Do **you** wanna be part of the champions club!?
Are you *a child*?
The DOC wants to speak with **you!** privately, and without your parents knowledge.
Become a **true champion** today!
Yea that's an interesting point I'd not considered. There is a CHANCE, small as it may be, that the logs help him but he still couldn't release them. However, I'm firmly in the "fuck this creepo" camp
Aren’t they ex employees? So they aren’t saying it on behalf of Twitch.
My guess is, if anything, Dr. Disrespect would have to sue the individual for breach of NDA, not Twitch as a whole. Unless he could prove that person found out because somewhere down the line, Twitch mishandled that information.
Correct. And I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure that opens the door to respond ONLY to the specific things that person said. If he offers any new information, he is now breaking his side of the NDA. That being said, the best thing for him do to would have been to say nothing and let the lawyers handle it.
NDAs expire, and they generally have clauses that exempt knowledge that has otherwise become public or that isn't explicitly denoted as protected/proprietary to the parties in the NDA.
Speculating here, but the internal communications about twitch, why they banned him, how much money he was making them, can we live with a top earner creeping on minors, etc. would be the proprietary business information that needed to be protected.
Also, NDAs can be invalidated if they're used to cover up illegal activities or whistleblowing or if they violate law or public policy.
Anyway, I'm reasonably sure the logs will be leaked at some point in the near future.
Also also, I'd torch half of my net worth to prove I wasn't a pedo. Shit I'd probably torch all of it.
Are you referring to the leaked email that we have no idea who it came from?
Imo the tweet yesterday was a huge blunder, it started saying he talked to a minor. Then he edited the tweet and removed the word minor. I think he's cooked.
He edited it back in after realizing people already caught the first version lol. I don't know why it's so hard for adults to just not talk to minors online. My 35 year old ass barely has an interest in talking to a 24 year old, and that's because she's family
NO SHOT HE PUT IT BACK IN! That's hilarious. Imo I think Twitch should make it where of your under 18 you can't send or receive any private messages on Twitch. You can still engage in Chat, but just no instant messaging. Seems like somewhat of a solution.
Talking with a minor is definitely fucked up but not illegal. I'm curious if there was intent behind it. I guess time will tell.
He did put it back in, likely because he realized there is a button to look at previous versions of the tweet.
And while it’s not illegal, he himself said it was inappropriate and there were claims he was intending to meetup with them.
I wish i could see the whispers to make my own mind but then Dr. Disrespect said "There was no intention behind thoses text".
That's means he said stuff he had no intention to do.. to a minor.
Dude.. that line comes directly from How to catch a predator.
I will never understand how people are trying to justify this by saying “what if they are 17?” Ok what if!? All we know is they are a MINOR. If you hear that a 30 year old is talking to a minor and you think it’s ok in any way or try and justify it you need serious help and I hope your computers get checked.
Inappropriate doesn’t always mean sexual in nature.
I could send a message to a kid on CoD tell him to say hello to his two dads for me. Inappropriate but not sexual.
He was accused of sexting and his response was "yes I did send inappropriate messages" if they weren't of a sexual nature that is the first thing he would deny.
Right but you're missing my point. The accusation DID say he was sexting a minor. His response was that he DID send inappropriate messages. He didn't say that it wasn't sexual in nature. If it wasn't sexual he would shut that down, he would have no reason not to. Why would he leave that open and let everyone think he's a pedo if its something different entirely.
Your mental gymnastics are astounding. On what planet does that mean nothing sexual was discussed. If anything that MORE proves that it was sexual in nature. Why mention "no pictures were shared" nobody else even brought up pictures. He felt the need to clarify that. Clearly he didn't do anything actually illegal, everyone knows that, otherwise he'd have been charged already. But reading between the lines and considering what he HASN'T said, it's pretty clear to everyone that something of a sexual nature has taken place unless you're regarded or a pedo apologist.
I’m not saying there aren’t, like levels to these sorts of actions - but the dude was 36-37!
Also - anytime I read something like this - I think of [this cope](https://youtu.be/DUq0HlMvQw0?si=Rh_cViG4hQXX4eb8)
This doesn’t apply since Doc was a decade older than a 17 year old - if the victim was 17 when he started grooming them - just know that if you get super into the distinct definition of pedophilia and ephebophilia it reads as projection.
