Tom O'Carroll SucksTom O’ Carroll is at the moment, the most well-known Pro-Contact Pedophile Right’s Activist. He has engaged in activism and written numerous books and blog posts on Pedophilia for over 4 decades. As such, many who intend to seriously engage in Pedophile’s Rights Activism, imitate Tom’s speaking and writing style.
And it’s precisely because of that imitation that plays a significant role in why the Pedophile Right’s Movement has been failing so far. Tom O’ Caroll’s writing is awful, and activists inherit many of his bad habits.
For now, I’d just like to highlight the biggest problem with Tom O’ Carroll. Let’s take a look at his writing and see if you can spot it:
This is the first line in the ‘About’ section of Tom O’ Carroll’s blog:
‘Heretic TOC is my personal blog. I have been at odds with “the dominant narrative” of sexual morality over the last several decades, especially as regards children’s sexual self-determination and paedophilia. My aim here is to present a discourse of resistance.’
Tom… my dude… What the fuck are you saying?
Here’s another sentence from the Blog Post: ‘Desmond is truly Amazing – and Hot!’:
‘Sure, drag can be performed with wholly non-erotic intent… my namesake Brendan O’Carroll’s “Mrs Brown” does something similar in considerably cruder terms: there’s plenty of smutty innuendo but no one would accuse O’Carroll of being sexually hot – actually, that goes for both of us! 😦’
Alright so bad sense of humor is probably his 2nd worse problem, but that’s not nearly as big a deal. I’ve read wonderful books which became bestsellers that were as poor comedically (Sorry Ha-Joon Chang).
But you’ve picked up what Tom’s biggest problem is right? Because it’s very important that you’re able to.
Here’s another line:
‘Portentously, too, this wordsmith’s given name is Steven, after the first Christian martyr. His more specific subject is child sexuality, a notoriously dangerous theme for any writer these days, so is this perhaps saintly scribe doomed to martyrdom, or even actively courting it?’
Alright, I hope you’ve gotten the point.
Distortion and Defamation, Lies and Libels
The Wording in Tom O'Carroll’s writing might just be the worst I have ever seen from a professional writer. It is laughable how atrocious it is.
Look, I know what Tom means when he says: ’I have been at odds with “the dominant narrative” of sexual morality.. especially as regards children’s sexual self-determination and paedophilia.’
He’s basically saying he defends pedophilia and children’s right to have sex. Awesome, I agree. But why in the fuck, does he have to phrase that in such a verbose, pretentious manner? I should not have to do a 1-minute brain workout every time I read a simple sentence.
I’m not exaggerating, this next line made me so fucking enraged, I was literally pacing furiously back and forth in my cramped studio apartment for 2-3 minutes, spewing insults like ‘WHY ARE YOU SO FUCKING STUPID!!’, ‘YOU ARE SUCH A PRETENTIOUS OLD FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!!’ (I don’t recommend you throw insults like that directly to Tom, or anyone really).
Here it goes...
‘When the religious reactionary press in the US launched a tsunami of hateful bile against an academic article of mine last year, they relied almost entirely on distortion and defamation, lies and libels’
So right off the bat, this guy sounds like he’s regurgitating the word-of-the-day calendar. ‘distortation and defamation, lies and libels’, all 4 words literally mean the EXACT SAME FUCKING THING!! And retarded phrases like ‘tsunami of hateful bile’ , doesn’t the word ‘bile’ already indicate that it’s hateful, making the phrase ‘hateful bile’ as redundant as your mom?
Here’s the most frightening thing: Tom has written for over 40 years, and almost every single of one of his sentences is written like that, every single one. Literally just randomly pick a paragraph from any of his blog posts or a chapter of his book, I guarantee you’ll find sentences this pants-shittingly terrible. His book on Micheal Jackson’s sexual relationships with children is called ‘Micheal Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons’ (That is the worst book title I have ever heard in my life).
I am shocked that someone can be an author for over 40 years and write this consistently bad. Has anyone ever told him? Or does Tom just never want to admit that his wording is terrible? Does Tom have an editor for his book? Because if he does, that editor should hang himself.
