Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

Tequila_Wolf admin wrote

Don't have the time to properly look at this, going to just go with a global ban now and engage if anybody has any counterarguments or whatever tomorrow.

Global ban for sexualising children and transphobia

1

ziq wrote

So far one person has disagreed with the ban and one person has agreed with it.

1

Freux wrote

They might not count but the thread got 10 upvote and 1 downvote. Maybe it's not clear enough that people need to show approval/disapproval by writing.

1

ziq wrote

people have never really bothered to participate in meta.

1

martasultan wrote (edited )

I'm too young (account-wise) to vote, so this is not a vote but an opinion, but I think they should be unbanned and closely watched.

1

Freux wrote

My problem is that if you look in their history it looks like someone that refuse to listen and just defend whatever they are saying which doesn't add anything to the discussion. I'm fine with giving a chance but I don't expect anything based on their history. I still support the ban though.

1

martasultan wrote

I don't really have high hopes, my idea is that perhaps the temp-ban is enough to knock some sense into them to stop being constant devil's advocate, though I also doubt that so I'm wishy-washy on the whole thing anyway.

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

He wasn't transphobic in the trans forum— he was argumentative, and had a choice of words here and there that don't translate well at all. Like when he said “mismatched”— he was using the type of language that media often uses to describe trans people. They aren't literally mismatched, but, for example, if a trans dude has a vagina and feels that he should have a penis, it could be considered a “mismatch”.

He was well-meaning, but his comments could be interpreted either way. He's not a transphobe.

And as for sexualizing children… he was acknowledging that paedophilia (or any sexual relations minors have, between people their age or not) aren't always damaging. Which is true, they aren't always so damaging (even if they are in the vast, vast majority of cases). He got somewhat close to the line, but I don't think it's quite enough to justify a ban.

2

Freux wrote

They rephrase something transphobic into words they believed to be not transphobic but the problem weren't the words, it was the meaning behind them, a few tried to explain this to them but they kept denying there was a problem in what they wrote. At this point you aren't listening and defending transphobia, therefore they were transphobic.

For the paedophilia thing, it's pretty clear just reading the shit they wrote. Even if what you are saying is true (I doubt it), the problem isn't only about if something is damaging or not, it's about children cannot consent and that paedophilia is a sexual deviance and acting on it make you a child rapist no matter what the kid says. If you need simpler term to understand, if i ask a child if i can punch them in the face and they say yes and i do so, it doesn't matter if the result is a crushed face or barely a scrape, it's that i've decided to punch a kid to start with that is wrong.

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

it was the meaning behind them

They were being argumentative and pedantic— the meaning behind it was, “why are you choosing to interpret them this way, when you could interpret them in this other way?” It wasn't cool, but it wasn't transphobic.

it's about children cannot consent and that paedophilia is a sexual deviance and acting on it make you a child rapist no matter what the kid say

that's a given, I'm not arguing against that at all­— and neither was /u/F3nd0

1

Freux wrote

I understand what they meant and people replied to them trying to make them understand the problem in what they wrote yet they continue to argue against the feeling of trans people. I understand that sometimes you need time to process and come to term that you were wrong but they left the conversation and never came back to it to apologies and show that they have learn which lead me to believe they still think the same which make them transphobic.

/u/F3nd0 would like to disagree with you:

https://raddle.me/f/AskRaddle/43281/comment/62871

"Legally they are unable to consent (and I suppose there's a good reason for that), but not ‘completely’ unable." -F3nd0

https://raddle.me/f/AskRaddle/43281/comment/62881

"I have simply asserted that it's not a black & white affair, but rather one with different possible shades. (And given that darker is worse, it could be black, several very dark shades of gray & white, for all I know." -F3nd0

Do I really need to explain how fucked up this is?

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

"Legally they are unable to consent (and I suppose there's a good reason for that), but not ‘completely’ unable." -F3nd0

Yea. They can't consent, but it's not like the capacity is completely non-existent. It's not sufficient, though.

Do I really need to explain how fucked up this is?

Come on. He literally just said that it varies— it can be somewhat damaging, horribly damaging, or anything in between. That's a given for anything, there's always variability no matter how horrific something is.

but they left the conversation and never came back to it to apologies and show that they have learn which lead me to believe they still think the same which make them transphobic.

They put mostly positive spins on sentences that technically could be interpreted as transphobic or trans-friendly, and then stubbornly defended them the whole thread. They're very stubborn, but that doesn't make them transphobic.

1

Freux wrote

What is so hard to understand that no matter what the kid says it's not consent. The capacity is non-existent. He said that paedophilia can be anywhere from black to white. That's saying that rape can be anywhere from black to white, because kids cannot give consent.

The problem weren't the sentences it was the meaning behind them and even though people told him it was wrong he still argued that it wasn't.

I'll stop there as all I'm doing is repeating myself.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

between people their age

How is that pedophilia tho? 2 people the same age having sex has nothing to do with this.

paedophilia (isn't) always damaging. Which is true

Citation please.

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Citation please.

I don't want to look up this up (since I'd end up in the corner of the Internet with a bunch of pedos), but I think it'd be fair and logical to think that there are or have been at least a small handful of cases where it wasn't damaging.

If it's not damaging for a 16 year-old to have sex with a 16 year-old, it doesn't make sense that one of them being 19 would make it much more damaging invariably (even though it is significantly more likely that it would be).

EDIT:

How is that pedophilia tho? 2 people the same age having sex has nothing to do with this.

I was talking about the bit about “sexualizing minors”, not just about the paedophilia.

2

ziq wrote

If it's not damaging for a 16 year-old to have sex with a 16 year-old, it doesn't make sense that one of them being 19 would make it much more damaging invariably

That isn't pedophilia.

1

jadedctrl wrote

Legally, it is, in many places. If we're not going by the legal age, I don't know what line we're going by.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

The age of consent (in the US) doesn't = pedophilia. Both these things have specific definitions. A 19 year old with a 16 year old isn't pedophilia just because it violates the US's age of consent. They specifically were defending 'voluntary pedophilia'; a perverse concept, and nothing they said indicated they were talking about teenagers having sex with each other.