Creator of “Ren and Stimpy” Accused of Preying on Underage Girls | Hacker News Reader

Creator of “Ren and Stimpy” Accused of Preying on Underage Girls

buzzfeed.com

115 pointsdwighttk99 comments

All: this is a substantive article. It's also a charged topic. If you comment here, please do so thoughtfully and help steer the thread away from ideological battle and other predictables.

any clarifications on what substance there is? this reads like a two minute hate of a d-list celebrity and i struggle to understand what makes it interesting in the hacker sense.

You mean in the Hacker News sense? From skimming the article, I'd say three things. (1) The signal/noise ratio seems high, i.e. there is a lot of factual information and relatively little ideological noise. (2) The story contains complexity, for example in the relationships between the people involved, that makes it less predictable than the median. Predictability is what we're most trying to avoid on HN. (3) It's a new variation in the ongoing shift in discourse about these behaviors, which is an interesting new phenomenon in the guidelines' sense (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

So yeah, there's a lot for people to rant and repeat about, but I think also some substance to consider, and maybe yield some insights about. We're asking users to make a conscious effort to eschew the former and go for the latter.

> The signal/noise ratio seems high, i.e. there is a lot of factual information and relatively little ideological noise.

That seems true.

> The story contains complexity, for example in the relationships between the people involved, that makes it less predictable than the median.

There is complexity, but it's the pretty much the kind of complexity that has become a cookie-cutter template of harassment narratives in creative industries recently.

> It's a new variation in the ongoing shift in discourse about these behaviors

Is it, though? The dynamics seem to be nearly identical to many of the other narratives recently, differing only in the identity of the victims, perpetrator, and workplaces involved.

Fair points. You may be right.

You could not possibly have read it and earnestly have that opinion of the piece's substance.

edit: To clarify, you may reasonably either like or dislike it, but to claim it's lacking substance is trivially demonstrably false.

It's lacking substance as the GP indicated. I read through it and have no problem asserting that.

It's probably one of the most nuanced articles on the topic I've read in a while. Could you elaborate why you felt it lacked in substance?

This is actually the exact sort of long-form journalism I would expect from an outlet with proper pedigree, and it's the sort of hard-to-monetize journalism which BuzzFeed funds with its separate clickbait business model.

This is Palanti(e)r journalism from them. Your comment suggests you didn't even click the link.

While I may not like it, I am glad that buzzfeed has managed to find a way to support good journalism. I almost wonder if they wouldn't be better off segregating these pieces from the rest of their content, as it seems to me that there are likely two entirely different audiences for each type.

I've discovered the buzzfeed homepage in my language, in French, which mostly article like those in more mainstream publications. Still I've skimmed a few and they looked good.

I don't think you get to decide whether or not I perceive something as substantive.

Sure, of course not. But it's my job to decide what counts as substantive for shared HN purposes, and I try to do that by principle and not by preference.

> fostered a libertine atmosphere in which taking offense was itself offensive.

I've seen this here and there. What this does - among the useful things - is it removes the ability to set healthy boundaries. So unhealth grows. Boundaries are needed in professional and personal life.

> "...Why didn’t you just leave? Well, because this asshole told me when I was 13 that I was special, and I don’t have any self-esteem, so I believe it.” And the fact was that he had hired her, when she had no prospects, right after she was rejected from art school.

This is a complex statement with nuance. What happened is an abuse of power. But the powerful person understood the talent and capability of the less powerful. The mentoring was good. The abuse was not.

I wonder how many talented programmers today are in the shoes of the victim, being taken advantage of by experienced founders and executives.

the powerful person understood the talent and capability of the less powerful. The mentoring was good.

Except Katie Rice can never really be sure whether Kricfalusi took interest in her because of her raw talent, or because she was a very young girl who looked up to him.

