> They are legitimately fighting for what they legitimately think
You've indicated two things here which you assert are legitimate:
* Their fight for their goals
* The thinking underlying these goals
On the latter: Nobody except the people doing the thinking can (at least with current technology) truly know. And it may be entirely unimportant. My best guess is that u/fenomas has it about right; their aesthetic seems to have informed a manufactured narrative about societal impact. It may be that these people have personal unresolved sexual trauma which is activated by these subjects. Surely no matter their reasons, they deserve to be treated with compassion. But I don't think that u/fenomas is being illogical here, or failing to steelman their position; I think that it's perfectly reasonable to question someone's basis for advocacy of censorship.
However, on the former, I more strongly disagree with your use of the word "legitimately". Using the heavy hand of the state (including the unfortunate configuration in which payment processors need its anointment and good graces and are thus vulnerable to political pressure) to censor the internet - a resource characterized chiefly by its cross-cultural and cross-political availability and unity - is not a legitimate tactic. The internet does not seem to tolerate this variety of censorship; in every instance, the Streisand Effect, May 35, and similar phenomena have quickly and decisively punctured the erected walls.
Whether these people truly view these materials as likely to harm society or not, their legitimate avenue of change is through voluntarily persuasion, not censorship by way of force.
You've indicated two things here which you assert are legitimate:
* Their fight for their goals
* The thinking underlying these goals
On the latter: Nobody except the people doing the thinking can (at least with current technology) truly know. And it may be entirely unimportant. My best guess is that u/fenomas has it about right; their aesthetic seems to have informed a manufactured narrative about societal impact. It may be that these people have personal unresolved sexual trauma which is activated by these subjects. Surely no matter their reasons, they deserve to be treated with compassion. But I don't think that u/fenomas is being illogical here, or failing to steelman their position; I think that it's perfectly reasonable to question someone's basis for advocacy of censorship.
However, on the former, I more strongly disagree with your use of the word "legitimately". Using the heavy hand of the state (including the unfortunate configuration in which payment processors need its anointment and good graces and are thus vulnerable to political pressure) to censor the internet - a resource characterized chiefly by its cross-cultural and cross-political availability and unity - is not a legitimate tactic. The internet does not seem to tolerate this variety of censorship; in every instance, the Streisand Effect, May 35, and similar phenomena have quickly and decisively punctured the erected walls.
Whether these people truly view these materials as likely to harm society or not, their legitimate avenue of change is through voluntarily persuasion, not censorship by way of force.