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.
It really sucks when mods decide to interpret rules overbroadly
I guess but ewwwww.
I like how as soon as anyone sets foot in this thread to make a statement they are immediately sucked into a long winded argument.
What a divisive issue lol
hi pal, i want to preface this by saying I’m with you, both because punishment is worse than crime, and because arguing about genetics presumes everyone is heterosexual. my reasons aren’t really important though. i really hope you find community, offline or on, that respects you and bigs you up. I’m watching you fighting with these people who want nothing better than to call you a rape-lover, and i really want better for you. i want you to be able to express yourself and spread your philosophical wings without being piled on or called names. i hope you find kinder ecosystems. big up yourself in the meantime 👍
I appreciate that. I like Lemmy for the most part, and the response is pretty much what I expected.
i’m coming here from social media like Tumblr, where it’s a lot easier to curate your own experience. on tumblr, if you don’t tag your post, the only way it’s going to get in front of the eyeballs of strangers is if it gets significant reblogs, at which point you can switch off notifications and go to sleep. whereas here, you kind of have to be thrown in with everyone. tumblr has its own problems, namely centralisation, advertising and transmisogynoir, but i really don’t think I’m going to be able to find a likeminded community anything like i did there, on Lemmy
Leaving aside whether the rule was the right one to use, I will stress that, when it comes to incest, the power dynamics in play make consent dubious at best. This is doubly so for parent/child incest, such as the case you were talking about.
This is a weird hill. Are you sure you want to die on it?
Won’t die on it. Still think it’s weird to be banned for it.
By making this post, you are still fighting on it.
I think a permanent ban was unjustified, yes.
Your permanent ban for defending incest, a situation that is widely agreed to be an abuse of trust in any configuration, thus making consent dubious. Specifically, your response defending a woman who fucked her son, suggesting grooming to be at play.
Once again, is this a cause you want to keep fighting for? Or do you want to just take the damn L already?
I specifically said she was likely grooming her son, which is bad. I’m against incest being a crime.
After nearly a full day of inactivity where people lived their damn lives, you came back to offer nothing new, yet you keep trying to nitpick your way into an argument. Why is this so important to you?
Actually, no, don’t answer. Just stay on your weird family-fucking hill until you die on it, as you so obviously want to. I’m done with you.
You’re mad because I was busy for a day?
In a lot of people’s mind there can’t possibly be consent so it’s simply rape which makes you a pro rape advocate. If that makes it make a little more sense to you.
That’s a hell of a long walk to call me a pro-rape advocate. No, that doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s quite a short walk I’m afraid and yeah I figured that was the case. Fun question, are you now or have you ever participated in incest?
I have not.
Then I find your position even more odd.
Is it something you think about, like what is the motivation here? Like is statutory rape wrong to you or is that another “well there’s consent” issue for you.
That’s called a bad faith argument. I stated in my comments that people need to be capable of and enthusiastically consenting.
I’m opposed to overreaching laws based on ideas about sexual purity.
For instance, under Canadian law, two people who don’t know they’re blood relatives who begin a sexual relationship can be guilty of incest if they later learn that they’re related and continue that relationship. And that seems insane to me.
what is the motivation here?
The same reason a white person with a white partner would argue against anti-miscegenation laws: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.
The same reason a straight person would argue against homosexuality prohibitions: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.
The same reason a cishet person would argue against transphobic laws: They are wrong, and they are needlessly harmful.
You don’t have to be in a miscegenated, homosexual relationship with your trans half-sister to realize that the public and the state has no valid interest for interfering in the free association of capable, consenting persons. Such interference is wrong, and needlessly harmful.
By all means, ensure that any such association is freely entered. Ensure that the individual participants are capable. Ensure that the individual participants are consenting. Once those three criteria are met, the public is free to speak its mind, but it is not free to arrest or otherwise interfere.
Problem is that the law is based on morals rather than damage. SA is illegaland grooming is illegal, why does incest need to be illegal in addition?
What a deeply weird post and thread. It seems like a lot of people somehow think the idea that incest is bad is only related to religious beliefs. I don’t really care if it is even considered bad by religions (I’m not even certain it is), because it’s bad for obvious reasons that have not a damn thing to do with religion. I had no idea so many people would argue in favor of incest.
To be fair I’m not arguing for incest, I’m arguig against it being criminally punishable.
Which would be a distinction that mattered if incest weren’t very harmful in a variety of ways. But it is and it doesn’t.
The varieties of ways incest can be harmful are already, or should be illegal. Incest in itself isn’t harmful unless they’re producing children with each other.