In this specific aspect, I see parallels to the situation with Dan Harmon and Megan Ganz. Ganz was an adult, but there was a huge power dynamic at play in their professional relationship. While Harmon was interested in her romantically, he praised her work. Once she made it clear she wasn't interested, he became his (usual) caustic, over-critical self. And with that came a lot of doubt as to which was the truth.

Would Kricfalusi have done the same if he weren't interested in her that way? The women here will never truly know, and that can add salt to the wounds.

>And yet Kricfalusi, 62, continues to be widely celebrated as a pioneer in the male-dominated field of animation.

Because personal/moral failures somehow make you not be a "pioneer" in your field?

Or because faulty persons should not be celebrated as anything?

Let's just have Mother Teresa as the sole artistic figure to celebrate then... oh, wait...

I'm really curious about

> Mother Teresa as the sole artistic[...] oh, wait.

What do you mean? I just don't understand if you're saying whether we should only look to (supposedly) flawless people, or... what? If it's the former then I submit that there's a pretty long way from "not flawless" to "paedophile".

The reason I ask, is that I think it's acknowledged pretty widely that Mother Teresa was actually a pretty flawed person who, through blind faith and belief, actually worsened the suffering of those in her care, and perhaps even caused the deaths of people who actually had treatable diseases, etc. etc. There's quite a lot of interesting things: [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

I think that's what the poster means.

If you disqualify impactful people who are imperfect, you have disqualified all people.

For those that don't understand the "oh, wait..." part of the comment, here's an alternative view of Mother Theresa (note that neither of these views is necessarily mine) - http://www.tankriot.com/2010/090/

I think you're reading something into that quote that isn't there. They may have meant that he doesn't deserve to be celebrated, though he may be a pioneer.

Like they said about Wernher von Braun: "I aim at the stars, but sometimes I hit London".

I think you vastly oversimplify saying "faulty persons should not be celebrated..."

MLK Jr had, what I consider -- quite possibly with a modern mindset that people at the time wouldn't have shared -- certain personal failings, I have no problem celebrating his accomplishments without ignoring his problems. JFK, RFK, Ghandi or Mother Teresa. Alan Moore (gollywog?), Roman Polanski...should we be celebrating these people's achievements while they consistently ignore their abuses?

The problem, I believe, with John K, is (1) the extremeness of his personal/moral failures. We're talking about using and abusing underage girls, not consenting adults. That's exceptionally bad (^tm). Then (2), the relative dismissal of the problem up to this date. Maybe one day we can recognize what John K contributed to the art form despite the problematic personal/moral failings, but we need to get past those failings first -- justice, punishment, (in an ideal world -- hah!) rehabilitation. At best we're on step 1 here (recognize that there is a problem) and you're calling for forgiveness already? Whatever else, I say it's too soon.

This is one of those times when I don't like how the internet has increased our connectivity. I'm sure this is a substantive article, but I would prefer to let my childhood memories of "Ren and Stimpy" fade away without knowing about this (I didn't read the article).

I trust that this is being handled by the appropriate authorities and the people who are involved. If it isn't being handled appropriately, then I think that would be the newsworthy article (not this one).

Correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't read the article and only commented on it because these types of articles make me uncomfortable. I don't mean to be a snowflake but it's a bummer seeing this stuff in my favorite newsfeed.

> I trust that this is being handled by the appropriate authorities

It isn't. That's why the article exists in the first place.

Ok, read it. That sucks. I understand it's important to have a public shaming, not just to punish the perpetrator, but to make sure nobody else thinks it's a good idea to do what he did. It's just a big bummer all around.

Hopefully this doesn't happen to any other kids, and hopefully the kids growing up now won't need to revisit their own cartoon memories like this.

Public shaming is now not only appropriate but important? Should we reintroduce tar and feathers in order to make sure nobody else thinks its a good idea?

If we think that the statue of limitation is to short then say that and request a change. If we think that the criteria for finding someone guilty is too high, then change that. Extra judicial punishment is a terrible method to punish perpetrator and scaring others to not commit crime, and has a long history to prove it.

