all 8 comments

[–]magnora7 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

We added that sub-rule specifically because people were sexualizing children through text.

The map you provided shows 16 as the minimum age. Therefore sexualizing 15 year olds is against our rules.

We cannot have a site outing high-level pedophiles, while simultaneously allowing public sexualization of children on the site.

If this is a deal-breaker for you, I strongly encourage you to look at your own values and why you think this is important to focus on and post about, instead of the million other things you could've posted about instead.

The rule is fine as written, and is not changing.

[–]basedaf1[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If this is a deal-breaker for you, I strongly encourage you to look at your own values and why you think this is important to focus on and post about, instead of the million other things you could've posted about instead.

I'm trying to work with you, not against you.

Therefore sexualizing 15 year olds is against our rules.

Therefore 16 is ok? You want the rules to be no talking about under 16's in a sexual light, and also believe the current rules as written don't count as a hidden content policy? Many incels promote sexual strategy concerning age of consent, which can be lower than 16 in countries outside the US. Thank you for telling me what should and shouldn't be of interest to me. I'll take that into consideration.

We cannot have a site outing high-level pedophiles, while simultaneously allowing public sexualization of children on the site.

Ok why? That's like saying you can't allow feminists on this site now that incels arrived. I have no problem sharing a site with feminists if you were wondering.

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Tiwaking 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Can we have articles from the mainstream media on a site that outs the mainstream media propaganda?

    Are you some kind of investigative journalist or something? You keep asking some very tricky conundrums.

    ......you're not.....DC Comics The Question are you??

    [–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    /s/pedogate is basically for that purpose

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Oh in the broader sense of propaganda beyond this specific subject, you can use subs like /s/mediaanalysis or /s/propaganda

      [–]useless_aether 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      please keep s/pedogate uncluttered. it's not meant for msm propaganda, unless it is related to pedophilia crimes.

      there are subs for general propaganda problems:

      s/propaganda

      s/fakenews

      also:

      s/censorship

      s/MediaAnalysis/

      s/undoublespeak

      s/whatever

      and possibly more.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

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

        yeah, but the thread is about pedos and that's the context he used for his comment. you moved the context to general msm fakery and he didnt notice. its just a simple misunderstanding imo.

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

        re second q, i don't think so. only if we know it's fake. everything is business as usual...