use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~0 users here now
Please only post things related to the saidit website itself.
If you want a place to post any topic to the community, please post at /s/whatever or /s/worldnews
The Saidit.net Terms and Content Policy
submitted 1 year ago * by magnora7 from self.SaidIt
view the rest of the comments →
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 months ago (4 children)
SaidIt is all for free speech as long as you never suggest that children should have the right to have sex like they already do have in many countries at various ages, then it's not. Please update your rules, then, so you don't waste people's time.
[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 5 months ago (3 children)
"No sexualization of children" has been added as a part of rule 2. I'm surprised it even needed to be said at all as it seems pretty implicitly obvious, but here we are.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 months ago (2 children)
So discussing children being allowed to have sex or child sex laws etc is all "sexualizing children", got it, okay, yeah just keep making that set of rules bigger and bigger once you think of more topics you don't like. Good job shutting down discourse of super important issues that cause super important problems like child sex trafficking all because children having sex is illegal in many places. Way to stand up for the children.
[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 5 months ago (1 child)
I am standing up for children, that's why I did it. Anti-pedo discussion is allowed, but that's not what you were doing. Bye.
[–]cablack 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun - 5 months ago (0 children)
I feel the moderators should be setting a good example and when explaining their official actions should stay within the top two tiers of the debate pyramid. In the above discourse, I don't think they did.
Because if they don't, who will?