How do you propose we change these things without significant societal support and activism? It's like arguing we shouldn't abolish slavery because of the many writings that expose the extent and cruelty of it, but instead sit down and think about it 'rationally'.

If you mean how we change statue of limitation laws and the requirements for a guilty verdict, then I would propose that someone make a suggestion on what those changes should be.

Like say we remove statue of limitation laws. Why have it if we demand punishment anyway and going to use extra judicial punishment to get it?

If the issue is evidence, then the extreme end would be to say that any accusation is true until proven false. If that is too extreme, argue for some line between that and something which would include the person in the article.

Slavery was abolished in law. Enforcement of those laws are done by police, investigators and courts. It is very clear that the abolish slavery movement had a clear idea on what the law aught to be.

So if you feel like you are just like the abolish slavery movement, what aught the law be today?

The only way to prevent the shaming is to prevent the victims from talking about their experiences and to prevent Buzzfeed from publishing things it believes to be true.

Enjoining that sort of speech would be vastly more problematic than the general public finding out about actions that took place however many years ago.

Free speech is indeed very important and I am definitely not suggesting something to prevent it. The concept I object to is the intention of extra judicial punishment in order to punish criminals and and using it as an example to discourage others. When we celebrate that then what we really are doing is rejecting the legal system for its intended role and using a trial by media as a substitute.

A big part of what make the legal system better than extra judicial punishment is the concept of fairness. Every victim and criminal get the same treatment. If we want accusations like the one in the article published then why not change the law so that the legal system must publish all accusation and the details online and have it available publicly for anyone to read? Have the legal system scale up what this article represent so that every similar victim get treated equally by society?

If buzzfeed action here is intended to be part of the legal system then bake it into the legal system. Some nations actually do this with sentenced criminal and the details of the crime being read out on national broadcasts. The main difference to this case is that the national broadcast should then focus on crime in which the accused is not sentenced, or the crime is past the statue of limitation.

It's trial by the public, and its modus operandi in principle no different than witch hunts. Guilty until proven otherwise. Such medieval reasoning was abandoned for good reason but now it seems to be back in western societies with what seems massive public support. I find it revolting and very frightening.

I think you really have to appreciate art separate from the artist. Many great figures in history were shits in real life. Paul Johnson's book Intellectuals is pretty much a gawker-style hit piece of Marx, Sartre, Tolstoy, Rousseau, Shelly, Brecht, Russell, and others - but it's not wrong. Hell, John Lennon was a dick to his pre-Yoko family.

Don't romanticize people and I think you can pretty comfortably enjoy both Netflix and the daily news. Ren & Stimpy is funny in its own right.

Continuing to appreciate a person's art after you came know that this person behaves really badly means normalizing, legitimizing and promoting such behavior. Which is harmful in every sense.

No it doesn't.

Maybe but in some cases I find it extremely difficult to separate the art from the artists.

An example is the lostprophets. I use to like a couple of their songs but after finding out what the lead singer did I'll likely never listen to a lostprophets song again.

One of the women coming forward in the article talks about this and points to Roman Polanski as an example.

The trouble with separating the artist and the art means that people can ignore or enable the artist's bad behavior in order to get more art. I really think the Harvey Weinstein allegations gained a critical mass partially because professionally he hadn't been doing as well over the past few years.

It's hard to draw the line at enjoy, but don't romanticize. I think it's a bit easier to appreciate previous works or a dead artist. But, if you're going to dwell on the negative side of everything it'll be hard to appreciate anything.

It doesn't have to be that way. We can raise the bar on artists as well as art. Independently.

Can we, though? Honest question. I'm inclined to think we as a species are not really capable of maintaining that kind of distinction, especially when significant imbalances in power are part of the equation.

Apologies for not just responding. I want to say this is wrong, but I confess I am not equipped to really tackle the question.

> In an interview with Howard Stern in the mid-’90s, the radio host asked him about a character in the comic book anthology the cartoonist was then promoting. Stern called Sody Pop “a hot chick with big cans and nice legs.” Kricfalusi responded with a smile: “She’s underage, too.”

