Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

I'm glad to hear that.
I think you need to make a rule that long term members are not permanently banned without a discussion among the moderators.
Lightgigantic is a very intelligent poster, and not one we can afford to lose.
His knowledge of Eastern religions is second to none.
I don't know what behaviour has caused this problem, so I can't comment on that. It must have been offensive to Tiassa at least.
Lightgigantic doesn't strike me as a person resistant to changing his behaviour should good reasons be given to him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Breaking News: Turducken!

The general abortion issue is not, and never has been, about women.

Oh, wait. It's entirely about women.

Okay, how do we reconcile those statements?

When we look at the general situtation for what it is—the actual processes of discourse and legislation—it is easy enough to find the anti-abortion argument wanting.

For instance, in certain judicial disputes about what a piece of legislation means or intended, judges will often defer to a "common sense" standard: What does this mean to the average American?

And, yes, it's flexible. And, yes, it is often used as a dodge so that the court doesn't have to do something the judge doesn't want to.

But it's also kind of irrelevant here because our neighbors have so neatly dispensed with it: Who needs common sense?

Hence all these stupid questions.

What use are they? It's a form of ego defense.

Look at our Devil's advocate. He could not figure out a route to an affirmative assertion of personhood, and thus settled on fallacy: "Therefor we must prove that a fetus is not a child, infant, baby first and foremost ...."

The problem of proving what something is not is that there is so little to address.

Consider the trap question: Have you stopped [improper behavior] yet?

As we are aware, there is no appropriate answer if the underlying reality is that one does not participate in that behavior. Now here's the catch: Not only to you need to prove you don't [beat your spouse; molest your children; &c.], but the other has no obligation whatsoever to provide affirmative proof, or even explain what they're talking about. Here, prove a negative without knowing what negative you're trying to prove.

We can see this process in application throughout this thread.

The topic proposition sees a problematic result when applying Due Process and Equal Protection to a newly-declared class of person. The main response has long been that this conflict and its potential results are fantastic speculation. Very well. So ... what will happen? We don't know. They won't tell us, and apparently we owe it to them to change the subject.

I mean, it's almost as if they're saying, "Who cares if it's really happening? We don't want to talk about it, so why can't you just change the subject to talk about what we actually want to talk about, which is fetal personhood, the rights of the fetus, the rights of men, the rights of corpses, and oh, by the way, what if the doctor reattaches the umbilical cord and stuffs the baby back inside the mother—would it still be a person then?"

I like the underlying requirement that time should be directionally flexible and accommodating. I mean, come on, if ever you wanted to see the depravity of the anti-abortion advocate, a question requiring time to flow backwards is probably it.

Or maybe it's not time, per se. But reattaching the umbilical cord and stuffing a baby back inside a woman? The outcome for personhood is no different than if someone tried to attach an umbilical cord to forty year-old stoner and cram him back inside a woman. In this society, once we have our rights, we must do something specific to lose them again—e.g., crime, for instance, can cost a person the right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, and even some abstract liberties like the right to participate in parenthood. The question of stuffing a baby back inside a woman requires that this reality be set aside. That is, personhood must be retroactively and arbitrarily repossessed by society in order to entertain the question.

The psychological query here would be to wonder why that dispossession is necessary to the logical structure, and whence it comes.

Which brings us back to personhood itself.

How can we disprove this arbitrary ontological assertion? There is no rhetorical support for it aside from stubborn insistence and appeals to emotion and aesthetics. We must disprove something? Well, what are we trying to disprove? They're not going to tell us.

Consider the argument that we've seen in smaller doses over the years that the implications of LACP are absurd, overly complicated, and therefore not worth considering. Even in the face of facts that these things are already happening without LACP as the law of the land, they resist.

Very well. There must be something different about what they're saying compared to what we are perceiving. Unfortunately, they will not tell us what it is.

In terms of this discussion, fifteen months are, at the very least, suggestive, if not indicative.

