Yep. Blows my mind. Would love to know what the hell triggered people to downvote, and what triggered a moderator to delete it [1].

Clearly, either some kind of misunderstanding, [and/]or, they’re complicit in the crime and favouring the conflation that serves children and underage teenagers to them, and wanting to challenge the threat to their Lolita express embedded in this conflationary cultural trope of hate [because this practice is worse than it is in law and statutes ~ which even that needs mending].

Otherwise, what’s the thinking behind downvoting and deleting a post that calls for human rights and protecting children?

I failed to get any cogent argument that appeared outside these two options, misunderstanding and/or plausible complicity.

Which would not surprise, since such deviancy would be attracted to such articles, and therein no surprise that the reply tackling the issue in a manner that may actually lead to protecting children gets attacked.

Or maybe it was just a misunderstanding born of hot heads.

*shrug*

I remain open to other possibilities, and very much welcome suggestions or explanations of what else it could be. Would love to know what, if anything, was really wrong with what I said [in substance or style], or even just what was perceived as wrong, beyond all the completely inverting the point of it, like happened in most replies.

Was it removed because it was perceived as prejudice against paedophiles, and that was perceived, by the mod, as in breach of Rule 4?

Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

I thought the point of my post was to protect children.

Curious how some of the replies to my reply blatantly and repeatedly break Rule 5

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

, yet they remain.

But then, beneath the rules here, it does also say:

ll posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Would be good if mods offered reasons why. Otherwise, how are we to know? Without reason offered, to those who don’t know why, it appears arbitrary, and that has several negative effects on the communication atmosphere.

I do hope I figure out what it was. I do hope it’s not the vilest of answers to the situation (~ as hypothesised as a possibility: the complicity gang, attacking a threat to their supply (~ unfortunately, as it would most appear to be, in absence of reason). I’m going to be thinking about this for a while. … How rife is the problem? Is that why it’s not being mended? The entire system captured by the complicit? Or just too daunting a conceptual leap, to face the horror, that we’re all complicit, by our hate, by our love, in handing our children over to the worst, increasing the value of our children to them… it’s not pleasant. Don’t kill the messenger ffs, or it’ll keep happening. This is no time for head-in-the-sand.

[1:(annoyingly disallowing subsequent readers to make up their own mind, lending spurious weight behind all the replies that completely misunderstood/misrepresented it, cherry-picking, quoting out of context, strawmanning, etc)]