Blaming GC for what it isn't

We are/were not an activist forum. I recall several times modding your posts to remind you of this. Pro-activism-speech is not banned per se. But when posters attempt to use GC as a launching-pad for their project, or imply that activism makes one more of a GLer ( as I recall you used to ) then they get the kind of advice about the risks, and the warnings not to treat GC as an activist forum that you did.

Nothing can make you heed those warnings. And our purpose as a communication forum would be compromised if we issued a ban on discussing activism due to the ( calculated ) risks some choose to take. But GC is not/ was not that.

GC is also not a mental-health support forum. Nor a legal-advice forum. Nor.....

If our structure and the measures we take to protect our members, or the diversity of their opinions seems to run counter to GC serving any of these purposes it was not designed for, then I respectfully suggest that its members not insist that it be anything other than "an online community for girl lovers, i.e. people who are physically and emotionally attracted to young girls."

Do we support each other? Yes. Do we disagree with each other? That too; as much as we disagree from time to time about what GL is, and how it expresses itself in each life.

But part of being a form of mutual support is being that place where such disagreements can be aired. If we were GirlCult, then anyone not "with the program" would be necessarily excluded. And if people come here expecting us to have a "program;" be it activist, or mental-health outreach, or youth-rights, they might be better-off creating the forum they seek, rather than projecting that requirement onto Girl Chat.

Dante