Wampa . . . .
That Twitter feed is run by someone vociferously opposed to adults having sexual contact with children
Yet not so “vociferously opposed” as to quit identifying with Pedophiles.
(Or devious enough to proclaim themselves as innocent pedophiles,
yet solicit private emailings [instead of just post only on public forums]
to “further the conversation” furtively or secretly
while some people are credulous enough to think this is ALL innocent despite pedophiles openly identifying as pedophiles, Twitter giving them a platform, yet banning others.)
I guess this is why I never read Breitbart (or HuffPo or InfoWars or any number of far-right and far-left entities for that matter): they’ve proven to me over time that they will selectively report things (and sometimes make them up) to further an agenda.
WHO do you read (that you think has no agenda)?
From the Breitbart article . . . .
One account, named Virtuous Pedophiles, described itself as an account for “pedophiles against adult-child sex,” while another user described himself as a “50ish year old anti-contact paedophile.”
“howdy, i’m davey,” declared one user in his bio. “i’m attracted to boys 4+.”
Breitbart notified its readers of just what you are talking about.
Wampa. You are relieved and “pretty happy” at these pedophiles reassurances.
Again, from the article . . .
“I’m out to around 15 ppl and all of them love me and no-one was aggressive or disrespectful,” claimed another self-proclaimed “anti-contact pedophile,” who used an image of a young boy as his profile picture. “My friends are even better friends now.”
Many others are not necessarily relieved.
You will have to make your own decisions.
I guess this is why I frequently read Breitbart. They’ve proven to me over time that they will report things that many other news outlets will not report. (At least until the story goes viral on Breitbart. THEN the legacy media sometimes WILL in a sense, be “forced” to report it.)