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
 
2012-10-19 08:24:33 AM
God dammit. Just admit that you farked up and be a man about it! Stop being a douche.
 
2012-10-19 08:31:54 AM

TV's Vinnie: God dammit. Just admit that you farked up and be a man about it! Stop being a douche.


He didn't fark up at all. He is a total douche, and he has no choice in the matter. He will only stop being a douche on the day that he dies. And a pedo douche, at that.
 
2012-10-19 08:31:57 AM
" I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.
 
2012-10-19 08:34:03 AM
Classic Homer: "Yes sir. I'm sorry, sir. An older boy made me do it, sir."
 
2012-10-19 08:34:12 AM

ChrisDe: " I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.


What is reddit, again?
 
2012-10-19 08:34:35 AM

TV's Vinnie: God dammit. Just admit that you farked up and be a man about it! Stop being a douche.


He's obviously Republican, as they don't apologize for anything.

In truth, he's just milking this for everything it's worth. I'm confident he has an Internet Addiction, and he somehow thinks he's gone meta with his posts and is 'popular' in real life now. Some trolls will try to spin everything going on into a troll attempt. Somewhere in his brain, he's honest in his belief he's some kind of hero and has brought 'it' up a notch. What 'it' is is anybody's guess, but he needs help. He doesn't think what he has done is wrong, and is only remorseful he doesn't get paid to ignore work and post on Reddit anymore.

He's a hypocrite! Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a thread in the Politics I need to get back to.
 
2012-10-19 08:36:37 AM
Oh, look. A typically whiny crybaby who enjoyed hiding behind the protections of free speech and internet anonymity to be an awful person doing awful things and then wanted to call a do-over when his anonymity was blown.

He did and said despicable shiat that he knew would have consequences for his employment and family if (when?) he was exposed and he chose to do them anyway. Well, too farking bad. If the government comes and wants to shut you up, let me know, but until then, go die in a gutter you bottom-feeding scumsucker.

Assholes like you and the admins on reddit don't protect free speech, you endanger it through selfish abuse for all those people who have unpopular but important things to say. With any luck this loser will be penniless and giving $0.50 BJs to truckers behind the local safeway before the year is out.
 
2012-10-19 08:37:24 AM

ghostwind: ChrisDe: " I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.

What is reddit, again?


It's kind of like Fark for pedophiles.
 
2012-10-19 08:37:57 AM

ghostwind: What is reddit, again?


Depending on how you want to look at it, it's either Fark without any of the charm and wit or 4chan without the prominent hyperlink to /b/.
 
2012-10-19 08:37:58 AM

James!: ghostwind: ChrisDe: " I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.

What is reddit, again?

It's kind of like Fark for pedophiles.


Don't forget.. this guy HAS a Fark handle too.
 
2012-10-19 08:41:02 AM

PallMall: James!: ghostwind: ChrisDe: " I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.

What is reddit, again?

It's kind of like Fark for pedophiles.

Don't forget.. this guy HAS a Fark handle too.


Anyone with an email address can get a Fark handle.  Reddit made him a moderator. 
 
2012-10-19 08:42:45 AM
As someone who only went on Reddit like 5 minutes ago for the first time, I am having a hard time understanding this situation.

To me, it just sounds like one of those internet dramas that only users of a specific forum get into has spilled out into the real world. Please correct me, though.

//I'm not saying he doesn't sound like an idiot.
///I'm just saying that internet != real life.
 
2012-10-19 08:43:45 AM

PallMall: James!: ghostwind: ChrisDe: " I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.

What is reddit, again?

It's kind of like Fark for pedophiles.

Don't forget.. this guy HAS a Fark handle too.


Who? And what was he posting that was so bad?
 
2012-10-19 08:44:28 AM

James!: Reddit made him a moderator.


That's not a big deal, really. Anyone can start a sub-reddit and once you do, you are a moderator of it.
Or something like that.
 
2012-10-19 08:48:13 AM

James!: PallMall: James!: ghostwind: ChrisDe: " I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.

What is reddit, again?

It's kind of like Fark for pedophiles.

Don't forget.. this guy HAS a Fark handle too.

Anyone with an email address can get a Fark handle.  Reddit made him a moderator.


You are automatically a moderator of any subreddit you create. Any user can create any subreddit they want. You want to have a place to discuss your love of Bavarian Smoked Cheese? It will take you 2 seconds and you'll instantly be a moderator of that section.
 
2012-10-19 08:49:19 AM
reddit's policy on how someone becomes a moderator doesn't excuse them from allowing this f*cked up subreddits to exist for so long.
 
2012-10-19 08:50:20 AM

ModernLuddite: As someone who only went on Reddit like 5 minutes ago for the first time, I am having a hard time understanding this situation.

To me, it just sounds like one of those internet dramas that only users of a specific forum get into has spilled out into the real world. Please correct me, though.

//I'm not saying he doesn't sound like an idiot.
///I'm just saying that internet != real life.


I try to always post with the image in my head that everything I put out there on the net will be dredged up and picked over by some future cyber investigator. This is purely a mental exercise; I have no reason to think that a cyber investigator will ever need to be all up in my shiat. But it helps me to self-censor if I think, "If I go missing some day, would I want this post in my FBI file and possibly leaked to the media?" before I hit post. Doing so has stopped me from posting some of the more outrageous thoughts that run through my head.

Some, not all, unfortunately.
 
2012-10-19 08:50:36 AM

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


The people in the exploitation pictures he posted were real. Yes, yes it is real life. Just like a conversation with a eprson on a phone is real life. Email is real life. Letters are real life.
 
2012-10-19 08:50:46 AM
whole lot of a bullshiat is what this is. this guy didnt do anything illegal

in the mean time, seth mcfarlane is basically peddling exact same shiat for 90 minutes every sunday in prime time and is getting $100,000,000 for it
 
2012-10-19 08:52:12 AM
It's going to be hilarious when this sort of thing starts happening more and more. Imagine in about 5-10 years when a political candidate has his Freeper account tied back to him.
 
2012-10-19 08:54:40 AM

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


Isn't about the legality of it, though there is some grey area concerning the jailbait pics. In any case, this has been rehashed. this is not about protecting free speech. This is not about legality. This is about someone who did something the majority of society finds reprehensible, and thought he could do it because of this false sense of anonymity the internet provides. That anonymity is not protected by law. You are susceptible to being discovered, he was, society found out, and now he's dealing with the repercussions of his actions. Don't want this to happen to you? Don't do things like he did.
 
2012-10-19 08:56:40 AM

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

in the mean time, seth mcfarlane is basically peddling exact same shiat for 90 minutes every sunday in prime time and is getting $100,000,000 for it


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.

Not wearing deodorant is 100% legal, but if you come to work smelling like the fetid drippings of a diseased yak anus, it may affect your continued employability.

Short form: We all get rights, including the right to not like the crap other people do. The first amendment wins!
 
2012-10-19 08:56:45 AM

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

Isn't about the legality of it, though there is some grey area concerning the jailbait pics. In any case, this has been rehashed. this is not about protecting free speech. This is not about legality. This is about someone who did something the majority of society finds reprehensible, and thought he could do it because of this false sense of anonymity the internet provides. That anonymity is not protected by law. You are susceptible to being discovered, he was, society found out, and now he's dealing with the repercussions of his actions. Don't want this to happen to you? Don't do things like he did.


Not only that he was found out in part because he went to an in real life meet up for redditors and told people his username.
 
2012-10-19 08:57:35 AM
Stop feeding the trolls, CNN.
 
2012-10-19 08:57:53 AM
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.
 
2012-10-19 09:00:09 AM

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

Isn't about the legality of it, though there is some grey area concerning the jailbait pics. In any case, this has been rehashed. this is not about protecting free speech. This is not about legality. This is about someone who did something the majority of society finds reprehensible, and thought he could do it because of this false sense of anonymity the internet provides. That anonymity is not protected by law. You are susceptible to being discovered, he was, society found out, and now he's dealing with the repercussions of his actions. Don't want this to happen to you? Don't do things like he did.


BS.

This is just a double standard because this guy fits your average basement dweller creepy uncle image so people piled up on him. Seriously, what he has done is no more offensive than what i see on network TV every week - jokes about racism, hitler, misogyny, jail bait, rampant drug shiat, homosexuality, transexualism. and thats on TV, not some dark corner of internet nerdery like reddit

sucks that he lost a job. seems like a pretty harmless guy
 
2012-10-19 09:00:11 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.


Once again - if you like what VA did, if you feel he is a cool guy - that is your right as an American. You can scrape together money to give him a job so he can keep doing what you like.

It appears, however, the vast majority of people don't like what he does. Why should they be forced to think otherwise?
 
2012-10-19 09:03:19 AM

Aquadyne: sucks that he lost a job. seems like a pretty harmless guy


I suppose that depends on your outlook of harmless. Was it harmless to the people who did not to be exploited in those pics? Even if it was perfectly legal, it was considered perfectly despicable by most of society.

Did you frequent these sub boards or something? If you did, would you openly admit to it?
 
2012-10-19 09:04:26 AM

Aquadyne: BS.

This is just a double standard because this guy fits your average basement dweller creepy uncle image so people piled up on him. Seriously, what he has done is no more offensive than what i see on network TV every week - jokes about racism, hitler, misogyny, jail bait, rampant drug shiat, homosexuality, transexualism. and thats on TV, not some dark corner of internet nerdery like reddit

sucks that he lost a job. seems like a pretty harmless guy



Once again, it appears that you are his intended audience. Cool - as long as his postings/boards were within the boundaries of law, you totally have the right to totally like what he posted/did. You have the right to support him, to give him money, to give him support - heck, after Lawrence v. Texas, you have the right to do whatever you want to him in the privacy of your/his home. And as someone who swore an oath to the constitution, i would defend your right to do so.

However, other people have the same rights - and if they think what he did was deeply creepy and objectionable - they get the right to feel that way and the right to express that displeasure legally. They can say he is disgusting, they can avoid interacting with him, and they can refuse to contract with him going forward.
 
2012-10-19 09:05:35 AM

Teiritzamna: You have the right to support him, to give him money, to give him support


D'oh. It appears i like "support"
 
2012-10-19 09:08:35 AM

Teiritzamna: However, other people have the same rights - and if they think what he did was deeply creepy and objectionable - they get the right to feel that way and the right to express that displeasure legally. They can say he is disgusting, they can avoid interacting with him, and they can refuse to contract with him going forward.


When it comes to public opinion, too, majority does rule. This is why these exploitation shots of celebrities are considered socially acceptable because they are viewed as 'public citizens.' I don't agree with this view point, but I'm in the minority there, so it isn't likely going to change.

In this case, I'm on the side of public opinion.
 
2012-10-19 09:08:36 AM

KrispyKritter: i wouldn't want it to happen to you or to me.


You know how you avoid that? Don't do it.

It's not hypocritical and you know it. Free speech doesn't mean consequence free. He knew what he was doing would be offensive to the people around him in his regular life and they would likely not want to be associated with him if those people found out.

The internet isn't a magical barrier that gives you a whole second life divorced from your first. If you don't want people in your day to day life to abandon you for being a weird asshole, don't go on the internet and be a weird asshole.
 
2012-10-19 09:11:08 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: don't go on the internet and be a weird asshole.


Which is doubly funny, as all the weird assholes i have seen have been on the internet.

I mean i have never seen someone stick a bushel of apples in their pooper in meatspace.

/perhaps i go to the wrong bars?
 
2012-10-19 09:12:13 AM

gulogulo: Aquadyne: sucks that he lost a job. seems like a pretty harmless guy

I suppose that depends on your outlook of harmless. Was it harmless to the people who did not to be exploited in those pics? Even if it was perfectly legal, it was considered perfectly despicable by most of society.

Did you frequent these sub boards or something? If you did, would you openly admit to it?


i went on reddit like twice in my life and the format made me X out of it in 10 minutes
 
2012-10-19 09:15:29 AM
I read about this on Reddit before Fark posted a Verge link.
 