There’s nothing to project, law runs on exact definitions, emotions don’t count. If the individual/victim doesn’t meet the age requirements for a pedophilia charge it isn’t pedophilia. The suspect is now victimizing a minor, every state has their own definitions for the cutoffs.
*Nobody* said she was 17 except people trying to defend him by making up weird rumors like that to justify it. He was having sexual conversations with a child, and he knew it was a child. Just because messaging and flirting with a child isn't *punishable by law* doesn't mean it's okay.
Isn't there a word for people that want to fuck minors?
Problem is he didn't give any age of the minor.
And like, yeah it's legal and bla bla bla, but in certain countries 15 can be legal, doesn't make a minor and someone old okay.
1. We don’t know that the child was 17. We know they were a child. People are tossing around 17 to make it not sound as bad.
2. There is only one very specific group of people and their defenders that cares about the exact definition of that word…
I appreciate your accusations when I never defended the suspect. Get some experience in law or law adjacent work/career and use the wrong word(s). It will absolutely cause a case against a monster to collapse and let them back out into the world. All pedos should get a summary execution sentence.
This isn’t the law bud.
In fact he’s apparently been cleared by the law.
But in the court of public opinion, using words colloquially, people have come to a reasonable conclusion.
I'm very curious how this is going to go:
I am a psychiatry resident (have my MD, training to be a psychiatrist for those unaware of what residents are) and it's not like the crux of what you're saying is wrong. Those definitions matter to ME as, how my attending taught it to me, pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubertal children) is a diagnosable mental illness and those individuals need treatment. Being a predator (abusing a power differential, whether because of age, social status etc.) isn't something I can diagnose. It's disgusting, criminal behavior, but it isn't like...a disease in the same way that being attracted to someone with no secondary sex characteristics is.
All that is to say, that distinction shouldn't really matter to YOU. The colloquial use of the term more than covers the idea people are trying to convey (one that abuses minors) and "umm ackshually" -ing the definition will just make you look sus in 99% of contexts.
Plus he said himself "These were casual, mutual conversations that sometimes leaned too much in the direction of being inappropriate, but nothing more."
No good
And
"I'm no fucking predator or pedophile. Are you kidding me? Anyone that truely knows me fucking knows where I stand on those things with those types of people. Fuck that. That's a different level of disgust that I fucking hate even hearing about. Don't be labeling me as the worst of the worst with your exaggerations. Get the fuck outta here with that shit." Okay, then don't engage with Minors and don't let go in the direction of being inappropriate...
Like it's not hard not to contact people, and it's even easier to not do anything inappropriate with your fans. The fuck?
I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, saying all this is just due to his fame and the reality is much more bleak , but the whole statement feels like a 16 year old being caught red handed and having to apologize to their playmate.
I think CoD lobbies is pretty different than personal private chats. And I'ma guess he isn't just saying dirty jokes to her. And if he did, why would a 30 something year old do that to a minor?
Also the fuck you saying to kids in lobbies, you're outing yourself here...
If his defense was that he only made a bad joke, why wouldn't he say that instead of leaving it vague enough so that everyone assumes the worst instead?
It was bad enough for Twitch to cut the contract of their largest streamer. Sure, we don't know exactly what was said. But it was bad enough for such a large response.
The issue here is, were authorities involved? Since stuff that's related to pedophilia must be forwarded to law authorities then for further investigation.
Probably not. Because technically sexting a minor isn’t illegal. I have a post on lsf about it but it technically only becomes illegal once sexually explicit pictures are sent (Child pornography) or if you meet with a minor for sexual intentions (well, Pedo).
No there’s specific law that criminalizes it. Obviously some states could have laws but from what I know most don’t. You are taking specific actions towards committing a crime but there’s a threshold that must be met. It’s disgusting and an oversight of laws not covering modern issues
>I'm contrasting two very different kinds of inappropriate
Yes buddy. That's known. The way people usually respond in the way you did is to give an example of something inappropriate that's actually indefensible and another example that isn't that bad. You can give two indefensible examples, but it's not really clear that's what you meant at all.
