🇳🇱
@miamiautumn Up until this point I've been tolerant of your account on the grounds that you saw pedophilia as attraction to minors but not necceseraly acting on it, and thus providing therapy or other help to these individuals without judgement. I have no issue with a pedophile who recognizes their feelings are unhealthy, seeks help, and recognizing touching or sexually engaging with children is wrong.
However this post and a few like it seem to suggest that you are tolerant of pedophiles who actually touch little children sexually (contact ideology)... this is the line right here and personally I am ok supporting the ban of this account for now having crossed this line.
I have linked the other moderators and want to give you a chance to speak if you have anything you'd like to say. For the moment my vote is going to be to support a ban.
@freemo @miamiautumn @Sphinx @khird
That's so very borderline... I mean I could see it as a sociological analysis, I know this type of relationships were accepted in the past in some cultures and I can only see with interest people discussing the impacts it had on society
BUT
Arguing for it in political terms, like something that could be done now, that is something that I can't see as acceptable neither.
He is just talking about what those guys think though, not sure about his position and I surely would appreciate him to tell us
We will have to see his explanation. I think at a minimum if it is just a matter of misinterpretation, he should at least specify in his description explicitly and in no uncertain terms that he opposes adult-child sexual interactions. Given the subject matter and the potential for "dog whistles" this seems like a good precautionary measure to avoid misinterpretation of an already dicey subject.
I don't think this particular post is banworthy. He's not soliciting, and he's not trying to incite others, so even if he comes out and says "I *don't* oppose such interactions and I think they should be legalised" it's just "unpopular opinions voiced respectfully" which are explicitly allowed by our rules.
The problem as I see it is that he's out of place on a STEM server like QOTO. His entire timeline is about pedophilia; nearly everyone he talks to is on NNIA. He's here to talk about his sexuality, not science, but without being subject to NNIA's restrictions on what can be said on the subject.
@miamiautumn Regardless of what decision the mods arrive at, it might be wise to start hunting for a new home on the Fediverse where you're willing to participate in the local community. If you do this sooner rather than later, you'll be able to port your followers over. If you wait to get banned, you'll lose that option.
@miamiautumn
It has now been 30 hours since we brought this up. While the moderation team seems to not be pushing for a ban on the original post of concern there is still the outstanding issue of if you have any STEM credentials. Please reply as soon as possible elucidating your STEM credentials, what field your in, and the other questions we asked or else the next step will be to freeze or ban your account until I hear back, thank you.
@arteteco
Not sure, which is the only reason i am giving the OP a chance to respond before I act. My vote may change if they give an explanation I am happy with. Some of their boosts and other comments may suggest they are ok with sexual interactions with minors.
Consider the following post: https://qoto.org/@miamiautumn/105899139124992358
This particular part of that post: "Most pro-contact ideology holds that child-adult sex could exist without an inherent risk for harm greater than potential benefit" seems to suggest that one contact ideology is that sex with minors is perfectly acceptable and non-harmful. Assuming I am interpreting this correctly that would suggest that the account condones adult-child sex, and that such interaction is a "contact ideology"
@miamiautumn @Sphinx @khird