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.

    • PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      they kind are… banning at whim when no rules are being broken is exactly what a power tripping bastard does

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        1·
        1 month ago

        I don’t see it that way at all. Mods aren’t supposed to be robots, they can use their own judgement in banning someone that’s technically following the letter of a rule, or not banning someone who’s technically breaking it.

        In any case, I presume the mod would say that their position is reactionary.

        • PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          Not entering into the merit of how the position is actually the opposite of reactionary, precedent created, mod should just add “no defending incest whatsoever” to the rules, issue warning, and enforce after it

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            1·
            1 month ago

            Not entering into the merit of how the position is actually the opposite of reactionary

            Making it easier for people to get away with rape and grooming sounds pretty damn reactionary to me.

            mod should just add “no incest” to the rules, issue warning, and enforce after it

            They could, but I don’t think it’s a common enough occurrence to need it. Like, if somebody comes around saying, I don’t know, “Kill everyone who’s uncircumcised” does there really need to be a rule specifically against that for them to get banned? Why?