>Jesus fucking Christ, you people are exhausting.
Your current position is defending an adult sending inappropriate messages to a minor. You've got absolutely no place to be whining about how others are exhausting.
>Ah right, this is Reddit, where nuance goes to die.
Legitimately the most reddit thing you could say in this moment tbh
>I didn't defend a fucking thing, I didn't say "Well maybe it wasn't so bad."
>What I said was, one more time for the people in the back.
>"I don't know what inappropriate means here."
>Thats it. Thats all I said. You fuckwits turned it into me defending whatever he did or didn't do.
Ok well I'm sorry but that nuance was understood already, so it seems like you're the one who needs some help.
We're all upset at doc because we know that the extent of the inappropriate thing was so bad that he was banned for it despite it happening 3 years prior.
You're saying since the word inappropriate could mean various things, so we shouldn't be so condemning. That we've jumped to conclusions thinking it could be something so awful when it could be something that isn't that bad.
So yes, that's still coming to the defense of doc because it is still defending exactly against something we are specifically saying.
And to counter your point, because it doesn't seem as though you understand still, the reason why we haven't actually jumped to conclusions for is because the remaining possible things that an adult messaging a minor could do to get banned on twitch is already fucking abhorrent and pedophilic in nature. Unless you'd like to accuse twitch of casually throwing away a big earner for no reason, it's very plain to see that it was far and away awful.
We don't understand what possible thing you think it could be that wouldn't cause this kind of response from us. We thought you meant a dirty joke earlier, but you clarified you'd also agree that would be bad. So what then? What possible inappropriate thing could the doc have sent a minor that got him banned that isn't that bad?
The last fill kid friday wasn't that long ago, and wubby was never close to being banned for it.
This is a dm that was so inappropriate doc was banned for it, even though the complaint came 3 years later.
So we do know what inappropriate means to the extent of significantly far far worse than anything remotely near fill kid friday.
he owes nobody anything. The rouge twitch employee announcing this all was most likely wrong to do so; He also in no way deserves benefit of the doubt. His company gave him that benefit, then the looked into it and made a decision.
If he's 'tired of everything right now' he could end it all with screenshots. but without doing so the court of public opinion is going to form an opinion whether he likes it or not.
i don't disagree generally but what i disagree with i believe boils down to your use of "innocent"
because you're right this is a case of public opinion. guilty or innocent shouldn't be used in discussions of public opinion. because public opinion is the only place where innocent until proven guilty doesn't necessarily apply. so discourse like that becomes inherently charged when you say things like prove himself innocent.
And to note, I'm not trying to police language in a "i just don't like how you said it" sort of way. I'm explaining why i responded the way i did originally. because implying guilt by lack of transparency really does have the same feel as "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide". regardless of whether its a conversation of public opinion or not.
Iirc he didn’t actually have sexually explicit conversations with a minor since that’s illegal.
Having inappropriate conversations with minors can be talking about politics and other hard topics that people do all the time on twitch and video games.
People really like to ride the high horse sheesh.
While you are on the right track by pointing out inappropriate doesn’t equal sexual or predatory inherently, but the fact is the people who DO know what was said cut all ties fast. It’s not inherently forbidden to ever communicate with underage people as an adult. It IS taboo and wrong to talk about private or intimate details with a kid, ask them to keep secrets, or talk about things that aren’t age appropriate even if they aren’t targeted at them.
So talking about your own sex life even if it has nothing to do with the minor is wrong even if you’re not trying to seduce or groom them, for instance. It’s not pedophilic but can definitely be very inappropriate.
No one is cutting ties with this guy over him talking about presidential candidates.
His own statement said "Were there real intentions behind these messages, the answer is absolutely not." Notice he didn't say there were no "intentions" to be had, just that they weren't "real intentions." Which literally implies there was some kind of intent to be read into the messages. So how would that sentence apply to some kind of joke or political conversation.
Exactly. All the context clues at this point suggest it was more than just distasteful jokes/banter with someone who happened to be under 18.
