If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Verge)   Reddit troll apologizes for promoting pedophilia and rape by stating college kids across the country made him do it   (theverge.com) divider line 283
    More: Followup, college kids, Infraction  
•       •       •

4255 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Oct 2012 at 8:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



283 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-19 09:55:11 PM
If you can't face the thought of what you do online getting back to your boss, wife, or grandmother, maybe you ought not be doing stuff that is so socially unacceptable that it will get you fired, divorced, or the guilty conscience of killing an old woman.

Society has rules above and beyond what are actually codified in law. Society judges and delivers punishment on the particularly grievous offenders. The internet is not some place where you can just play and expect to remain anonymous. It's not Vegas. What happens here does not stay here. Doing something disgusting or illegal, like posting victimizing pictures of children or upskirt photos, will get you punished by society. If you don't like it, don't do it.
 
2012-10-19 09:59:55 PM

kliq: I'm shocked to find out a message board moderator is a total loser. I used to like hanging out on message boards. When I was younger and had a fark-ton of time to kill. I'll check Fark every so often when I wanna veg out for a bit, but I have a real career that occupies most of my free time. The rest is spent socializing with normal people. Back to the basement, weaklings.


Hey, it's been almost 26 minutes. Are you at the gym yet?
 
2012-10-19 10:09:15 PM

gulogulo: So which of the subreddits are you missing?


you seem to know an awful lot about these Subreddits. brahsephina

I just know their names not any of their content. How are you such an authority on what is in them? You didn't visit them perhaps, did you?

/I know you are but what am I
//up your game, you're talking like a child
///That may turn you on, but I don't approve much.
 
2012-10-19 10:58:30 PM
Frak Reddit and the incorrigable tasteless freaks who frequent it. I couldn't care less about a third rate Fark and a fourth rate 4chan. I don't think the guy deserved to lose his job over it. That is taking it a bit far. Yet, see above, frak him and their entire worthless community. Truth be told if the guy took an IQ test he's probably retarded. You pretty much have to be to think anything he said or did was the least bit socially acceptable. Socially acceptable is an important phrase since Reddit is a social media website for preteens and high school kids. I luahed my ass off when I read his "college kids" remark. Really? He seriously believes that was his audience? Maybe I just don't "get it". The whole... wait... it's called 'karma points'? Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaah..... *sigh* hahahahahahhahaha. That shiat is richer than Bill Gates.
 
2012-10-19 11:14:48 PM

gadian: If you can't face the thought of what you do online getting back to your boss, wife, or grandmother, maybe you ought not be doing stuff that is so socially unacceptable that it will get you fired, divorced, or the guilty conscience of killing an old woman.


Not that I'm equating the two types of speech, but the founding fathers used pen names. Some of the shiat they said would get them killed, not just fired. I don't think what this guy posted had any real social value, but if we aren't willing to defend anonymity of people who say things of little or no social value, then what is the argument in defending those who do? More importantly, who gets to decide? Anonymity should be widely accepted as a good thing, and we have to take the good with the bad for the greater good. Every person who makes a statement under an anonymous name should be legally protected in the event of their outing, and penalties should be paid from their outers, even if it's for reasons no more than the fact that unpopular speech shouldn't be subject to a chilling effect, as the ability to recognize its source of origin gets more difficult to hide in the future, which is a certainty.
 
2012-10-19 11:19:06 PM

ParagonComplex: Frak Reddit and the incorrigable tasteless freaks who frequent it. I couldn't care less about a third rate Fark and a fourth rate 4chan. I don't think the guy deserved to lose his job over it. That is taking it a bit far. Yet, see above, frak him and their entire worthless community. Truth be told if the guy took an IQ test he's probably retarded. You pretty much have to be to think anything he said or did was the least bit socially acceptable. Socially acceptable is an important phrase since Reddit is a social media website for preteens and high school kids. I luahed my ass off when I read his "college kids" remark. Really? He seriously believes that was his audience? Maybe I just don't "get it". The whole... wait... it's called 'karma points'? Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaah..... *sigh* hahahahahahhahaha. That shiat is richer than Bill Gates.


