Feeds

back to article Anonymous vows to wipe web clean of child abuse scum

Sections of Anonymous have once again turned their ire towards online sites frequented by child abusers. OpPedoChat follows earlier campaigns by sections of the hacktivist groups that subjected websites linked to the distribution of paedophile material with denial of service attacks and membership exposure. For example, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

lynching via internet?

As apparently laudable as this aim is, I hope to heaven they name the right people!

33
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: lynching via internet?

While I am sympathetic to the underlying principle, vigilante justice is not a good idea.

Say a data dump from Anonymous that supposedly shows a list of people swapping paedo photos is made public (or even passed on to the plod), who's to say whether the list is authentic, untampered, and correctly identifies the people on it. John Smith from California is a bit vague and I doubt these people will have Social Security numbers or dates of birth published on the sites. And Anonymous themselves would be the first to oppose the principle that an IP address can be used to positively identify an individual.

There's a reason courts insist on the integrity of a chain of evidence.

10
0
Bronze badge

Re: lynching via internet?

And indeed keep at sufficiently arms length that they don't compromise evidence that could be used in criminal prosecutions and render it inadmissible in court because the machines have been poked at by a 3rd party.

2
0
FAIL

Re: lynching via internet?

Given that Operation Ore managed to convict a number of people wrongly with apparently strong evidence, i'm pretty sure this endeavor is about to ruin a number of lives.

Also, we are told variously that the pedo rings exist and continue based on anonymity and obfuscation, something that rings all too true about Anonymous themselves.

The aim may be laudable, but it has a high chance of actually doing more damage than good - if the sites are known, hand them to the FBI and let them run as another honey-pot operation (again), with confirmed chains of evidence.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: lynching via internet?

If Pedo neighbour hacks your WiFi, you'd better leave the country.

I remember the BNP list when it came out. The neighbours in the flat opposite were named. However, it was a black family, so I'm guessing it was either a mistake or out of date information.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Well my first thought is good luck to them, but I also hope they get it right and don't out innocent people as paedophiles, that would be a massive injustice too.

21
0
Anonymous Coward

I suspect Anonymous will simply provide another example of why mob justice is a bad idea.

Lets just hope they know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician...

29
0
Gold badge

Curious to know how they will target such sites whilst staying at sufficient arms length from them to avoid being accused themselves.

I expect it will become a common defence in court that they weren't *using* the site, they were working as part of the Anonymous collective in order to bring it down. Honest, m'lud.

17
1

Worked for Pete whatsisname, didn't it?

Said he was downloading kiddie porn because he was writing a book about it, and apparently the judge bought that -- Townshend, that was the name, Pete Townshend. Something of a precedent there, I suppose, though I do wonder whether it works as well for Guy Fawkes fondlers as it did for a famous guy.

0
5
Anonymous Coward

"Lets just hope they know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician..."

-Considering that they mistook a rural village in Japan with the headquarters of the Japanese government during their latest shenanigans, I don't have high hopes for them. (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/29/anonymous-hackers-mistake-kasumigaura-kasumigaseki.html)

Perhaps they'd tweet "We made a mistake. We're sorry. Greek suffixes are difficult" when the mistake is pointed out afterwards.

10
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Worked for Pete whatsisname, didn't it?

Was trawling Deja News once, back when it was called that. Came across some newsgroup or other that was discussing pictures that had been extracted from behind a paywall. I clicked the links, stupidly enough.

Promptly printed some out in full colour, walked to the nearest cop shop and handed them in, as well as prints to the original dejanews pages complete with USENET post headers. I wasn't arrested, but I did get a firm instruction to never go on that site again just in case I did get dragged into Operation Ore. I'd never seen a copper's face turn white before that day.

Your mileage may vary. Knowing what I do now, I'd definitely not recommend the same course of action to anybody.

10
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Worked for Pete whatsisname, didn't it?

"Said he was downloading kiddie porn because he was writing a book about it, and apparently the judge bought that..."

Well no, not really, because he didn't download any images; he merely accessed the site.

4
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Worked for Pete whatsisname, didn't it?

Here, you can read about some very serious problems with the investigation in which Townshend was caught, including large numbers of people falsely accused and later cleared:

"In the two years it took the police to determine that thousands had been falsely accused, over one hundred children had been removed from their homes and denied any unsupervised time with their fathers.[15] The arrests also led to an estimated 33 suicides by 2007."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore#Controversies

18
0
Meh

Re: Worked for Pete whatsisname, didn't it?