In the excellent book, ‘On Writing Well’ (A book I think anyone who has an interest in writing and communication in general, should study intensely), William Zinsser writes:
‘During the 1960s the president of my university wrote a letter to mollify the alumni after a spell of campus unrest. “You are probably aware,” he began, “that we have been experiencing very considerable potentially explosive expressions of dissatisfaction on issues only partially related.” He meant that the students had been hassling them about different things. I was far more upset by the president’s English than by the students’ potentially explosive expressions of dissatisfaction’ '
Here’s another winner:
‘Clutter is the ponderous euphemism that turns a slum into a depressed socioeconomic area, garbage collectors into waste-disposal personnel and the town dump into the volume reduction unit. I think of Bill Mauldin’s cartoon of two hoboes riding a freight car. One of them says, “I started as a simple bum, but now I’m hard-core unemployed.’
Also in George Orwell’s 1946 essay ‘Politics and the English Language’, he comments:
‘political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.... Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness’ (For example during George W. Bush’s Presidency, ‘civilian casualties’ in Iraq became ‘Collateral Damage’)
So historically, politicians have intentionally used vague language to cover up murderous acts. Yet for Tom, this is his typical way of writing to try to effectively communicate his ideas defending Pedophiles. That is embarrassing.
To Woe is to be Pedo
Here lies the tragedy, underneath the high-falutin words: the ‘children’s self-determination’, the ‘paroxysms of outrage’ (Who the hell talks like that?), Tom has some valuable insights to share about Pedophiles and Children.
‘Why the coy insistence that kids’ drag performance has nothing to do with their sexuality? Hypocrisy, basically. For decades now, gay politics has revolved around respectability, and that has meant aping hetero-normativity: gay couples with committed relationships, marriage, and parenthood, have become the promoted model; the old, carefree “promiscuity” of the gay life is frowned upon (if still a reality for many) and any cross-generational sexual contact with youth is now far more taboo than it ever was in the “bad old days” when homosexuality was a discretely practised underground phenomenon’
So after the massive headache from deciphering that (Seriously, reading Tom’s writing is really putting me in a bad mood), Tom is basically saying kids who carry out drag performances do so mainly to express their sexuality. Gays have become hypocritical to not accept such acts, as an attempt to be seen as more socially respectable. In contrast to the past when homosexuality was a more ‘underground phenomenon’.
See? Interesting information. Valuable information. I love that. However Tom’s paragraph literally took me 5-7 times to read before I could understand it, when it should have taken 1. Somebody who made the regrettable life decision of finishing one of Tom’s books, if there’s any useful info inside could you please summarise it and send it to me? Because I don’t care how much valuable information there is, it’s not worth decrypting this god awful wording to get to it, it just isn’t.
So if I, a Pedophile Right’s Activist, who crave insights on Pedophilia, can’t bear reading this dribble, how in the fuck does Tom expect other Pedophiles, or god forbid: non-pedophiles, to be willing to tolerate this horseshit?
And it’s not like my english is bad or something, it’s that Tom’s writing is needlessly high-level. I love advanced vocabulary, I vigorously use a thesaurus and dictionary whenever I write. I love the subtle nuances of ‘cajole’, ‘wheedle’, ‘blandish’, ‘coax’. However, it never feels like what Tom is writing ever justifies using that higher-level vocab, because unless you’re writing experimental David Wallacian prose, nothing warrants language this dense. Tom’s writing comes off as if he’s trying to impress, instead of communicate.
Here is the part which really irks me…
On his experience as a Pedophile Right’s Activist, Tom laments:
‘No heretic is ever short of enemies who hate them, of course. Being loathed is pretty much part of the definition, or it ought to be if it isn’t….’
‘Gwynplaine, a character in Victor Hugo’s novel The Man Who Laughs, is a classic outsider, grotesquely disfigured in the tradition of the Gothic horror novel. His mouth is locked in a perpetual grin, so nobody can take him seriously, even when what he says is of the utmost importance’
Tom paints himself as though he’s this martyr, this courageous person who perseveres, spreading the truth that Pedophiles aren’t bad people, even though he knows that he’ll be hated, and that no one will listen to him.
