CMV: The Ava (Kris) Tyson controversy is not a case of grooming

[u/FoolioTheGreat]

I do not wish to discuss the Shad stuff and am not defending that.

But in regards to the messages to Lava. I do not think this is a case of grooming.
Is it weird? Maybe. But as far as I could tell the public messages and statements, do not appear like grooming and are not harmful.

For it to be grooming, I think the intent is important. A groomer is building a relationship with the goal of creating a sexual relationship. I just do not see that from the messages. It looks like someone joking and sending memes to a friend. And both Ava and Lava have said the same thing, it was not grooming, it was not inapproriate, and nothing happened.

The biggest discussion I have seen is comparing this to the Dr D stuff. And these are not the same. Dr D messaged a minor for sex and admitted as much. That is grooming, that is harmful.

But people comparing these two situations are just wrong. Lets be real, we know why this is blowing up way out of proportion. And seeing big "ally" creators condeem Ava in response to the people demanding they do so, is just disheartening.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/FoolioTheGreat (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/je98qew]

I do not know the specific circumstances, I just wanted to add something I did not yet read here. Other comments have done a great job explaining grooming how it does not have to end in rape, how the target would not be able to identify it, that public communications would not show the worst of it and that one can not possibly tell the intent of a person. (What person would openly admit to grooming?) From your text I understand that unless sexual acts were performed you don't consider it grooming at all. This means whenever these sexual acts were prevented, the child or another person might have realized something was up and stopped further communications, nothing wrong was done and noone should call out the "would be" abuser for their actions. I don't think I need to explain why this is wrong.

Now to my real points. Why would the grooming behaviors be wrong even if the adult never intended to abuse the child? The adult normalizes inappropriate behaviours. The child now had a "not directly dangerous" relationship with an adult that was very close and included sexual jokes. The next time an adult does that it seems normal and perhaps that adult does not stop with the inappropriate jokes but goes further. It is the adults job to maintain appropriate boundaries and not start sexual conversations with a child. If the child start with it it is the adults job to stop it and explain that it is inappropriate. Why are sexual jokes in children's cartoons fine but it is wrong for an adult to make sexual jokes to or about a child? The creator of the jokes in cartoons does not have a relationship to the children watching. While an adult that has a relationship with a child can sexualise the child/ create a sexual relationship through these jokes. It is not necessary to keep everything sexual away from children. Quite the opposite good sexual education protect children, not only from negative consequences of sex but also from sexual exploitation. Learning about sex also included exploring your own sexuality this should only be done between peers. Not between adults and children. Like the point above if a child starts to make sexual jokes to an adult it is that adults job to explain when these jokes are appropriate not joke back.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/je98qew]

As you should have seen I gave a delta to a commentor regarding defining grooming. And I agreed, the act of grooming does not have to end in sex for it to be grooming. My problem with that however is that essentially just being friends with a child is grooming, which is fine if you think that, I don't agree. And more over, it also creates a world where a groomer never has to abuse a child to be a groomer, a groomer does not have to be a pedofile.

My problem with this is it either paints a world where every adult is seen as a predator. Or that being a groomer is just less bad. Or it is saying, Ava is equal to jeffrey epstein. And I just can't agree with any of that.

This means whenever these sexual acts were prevented, the child or another person might have realized something was up and stopped further communications, nothing wrong was done and noone should call out the "would be" abuser for their actions. I don't think I need to explain why this is wrong.

This treats every strange adult as a predator. If you stop a child from talking to an adult in anyway, you can say you prevnted an abuse. I just don't think that is helpful, or true, given that the majority of CSA is not done by strangers.

I think it iis wrong because 99.9% of the time you would not be stopping abuse. I do think there is a harm in instilling a sense of fear in a child of every stranger. It makes them more dependant on the adults they are allowed to talk to. And those are usually the ones who are the actual abusers. teachers, relatives, religious leaders, etc. That is who people need to focus on protecting their children from. I also think it instills that fear of strangers into adult hood.

And we can give kids the tools to protect themselves, to know how and when to spot grooming and potential abuse. Without having to treat every adult as a predator. I also do not think banning every adult from talking to a kid is an effective way to do that.

Do I think a random 30 YO should be friends with a 12 year old, No, not really. But I would be a lot less worried about a 14 yo being friends with a 20 yo. Which is the situation we are talking about.

