Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

He did something shameful, and feels shame about it. What is there to think about?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He did something shameful, and feels shame about it. What is there to think about? It's more that he feels shame for what he did, but also fears the real-life and social media consequences of people wanting to lynch him because of what he did, ultimately culminating in an attempted suicide and then being hospitalized. "What if this person comes forward with this story and everyone who reads it hates me, what if I lose my place of living, no one will ever hire me again, people will look at me on the streets?"

Wow, actions have consequences. Who gives a shit?

The psychiatrist handling the case says Cameron's depression was brought on by his OCD. Not "cancel culture."

It's pretty cut and dry -- a mentally ill person had a mentally ill response that led to their suicide.

It's interesting to document how their OCD manifested, yes, but it's ultimately still the OCD at play here. They literally could have fixated on any number of things. As the psychiatrist points out, this is no different from OCD manifesting as germaphobia with constant hand washing.

Originally posted by StyleTime
The psychiatrist handling the case says Cameron's depression was brought on by his OCD. Not "cancel culture."

It's pretty cut and dry -- a mentally ill person had a mentally ill response that led to their suicide.

It's interesting to document how their OCD manifested, yes, but it's ultimately still the OCD at play here. They literally could have fixated on any number of things. As the psychiatrist points out, this is no different from OCD manifesting as germaphobia with constant hand washing. Yes but it was mainly the fear that people would find out and everyone would hate him? or am I just misreading it.

Also wasn't her writing the article outing him?

You are mentally ill if you commit suicide because of something someone MIGHT do to you, out of paranoia. And if it's out of fear of having your feelings hurt...just toughen up already.

Originally posted by roughrider
You are mentally ill if you commit suicide because of something someone MIGHT do to you, out of paranoia. And if it's out of fear of having your feelings hurt...just toughen up already. "toughen up already" is not a helpful phrase. You're already inferring they're weak and weak minded people tend to believe what they're told.

The thing about suicide is it's something a person can do that will affect others without any repercussions. Think about it. They can do something to themselves creatively and whatever happens afterwards won't affect them emotionally in any way because they would be dead. You can't kill a dead man.

Originally posted by roughrider
You are mentally ill if you commit suicide because of something someone MIGHT do to you, out of paranoia. And if it's out of fear of having your feelings hurt...just toughen up already. I 100% agree, but it's more then just his feelings, he's essentially afraid something he did as a (I'm assuming) teen will end up coming out and completely ruining his life.

In today's day and age, what's revealed about you on social media can lose you so much, you could be confronted in person by people who recognize you and now know what you did, you could lose your job and hell, even get evicted from your apartment, all because of something you, or in this case, he did as essentially a kid.

The way I see it, his head was ****ed up (if he wasn't a teen thats a bit more serious, but the way it's talked about it's heavily implied he wasn't an adult yet) and he made a very stupid mistake, his father was molesting him and that's some serious psychological damage.

But even if you don't have a presence on social media doesn't save you from being recognized or attacked, it doesn't save you from getting rejected at a job interview, and it doesn't mean you'll have your apartment if the guy who owns the place finds out about it. Some people I've seen have even shown threats of real physical violence and goes to confront said person in person. I personally am on social media and youtube a lot, so maybe to most it looks overblown but if you are on there it's really, really bad.

There was this dude CallMeCarson who got "canceled" once cause he had a ****ing relationship with a 17-year-old as a 19-year-old, which is ridiculous, but if you'd said that at the time you'd be lynched.

Also "worrying" is kind of OCD's whole thing, to a person with OCD they can't ever stop worrying about what MIGHT happen even if there's like a 0.00000001% chance of it happening.

TL;DR I agree with you but also sympathize with dude (if he was a teen when it happened.)

Originally posted by Jmanghan
I 100% agree, but it's more then just his feelings, he's essentially afraid something he did as a (I'm assuming) teen will end up coming out and completely ruining his life.

In today's day and age, what's revealed about you on social media can lose you so much, you could be confronted in person by people who recognize you and now know what you did, you could lose your job and hell, even get evicted from your apartment, all because of something you, or in this case, he did as essentially a kid.

