This is a misrepresentation of what was said. Was that intentional? It sounds like you are trying to inject your own opinion into what you are presenting as factual and unbiased.

The actual quote I think you are referring to is:

That means no adult on our instance is too thin, fat, bald, masculine, old, young, cis, gay, etc., to be sexy, and that includes not discriminating against legal adults that look younger than people think they should. Everyone has a right to lust and to be lusted after.

I've highlighted some key words I think you missed.

[–] spacedancer@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I was typing from memory. Now that you pasted the actual quote, I realize the word "adult" was there; so not intentional and I stand corrected. In any case, my point still stands that I think the conversation between the admins could've gone better. Maybe the lemmynsfw admin could've explained it another way; on the other hand, the blahaj admin seemed to just be looking for a reason to finally defederate and seemed like they already decided before the conversation even started.

[–] MrZee@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You should edit your comment to remove the mischaracterization. The nsfw mod was WAY more clear than what you say.

[–] spacedancer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I did. I added a note but didn't want to edit what I originally said so readers have context on what I quoted wrong.

[–] MrZee@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Ah, sorry about that. And thank you! I refreshed the comments before asking you to do that. I’m not sure if I missed your edit or it hadn’t shown up for me yet.

[–] krayj@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for clarifying your earlier comment.

Hard to know the true motives of the blahaj admin - could be they felt this was the only way to protect their community from a perceived evil, could be they were just offended that the LemmyNSFW admin had the audacity to stand their ground on principle, could be they personally objected to nsfw content and this was as plausible a reason as any to act on the desire to defederate. I see they are still federated with a few other much smaller porn/nsfw instances.

[–] OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone else here mentioned that being an LGBTQ+ instance and allowing association with porn occasionally described as "childlike" isn't something Blahaj can afford in this political climate.

They're already being called child groomers. You don't want something that can be twisted into ammunition by bad actors.

[–] krayj@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Since I don't associate LGBTQ+ with child-grooming, that notion never occurred to me. But now that you mention it, and knowing the current sad state of the current political climate, that point sounds entirely plausible. Thank you for pointing that out.