So the question I have it this: Does Reddit have some sort of powerful magnetic attraction to the pedophiles and pedophile defenders of the world, or is pedophilia and/or pedophile defense simply endemic amongst the young male tech geek demographic that’s so heavily overrepresented on Reddit?
This is a question that naturally sprung to my mind after reading a couple of recent posts in ShitRedditSays, documenting Reddit’s strange sympathy with the child porn enthusiasts of the world. A woman stands up on Reddit and declares herself a feminist? She’s a “bad person,” a “female supremacist,” an “utter piece of shit.” A man is jailed for possession of child porn? He’s being unjustly persecuted for a “victimless crime.”
Fxexular on ShitRedditSays has assembled a roundup of some the most disturbing comments in a thread devoted to the aforementioned man jailed for possession of CP. Amongst his finds:
Heavily upvoted comments comparing viewing of child porn to smoking weed and playing Grand Theft Auto.
A comment with 15 upvotes suggesting that the perp should only get “a stiff fine and a few weeks of community service … for a crime the judge himself probably committed half a dozen times on any given weekend.”
A comment with nearly two dozen upvotes lamenting that the child porn possessor is going to have his “life ruined over socially non-normative pictures. … this is a predictable outcome of a corrupt government which is obsessed with its own power.”
But these are just the tip of the pedo-defense iceberg. Take a look at the thread itself, where you will also find heavily upvoted comments from Redditors comparing the “persecution” of pedophiles to past persecution of gays and witches; an unintentionally ironic comment lamenting the cruel treatment of a perp who is “only 26” years old; and a comment making perhaps the strangest argument I think I may have ever seen anywhere about anything:
My core problem here, as a computer scientist, is that any photo he had is really a bunch of zeros and ones… which for anyone who is at all familiar with binary, is a number. Basically, by outlawing the storage of some form of data, we have said that it is illegal be in possession of certain numbers. Yes, these might be huge numbers that you don’t encounter in your daily life, but they are still simply numbers.
In a different thread on the same case, another Redditor gets 75 upvotes for comparing child-porn-possessing pedophiles with African-Americans in the era of the Civil Rights movement. Here’s the comment itself; here’s the ShitRedditSays thread discussing it. And here, for good measure, is the same commenter offering a Redditor who’s confessed to molesting his sister advice on how best to avoid prosecution.
Meanwhile, in an unrelated thread in Reddit’s Videos subreddit, pedophile (sorry, ephebophile) Redditors mount an all-out attack on a girl who had the temerity to complain about skeevy Redditors masturbating to pictures of herself she put in a private album on the internet when she was 14.
In ShitRedditSays, jamie11 collects together some of the creepiest comments, including these:
“Fuck yea she is developed AND judging by her smug smile, she is loving every second of this. Sure she says “OMG, so creepy herp derp” but in reality it is kind of a big EGO boost. EDIT: in b4 misogyny accusations!” [+7]
“She is an attention whore. She is really dumb. She will probably ultimately profit from this in the model/porn/coors girl industry.”[+10]
“Shes much hotter when shes quiet.” [+32]
The numbers in brackets indicate the numbers of upvotes.
Again, tip of the iceberg.
EDITED TO ADD: I hadn’t noticed before, but r/mensrights has its own discussion of the child porn case. It’s pretty much what you’d expect: Possessing child porn is just a “thought crime” that doesn’t hurt anyone.
The creepiest fellow of the lot is probably logrusmage, who offers this defense of the child porn possessors of the world:
consider that a majority of “kiddy porn” are pictures of sexually mature females taken by said females for boyfriends that got leaked on the internet or via text, where the female happens to be under the age of consent.
When someone points out that, um, the fact that these pictures are “leaked” means that the subjects of said pictures didn’t consent to them being put online (and, also, they are below the age of consent), logrusmage offers this rebuttal:
Consent is not needed for something that does not directly effect someone. Like looking at them. … Looking at a picture of someone does not require their consent.
Presumably he’d be fine if someone secretly filmed him picking his nose while taking a crap and put it up on r/creepydudespickingnosesonthecrapper.
There are two main power imbalances in that scenario. One, the passerby has money while the beggar doesn’t. Two, the passerby is is older than the beggar. The passerby demanding sexual favors in exchange for food is taking advantage of the power imbalances for very selfish reasons. It’s creepy and immoral on several levels.
Righto, little late to the party here, but I totally called NWO’s reaction!!! Has anyone explained yet that we don’t hold minors legally accountable for their actions in many situations? Or that we don’t focus on children who take naked pictures of themselves because its usually not how cp is created or distributed? Probably… Ah well.
What’s the latest nonsense then?
…
Whatever is arguing that offering food for sex to a starving person isn’t rape? Well fuck… Does this person even know what “power dynamic” means?
“You mean free to take the offer or starve? That doesn’t sound much of a choice.”
I’d choose starvation. The type of men who have to pay for sex are highlyl unattractive.
“Oh, I forget, in the era of OWS, that’s probably a compliment nowadays, isn’t it?”
OWS wants American jobs to stay in the United States, you fool.
Whatever wrote, “How is it in any way extortion if the other party offered is free to take it or leave it? I mean, it’s not the fault of the offeror that the offeree is in that situation in the first place, is it? The party offering ain’t the cause of the problem, but a possible solution. Of course, there’s a price to be paid, equivalent exchange, but that’s only to be expected. Not everyone can afford to be charitable all the time.”