You can try to separate the art from the artist, but I feel like you've gotta get real deep into death of the author before that quote becomes something you can ignore.

I get the folks who are upset because this kills a piece of their childhood. But imagine being one of those girls who grew up with stars in their eyes about animation, or some other art form. And then imagine having had this experience. It would be so hard for the entire art form not to feel tainted afterwards.

Yes, nowadays none of us can watch and enjoy The Cosby Show like, ever again, but maybe that's ok if it means a predator is no longer able to be a predator.

John Lennon was a dick to his Yoko family, too. Or, John Lennon was a dick, period. As you like.

Me too, this feels like another case of better off not knowing. Being a childhood fan of Ren and Stimpy cartoons, and having read the article realizing that Katie Rice worked for Spumco, now I get why I like the art style for Katie's webcomics Skadi and Camp Weedonwantcha. I really hope the content of the article isn't the reason for the current hiatus of the camp comic. I was really struck by her quote at the end about wishing she hadn't gone through it even if would have made her a less skilled artist.

A really staggering amount of the time, “Privilege” as it’s used in politics today is just a convenient bludgeon devoid of critical thought. In this case though, “better off not knowing” is pretty much the definition of privilege. Of course we can just not click, forget about this and move on, because we weren’t young girls this man groomed and abused. We were never in an office full of poeple aware of what was being done to us, but how didn’t see a point in helping us.

I’m not saying that you don’t have the right to not know, but at least appreciate how lucky you are to be in that position. I would also urge you to consider that it might not be the right thing to do, and in a very small way, be a continuation of what society did in failing those women when they were little girls.

Sorry, what might not be the right thing to do?

I think she’s pretty busy with a gig at Warner’s right now.

The abusers at Nickelodeon are only getting taken down now because of people connecting the dots and pressuring using the internet.

Of course it's a bummer. Reading about sexual abusers getting away with same is always a bummer. But remember that this heads-in-the-sand attitude of I'd-rather-not-find-out is how these people get away with it in the first place. It's how Catholic priests continue to prey upon their own communities.

In short, don't shoot the messenger.

I highly recommend you read it. I found it better than most articles on the matter (even if it wasn't 'substantive' in a dry sort of scientific theories on the matter kind of way)

I remember watching a Stern interview, Billy West Vs John Kricfalusi 1995 [0]. Kricfalusi came across as petty and self-absorbed, essentially calling West a scab for acceding to management by voice acting multiple characters in later seasons. West claimed the show would be insolvent otherwise and he needed the money. Kricfalusi said this act led to defeat of the creative faction by the executive faction.

I don't know how I stumbled upon it years ago, since it only has ~300 views even now. But i still remember how psychologically manipulative Kricfalusi sounded, and my surprised reaction at the end when Stern sided with him.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6OoJP3VJoA

Most high-powered executives I've interacted with have been psychologically manipulative. Are you sure it wasn't just an attribute of people who've wielded some degree of power in a political environment?

He had a 16 year old girlfriend. Jerry Seinfeld had a 17 year old girlfriend. Why doesn't Jerry make headlines?

He should be.

Don't let the difference in age distract you from the fact that the power differential is what is important.

I can't tell if this is whataboutism

probably means it is...

The article, if you had read it, makes abundantly clear that the story here is not only the mere fact of her age and their "dating", but rather a number of specific manipulations and violations.

Because public opinion has become more prudish/fundamentalist over the decades.

Meanwhile, established religious groups marry young teenage girls, sometimes several of them at once.

Grooming kids from when they were 14/15 has a lot to do with it, as well as that it seems this was a pretty calculated thing from day #1.

Well, approaching them at 14 is indeed perverted.

Not sure if the "pre-calculated thing" can be substantiated though.

He did it (at least) twice, in exactly the same way.

Twice that we know of, twice that people have come forward for.