You are -one- -crazy- -sob-. Wow. Technically you could have gone down for at least a few years, since you broke the letter of the law six ways from Sunday.

That's one of the problem with 'possession' laws, actually. How is it that some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save' really makes the difference between someone being a criminal and not being a criminal? "Well, sure, it would have been an immoral blight on humanity and an offense against all that is good and proper - but I had the cache going to a RAM drive, so really it ain't no thang."

2
0
Anonymous Coward

"Perhaps they'd tweet "We made a mistake. We're sorry. Greek suffixes are difficult" when the mistake is pointed out afterwards."

That's too optimistic in my book. It's so much easier to find someone else to blame for their mistake(s). Everyone knows its all the FBI's fault in the first place.

0
0

"some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

No, that actually does make sense -- clicking 'save', i.e. taking deliberate action to keep a copy of what you're looking at, versus your browser automatically caching it like it does every page you visit, serves as evidence of mens rea, i.e., the intent to do the thing that was done. In either case, there's a copy of the illegal image on your hard disk, but in only one case did you do anything to make that happen, and that's what makes the difference. Of course, there's still the question of whether you intended to see what you saw and took action to bring that about, but that's a different question. (And if we're talking about cases where cached images were described as having been deliberately downloaded, then someone along the chain of evidence is either incompetent or lying, and should be dealt with on that basis.)

1
0
Silver badge

@ AC with the printer...

That's the problem with the current legislation - you can't report something you stumble upon verbally as, well, guilty for being there. And you can't print it out as, well, possession. Therefore, the best course of action is to pretend nothing happened, you saw nothing, kiddie porn doesn't exist, etc.

Frankly, neither extreme is helpful. We need some common ground where stuff stumbled upon by chance (and yes, it does happen) can be reported without incrimination or finger-pointing.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

"in only one case did you do anything to make that happen"

Technically untrue - you installed a web browser, which essentially by definition stores (temporarily) most things that arrive. You also went to the web site itself, without which the image obviously couldn't have been saved - so visiting the site was as obvious as clicking save.

Furthermore, suppose the image was saved via a script that right-click-and-downloaded, say, everything on the page. That would be quite bizarre, but certainly possible. Is writing a script that right-click-and-saves for you, and then leaving it running, tantamount to right-click-and-saving on your own? What if you downloaded the script and don't know precisely how it works? What if you *think* it's going to a RAM cache but it's not?

What if you have your cache dump into a different folder, on purpose?

What if you accessed the files in your cache from elsewhere 5000 times, or what if you accidentally saved but never accessed the file?

The whole thing is a cascade of absurdity. The upshot is that the criminal act isn't "possession"; the "possession" crime is a very crude proxy for "got turned on by" - which is why any attempt to twist the term around in a way that makes sense vs. a 'common sense' idea of what the real crime is, is an exercise in frustration.

Possession laws in general strike me as a nasty thing; they're essentially criminalizing something you haven't done yet, but which you might do because you now have the ability to. In some cases one can see compelling logic; possessing 10,000 tons of TNT and fifty main battle tanks is cause for concern given the immediate and direct threat to other individuals posed by said ordnance.

But someone who possesses images, or drugs, or pirated movies, doesn't pose a threat. They may have violated the law when they acquired the items, but *having* them isn't itself a harm (possessing stolen goods, by the way, might qualify as ongoing harm to the victim of the theft - it'd be interesting to consider).

If you do a mental experiment and replace 'child pornography' with 'some type of pornography which Australian politicians don't like but a lot of other people do' the thing starts to look really absurd.

Hell, if you take the copyright lobby's stance at face value, then the argument that purchasing kiddie porn encourages further abuse is turned on its head. Purchasing movies from MGM encourages MGM to make more movies, no? Well, the accepted argument is that infringing by copying a movie is the same as a lost sale, which DISCOURAGES MGM from making more movies.

In fact, the more people pirate MGM's movies, the more likely it is to go out of business, right?

So, by that logic, all you have to do to defeat child pornography is to *pirate as much of it as possible*. Quick - everyone start torrenting copies of kiddie porn that the producers charge a lot of money for, and they'll be out of business lickety split!

Wait, it doesn't work that way? But... but...

4
1
Silver badge

Re: Outing Innocent People

Lets hope they don't compromise an existing investigation. Or worse, lets hope this action by anonymous doesn't tip off the big league criminals into covering up their activities further.