2012-10-19 09:18:27 AM

Aquadyne: i went on reddit like twice in my life and the format made me X out of it in 10 minutes


Ok. So if you visited forums like jailbat that posted pictures of kids (clothed), or creepshots of upskirt shots of unsuspecting women. Or 'rapebait' or 'chokeabiatch' would you openly admit that to your friends, your boss, your mother, sisters, whomever? No caveats of 'research,' but saying you frequent those sites, would you be willing to tell anyone and everyone that you do?
 
2012-10-19 09:22:30 AM

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.
 
2012-10-19 09:25:06 AM

Teiritzamna: /perhaps i go to the wrong bars?


I'd say right or wrong in that context is really a matter of taste.

/ tastes like apples
// I think maybe you're going to the wrong websites, but, again... tastes differ and I won't judge you if you don't judge me
 
2012-10-19 09:25:38 AM
Nobody has come off looking good in this whole mess. Not Violentacrez, not Adrien Chen, not the subreddits that decided to self-righteously boycott Gawker sites, and not Gawker and their pants-on-head-retarded news formatting, and certainly not the outside media trying to report on this entire nonsense.

The bottom line is:

VA didn't do anything illegal, he's just an industrial-grade creep and pervert.

Chen now has a name for himself because of a bunch of useless drama.

Gawker got more hits to their website.

r/shiatredditsays is still a worthless group of self-aggrandizing trolls

r/subredditdrama can't make popcorn fast enough

People on Fark biatching about Reddit and people on Reddit biatching about fark both need to get the ever-loving fark over themselves.
 
2012-10-19 09:28:19 AM

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)?
 
2012-10-19 09:28:23 AM

UNC_Samurai: People on Fark biatching about Reddit and people on Reddit biatching about fark both need to get the ever-loving fark over themselves.


I don't care about reddit. I care that a creep pervert got his comeuppance. Why do you and others keeping on bringing up that it's not illegal? Very people who are happy with this outcome are making that claim.
 
2012-10-19 09:33:06 AM

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


And he didn't get arrested for anything. So cry some more.
 
2012-10-19 09:33:09 AM
said in an interview that he made a "huge mistake" in creating subreddits that served as places to share everything from rape jokes to pictures of pregnant women.

What's wrong with pictures of pregnant women?
 
2012-10-19 09:33:48 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: 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)?


Perhaps he is a drunken Ceratotherium simum?
 
2012-10-19 09:33:53 AM
Hey look. It's the guy who was in charge of removing illegal content from creepy subreddits.

Hey look, he's got bad taste. Lets burn him alive, because we all know nobody ever tells lies on the internet, and if he's removing illegal content he must be a pedophile.

And so the which hunt goes on.

We should ban pictures of Muhammad as well. They are creepy and offensive to Muslims, and since we're now banning anything anyone doesn't like, well, we might as well start with the stuff that people get murdered over, like images of Muhammad.
 
2012-10-19 09:34:15 AM

UNC_Samurai:

VA didn't do anything illegal, he's just an industrial-grade creep and pervert.

Chen now has a name for himself because of a bunch of useless drama.

Gawker got more hits to their website.


Adrian Chen already has a name for himself; I'm not sure you really appreciate how big the Gawker media property really is. Hint: he's got more name recognition than 98% of all cable news personalities today and a bigger audience to boot. If you stopped 50 random people on the streets of New York City today, its 50/50 they'd know who Shep Smith or Sam Donaldson are. I guarantee they'd recognize Chen.
 
2012-10-19 09:36:13 AM

fluffy2097: Hey look. It's the guy who was in charge of removing illegal content from creepy subreddits.

Hey look, he's got bad taste. Lets burn him alive, because we all know nobody ever tells lies on the internet, and if he's removing illegal content he must be a pedophile.

And so the which hunt goes on.

We should ban pictures of Muhammad as well. They are creepy and offensive to Muslims, and since we're now banning anything anyone doesn't like, well, we might as well start with the stuff that people get murdered over, like images of Muhammad.


Hey fun question - explain to me where banning anything happened?

To make your analogy more correct, let us assume he did computer work for a local mosque and in his spare time made websites with offensive pictures of the prophet. His employer finds out. They fire him, as is their right.

What pray tell is wrong with this scenario?
 
2012-10-19 09:36:25 AM

fluffy2097: Hey look. It's the guy who was in charge of removing illegal content from creepy subreddits.

Hey look, he's got bad taste. Lets burn him alive, because we all know nobody ever tells lies on the internet, and if he's removing illegal content he must be a pedophile.

And so the which hunt goes on.

We should ban pictures of Muhammad as well. They are creepy and offensive to Muslims, and since we're now banning anything anyone doesn't like, well, we might as well start with the stuff that people get murdered over, like images of Muhammad.


www.gamesprays.com
 
2012-10-19 09:36:59 AM

willfullyobscure: Adrian Chen already has a name for himself; I'm not sure you really appreciate how big the Gawker media property really is. Hint: he's got more name recognition than 98% of all cable news personalities today and a bigger audience to boot. If you stopped 50 random people on the streets of New York City today, its 50/50 they'd know who Shep Smith or Sam Donaldson are. I guarantee they'd recognize Chen.


Chen made a name for himself when he pretended to have cancer.

And when he put up a website so people could stalk celebrities.

also. Gawkers upskirt website. Dedicated to taking pictures of a woman's pussy. No, Gawker and Chen aren't creepy at all.
 
2012-10-19 09:37:16 AM
Breaking Bad is a fictional tale filled with people who do bad things, and a lawbreaking guy who has morals fighting guys who do worse things.

It's NOT the same, but you can draw parallels -- at least I do. I don't watch Breaking Bad, so I can't make the argument stick, but there are other cases out there.

In short, it takes a deviant to police deviants. I suspect that was why he was made a moderator.

It doesn't keep him from being judged by the rest of us, or condemned by the schoolmarms.
 
2012-10-19 09:38:07 AM

fluffy2097: Hey look. It's the guy who was in charge of removing illegal content from creepy subreddits.

Hey look, he's got bad taste. Lets burn him alive, because we all know nobody ever tells lies on the internet, and if he's removing illegal content he must be a pedophile.

And so the which hunt goes on.

We should ban pictures of Muhammad as well. They are creepy and offensive to Muslims, and since we're now banning anything anyone doesn't like, well, we might as well start with the stuff that people get murdered over, like images of Muhammad.


cdn.uproxx.com

Nice spin on the "oh, he was JUST removing illegal content." So, are YOU a frequent visitor of his sites? Why, or why not? And I'll pose the same question to you as I did up there. Hypothetically, if you were, would you have no problem openly admitting it to anyone and everyone that you enjoyed /jailbait /chokeabiatch /n*ggerbait , etc.? 

Keep in mind, no one is advocating ILLEGAL THINGS BE DONE TO HIM.
 
2012-10-19 09:39:38 AM

gulogulo:

Keep in mind, no one is advocating ILLEGAL THINGS BE DONE TO HIM.


Calling him a pedophile is libel. He isn't one or he'd be under arrest.

Since we are now holding people legally responsible for their actions online....
 
2012-10-19 09:39:44 AM

gulogulo: UNC_Samurai: People on Fark biatching about Reddit and people on Reddit biatching about fark both need to get the ever-loving fark over themselves.

I don't care about reddit. I care that a creep pervert got his comeuppance. Why do you and others keeping on bringing up that it's not illegal? Very people who are happy with this outcome are making that claim.


I never said he didn't deserve the mess he was in. If you want to look on the internet for freaky shiat, that's your business, but if you go around making a big deal about yourself, then you open yourself up to the ramifications of your decisions. It sucks that he lost his job, and the health insurance that his wife really needed, but that's his own damn fault for not thinking about the consequences.

And I bring up that fact that he didn't commit a crime because he did not commit a crime. It's possible to understand that you can be the biggest creep and pervert in the world without committing a crime. Yes, he walked a tightrope over what was legal with r/jailbait, and in the end what got that subreddit shot down was other users private messaging each other links to kiddie porn.
 
2012-10-19 09:39:45 AM

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


Who said he did anything illegal?
 
2012-10-19 09:40:30 AM

fluffy2097: willfullyobscure: Adrian Chen already has a name for himself; I'm not sure you really appreciate how big the Gawker media property really is. Hint: he's got more name recognition than 98% of all cable news personalities today and a bigger audience to boot. If you stopped 50 random people on the streets of New York City today, its 50/50 they'd know who Shep Smith or Sam Donaldson are. I guarantee they'd recognize Chen.

Chen made a name for himself when he pretended to have cancer.

And when he put up a website so people could stalk celebrities.

also. Gawkers upskirt website. Dedicated to taking pictures of a woman's pussy. No, Gawker and Chen aren't creepy at all.


See my previous post concerning the court of public opinion and celebrities. Note that I don't find that any better, but your argument of "but they do it too!" doesn't make what he did any better.
 
2012-10-19 09:41:10 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: 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)?


It was my nickname. "The Wino Rhino." I used to run a lot of long distance races (marathons, ultra-relays, etc) and was usually somewhat cavalier about getting good amounts of pre-race rest. We'd typically travel to other states to do these runs and I would stay up really late out on the town the night before runs getting my drink on. I am also larger in build than your average runner, but still pretty fast. Kinda like a rhino. Someone put the two together one time and it stuck.

So true-to-life as my fark handle is, your counter argument is still idiotic.
 
2012-10-19 09:41:22 AM

digistil: Who said he did anything illegal?


Anyone who isn't on the think of the children bandwagon.

If SRS could have gone to the police about what he did, because he did do illegal things, they would have.
 
2012-10-19 09:41:30 AM

UNC_Samurai: VA didn't do anything illegal, he's just an industrial-grade creep and pervert.


And the backlash he's suffering isn't criminal, it's social.

I don't get why you people think the legality of this has anything to do with anything. It doesn't matter of if it was legal, it's severely morally wrong, it was exploitative of innocent people and it was socially unacceptable. He knew this. He knew that if his cover was blown there would be consequences. He chose to do it anyway and, more importantly to your whining about Gawker, he chose to do it in a way that made a lot of people very angry at him and greatly increased the odds that someone would seek him out and expose him.

It's bad enough if you're going to to choose to crawl around in the filth on the underbelly of the internet, but you REALLY lose any possible sympathy for your self-imposed plight if you choose to try and force your crap on everyone else just to piss them off.

He chose to be a vile, exploitative asshole and he chose to make people angry and draw intense attention to himself. The only person in any of this that looks bad is the guy who is bad and the guy who enjoyed the attention for being bad right up until all the scrutiny he chose to bring to himself had negative consequences.

This is akin to someone dancing around naked on the center median of the highway and biatching and whining that people keep looking at you. If you don't want scrutiny, don't do shiat that attracts attention or at the very least don't make it a POINT to draw as much attention to what you're doing as you possibly can.
 
2012-10-19 09:42:57 AM
I'm so glad Fark doesn't have a creepy porn dark side like these other sites.
 
2012-10-19 09:43:13 AM

fluffy2097: Calling him a pedophile is libel. He isn't one or he'd be under arrest.


Well, I'm sure he can sue the pants off of people who called him a pedophile, and he can take his case to court. He would be within his rights to.

But that wasn't the example you used. You were talking about actual violence.
 
2012-10-19 09:43:28 AM

WinoRhino: Using semaphore you call the people on the other boat all sorts of rude names.


How do you call someone a motherfarker using semaphore, asking for a friend.

/I agree with the salient parts of your post, BTW, well put!
 
2012-10-19 09:44:02 AM

gulogulo: See my previous post concerning the court of public opinion and celebrities. Note that I don't find that any better, but your argument of "but they do it too!" doesn't make what he did any better.


tu quoque - the last bastion of the troll. See, e.g., the Republican Party

/sorry too much time in the politics tab
 
2012-10-19 09:44:27 AM

fluffy2097: digistil: Who said he did anything illegal?

Anyone who isn't on the think of the children bandwagon.


Point one out.
 