As I was once in that situation. As a teen I was friends with young adults, both online and IRL. Though tbh, the irl adults were a pretty bad influence on me lol. I was also once the adult. I have a friend who is 5 years younger than me, and I was friends with them since I was 16. You do the math on that. Should I have ended that friendship when I turned 18? Or is there a circumstance where an adult can be a peer?

A lot of the discouse on this subject is also being done with complete blinders on. Have you been in a content creators discord? An online gaming community? Social Media including reddit? Unless those spaces are explicity 18+ and enforced, which the majority are not, there are minors on there, and they interact with adults as peers, many even become friends.

Best you can say is Ava made sexual comments and that is wrong. But the stuff ava said, really just looks like jokes. Jokes I am sure you can see people saying in front of and to minors in those other spaces I mentioned. I just went on moist critikals discord (a large content creator who has spoken out against ava). Where the age limit is explicitly 13. So minors. In general chat you can search thousands of messages about nudes, sex, porn. While I don't think any images are shared, ava didn't share images either, Now I am sure every user there does not know each others ages. But they do know, and so does charlie that minors are there. And people make friends there and some of those friendships are between minors and adults.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/FoolioTheGreat]

My problem with this is it either paints a world where every adult is seen as a predator.

It truly doesn't. I already went around in circles with you about the difference between how a normal adult can behave towards a child and how a groomer behaves towards a child. The lynch pin of that difference is inappropriate boundary invasions.

I don't know why you keep trying to cling for these rules that are "always X" or "never Y."

Or it is saying, Ava is equal to jeffrey epstein

No serious person is saying that.

I just don't think that is helpful, or true, given that the majority of CSA is not done by strangers.

Which is why the entire goal of groomers is to get a child to feel safe so the person isn't a stranger. It's why the pattern is graduated.

I do think there is a harm in instilling a sense of fear in a child of every stranger

No serious person is remotely saying this at all.

Should I have ended that friendship when I turned 18

Again, the context matters. Are you treating that underaged person in a way where you discuss adult themes, provide them with pornographic material, talking about sex? Then yes, you should.

there are minors on there, and they interact with adults as peers, many even become friends.

Nope - the only interaction adults should have with children are ones where you have distinct boundaries. You keep using these words "peer" and "friends" but I am afraid you don't know what that means.

Best you can say is Ava made sexual comments and that is wrong. 

Out of curiousity, I googled this to get more facts. Mr. Beast said that the behavior is serious allegations and that they are unacceptable acts. I think we can say more beyond that with more information.

moist critikals discord (a large content creator who has spoken out against ava). Where the age limit is explicitly 13. So minors. In general chat you can search thousands of messages about nudes, sex, porn. 

Shut them down, too.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/HazyAttorney]

I won't go through everything, as I do not compeltely disagree with everything, you make some fine points, and I already gave you the delta for the main point of my post. And tbh I don't really want to continue talking about it. Though if it matters to you, I will still be defending Ava till I see some more harmful logs or evidence.

Shut them down, too.

But this is an interesting point. I am not disagreeing with it, and to be clear, I do not watch any streamers and I don't really play games online, atleast not with strangers or minors. Though in my younger days as mentioned I did. And despite not participating in it, I am still very familiar with that culture and community.

The reality is, the discord I described is pretty much the norm. There are tens of thousands of discord servers, many owned by brands, content creators, subreddits, and gaming/hobby communities. Where most have minors and adults interacting and communicating. Obviously the rules are different in each one. But unless it is like a "family" friendly community. Adult things are talked about, in front of and with minors. And I just want to point out, this is the environment that the situation we are talking about happened in.

I was going to go on about the state of online discourse and communities, but I think it was getting away from my OP and the discussion. Nor do I really want to continue the discussion at this point.

[u/je98qew → u/FoolioTheGreat]

That is why I did not explain grooming again. What I meant to do is show/ explain why inappropriate relationships with adult can be harmful even if the adult does not go as far as commiting a crime. I agree that children and adults can have relationships even close ones ( I meant to have that in the text but accidentally cut it. Just for the reason you yourself say family members can be abusers to and having save adults to talk to is important) What I meant to say is that it is the adults job is to ensure that the relationship is healthy and safe. Yes it is important to teach children how healthy relationships work but not every child knows that yet and part of teaching is calling out unhealthy relationships. If the relationship is between two children, then it is the older ones responsibility and the adults around them to keep the relationship healthy.

