Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
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.