Could you give examples of someone being unfairly "canceled" over something they did as a minor?
Originally posted by Jmanghan
But even if you don't have a presence on social media doesn't save you from being recognized or attacked, it doesn't save you from getting rejected at a job interview, and it doesn't mean you'll have your apartment if the guy who owns the place finds out about it. Some people I've seen have even shown threats of real physical violence and goes to confront said person in person. I personally am on social media and youtube a lot, so maybe to most it looks overblown but if you are on there it's really, really bad.

There was this dude CallMeCarson who got "canceled" once cause he had a ****ing relationship with a 17-year-old as a 19-year-old, which is ridiculous, but if you'd said that at the time you'd be lynched.
....shitty behavior has consequences? That sounds great, actually.

CallMeCarson was also exchanging nudes with a different 17 year old while he was 20. Him taking some time off seems pretty appropriate. He wasn't in a relationship with either one btw. Most people would understand a small age difference in a relationship around that 17/18 transitional period, but these were just random underage fans he started sexting with. It's not a great look.

He wasn't thrown in prison(nor was anyone realistically calling for that) and he still streams though. Not seeing the problem here.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Could you give examples of someone being unfairly "canceled" over something they did as a minor?

....shitty behavior has consequences? That sounds great, actually.

CallMeCarson was also exchanging nudes with a different 17 year old while he was 20. Him taking some time off seems pretty appropriate. He wasn't in a relationship with either one btw. Most people would understand a small age difference in a relationship around that 17/18 transitional period, but these were just random underage fans he started sexting with. It's not a great look.

He wasn't thrown in prison(nor was anyone realistically calling for that) and he still streams though. Not seeing the problem here. I have OCD so I'm just speaking on what he's likely going through from the point of view of someone who has the disorder and also has never had much treatment for it. I'm not saying he'd be canceled, but what I meant to say is that he's likely to fear that outcome even if it's very unlikely.

It doesn't matter if it's logical, you still fear it, also I don't think it's fair to persecute someone (depending on what they did) based on their mental state. He was getting molested by his dad wasn't he?

As for Carson, fair enough.

Originally posted by StyleTime
CallMeCarson was also exchanging nudes with a different 17 year old while he was 20. Him taking some time off seems pretty appropriate. He wasn't in a relationship with either one btw. Most people would understand a small age difference in a relationship around that 17/18 transitional period, but these were just random underage fans he started sexting with. It's not a great look.

He wasn't thrown in prison(nor was anyone realistically calling for that) and he still streams though. Not seeing the problem here.

With regard to exchanging nude photos, the age difference is irrelevant. If they were under 18, then their images are considered child pornography. It is a crime for them to take and share those photos, and it is a crime for him to solicit and receive them. No nudes until everyone is 18, folks.

where do the excuses end? after all, the father could have easily been sexually abused by his own father, back and back through every generation to when noah fingered his son's butthole. i guess nobody had a choice

It's a pathetic excuse as there's plenty of people who were sexually abused when they were kids, but didn't turn into nonces themselves.

Originally posted by Robtard
My thoughts: Feel bad for him that his POS father sexually abused him when he was a kid, but him trying to have sex with a "younger boy" makes him a POS in turn

He's lucky the younger guy didn't take him up on his sexual offer, otherwise he'd be a child molester/rapist. He should count himself lucky, move on and never even think of trying this again We don't necessarily know how old cameron was at the time. I think even 17 year olds are legally allowed to **** 12 year olds in most states yeah? Of course I'm not saying that's right, not at all, but even if that were the case he wouldn't be breaking the law.

And if we're talking 17 and 14 or something then that's not even really an issue, that's more down to people's personal gripes with age gaps.

I really don't think he was an adult when he propositioned the dude, I couldn't prove it but it's worded in a way that he was a teen.

I think mental state is an excuse actually @Bashar. And his father getting molested by his father and molesting his own child in turn is far different (and would absolutely be wrong) then someone currently getting molested by their father that day and saying to someone "hey, you wanna ****?"

I'm not sure people are understanding, this wasn't some recent thing, it's stated to be something that happened a long time ago, likely 10+ years or more. And if that is the case... I ask, what the hell do we do? Lock him up for something really stupid he did as a kid? If he had actually gone through with it I'd understand.

Moreover it's stated that he asked and the dude said no, not that he grabbed the kid and tried to force himself on him. If Cameron was an adult I will gladly eat my words, hell even if he was 17.

I just don't believe a dude who is clearly suffering and wanting to commit suicide should have people cheering him on to do so, just because he made someone a bit uncomfortable, ESPECIALLY given the circumstances.