If the other situations involving abusive men of the last year or so are any guide, there are others who haven't come forward, for whatever reason.

Good point. I've added 'at least'.

One of them was 13, the other 14. I would add that it’s probably worth appending a mental, “that we know of so far,” to all of this.

Well, the innocence of youth is a relatively new concept to society as a whole and around the world.

I think this deserves a serious answer.

In the case of Kricfalusi, he first approached these girls when they were much younger - pubescent. He used his authority to pressure them into relationships (they worked for him!). The interest was not reciprocated. This appears to be a repeated behavior pattern. It's super super creepy.

I hadn't heard of the Seinfeld thing, so I looked it up. The girl turned 18 shortly after they met. She did not depend on him for his career. His other partners have been age-appropriate. Most importantly, she doesn't appear to be aggrieved, unlike Kricfalusi's victims.

Seinfeld's relationship age difference is eyebrow-raising and maybe a bit cringeworthy, but not inherently damning. Even young adult human beings have agency.

Maybe he should be. Especially if he started grooming her from the age of 13, as in this case. Lots of rich famous people get away with things.

It did make headlines at the time.

Probably the big difference with Seinfeld is one or more of the following:

1. The age of consent in New York is 17, so there was nothing illegal about it.

2. She turned 18 shortly after they met. Seinfeld claims that all they did together before she turned 18 was go out to eat. The actual dating started after she was 18.

3. He wasn't doing anything to hide the relationship from the public or from her parents.

4. It doesn't appear that he used any power or leverage to coerce her into a relationship. It's unclear if she even knew who he was when he asked for and received her phone number during their first meeting, which was a chance encounter in Central Park.

The article under discussion here involves the 16 year old girlfriend complaining about how she was mistreated, complaints substantiated by other witnesses.

I was not previously familiar with Seinfeld's relationship with a much younger woman, but a quick search indicates they dated for a few years while she was in college and then the relationship ended. She apparently turned down his marriage proposal.

She has apparently not come forward to suggest that he was mistreating her. If she did, that story would likely get plenty of press. People apparently gave him a hard time about the relationship at the time.

We aren't frying Seinfeld because his much younger ex girlfriend isn't accusing him. Ultimately, her opinion here carries more weight than that of the rest of the world. Whatever people may think of the inappropriateness of the age difference, as far as I know, she is not claiming she was victimized.

I wonder if this would still have made the news had he done this outside of California, where the age of consent is 18 [1]. Most of the country (31 states) has an age of consent of 16, 8 have it at 17, and the remaining have it at 18.

Not saying this is acceptable, since the age issue isn't as bad as how he abused his position of power, but just giving some extra context to the situation. In most of the country, the sentence below wouldn't apply:

> Byrd feels the time has come for Kricfalusi to be held accountable, particularly, she said, after the police told her in December that Kricfalusi’s alleged crimes against her were too old to investigate. “He shouldn’t be able to get away with that,” she said.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_...

I'd say it's newsworthy because people deserve to know the context that his contact with the girl started when she was 13, not 16.

Look, statutory rape laws are not new. I remember being a 16 year old girl. If a 40 year old man had approached me in that way, I wouldn't have thought, "Oh it's the 90's! This is fine!" I would have been creeped out and appalled...which is why predators have to start out subtly and groom their victims over time.

This behavior has not been "fine" or "legal" for quite some time, but it was tolerated by individuals in a community, especially if the perpetrator had influence. The culture of tolerance has changed, that's it. And it hasn't even changed that much. R. Kelly is known to groom and abuse underage girls, and he's not currently in prison where he belongs.

I've read the article and the piece that stands out to me is the inherent conflict of interest career-wise that women routinely face, regardless of age.

These girls contacted him hoping to further their careers and were surprised he responded at all. He did further their ambitions for a time, though at a cost because of his sexual interest in them.

But this is not an issue girls age out of because the problem is not specific to men whose sexual preference is underage girls. This issue can come up for any female seeking career advancement by connecting to a powerful man who happens to not be gay.