Now, the way I see it, this is important. This is my daughter they're talking about. These are my friends they're talking about. What are my cousin's daughters to me in familial lexicon? This is about them. On my volunteer days at the elementary school, I see three hundred young women that this is about. This proposed personhood demands severe, even radical, reconsideration of a woman's humanity. This will affect the range of decisions available to the next generation, and it would be one thing to point out the absurdity of a woman having to mutilate herself—e.g., elective tubal ligation to take reproduction off the board—in order to assert her humanity and human rights. (We might also note that since the hypothetical ligation did not include a reshaping of the breast, vaginal obliteration—I can't remember the nifty porn term that sounds so much less ugly—and an attachment of penile prosthesis, asserting her humanity is still something of a laugher. Reproductively viable or not, in American society she's just a woman.)

Our anti-abortion neighbors do not see these sorts of considerations as important, or—

("Infibulation". That's the word. Sorry, beside the point.)​

—or ... or ... damn. The flash flood of recognition washed away the trail I was following. (Suffice to say that if I never, ever again encounter the phrase vulvovaginal gingival syndrome, it will still be one time more than necessary.)

Oh, right. It would seem that either these issues are not relevant to the anti-abortion outlook, or else the dirty secret is that they know and either just don't care or would actively advocate such a narrowing of women's human potential.

We've come to the point in this discussion—are actually well past it, actually—in which the anti-abortion argument is trying to annex into its ranks those who accept Roe as the law of the land and do not want it overturned. These people, apparently, now qualify as "anti-abortion", "pro-life", or whatever else.

And the real kick in the eggs here is that all of this is deployed in a deliberate effort to suppress any consideration of women's human rights.

One alternative is that they might take a moment to explain to everyone else what justifies this privileged exemption from logic, rhetoric, and basic human decency.

"How can we talk about the humanity of women to people that think this is a issue of mass genocide?" asked our "Devil's advocate".

Well, part of the problem is that as long as that belief of mass genocide is entirely delusional, we can't talk to them. We can certainly talk at them, but like I noted, the factions in the actual public discourse argue past one another, playing to the gallery for electoral support.

Thus, the general abortion issue is not, and never has been, about women insofar as women are entirely absent from the human cast of this drama.

To the other, it's entirely about women because there is no logical structure behind the platform, the advocates refuse a logical structure, and when given a chance to discuss what their policy would do to women, they would prefer we go forward with their plan without ever actually discussing the implications.

I mean, imagine a discussion that we would never have:

"What is this LACP you speak of? Who believes it?"

―Are you unaware of the bills moving through state houses, and currently awaiting consideration in Congress?

"Why can't you just change the subject and talk about what we want to talk about?"​

I mean, we would certainly never see such irresponsible, discourse, right? But this is also the underlying mechanism, here.

And we've seen for fifteen months what that looks like.

It's time for our neighbors on the other side of this argument to stop dancing around. It's well enough to recognize that they really don't like the idea that they're behaving misogynistically, but it's really, really hard to work around that aspect when they so ardently refuse to engage the issue. What happens to a woman's human rights? Doesn't fuckin' matter.

Fifteen months?

To the other, it is clear what some of our neighbors, such as Capracus, are trying to do. They're trying to ward off consideration of one set of implications by invoking another. The functional problem with the particular juxtaposition he has selected is that one set of "objectionable" implications (LACP under Equal Protection) is a fairly straightforward set of assertions, while the other (dry-foot) must be questioned according to fantasy.

And what a fantasy that is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

File under "breaking news": A turducken.
(No, really: [domain]/news/local/breaking_news/[file])​

I guess it's better than gobquadoo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is a universal truth that every thread that includes the word abortion
must turn into a bitter pointless pitched battle between two sides that can never appreciate each others point of view.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just Like American Media ....

Remember that, next time you should wonder why the American political scene is so bizarre. Much like our press, you look at a delusional assertion squaring off against reality, and suggest that reality needs to better appreciate delusion.

To the one, it's not that I don't get what you're saying. To the other, that equivocation really is lazy.

 

Mod note

Since Tiassa has demanded my comprehensive take on this LG issue, I feel it necessary to make it public:



EF: "This is an internet forum, take what you get in stride, what ever they say don't show the incredible amounts of anger and disgust that you have shown, for that is what trolls love to see. Consider how readily you call someone a troll you should know that many of the things you said turn trolls on, for example you say that being asked to eat the baby's placenta was less disgusting than them, you might as well be giving them a blowjob."

