#tw.discourse

1.) Turning off asks and reblogs.

I made the decision to turn off reblogs and asks in the original post.

Disabling reblogs and asks was necessary because some individuals were using the situation to bring up their own personal issues, using it as an opportunity to call for the “cancellation” of other unrelated parties and openly harass others on the dashboard. This decision aimed to refocus the discussion on the main issue at hand. It was about maintaining a controlled environment to address the specific concerns without veering into unrelated personal disputes. Nothing else.

2.) Hotline numbers.

There’s been speculation that the addition of hotline numbers was to encourage users to report the individual in question and have him investigated by the FBI, that is not the case.

These numbers serve a crucial purpose in emphasizing the importance of support and resources for those affected by sensitive issues such as CSA. The aim is to proactively contribute to creating a safer online space. The inclusion of the hotline numbers solely emphasizes a more proactive approach towards promoting mental health support and assistance for those who may be navigating challenging situations related to the recent events as well as informs victims of csa of some of their resources.

Even though I provided hotline numbers, it is explicitly advised not to report the situation to the FBI. Once again, the intention is to guide individuals towards appropriate mental health and support resources rather than involving law enforcement in this context. This recommendation aims to encourage a balance between addressing concerns and ensuring that the focus remains on community well-being and support rather than legal actions.

I thought this wasn’t something I would need to clarify, but there are a couple of people who genuinely believe that those numbers served as a way to report to the FBI. That was never the intention and that understanding was (for a lack of better words) made up by someone who wanted to create their own personal narrative, even if that meant making false claims or lying.

3.) The accusations and why shota/lolicon is alarming regarding this matter.

Addressing this specific incident regarding shota/lolicon is not an accusation for the fun of it, but an effort to bring attention to real accounts of predatory behavior from Ezra. There have been multiple “reports” of Ezra’s predatory behaviors. These are not baseless claims.

The intention is to share these experiences without compromising any of the victim’s identities and to maintain a level of vagueness to respect privacy and safety of all those involved while emphasizing the serious nature of the matter. There have been two separate incidents that have been brought to my attention after this discourse and both are highly concerning.

Moreover, it’s important to note that defending the right to shota/loli art inadvertently excuses the actions of a person with predatory and pedophilic behavior. While engaging in discussions about artistic freedom, it’s crucial to recognize the potential harm and impact such content may have, especially when it aligns with real-life concerning behavior.

Furthermore, it’s contradictory to claim your discomfort with shota/loli art while simultaneously defending the idea of such art, especially in light of the real-life predatory and pedophilic behavior exhibited by this person. There seems to be a reluctance among some individuals to admit the real reasons behind their discomfort or lack of support for shota/loli art. Acknowledging these reasons might expose inconsistencies in their discourse, making it challenging to maintain a cohesive stance. There is a time and a place to give your “hot take” and unfortunately, this wasn’t the correct time.

There’s a contradiction within the community. On one hand, there’s this outward expression of concern for the safety of real minors, but on the other hand, there is a tendency to dismiss or ignore concrete instances of predatory behavior. The hypocrisy lies in the disconnect between the stated values and the actions taken when faced with real accounts that genuinely raise valid concerns about the well-being of vulnerable individuals.

Where is the support and concern for the minor in his following? The fact that Ezra attempted to deflect responsibility by claiming ignorance about the minor’s age, citing a changed pinned post, raises concerns because it is a blatant lie.

Looking at the history of the account’s pinned, they have always had their age in their pinned, nothing was changed. This doesn’t make sense because if a blog with a “MDNI” policy follows an account “exposed” for being underage, it raises questions. Ezra was consciously aware that this person was a minor.

The others have asked me to keep their identities and information confidential to protect themselves from any doxxing and harassment. These are not baseless claims, however I will respect their wishes for their own safety.

4.) Defending art over real life and hypocrisy in the fandom space.

Another noteworthy point is this phenomenon where individuals are so in their fervor to defend certain forms of art (that they don’t actually support personally because they themselves know its pedophilic depictions), end up dismissing real-life concerns. The intense focus on defending artistic expression is overshadowing the potential harm caused in actual human interactions.

There’s a notable trend where the keyboard justice warriors in the fandom are in such pursuit of moral superiority and advocating for “community improvement,” when they’re prioritizing the appearance of self righteousness over genuine concern for real individuals. You’ve gone so far right that you’re wrong.

There’s a noticeable pattern where accounts are often granted permission to engage in frivolous, petty discourse, taking it to public spaces and sometimes even resorting to sending unwarranted anonymous hate to individuals who don’t deserve it. However, when faced with a serious issue such as this, the narrative completely shifts to a collective call for community improvement! This is a double standard where harmful behaviors are tolerated in less significant situations, yet the same community is urged to “do better” only when confronted with more substantial issues.

5.) POCD

Employing the concept of POCD (Pedophilic Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) as a.. justification for the individual’s actions is deeply troubling and deplorable. It not only misrepresents the nature of mental health disorders but also risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Using POCD as an excuse for predatory behavior diminishes the seriousness of mental health discussions and dismisses the victims of the predatory aggressor.

Such a manipulative use of mental health terminology not only undermines the genuine struggles of individuals dealing with mental disorders but also risks normalizing predatory behavior in today’s society both in real life and online. MAPs use this terminology on X in the same form user @/critical-thoughts is using to make their argument. Yes, it’s very crucial to recognize that genuine mental health challenges should be addressed with empathy and support, but employing them as a shield to excuse harmful actions is unacceptable.

It is harmful to imply that someone with POCD needs an outlet for the pedophilic fears they experience. That perpetuates the idea that people who deal with these sorts of intrusive thoughts, secretly harbor the desire to view the material they are so afraid of engaging with. P/OCD is rooted in fear and anxiety. The intrusive thoughts tend to stem from a fear of becoming a pedophile, while your brain tells you that you secretly are one. It’s a nasty thing and difficult to deal with, but implying that people who live with POCD require some sort of access to media like that is incredibly harmful. People with POCD, oftentimes, do not want to engage with that. They often do not want to provide ammunition for their brains to continue doing this to them (though with this disorder, ammunition isn’t necessary) and it is a fear to begin doing so. To imply that someone with POCD would seek out content of children (fictional or not) that way, is harmful and perpetuates a stereotype about POCD that makes it difficult for people living with it to open up or seek the help they need.

It's also “insane” to me that someone can blindly defend someone they do not know. Moreso, someone who has real accounts of predatory behavior not even taking into consideration the art found on his X account. The art itself is what’s alarming because this individual has had actions/interests that align with pedophilia and predatory behavior.

What a lot of you aren’t understanding is that: this isn’t about which dark content is bad and what’s worse, this is about a real danger in the community.

6.) Closing.