0
0

Re: "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

Mens rea is not a complicated test. It asks only: Do your actions show that you meant to do the thing that was done?

This tosses out your entire first paragraph -- unless the prosecution can show you installed that web browser and went to that website with the intent of finding kiddie porn there. (If someone posts a link that you have no way of knowing is kiddie porn, and you click it and see something you didn't want to, it'd take a pretty dishonest prosecutor to call that a crime. I won't say it never happens, but I will say it shouldn't.)

It also tosses out your entire second, third, and fourth paragraphs, because in all of those you did something that demonstrated your intent to be in possession of kiddie porn. Or do you mean a jury to believe that you went and found DownThemAll or some equivalent, then went and found a site hosting kiddie porn, and then used the script to download the porn -- all by accident? Oh, honey, I really hope you don't actually look at any of that stuff, or you are going to make some lucky DA's career some day.

That which can be proved is the province of the law. That's why the crime is possession, and not "got turned on by"; possession can be proved one way or another, while "got turned on by" can't even be measured. (Yes, I've heard of plethysmography, but psychiatrists have enough professional opportunity to indulge their sexual fantasies, I think, without being permitted to bring them into the courtroom.)

The rest of your argument, if I might call it that for kindness' sake, doesn't seem to make much sense, which I think is basically down to the fact that, inasmuch as you know about them, which you mostly seem not to, you just don't have a lot of use for laws. That's fine as far as it goes -- on one side there's you and a bunch of hairy-assed Reds, and on the other side there's the balance of human history, but if that seems to you like an advantageous position to take then I won't tell you not to; what I will say, though, is that you'd be well-advised to take care what you let yourself be found in possession of, lest you find yourself expounding your antinomianism before a jury.

0
0

Re: Outing Innocent People

CEOP themselves have actually admitted that there are no "big league criminals" involved in the kiddie fiddling game, in fact when pressed they even went so far as to admit that there is very little "new" kiddie porn appearing on a regular basis - it's apparently mostly rehashed again and again.

The why would seem to be obvious - it is an extremely emotive subject matter, almost universally condemned and there are much easier illegal activities that pay more (drugs would seem to be the obvious one).

As with everthing, follow the money - no-one gets involved without knowing how they are going to make it and how they can convert it into a legitimate source.

0
0
Meh

Re: "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

"That's fine as far as it goes -- on one side there's you and a bunch of hairy-assed Reds..."

I was willing to give your argument an extended reply until I hit that, at which point your own credibility vanished. (It had remained, by the way, after 'Oh, honey', but only on the generous presumption that you are either a waitress in a truck-stop diner, or a gay man who works in a bridal salon.) On the one side there's you and a bunch of smooth-assed Fascists... is that right? I'm not sure.

I'm also rather fond of the veiled implication that because I have a distaste for some aspect of a law about some thing, I must therefore support some thing. Surely as a supporter of law you would oppose such rhetorical shenanigans, no matter how obscured?

At any rate, my argument was not, 'the law isn't this', but, 'from a moral perspective the law isn't doing its job by being this'. You seem to have missed that, and thus dismissed the entire chain thereafter, rather like a C compiler spotting a misplaced { and violently rejecting the rest of the code as being entirely faulty.

The irony is that you mistook my lament - that of the law not actually punishing the evil, but, as you yourself right, a proxy of the evil. In fact, your statement is rather disturbing in itself - "That which can be proved is the province of the law... that's why the crime is possession." Not because it ought to be a crime specifically, or captures all of those who actually commit the moral transgression, but just because it happens to be provable. We can't prove that you robbed a bank, but we *can* prove that you have a bunch of money in your house in a bag marked $$$, so hell, that's good enough for us!

As The Economist wrote, "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done."

Disagreement with the way law is implemented, or disagreement with the nature of a law, is not the same thing as a broad-based rejection of the idea of law itself. Surely this should be obvious (particularly to someone capable of writing something like, "expounding your antinomianism", which, while devoid of substance, is at least linguistically impressive).

Oh, fiddlesticks, I've done and written a lengthy rebuttal in spite of myself. I really must consult my psychiatrist about this compulsion.

0
0

Re: "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

@David W.

Love the post.

