you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]d3rr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah that's totally fair. It just seems like maybe a future pattern to be aware of, where one toxic user can run a topic/sub name for everyone else for forever, since now the sub is banned. With this sub in particular, I can't think of a positive use for it (pedogate exists), but maybe we being weary of users sabotaging whole topics is good.

Maybe I'm full of it and it's a false dillema since someone with different intents can come make pedophilia2.

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

where one toxic user can run a topic/sub name for everyone else for forever, since now the sub is banned.

That's a fair point. And were it a more established sub with a wider variety of users, like CringeAnarchy, then you're absolutely 100% right. But given this particular user, the fact he created the zoophile sub and posted about "loving horse cum" or some nasty shit today, and then immediately created this pedophile sub, with an openly pro-pedo first post in it... the guy is clearly trying to fuck with saidit, and this sub is an extension of that. That's how I see this situation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So you're only allowed to be anti-pedophilia when you make a sub about pedophilia? How is that respecting free speech?

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I think a neutral or anti-pedopholia sub would be fine here, but sexualizing minors is another story. This is not an absolute free speech site.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Clearly, because "sexualizing minors" is something you're accusing me of doing apparently which is funny since how is the topic of child sexuality not ever "sexualizing children"? How can someone have a discussion about whether or not children should be allowed to have sex (like many of them do in reality, like I did when I was a kid, but everyone hides it) when by the mere discussion of that topic, all those involved are "sexualizing minors" which apparently is something that is against SaidIt's rules somehow even though it's literally not one of the rules? This is the exact text of my sub:

Description:

For the discussion of topics related to pedophilia and child sexuality, not a place to discuss the ethics of pedophilia as a whole. Examples include discussing current laws and rights (or lack thereof) that children have to be sexual beings, issues that effect pedophiles, and issues that effect children who are or would be sexual if given the chance.

Rules:

  1. Don't dox yourself. Exercise caution with any information you post about yourself. The term "pedophile" is largely equated with "rapist" by many media outlets rather than the original meaning of the term, so put on some armor. This is the sad reality we face and changing public opinion about kids having sex is one of the main reasons this sub exists.

  2. Be very cautious when it comes to discussing or admitting any real events in your life which may be illegal in your country. If discussing any past events, keep in mind how the statute of limitations works if it exists in your country.

  3. No porn is allowed due to both SaidIt's rules as well as the laws in many countries.

  4. Play nice! Name-calling, mud-slinging, and other aggressive attacks accomplish nothing when trying to have a progressive discussion that should be helping yourself as well as other readers, so doing that is against the rules.

Okay, so what is it exactly in there that you object to? That the sub's rules is against allowing discussion of the ethics of pedophilia as a whole? Lots of subs on here have rules that tries to focus the sub onto specific rules. I can make a sub titled "Banana_Advocacy" where one of the rules is to not get into the discussion about whether or not bananas are good or bad, or if someone likes bananas or not, but instead keeping the topic about the enjoyment of bananas. So why would in the case of my sub focusing the topic be a no-no?

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is objectionable, along with parts of the post you made.

and issues that effect children who are or would be sexual if given the chance

This is sexualizing minors.