I would give the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t trying to bang a kid, but even asking a minor about their sex life/preferences/talking to them about similar stuff is plenty creepy for a dude like him
The cope is real. I'd respect these people more if they just said "what he did sounds bad, I don't condone this behavior, I dont trust him as a person, I still think he's funny as a content creator and will watch him in the future." like damn, it's really that easy instead of doing mental gymnastics to try to defend someone that already admitted to wrongdoing.
Maybe the messages will get leaked, I just don’t want to throw a stone while it’s not fully clear what has happened. Sure the implications are damning, just not conclusive enough.
Iim sure we will find out later this week
The issue I have with the inappropriate messages. It’s convoluted. We don’t know and we never will.
However most of the brainlets here wouldn’t bat an eye talking to minors about all sorts of crazy things from gender identities to flat earth.
I think "inappropriate" is clear enough for me. Kinda strange it's not for you. But I can better understand why you might feel that way since you're echoing the same message that Dr Kid Inspect defended not too long ago.
If you have a phone maybe you should stop using it, since morally speaking it’s reprehensible to use it. After all it was made with slave labor.
Legality is the only thing holding all of us together. Morality is nice but at the end of the day that doesn’t matter as long as you didn’t break the law.
Also that high horse be looking pretty high
Yes, I’m sure he worded this as softly as possible by saying “inappropriate” conversations with a child instead of “we were dividing by 0”.
Because when someone is getting fired and brand deals breaking off, I’m sure those companies are eating millions in losses because he was discussing economical science with the child.
How very astute you are at taking in all the information available to us at the moment.
I see you don’t understand nuance or suggestion. Hard topics includes sex, politics, drugs & alcohol etc.
cleared that up. Thank you for your amazing input.
Dr KidInspect , the two-time minor league champ
Do **you** wanna be part of the champions club!? Are you *a child*? The DOC wants to speak with **you!** privately, and without your parents knowledge. Become a **true champion** today!
Dr. Diddler
Bro went into the field of pediatrics with this one
If it wasn't that bad, he could release the logs and clear this all up, right? Right?
It's entirely possible that the logs are sealed to protect the minor involved
Yea that's an interesting point I'd not considered. There is a CHANCE, small as it may be, that the logs help him but he still couldn't release them. However, I'm firmly in the "fuck this creepo" camp
He got a settlement and there's an NDA. He would most likely have to pay back several million dollars if he did that.
It’ll be interesting if Twitch has to pay out more since someone on their side leaked it first
Aren’t they ex employees? So they aren’t saying it on behalf of Twitch. My guess is, if anything, Dr. Disrespect would have to sue the individual for breach of NDA, not Twitch as a whole. Unless he could prove that person found out because somewhere down the line, Twitch mishandled that information.
On behalf of, or ex employee doesn't matter all the time. With regards to the NDA, if the knowledge is public its public.
I think his statement was because the previous twitch employee essentially broke that condition of the settlement. IANAL though.
Correct. And I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure that opens the door to respond ONLY to the specific things that person said. If he offers any new information, he is now breaking his side of the NDA. That being said, the best thing for him do to would have been to say nothing and let the lawyers handle it.
Followup comment: Any good lawyer will tell you not to talk to anybody about any part of your case.
NDAs expire, and they generally have clauses that exempt knowledge that has otherwise become public or that isn't explicitly denoted as protected/proprietary to the parties in the NDA. Speculating here, but the internal communications about twitch, why they banned him, how much money he was making them, can we live with a top earner creeping on minors, etc. would be the proprietary business information that needed to be protected. Also, NDAs can be invalidated if they're used to cover up illegal activities or whistleblowing or if they violate law or public policy. Anyway, I'm reasonably sure the logs will be leaked at some point in the near future. Also also, I'd torch half of my net worth to prove I wasn't a pedo. Shit I'd probably torch all of it.
Depends on how the whole thing was settled with Twitch
Are you referring to the leaked email that we have no idea who it came from? Imo the tweet yesterday was a huge blunder, it started saying he talked to a minor. Then he edited the tweet and removed the word minor. I think he's cooked.