Since EF was actually supporting the currently legal pro-choice view (limiting abortion at fetal viability), it is really no surprise that the continued accusations of misogyny from Bells would effect him first, as it could be argued that the accusation was the most unfair in his case. Everyone seems to agree that his point with this "blowjob" analogy was about feeding trolls, and not intended to be sexual harassment, even though Bells may have been eager to capitalize on it.

This was at least verified by James here: "While the blowjob reference was fairly crude, the general advice is probably right. Trolls post to provoke an emotional reaction - anger, disgust, whatever. If you give them that reaction, you're feeding the trolls. It's what they want. To put it crudely, they get off on it. Hence the blowjob reference.

To read this comment as suggesting that you, personally, should give somebody a blowjob, rather than as general advice about feeding trolls, is stretching things, I think."

So EF got off scot-free, even with Bells trying to make his comment more offensive than obviously intended. Again, why wasn't he even targeted by Tiassa?

Bells erects the straw man that she 'might as well give us a blowjob'.

Bells then pressed the "blowjob" issue in a response to LG (even though he had yet to comment on it at all): "I don't know, is this the part where I give you a blowjob or am I permitted to show my disgust at your dishonesty and trolling?"

To which LG replied: "guess you opted for for the blow job ... yet again.

At no time has he suggested your fourth class behaviour is merely gender specific"

This was a direct response to Bells bringing up the issue directly to him. If Bells did not wish this continued, why did she drag someone who, up til then, had not made any "blowjob" comment? And he clearly denied any "gender specific" suggestion in EF's comment.

EF then reiterated the sentiment of the "blowjob" comment (but to absolutely no response): "Again if I was a troll, then that is metaphorically what you have already done by replying to me, and are continuing to do by replying to me. If you truly believe I'm a troll you need to stop reply to me and 'pleasing me'."


Seems the true target had already been chosen (LG), and any further comment from the source of the "blowjob" comment was inconsequential.

LG continues to deny sexual harassment: "Its amazing how you interpret a comment aimed at highlighting your trollish behaviour and inability to refrain from ad homming as a gender issue"

Again reiterating what everyone has assumed EF meant.

Tiassa then makes a straw man out of "hysteria", which again, most seem to agree on, and seems to be the only basis for sexual harassment via "rape advocacy". None of which actually happened, save for Tiassa's seemingly willful misinterpretation.

LG then asks Tiassa to verify his interpretation of EF's original comment: "Its pretty obvious there is an agenda afoot to misrepresent what and why people are saying things."

Again, obviously denying the misrepresentation Tiassa was doing.

Tiassa then doubles-down on the "hysteria" nonsense, trying to completely ignore EF's comment: "To the other, what does ElectricFetus have to do with your rape advocacy?

Don't try to change the subject."

Nowhere was the case of "rape advocacy" made, other than Tiassa's willful misinterpretation.

LG again claims Tiassa is misrepresenting him: "Don't try to discuss subjects outside of the context they are presented in, thanks."

Tiassa just keeps doubling-down on his "rape advocacy" straw man, without any evidence whatsoever: "Again, what does EF's comment have to do with your rape advocacy?"

LG assumes Tiassa is somehow using EF's comment to support the "rape advocacy" accusation: "everything, since you interpret this comment : (EF's "blowjob" comment)

as rape advocacy."

Tiassa then shift the burden of his own accusation to LG (LG still unaware of the actual straw man Tiassa is using): "Please demonstrate that claim.

And while you're at it, please make some useful explanation of how EF's comment relates to, justifies, excuses, explains, or otherwise mitigates your own sexual harassment and rape advocacy."

Again, LG says his comments have nothing to do with gender: "Plenty of people disagreeing with each other on this thread, yet it was only you he singled out in a specific fashion ... in a specific fashion that has absolutely nothing to do with your gender I might add ...."

LG rightly states that Tiassa needs to demonstrate his claim: "If anyone needs to demonstrate their claims, its you."

Instead of simply doing so, Tiassa just starts trolling the would-be victim of his moderator excess: "Since you are the one claiming what I claim, you need to provide that affirmative proof. "


Up to this point, Tiassa has, perhaps, made the sexual stimulation as cure for hysteria argument only to moderators in the private forum. LG is still completely unaware of what Tiassa is talking about.


LG even calls him on this dishonest nonsense: "Be nice if you were also obedient to this idea before you launched claims ..... its a small detail that helps distinguish a pertinent question from a loaded one ..."

