It's astonishing to me that a person like this can become an admin on a website used by millions of teenagers. We already know that admins can access private messages and other personal information.
Allowing a person who willfully ignored pedophilia and torture be in a position of power near/directly engaging with minors, and then hiring that person, is despicable.
Key quote from this article: https://freebeacon.com/culture/reddit-faces-massive-user-pro...
I deactivated my reddit account and blocked reddit domains on my devices this morning as a result of the censorship. So now I'm cut off from any more reddit interaction and can't provide anything further. Also, Challenor and other admins deleting evidence and permabanning people is like, the whole issue.
I meant the one about moderating a number of subreddits pertaining to minors. I'm aware of the other claims.
Sex trafficing is just something police like to bring up at press conferences when they arrest women for prostitution. Often they don't actually charge anyone with it though, it just sounds cool to say so they do it.
Human trafficking (for non-sexual exploitation), sex trafficking, and non-coerced criminalized sex work have differences; but they all are very real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palermo_protocols
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victims_of_Trafficking_and_Vio...
I understand you have anecdotes from 2 women which describe non-coerced criminalized sex work, which is not sex trafficking.
My information comes from decades of global, publicly available and verified data. Sex trafficking is a real thing, and you delegitimize its victims when you say otherwise.
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/136020.pd...
Unfortunately not so astonishing, people like that are drawn to and commonly inhabit exactly the kinds of places you wouldn’t want them. There are some fairly recent public examples you could easily find.
unfortunately all of these platforms focus almost exclusively on subjective "We know bad things when we see them" type of rules
The only part that astonishes me is that Reddit hired the person. It suggests they are either not performing proper background checking (terrible), or they are and decided to overlook what they found (even worse).
- positions of power (we have had a few in france who were judges / party representatives etC...)
- any job close to children, which includes in particular schools, but also..
- church
Why ? Because if you woke up tommorow as a pedophile, without any morals, and wanted to maximise the "chances" to satisfy your sexual attraction, where would you go ? Exactly.
At sone point "if you are not a groups of pedohpiles covering each other, dont act like a group of pedophiles covering each others".
If i was pedophile i would absolutely go to the church, also because so many people have their faith blind the truth. The "cant even imagine" its possible this "respectable priest" can do that.
And yes you are right, i also forgot sport trainers.
It has nothing to do with child sexual abuse per sē, but simply that it's modus operandī, and that of many other organizations seems to be silence money to protect it's brand.
Surprisingly that's all I hear about in the media. I've been looking for hard data and haven't been able to find any, especially for things like priests vs teachers vs other people. Do you have any data on that?
What I am convinced of is that the ratio of those that break the law in crimes that typically involve abuse of power, are more commonly found in positions of power.
The average pædophile will live his life without ever breaking any such laws, by either lack of willingness, or lack of opportunities awarded by such power.
Schools! Oh...you went a different route. Right, we don't acknowledge the widespread sexual misconduct and cover-ups in the schools for another 5 years in this timeline because the church story was just so juicy.
that said reports in general are between like 1% and 10% of the total abuse so i'm not sure how significant it is
The Greens control Brighton unequivocally. There are Greens and LibDems in the House of Lords. The LibDems forced through a referendum on PR. They may seem like a harmless joke but they do wield power in their own way.
And therefore, they will try to get those positions where they are in power. I don't know if this was ever investivated, but it makes sense to me.
Edit: when you look at the dad in this story, raping and torturing a child seems more like the power aspect than the sexual one.
and in that case the father was dressing as a child when he was torturing the girl according to an article so i'm not sure he was looking specifically for power more than being downright crazy.. but why not
We likely hear a lot of places like Churches, hospitals, and schools, because historically people were pretty quiet about what went on there, and now all these horrible historic revelations are coming out one after another.
I can imagine access to children being a factor too, although actual pedophiles have an instinctual emotional closeness with children which might influence them towards those positions. If any are in those positions and see this, I really hope you don't do anything to anyone there.
The highest frequency of abuse actually happens in none of those places but at home. It is usually a family member who does it. Sometimes, it may even involve drugs, rather than a sexual interest. I'm not very fond of the War on Drugs, as it destroys lives, but I really hope people use drugs responsibly, when / if they do. And we may need better mental health services to reduce the perceived need to rely on alcohol / drugs.
From what I know, pedophilia is a spectrum, which goes from very weak (insignificant and easy to ignore for most intents and purposes) to the exclusive type. There are some sub-types, like ones who are only interested in infants, rather than older children. Pedophiles aren't synonymous with abusers. Many don't abuse.
On the one hand, you've got the (reasonable) rule "always condemn and distance yourself from pedophilia". On the other hand, you've got the also reasonable rule "never discriminate against someone because of their gender". If the Greens, Lib Dems, Reddit, or anyone else involved had chosen not to hire her, she could stir up outrage against them for gender discrimination. If they did hire her, the public could stir up outrage against them for their connection to pedophiles.
It's easy to agree that both pedophilia and gender discrimination are bad. It's harder to take action, especially when people have prior agendas.
We don't even need to hypothesize this specific "if", because that's exactly what she did[0] after being ousted from Green Party due to all the pedophilia-related concerns.
Preying on children, or advocating for those who want to, is a significantly bigger problem than the _accusation_ of bias based on preference.
I find that every time I read about such matters, it is from some Anglo-Saxon place where emotions about such matters seem to run high.
I cannot think of any Dutch occurrence of someone being dismissed from a party alleging any gender discrimination, and I would to what extent such arguments are truly something that sways the Anglo-Saxon, because every time I see them made, publicly or privately, they seem to be coming from an Anglo-Saxon source, in particular the U.S.A., but the U.K. is not very far behind.
But perhaps, it is simply a function of district-based politics where one votes for the man, rather than the party, so the personal life and identity of politicians takes a far grander scale than in other systems.
The most similar situation that comes to mind was the situation of Philomena Bijlhout in 2002, who was terminated after having lied about being a member of the Bouterse Militia when the December Murders occurred.
That was that; — he was terminated without any further drama or allegations that it was political gamesmanship, sexism, racism, xenophobia, manipulated evidence or anything else when the pictures that proved his word false surfaced.
I find that U.S.A. and U.K. politicians often have what I would consider petulant blame shifting when such matters occur that I feel are not strategic and only serve to bury them deeper, so I wonder if they actually are strategic in such a political climate of districts which creates far more extensive tribalism and voter loyalty, whereof I wonder if it contributes to actually making such claims worthwhile.
I have noticed that the U.S. and U.K. population seems to be very loyal in general and often unreasonably defend a cause, product, and man to the death, even when flaws are apparent.
The fact that someone could pretend you aren't hiring them because of their gender is moot when you can simply point to the real reason you're not hiring them.
If I'm faced with the question of whether to hire an unrepentant serial killer, I'm not going to let their gender inform my decision. That's not "balance" in any way.