2012-10-19 09:44:39 AM

willfullyobscure: UNC_Samurai:

VA didn't do anything illegal, he's just an industrial-grade creep and pervert.

Chen now has a name for himself because of a bunch of useless drama.

Gawker got more hits to their website.


Adrian Chen already has a name for himself; I'm not sure you really appreciate how big the Gawker media property really is. Hint: he's got more name recognition than 98% of all cable news personalities today and a bigger audience to boot. If you stopped 50 random people on the streets of New York City today, its 50/50 they'd know who Shep Smith or Sam Donaldson are. I guarantee they'd recognize Chen.


Yes, I'm aware of how big Gawker is - but for the life of me I can't understand why it's still a big deal. They make their bread and butter off of cheap yellow journalism. As much as I enjoy Deadspin, they made their name off of a sex boat scandal, a line Chris Berman dropped picking up a woman in a bar, and pictures of Matt Leinart in a hot tub. They're essentially a geekier, more passive version of TMZ.
 
2012-10-19 09:45:11 AM

candiru.fish: How do you call someone a motherfarker using semaphore, asking for a friend.


http://www.wxs.ca/applets/semaphore/
 
2012-10-19 09:46:10 AM

HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: digistil: Who said he did anything illegal?

Anyone who isn't on the think of the children bandwagon.

Point one out.


The police said he did nothing wrong. Or he'd be under arrest.

I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.
 
2012-10-19 09:46:53 AM

UNC_Samurai: but for the life of me I can't understand why it's still a big deal.


Given the world we live in, with its honey boo boos, and justin beibers and real housewives of who the fark cares, i figure attempting to determine why something is popular tends to devolve to:

a) its awsome!

or

b) we all suck as a species.

it tends to be one of the two
 
2012-10-19 09:47:19 AM

candiru.fish: How do you call someone a motherfarker using semaphore, asking for a friend.


It involves 4 flags and some weird thrusting maneuvers.
 
2012-10-19 09:47:56 AM

Teiritzamna: http://www.wxs.ca/applets/semaphore/


My friend says thank you!
 
2012-10-19 09:48:15 AM
He should have hidden behind seven proxies.
 
2012-10-19 09:48:42 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 don't pretend or assume anonymity on the Internet. I don't post pictures sexualizing children. I'm pretty sure I'm okay.
 
2012-10-19 09:48:57 AM
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
(hot)

"I was just following orders"
 
2012-10-19 09:49:56 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: UNC_Samurai: VA didn't do anything illegal, he's just an industrial-grade creep and pervert.

And the backlash he's suffering isn't criminal, it's social.

I don't get why you people think the legality of this has anything to do with anything. It doesn't matter of if it was legal, it's severely morally wrong, it was exploitative of innocent people and it was socially unacceptable. He knew this. He knew that if his cover was blown there would be consequences. He chose to do it anyway and, more importantly to your whining about Gawker, he chose to do it in a way that made a lot of people very angry at him and greatly increased the odds that someone would seek him out and expose him.

It's bad enough if you're going to to choose to crawl around in the filth on the underbelly of the internet, but you REALLY lose any possible sympathy for your self-imposed plight if you choose to try and force your crap on everyone else just to piss them off.

He chose to be a vile, exploitative asshole and he chose to make people angry and draw intense attention to himself. The only person in any of this that looks bad is the guy who is bad and the guy who enjoyed the attention for being bad right up until all the scrutiny he chose to bring to himself had negative consequences.

This is akin to someone dancing around naked on the center median of the highway and biatching and whining that people keep looking at you. If you don't want scrutiny, don't do shiat that attracts attention or at the very least don't make it a POINT to draw as much attention to what you're doing as you possibly can.


First of all, I'm not whining about Gawker. I'm just saying what everyone else knows - their site is bad and they should feel bad.

And I've never said he doesn't deserve the mess he's gotten himself into. What I'm trying to say is that nobody in this story has much in the way of redeeming qualities.

My only real complaint is when people on Fark start an anti-Reddit circlejerk. People with glass Politics Tabs shouldn't throw stones.
 
2012-10-19 09:50:06 AM
You know who else sexualizes children and nobody cares about? TLC.

whinesisters.com

These people make money though, so they aren't creepy pedophiles. Lets glorify their lives.
 
2012-10-19 09:50:58 AM

Teiritzamna: UNC_Samurai: but for the life of me I can't understand why it's still a big deal.

Given the world we live in, with its honey boo boos, and justin beibers and real housewives of who the fark cares, i figure attempting to determine why something is popular tends to devolve to:

a) its awsome!

or

b) we all suck as a species.

it tends to be one of the two


We need a "Sad but True" button.
 
2012-10-19 09:51:29 AM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: digistil: Who said he did anything illegal?

Anyone who isn't on the think of the children bandwagon.

Point one out.

The police said he did nothing wrong. Or he'd be under arrest.

I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.


No. Point out someone who said he did do something illegal.

"Illegal" and "wrong" are not synonyms.
 
2012-10-19 09:52:30 AM

fluffy2097: You know who else sexualizes children and nobody cares about? TLC.


A lot of people care. A lot of people find it despicable. But the parents consent to this, and society has determined that these particular set of circumstances are ok.

And you've never answered my question. Would you tell people close to you in your life you frequented boards like /jailbait /chokeabiatch /rapebait etc.?
 
2012-10-19 09:52:45 AM

HeartBurnKid: No. Point out someone who said he did do something illegal.


Everyone calling him a pedophile is accusing him of illegal acts.

Being a pedophile is illegal.

Jesus Christ you're denser then lead.
 
2012-10-19 09:53:30 AM

fluffy2097: Everyone calling him a pedophile is accusing him of illegal acts.


He's asking you for specifics.
 
2012-10-19 09:53:45 AM

HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: digistil: Who said he did anything illegal?

Anyone who isn't on the think of the children bandwagon.

Point one out.


A few people on this this thread have claimed that some of what he did was illegal when he posted pics himself. But generally most people have been walking a line by saying "Potentially illegal" or "possibly illegal" rather than outright stating that he did anything illegal.

Me, I'm quite happy that he's getting treated this way. No sympathy for him in the least. About the only thing that would bring me onto his side is if what he did turned out to be perfectly legal (if morally reprehensible) and the government decided to get involved to prosecute him anyway, changing the laws, misapplying the laws or outright ignoring the laws just to put him in jail. That's where I would start to support him.

But the social backlash against him? r/crysomemore , r/worldstiniestviolin , r/awwpoorbaby, etc.
 
2012-10-19 09:54:48 AM

UNC_Samurai: willfullyobscure: UNC_Samurai:

VA didn't do anything illegal, he's just an industrial-grade creep and pervert.

Chen now has a name for himself because of a bunch of useless drama.

Gawker got more hits to their website.


Adrian Chen already has a name for himself; I'm not sure you really appreciate how big the Gawker media property really is. Hint: he's got more name recognition than 98% of all cable news personalities today and a bigger audience to boot. If you stopped 50 random people on the streets of New York City today, its 50/50 they'd know who Shep Smith or Sam Donaldson are. I guarantee they'd recognize Chen.

Yes, I'm aware of how big Gawker is - but for the life of me I can't understand why it's still a big deal. They make their bread and butter off of cheap yellow journalism. As much as I enjoy Deadspin, they made their name off of a sex boat scandal, a line Chris Berman dropped picking up a woman in a bar, and pictures of Matt Leinart in a hot tub. They're essentially a geekier, more passive version of TMZ.


Twas ever thus. Nellie Bly would like a word...
 
2012-10-19 09:54:59 AM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: No. Point out someone who said he did do something illegal.

Everyone calling him a pedophile is accusing him of illegal acts.

Being a pedophile is illegal.

Jesus Christ you're denser then lead.


No, being a pedophile is not illegal. Having sex with children is illegal, but if you're a pedophile who never actually acts on his urges, you've done nothing illegal.

And if I'm denser than lead, you must be denser than a black freaking hole.
 
2012-10-19 09:56:43 AM

Techhell: Me, I'm quite happy that he's getting treated this way. No sympathy for him in the least. About the only thing that would bring me onto his side is if what he did turned out to be perfectly legal (if morally reprehensible) and the government decided to get involved to prosecute him anyway, changing the laws, misapplying the laws or outright ignoring the laws just to put him in jail. That's where I would start to support him.


So mob justice is cool, but it's wrong for the law to get involved. ಠ_ಠ
 
2012-10-19 09:58:08 AM

fluffy2097: So mob justice is cool, but it's wrong for the law to get involved. ಠ_ಠ


I don't think you know what "mob justice" means. Much like you don't know what "illegal" means.
 
2012-10-19 09:58:09 AM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: No. Point out someone who said he did do something illegal.

Everyone calling him a pedophile is accusing him of illegal acts.

Being a pedophile is illegal.

Jesus Christ you're denser then lead.


Is being a pedo illegal, or actually acting on those impulses illegal?
 
2012-10-19 09:59:23 AM

fluffy2097: Everyone calling him a pedophile is accusing him of illegal acts.


Not to defend this guy (or pedophiles in general), but:

A pedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.
This, in and of itself, is not illegal.
 
2012-10-19 10:01:20 AM

fluffy2097: You know who else sexualizes children and nobody cares about? TLC.

[whinesisters.com image 263x400]

These people make money though, so they aren't creepy pedophiles. Lets glorify their lives.


That, and they make these girls look like midgets in their late 30s. What is the point of taking someone who is young and then making them look like someone who is older trying to look like someone who is younger?
 
2012-10-19 10:01:21 AM

Techhell: fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: No. Point out someone who said he did do something illegal.

Everyone calling him a pedophile is accusing him of illegal acts.

Being a pedophile is illegal.

Jesus Christ you're denser then lead.

Is being a pedo illegal, or actually acting on those impulses illegal?



Does it matter? Lets kill them all and destroy all their lives! It's fun because they aren't human and don't deserve the same protections granted to all men.
 
2012-10-19 10:02:11 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: That, and they make these girls look like midgets in their late 30s. What is the point of taking someone who is young and then making them look like someone who is older trying to look like someone who is younger?


I don't know, ask their creepy ass parents.

Or better yet, publish their personal information online.
 
2012-10-19 10:02:29 AM
AARRRGGGH. I had to take a shower after just looking at that picture.

Aarontology: reddit's policy on how someone becomes a moderator doesn't excuse them from allowing this f*cked up subreddits to exist for so long.


I was following a big flamewar about this on another site. A woman--yes, a woman, and she was even more obnoxious than I am--said that it wasn't Reddit's fault, they didn't really know what was posted on those subreddits, and SHE was a moderator, and blaming her for something going on on another subreddit that she didn't even read was as stupid as blaming anyone for perverted shiat posted on other websites.

I said that if I gave my car to a drunk teenager and he plowed it into a busload of orphans, it might not be my fault, but I sure as hell had some responsibility for it.

Reddit supplied the means, the bandwidth, the audience....they're responsible. Not to mention that those subreddits have names like "beatingwomen" (the one I looked at, briefly, before I closed that shiat forever), because that's entirely hidden and how could anyone know?
 
2012-10-19 10:03:34 AM

HeartBurnKid: I think we've exited black hole dense and entered the realm of objects purely theoretical.


Like VC's guilt? ಠ_ಠ
 
2012-10-19 10:03:34 AM

fluffy2097: Does it matter? Lets kill them all and destroy all their lives! It's fun because they aren't human and don't deserve the same protections granted to all men.


Point out one person who advocated killing him. Please. 

I love this idea that I'm supposed to sympathize because some dumbass troll got outed. It's hilarious. Cry some more.
 
2012-10-19 10:04:11 AM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: I think we've exited black hole dense and entered the realm of objects purely theoretical.

Like VC's guilt? ಠ_ಠ


qq moar.
 
2012-10-19 10:04:24 AM

fluffy2097: LouDobbsAwaaaay: That, and they make these girls look like midgets in their late 30s. What is the point of taking someone who is young and then making them look like someone who is older trying to look like someone who is younger?