So.. you're rating 4 chan above fark!?.. and you're arguing that a socially acceptable website should be determined by the fact that it's called a social website? How often do you come here?!?
 
2012-10-20 12:36:49 AM
Michael Brutsch - the man behind the controversial Reddit handle Violentacrez - has spoken to CNN, offering up an apology and an explanation for his actions on the site.

"Well, I am to some degree apologizing for what I did. Again, I was playing to an audience of college kids," he said.


"To some degree" is not an apology. And don't blame the kids. Seriously.

/sick fark
 
2012-10-20 12:41:34 AM

KrispyKritter: this guy having his life ruined is hypocrite bullshiat. plenty of sites offer what his corner of reddit offered. reddit didn't mind because they are a large site willing to please as many as possible. posters that compare his stuff to a paedo are ignorant. non-nude jailbait pics are not paedo fare, grow up. and there are plenty of sites on the internet that have all sorts of objectionable trash, you know it, i know it. this fat bastard didn't have a corner on the market. its not right his life is being ripped to pieces. i feel bad for the jerk. i wouldn't want it to happen to you or to me.


I would. Guy is a sick mother farker, encouraging sick farking things because he gets attention for it. F*ck him.
 
2012-10-20 12:46:14 AM

digistil: Aquadyne: whole lot of a bullshiat is what this is. this guy didnt do anything illegal

Who said he did anything illegal?


I don't know, "promoting pedophilia" sounds kinda illegal
 
2012-10-20 12:56:23 AM

tedbundee: digistil: Aquadyne: whole lot of a bullshiat is what this is. this guy didnt do anything illegal

Who said he did anything illegal?

I don't know, "promoting pedophilia" sounds kinda illegal


So you read the headline and ignored the article? Typical farker...
 
2012-10-20 01:46:35 AM
So, him getting fired.. I was on the fence for a while but I can see why the company did it, he represents a risk to them. Especially if he ever viewed or posted at work. He took the gChat at work. If customers got a hint of it, or worse if he screwed up and the stuff accidentally became less than private they have to deal with it. I suppose if he thought what he was posting could get him in trouble he should have either not done it, or protected his anonymity more closely. It's the companies prerogative to decide where threats exist, it's his to work somewhere where it's not an issue or to not do it.
 
2012-10-20 01:49:20 AM
He went out of his way to make enemies, and didn't think he had to take the steps to make sure they couldn't respond to his provocations. He was arrogant, as well as tasteless.
 
2012-10-20 03:04:34 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: ParagonComplex: Frak Reddit and the incorrigable tasteless freaks who frequent it. I couldn't care less about a third rate Fark and a fourth rate 4chan. I don't think the guy deserved to lose his job over it. That is taking it a bit far. Yet, see above, frak him and their entire worthless community. Truth be told if the guy took an IQ test he's probably retarded. You pretty much have to be to think anything he said or did was the least bit socially acceptable. Socially acceptable is an important phrase since Reddit is a social media website for preteens and high school kids. I luahed my ass off when I read his "college kids" remark. Really? He seriously believes that was his audience? Maybe I just don't "get it". The whole... wait... it's called 'karma points'? Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaah..... *sigh* hahahahahahhahaha. That shiat is richer than Bill Gates.

So.. you're rating 4 chan above fark!?.. and you're arguing that a socially acceptable website should be determined by the fact that it's called a social website? How often do you come here?!?


Hey, Ricky Retardo, three comes before four. I'm arguing that people shouldn't be shocked that others feel they should be socially acceptable on social media. What is your reading comprehension skill level? Math level? Are you from Reddit?
 
2012-10-20 04:00:57 AM
He, like every troll who does this sort of crap is a pathetic attention whore.

I would have no problem if one of the jailbait fathers found this asshole and literally beat him to death with an aluminum bat, or least put him in a coma. At least that way his apparent fark login of fluffy will shut the hell up.
 