Tiassa seems to play "lost in translation" (or he's just really this dense): "It would be even nicer if you would start to make sense. "

Tiassa has still yet to explain the accusation.

Tiassa then starts threatening "severe repercussions" for the accusations LG still doesn't know the basis for. And if that is in any doubt:

LG: "Given that I am probably on the menu, its a bit hard to offer an explanation of "my rape advocacy" when you purposely refuse to discuss it outside loaded questions ."

LG replies to another vague moderator threat from Tiassa: "It's not really an effective warning when you won't offer any clue on who or even what is the intransigence .... much less on the nature of it being deliberate or not."

James to Bells: "Nobody is asking you to accept being sexually harrassed. I'm just not convinced that that is what has happened here."

Especially since the case was NEVER made about LG, other then what most agree is a willful misinterpretation of an otherwise innocuous word, and seemingly ignoring the only possible case for sexual harassment, i.e. EF's "blowjob" comment.



So yes, LG repeatedly denied his comments were specific to gender, meant as sexual harassment (as he merely repeated the sentiment EF expressed and EF has not even been accused), and had no idea that Tiassa was making such a straw man out of "hysteria".

 

Mod Hat — The problem with dishonesty

Mod Hat — The problem with dishonesty

Syne, as I told you in the back room: Had you attended the record, you would find your question already answered.

The problem with your public tantrum here is that the question was already answered before you asked. When reminded of that fact, you chose not to review the issue, but, rather, to run here and bawl.

If objectors cannot make their case honestly, what can we possibly do to accommodate them?

No, really. If you have no use for the facts, then your argument is completely worthless.

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to address the facts on record, you have no credibility.

Think about that the next time you decide to try to con the membership.

 

Can you link? In my own experience, he has never made a single honest post in good faith on any topic whatsoever. Neither does he seem to know what the words he uses mean, in many cases (to illustrate, take one of his more florid posts and just rearrange the words) or even recognize (let alone care about) his incoherency in argument.

You have to be joking. You couldn't get that guy to drop his agenda and address a plain matter with an honest response if you had a sledgehammer.

I thought it was misogynistic bullshit, directly aimed at Bells. I thought that was obvious. I have no real idea how intentional it was, because I'm not sure how self-aware EF - or the rest of you guys - are, in general. LG's behavior I thought was intentional, but that does not appear to be the norm.

EF's claims regarding his stance or whatever do not obscure the content of his posting, which is largely irrelevant to the thread in the first place, and accurately described by Bells in its actual nature in the second.

I'm not sure how else you think we should take such comments as his, but at least we all agree that they did not belong on this thread - right? After rereading the OP?

 

Mod Hat — A note on the Electric defense

Mod Hat — A note on the Electric defense

It might be of some amusement, then, to be aware that the focus on ElectricFetus in this part of the discussion has a couple of flaws:

(1) The action has nothing to do with EF's blowjob bit; the focus on that part in this discussion is a deliberate distraction.

(2) The question of why EF wasn't disciplined, asked by a moderator, was actually answered days ago in the Mod Lounge; the problem, of course, is that nobody is interested in that fact of the record.​

It's not that EF was ever in the clear. Anyone with access to the moderators' discussion who would suggest EF has gotten off scot-free is lying. Of course, it's always helpful to the appearance that EF has gotten off scot-free if one of the people making that complaint is also one of those who interrupted a larger process.

We're on hold, for the moment, so that we can subvert any pretense to respect for the scientific method and rational discussion, the argument in LG's favor can hope to get out of the discussion without ever addressing facts, and the administration can mansplain to women all about sexual harassment. I so wish people could see the bench-clearing brawl in the back room. It is a work of perverse beauty. I mean, to see malice in such pure, dense concentration is breathtaking.

 

"Feed me, Seymour!!!!"

Given that you (by which I mean the moderator group rather than you specifically) have decided to air part of this case in public, will there be an official transcript of proceedings made public?

What about a copy in an unmarked brown envelope, surreptitiously passed under the counter?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is indifference on fora. People could be on the other side of the world. So disclosure in the intellectual brooding of the sciforum government would be of an altruistic nature.

 

Hey, I'm all for altruism if there's something in it for me!

Is this thread officially dead with regard the actual topic? And has it now become a place for its own post-mortem?