I don't know, ask their creepy ass parents.

Or better yet, publish their personal information online.


i47.tinypic.com

/srsly
//it's embarrassing to witness
 
2012-10-19 10:05:05 AM

HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: Does it matter? Lets kill them all and destroy all their lives! It's fun because they aren't human and don't deserve the same protections granted to all men.

Point out one person who advocated killing him. Please. 

I love this idea that I'm supposed to sympathize because some dumbass troll got outed. It's hilarious. Cry some more.


You did yesterday. Should I pull the link or do you just want to be quiet now.
 
2012-10-19 10:05:13 AM

HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: WhippingBoy: A pedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.
This, in and of itself, is not illegal.

So you are now defending him. You must be a pedo too.

[media.tumblr.com image 256x256]

I think we've exited black hole dense and entered the realm of objects purely theoretical.


I don't think he missed the point. I think he's illustrating how witch hunts get started...
 
2012-10-19 10:05:50 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Free speech doesn't mean consequence free.


This needs to get said a lot.
 
2012-10-19 10:05:57 AM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: Does it matter? Lets kill them all and destroy all their lives! It's fun because they aren't human and don't deserve the same protections granted to all men.

Point out one person who advocated killing him. Please. 

I love this idea that I'm supposed to sympathize because some dumbass troll got outed. It's hilarious. Cry some more.

You did yesterday. Should I pull the link or do you just want to be quiet now.


Go ahead. Pull it. I want to see this.
 
2012-10-19 10:06:55 AM

WhippingBoy: HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: WhippingBoy: A pedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.
This, in and of itself, is not illegal.

So you are now defending him. You must be a pedo too.

[media.tumblr.com image 256x256]

I think we've exited black hole dense and entered the realm of objects purely theoretical.

I don't think he missed the point. I think he's illustrating how witch hunts get started...


Huh? Someone did something truly despicable, owned up to it, and got socially lambasted for it is now ==to women getting hung and wrongly accused of things they did not do?
 
2012-10-19 10:07:31 AM
I think Fark needs to ban fluffy2097 quick. Not because of what he's posting per se, but because the derp is so dense that it may very well threaten to gravitationally collapse the Fark servers if it goes on much longer. o_0
 
2012-10-19 10:07:49 AM

HeartBurnKid: Murder the pedo


/hey look I can make shiat up just like Chen!
//better Doxx me and call me a pedophile
///Oh wait, I've already been CALLED a pedophile in this thread
////Why don't you call anderson cooper on me. I'm a pedo because some guy on the internet said so and i once visited a porno site
//Sometimes I say queermo too.
 
2012-10-19 10:09:04 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I think Fark needs to ban fluffy2097 quick. Not because of what he's posting per se, but because the derp is so dense that it may very well threaten to gravitationally collapse the Fark servers if it goes on much longer. o_0


Thank you for helping to prove that this angry internet mob is retarded and reactionary.
 
2012-10-19 10:09:25 AM

fluffy2097: Got nothiin'


I know.

fluffy2097: /hey look I can make shiat up just like Chen!


What did Chen say that was untrue. Be specific.

/I love you, you wonderful, terrible spaz.
 
2012-10-19 10:09:46 AM
Question to more legal minded farkers: If the government decided to try him under obscenity laws would they have a case? If the standard is what is acceptable in his community would the jury pool be made up of people where he lives or were reddit is hosted?
 
2012-10-19 10:10:06 AM

fluffy2097: Vegan Meat Popsicle: I think Fark needs to ban fluffy2097 quick. Not because of what he's posting per se, but because the derp is so dense that it may very well threaten to gravitationally collapse the Fark servers if it goes on much longer. o_0

Thank you for helping to prove that this angry internet mob is retarded and reactionary.


It was a joke, cupcake. Simmer down. No one is banning you.
 
2012-10-19 10:10:43 AM

fluffy2097: Techhell: Me, I'm quite happy that he's getting treated this way. No sympathy for him in the least. About the only thing that would bring me onto his side is if what he did turned out to be perfectly legal (if morally reprehensible) and the government decided to get involved to prosecute him anyway, changing the laws, misapplying the laws or outright ignoring the laws just to put him in jail. That's where I would start to support him.

So mob justice is cool, but it's wrong for the law to get involved. ಠ_ಠ


It`s a case by case basis. As long as the mob isn't doing anything illegal, "mob justice" can be acceptable. Actions have consequences, sometimes legal, sometimes social.
 
2012-10-19 10:10:46 AM

fluffy2097: Vegan Meat Popsicle: I think Fark needs to ban fluffy2097 quick. Not because of what he's posting per se, but because the derp is so dense that it may very well threaten to gravitationally collapse the Fark servers if it goes on much longer. o_0

Thank you for helping to prove that this angry internet mob is retarded and reactionary.


The only "angry internet mob" I see is the one that is QQing about Chen outing a troll.
 
2012-10-19 10:11:01 AM

fluffy2097: So mob justice is cool, but it's wrong for the law to get involved. ಠ_ಠ


Social opprobrium for socially disreputable acts is . . . well i dont really feel the word "cool" applies, but it sure is real.

Hypo time!

I can dislike you because you like the TV show "Toddlers in Tiaras." I can decide that i don't want to associate with anyone who likes that show. If everyone in the city of, lets say Boston, agreed with me and decided that they weren't going to hang out with anyone who did like that show. You, knowing this, decided to set up a fan site for the show anyway. the good (?) people of Boston learn that you set up said site. They then, en masse decide that you are beneath contempt and refuse to have anything to do with someone who likes such drivel.

1) You did nothing illegal - you have all the right in the world to set up that site, and still do
2) the people of Boston have done nothing illegal - they have every right in the world to think what they want, and right now they dislike you
3) at no point has your site been banned, at no point have your rights been infringed, at no point are you any less free than you were before you set up the site

This is how the system works - you get rights, they get rights. The use of your rights may trigger reactions wherein they use their rights. Rights for all means that sometimes, you need to determine if the social cost of standing on your rights is worth it. If you feel like making a stand and proudly saying i love that show! go for it! But know that the majority of people around you will dislike you for it.
 
2012-10-19 10:11:10 AM

HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: Got nothiin'

I know.

fluffy2097: /hey look I can make shiat up just like Chen!

What did Chen say that was untrue. Be specific.

/I love you, you wonderful, terrible spaz.



I don't have to be specific because think of the children

THINK OF THE CHILDREN GODDAMNIT AND BELIEVE MY RIDICULOUS LIES! I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING! INSINUATION IS GOOD ENOUGH!
 
2012-10-19 10:12:29 AM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: Got nothiin'

I know.

fluffy2097: /hey look I can make shiat up just like Chen!

What did Chen say that was untrue. Be specific.

/I love you, you wonderful, terrible spaz.


I don't have to be specific because think of the children

THINK OF THE CHILDREN GODDAMNIT AND BELIEVE MY RIDICULOUS LIES! I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING! INSINUATION IS GOOD ENOUGH!


Why are you avoiding my question?
 
2012-10-19 10:12:38 AM

namegoeshere: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Free speech doesn't mean consequence free.

This needs to get said a lot.


Agreed.

Free speech doesn't mean consequence free.
 
2012-10-19 10:13:07 AM

gulogulo: Why are you avoiding my question?


Why are you hiding behind your username.

/my real name is fluffy don't you know
//last name twenty ninety seven
 
2012-10-19 10:13:42 AM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: Got nothiin'

I know.

fluffy2097: /hey look I can make shiat up just like Chen!

What did Chen say that was untrue. Be specific.

/I love you, you wonderful, terrible spaz.


I don't have to be specific because think of the children

THINK OF THE CHILDREN GODDAMNIT AND BELIEVE MY RIDICULOUS LIES! I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING! INSINUATION IS GOOD ENOUGH!


Aren't you precious.

Well, I got work. Keep QQing, and put the tears on ice for me. They're delicious.
 
2012-10-19 10:14:28 AM

fluffy2097: gulogulo: Why are you avoiding my question?

Why are you hiding behind your username.

/my real name is fluffy don't you know
//last name twenty ninety seven


I'm not the one making claims that actions should have zero social consequences. I understand that, hence i remain anonymous. You are claiming otherwise, so ...why not go public?
 
2012-10-19 10:14:31 AM

HeartBurnKid: Well, I got work


Doubt it.
 
2012-10-19 10:15:21 AM

fluffy2097: It's fun because they aren't human and don't deserve the same protections granted to all men.


See above - VA still has allthe rights he had before. He has the right to say what he wanted before he became a moderator of some dubious reddit sites. He still haws the right to say what he wants.

What you are mad about is that everyone else also has rights. In this case, the right to dislike VA for what he said/did, and the right to not want to associate with him. You cannot have it both ways, rights for those i agree with but none for others.
 
2012-10-19 10:15:33 AM

gulogulo: I'm not the one making claims that actions should have zero social consequences. I understand that, hence i remain anonymous. You are claiming otherwise, so ...why not go public?


So you're claiming your anonymous actions would have social consequences?

Jesus Christ you must do some farked up shiat online that you have to hide your internet life from your real life. You some kind of pedo?
 
2012-10-19 10:15:56 AM

fluffy2097: Vegan Meat Popsicle: I think Fark needs to ban fluffy2097 quick. Not because of what he's posting per se, but because the derp is so dense that it may very well threaten to gravitationally collapse the Fark servers if it goes on much longer. o_0
Thank you for helping to prove that this angry internet mob is retarded and reactionary.


Son, never go full retard. That post was about as serious as cat pictures. And you know it.

Is there something we need to know about you? Reddit moderator, maybe?
 
2012-10-19 10:16:04 AM

gulogulo: fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: Got nothiin'

I know.

fluffy2097: /hey look I can make shiat up just like Chen!

What did Chen say that was untrue. Be specific.

/I love you, you wonderful, terrible spaz.


I don't have to be specific because think of the children

THINK OF THE CHILDREN GODDAMNIT AND BELIEVE MY RIDICULOUS LIES! I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING! INSINUATION IS GOOD ENOUGH!

Why are you avoiding my question?


He started off being full of derp, got called for it, then someone theorized that he was actually trying to show how witch hunts start and now he seems to have decided that this was what he was trying to do all along in a "To be sure of hitting your target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target." sort of way. That's why he can avoid any and all questions, look like he's full of derp and then pass it off as "I'm just being the derpy guy who starts a witch hunt by being derpy."
 
2012-10-19 10:16:29 AM
"He has a gift for pushing buddins"


I hate it when people say buddins instead of buttons.
 
2012-10-19 10:17:50 AM

ModernLuddite: As someone who only went on Reddit like 5 minutes ago for the first time, I am having a hard time understanding this situation.

To me, it just sounds like one of those internet dramas that only users of a specific forum get into has spilled out into the real world. Please correct me, though.

//I'm not saying he doesn't sound like an idiot.
///I'm just saying that internet != real life.


imagine if a popular tfer(pick your favorites) was outed as the guy behind one of the the more controversial trolls here on fark (pick your favorite/least whatever) and was moderator, and that said troll was creepy as fark while the "normal" account was very damn helpful. To make it more dramatic the outing was performed made as sensational as possible

/don't kill me moderator
//only been on reddit for a couple of weeks myself before this shiat backflushed everywhere
 
2012-10-19 10:19:57 AM
It's rare to see someone flame-out as entertainingly as fluffy2097 appears to be doing right now. It's like half "just snarkin', guiz!!!" and half setting up a future insanity defense.
 
2012-10-19 10:22:34 AM

willfullyobscure: Adrian Chen already has a name for himself; I'm not sure you really appreciate how big the Gawker media property really is. Hint: he's got more name recognition than 98% of all cable news personalities today and a bigger audience to boot. If you stopped 50 random people on the streets of New York City today, its 50/50 they'd know who Shep Smith or Sam Donaldson are. I guarantee they'd recognize Chen.