But Tom, you need to understand: it’s not that no one is willing to listen to you, it’s that your writing is garbage. People would listen to you, if you didn’t constantly sound like an unlikable, pompous ass. The fault doesn’t lie with others, the fault lies with you.
There may be hope...
The thing is, Tom is perfectly capable of toning down his vocabulary.
When talking about his friend who got arrested for holding a sign in public defending Pedophiles, his wording is decidedly more restrained (See I just used the word ‘decidedly’, this is what happens when you get infected by bad writing).
‘At the start of the demo he soon found himself faced with hostility from passersby, one of whom threatened to break his legs…..Officials came out of their workplace to meet Cyril...Cyril said he believed “children have the same right to personal (sexual) life as adults”. He claimed the criminal code of Ukraine is unconstitutional...He also objected to the mooted introduction of a register of paedophiles as unconstitutional...The police then turned up in considerable numbers after having been alerted by the council’
There are still several flaws in this paragraph: don’t use ‘considerable’ (large), don’t use ‘mooted’ (What even is this word), the phrase ‘one of whom threatened to break his legs’ made me burst out laughing (dude you’re talking about a friend who got threatened with violence and you still gotta sound like Shakespeare?). However, the writing is much better, probably because this arrest happened to a close friend of Tom’s which pushed him to put aside his semantical flexing and finally communicate something that evokes empathy. The writing is bearable, for once it feels like a human being is talking.
I’m confident that if Tom consciously tones down his wording over the course of 3-6 months, he can increase viewership of his blog posts by 5-10 times. I understand the academic environment is probably where Tom picked up these bad habits because they are notoriously known for encouraging such atrocious phrasing. And especially since Tom has had this problem for over 40 years, it’d prove quite a challenge to fix.
I suggest toning down the language in increments, for a week try to maintain 70% high vocabulary (Or whatever amount Tom is initially comfortable with), reduce it to 60% the next week. If Tom fails to maintain that degree of vocab go back to the previous week’s amount and maintain that again (For example: He fails 50% in the 3rd week, go back to 60%. If he succeeds 60% for the 4th week, try 50% for the 5th etc.) If done right, in just a few months Tom will sound like a New York Times Bestseller.
Now I understand all this sounds incredibly condescending, but I’m being serious. I had this exact issue of sounding wordy when I was 14, making pretentious presentations during English literature class using phrases like ‘symbology’ and ‘literary overtones’. After being mocked by classmates for months and smugly replying with ‘you’re just not smart enough’, I finally realised the truth: it was both, my classmates weren’t smart enough, and I sounded like a massive prick! Thus in an effort to reduce my disparity with the plebs I ventured off, seeking to regain my linguistical humanity. And now… I only sound like a colossal douchebag 20% of the time (Hopefully).
So Tom… Sincerely... Please fix the wording
Tom O' Carroll is the most well-known Pedophile Right's Activist, but that is based on an incredibly low standard. He has written professionally for over 40 years yet his blog posts barely hit a few hundred views, and he has at most 10-20 close followers. Tom's a failure, and his story shows just how crucial being mindful of your wording if you want to effectively communicate your ideas. Many pedophile bloggers write like Tom, which is probably why nobody reads their blog. This isn’t a case of ‘dumbing down’ or your subjective writing ‘style’, this is objectively bad writing.
Therefore, anyone who’s serious about being effective as a Pedophile Right’s Activist, do write and speak in simple, effective language, and don’t imitate Tom. Insofar as the unabashed certitude wherein Tom’s linguistical antics beguilingly posited insomuch as said individual seeks acquiesance to children’s autonomous self-being, impose impediments in annexing requisite lucidity to sway said vox populi.
Basically, Tom makes sex with kids sound boring. Now that’s bad.
Published on 29 November 2019.
Published on 29 November 2019.
Tom O'Carroll, Pedophilia, Amos Yee
Standard FreeSpeechTube license
Category: Nonprofits & Activism
Possibly related content, auto-generated:
1. A Decent Life - The Dissenting Narrative of Tom O'Carroll, BILL MAHER OPENS THE SHOW