So, Whatever, let’s pretend you’re homeless. What if the perfectly charitable person offering you food in exchange for sex had these demands:
1. I will only give you the food if we do it without a condom.
2. I will only give you food if you have sex with me in a way that you really, really, don’t like.
3. I have an STD, but I won’t give you this food unless we have sex.
Now imagine, you, the homeless person who hasn’t eaten in several days, has to weigh the choice of getting an STD (which, as a homeless person, you won’t have the money to treat!), having sex which might hurt you physically or emotionally, or getting pregnant against starving to death.
“Take it or leave it”, my ass.
Following up on Molly, isn’t the implication of offering food to a starving person that you are making an offer they cannot refuse? It’s true that you have the ability to not make the offer, but once you do it becomes extortion. Extortion for sex becomes rape, since the idea is that the other party is choosing between survival and sex. Not exactly a choice.
And in case Whatever wants to pull something like, “All 3 of those demands at once are highly unlikely!”, the point is that just ONE of these “take it or leave it” options can fuck you up long term.
” WE HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT PEROGATIVES.”
For a moment I thought that read “we have fundamentally different pierogies”. Which could be a sign that I need more coffee, but could also just be that that would make about as much sense as what he actually did say.
“If I “agree” to something which I don’t know will harm me, I cannot be said to have given real consent, etc.”
Hello?! This is the 21st century and KIDS ALREADY HAVE THE INTERNET (AND CABLE TV), remember?! How can they not know? Or rather, can they ALL not know?!”
So your argument is straight up that you know that you would be hurting the kids in question, but that’s OK because they already know that it will hurt them? What a lovely person you are. A real credit to your parents.
“Of course, there’s a price to be paid, equivalent exchange”
Because life is an episode of Fullmetal Alchemist, but we’re making child rape into food for the child. I think I called this one and the specific mental gymnastics he’s using to come to his conclusions already upthread.
“Because life is an episode of Fullmetal Alchemist, but we’re making child rape into food for the child.”
I really… REALLY don’t want to think too hard about this particular mental image…
Actually, come to think about it, this is a very familiar trope in the MRM; normalizing extreme reactions to things. Recall the whole “If a man is separate from his children by the law, it can only be expected that the man will go around shooting people!”
The phrase “you can’t be expected to give something for free” has it’s own rights as a true sentence, but following it by “therefore requiring sex from an underaged starving person is fine” wrecks it all. The second sentence is not reasonable by virtue of the first.
But we’re all the same on the outside! 😉
“Equivalent exchange” would be what is known as “sex work”, Whatever. Sex work is different from coercive rape. For instance:
A sex worker chooses to be a sex worker; although their options may be limited, they chose sex work because the other options were worse, not because the other options were death.
A starving person offered food for sex may literally die if they do not fuck the person.
A sex worker has the ability to choose his or her clients.
A starving person offered food for sex has to fuck whoever’s unethical enough to offer food for sex.
The Manosphere wantst to implement a new form of S&M – Sexual Marxism.
FROM each according to her ability, TO each according to his need.
The “mens rights” that they are “fighting” for is that the government or society (whatever “society” means) owes them a sexual partner and thus should assign each man a woman who fits his idea of “hot”.
The fact that women can choose, of their own accord, who they want to sleep with and who they don’t – well, that gets their goat.
They believe its a violation of their “rights”.
Now I’m HUNGRY!! Cheese pierogies, pan fried in butter with sauted onions and crumbled bacon…….. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……..
Doesn’t NWO list “waving food in front of a starving person” as a situation where he thinks violence on the part of the starving person to be justified, or at least understandable? Better be careful, Whatever, you’ll draw back a stump – and you’ll be lucky if it’s your hand.
@random6x7, now that is a comment!
@whatever, I think you win the creepy troll of the year award.
@no cuntry, you said:
Is it just me or does this sound like a rather unappealing mixture of racism, ageism, and, yes, misandry?
no cuntry, the more you comment here the more you sound like a sort of mirror image of the guys we mock here.
EDITED TO ADD: I mean, you’re entitled to not have sex with anyone you don’t want to have sex with, as we all are, but in dismissing most men in the country you’re living in as “ew” for being “old, ugly” and thin-lipped you’re sounding like an MGTOW talking about his hatred of “ameriskanks.”
Are we sure she’s not a troll? I keep wavering between “is mimicking what she thinks modern feminism looks like” and “is an actual feminist, just kind of a stupid one with lots of unexamined issues”.
No, we’re not sure she’s not a troll, but she is getting tiresome.
Yeah, I don’t really give a shit who No Cuntry is or is not attracted to, but comments like that are needlessly insulting and immature.
*votes for banhammering for No Cuntry*
She isn’t even funny.
She isn’t even the third worst moron on this site. NWOSlave wants rapeslaves, Meller wants to specifically murder all feminists, and new challenger Whatever thinks Child Rape is just fine and that White Dude needs sex badly or he’ll get a game over (Then go insane). Yes, racist morons should be banned, but can we at least focus on the ones who call posters “Fuckdoll with a pulse” first?
Personally, I’m not advocating banning.* I’m just complaining a bit.
*Note: I didn’t assume anyone thought I was, I just wanted to be clear.
The solution might be for us all to mutually agree not to rise to the bait. We could just ignore her.
I’d rather people call her on her shit than let anyone reading this assume she speaks for the rest of us.
I’m just annoyed that the trolls are holding her against the rest of us… I know, they’re trolls, but STILL.