Notorious Reddit Troll exposed

[Thanas]

Alright, here:

Warning- NSFW

Happy now?

Get off your high horse, kindly go screw yourself and stop posting creepy links.

[Flagg]

Who cares what the difference is technically? They are still creepy assholes attracted to children.

[ArmorPierce]

The difference is not technical just technical and and there is not a small difference neither. I'm actually for everything that the guy described in the OP gets but it's really dumb trying to to compare finding a 17 year old sexually attractive to pedophilia. There's a big difference between feeling a perfectly normal sexual attraction and acting on it. In fact, here in Jersey a 30 year old can legally be fucking a 16 year old.

The dumbest comment was a 19 year old finding a 17 non-sexually attractive because a 17 year old is too young and immature... right because there's a huge difference between a high school senior and college freshman.

That said... soverign's picture post was very poor taste to say the least, wtf.

[Stark]

Its so dumb that I've been trying to stop people hijacking the thread with it since it started. :V What's way more important is the culture, the activities adn the encouragement this sort of venue provides than LOOK NSFW IS SUBJECTIVE LOL.

[Losonti Tokash]

Well it's funny that Sovereign unwittingly provided us with a look at what happens when someone spends a lot of time in a place that normalizes sexualization of minors. He basically has no idea why anyone took offense, since it's not illegal to possess or share those photos (probably). When you have an environment full of stuff like that, people patting each other on the back, an upvote/downvote system to encourage groupthink, and an admin/mod team that either ignores or directly contributes to this same activity, they start losing perspective on what's normal and acceptable to people outside their circle.

[xammer99]

Well it's funny that Sovereign unwittingly provided us with a look at what happens when someone spends a lot of time in a place that normalizes sexualization of minors. He basically has no idea why anyone took offense, since it's not illegal to possess or share those photos (probably). When you have an environment full of stuff like that, people patting each other on the back, an upvote/downvote system to encourage groupthink, and an admin/mod team that either ignores or directly contributes to this same activity, they start losing perspective on what's normal and acceptable to people outside their circle.

You hit the nail on the head.

[Skgoa]

Yeah, and I'm sure the fact that Gawker was banned immediately after this article was just a huuuge coincidence. Totally not a lame attempt to stop people from reading it! Nevermind banning a link to Gawker would do absolutely zero to stop them "stealing" the endless piles of shitty memes the place is covered in. Between this and the "no minors" rule which goes totally unenforced, Skgoa's inept attempt to defend a bunch of people who protect pedophiles only keeps getting funnier.

OK fucker, as I have mentioned already, you are simply 100% lying on the Gawker ban. You are also lying about the rule not being enforced. In short: you are a lying fuck. And the childish ad hominem strawman at the end is just the icing on the cake. Even if the people reading this can't be arsed to check whether your claims are true or mine, that last lie is something anyone can check by just rading the thread. I'm going to ignore you from now on. Good day, sir.

[Losonti Tokash]

Skgoa's real, real mad. I'd be upset too if I was shown time and time again to be an incompetent liar in denial about things widely reported by actual news sites.

[Losonti Tokash]

Edit window, etc,

Here's an article on several reddits (now over 70) that banned links to Gawker in response to learning there would be an article about Michael Brutsch: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/re ... hotos.html

Once the actual article went up, the admins instituted a site-wide ban of the article, then rescinded it the next day.m many of the subreddits maintain their total bans of Gawker, though.

PS, the number one reason Reddit's CEO gave for rescinding the ban and not banning the entire Gaqker network was because they realized it was an ineffective way to conceal the information in the article.

[Flagg]

Reddit is the Catholic Church of the internet?

[Stark]

Maybe - it's even got 'members' who don't interact with the rotten part defending it anyway out of tribalism or loyalty.

[Flagg]

Maybe - it's even got 'members' who don't interact with the rotten part defending it anyway out of tribalism or loyalty.

Are you sure it's not just fucktarded free speech absolutists?

[The Yosemite Bear]

dude even as a free speach asshat, I can state that even evil has it's standards, now i'll go back to trying to find horrible dead baby joke pun titles on rather good. (seals at raves anyone?)

[Stark]

Are you sure it's not just fucktarded free speech absolutists?

I think the two can be conflated in many minds. I know poeple who enjoy redditt trotting out all the same excuses about why actually it's ok etc as we see elsewhere, and these people aren't usually freetards. How people jump from 'I like reading the sports section' to 'protect the hive' is what I find interesting, especially considering how this is exactly the behaviour we see with other organisations facing allegations of abuse or misconduct.

[Elfdart]

Is everyone who uses the word 'meme' an idiot?

Yes.

Straying back to the actual topic rather than justifications for harrassment of girls, how is this guy a 'troll'? Wasn't his behaviour accepted by Redditt? Wasn't he just doing what people did in that community?

He's not a troll. He's a creep with a cop-out.

Wait...I don't get it... are some of you people saying its immoral to find a 17 year old girl sexually attractive?

When you're pushing 50 like Tubby McSqueezepants it is. This is not a case of a 19-year-old getting the hots for a high school junior or senior. This is a middle-aged man -and a slimy one at that.

And no, pedophilia is pre-pubescent so a 16 or 17 year old girl would not fall under it. In fact, a developed 12 year old wouldn't neither but that would depend on the individual rather than the set age.

Who gives a flying fuck? This kind of semantics-whoring is like the old joke about the farmer who was on trial for screwing his sheep. When asked how many rams and ewes he fucked he got all indignant and said he only fucked the ewes -what did they think he was, a pervert or something?

