HN discusses: How bad is supporting NAMBLA, really?

Context: Samuel R. Delany is a prolific sci-fi author who: is gay, was sexually abused as a kid (but denies it was abuse), and grew up to believe that man/boy sexual relationships should not be criminalized.

READ IT -> I've written about him in an earlier dramapost <- READ IT

Despite his love of man/boy child abuse, Delany continues to have a huge fandom - particularly among people who normally love a good cancellation (again, read my previous post). On Monday, The New Yorker published a charming interview with him which included a reference to him "once praising a NAMBLA newsletter". In reality, he has his own page on the NAMBLA website and has been very explicit over the years, including this quote from a 2009 biography:

It may seem paradoxical from my statement that generally speaking I think sexual relations between children and adults are likely to go wrong and that most of them are likely to be, start off as, or quickly become, abusive, that I also support a group like NAMBLA—which I do. But that’s because I feel one of the largest factors in the abuse is fostered by the secrecy itself and lack of social policing of the relationships.

Today, The New Yorker piece made it's way to Hacker News. The thread isn't very long, but the takes are entertaining:

I suppose that's another transitive property of support... if I 'support' Delany who 'supports' NAMBLA which 'supports'...

What's "transitive" about Delany's support for NAMBLA? They have one policy and it's in their fricking name.

This was a statement Samuel Delany had well over two decades ago. Additionally it's clear Samuel Delany was himself a victim of child sexual assault if you knew anything else about him.

2009 is well over two decades ago

What's your problem with homosexuals?

Why are you going digging in for dirt in someone's comment history to defend a NAMBLA supporter?