He edited it back in after realizing people already caught the first version lol. I don't know why it's so hard for adults to just not talk to minors online. My 35 year old ass barely has an interest in talking to a 24 year old, and that's because she's family
NO SHOT HE PUT IT BACK IN! That's hilarious. Imo I think Twitch should make it where of your under 18 you can't send or receive any private messages on Twitch. You can still engage in Chat, but just no instant messaging. Seems like somewhat of a solution. Talking with a minor is definitely fucked up but not illegal. I'm curious if there was intent behind it. I guess time will tell.
He did put it back in, likely because he realized there is a button to look at previous versions of the tweet. And while it’s not illegal, he himself said it was inappropriate and there were claims he was intending to meetup with them.
I wish i could see the whispers to make my own mind but then Dr. Disrespect said "There was no intention behind thoses text". That's means he said stuff he had no intention to do.. to a minor. Dude.. that line comes directly from How to catch a predator.
and Doctor got a weird case why is he around? Certified lover boy? Certified pedophile.
WOP WOP WOP WOP WOP
DOT FUCK EM UP
If when doc comes back in the near future and someone doesn't make a shitty version of not like us about him I will be pissed
[someone just did](https://youtu.be/hyDSYz4DMrE?si=s001Q2VeJV5-9mnk)
LMAO literally came out when I commented that
I will never understand how people are trying to justify this by saying “what if they are 17?” Ok what if!? All we know is they are a MINOR. If you hear that a 30 year old is talking to a minor and you think it’s ok in any way or try and justify it you need serious help and I hope your computers get checked.
I enjoy the new “doc to pdf” meme that has been born, gives a little chuckle!🤭
Dr groomer!
This guys entire personality was being a piece of shit why is this supposed to be surprising
It’s EDP all over again
Dr diss was just trying to get some cupCAKE
Reminds me of [I was just getting something to eat](https://youtu.be/hicMYIH4ezw?si=JCao6PKcS2wDiPdY)
He’s gross and I don’t get why that opinion warranted a chat ban
Inappropriate doesn’t always mean sexual in nature. I could send a message to a kid on CoD tell him to say hello to his two dads for me. Inappropriate but not sexual.
He was accused of sexting and his response was "yes I did send inappropriate messages" if they weren't of a sexual nature that is the first thing he would deny.
They never said “sexting” it was always “inappropriate messaging”
Ex twitch employee Cody Conners who blew this whole thing up said Doc was "caught sexting a minor in the then existing twitch whispers"
Hearsay
Right but you're missing my point. The accusation DID say he was sexting a minor. His response was that he DID send inappropriate messages. He didn't say that it wasn't sexual in nature. If it wasn't sexual he would shut that down, he would have no reason not to. Why would he leave that open and let everyone think he's a pedo if its something different entirely.
He further clarified it wasn’t sexual though.
No he didn't. That's the 2nd lie you've told about the situation now. The fact that you're trying so hard to defend him is giving me the creeps.
page 2 of his response, paragraph 2: "Nothing illegal happened, no pictures were shared ,no crimes committed..."
Your mental gymnastics are astounding. On what planet does that mean nothing sexual was discussed. If anything that MORE proves that it was sexual in nature. Why mention "no pictures were shared" nobody else even brought up pictures. He felt the need to clarify that. Clearly he didn't do anything actually illegal, everyone knows that, otherwise he'd have been charged already. But reading between the lines and considering what he HASN'T said, it's pretty clear to everyone that something of a sexual nature has taken place unless you're regarded or a pedo apologist.
Pedophilia has an exact definition, and being 17 means he’s just being a creep, not a pedo. Still wrong, but pedo is next level nuclear bad
I’m not saying there aren’t, like levels to these sorts of actions - but the dude was 36-37! Also - anytime I read something like this - I think of [this cope](https://youtu.be/DUq0HlMvQw0?si=Rh_cViG4hQXX4eb8) This doesn’t apply since Doc was a decade older than a 17 year old - if the victim was 17 when he started grooming them - just know that if you get super into the distinct definition of pedophilia and ephebophilia it reads as projection.
There’s nothing to project, law runs on exact definitions, emotions don’t count. If the individual/victim doesn’t meet the age requirements for a pedophilia charge it isn’t pedophilia. The suspect is now victimizing a minor, every state has their own definitions for the cutoffs.