2012-10-20 04:04:27 AM

Teiritzamna: And once again, in response to your position, why do you hate everyone else's freedom of opinion - to wit, their feeling that this guy is a creeper?


The opinion of him is fine. It's the moral vigilantism that's advocated(and carried out) against him that i disagree with.

No matter what anyone says(the only exception being things that are illegal) on the internet under a rational expectation of anonynimity, should stay in it's respective place. Have a problem with the way he acts in a specific place, address that. Don't paint a picture of someone who drinks and smokes and behaves in a lewd manner in a bar, as someone who is that way everywhere, at church, on the job, in front of his kids, etc.

Threats and blackmail actually carried out are what was unreasonable. No one likes a tattletale, well, except when it falls in line with what you personally and morally agree with, apparently, then no punishment is too severe. If it's not criminal it's ok to make someone pay with their career for disagreeing with you in a place that's entirely irrelevant to anything he does professionally?

Get a grip if you think that's actually all reasonable. Get some counseling, go back on your anti-psychotics, whatever you need to do man, because you're farked in the head just a smidge.

I hope many people I've run across on the internet die a tragic and bloody death, get fired, or raped, or a thousand other tortuous events.

I, however, will never take a single step towards setting that into motion, and i don't advocate it as if lynch mobs are at all a reasonable thing to be a part of. For anyont to back up that kind of action, much less perform it, is just as despicable as anyone they're outraged by.

If there is a legality issue, take it to the cops. That is justice. If you lack any material that's even as low as dubious, and go to the employer instead because you are simply offended, that's just skeevy and pretentious revenge. The two concepts are not equitable at all.
 
2012-10-20 07:13:34 AM
I'm trying to remember when the internets became serious business again.
 
2012-10-20 07:56:29 AM

gothelder: He, like every troll who does this sort of crap is a pathetic attention whore.

I would have no problem if one of the jailbait fathers found this asshole and literally beat him to death with an aluminum bat, or least put him in a coma. At least that way his apparent fark login of fluffy will shut the hell up.


Are you threatening me with violence?

Oh dear. I thought nobody wanted to kill this guy. You guys were really insistent on that point.
 
2012-10-20 10:06:42 AM

ParagonComplex: I'm arguing that people shouldn't be shocked that others feel they should be socially acceptable on social media.


It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't be shocked that some people want to bring back slavery. You're talking about one of our fundamental rights, the first in fact, which is there SPECIFICALLY TO DEFEND UNPOPULAR SPEECH.

ParagonComplex: I couldn't care less about a third rate Fark and a fourth rate 4chan.


BraveNewCheneyWorld: So.. you're rating 4 chan above fark!?.


ParagonComplex: Hey, Ricky Retardo, three comes before four.


Ok, this is really funny, because in fact, you're the retard here. I'm wondering just one thing. Are you just a little retarded and had posters remorse after you clicked add comment, or are you so goddamn blindingly retarded that you had an imaginary crowd cheering in your head for how awesome your "burn" was? Let me explain to you exactly why you're stupid.

first-rate (fûrstrt)
adj.
Foremost in quality, rank, or importance.
adv. Informal
Very well; excellently.

Definition of SECOND-RATE
: of second or inferior quality or value : mediocre

Definition of THIRD-RATE
: extremely low in quality or value : worse than second-rate

Definition of FOURTH-RATE

1
: belonging or relating to a fourth rank or grade (as in order of excellence)
2
: of negligible worth

You stated that Reddit was a 3rd rate fark, or a 4th rate 4chan, which means that fark would presumably be a 2nd rate 4chan since you're comparing them both to reddit.

ParagonComplex: What is your reading comprehension skill level? Math level?


Certainly far higher than yours.
 
2012-10-20 11:33:29 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't be shocked that some people want to bring back slavery. You're talking about one of our fundamental rights, the first in fact, which is there SPECIFICALLY TO DEFEND UNPOPULAR SPEECH.


From legal action. Not from social consequences. If you really believe that's how society should work, then have I got a bridge for you.
 