The point I was making was that there's a huge difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia, the Jimmy Savile case was one example of being mis-labelled. At least the news service over here was smart enough not to parrot it.

Let me see if I can help you get the point here: If you are an adult male and you have fantasies about putting your dick in a minor (or worse still, you actually do so), then you are a sick perverted scumbag. It does not matter if the kid is tall for their age, or their voice has changed, or they're growing other secondary characteristics. Imagine if Jerry Sandusky had claimed that he wasn't really a child-fucker because some of the kids he sodomized had started growing pubes.

[Terralthra]

This is not a case of a 19-year-old getting the hots for a high school junior or senior. This is a middle-aged man -and a slimy one at that.

Let me see if I can help you get the point here: If you are an adult male and you have fantasies about putting your dick in a minor (or worse still, you actually do so), then you are a sick perverted scumbag. It does not matter if the kid is tall for their age, or their voice has changed, or they're growing other secondary characteristics.

These two statements would seem to be contradictory. A "19 year-old" is an adult, and you seem to be saying that if he or she gets the hots for a high school junior or senior, that's on some level "ok." Then you say he or she is a sick perverted scumbag. Well, not she, because apparently, your second statement is only about males.

Still, can you please clarify? What is intrinsically sick & perverted about an adult male finding a high school senior attractive that is essentially different from an adult male finding a college freshman attractive? Does summer vacation imbue her with a magical "I'm totally mature now!" aura?

[Scrib]

Who gives a flying fuck? This kind of semantics-whoring is like the old joke about the farmer who was on trial for screwing his sheep. When asked how many rams and ewes he fucked he got all indignant and said he only fucked the ewes -what did they think he was, a pervert or something?

It doesn't matter to people in America because your age of consent generally reaches past both but for other people when determining morality I'm sure it plays a part.

These two statements would seem to be contradictory. A "19 year-old" is an adult, and you seem to be saying that if he or she gets the hots for a high school junior or senior, that's on some level "ok." Then you say he or she is a sick perverted scumbag. Well, not she, because apparently, your second statement is only about males.

Still, can you please clarify? What is intrinsically sick & perverted about an adult male finding a high school senior attractive that is essentially different from an adult male finding a college freshman attractive? Does summer vacation imbue her with a magical "I'm totally mature now!" aura?

I guess the point is that the older men are taking advantage of the young girls. (Though I have no idea why it would have to be older men specifically, unconscious sexism is probably at play). So if a 19 y/o finds a high school senior/college freshman hot it's not a problem because society is not trying to shame him into not (as they perceive it) taking advantage of people.

As to the artificial distinction between college freshman and high school senior for 19 y/o I eagerly await an explanation.

[Stark]

As entertaining as is hijack might be, whether or not you think xyz is ok is irrelevant to abc. Speaking in absolutes ('it's ok for middle aged men to fuck high schoolers') is useless when it's certainly possible for this to be either good or bad in context. Being amazingly creepy, exploitative, bigoted or harassing about it is probably more important to bullshit moral judgements than some kind of checklist with a 'good' column and a 'bad' column.

Taking pictures with people in it is both legal and ethical. Does this mean any picture with anyone in it is legal or ethical to take? Of course not; you'd be a simple minded retard to think so. So enough about this sideline and more about the actual conduct of the person and community involved, ok guys? Justify your fetishes elsewhere.

[Elfdart]

This is not a case of a 19-year-old getting the hots for a high school junior or senior. This is a middle-aged man -and a slimy one at that.

Let me see if I can help you get the point here: If you are an adult male and you have fantasies about putting your dick in a minor (or worse still, you actually do so), then you are a sick perverted scumbag. It does not matter if the kid is tall for their age, or their voice has changed, or they're growing other secondary characteristics.

These two statements would seem to be contradictory. A "19 year-old" is an adult, and you seem to be saying that if he or she gets the hots for a high school junior or senior, that's on some level "ok." Then you say he or she is a sick perverted scumbag. Well, not she, because apparently, your second statement is only about males.

Still, can you please clarify? What is intrinsically sick & perverted about an adult male finding a high school senior attractive that is essentially different from an adult male finding a college freshman attractive? Does summer vacation imbue her with a magical "I'm totally mature now!" aura?

So according to you there's no difference between a 49-year-old wanting to screw minors and two teens fooling around consensually?

[Scrib]

Nice dodge by deliberately picking an egregious case when the original statement was an absolute one about all adult males.

[Terralthra]

So according to you there's no difference between a 49-year-old wanting to screw minors and two teens fooling around consensually?

No. According to me, it's more nuanced than "any adult male being attracted to any minor is a sick, perverted scumbag." Your strawman of my position is not relevant, nor does it serve as much of a rebuttal to that position.

[Thanas]

No. According to me, it's more nuanced than "any adult male being attracted to any minor is a sick, perverted scumbag."

I think it is a very good position to take and very true except for teenagers and very early twentysomethings.

[Stark]

Reacting against one extreme with the other is fucking retarded anyway, and I'm not sure how a theoretical healthy relationship of this sort is relevant to a bunch of creepos trading up skirt pics of junior high kids.

[bobalot]

As someone browses reddit a fair bit now, I do want to point out there are plenty on Reddit who think VA was a creepy douche and got what was coming to him.

I find it hilarious that a huge group of redditors (including many prominent moderators) are fine with people posting creepy shit because of "FREE SPEECH LOLZ" but are against someone using their free speech to expose somebody doing creepy shit.

[Stark]

People generally defend 'their' things against 'others', and no key wants to be tarred by association.

But I mean we've ha similar free speech views expressed here, haven't we? People saying all speech is protects speech etc etc?