 

We need more people like Syne to make posts: "Since Tiassa has demanded my comprehensive take on this LG issue, I feel it necessary to make it public."

As to the original topic... it's pretty primordial that missteps in argument are guaranteed. Religion and politics.

Maybe I should harass James with PM's for info? No, I'm sure he would love the opportunity to volunteer

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think it is more in a state of suspended animation while we wait for the proverbial "other shoe to drop".

 

Mod Hat — Response

Mod Hat — Response

This is one of those occasions that I would be instructive to the membership to see the discussion.

It would be even more instructive to then reconstruct the chain of events from that discussion.

It would also be really, really complicated to do that, but among the wounded in this is that nebulous idea that Sciforums is supposed to be a place for "scientific discussion". The administrative process in motion is to formulate a hypothesis without observing the situation, and then assess the situation without giving any regard to the available facts.

In other words, we are undertaking this fake review simply because the Administration has decided to do so.

Yeah, that would seem to be the Administration's great "fuck you" to women. One of the most astounding sights you'll never see unless we open that record to the public is the Administration first having no clue what it was responding to about sexual harassment, and then once corrected changing tack to mansplain to women all about sexual harassment.

One hint our membership does have from the Administration is in the AtM thread:

"Apparently that's what has happened here. I'm against it, but I think I'll probably be outvoted on this. C'est la vie."​

The logic of that statement is as follows:

(1) The infraction was based on the hysteria issue.

(2) The counterpoint is that there is no way LG could have known that's what the issue was about.

―This counterpoint is currently maintained without ever having provided a shred of affirmative proof; that is, it is open speculation presented with much assurance and no support.​

(3) The question of what has happened here is that LG's ban might be maintained simply because of his past conduct.

―This is a straw man. LG's history is relevant compared to the doe-eyed presumption that listing and linking the five statements then in question, and, furthermore, explicitly pointing out that "it's only fifteen months later, and he's now down to repeatedly accusing a woman of hysteria in order to avoid answering the issue" is somehow so unclear that LG could only reasonably presume that the post referred to EF's blowjob comments. Now, how does that work? We have no clue, since nobody will even try to make the case.​

(4) Which brings us to the question of what the Administration is looking at. The actual "hysteria" question was already settled in the Administration's mind, before having undertaken a factual review. This is apparent in the backroom discussion because not only has it been explicitly acknowledged, but the Administration has shifted its position on considering the facts from an I'll get back to you on that suggestion (members cannot access the link; James knows I'm happy to point him directly to it if he's forgotten the content of his own posts) to "I have replied to you extensively already. In fact, I have devoted far more time than you deserve, given your current form." The unanswered questions will, apparently, remain unanswered. (In fairness, it should be noted that James did finally reply about ten hours ago, reiterating his assured position and refusing to support his argument.)​

The basic idea here is simple enough. I know enough that if I have gas in the tank, put the key in the ignition, and twist, the car will start. Analogously, that makes me an auto mechanic.

Now, we both know that's not true. But there is an affirmative assertion that a condition must be true, and the only support for that argument is to continually reiterate the assertion. The actual mechanics of that assertion are presently exempted from scrutiny, as near as anyone can tell from the Administration's outlook.

The general cycles of the backroom discussion are easy enough to describe:

Inquiry: Does the target of this alleged sexual harassment feel sexually harassed? We should ask.

Response: Well, that was covered two days ago. We already know the target of the alleged harassment felt sexually harassed.

Rebuttal: You need to clarify what makes you feel harassed. Also, let a man tell you about what sexual harassment really is. (Setting aside acknowledgment of LG's posting style and the suggestion of mental illness in another, it is worth noting that at this point, the Administration has not reviewed the facts, and explicitly acknowledges that point; indeed, there is some aspect about the statement that might be perceived as suggesting this ignorance is to the Administration's merit.)

Response: [General disbelief]

Response (secondary, to another moderator): Contrast of general and particular, including fulfillment of request for evidence.

Rebuttal: You're being ridiculous. I thought you were going to shut up.

Response: What's ridiculous? [Further discussion includes details relevant to other considerations, such as whether the Administration is the victim, here.]

Rebuttal: It looks like I have to explain sexual harassment, now.​

And that's just one aspect of what's going on back there. Another? And this one actually seems quite simple:

Proposition: LG was confused about what the post referred to.