As everyone who isn’t also in favor of this practice has pointed out. This is a beyond bizarre hill to die on
Again, I’m not dying on it and I’m not in favor of incest. I thought it would be an interesting post for this community.
The existence of this post and the repeated defenses are what people mean by dying on a hill. I don’t know what else to tell you
Engaging in debate is fun and a great way to test your knowledge and biases, I don’t know what else to tell you.
Social media principle #1: “Questioning any aspect or detail of the Right side means you’re on the Wrong side.”
Nope, no nuanced opinions allowed.
PTB. Ban doesn’t fit the rule.
I don’t agree with OP’s position, but that isn’t the subject of this thread. The ban is. And I don’t think it’s justified.
The ban fits the spirit, if not the letter, in a sort of “we didn’t think we needed to specify a dog can’t play basketball” situation. I suspect the wording of the rule will be changed to reflect this.
Idk Americans can be a bit puritanical and weird about stuff. A lot of them never remove their christian brainworms.
Some coms are on a hair trigger though because people that know the age of consent in ever jurisdiction often have a weird interest in bringing up all the ways that doing something something sexually transgressive that might involve grooming is actually cool and good.
Hexbear probably isn’t the place to discuss this stuff because they’re very defensive of the community vibes and safety of users, and also weirdly puritanical sometimes.
I think it’s probably mod overreach your position seems clear that grooming is bad and you’re discussing theoretical other scenarios but in the context of the article it’s understandable that the timeout would happen.
fwiw I think incest is a crime because it’s a blunt legal instrument to just easily protect people from a lot of extremely nasty scenarios.
There’s multiple comments about American puritanism but OP got banned from hexbear communities
They are overwhelmingly from the usa
And they’re overwhelming against US customs
not the puritanism
Idk Americans can be a bit puritanical and weird about stuff. A lot of them never remove their christian brainworms.
Given incest is incredibly popular on all the tube sites, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. Same goes for Americans claiming they’re not attracted to 20 year olds at the ripe old age of 30, but also transphobia and homophobia. A short summary of their browsing history would probably be illuminating.
It’s only a 7 day ban.
I’m not sure how grooming could possibly be made illegal.
I agree that maybe siblings could consent to healthy sexual relationships as adults. It’s gross to me but doesn’t need to be illegal.
I don’t agree that parents and children fucking eachother should be legal. Parents are the guardians and protectors of their own children. That role doesn’t end when a child transitions to being an adult. I think it would be nearly impossible to micromanage a relationship in order to determine that grooming took place, better for society to just make it illegal for parents to ever fuck their children.
I think that it’s appropriate that you’re being muted for a week for repeatedly defending the right of a parent to fuck their child.
I should have been more clear, my ban from the unrelated communities was temporary while my ban from news was permanent.
Again, I was saying incest shouldn’t be a crime. To say I was defending a parents’ right to fuck their child is deliberately misinterpreting the argument.
Iirc hexbear has a self-crit community where you can explain where you went wrong and appeal mod actions
Focusing on the mod action without delving much into the topic, I think your first comment could reasonably be perceived as reactionary (provoking reaction from others) by some mods which fits under rule 4, even if you were genuine in intent.
The other comm bans I think are half a step too far in the PTB direction, but the one comment removal and news comm ban are within the ballpark of reasonableness.
Mods are people, and people are biased. Yeah, they’ll ban you over sensitive-to-them subjects, and there’s not much we can do about it but appeal. I happen to agree with you re: incest, but I knew better than to voice it directly to that same article posted in a different comm. You spoke your mind and someone with a bit of power shot you down. So it goes.
But, there’s more to it than that.
Lemmy is a general interest, public forum and therefore full of people with opinions that fall in the middle of the bell-curve. Opinions of all types that fall at the edges get shouted down and trimmed off. Everyone is aware that MAGA opinions are in that group, as well they should be in, again, a general interest public forum. But, there are plenty of others, like permissive ideas around incest, and support for AI in there, too. You need to “read the room.”
You can find other quite active forums outside of Lemmy that will be more sympathetic to such fringe positions of all sorts, if you feel the need to express support or discuss.
You know what? That’s fair. I looked at the other comments being made and checked the sidebar. I was a little crass in my verbiage but thought I was participating as I should. Someone didn’t like that and I’m still happy to be here.
I feel like your last sentence could lead down a very slippery slope of ending up on a list somewhere.
Americans are weirds. Thank protestantism
I’m still wondering why incest is considered wrong under a secular liberal framework, given that liberalism places high value on consent and sexual freedom.