2012-10-20 12:13:49 PM

gulogulo: BraveNewCheneyWorld: It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't be shocked that some people want to bring back slavery. You're talking about one of our fundamental rights, the first in fact, which is there SPECIFICALLY TO DEFEND UNPOPULAR SPEECH.

From legal action. Not from social consequences. If you really believe that's how society should work, then have I got a bridge for you.


Here's the context you seem to have missed..

ParagonComplex: I'm arguing that people shouldn't be shocked that others feel they should be socially acceptable on social media.

So, if you don't get it yet, my point was that people should have no expectation that others be socially acceptable, since it's a fundamental tenet of our law that speech be unrestricted. I'm saying nothing of the consequence of that action.
 
2012-10-20 12:20:22 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, if you don't get it yet, my point was that people should have no expectation that others be socially acceptable, since it's a fundamental tenet of our law that speech be unrestricted.


Well, you presuming there should be no consequence if there's no expectation of people behaving within the norms of our society, no?

There is a social contract we all have unwittingly participated in. So there is most certainly an expectation, and that does not go against any of the written law of free speech.
 
2012-10-20 06:11:27 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: gulogulo: BraveNewCheneyWorld: It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't be shocked that some people want to bring back slavery. You're talking about one of our fundamental rights, the first in fact, which is there SPECIFICALLY TO DEFEND UNPOPULAR SPEECH.

From legal action. Not from social consequences. If you really believe that's how society should work, then have I got a bridge for you.

Here's the context you seem to have missed..

ParagonComplex: I'm arguing that people shouldn't be shocked that others feel they should be socially acceptable on social media.

So, if you don't get it yet, my point was that people should have no expectation that others be socially acceptable, since it's a fundamental tenet of our law that speech be unrestricted. I'm saying nothing of the consequence of that action.


That's another one with reading woes. Selectivity or inability, no one know's for sure, but it is clear that poster just does not get it.
 
2012-10-20 06:20:01 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: gadian: If you can't face the thought of what you do online getting back to your boss, wife, or grandmother, maybe you ought not be doing stuff that is so socially unacceptable that it will get you fired, divorced, or the guilty conscience of killing an old woman.

Not that I'm equating the two types of speech, but the founding fathers used pen names. Some of the shiat they said would get them killed, not just fired. I don't think what this guy posted had any real social value, but if we aren't willing to defend anonymity of people who say things of little or no social value, then what is the argument in defending those who do? More importantly, who gets to decide? Anonymity should be widely accepted as a good thing, and we have to take the good with the bad for the greater good. Every person who makes a statement under an anonymous name should be legally protected in the event of their outing, and penalties should be paid from their outers, even if it's for reasons no more than the fact that unpopular speech shouldn't be subject to a chilling effect, as the ability to recognize its source of origin gets more difficult to hide in the future, which is a certainty.


One was the government that would have killed them. One is a private organization firing them. Big difference.
 
2012-10-20 07:32:22 PM

Rockstone: BraveNewCheneyWorld: gadian: If you can't face the thought of what you do online getting back to your boss, wife, or grandmother, maybe you ought not be doing stuff that is so socially unacceptable that it will get you fired, divorced, or the guilty conscience of killing an old woman.

Not that I'm equating the two types of speech, but the founding fathers used pen names. Some of the shiat they said would get them killed, not just fired. I don't think what this guy posted had any real social value, but if we aren't willing to defend anonymity of people who say things of little or no social value, then what is the argument in defending those who do? More importantly, who gets to decide? Anonymity should be widely accepted as a good thing, and we have to take the good with the bad for the greater good. Every person who makes a statement under an anonymous name should be legally protected in the event of their outing, and penalties should be paid from their outers, even if it's for reasons no more than the fact that unpopular speech shouldn't be subject to a chilling effect, as the ability to recognize its source of origin gets more difficult to hide in the future, which is a certainty.

One was the government that would have killed them. One is a private organization firing them. Big difference.