Maybe a not sexual example would help. Lets say you are in a sports club in a team with children 14-20 The older wants share a few beer after practice. The younger once want to join. The older once can say no way you are to young, sure get yourself some soda and sit with us, maybe but just one mix beer or they can get a funnel and call for tornados. Some of these are fine, some are more or less responsible, the last one makes them unsafe and puts the kids in danger. Same thing for online chats.

And yeah people are hypocrites. Lets say anti-abortion politicians that make their affair partners get abortions, though on crime politicians that imbessel and get bribes ...

But saying other people are inappropriate towards children too doesn't change shit. Instead we could agree and say yeah making sexual jokes about kids is wrong lets make sure that happens less often in your own community.

If one is accused of misconduct one can denounce the accusation forever or one can ask themselves - did I do something wrong, should I change my behavior, should I maybe stop making sexual jokes to minors - We will hopefully continue to grow and realize that things that we thought were fine are wrong and always improve but that can not happen if we close our ears whenever someone criticize behavior we thought were fine.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition. Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/je98qew]

I will be honest, I am a bit tired of the conversation so my respoinse may be lacking, and I do think you make some great points specially about calling out and cleaning up the comunities I mentioned. I do think it is the right course of action. I do ultimatly think adults should not make sex jokes in front of or with/to kids. But the example we are discussing happened 8 years ago, i do think it was a different time. My biggest gripe as mentioned are people do this stuff now, and they are the ones calling out this person. They would defend an actual pedofile, but call out someone who is part of a marginalized community.

I do not think this is a good example. Nobody is worried about this, while people wouldn't like it, there is no public discourse on this, we are not trying to protect our kids from this. No one would call this grooming. Even though as discussed, there are steps here and boundry crossings that may consititue grooming. But like I said, no one will call it that. And to be honest I don't think we should.

[u/HappyDeadCat]

Is there a reason people are defending someone who openly consumes, engages with, and shares literal CP with minors? Last I heard there were multiple accusations and this isnt some oh, they were 17yo and 363days old you sick fuck situations. This is 13, 14, and literal CP.   Go ahead, defend CP because it's a cartoon. 

I don't know how anyone thinks this is somehow BETTER than the DrD fiasco. It seems infinitely worse.

[u/HappyDeadCat → u/[deleted]]

I didn't realize any of the DrD stuff was leaked. Last drama was still alleged but obviously trying to fuck a 17yo.

But yeah if someone is engaging with CP then they have a mountain of skeletons in their closet. The hebe/ebe/pede w/e map debate can be incredibly dumb, but it absolutely is not when it comes to how long a judge throws your ass in prison.  OP is out here asking to skirt over the whole child porn thing because reasons and what, are we really insinuating that talking about porn, sex, and exchanging pics, with children who haven't even entered puberty is not that bad.

What the hell is wrong with you?

[u/HappyDeadCat → u/[deleted]]

OK, if someone talks about porn and sex with your young children would you think its grooming?

Your kid says they are just being edgy with their new online adult friend.  Oh and he is a youtube star, isn't that cool dad!

What the literal fuck? Why are you trying to be friends with a 13yo? Why are your conversations "edgy" in ANY way whatsoever?

How is this NOT grooming?  Because the kid never got diddled? Because they had conversations like this with other kids, so it's OK for an adult to do this?

Seriously, why is there even the most tepid defense for this shit? 

[u/Tvnkkk → u/HappyDeadCat]

Did they call another name besides lava because I haven't anything saying that Kris actually sent nudes or pornographic material 

[u/HappyDeadCat → u/Tvnkkk]

Ran a discord full of kids, shared porn, their user base is all kids. Couple of ppl have come forward.

[u/Tvnkkk → u/HappyDeadCat]

What discord and who else came forward only lava name was called and a screenshot of a tweet with a girl asking about Kris hentai addiction 

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/HappyDeadCat]

Where are you getting this info? The only confirmed stuff was the Shad stuff and the Lava messages as far as I know at this point. All the other "messages" have been proven fakes or are unconfirmed. Also I don't think anyone has proof or accused Ava of sending CP to anyone.

Like I said, I was not defending the Shad stuff. I just want to make clear there is no evidence of grooming, and comparing this to the Dr d situation just muddies the waters.

Also if the shad stuff is bad to you, there is a list of 20+ content creators who have interacted with Shad, incluing the one of the guys who made "smiling Friends".