Rebuttal: How are listed and linked statements confusing?

Inquiry (another moderator): Are we sure LG understood the offense about hysteria?

Response: You're exactly right. LG had no idea what was being asked of him. He thought [the post including five statements regarding hysteria and a specific response to those statements about "accusing a woman of hysteria"] referred to EF's blowjob bit.

Rebuttal: How is that confusing? No, really, how is it confusing when you list out the five statements in question? What about that post remotely suggests EF's post?

Response: ...? [Tumbleweeds. We are five days into the Administrative consideration, and that answer is not on the record, and does not appear to be forthcoming.]​

I don't see what the problem is here: If this explanation is so simple, then why not offer it?

That's the sticking point for me. None who would cite this alleged "confusion" are willing to make an affirmative case for it.

The result, if the Administration's outlook holds, would be akin to the following legal argument in closing statements: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we enter this courtroom obliged to presume the defendant innocent. Therefore, none of the evidence State has presented is relevant, as you must still presume innocence. Therefore, the Defendant is Not Guilty.

That's where this is heading.

The presumption of innocence is one thing, and we might suggest the relationship between that presumption and the facts are something else. But what we're dealing with here is a presumption of innocence and willful refusal to acknowledge facts.

Whatever the Administration's issue actually is, there's a reason those of us who disagree are furious at the insane disrespect LG's defenders have deliberately shown.

Which is why this one's getting spectacular. We don't like the slap in the face, and the Administration doesn't like being accused of slapping people in the face.

And in the end, there's the issue.

If this was actually about LG, the Administration would attempt to address the facts.

 

There is a section for formal debates...

Aren't you wanting to rev the crowd with your awesomeness?

 

Mod Hat — Response

Mod Hat — Response

This is how the Administration has chosen to deal with the situation. Consequently, a multi-pronged public dispute is how we're going to deal with the situation.

Besides, there's nothing formal about a debate in which facts have no standing against suggestions derived from assumptions that necessarily, in order to have a chance at being true, must ignore the facts on record.

Right now, the part of the staff discussion that is making the most progress comes down to a plane-crash analogy. As I proposed to a colleague:

Some years ago, an Alaska Airlines MD-83 plunged into the Pacific Ocean, killing all aboard The official explanation was that the maintenance crew failed to properly attend a jackscrew in the plane's rear assembly. While this is certainly an embarrassment to the airline and the maintenance contractors, and a heart-wrenching tragedy for the relatives of the dead, perhaps the NTSB could have saved itself a bunch of trouble and said, "Something broke, the plane fell out of the sky. Case closed."

Wouldn't you wonder what it was that actually broke? I would.

It's that jackscrew assembly and the acme nut threads that your proposition is lacking.​

This is the macguffin. Presently, the "defendant" should be considered "Not Guilty" because there is a presumption of innocence that cannot be overcome by evidence, as evidence is irrelevant.

After that gets sorted out, there is a procedural question that depends on a proposition that we never hop the disciplinary cycle; that proposition would be untrue.

Which would lead us to the question of what warrants that deviation from the standard.

Presently, under the Administration's outlook, belligerent sexual harassment would appear to not be on the list.

Members should take note of this outcome and its justifications. We're about to have a policy mess of unimaginable size. To the other, it'll make my job as a moderator easier; there will be nothing left to enforce.

 

I've read that your name was associated with some uncommon meaning of hysteria.

And since hysteria (shell shock... battle fatigue) whatever neurosis name you want to attach can and has been treated via the Talking Cure, a name that hints of a skilled use in words to look for truth beyond from just what a lawyer might look to sell, I wanted to see more of a discussion.

I need soap operas when I'm not in one! My super friend got suspended for ten days from another forum cause he has the uncanny ability to annoy everyone and I still don't understand his super powers. So, maybe if I gander at The Justice League versus The Legion of Doom from a birds eye view I'll gain a better understanding.

:EDIT: Oh yeah, my friend was banned here too for this: "Continuously posting and commenting of child/underage pornographic content and that which sexualized underage kids despite repeated warnings to stop. Harassment of moderation staff despite repeated requests for cessation of activities." Some of which he tried to seduce me with, so yeah, the mention of sexual harassment is of kinda' an interest.