In respect to possession of stolen goods: Ongoing harm is occurring as you are continuing to deny the true owner of said goods use of said goods. Please note that, once insurance has been paid, the insurance company can claim it now owns the stolen goods and you are now costing them money as they cannot sell said goods to recoup their costs...

On the other hand, Piracy proves there is a demand, but you are discouraging supply. After all, why make movies if you are making a loss? No more movies = no more piracy. Instead, take away the demand and the industry collapses. Stop watching MGM movies, don't buy them and certainly don't pirate them. Then MGM will go out of business. Same for kiddy porn: Take away the demand and the industry collapses.

To take away the demand, you need to tackle the cause. The problem is that there are quite a few causes, and tackling them all will be a nightmare. There is an alternative, but that involves changing what people see as 'sexy'. Promoting a fuller female figure or an older male figure: Not asexual images or the terror of the size 0 model.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "some disputed technicality of cache vs. clicking 'save'"

"On the other hand, Piracy proves there is a demand..."

Assuming the producers are aware of it, perhaps - though getting into a business because of rampant piracy would seem to be ill-advised.

But, if you take that to be true, by extension any piracy which is invisible to the producer then has no effect, and shouldn't be considered criminal. If I leech a copy of 'Transformers: Even More Explosions From Michael Bay' and nobody knows about it, it certainly can't increase *or* decrease demand (it seems self-evident that if I pirate it, I'm not willing to pay to buy it, though this point seems to be lost on quite a few people).

As far as tackling the cause goes, IIRC Australia's government, in their wisdom, attempted to do just such a thing, in this case by banning (or suggesting the ban of?) pornography involving women whose breasts failed to meet a minimum size requirement. Presumably, viewing porn involving women with a-cups turns men into slavering child molesters - if not, why the law? - which makes one wonder why it isn't a crime to have sex with women who have small breasts. Perhaps the Aussies haven't gotten around to it yet.

It seems to me that the purpose of law is to protect people from actual harm. Are you paying someone to molest a child? Then you've committed a crime whether you have an image or not, whether you like it or not. If we go down the road of saying that things that might inspire things that inspire things that induce people to do things that hurt other people, then the follow-on effects - after you establish precedent by attacking a problem so revolting that nobody can oppose any effort to stop it no matter how ill-advised - could be utterly catastrophic for freedom of thought and expression.

The gamut in the UK has already spread beyond child pornography to 'extreme' pornography - whose boundaries are tantalizingly blurry - to, apparently, words on a page. There's no reason to think it won't continue, and as much as I hate to say it, the end harm to society will be far, far greater than that of the crime that these laws were initially intended to prevent.

1
0

Good God

It is an awful compulsion, isn't it? -- taking any of this at all seriously, I mean.

Law and morality are absolutely orthogonal to one another; in a properly functioning society, it is not the business of the law to force people to be good, but only to ensure that they behave in a sufficiently civilized fashion toward one another so as not to fuck things up for everyone. Any other way lies madness.

Before you argue otherwise, remember you know a word for a system of jurisprudence in which morality is circumscribed by law -- say, that of Iran, to pick a handy example. That word is theocracy, and you certainly recognize it as such in the form of a council of mullahs, whose morality has nothing in common with your own. When the morality in question is your own, though, to call its implementation "theocracy" isn't even insulting, it's just completely insane, because of course anyone with any sense knows the side you're on is the side of the angels. (Every side claims to be the side of the angels.)

The problem with what, when a Republican Congress does it, is called "legislating morality", is not anything to do with this set of moral precepts, or that one; the problem is rather with the task itself, which is entirely impossible. Our fantasists can dream up such a thing as telepathy, but our species does not produce the capability; this being true, no one can simply peer into a man's head and read off a list of his sins. Thus the statement of mine which so disturbed you that you felt moved to quote it. (By the way of which, when the sentences you quote are immediately adjacent to one another in your source, there is no need to separate them with an ellipsis, which is used to mark an elision.)

If someone says he didn't intend to do evil, i.e., he didn't mean to do what he did, how do you know whether he's lying or not? -- whether honest, or dishonest, he would say exactly the same. Since, as we've established, you cannot know his mind, and since you can't take him at his word for it, all you can do is look at what he's done. If he's behaved in accordance with the way he says he has, then he's telling the truth. Otherwise, he's lying. For simple possession of child pornography and many other crimes, that question determines whether or not a particular case is a crime.