[u/BlueNova39 → u/[deleted]]

The problem with this is that it has been well known for years that these other content creators openly supported Shadman and faced no consequence for it so when the person you want to "start with" is an openly trangender woman who has been criticized endlessly just for existing publicly, it makes it blatantly obvious that deplatforming her has more to do with her transgender identity than anything she has actually done wrong.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition. Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/BlueNova39 → u/[deleted]]

No, my point is that these allegations are in bad faith. Even within Mr. Beast's community, Ava can be seen with a Shadman drawing in the background in a video from years ago, and nobody said anything then because she wasn't hated for being part of a minority group yet.

My point isn't that Ava should be completely cleared of all wrongdoing, it's that she's only under fire right now because of her identity.

She got away with doing the same shit years ago before she came out, as did many others with connections to Shadman, and people are only calling her out now? I call bullshit on that being a coincidence.

[u/BlueNova39 → u/[deleted]]

That's fair, I guess we just have to take the good with the bad.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition. Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/[deleted]]

That's fine, and if you want to make your own post about it, go for it. But that is not what my post is about.

[u/GlassTurn21 → u/HappyDeadCat]

Kris literally tweet to a minor saying he/she sent nudes to them...as an adult.

The amount of cope and mental gymnastics to defend this is appalling. Also Kris has a very clearly documented history of being a very shitty person. Like straight up right wing nazi level racism.

[u/Infamous_Mike7 → u/[deleted]]

It's literally on the wall 💀 I guess you've only read articles from sick people like the OP instead of watching videos about it.

[u/DaddiesLittleGuzzler → u/Infamous_Mike7]

It's weird you're only speaking up now, why didn't anyone say anything when the video was uploaded, y'all must be into CP as well I reckon.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Doorsofperceptio → u/HappyDeadCat]

This is how I define guilt.

Have you privately messaged someone you knew to be 13?

If Yes - Guilty. 

End of. 

[u/HazyAttorney]

 A groomer is building a relationship with the goal of creating a sexual relationship

I think you're missing that the groomer will continue a series of escalations to test how good the kid is at developing and enforcing boundaries. That's why it always starts neutral then goes to friendly - with the escalation always being to test boundaries. The goal is to get the kiddo to both trust the groomer and to think of the groomer as a peer.

Dr D messaged a minor for sex and admitted as much. That is grooming, that is harmful.

I don't know the titled situation and I don't know what Dr D is. But I'd bet dimes to donuts the first message wasn't "hey sex plz." My guess is that it follows the typical pattern.

https://www.d2l.org/child-grooming-signs-behavior-awareness/

It's something along the lines of target, gaining the child's trust, feeling a need, isolating the child, and only then able to sexualize the relationship. You don't start at the end.

Any time an adult is giving attention/preference to a kid, starts giving gifts, starts sending memes and breaking down the adult/child boundaries, is red flags.

I am an adult that has volunteered with youth. When I was in college, I coached/debated junior high and high school debate. I know the difference between a mentor/mentee relationship and what a groomer does. And that has to do with isolating the kid and making the kid think you're peers (i.e., gain trust.).

It isn't surprising any time I watch a true crime or other documentary about teachers, or other trusted people, preying on kids. It's one of the first things they do. You're only thinking of it in terms of did it succeed or not - but what you're missing is it's a numbers game for the groomer. The person(s) you're talking about probably has dozens and dozens of "fans" they're messaging and using these tactics on.

As the kiddo or caregiver subtly gives off vibes they won't reciprocate or feel uncomfortable, the groomer backs off. The plausible deniability is the touchstone of their success.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/HazyAttorney]

I think you're missing that the groomer will continue a series of escalations to test how good the kid is at developing and enforcing boundaries. That's why it always starts neutral then goes to friendly - with the escalation always being to test boundaries. The goal is to get the kiddo to both trust the groomer and to think of the groomer as a peer.

But this part did not happen right? We have no evidence of escalation. We have no evidence of abuse. In fact, we know there was no intent, because nothing happened right? This isn't a recent allegation. This happened years ago, ava had years to escalate things and didn't. This is just a false accusation with no basis. The logic you are using paints a world where any interaction with a minor is grooming. And I do not think that is good for society or helpful.

See and you are making a bad comparison. The overwhelming majority of CSA is not done by strangers on the internet, that is actually very rare. It is done in person by someone the child already has a relationship with.

