I keep seeing videos lately of grown men posing as children online and baiting individuals to public spaces and either assaulting them or recording/exposing them for content. While I don’t mind the idea of a predator being outed, the idea of grown adults posing as children online seems unsavory to me. Especially if their end goal isn’t to protect children, and is to provide content for views.
Obviously, being a child predator is wildly immoral and illegal and their actions are not what’s being debated.
Vigilantism is illegal for a couple of good reasons.
Would you rather children be used as the bait?
That’s a false dichotomy. I’d rather they not have to do it at all.
While I don’t mind the idea of a predator being outed, the idea of grown adults posing as children online seems unsavory to me.
It’s what you said.
Mate, nothing in that sentence suggests they want children to be used as bait
That’s not how I read it.
You think it is real? How did you determine that?
I know someone personally that was outed by a YouTube channel. Guy was definitely in the wrong, I think he was 24 chatting up a “15” yo, maybe even “14”? The guy has a slew of mental health issues including schizophrenia. He definitely should be in trouble, and not allowed to use the Internet. My point is, it was really awful for his family when he was outed. Definitely real.
Was he assaulted?
It feels gross that child rape is compelling stakes for TV entertainment.
That’s why you don’t like it. Because at the end of the day, this content isn’t being produced to save kids, it’s so you have something to watch on a Tuesday.
Vigilantism is never the answer. In pretty much every case the vigilante has far less noble motivations than they claim to have. Just look at the constant screeching about “groomers” by US conservatives.
Vigilantism, by definition, has no accountability. It’s an individual, who could be mistaken, doling out their own interpretation of justice. There are always exceptions to the rule. Sure, posing as a child could illicit attention from child predators, but it could also attract someone who is concerned about the welfare of the (fake) child. I can imagine someone, abused as a child, wanting to reach out and help someone they think is in danger of falling victim to the same. It’s not a huge stretch of the imagination.
However, our legal system is woefully inadequate in addressing the amount of predators out there, precisely because it hinges on evidence of an act that often has none, while going unreported for long periods of time.
I’d say, that if someone is attempting to meet up with a child for the purpose of engaging in sexual contact, and you are alerted to that, you get to beat the shit out of them, but I’d draw the line at recording and posting, just in case you were wrong. Guy gets beaten up, learns a lesson, but if he was innocent, all he did was get his ass whooped.
Kill people. If anyone asks, those people were pedophiles.
What
If the vigilante thing becomes a thing, you could fabricate your way through whatever murder you want.
Just pull a Rittenhouse. Show up with a gun and wave it around until someone tries to disarm you, now you fear for your life and can shit them.
I’m hoping those downvotes are from people who aren’t clever enough to understand I was making a point of how bad that all is.
Provoking illegal behaviour should not be encouraged.
Look into the Snowtown Murders for a true story about vigilantes who profess to want to kill pedophiles. It doesn’t end well. Only actual idiots truly believe violence is how things should work, and you really want smart people to be the arbiters of justice to the greatest extent that is possible.
Yes.
For two reasons.
First: Two wrongs doesn’t make a right.
Second: The police has far more resources to verify suspicions than any vigilante has. The risk of acting on false accusations or bad dats is just way too big. Also if the predator has had multiple victims a vigilante may miss that and never giving all vicitms closure or compensation.
But they acted on their desire though. How would you know if they haven’t before?
If we had a Justice system instead of a Legal system it may be. But there is no justice in the system when money or power start to show their faces.
The only justice left is the justice you can take yourself.
Arguing mobb justice over our legal system is just dumb. We had mobb justice during Jim crow and how did that turn out?
You do you, but you’re not overthrowing the fascists installing themselves with non vioence. Never happened in history. We’re not at a point where non vioence solves problems. Like pedophile Matt Gaetz, tell me how justice can find him.
Solving violence with violence doesn’t ever work.
To quote Bayard Rustin: “If we desire a society of peace, then we cannot achieve such a society through violence. If we desire a society without discrimination, then we must not discriminate against anyone in the process of building this society. If we desire a society that is democratic, then democracy must become a means as well as an end.”
