They are actual politics, regardless of your or my beliefs. They vote, and if there are enough of them, someone will cater to them. To willfully ignore them is to ignore a sad reality, they will continue to grow unabated; to meaningfully engage them is to platform a disingenuous group (not to mention giving their beliefs acknowledgement).

It seems to be a catch-22 to me.

I'm arguing that people wanting the removal of a hate group who's largest purpose is the purge of specific ethnic groups is not a political matter, but a humanitarian one, therefore taking down Stormfront was not due to political pressure

The child porn guy also votes. Are you going to call that political too?

My now deceased great aunt married when she was 13 to a man of 33.

Now, we'd be screaming "PEDO" from the rooftops while calling for castration and prison, or even execution. What actually happened, was marrying when you were 13 as a female was the norm. It was OK. She had 4 children.. And if you asked her, had a wonderful life.

But in a fairly short time, social norms went from "Puberty means you're an adult, or darn near one" to 'pushing up the definitions of adulthood up to 21 year olds'. And in this case, the social norms were also backed by loads of well-meaning laws that end up being abhorrent in practice (how dare two 17 year olds sext pictures, but they can have as much sex as they want).

If you didn't learn from 2016, laws and words matter. A lot.

There were plenty of 13 year old child brides, but very few child husbands... Strange how the child brides never married another child. Until the 1940s it wasn't uncommon to see preteens and teens working hard labor, does that mean it was ever OK?

I also doubt it was ever the "norm" in the modern civilized world. A quote from wikipedia [1]:

"In the last decades of the [16th] century the age at marriage had climbed to averages of 25 for women and 27 for men in England..."

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_patt...