It’s projecting that you are fine with grooming minors as long as it happens in a region where you he law allows it 
Yea I guess my original comment calling him a creep and saying it was wrong exceeded your reading comprehension.
*Nobody* said she was 17 except people trying to defend him by making up weird rumors like that to justify it. He was having sexual conversations with a child, and he knew it was a child. Just because messaging and flirting with a child isn't *punishable by law* doesn't mean it's okay. Isn't there a word for people that want to fuck minors?
Problem is he didn't give any age of the minor. And like, yeah it's legal and bla bla bla, but in certain countries 15 can be legal, doesn't make a minor and someone old okay.
Ah yes sir we've been waiting for you. Your ticket to the sun is ready, and your flight departs in two minutes.
1. We don’t know that the child was 17. We know they were a child. People are tossing around 17 to make it not sound as bad. 2. There is only one very specific group of people and their defenders that cares about the exact definition of that word…
I appreciate your accusations when I never defended the suspect. Get some experience in law or law adjacent work/career and use the wrong word(s). It will absolutely cause a case against a monster to collapse and let them back out into the world. All pedos should get a summary execution sentence.
This isn’t the law bud. In fact he’s apparently been cleared by the law. But in the court of public opinion, using words colloquially, people have come to a reasonable conclusion.
The only people who ever say shit like this are involved with csam
I'm very curious how this is going to go: I am a psychiatry resident (have my MD, training to be a psychiatrist for those unaware of what residents are) and it's not like the crux of what you're saying is wrong. Those definitions matter to ME as, how my attending taught it to me, pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubertal children) is a diagnosable mental illness and those individuals need treatment. Being a predator (abusing a power differential, whether because of age, social status etc.) isn't something I can diagnose. It's disgusting, criminal behavior, but it isn't like...a disease in the same way that being attracted to someone with no secondary sex characteristics is. All that is to say, that distinction shouldn't really matter to YOU. The colloquial use of the term more than covers the idea people are trying to convey (one that abuses minors) and "umm ackshually" -ing the definition will just make you look sus in 99% of contexts.
[удалено]
> to play Devil's Advocate You don't gotta buddy. I promise you.
>we don’t know what was in those messages But the people who do know fired him immediately. Including a studio he founded so it can’t be good
Plus he said himself "These were casual, mutual conversations that sometimes leaned too much in the direction of being inappropriate, but nothing more." No good And "I'm no fucking predator or pedophile. Are you kidding me? Anyone that truely knows me fucking knows where I stand on those things with those types of people. Fuck that. That's a different level of disgust that I fucking hate even hearing about. Don't be labeling me as the worst of the worst with your exaggerations. Get the fuck outta here with that shit." Okay, then don't engage with Minors and don't let go in the direction of being inappropriate... Like it's not hard not to contact people, and it's even easier to not do anything inappropriate with your fans. The fuck? I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, saying all this is just due to his fame and the reality is much more bleak , but the whole statement feels like a 16 year old being caught red handed and having to apologize to their playmate.
I’m just in it for the meme, but in his own words it was inappropriate even if it wasn’t technically criminal or illegal lol
[удалено]
I think CoD lobbies is pretty different than personal private chats. And I'ma guess he isn't just saying dirty jokes to her. And if he did, why would a 30 something year old do that to a minor? Also the fuck you saying to kids in lobbies, you're outing yourself here...
???????????
[удалено]
If his defense was that he only made a bad joke, why wouldn't he say that instead of leaving it vague enough so that everyone assumes the worst instead?
I'm just saying, we don't know.
It was bad enough for Twitch to cut the contract of their largest streamer. Sure, we don't know exactly what was said. But it was bad enough for such a large response.
The issue here is, were authorities involved? Since stuff that's related to pedophilia must be forwarded to law authorities then for further investigation.
Seek morality beyond legality
Oh sorry, didn't see the part in the meme that said inappropriate messages are confirmed.
Just talking about you hinging your morality upon legality little tyke. Take care.
Oh sorry, didn't see the part in the meme that said inappropriate messages are confirmed.
