I find this bot especially enjoying because its “better” link format doesn’t work for me - is not highlighted or clickable. And it posts this so-called correction on links that DO work for me just fine.

A Buddhist temple.

“I don’t know anything about this and I won’t educate myself directly, but I’ll give you my uninformed hot take nonetheless…”

Their misrepresentation of your position is arguably slander in the legal sense in that it attributes a criminal intent to you. I would not be cool with their statement remaining as is. They can say that y’all disagreed about whether it was child fetishization in the first place, which is accurate.

A lot of people are taking it at face value that fetishizing childlike appearances even happened here, which it has not. This instance’s rules ban even fictive depictions of the underage. Drawings, anything.

No one disagrees that fetishizing children is bad. No one. What you have here is the blahaj mods flipping out and thinking that this occurred when it did not. They even falsely claimed that the admins here are okay with that happening, which they are not.

Let’s not dignify their position by accepting their false premise and then saying “you know they kinda have a point.”

Totally. They even have to right to be dead wrong about the reason, which they’ve exercised.

I really don’t see how being a trans community qualifies one to judge adult content. I think their objection, incorrect as it was, was based on overall aesthetics and framing, not just cup size. Apparently pearl-clutching is universal.

I had this question too. It was adorableporn. It is not remotely comparable to r/jailbait so let’s not jump to conclusions. The lemmynsfw mods are absolutely in the right here.

Okay… so it was adorableporn.

They are clearly wrong. Glad to have that settled.

They said that you were okay with the fact that users were specifically trying to make it seem like they were underage. Good to hear the other side of the story.