Do you work for gawker ? Cause except for some guys on Jalopnik(and only because they worked in or on media I was already following) I don't think I could name anybody who works for them
 
2012-10-19 10:23:03 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: It's rare to see someone flame-out as entertainingly as fluffy2097 appears to be doing right now. It's like half "just snarkin', guiz!!!" and half setting up a future insanity defense.


It's like watching someone driving on ice suddenly realize that they have no traction. As long as there's nothing in site to actually crash into, you can't help but giggle at the way they crank the wheel and stomp on the brake as if it's going to have any effect.
 
2012-10-19 10:23:22 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: It's rare to see someone flame-out as entertainingly as fluffy2097 appears to be doing right now. It's like half "just snarkin', guiz!!!" and half setting up a future insanity defense.


At least we are done endlessly repeating

"OMG VC IS SO GROSS"

shiat was boring as hell and nobody was saying anything new.
 
2012-10-19 10:23:48 AM

gulogulo: fluffy2097: You know who else sexualizes children and nobody cares about? TLC.

A lot of people care. A lot of people find it despicable. But the parents consent to this, and society has determined that these particular set of circumstances are ok.

And you've never answered my question. Would you tell people close to you in your life you frequented boards like /jailbait /chokeabiatch /rapebait etc.?


Someone whose name I can't remember once said of freedom: We all have freedom. We are all free to do whatever we want - as long as we are willing to accept the consequences of our actions. Anyone who visits questionable websites or posts socially unacceptable shiat must do so knowing that the anonymity is a lie and it is entirely possible that they will someday be outed as doing so. Even if they are behind seven proxies.

People are free to participate in sick yet legal shiat on line. But that freedom means that people on line are free to out you for doing so, as long as they keep it legal. You can't have one without the other.

The only guarantee that your friends and associates never learn of the deviant shiat you do on line is not to do it.

Otherwise, you do it knowing there is a real possibility that everyone in your life will find out about it.
 
2012-10-19 10:23:52 AM

fluffy2097: Vegan Meat Popsicle: I think Fark needs to ban fluffy2097 quick. Not because of what he's posting per se, but because the derp is so dense that it may very well threaten to gravitationally collapse the Fark servers if it goes on much longer. o_0

Thank you for helping to prove that this angry internet mob is retarded and reactionary.


Says the guy who has posted 15% of all the comments in this thread so far, brought up Toddlers and Tiaras and started randomly accusing other people of advocating murder.
 
2012-10-19 10:25:21 AM
Guess he found out the hard way that the consequences will never be the same once the internet police backtrace you.
 
2012-10-19 10:25:29 AM

loonatic112358: ModernLuddite: As someone who only went on Reddit like 5 minutes ago for the first time, I am having a hard time understanding this situation.

To me, it just sounds like one of those internet dramas that only users of a specific forum get into has spilled out into the real world. Please correct me, though.

//I'm not saying he doesn't sound like an idiot.
///I'm just saying that internet != real life.

imagine if a popular tfer(pick your favorites) was outed as the guy behind one of the the more controversial trolls here on fark (pick your favorite/least whatever) and was moderator, and that said troll was creepy as fark while the "normal" account was very damn helpful. To make it more dramatic the outing was performed made as sensational as possible

/don't kill me moderator
//only been on reddit for a couple of weeks myself before this shiat backflushed everywhere


That wouldn't happen, and can't happen.  It would not be tolerated, nor condoned or ignored.
 
2012-10-19 10:25:29 AM

fluffy2097: At least we are done endlessly repeating

"OMG VC IS SO GROSS"

shiat was boring as hell and nobody was saying anything new.


Yeah now it's more just watching you flail around until you choke on your own fist.
 
2012-10-19 10:26:00 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Says the guy who has posted 15% of all the comments in this thread so far, brought up Toddlers and Tiaras and started randomly accusing other people of advocating murder.


Somebody has to stir the pot or the bottom overcooks and the top is raw.
 
2012-10-19 10:29:12 AM

HeartBurnKid: The only "angry internet mob" I see is the one that is QQing about Chen outing a troll.


what the fark did you just say, can you repeat it for those of us that don't speak redditese?
 
2012-10-19 10:30:59 AM

loonatic112358: HeartBurnKid: The only "angry internet mob" I see is the one that is QQing about Chen outing a troll.

what the fark did you just say, can you repeat it for those of us that don't speak redditese?


QQ == crying

Troll == someone who says things for emotional effect. queermo loser.
 
2012-10-19 10:31:58 AM

fluffy2097: You know who else sexualizes children and nobody cares about? TLC.

[whinesisters.com image 263x400]

These people make money though, so they aren't creepy pedophiles. Lets glorify their lives.


Those shows are retarded and I will insult anyone who watches them. I kind of feel the same way about people who post dead babies and jailbait pictures to reddit. It's not illegal, but it deserves scorn.
 
2012-10-19 10:33:21 AM

fluffy2097: Somebody has to stir the pot or the bottom overcooks and the top is raw.


Ah - good old stage four of a fark meltdown.

1) make a somewhat questionable assertion
2) respond to questions from posters regarding that assertion with increasingly wacky answers
3) turn entire thread into a discussion of what drug you might be on
4) say "ha! It was always my plan to cause all this controversy. you know, for entertainment. really. I mean it."
5) (if flailing meltdown is epic enough) become fark meme

/has to be at the marine core in 26 minutes
 
2012-10-19 10:34:47 AM

Fear_and_Loathing: That wouldn't happen, and can't happen.  It would not be tolerated, nor condoned or ignored.


yes I am aware of that, i was trying to explain to another poster who's probably familiar with fark, but also new to reddit what the hell is going on by using fark as a shiatty analog
 
2012-10-19 10:35:01 AM

Teiritzamna: /has to be at the marine core in 26 minutes


Delete the gym, hit a Lawer and contact Facebook brahski.

/do you even lift brah?
 
2012-10-19 10:35:26 AM

fluffy2097: Troll == someone who says things for emotional effect. queermo loser.


troll I get, we have many many here, it's the qq shiat, and doxxing i'm struggling with
 
2012-10-19 10:35:27 AM

fluffy2097: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Says the guy who has posted 15% of all the comments in this thread so far, brought up Toddlers and Tiaras and started randomly accusing other people of advocating murder.

Somebody has to stir the pot or the bottom overcooks and the top is raw.

 

Uh huh. Trolling. Right.

[whattrollswantyoutobelievecomic.jpg]
 
2012-10-19 10:40:41 AM

ghostwind: ChrisDe: " I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.

What is reddit, again?


It's for people who get all butt hurt when you call someone out and don't appreciate the welcome to fark meme.

/Seriously those people need to get a thicker skin.
//I'd rather share a beer with a farker I hate than meet up with an avg redditor
 
2012-10-19 10:42:43 AM

loonatic112358: fluffy2097: Troll == someone who says things for emotional effect. queermo loser.

troll I get, we have many many here, it's the qq shiat, and doxxing i'm struggling with


doxxing - publishing the real life identification of an internet person. Were I to doxx you, I'd be posting your real (legal) name at the very least, though likely would add things like your address, your place of work, etc.
 
2012-10-19 10:46:59 AM

loonatic112358: fluffy2097: Troll == someone who says things for emotional effect. queermo loser.

troll I get, we have many many here, it's the qq shiat, and doxxing i'm struggling with


qq started back with warcraft2 and has been around for a decade or two. It predates reddit and fark by a good bit.
 
2012-10-19 11:00:49 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.


here is the thing - if a prosecutor decides to bring charges, and wins, cool. If he did illegal things i would like him to be properly punished.

However, my point was addressing the issue that some seem to have that there is a dyad here: either he did something illegal, or he did nothing at all wrong. My argument is that let us assume, arguendo, that he did nothing illegal. Even if that were so, his actions triggered his own firing and our opprobrium, and claiming that he should somehow be protected from the social cost of his actions is silly.
 
2012-10-19 11:07:23 AM
And slasher films promote murder. And D&D promotes satanism.

fark this guy for being a douchebag and an asshole. But the rest of the poutrage and hysterics are asinine.
 
2012-10-19 11:09:32 AM

LowbrowDeluxe: But the rest of the poutrage and hysterics are asinine.


Outside of the people he trolled on reddit, the only people that seem to be having a hysterical fit are all the idiots who are so terribly upset that he got the comeuppance he brought on himself.
 
2012-10-19 11:11:10 AM

HST's Dead Carcass: TV's Vinnie: God dammit. Just admit that you farked up and be a man about it! Stop being a douche.

He's obviously Republican, as they don't apologize for anything..


Your immaturity and knowledge of competing political views is appalling.

And this:

Grow the fark up, NOT EVERY thing is about politics.
But then since your candidate is losing your immature anger on this issue is almost understandable.
 
2012-10-19 11:12:02 AM
Bookmark so I can review Fluffy's link.
 
2012-10-19 11:12:28 AM
A lot of the people bashing on this guy would absolutely sh*t their own pants if their identities were outted. I'm sure the response would be "b-b-b-but I did nothing illegal, I don't deserve this!"...and then, maybe reality will dawn on them...
 
2012-10-19 11:14:17 AM

KiplingKat872: 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.


Where did he get these jailbait picks, says many of them were "stolen", aka copied from facebook profiles. You going to charge the people who originally posted them on facebook? One families beach vacation pics are another persons fap materials.
 
2012-10-19 11:17:53 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: LowbrowDeluxe: But the rest of the poutrage and hysterics are asinine.

Outside of the people he trolled on reddit, the only people that seem to be having a hysterical fit are all the idiots who are so terribly upset that he got the comeuppance he brought on himself.


Yeah it's weird how the internet celebrated JFP being taken down a few hundred pegs, while this guy has so much support. I'm pretty sure if my boss discovered I was running a forum dedicated to upskirt pics I'd be told to pack my things, too.
 
2012-10-19 11:21:34 AM
At this rate, my "Nuke everyone on Reddit" solution may have to extend to Fark...

/Holy crap, some of the derp in the past two threads
 
2012-10-19 11:21:51 AM

loonatic112358: yes I am aware of that, i was trying to explain to another poster who's probably familiar with fark, but also new to reddit what the hell is going on by using fark as a shiatty analog


I was just clarifying for the general populous.
 
Sorry if it came out poorly.
 
2012-10-19 11:25:45 AM

UNC_Samurai: Nobody has come off looking good in this whole mess. Not Violentacrez, not Adrien Chen, not the subreddits that decided to self-righteously boycott Gawker sites, and not Gawker and their pants-on-head-retarded news formatting, and certainly not the outside media trying to report on this entire nonsense.

The bottom line is:

VA didn't do anything illegal, he's just an industrial-grade creep and pervert.

Chen now has a name for himself because of a bunch of useless drama.

Gawker got more hits to their website.

r/shiatredditsays is still a worthless group of self-aggrandizing trolls

r/subredditdrama can't make popcorn fast enough

People on Fark biatching about Reddit and people on Reddit biatching about fark both need to get the ever-loving fark over themselves.


A lot of people made money off of him.
 
2012-10-19 11:26:18 AM

Barricaded Gunman: Bookmark so I can review Fluffy's link.


Oh yeah, that Gawker link. Awesome voyeurism stuff. It's amazing how good Gawker is at posting photos of naked celebrities without their consent. Did you see the hulk hogan sex tape? I'm amazed Bubba's wife could walk after that. Who needs /r/creepshots when you've got Gawker/upskirt
 
2012-10-19 11:27:11 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: A lot of the people bashing on this guy would absolutely sh*t their own pants if their identities were outted. I'm sure the response would be "b-b-b-but I did nothing illegal, I don't deserve this!"...and then, maybe reality will dawn on them...


Conversely, alot of people who are supporting him would be utterly aghast if people they interacted with face to face found out that they support things like r/jailbait and r/picsofdeadjailbait. "But it's free speech, Mom!"
 
2012-10-19 11:27:14 AM

Fear_and_Loathing: I was just clarifying for the general populous.   Sorry if it came out poorly.


we need to stop, we're starting to sound canadian
 
2012-10-19 11:28:17 AM

willfullyobscure: UNC_Samurai:

VA didn't do anything illegal, he's just an industrial-grade creep and pervert.