Solving violence with violence is literally what the government does as soon as it’s at an impass. Weather its cops, military, or politicians vioence is how the world currently works, people just freak out when its not their state doing the violence. The state often times ‘solves’ even non violence with violence. How were the recent protestors cleared off college campuses for a softball example? Private individuals are far easier to hold accountable than cops as is consistently proven in court. If you’re worried about unaccountable violence, look first to the state.
I feel you. It sounds like you’re saying “the way the world currently works” is broken. So why do more of the same and keep it that way? The world needs a new way to work. Let the old way die out, emulate a new way.
but you’re not overthrowing the fascists installing themselves with non vioence.
That’s also not what this conversation is about.
The alternative to vigilantism is letting the courts and cops handle it. The courts and cops have been fileld with those people. It’s exactly what this conversation is about. If the system was just there would be no need for external actions. That was the first sentence of my first comment.
Are you Ted Kaczinski?
Is that the only reason you’d beat up a pedophile?
The question is, would these people be predators if people didn’t bait them into it? If they are doing this for “content” or some sense of moral judgement, then they have an incentive to push people into these things more than they originally would.
I can imagine the following scenario being common (to the point at which I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a tutorial for it somewhere):
- Find someone online who has serious mental health problems or cognitive impairment.
- Emotionally manipulate them into saying or doing something nasty that they wouldn’t otherwise do.
- Invite them somewhere public and humiliate then online for content.
- Congratulations! Not only have you managed to ruin someone’s life, you’ve done it in a way that you get to feel morally superior as well.
Target some marginalised group as well, and you can also justify hatred towards them and show everyone that your group is better!
A lot of the people they bait do not seem as if they are cognitively competent
THAT is different. Bullying a mentally disabled person is the wrong thing.
The caregiver for the person should be involved in their online activities if they are vulnerable. They should also be taught about being safe online.
The question is, would these people be predators if people didn’t bait them into it?
The CIA has been doing this ever since 9/11 - “baiting” cognitively impaired people into doing “terrorism.”
Depending on what part of the world these people live in, the actions of these vigilantes might screw up the chance of a successful prosecution.
I’m in the UK and I remember watching a copper interviewed on the the TV asking people not to do it as a lot of the time it results in inadmissible evidence and might even give pedos chance to delete evidence. I think he also said he was aware of multiple instances of the pedo-hunters getting the wrong person at the ‘sting’.
That said, I doubt these pedo-hunters really care about abused kids, it seems mostly about bragging rights and youtube views.
Hell, isn’t that what happened to a shitload of those Perverted Justice/To Catch a Predator stings? Most of it got tossed in court and guys walked.
Yes, it does. (I hope it goes without saying that I believe pedophilia is wrong.) Vigilantism in general really rubs me the wrong way, but people using it for views (the same way they might use feeding homeless for views) is just really disgusting to me. Many “sting” type operations seem odd to me. Like, if someone’s partner has a friend try and seduce their partner and they end up trying to cheat, but they never actually cheated in any context other than that, I think most people (or at least a lot) would agree that’s a shitty test to put your partner through. I view this in a similar way.
My opinion changes a little when it’s law enforcement doing it and they know the person they’re setting up the operation against has actually done the crimes they’re trying to catch them in. What bothers me the most is when the person that gets caught (be it for pedophilia, buying drugs, prostitution, whatever) hasn’t engaged in those things before. It’s very difficult to me to view that as anything other than entrapment for what was (effectively) a victimless crime. (Because they didn’t actually do the thing they got caught for.)
But, regardless of how I feel about law enforcement doing it, I definitely don’t like vigilantes doing it. Especially for views.
I think the thing I hate the most about these types of discussions is that pointing out things like this often get reduced to “defending pedophiles.” Like, I’m sorry I don’t think we should have extrajudicial beatings of people.
It reminds me of that operation where some vigilantes attempted to buy child prostitutes to save them, but over half of the children they “rescued” were abducted because of the demand the vigilantes generated. And I don’t think any of them ended back up with the families they were taken from. This is a very different scenario, but it helps illustrate how careless vigilantes can cause more problems than they solve.
