I have to agree. I recall reading about a (white, male) game developer who collected and published all the terrible emails he received when he made changes to the game. And a piece of research that tracked abusive comments on Twitter that found plenty of invective aimed at male celebrities.

Touche.

So, I just went and read that R. Kelly article and then came back and read this article. It's really striking how Jezebel let's themselves off with a meek apology while subjecting some, admittedly dumb-ass, nobody to tons of internet abuse. The power imbalance is crazy. There are people in the comments section wishing…

I understand. My point is that voluntary association when other options are available implies some sort of agreement. YMMV, I guess.

As such they imply that no person who works in the music industry could ever be viewed to be a credible witness

I think there's a pretty fundamental difference between your family and a place someone's chosen to work.

Really? That's what you're going with?

Yeah, I get that. They're still publishing under the same masthead.

More specifically frisky is claiming that a person with an entirely manufactured image and public persona lacks credibility or at the very least, shouldn't automatically be considered credible. That's not terribly out there.

Speak in French. When I speak French I use all sorts of horrible English words and whenever anyone calls me out I'm like, "desole" and then I just keep on doing it because the French seriously do not give a fuck about the English and their childish PC battles.

Instead of casting aspersions, why don't you just argue with what frisky is saying?

This guy's a moron but I'm having some trouble stomaching sanctimony from a blog that just ran a "would you hit it" serial killer article.

Internet tough guy. So scary.

It's hardly character assassination when the evidence that you're unable to answer straightforward questions is right above. I mean, you open with, "I don't care to examine my view." If that's not evidence someone doesn't have the mental fortitude to cope, I don't know what is. I'm also not the one who used "fuck off"…

So, drawn images or stories depicting child sex are alright as long as the characters are fictional? What about a case where the pedophile sees a child on the subway and then later incorporates that child into a sexual situation in story?

One of the issues is that behavioural reinforcement (to put it bluntly, looking at images like that and jacking off) may increase desire to go further

I personally don't have an issue with someone looking at a drawing of child pornography if it's taking the place of real child porn/abuse. I think it's disturbing and would probably choose to stay away from someone I knew was viewing it, but I don't think it should be illegal.

I've a very good idea what I'm "advocating" here. Thanks very much.

It *is* so hard to think about things. Your delicate brain might get bruised.

For someone who - IN THE VERY SAME POST - is going on about me "making a whole bunch of stuff up", it seems rather odd if not hypocritical and bewilderingly (and hilariously) lacking in self-awareness and a sense of irony, for you to do the EXACT same thing you're accusing me of doing in the EXACT same post in…