The article links to a YouTube video with a (allegedly) damning remark from Kricfalusi. Uploaded in Jan 2016, and supposedly still available when the author wrote this article, it is suddenly “unavailable due to copyright claims.” Shame.

Does anyone have a copy of this video?

https://youtu.be/PheypE68BKc?t=2902

I suspect that it was him talking to Howard Stern. From another article, "Howard Stern, while doing an interview, referenced Kricfalusi’s Sody Pop character, calling her 'a hot chick with big cans and nice legs.' Kricfalusi reportedly grinned, and added, 'She’s underage, too.'"

I think the full episode is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6OoJP3VJoA and I assume it will be taken down soon so I'll see if I can make a copy in that case.

Thanks.

What I don’t like about this is that video is evidence. Whoever took it down is participating in the culture of cover ups, that we pat ourselves on the back so much for lamenting. Censorship is de rigeur. Why? Why accept this? “This video contains content from Sirius XM, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.”

Shame, Sirius XM. Shame on you, and on the execs who made the call to censor that video.

This video is very cringe-worthy. And not just because of what he is wearing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msA11gdH_uU

John Kricfalusi's blog is a treasure trove for anyone willing to learn the ropes of animation and cartooning. It's one of the most fascinating blogs I've ever come across, even though I didn't like the style of Ren & Stimpy. He sounds like a very passionate, skillful and opinionated teacher.

> course http://johnkcurriculum.blogspot.com/

> posts http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/

Damnit. Why can’t our cartoon heroes be good people?

Fact is practically everyone who makes an impact large enough to be remembered is one kind of asshole or another. That's just how it is, people aren't perfect, and if even our heroes can't get it right maybe we shouldn't be so hard on eachother.

A bit off topic, and realize there's no way I'm going to come out of writing this unscathed, but I'm slightly frustrated in that I've used _exactly the same argument_ you just used here (specifically interesting new phenomenon), I believe in conversation with you as well (although it could have certainly been another poster, I certainly try to be internally consistent[0]) in previous flagged threads. Although those had a political bent, I felt they had even more connection to tech due to the companies and personalities involved, as well as their implications.

Can you clarify to me why topics along this(OPs) degree of polarization seem to get significantly more "institutional" support than many of the topics in the political/economic space that directly abut technology? I'm somewhat at a loss how the same standard that you asked readers in the thread in [1], "the ones that only stir up outrage, however justifiably, and don't also gratify intellectual curiosity, are not a good fit" wouldn't apply to this as well.

[0](To not say this without some sort of reference, I have a track record of trying to speak out against these apparent contradictions, and realize I'm certainly opening myself up to attack here as I did in this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16577724, within a thread where you basically said "I guess this wasn't interesting enough because people flagged it" and it garnered far less of a defense than this topic has. The original topic for which that thread was posted did not even get a response, and was merely flagged into oblivion despite massive upvoting pressure.) [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16578331

Edit: personal curiosity, is it normal that my post appears minimized as dead/flagged posts typically do, even in the case that it's ostensibly not?

I'm finding this comment a little hard to follow, but let me try. Obviously people are always going to disagree about particular calls, but on a principles level, from my perspective, we're pretty consistent.

If you're asking about the Haspel story, I wouldn't say that was an interesting new phenomenon in HN's sense, nor was there nearly enough information to feed a substantive discussion about it. To be honest that case wasn't even really a close call. Some new users got upset at us for moderating it, but as I tried to point out at the time, that was mostly because of unfamiliarity with how HN works.

An intense political profile ("if they'd cover it on TV news", as the site guidelines say) often feels like information, but usually isn't, in HN's sense. That doesn't mean the story isn't significant. When we say a story is off topic here and/or when we turn off flags on a story, we're not judging the story's overall significance. We're concerned with whether it fits the site guidelines and whether the community is able to discuss it substantively.