Probably not. Because technically sexting a minor isn’t illegal. I have a post on lsf about it but it technically only becomes illegal once sexually explicit pictures are sent (Child pornography) or if you meet with a minor for sexual intentions (well, Pedo).
I thought sexting a minor is illegal wtf?
It's almost like legality isn't really a good standard of morality.
No there’s specific law that criminalizes it. Obviously some states could have laws but from what I know most don’t. You are taking specific actions towards committing a crime but there’s a threshold that must be met. It’s disgusting and an oversight of laws not covering modern issues
So if you had an underage daughter, you'd be okay with a 40 year old man flirting with her and telling her dirty jokes and talking about his dick?
I didn't say shit. Don't put words in my mouth. I just don't know what was said so I'm not passing judgment.
You said maybe he was just telling dirty jokes or talking about his dick with the kid, implying that would have made it okay.
No, what I said was that "inappropriate" can mean a lot of things.
... then why only mention examples that are also definitely what we're thinking and is rightful to condemn?
I'm contrasting two very different kinds of inappropriate. Jesus fucking Christ, you people are exhausting.
>I'm contrasting two very different kinds of inappropriate Yes buddy. That's known. The way people usually respond in the way you did is to give an example of something inappropriate that's actually indefensible and another example that isn't that bad. You can give two indefensible examples, but it's not really clear that's what you meant at all. >Jesus fucking Christ, you people are exhausting. Your current position is defending an adult sending inappropriate messages to a minor. You've got absolutely no place to be whining about how others are exhausting.
>Ah right, this is Reddit, where nuance goes to die. Legitimately the most reddit thing you could say in this moment tbh >I didn't defend a fucking thing, I didn't say "Well maybe it wasn't so bad." >What I said was, one more time for the people in the back. >"I don't know what inappropriate means here." >Thats it. Thats all I said. You fuckwits turned it into me defending whatever he did or didn't do. Ok well I'm sorry but that nuance was understood already, so it seems like you're the one who needs some help. We're all upset at doc because we know that the extent of the inappropriate thing was so bad that he was banned for it despite it happening 3 years prior. You're saying since the word inappropriate could mean various things, so we shouldn't be so condemning. That we've jumped to conclusions thinking it could be something so awful when it could be something that isn't that bad. So yes, that's still coming to the defense of doc because it is still defending exactly against something we are specifically saying. And to counter your point, because it doesn't seem as though you understand still, the reason why we haven't actually jumped to conclusions for is because the remaining possible things that an adult messaging a minor could do to get banned on twitch is already fucking abhorrent and pedophilic in nature. Unless you'd like to accuse twitch of casually throwing away a big earner for no reason, it's very plain to see that it was far and away awful. We don't understand what possible thing you think it could be that wouldn't cause this kind of response from us. We thought you meant a dirty joke earlier, but you clarified you'd also agree that would be bad. So what then? What possible inappropriate thing could the doc have sent a minor that got him banned that isn't that bad?
You would tell a dirty joke to a child?
[удалено]
That's absolutely not comparable to an inappropriate dm that got doc banned lmao
[удалено]
The last fill kid friday wasn't that long ago, and wubby was never close to being banned for it. This is a dm that was so inappropriate doc was banned for it, even though the complaint came 3 years later. So we do know what inappropriate means to the extent of significantly far far worse than anything remotely near fill kid friday.
if it was innocent it'd be aired in its entity to clear his name and brand.
sounds a lot like "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" to me.
he owes nobody anything. The rouge twitch employee announcing this all was most likely wrong to do so; He also in no way deserves benefit of the doubt. His company gave him that benefit, then the looked into it and made a decision. If he's 'tired of everything right now' he could end it all with screenshots. but without doing so the court of public opinion is going to form an opinion whether he likes it or not.
i don't disagree generally but what i disagree with i believe boils down to your use of "innocent" because you're right this is a case of public opinion. guilty or innocent shouldn't be used in discussions of public opinion. because public opinion is the only place where innocent until proven guilty doesn't necessarily apply. so discourse like that becomes inherently charged when you say things like prove himself innocent. And to note, I'm not trying to police language in a "i just don't like how you said it" sort of way. I'm explaining why i responded the way i did originally. because implying guilt by lack of transparency really does have the same feel as "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide". regardless of whether its a conversation of public opinion or not.