The concept I've just described is mens rea, and with that we return to the original bullshit flamebait nonsense of cache vs. "Save As". I won't belabor that again here; if you haven't gotten the sense of it by now, I can't do anything more for you except to point out that what I'm describing is exactly the "moral perspective" you're concerned about, implemented in a way that's consistent with only convicting people for things they've actually, provably done.

(PS: "Expounding your antinomianism" is reasonably rich in meaning, as phrases go. May I suggest Merriam-Webster's? Of course, their definition for 'antinomianism' is trustworthy only in its description of the roots, which add up to "opposed to law", but for the other two they're spot-on.)

(PPS: You're right that a fascist is the mirror image of a communist -- actually, they're more like Siamese twins -- but it's just so cute you think that's all there is. Me, I say be damned to the both of you and let's have some sane government about the place again, that is, the professional kind. Sounds bizarre? Every sysadmin who's ever worked for a living knows what I'm talking about. Consider: We'd have no purpose without users, but can a council of users manage a datacenter? Compared to a datacenter, is a country less complicated, or more complicated? Royalism.)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Good God

Again, you misinterpret me. I agree entirely with your view of law and morality - and their differing roles. I used 'morality' in my argument not because I think that's a good rationale, but because it's the rationale that's *currently used*. My point is that the law as it stands is insufficient to meet its own goals; I wasn't passing judgment on whether those goals are reasonable in the first place.

Legislating morality is, indeed, a lousy idea. But my point regarding these laws not effectively punishing morality are equally appropriate to your view of the law (ideally) as preventing the fucking-up of society. Laws which cast a broad (and in this case, inaccurate) net, fail by definition to stop those who would fuck up society, since they fail to catch a good chunk of the guilty and catch instead a good chunk of the innocent.

My argument that someone sitting around writing slashfic isn't 'doing anything wrong' also applies to whether they're fucking up society. In either case they're not, and in either case laws attempting to prevent it are both wrong from a policy standpoint and wrong from a basic human rights standpoint.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

So, let me get this right

If I were to sign up to such a site using the details of someone that I have a grudge against...

16
1

...you'd deserve to be publicly beaten to death, yep.

0
0

Report the sites and get them shut down through legitimate authorities, but these sort of anonymous activities could find someone innocent in the slammer as if their IP gets recorded by the authorities for visiting said kiddy porn forums in a DDOS attack how do the police now the difference between someone taking part in a DDOS and a pedo visiting the site to download pictures?

It could also work against genuine police surveillance of these forums if loads of extra IPs suddenly start to DDOS the forum then real pedos could use that there PC must have been compromised by hackers and used in a DDOS attack and thats why their IP was recorded on the forums logs as visiting the site.

3
2
Anonymous Coward

@mark12

I have met a few people that are forensic experts that deal with sort of thing, both testing for prosecutors and defendants. From talking with them, they are very good at understanding the difference between use and scapegoat.

1
0
Silver badge

>Report the sites and get them shut down through legitimate authorities

It's a site apparently hosted on a Russian server, whois lists a Liberian company with no details and it's connected by Tor - which legitimate authorites were you planning on calling?

4
0

For that matter, how exactly does Anonymous plan to shut them down? Is Tor fast enough now to support DDoS traffic?

0
0
Silver badge

create political and social pressure on these paedophile sites

Because the problem is that MPs and tabloids don't really care about paedos?

11
0
Silver badge

Re: create political and social pressure on these paedophile sites

They really don't, the whole paedo thing is just an excuse to law down another fistful of overly broad laws that can be used to lock people up for being the wrong sort of people. the wrong sort of people being anyone they want, after a while...

11
1
Silver badge

Re: create political and social pressure on these paedophile sites

Yes, so raising the profile does what exactly?

If the "authorities" weren't so backward and incompetent you would almost suspect that they were behind anonymous. Except that they would outsource it to Crapita and leave the details on a bus.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Because truth be told...

....more than one or two of them in there have a bit of a soft spot for a cute young girl themselves. No way. Y'think? Surely not ;)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: create political and social pressure on these paedophile sites

They don't care about stuff being done. They care about stuff being *seen* to be done.

Also, what if you download something dodgy by accident? A member of my family attempted to pirate the 2005 film "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" on one of the older file-sharing networks, and the amount of incorrectly-named anal/big black cock porn was staggering.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: create political and social pressure on these paedophile sites

"Yes, so raising the profile does what exactly?"