Whether you like it, people are heavily influenced by the actions of others, guys who beat their wives are usually also influenced by parents where they also saw their father's from a young age beat their wives.

Frankly I think it's rather messed up that any human would say that its entirely his fault, anyone can do anything under the right circumstances. You may believe you are a great person, but your development could've been completely changed, your sense of right and wrong based on what happened to you as a child or teen.

I'm not saying it was okay, but I am saying it's unfair to judge him as a horrible person especially when he feels horrible about it both because he did it in the first place and also because he lives in constant fear of what will happen because of it to the point he's literally wanting to die and actively planning out his own suicide.

The point I'm making is, what would anyone expect him to do? What if he was too young to get locked up for such a thing so even if he attempted to turn himself in nothing would happen?

And yes I am basing my entire post off the fact I believe he was a teenager (under 18) and not an adult. My perspective changes immensely if he was an adult.

I have tried to write this as nicely as I can without trying to offend or piss anyone off. I know some people believe it doesn't matter what you're going through, it doesn't justify what you're going through, only that your actions hurt people.

I feel for the kid as well, I would be tremendously freaked out if something like that happened to me, but if I grew up and learned what was happening to said dude, I'd feel bad. I wouldn't if he grabbed me and tried to force himself on me, but if he asked even in the mindset of who I was as a child I would be very freaked out.

Remember it doesn't say "young" boy, it says "young-er" boy, which in this case leads me to believe he, or maybe even both of them, were teens.

I was not molested as a child, but I was abused pretty bad and had an extremely rough childhood, and I can tell you now the difference between how I am now to how I'd be if I wasn't subjected to such. Even stuff like lots of yelling has changed how I talk to people in real life.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
With regard to exchanging nude photos, the age difference is irrelevant. If they were under 18, then their images are considered child pornography. It is a crime for them to take and share those photos, and it is a crime for him to solicit and receive them. No nudes until everyone is 18, folks. It's also a crime to have nudes of yourself when you are under 18 and you can be charged with it, which I think is a little odd. I understand why they do it though, to protect kids as kids do very dumb things with nude photos that adults are very unlikely to do.

Honestly if you're old enough to have sex in person you should be old enough to send dick pics though lol.

Also a lot of what I was saying wasn't directly in response to you Rob, but you and Bash.

I just think what happens to you as a child and teen can seriously affect your ability to differentiate between right and wrong.

I hope ya'll at least understand where I'm coming from, even if you think it's flawed logic.

I do have to say if I was the parent of said kid or related to him, I'd be absolutely ****ing livid.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
With regard to exchanging nude photos, the age difference is irrelevant. If they were under 18, then their images are considered child pornography. It is a crime for them to take and share those photos, and it is a crime for him to solicit and receive them. No nudes until everyone is 18, folks.
I totally agree that it best to err on the side of caution, but some states do allow close-in-age defenses in court even for sexting in an ongoing relationship(Indiana for example). Of course, then you're taking your chances on winning a court room battle. Best to avoid it entirely.
Originally posted by Jmanghan
I have OCD so I'm just speaking on what he's likely going through from the point of view of someone who has the disorder and also has never had much treatment for it. I'm not saying he'd be canceled, but what I meant to say is that he's likely to fear that outcome even if it's very unlikely.

It doesn't matter if it's logical, you still fear it, also I don't think it's fair to persecute someone (depending on what they did) based on their mental state. He was getting molested by his dad wasn't he?

As for Carson, fair enough.
I'm not sure you really understand what we're saying. Everyone, here at least, agrees that someone shouldn't be persecuted because of their OCD.

You started the thread by implying that "cancel culture" is to blame. It read like a veiled attempt to go the whole "cancel culture is going too far!" route. We're pointing out that it was their mental illness that leadsto this. Not "cancel culture."
Originally posted by Jmanghan
It's also a crime to have nudes of yourself when you are under 18 and you can be charged with it, which I think is a little odd. I understand why they do it though, to protect kids as kids do very dumb things with nude photos that adults are very unlikely to do.

Honestly if you're old enough to have sex in person you should be old enough to send dick pics though lol.
Many states are updating their laws to include provisions for minors, although change is slow.

Prosecutors don't always choose to prosecute either, which makes his muddy.