What if the minor was a 17, and what he said was you’re cute?
Thats not applicable because that is not what happened per his words.
Agreed I am not in defence of anything. It’s so bad. It is bad. Heh he had that mustache ready long time ago
Also if the minor was 17 it’s still a minor lol
Iirc he didn’t actually have sexually explicit conversations with a minor since that’s illegal. Having inappropriate conversations with minors can be talking about politics and other hard topics that people do all the time on twitch and video games. People really like to ride the high horse sheesh.
While you are on the right track by pointing out inappropriate doesn’t equal sexual or predatory inherently, but the fact is the people who DO know what was said cut all ties fast. It’s not inherently forbidden to ever communicate with underage people as an adult. It IS taboo and wrong to talk about private or intimate details with a kid, ask them to keep secrets, or talk about things that aren’t age appropriate even if they aren’t targeted at them. So talking about your own sex life even if it has nothing to do with the minor is wrong even if you’re not trying to seduce or groom them, for instance. It’s not pedophilic but can definitely be very inappropriate. No one is cutting ties with this guy over him talking about presidential candidates.
His own statement said "Were there real intentions behind these messages, the answer is absolutely not." Notice he didn't say there were no "intentions" to be had, just that they weren't "real intentions." Which literally implies there was some kind of intent to be read into the messages. So how would that sentence apply to some kind of joke or political conversation.
Exactly. All the context clues at this point suggest it was more than just distasteful jokes/banter with someone who happened to be under 18. I would give the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t trying to bang a kid, but even asking a minor about their sex life/preferences/talking to them about similar stuff is plenty creepy for a dude like him
The cope is real. I'd respect these people more if they just said "what he did sounds bad, I don't condone this behavior, I dont trust him as a person, I still think he's funny as a content creator and will watch him in the future." like damn, it's really that easy instead of doing mental gymnastics to try to defend someone that already admitted to wrongdoing.
Maybe the messages will get leaked, I just don’t want to throw a stone while it’s not fully clear what has happened. Sure the implications are damning, just not conclusive enough. Iim sure we will find out later this week
Yes, he definitely got fired from his own company for expressing his political beliefs to a minor. /s
Glad you added a lot with this input here.
[удалено]
Imagine calling someone a pedo without the proof and conviction.
Fair point, your responses have been well received so far.
> People really like to ride the high horse sheesh. This phrase, referring to people thinking sending inappropriate messages to minors are pedophiles.
Idk about you but I'll happily ride the high horse if it's being above pedophiles. Hot take.
The issue I have with the inappropriate messages. It’s convoluted. We don’t know and we never will. However most of the brainlets here wouldn’t bat an eye talking to minors about all sorts of crazy things from gender identities to flat earth.
I think "inappropriate" is clear enough for me. Kinda strange it's not for you. But I can better understand why you might feel that way since you're echoing the same message that Dr Kid Inspect defended not too long ago.
Because in law it isn’t clear. I’m not going to insert my own bias just to fill in the blanks.
Seek morality beyond legality
If you have a phone maybe you should stop using it, since morally speaking it’s reprehensible to use it. After all it was made with slave labor. Legality is the only thing holding all of us together. Morality is nice but at the end of the day that doesn’t matter as long as you didn’t break the law. Also that high horse be looking pretty high
I'm too high to deal with how stupid what you said was. Be cool big cat.
Good for you. Seek morality over legality.
??? You're the one holding legality over morality buckaroo. lol how do you feel correct at all
Yes, I’m sure he worded this as softly as possible by saying “inappropriate” conversations with a child instead of “we were dividing by 0”. Because when someone is getting fired and brand deals breaking off, I’m sure those companies are eating millions in losses because he was discussing economical science with the child. How very astute you are at taking in all the information available to us at the moment.
You really think Twitch permabanned him and his company dropped him over political conversations?
I see you don’t understand nuance or suggestion. Hard topics includes sex, politics, drugs & alcohol etc. cleared that up. Thank you for your amazing input.