Chen now has a name for himself because of a bunch of useless drama.

Gawker got more hits to their website.


Adrian Chen already has a name for himself; I'm not sure you really appreciate how big the Gawker media property really is. Hint: he's got more name recognition than 98% of all cable news personalities today and a bigger audience to boot. If you stopped 50 random people on the streets of New York City today, its 50/50 they'd know who Shep Smith or Sam Donaldson are. I guarantee they'd recognize Chen.


I still have no idea who he is...
 
2012-10-19 11:30:26 AM

willfullyobscure: Adrian Chen already has a name for himself; I'm not sure you really appreciate how big the Gawker media property really is. Hint: he's got more name recognition than 98% of all cable news personalities today and a bigger audience to boot. If you stopped 50 random people on the streets of New York City today, its 50/50 they'd know who Shep Smith or Sam Donaldson are. I guarantee they'd recognize Chen.


ROFL. I think we just found Adrian Chen's FARK handle.

/So how's the cancer?
 
2012-10-19 11:34:20 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: LowbrowDeluxe: But the rest of the poutrage and hysterics are asinine.

Outside of the people he trolled on reddit, the only people that seem to be having a hysterical fit are all the idiots who are so terribly upset that he got the comeuppance he brought on himself.


They're scared. If this guy, an internet asshat giant and a model of who they wish they could be, is being forced to face the consequences of his actions then that means that they, lowly internet asshats, aren't safe either. It's a sobering, hard slap of a wake up call.
 
2012-10-19 11:35:59 AM

KiplingKat872: C. Actually, the hypocrisy comes from the people who claim that women in public have no personal boundaries or right oto privacy, yet it is wrong to out someone identity on the internet which is also a public place.


i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-19 11:41:27 AM

KiplingKat872: B.And many pics taken by the people who participate don that board, such as the high school teacher in Georgia who was taking pictures of his students and posting them.

A. Pictures posted on Facebook belong to Facebook. They are not in open domain. He had no legal right to steal pics from there.


Violating facebook's legal policy is a different issue, one that almost nobody cares about other than facebook's legal team. It is not about exploiting minors.
 
2012-10-19 11:42:20 AM

Teiritzamna: 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.

Once again - if you like what VA did, if you feel he is a cool guy - that is your right as an American. You can scrape together money to give him a job so he can keep doing what you like.

It appears, however, the vast majority of people don't like what he does. Why should they be forced to think otherwise?


Despite popular Belief, that many people can be wrong.

The point of defending people(whether you like them or not is irrelevant[though is does clarify the point when you don't agree wit them]) or critiquing consequences, is that it's demonstrative of a sense of civility that goes beyond self, something that's been on the decline lately, despite everyone's supposed love of freedom.

Taste and Morality should never be a democracy. The US was sort of founded on that idea.

I asked in the last thread and I will here too, why do you people hate freedom?

We're not advocating agreeing with what one posts, only respecting his right to do so.

Gay rights advocates don't all want to convince other's that gay sex is the best(though there are some loud outliers that do just that), only that they should be tolerated and treated fairly by society and their employer based on what they do on the job, not what they do legally with their private lives.
 
2012-10-19 11:45:14 AM

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


There's a life outside the internet?
(Also, damnit, this thread again...)
 
2012-10-19 11:47:33 AM

omeganuepsilon: Derp.


Oh look, you again. Equating his self-outing and the consequences to gay rights.

You are despicable.
 
2012-10-19 11:50:24 AM

gulogulo: omeganuepsilon: Derp.

Oh look, you again. Equating his self-outing and the consequences to gay rights.

You are despicable.


Seriously.

I'd tie it to Muslim fanaticism.

A 14 year old girl was shot in the head recently because of the moral outrage she caused by speaking her mind about the blasphemous idea of education for women.

How long till we get there too?
 
2012-10-19 11:52:09 AM

fluffy2097: A 14 year old girl was shot in the head recently because of the moral outrage she caused by speaking her mind about the blasphemous idea of education for women.


Way to cheapen her by comparing her to this douche. He's not getting shot at. NO ONE is advocating murdering him.

You are a troll.
 
2012-10-19 11:52:17 AM
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy oh and THIS

KiplingKat872: C. Actually, the hypocrisy comes from the people who claim that women in public have no personal boundaries or right oto privacy, yet it is wrong to out someone identity on the internet which is also a public place.

 
2012-10-19 11:53:51 AM
Reddit is entertaining but the majority of users on there are as dumb as sack of door knobs. Worse than Fark if you can imagine that. :)
 
2012-10-19 11:55:56 AM

Teiritzamna: fluffy2097: Somebody has to stir the pot or the bottom overcooks and the top is raw.

Ah - good old stage four of a fark meltdown.

1) make a somewhat questionable assertion
2) respond to questions from posters regarding that assertion with increasingly wacky answers
3) turn entire thread into a discussion of what drug you might be on
4) say "ha! It was always my plan to cause all this controversy. you know, for entertainment. really. I mean it."
5) (if flailing meltdown is epic enough) become fark meme

/has to be at the marine core in 26 minutes


This post was exceedingly entertaining, and I will be stealing it for future use.



DrewCurtisJr: KiplingKat872: 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.

Where did he get these jailbait picks, says many of them were "stolen", aka copied from facebook profiles. You going to charge the people who originally posted them on facebook? One families beach vacation pics are another persons fap materials.


Ya, I have a 5 month old daughter and I am currently formulating my plan to prevent her from ever discovering that the internet exists. One of the recurring issues is how to stop my plan from gloriously self-destructing in the most horrible way possible.
 
2012-10-19 12:04:21 PM
I am not siding with the perv, but fark Gawker(gizmodo) with their pro-Apple anti-Microsoft spin.
 
2012-10-19 12:07:00 PM

KiplingKat872: What this man was about exploiting minors and he had no legal or ethical/moral right to take those pictures from Facebook and pervert their intent.


You originally wrote, "Anyone who posted candid pics of minors from California for his "jailbait' board broke state law", I'm questioning whether context is applicable if some re-posts are pictures "safe" enough to be facebook and in many cases uploaded by the subject or the subject's family.
 
2012-10-19 12:10:49 PM

omeganuepsilon: I asked in the last thread and I will here too, why do you people hate freedom?

We're not advocating agreeing with what one posts, only respecting his right to do so.


He has a perfect right to post whatever he wants to post. So does Adrian Chen.
 
2012-10-19 12:11:39 PM
I don't think there's a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet, especially for someone who interacts with the Reddit community IRL as well as online. Something that most people learn early on is that there are often consequences to your actions, and if you go about being a total dick, chances are someone's going to call you on it. Gawker didn't out random people, they outed someone who gets off on the misery of others. I say good on Gawker for dox'ing the guy, maybe it'll remind people that the internet isn't anonymous.
 
2012-10-19 12:11:41 PM

TV's Vinnie: God dammit. Just admit that you farked up and be a man about it! Stop being a douche.


I'm not sorry to say that I can't feel for either group. The guy is a farking troll, and he posted nasty stuff. Welcome to the Intarwebs. Would you like a tissue?

Same goes for him, he posted crap that offended people. Boo-freaking-hoo that it caught up with you in real life. Would you like a tissue?
 
2012-10-19 12:11:48 PM

omeganuepsilon: Teiritzamna: 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.

Once again - if you like what VA did, if you feel he is a cool guy - that is your right as an American. You can scrape together money to give him a job so he can keep doing what you like.

It appears, however, the vast majority of people don't like what he does. Why should they be forced to think otherwise?

Despite popular Belief, that many people can be wrong.

The point of defending people(whether you like them or not is irrelevant[though is does clarify the point when you don't agree wit them]) or critiquing consequences, is that it's demonstrative of a sense of civility that goes beyond self, something that's been on the decline lately, despite everyone's supposed love of freedom.

Taste and Morality should never be a democracy. The US was sort of founded on that idea.

I asked in the last thread and I will here too, why do you people hate freedom?

We're not advocating agreeing with what one posts, only respecting his right to do so.

Gay rights advocates don't all want to convince other's that gay sex is the best(though there are some loud outliers that do just that), only that they should be tolerated and treated fairly by society and their employer based on what they do on the job, not what they do legally with their private lives.


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?

If you will note, above i have discussed that at no point has VA's rights been infringed. Assuming, arguendo, that he does not break the law, then he has 100% the right to post what he wants on the internet, or say what he wants on the street. Under the constitution i would defend his right to say awful things till the cows come home. However, everyone has rights. As has been stated ad infinitum, saying that he gets the right to say whatever he wants, but that no one else has the right to a) dislike him for it or b) not want to associate with him for it is not supporting freedom, it is in fact supporting the argument that only people you agree with get rights.

As to the gay rights advocate argument, i would assume your analogy would be more correct if we assume that Alice is a lesbian. Alice works for Bob. Alice is a diligent worker. Alice also runs a website called deadbreeders.org which displays 100% legal crime scene pics of head heterosexual couples and 100% legal lesbian porn. Bob finds out about Alice's website when a local news story indicates that Alice is the site runner. Bob fires Alice.

This is the analogous scenario because VA did not to something "private" he was involved in the wide distribution of materials to many many people in a public forum. Bob is not firing Alice because she is gay, an immutable factor of who she is - he is firing her because she made public statements that would reflect badly on Bob's company.

There is no right to be protected from the dislike of others; freedom does not mean all others must do what you want.
 
2012-10-19 12:15:22 PM
Why is this in the geek section? Is that where the pedophiles hang out?
 
2012-10-19 12:24:33 PM

Toy_Cop: Reddit is entertaining but the majority of users on there are as dumb as sack of door knobs. Worse than Fark if you can imagine that. :)


THIS
 
2012-10-19 12:30:09 PM

KiplingKat872: And Facebook policy states that the accounts of minors are locked down to "friends only," so how did he get those pics?


You just made several posts about people misusing pictures in violation of facebook's policy and then question how other user's using facebook and violating policy? 9 times out of 10 kids know more about facebook than the parents.

KiplingKat872: Yes, they broke both California state law that prohibits the use of pictures of minors without the consent of a legal guardian and Facebook's copyright laws.


So when a teen takes a picture of herself and her friends and posts it on the internet she is breaking the law because she doesn't have the consent of her friends parents?
 
2012-10-19 12:37:29 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: TV's Vinnie: God dammit. Just admit that you farked up and be a man about it! Stop being a douche.

He's obviously Republican, as they don't apologize for anything.

In truth, he's just milking this for everything it's worth. I'm confident he has an Internet Addiction, and he somehow thinks he's gone meta with his posts and is 'popular' in real life now. Some trolls will try to spin everything going on into a troll attempt. Somewhere in his brain, he's honest in his belief he's some kind of hero and has brought 'it' up a notch. What 'it' is is anybody's guess, but he needs help. He doesn't think what he has done is wrong, and is only remorseful he doesn't get paid to ignore work and post on Reddit anymore.

He's a hypocrite! Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a thread in the Politics I need to get back to.


I didn't realize thing was a political thing.
 
2012-10-19 12:38:14 PM

ModernLuddite: As someone who only went on Reddit like 5 minutes ago for the first time, I am having a hard time understanding this situation.

To me, it just sounds like one of those internet dramas that only users of a specific forum get into has spilled out into the real world. Please correct me, though.

//I'm not saying he doesn't sound like an idiot.
///I'm just saying that internet != real life.




You should do some more reading...
 
2012-10-19 12:39:10 PM

James!: ghostwind: ChrisDe: " I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.

What is reddit, again?

It's kind of like Fark for pedophiles.


Now that I think about it, we've been saying this for years, haven't we?
Turns out it was true... I'll be damned.
 
2012-10-19 12:42:30 PM

ghostwind: ChrisDe: " I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.

What is reddit, again?


/b/-lite
 
2012-10-19 12:49:59 PM

KiplingKat872: I'm not sure how that works, you will have ot ask a lawyer, but it certainly does not give this guy the legal right to take those pics and post them to "jailbait" board without the consent of their legal guardian. That argument boarders on "she asked for it."