Originally posted by Jmanghan

It doesn't matter if it's logical, you still fear it, also I don't think it's fair to persecute someone (depending on what they did) based on their mental state. He was getting molested by his dad wasn't he?
^ this is the gap in your argument

The first point makes sense. Yes, an OCD person might obsessively fear the thing they fixate on, and yes, the fear is real even if it is illogical.

But your second point goes off the rails. If the fear is illogical, then nobody is actually about to persecute Cameron for this moment from his childhood. This isn't about the threat of cancel culture, it's about Cameron's warped sense of cancel culture (due to OCD and, by the sounds of it, various sexual trauma)

Originally posted by Jmanghan
We don't necessarily know how old cameron was at the time. I think even 17 year olds are legally allowed to **** 12 year olds in most states yeah? Of course I'm not saying that's right, not at all, but even if that were the case he wouldn't be breaking the law.

And if we're talking 17 and 14 or something then that's not even really an issue, that's more down to people's personal gripes with age gaps.

I really don't think he was an adult when he propositioned the dude, I couldn't prove it but it's worded in a way that he was a teen.

Minors are only legally permitted to have sex with other minors who are within two years of their own age.

Originally posted by StyleTime

Many states are updating their laws to include provisions for minors, although change is slow.

Prosecutors don't always choose to prosecute either, which makes this muddy.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2017/01/19/the-state-has-stopped-trying-to-wreck-a/%3famp

Forgot to include link. It was just a somewhat public case where minors weren't charged. The one charged as an adult (17 can be charged as an adult in his state) was able to get out of it, fortunately.

I think these rules definitely need revising. Just seems weird cops are so ready to rummage through explicit images from teens. Oh, right...

...The cops themselves are often using these cases to satisfy their own desire for child porn, like ol' Detective Abbott. He was the lead investigator in a teen sexting case, who unlawfully tried to coerce the accused teen to masturbate to "match" his penis to the penis in a sexted photo.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/teen-sexting-case-revealed-how-judges-let-police-invade-children-ncna830306

Abbot was later found sexting and soliciting sex from a 13 and 14 year old too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/manassas-city-police-detective-in-teen-sexting-case-commits-suicide/2015/12/15/de88f7c4-a356-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html

Excellent police work.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
I'm not sure people are understanding, this wasn't some recent thing, it's stated to be something that happened a long time ago, likely 10+ years or more. And if that is the case... I ask, what the hell do we do? Lock him up for something really stupid he did as a kid? If he had actually gone through with it I'd understand.

The statute of limitations vary by state, but if the victim did not report the incident before the age of 21, it is not likely to be prosecuted.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
It's also a crime to have nudes of yourself when you are under 18 and you can be charged with it, which I think is a little odd. I understand why they do it though, to protect kids as kids do very dumb things with nude photos that adults are very unlikely to do.

Honestly if you're old enough to have sex in person you should be old enough to send dick pics though lol.

It is not odd. Either the material is illegal or it is not. It is not okay for some people to produce and distribute it and not others.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Minors are only legally permitted to have sex with other minors who are within two years of their own age. I thought it varies state by state. The author is from Michigan, but we don't know where or when the incident happened.

That said, the legality seems irrelevant? They were both kids and the sex didn't actually occur. The other boy was younger, so maybe Cameron has good reason to regret offering a bj or whatever, but it hardly seems criminal.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not odd. Either the material is illegal or it is not. It is not okay for some people to produce and distribute it and not others. I'm saying in the case of someone sending their own nudes, I'm pretty sure at least a few people here have sent nudes when they were teens.

AFAIK it does vary from state to state, but generally the minors have to at least be of the age of consent for their state and then there's still differences from state to state.

eg TX has a "Romero and Juliet" law exception where consent is reached as long as the child is at least age 14 and there isn't more than a three year difference. So in Texas a 15yo can have sex with an 18yo and it's legal. F**kin Texas, amirite.

California has no exceptions aside from if both parties involved are less than three years apart the penalty is less severe. So 16yo with an 18yo, it's a crime, but a 15yo with an 18yo is a severe crime.

Originally posted by Smurph
I thought it varies state by state. The author is from Michigan, but we don't know where or when the incident happened.

That said, the legality seems irrelevant? They were both kids and the sex didn't actually occur. The other boy was younger, so maybe Cameron has good reason to regret offering a bj or whatever, but it hardly seems criminal.