We're not killing christians (at the moment), but firing them on account of their morals is ok?
What about the morality of gays? Is it ok to make them pay a societal price for voicing their morals?
I masturbate at home, should my employer have the right to fire me for doing such a thing?
I have children that, on occasion, just want to be naked. I suppose I should lose my job if they should shed their clothing, and be villified as if I am a leper.
Where is the line drawn? What is it ok to oppress and what is not?

The neat thing about the US, is that we do, usually, have a private life that's separate from our work place. Unless we're doing something illegal, many of those things done in private are protected by law. Unfortunately some perfectly legal things are not protected.

Sadly, along with that, despite the spirit of the law in that regard, we live in a society where it's OK to lose a debate, and go behind that person's back to their employer, and enact a ploy that is guaranteed to have virtually significant impact on that person's life. Accusation is almost as powerfully destructive as legal conviction to anyone's way of life.

That is why we're on about defending even the moronic in their statements. If we can't protect the weak, indeed, refuse to, and even advocate vengeance on them for holding different ideals, that whole "be nice in the first place" thing goes right out the window. Bunch of hypocrites in these threads.
 
2012-10-20 07:37:57 PM

omeganuepsilon: Rockstone: BraveNewCheneyWorld: gadian: If you can't face the thought of what you do online getting back to your boss, wife, or grandmother, maybe you ought not be doing stuff that is so socially unacceptable that it will get you fired, divorced, or the guilty conscience of killing an old woman.

Not that I'm equating the two types of speech, but the founding fathers used pen names. Some of the shiat they said would get them killed, not just fired. I don't think what this guy posted had any real social value, but if we aren't willing to defend anonymity of people who say things of little or no social value, then what is the argument in defending those who do? More importantly, who gets to decide? Anonymity should be widely accepted as a good thing, and we have to take the good with the bad for the greater good. Every person who makes a statement under an anonymous name should be legally protected in the event of their outing, and penalties should be paid from their outers, even if it's for reasons no more than the fact that unpopular speech shouldn't be subject to a chilling effect, as the ability to recognize its source of origin gets more difficult to hide in the future, which is a certainty.

One was the government that would have killed them. One is a private organization firing them. Big difference.

We're not killing christians (at the moment), but firing them on account of their morals is ok?
What about the morality of gays? Is it ok to make them pay a societal price for voicing their morals?
I masturbate at home, should my employer have the right to fire me for doing such a thing?
I have children that, on occasion, just want to be naked. I suppose I should lose my job if they should shed their clothing, and be villified as if I am a leper.
Where is the line drawn? What is it ok to oppress and what is not?

The neat thing about the US, is that we do, usually, have a private life that's separate from our work place. Unless we're doing something illegal ...


I just see a couple of idiots who really don't understand the difference between law and society as a whole.
 
2012-10-20 09:34:55 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You stated that Reddit was a 3rd rate fark, or a 4th rate 4chan, which means that fark would presumably be a 2nd rate 4chan since you're comparing them both to reddit.


"and" actually. Your reading comprehension really isn't that high, is it? "And" makes all the difference. Is English your first language? You never answered whether or not you were a Redditor, because that would explain everything. You see, the "and" means that Reddit is a third rate Fark (mediocre as your definition put it) AND a fourth rate 4chan. I wasn't comparing Fark and 4chan to Reddit. I was comparing Reddit to them. With it switched around like that (read slowly), well, you try real hard to figure that out.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: you so goddamn blindingly retarded that you had an imaginary crowd cheering in your head for how awesome your "burn" was? Let me explain to you exactly why you're stupid.


Yeah, describes yourself pretty well, apparently. Go back to Reddit to view your borderline child pornography and gore.
 
2012-10-20 11:49:37 PM

gulogulo: I just see a couple of idiots who really don't understand the difference between law and society as a whole.


Willful ignorance is bliss.
 
2012-10-21 05:12:18 AM

KiplingKat872: Teiritzamna: And if Seth McFarelane wants to give VA a job making manatee jokes about dead sexualized children, he has that legal right. Just because you do something that is legal doesnt mean that you get to force other people to like you or want to hang around you.

