This is going to be a fun one.
So here are the facts:
I commented on a news article about a mother and adult son charged with incest (and adultery as well for her.) This is what I said:
Someone responded to me and I replied before I realized my original comment was removed for being inappropriate. Then I added the edit when I saw.
The next day I discovered I’d been banned from that community for “pro-incest comments” and several others I don’t think I’ve ever been in for rule 4 violations. The orignal post was removed.
You can see those here:
Site rule 4 is: Usernames or posts/comments containing transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, zionism, anti-veganism, or trivializing COVID. No self-described or obvious fascists, conservatives, or reactionaries.
My comments had none of those things. I’d even go so far as to say my banning was reactionary.
Now, I’m not defending incest, especially not for myself. My problem is with puritanical laws interfering with the private sex lives of people. In my original comment I stated that grooming was a separate issue and should be dealt with, but that there is nothing inherently wrong with incest. That is, enthusiastic consensual sex between capable adults.
I know someone will bring up the Hapsburgs, so yes, children of incest should be avoided.
Rules aren’t designed to cover every possible hot take a person can have.
they kind are… banning at whim when no rules are being broken is exactly what a power tripping bastard does
I don’t see it that way at all. Mods aren’t supposed to be robots, they can use their own judgement in banning someone that’s technically following the letter of a rule, or not banning someone who’s technically breaking it.
In any case, I presume the mod would say that their position is reactionary.
Not entering into the merit of how the position is actually the opposite of reactionary, precedent created, mod should just add “no defending incest whatsoever” to the rules, issue warning, and enforce after it
Making it easier for people to get away with rape and grooming sounds pretty damn reactionary to me.
They could, but I don’t think it’s a common enough occurrence to need it. Like, if somebody comes around saying, I don’t know, “Kill everyone who’s uncircumcised” does there really need to be a rule specifically against that for them to get banned? Why?
Yeah, if you are dead set to always ignore the words consenting and adult sure it is, and then the state deciding what consenting adults can do in their intimacy is somehow progressive and not what the church and the state have done through all history…
Surely that other case can be covered with rules of hateful comment, group discrimination, inciting violence, blah blah blah… hey, if mod wants to say it’s absolutely impossible for blood-related people want to engage in sexual activity out of their own volition and everyone that thinks otherwise are advocating rape and should be banned from the community, whatever, their community their rules, just be clear about it
The possibility of grooming destroys any claim about incest being “consensual.” Parents can control what their children are raised to believe, so even if they wait until they’re adults, it’s not meaningful consent.
Maybe, but I still don’t know what this obsession is with having to have every single thing enumerated. A community could very well just have one rule that says, “Don’t be a dick.” Or even no listed rules at all. Does that mean that the mods are automatically PTB because they don’t spell out every single thing that’ll get you banned?
Yeah… ever heard that one long standing theory that homosexuals are that way because they were “groomed” or raped when kids? Then you have sodomy laws because people can’t possibly in good conscience consent to that abomination blah blah blah, same mindset of the self appointed gods of “meaningful consent” that believe they somehow have authority over other people to define what they can consent to or not… these guys here (https://stonetoss.com/comic/no-choice/) they also believe they are fighting grooming and rape, that’s actually their whole rhetoric, consenting adults can’t want to do what their minds can’t conceive, so you can reply if you want, we are no longer talking about the moderation here, but I’m not engaging further because I see no difference between you to them.
Yeah the fact that people use a similar argument, in bad faith with assumptions that aren’t remotely true, doesn’t really concern me.
Believe it or not, it’s possible to arrive at conclusions based off reason and evidence, and not just, “That sounds vaguely similar to something a shitty person said, therefore the vibes are bad and it must be wrong.”
If you look at cases of incest, there’s very often clear evidence of grooming. That evidence does not exist with homosexuality. It’s not at all comparable.