Raises their own profile. They get talked about, get noticed, get more "responsibility", get re-elected, get a better salary, get more prestige. Get to do it all over again with a new topic.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Because truth be told...

"....more than one or two of them in there have a bit of a soft spot for a cute young girl themselves. No way. Y'think? Surely not ;)"

Well, given that they're consistently accused of being 13-year-old boys, one could perhaps forgive them for an attraction to 12-year-old girls. I suppose within the strict meaning of the word they're still pedophiles, though... hmm...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

"I suppose within the strict meaning of the word they're still pedophiles, though... hmm..."

Nope, the word you're looking for is hebephiles.

0
0
Joke

Re: "I suppose within the strict meaning of the word they're still pedophiles, though... hmm..."

"Nope, the word you're looking for is hebephiles."

Look, there's no reason to drag religion into this.

(It's OK; I can say that - I'm Jewish.)

0
1

When you only look good compared to pedophiles...

...perhaps the pedophiles are not the only problem.

9
2
Silver badge

OpPedoChat

Perhaps there's a few Anons concerned that their image of pedobears, cake and CP is being taken too seriously?

"We're trolling you, you fuckwits. Need some proof?"

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: OpPedoChat

Indeed. Anonymous have always been ambivalent in their attitudes towards pedosexuality. Outing any form of lulzworthy behaviour has always been one of their favourite pastimes, such as the "brb church" episode, but on the other hand, who originated the acronym "DFC" in the first place?

1
0

Re: OpPedoChat

"Pedosexuality?"

Good, now I know what they'll call it when I'm old and it's made legal.

0
0
Facepalm

A: Glossy magazines promoting photos of the youngest possible models: Many and mainstream

B: Motivational poster parody images referencing 'jailbait': Funny ha ha! So true! 'Cos everybody wants some jailbait!

C: Filthy pedophiles who are nothing like people who like the above at all whatsoever no no no: BURN IN HELL SCUMBAGS WE'LL RIP YOUR NUTS OFF FNARGGHLLL

10
1
Anonymous Coward

Mmm...

People are dishonest, fickle, deceitful, are prone to stupidity and have many hidden facets to their personality? No way man, no way. KILL THE PEDOS !!! 2 MONTHS OR 14 YEARS, IT'S ALL THE SAME TO US! Pitchforks at the ready!

Funny it's always the same. When it's a story about a 14 year old boy being involved with his 25/30 yr old teacher it's mostly comments like `lucky fucker` but when it's the other way around it's `peel his skin and burn him alive` ... People are so funny about this matter.

14
0
Silver badge

Re: Mmm...

"When it's a story about a 14 year old boy being involved with his 25/30 yr old teacher it's mostly comments like `lucky fucker` but when it's the other way around it's `peel his skin and burn him alive`"

That's because of 30+ years of toxic insititutionalised feminism brainwashing the public to believe that all men are filthy paedophile rapists and all women are innocent little victims who can do no wrong. I might point out in passing that many of the most bigoted feminists have themselves been men (usually with an agenda), while some of the most staunch opposition to feminism and misandry has come from women.

6
4
Facepalm

Re: Mmm...

Toxic institutionalised feminism... You do know what feminism means? A movement whose aims are equal rights for women, so how can that be toxic? Institutionalised?... It absolutely should be - all organisations whether private or public should make removing prejudice against women a core part of their business.

I'm not sure you really thought this through either - "brainwashing the public to believe that all men are filthy paedophile rapists". This attitude, if it exists, is not a widely held belief - surely you see that? If I do see it being pushed then more often than not its the Daily Fail saying that there are pedos everywhere and I doubt many feminists of any type would associate themselves with that lot.

So thanks for the well thought out comment on modern feminism, you appear to be a complete idiot :-)

2
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mmm...

"That's because of 30+ years of toxic insititutionalised feminism..."

Blaming something with its origins in (possibly hard-wired) male (is there another kind?) machismo on feminism even trumps the comment I saw on a CNN article about the Bolivian president calling for death to the Yankees (presumably he meant US citizens, not members of the baseball team): He took it as evidence of Barack Obama's campaign to saturate the country with illegal (Bolivian?) immigrants, and his desire to make crack cocaine legal - or perhaps compulsory, who knows.

So, let me guess - Barack Obama has a hand in -this-, too. He must. Being a - what's it called? Libtard? Or Dumbocrap? Something like that.

Seriously - the CNN forums and the 1950s miss you. Please go back.

2
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.