all 5 comments

[–]DomitiusOfMassilia 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

/u/TentElephant 's block is the one you're thinking of, I think:

This is what got him suspended from Reddit for like 3 days:

Oh you want to talk about pedophillia? Lets see what the prophets of post modernism have to say...

Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.

-Gayle Rubin, Thinking Sex

It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not ­it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside... The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.

-Judith Butler, Undoing Gender

But, after all, listening to a child, hearing him speak, hearing him explain what his relations actually were with someone, adult or not, provided one listens with enough sympathy, must allow one to establish more or less what degree of violence if any was used or what degree of consent was given. And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.

-Michel Foucault, The Danger of Child Sexuality

tl;dr Not fucking children is child abuse.

Note: I am not supporting pedos. You are still a bad fortune teller.

[–]Soup_Navy_Admiral[S] 0 insightful - 2 fun0 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Ah, the third was Foucault, not Derrida. Such a mistake, I'll never be able to show my face at fashionable parties again!

Thank you!

[–]RatMan29 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This stuff makes me cringe, but people should be allowed to argue it as long as they are not committing or enabling abuse.

[–]Soup_Navy_Admiral[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have absolutely no problem with them saying it. Indeed, I appreciate it when they do because it makes it easier to see the horrible, horrible people.

[–]novanleon 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't be able to argue or say whatever they want. That doesn't mean it isn't sick and illustrative of the types of people these are.