I think the answer to most of your questions probably lies in what kind of site HN is trying to be, and what kinds of site it is trying not to be.

Sorry for the ramble. The response is appreciated regardless. (Feel no compulsion to reply by the way, I just wanted to try and be more clear, I'm already grateful you took some time to try and answer.)

To distill it: I don't share the perception that enforcement is consistent. Social/sexual topics REGULARLY frontpage with minimal scores, while economic/political topics regularly languish despite having both closer ties to our industry and relating to much more impactful individuals.

To answer your own question "what sort of site HN is trying to be," I'd echo a statement the mods have made in the past, that it likely precludes topics that things like ET and chose your favorite tabloid has already covered to death by the time it shows up here, and primarily end up encouraging polarizing arguments without productive ends.

I'm not sure it's true that social/sexual topics get more moderation support than economics topics. Both overlap with politics and both have intellectually interesting areas. From my point of view we moderate them much the same. Purely political stories are different.

One of the most consistent phenomena I've observed here is that people's images of bias invariably reflect their own preferences. Users place a much higher weight on things they don't like than on things they do like. So to the extent that you prefer A stories to B stories, you're likely to feel there are way too many of B relative to A.

You're welcome to let us know (hn@ycombinator.com) if you see a particularly interesting economics story that deserves a chance at attention. We can take a look and maybe put it in the second-chance queue, described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 and links back from there. What we look for in such an article is how much of a diff there is from other stories of the genre. If it's more substantive than usual, that's good; if it seems predictable or likely to lead to predictable discussions, that's bad. Same standard as we applied to this one.

Yeah, I really don't buy dang's statement on the matter. This is Entertainment Tonight content. It's quite literally something that would be in TV news. It's a shame of a situation, but I don't see what makes this any different.

> Edit: personal curiosity, is it normal that my post appears minimized as dead/flagged posts typically do, even in the case that it's ostensibly not?

Similar to flagging/killing a comment/thread, the moderators can also "tag" (for lack of a better word) a comment/sub-thread so that it will show up collapsed.

I think it's mostly intended to "hide" comments/sub-threads that may be off-topic or whatever and allow others to just scroll right past them and avoid the OT subthread. For me, at least, they seem to grav my attention and I then want to read them in order to satisfy my curiosity (which is what happened in this case).

Right. But perhaps it would be better to just detach this subthread. I've done that.

I agree with the parent comment's sentiment. It makes no sense that this article and topic would be posted and discussed here.

It's not intellectually stimulating, it's not technology related, and it's no more notable than any of the dozen other sex scandals that have come out lately.

Paragraph two of the submission guidelines even specifically calls out this type of article as off-topic (emphasis added):

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719973 and marked it off-topic.

Still waiting for Dan Schneider to fall.

Wasn't he just fired?

Yes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w...

You eediot!

One of the things on my abstract wishlist is a hope that we as a culture can move away from this trend of saying terrible, awful things under the guise of 'irony'.

I think anybody would raise an eyebrow at that. It's a messed up statement. But because it's in the context of this conversation with a shock-jock, because it's _clearly_ ironic, it's _clearly a joke, why are you taking it so seriously, lighten up_, nobody called him on the fact that he was saying something incredibly messed up, and maybe if somebody had, then this would have come to light earlier.

I understand that freedom of speech is great and people are free to make whatever jokes they want. But just because they CAN doesn't mean they SHOULD, and if people stopped making jokes about being a pedophile, about being a predator, about being a nazi or a misogynist, I think we'd be better off.

Howard Stern is also the venue where Trump talked about walking in on beauty pageant contestants while they were naked. And that was without irony.

I don't want them pretending to be normal. Why do you want that?

I don't either. But I do want things like that to be more eyebrow raising, instead of everyone just assumes they're making a joke.

It's not that I want pedophiles to act normal and do a better job of hiding their abuses; rather, I'd just be happier if a) when somebody straight up says something that's gross like that, it gets called out and investigated and b) people don't make gross jokes like that to be edgy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com