The upskirt pics on r/creeperpics broke federal law under the Video and Voyeurism Prevention act of 2004. Depending on the state they were taken and it's definition of voyeurism, any attempt to see though women clothing, yes even in public, was a violation of state law. Anyone who posted candid pics of minors from California for his "jailbait' board broke state law and I doubt that he would win any civil suit brought against him by the parents of child exploited in such a manner, no matter what state it was in.

And the Reddit mods just let this go on for years because he was pals with them.

This isn't a matter of Free Speech. This guy isn't Larry Flint who used willing adult models. This guy is just a rank predator encouraging others to do to do the same.


Late to the game but Christ, THIS.

I wear skirts. I take public transit to work. That does not mean I give permission implicit or not for a douchebag sitting on a bench to slide a cell phone over while I'm jostling for standing room and preoccupied with not losing my balance in heels. Eff to the no.
 
2012-10-21 06:32:50 AM

omeganuepsilon: Willful ignorance is bliss.


You realize you're on the cross right now because an employer fired a guy for distributing borderline child porn, right? The employer got hundreds of complaints about him, and he was a risk to their business - at what point to people have a right to freely associate with whomever they please? Are you going to force people together? Cry some more. it just makes you look like a jackass, and frankly, ask yourself if you'd like any of your relatives, bosses or what not seeing the conversations you are having championing this guy right now. Really imagine explaining that to their faces and see how well it goes over.

Society makes its own rules that we all have to abide by. You won't be put in jail, but expect shunning if you don't follow them. Do you ever go out of your house? Interact with people that aren't screen names?
 
2012-10-21 12:53:27 PM

DeathByGeekSquad: WinoRhino: ModernLuddite: I'm just saying that internet != real life.

Completely ridiculous.

What you do on the internet is, in fact, what you do in real life. It's not an alternate reality. It is simply a different medium of communication. It's all behavior you are responsible for. Consider this analogy: you're on a boat. Across the water from you, 200 yards away, is another boat. Using semaphore you call the people on the other boat all sorts of rude names. The passengers of that boat confront you on the dock later, and you claim that was just your "boating persona" and it doesn't really count as something you actually did. See how foolish that is?

If you say, do, or suggest things online that you would never say to someone in person it makes you either a coward in person, or extremely immature online. Probably both.

So you wouldn't mind explaining to a group of actual Winos why you've chosen to apparently take their name in humorous reference (or chosen it at all)?


I imagine you are not a boater, its the protocol for women to show there breasts and men the glutes when passing. At least my "boating persona"
Only boats that cut your lines get the verbal response.
 
2012-10-21 01:43:49 PM

gulogulo: Society makes its own rules that we all have to abide by.


Like not being gay, a religion other than yours, having an abortion, using birth control, what a person "should" consume(food to legal drugs like caffeine and nicotine)?

No, we do not have to abide by society's "rules". That is the whole point of pretty much all equal rights movements.

The guy was victimized by those that were infuriated with his speech. Someone set out to find his identity and do his best to ruin his real life, because the angry person/people felt offended. Morally, that is no different than violence for the same reason, say, bombing an abortion clinic. Someone got mad at someone else and decided to take matters into their own hands, to punish the "sinful".

Someone got butthurt and ran to someone who would deliver vengeance, as it were. Neither mature or rational. The internet at large has become a place where people share ideas and information. If you don't like what you see at X, you're free to NOT go there.

Report illegal actions to the authorities, sure, that is rational. Actively working to make someone else suffer is a sign of unhealthy obsession, agreeing with that vigilantism is a sign of delusion.
 
2012-10-22 11:55:41 AM
Holy crap, all the scenester asshats in one room. Anyone have a virtual grenade?
 
2012-10-23 12:25:57 AM
You know the morality issue is bad when fark mods redact posts that aren't really against TOS/rules, no real insulting, no nsfw links, etc. It's not my fault liberals are self contradicting when it comes to people who want freedoms different than their ideals.

My bad for having an opinion.

/DIAF mod
 
Displayed 33 of 283 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report