement can be anti-pedophile. Either way, it's actually an inaccurate movement: if you don't want the age of consent abolished, then your sexual orientation may be asexual, not pedophile.

A big reason why people pushing for lower age of consent is that the detractors had no reason to compromise with them.

Had they instead pushed for things like school maids and other forms of forced breeding feminists (or at least liberals) may have been willing to accept things like lower AoC as a compromise. That however require you to have a real chance of implementing your more radical change instead.

Trying to be moderate has been tried for decades by MRA frauds with basically 0 success.