Attempted crimes are still crimes. But the statute of limitations in Michigan is two years from the date of the incident, which means this would not be prosecutable anyway.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
I'm saying in the case of someone sending their own nudes, I'm pretty sure at least a few people here have sent nudes when they were teens.

That is totally irrelevant. It is either illegal to record a sexual performance of a minor or it is not. If people took or sent nudes as teenagers, then they should thank their lucky stars every day that they did not get prosecuted for making and distributing child porn.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Attempted crimes are still crimes. While that is a general truth, I would not be confident that it applies here. Establishing an attempted crime usually requires proving criminal intent which I imagine would be a challenge for a juvenile sexual offence. If I'm the prosecutor, how do I prove that a juvenile intended to commit a sexual offence given the body of law that says that juveniles can't mentally form the consent to have sex? It's a bit of a catch-22.

If the facts were different and there was some sort of assault, then maybe you have a case, but... this sounds more like one youth proposing something that he didn't understand the consequences of. Hence, "minors".

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
But the statute of limitations in Michigan is two years from the date of the incident, which means this would not be prosecutable anyway. No. Two years is the limitation on civil suits, not criminal prosecutions.

Otoh, obviously kids can (and do, all the time) commit crimes without understanding all the consequences. And I dunno the particulars of the law here. It's just my gut reaction to reading the story that this isn't a criminal regretting criminal conduct; it's just a guy obsessively worried about a ****ed up thing he said when he was a kid.

Originally posted by Smurph
While that is a general truth, I would not be confident that it applies here. Establishing an attempted crime usually requires proving criminal intent which I imagine would be a challenge for a juvenile sexual offence. If I'm the prosecutor, how do I prove that a juvenile intended to commit a sexual offence given the body of law that says that juveniles can't mentally form the consent to have sex? It's a bit of a catch-22.

If the facts were different and there was some sort of assault, then maybe you have a case, but... this sounds more like one youth proposing something that he didn't understand the consequences of. Hence, "minors".

By your reasoning, a 17-year-old would not be responsible for propositioning a 2-year-old, because they are both minors. Fortunately, that is not how the law works.



Originally posted by Smurph
No. Two years is the limitation on civil suits, not criminal prosecutions.

Wrong. Michigan has a statute of limitations for sex crimes. The only exception is if the crime is reported, and the perpetrator is unkown, but there is DNA evidence. If all three of those conditions are met, then there is no statute of limitations. In all other instances, the crime must be reported within two years of the incident, or by the 21st birthday of the victim, whichever is later.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By your reasoning, a 17-year-old would not be responsible for propositioning a 2-year-old, because they are both minors. Fortunately, that is not how the law works. Absurd example is absurd.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Wrong. Michigan has a statute of limitations for sex crimes. The only exception is if the crime is reported, and the perpetrator is unkown, but there is DNA evidence. If all three of those conditions are met, then there is no statute of limitations. In all other instances, the crime must be reported within two years of the incident, or by the 21st birthday of the victim, whichever is later. You sure about that two year number? Feel free to cite.

one of stringer's "smurfs" at last! bout time, really.

hey, tell discord gang that i said trump is going to jail

you definitely have me confused with someone else. F*ck Trump.

pretty funny that you can post on KMC for 16 years and still get called a sock, lol

could be that I'm mistaken, but i doubt it

No, Bash Smurph is a very well known poster in the comics section, he has nothing to do with Stringer. Smurph is also socially pretty liberal.

oh alright then

apologies, smurph.

all good, I'm a stranger to the GDF

anyway, I think Adam and I are disagreeing on details and not the thrust of the thread. I'd happily concede the limitations issue if he has an actual source but a quick Google search says two years is not the relevant number here /shrug

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
oh alright then

apologies, smurph. top notch!

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
No, Bash Smurph is a very well known poster in the comics section, he has nothing to do with Stringer. Smurph is also socially pretty liberal.


Yeah. We've known Smurph for a while. He's legit.

Originally posted by Smurph
all good, I'm a stranger to the GDF
I think the GDF is shellshocked since there seems to be a higher rate of socking here. Or at least the socks are/were a bit more vocal and persistent.

Granted, I also am pretty infrequent posting here and don't know all the happenings. Seems like most of the socks were cleaned out a little while ago.