I'm not sure how that works either, that's why I asked the question. I'm saying anyone asked for it, I'm questioning if the same picture, when moved from facebook to jailbait could turn from family digital photo album to child exploitation.


So, what it your point? This guy violated Facebook policy by using pictures of minors with facebook's legal consent, and if these accounts are accessible to the public, Facebook has some big problems to correct.


You questioned how these people get the photos because facebook policies in place, I'm saying that it may be a slight possibility that a minor or two may be violating facebook policies. What kind of age verification does fb do when you open an account? Does it just ask you to enter your D.O.B.?
 
2012-10-19 01:31:59 PM

ModernLuddite: As someone who only went on Reddit like 5 minutes ago for the first time, I am having a hard time understanding this situation.

To me, it just sounds like one of those internet dramas that only users of a specific forum get into has spilled out into the real world. Please correct me, though.

//I'm not saying he doesn't sound like an idiot.
///I'm just saying that internet != real life.


This is sorta' how I thought of it.

From what I've gathered so far, he is a scumbag, smut peddler. Not a new thing on the interwebs.*

and...

a 1/10 troll. With his M/O being: spouting vile crap a teenage boy might come up with.*

So the story seems a bit overblown IMHO.

*- Also of note: reddit seems to be a free for all, and the stuff he posted had to be specifically sought after.
 
2012-10-19 01:52:38 PM
The Rape Culture made him do it. How could he resist?
 
2012-10-19 02:09:06 PM

KiplingKat872: Are you truly suggesting that the minors in these photos are somehow responsible for this guy taking them and distributing them for the purposes of sexual gratification?

That's sick.


I'm saying these minors may be getting around facebook policies using various methods to circumvent parental controls.


KiplingKat872: BTW - Facebook does ask you to enter a DOB.


My mistake, certainly no way around that kind of verification.

KiplingKat872: ...wow, that's some serious derpitude right there. Pedophiles like to jerk off to family pictures of children, does that mean that the family is at fault?


Why are you hung up on fault? You are the one who claimed the posters would be violating some state law for posting candid pictures of minors.
 
2012-10-19 02:10:02 PM
From what I have read so far it seems that he wasn't into that sort of stuff but rather just became a moderator for the people who were.
 
2012-10-19 02:11:55 PM
You know, I didn't think the "Think of the children" garbage could get any worse after the reaction of "nuke the city from orbit" we got from Sandusky. But yet here we are.
 
2012-10-19 02:12:34 PM
Wow.. Talk about a stereotype look.. LOL fat fark..
 
2012-10-19 02:43:48 PM

HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: No. Point out someone who said he did do something illegal.

Everyone calling him a pedophile is accusing him of illegal acts.

Being a pedophile is illegal.

Jesus Christ you're denser then lead.

No, being a pedophile is not illegal. Having sex with children is illegal, but if you're a pedophile who never actually acts on his urges, you've done nothing illegal.

And if I'm denser than lead, you must be denser than a black freaking hole.


You are not entirely correct. Child porn is illegal. Even if you have never had sex with a child, if you collect child porn, you are a pedophile.
 
2012-10-19 02:55:42 PM

SundaesChild: You are not entirely correct. Child porn is illegal. Even if you have never had sex with a child, if you collect child porn, you are a pedophile.


If you get caught with child pornography you will be charged with possession and maybe distribution of child pornography. You won't be charged with being a pedophile, it doesn't matter if you are or not. You may be in possession of it because you sell it.
 
2012-10-19 02:56:24 PM

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


He's also not getting prosecuted for anything.

It's not illegal to fark around on your wife, but that doesn't mean you can do it without any repercussions.

Trolls crave attention, and he finally got more than he can handle.
 
2012-10-19 02:58:16 PM

UNC_Samurai: People on Fark biatching about Reddit and people on Reddit biatching about fark both need to get the ever-loving fark over themselves.


Perhaps a Farker biatching about Fark biatcing about Reddit and biatching about Reddit biatching about Fark needs to start with himself.
 
2012-10-19 02:58:25 PM

DrewCurtisJr: SundaesChild: You are not entirely correct. Child porn is illegal. Even if you have never had sex with a child, if you collect child porn, you are a pedophile.

If you get caught with child pornography you will be charged with possession and maybe distribution of child pornography. You won't be charged with being a pedophile, it doesn't matter if you are or not. You may be in possession of it because you sell it.


Okay, but he was saying if you haven't had sex with a child then you've done nothing illegal. Which is not true.
 
2012-10-19 03:01:03 PM

SundaesChild: DrewCurtisJr: SundaesChild: You are not entirely correct. Child porn is illegal. Even if you have never had sex with a child, if you collect child porn, you are a pedophile.

If you get caught with child pornography you will be charged with possession and maybe distribution of child pornography. You won't be charged with being a pedophile, it doesn't matter if you are or not. You may be in possession of it because you sell it.

Okay, but he was saying if you haven't had sex with a child then you've done nothing illegal. Which is not necessarily true.


FTFM
 
2012-10-19 03:19:23 PM
UNC_Samurai
People on Fark biatching about Reddit and people on Reddit biatching about fark both need to get the ever-loving fark over themselves.

farking this. I've been a Farker longer than 97% of the people commenting here, and I'll be the first to tell you that Fark isn't as good as Reddit anymore... which isn't saying much. 4-5 years ago Fark was the place to be, but the upsurge in the internet's troll population has hit this place really badly. It used to be that stupid posters and trolls were too intimidated to comment here... not the case these days. As you can see.

Fact is that there's basically no open public forum on the English-speaking internet that is worth a damn anymore. The powers that be have finally figured out effective ways to quash it themselves or convince us to do it for them.

/most of the anti-reddit farkers here are probably actually goons
//...speaking of the worst place on the internet...
 
2012-10-19 03:22:20 PM
I don't care much whether what he did was legal or not. Nor have i ever heard of this guy until a few days ago. However it seems to me he was/is an asshole in real life and he cranked that knob up to 11 while on the internet as he enjoyed making people mad.

So he took pleasure in making people mad when he thought no-one knew who he was and didn't have to face any consequences. Now that someone outted him it sounds like I should feel sorry for him ... nope can't do it. Something about reaping what you sow springs to mind.
 
2012-10-19 03:25:14 PM

UNC_Samurai: People on Fark biatching about Reddit and people on Reddit biatching about fark both need to get the ever-loving fark over themselves.


Screw that I'll just go to SA to complain about both.
 
2012-10-19 03:26:13 PM

douchebag/hater: HST's Dead Carcass: TV's Vinnie: God dammit. Just admit that you farked up and be a man about it! Stop being a douche.

He's obviously Republican, as they don't apologize for anything..

Your immaturity and knowledge of competing political views is appalling.

And this:

Grow the fark up, NOT EVERY thing is about politics.
But then since your candidate is losing your immature anger on this issue is almost understandable.


Way to read the full comment there, asstard.
 
2012-10-19 03:26:54 PM

A Terrible Human: Screw that I'll just go to SA to complain about both.



you plan to take a digg at them?
 
2012-10-19 03:27:02 PM
A Terrible Human: Just make sure not to tell any of the moral crusaders you're yoking to your twisted causes about SA's forum 11. You know, the one with all the pirated software links.
 
2012-10-19 03:29:23 PM

fluffy2097: gulogulo: omeganuepsilon: Derp.

Oh look, you again. Equating his self-outing and the consequences to gay rights.

You are despicable.

Seriously.

I'd tie it to Muslim fanaticism.

A 14 year old girl was shot in the head recently because of the moral outrage she caused by speaking her mind about the blasphemous idea of education for women.

How long till we get there too?


Are you still crying about this bullshiat? Really? Once you play the "I'm just stirring the pot" card, you're supposed to STFU so that nobody realizes how big a lie it is.

I'll tell you what, if somebody shoots VA in the head over this, then I'll agree with you. Until then, he got hoist by his own petard and I don't give a shiat.
 
2012-10-19 03:35:22 PM

mrexcess: A Terrible Human: Just make sure not to tell any of the moral crusaders you're yoking to your twisted causes about SA's forum 11. You know, the one with all the pirated software links.


You mean that subforum that hasn't existed for years? I sure will.
 
2012-10-19 03:35:39 PM

HeartBurnKid: Are you still crying about this bullshiat? Really?


Why don't you doxx me for it brah.
 
2012-10-19 03:36:08 PM

SundaesChild: Okay, but he was saying if you haven't had sex with a child then you've done nothing illegal. Which is not true.


Yes, but porn is another example of acting on your impulses, not just having the impulses. I think that was the point, the actions or attempted actions, not the thoughts are illegal.
 
2012-10-19 03:36:44 PM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: Are you still crying about this bullshiat? Really?

Why don't you doxx me for it brah.


Because I'm having too much fun watching you cry and whine and completely mangle the meaning of free speech.
 
2012-10-19 03:39:18 PM

fluffy2097: Hey look. It's the guy who was in charge of removing illegal content from creepy subreddits.

Hey look, he's got bad taste. Lets burn him alive, because we all know nobody ever tells lies on the internet, and if he's removing illegal content he must be a pedophile.

And so the which hunt goes on.

We should ban pictures of Muhammad as well. They are creepy and offensive to Muslims, and since we're now banning anything anyone doesn't like, well, we might as well start with the stuff that people get murdered over, like images of Muhammad.


[freecat.jpg]
[freepimpact,jpg]
[deepthoughtswithskinnyhead.jpg]

Continue with your red herring.
 
2012-10-19 03:45:56 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: It's rare to see someone flame-out as entertainingly as fluffy2097 appears to be doing right now. It's like half "just snarkin', guiz!!!" and half setting up a future insanity defense.


Judging by fluffy's logic, you just called for him to be gangraped.
 
2012-10-19 03:48:00 PM

rufus-t-firefly: UNC_Samurai: People on Fark biatching about Reddit and people on Reddit biatching about fark both need to get the ever-loving fark over themselves.

Perhaps a Farker biatching about Fark biatcing about Reddit and biatching about Reddit biatching about Fark needs to start with himself.


It's like an ourobourous of smuggery.
 
2012-10-19 03:48:09 PM

mrexcess: ***snip***

Fact is that there's basically no open public forum on the English-speaking internet that is has ever been worth a damn ***snip***


FTFY

///Internet forums are like a bar with the basic social conventions and immediate threat of getting hit in the face removed. You'll find some fun people, some weirdos, and a whole bunch of assholes. It's just real life cranked up to 11.
 
2012-10-19 03:54:22 PM

BSABSVR: rufus-t-firefly: UNC_Samurai: People on Fark biatching about Reddit and people on Reddit biatching about fark both need to get the ever-loving fark over themselves.

Perhaps a Farker biatching about Fark biatcing about Reddit and biatching about Reddit biatching about Fark needs to start with himself.

It's like an ourobourous of smuggery.


I'm stealing that if you don't mind.
 
2012-10-19 03:55:57 PM

fluffy2097: You know who else sexualizes children and nobody cares about? TLC.

[whinesisters.com image 263x400]

These people make money though, so they aren't creepy pedophiles. Lets glorify their lives.


Why does it look like a 30 year old's face on a 5 year old's body? WHY?

NIGHTMARE FUEL
 
2012-10-19 03:56:58 PM

valar_morghulis: Why does it look like a 30 year old's face on a 5 year old's body? WHY?

NIGHTMARE FUEL


Because the real pedophiles are on TV making millions of dollars for TLC, but we can't be bothered being outraged about that, because there is a troll on the internet.
 
2012-10-19 04:00:16 PM
A Terrible Human
You mean that subforum that hasn't existed for years?

So you're familiar with SA's hidden forums, then? Most goons don't even know they exist. You must be pretty 31337!

roc6783: Not sure how you've been around el internet, but yeah there definitely have been forums that were quite great. The epitome was probably UseNet, but at one time Fark was one of them. Major media like CNN would link to Fark comment threads because of the humor, energy, and brilliance of the dialog here.
 
2012-10-19 04:00:46 PM

fluffy2097: valar_morghulis: Why does it look like a 30 year old's face on a 5 year old's body? WHY?

NIGHTMARE FUEL

Because the real pedophiles are on TV making millions of dollars for TLC, but we can't be bothered being outraged about that, because there is a troll on the internet.


Yes, because I've never, ever seen anybody complain about Toddlers and Tiaras on the internet. EVER.
 
2012-10-19 04:03:09 PM

fluffy2097: Because the real pedophiles are on TV making millions of dollars for TLC, but we can't be bothered being outraged about that, because there is a troll on the internet.


Not to interrupt your mindless rage or anything, but have you ever considered that people can dislike multiple things at the same time? For example, one can wish to see VA fired, Toddlers and Tiaras cancelled and spinach banned.

A Terrible Human: I'm stealing that if you don't mind.


It's rare I get a good one liner. Take it and run with it!
 
2012-10-19 04:03:10 PM
You know, maybe I'm being a bit harsh here. fluffy2098, let's be friends. I brought you a peace offering:

content.ytmnd.com

/it soothes the butthurt
 
2012-10-19 04:03:44 PM

HeartBurnKid: Yes, because I've never, ever seen anybody complain about Toddlers and Tiaras on the internet. EVER.


Never seen this kind of outrage about it, and it's still a very highly rated show. It has major corporate sponsors.

/hey, since you can apparently dress your 5 year old like a whore and make her dance like a stripper if you are the parent, can you put them on the street corner and have them turn tricks too? After all, a parent consented to it.
 
2012-10-19 04:05:25 PM

fluffy2097: Never seen this kind of outrage about it,


Are you not on the internet?

fluffy2097: and it's still a very highly rated show.


There's no accounting for taste.
 
2012-10-19 04:07:32 PM

HeartBurnKid: There's no accounting for taste.


So it's OK when you make money off it. Got it.
 
2012-10-19 04:07:55 PM

BSABSVR: spinach banned.


fark yooo
 
2012-10-19 04:13:19 PM

mrexcess: So you're familiar with SA's hidden forums, then? Most goons don't even know they exist. You must be pretty 31337!


Dude why are you so pissed off? I was just being silly with my comment about SA.
 
2012-10-19 04:14:39 PM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: There's no accounting for taste.

So it's OK when you make money off it. Got it.


Nah, it's pretty foul either way. But that doesn't mean degenerate idiots won't enjoy it, as the popularity of both T&T and VA will attest.
 
2012-10-19 04:19:37 PM
A Terrible Human
Dude why are you so pissed off?

I'm not pissed off, but I'm pretty open about loathing SA. The community there is pretty terrible in their willingness to do anything to anyone at any time. Sure, they might put on a moral mask and say they're really only going after "bad people" like pedophiles. The reality is that they're just getting off on hurting people, and the knives they've sharpened on socially acceptable victims like pedophiles have been and will be turned, if only secretly, on others.
 
2012-10-19 04:20:29 PM

HeartBurnKid: Nah, it's pretty foul either way. But that doesn't mean degenerate idiots won't enjoy it, as the popularity of both T&T and VA will attest.


But T&T is still on the air because it makes money.

So pedophiles basically have personalized porno being beamed into their TV to watch in private, and the internet has shot it's collective wad on a troll.

The internet doesn't care about T&T, but if they can make a website look bad by calling a troll a child molester, roll out the hate machine.

And sex offenders keep on getting their porn straight from the TV. No internet even required.
 
2012-10-19 04:32:21 PM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: Nah, it's pretty foul either way. But that doesn't mean degenerate idiots won't enjoy it, as the popularity of both T&T and VA will attest.

But T&T is still on the air because it makes money.

So pedophiles basically have personalized porno being beamed into their TV to watch in private, and the internet has shot it's collective wad on a troll.

The internet doesn't care about T&T, but if they can make a website look bad by calling a troll a child molester, roll out the hate machine.

And sex offenders keep on getting their porn straight from the TV. No internet even required.


T&T is still on the air because TLC wants to keep it on the air, and its producers want to keep making it (and the funny bit is that they don't even hide behind a cloak of anonymity to do it). VA isn't on Reddit anymore because, once he realized he wasn't as anonymous as he thought he was, he suddenly didn't want to do it anymore.

And again with the wild gesticulation. I'd ask you to point to somebody who called VA a child molester, but after all the other times I've asked you to actually back up your whining, I know you won't. So instead I'll simply ask you to QQ moar and make my otherwise boring Friday at work even more entertaining.
 
2012-10-19 04:34:50 PM

HeartBurnKid: VA isn't on Reddit anymore


lolololololololol

He's already made another username and is posting again.
 
2012-10-19 04:36:51 PM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: VA isn't on Reddit anymore

lolololololololol

He's already made another username and is posting again.


Then what are you so butthurt about?
 
2012-10-19 04:43:57 PM

HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: VA isn't on Reddit anymore

lolololololololol

He's already made another username and is posting again.

Then what are you so butthurt about?


He lost his source for creeper pics.
 
2012-10-19 04:46:05 PM
fluffy2097: LouDobbsAwaaaay: It's rare to see someone flame-out as entertainingly as fluffy2097 appears to be doing right now. It's like half "just snarkin', guiz!!!" and half setting up a future insanity defense.

At least we are done endlessly repeating

"OMG VC IS SO GROSS"

shiat was boring as hell and nobody was saying anything new.


True, it does get boring when people keep asking you questions that you're too chickenshiat to answer.
 
2012-10-19 04:47:34 PM
So did anyone kill Amanda Todd's bully yet?
 
2012-10-19 04:48:43 PM

Mike Chewbacca: He lost his source for creeper pics.


Who needs reddit for that? http://www.gawker.com/upkskirt (NSFW)
 
2012-10-19 04:49:33 PM
 
2012-10-19 05:03:56 PM

fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: VA isn't on Reddit anymore

lolololololololol

He's already made another username and is posting again.


So which of ViolentAcrez's subreddits are you missing so savagely? /jailbait?
 
2012-10-19 05:14:26 PM
HeartBurnKid: fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: VA isn't on Reddit anymore

lolololololololol

He's already made another username and is posting again.

Then what are you so butthurt about?


Better question is how does he even know considering that the guy is supposed to be anonymous so I doubt that guy made a big announcement when he supposedly returned.
 
2012-10-19 05:23:46 PM

fluffy2097:
Because the real pedophiles are on TV making millions of dollars for TLC, but we can't be bothered being outraged about that, because there is a troll on the internet.


Both things are bad, so that makes reddit pedophilia OK? Stellar logic!
 
2012-10-19 05:44:04 PM

starsrift: fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: VA isn't on Reddit anymore

lolololololololol

He's already made another username and is posting again.

So which of ViolentAcrez's subreddits are you missing so savagely? /jailbait?


I already told you. Gawker is a much better place to find that stuff. Want naked pictures of Heather Morris hacked from her phone? Gawkers Got it.
http://gawker.com/5892533/this-weeks-naked-celebrity-phone-pics-glees - heather-morris?tag=celebrity-skin (NSFW)

Guess which celebrities are having graphic buttsex in this photo!
http://gawker.com/5899861/lets-guess-which-celebrities-are-in-this-gr a phic-butt-sex-picture?tag=celebrity-skin (NSFW)

Olivia Mund got her phone hacked too. Here are her sexy photos
http://gawker.com/5890506/olivia-munns-super-dirty-alleged-naked-pics - lick-my-tight-asshole-and-choke-me?tag=celebrity-skin

It boggles my mind you people worry about a troll violating someones privacy when people are being paid for this.
 
2012-10-19 05:46:46 PM

fluffy2097: starsrift: fluffy2097: HeartBurnKid: VA isn't on Reddit anymore

lolololololololol

He's already made another username and is posting again.

So which of ViolentAcrez's subreddits are you missing so savagely? /jailbait?

[wild deflection]


So which one of VA's subreddits are you badly missing? /deadkids?
 
2012-10-19 06:00:45 PM

fluffy2097: It boggles my mind you people worry about a troll violating someones privacy when people are being paid for this.


What boggles my mind is your constant cries about how our society is becoming more and more puritan and the mob is destroying free speech while material like this is, as you insist on continually pointing out, still freely available.
 
2012-10-19 06:53:02 PM
If someone showed fluffy2097 a refrigerator with 20 apples and 20 oranges in it, then asked him to remove exactly 3 apples and 4 oranges, the resulting confusion would be high hilarity.
 
2012-10-19 07:00:52 PM

fluffy2097: We should ban pictures of Muhammad as well. They are creepy and offensive to Muslims, and since we're now banning anything anyone doesn't like, well, we might as well start with the stuff that people get murdered over, like images of Muhammad.


You'd be amazed how many people think freedom of speech ends when it is offensive.

"No one should ever be allowed to say anything designed to hurt others maliciously" - Some idiot

(he went on to explain how no one should be allowed to make fun of others, even groups of people, because someone might hear of it and commit suicide)
 
2012-10-19 07:16:59 PM

Rockstone: fluffy2097: We should ban pictures of Muhammad as well. They are creepy and offensive to Muslims, and since we're now banning anything anyone doesn't like, well, we might as well start with the stuff that people get murdered over, like images of Muhammad.

You'd be amazed how many people think freedom of speech ends when it is offensive.


Exactly. Like, for example, the guy who argues that investigating a public figure and publishing his name as part of a story about the psychology of an internet troll is horribly offensive and is tantamount to mob violence and murder... oh wait.
 
2012-10-19 08:20:51 PM
(*peeks in on thread*)

Holy crap!

(*quietly backs out and closes the door*)
 
2012-10-19 08:38:12 PM
The guy who outed him is even a bigger jerk than he is. I doubt that he posted any information that would lead to harassment and job loss, yet the "journalist" who did this, did just that. Which is worse? destroying someone's life on the internet, or posting a picture that can't be traced to an individual, yet is embarrassing? Before you answer that, consider any pictures you might have posted..

/hopes the journalist winds up sucking cocks in hell
 
2012-10-19 08:45:59 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The guy who outed him is even a bigger jerk than he is. I doubt that he posted any information that would lead to harassment and job loss, yet the "journalist" who did this, did just that. Which is worse? destroying someone's life on the internet, or posting a picture that can't be traced to an individual, yet is embarrassing? Before you answer that, consider any pictures you might have posted..

/hopes the journalist winds up sucking cocks in hell


I wonder if you'd have this same concern if Wikileaks was the site that outed him instead of Gawker.
 
2012-10-19 08:48:55 PM

PallMall: James!: ghostwind: ChrisDe: " I was playing to an audience of college kids"

There's no way the average age of reddit readers is college kids. Mid-teen, maybe.

What is reddit, again?

It's kind of like Fark for pedophiles.

Don't forget.. this guy HAS a Fark handle too.


By any chance is his Fark handle "fluffy2097"? Since that poster did make a claim that the troll was already back on reddit under a new name.
 
2012-10-19 08:59:40 PM

Latinwolf: I wonder if you'd have this same concern if Wikileaks was the site that outed him instead of Gawker.


I always love this stupid argument. How the hell do you not tell the difference between privacy of a private individual doing private things, and a public official acting in a public capacity, or public corporation acting in a public capacity? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound by even mentioning this?
 
2012-10-19 09:00:59 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: private individual doing private things,


Where did you get the idea he was doing private things? That seems pants-on-head retarded.

So which of the subreddits are you missing?
 
2012-10-19 09:25:25 PM

gulogulo: BraveNewCheneyWorld: private individual doing private things,

Where did you get the idea he was doing private things? That seems pants-on-head retarded.

So which of the subreddits are you missing?


Communicating to the public in a private capacity is still a private thing. He's not speaking on behalf of or representing any group of people other than himself. It only seems pants-on-head retarded because you don't recognize the difference. Your argument is chock full of fail.
 
2012-10-19 09:35:58 PM
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.
 
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 283 of 283 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report