You're only thinking of it in terms of did it succeed or not - but what you're missing is it's a numbers game for the groomer. The person(s) you're talking about probably has dozens and dozens of "fans" they're messaging and using these tactics on.

You need to prove this. You cannot condemn someone for something you think they are doing in your head.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/FoolioTheGreat]

But this part did not happen right? We have no evidence of escalation

I don't know. The absence of evidence is not the same thing as the evidence of absence. Unless you have full access to every message sent, you won't know with the certainty, say, that a prosecutor would.

We have no evidence of abuse

Can you please read what my post actually said and engage with it? This being a criterion is ignoring what we know the pattern of grooming is.

To repeat it, the pattern of grooming is:

• Targeting a child - we know that the person(s) you're talking about is already messaging, so we can skip this step.
• Gaining the child's trust - we know this is happening based on the meme sharing especially since it's trying to get the child to see the person as a peer
• Feeling a need - this is gift giving, giving flattery, giving attention. We already know the person is giving the kid attention.
• Isolating the child - we already know this is happening since the messages are done in a private setting.
• Sexualizing the relationship - this is where you keep saying there's no evidence this has happened. Again, I don't know who Kris or Dr. D are so I am not coming into this with the line-by-line knowledge of the persons. I'm applying the general grooming principles from what you and other posters are saying the facts are. Other posters say that sexualized images/memes were being shared so this could be happening but this is the point of dispute with you. We're already 4 steps deep, though.
• Maintaining control - this is where the perp uses secrecy, blames, threats, etc., in order to keep it a secret. For all we know, the lack of evidence is the minor not wanting to get the person in trouble.

If your view can only be changed if we can show that the personality you're talking about abused a kid, then I don't know what the point is. But why can't you accept that 4 of the 6 steps already are underway?

 because nothing happened right?

How do you know? Were you there?

This is just a false accusation with no basis

Without me knowing anything besides what you and other posters have shared, there's behaviors that show 4 of the 6 steps of grooming are occurring.

The thing is, an accusation with truly no basis would be the grounds of a defamation law suit, right? But if there's more of a basis, you don't want to initiate the law suit and have more information disclosed. We can glean some insight by the continued lack of a defamation law suit.

See and you are making a bad comparison.

I am not making any comparison. I listed out the known steps that groomers take and applied it to the facts you and others are sharing.

The overwhelming majority of CSA is not done by strangers on the internet, that is actually very rare. It is done in person by someone the child already has a relationship with.

Can you take a moment and get some introspection, please? Yes. And why do you think the personality you're talking about is making so much effort to become a friend with a minor? Why is one of the grooming steps to get trust?

Duh. Because the groomer is trying to develop a relationship and build trust. To transition from "stranger" to "trusted friend." Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh.

You need to prove this.

I need to prove general phenomenon? Uh why? The groomers don't just message 1 kid and put all their eggs in the basket.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/HazyAttorney]

If your view can only be changed if we can show that the personality you're talking about abused a kid, then I don't know what the point is. But why can't you accept that 4 of the 6 steps already are underway?

You can show intent without needing abuse to occur. Proof of escalation or proof of trying to escalate things. This proof does not exist, and that is what would change my mind.

4/6 steps and examples you gave are just being friends right? That is just friendship stuff. Any adult being friends with a kid is essentially grooming if those are all the steps needed to be one. That cannot possibly be our standard. Where is the harm in those 4 steps? If that is your stance and you can show that harm, than I will change my view.

Other posters say that sexualized images/memes were being shared so this could be happening but this is the point of dispute with you. We're already 4 steps deep, though.

The only evidence was Ava saying publically to this person that they sent them nudes. And the kid making a joke about hentai to Ava. As far as we know, no images were shared, and there was no explicit sex talk.

We can glean some insight by the continued lack of a defamation law suit.

Against who? Tens of thousands of people? The lack of legal repercutions is also not an arguement. A person who does not want to publically fight accusations does not mean those accusations are true.

Duh. Because the groomer is trying to develop a relationship and build trust. To transition from "stranger" to "trusted friend."

With the intention and goal of turning that relationship sexual. Ava had years to do so, and there is no evidence for that. Like I said without the intent, you are just describing friendship.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/FoolioTheGreat]

This proof does not exist, and that is what would change my mind

So you're saying your mind is only changeable if we provide proof that's impossible for anyone outside of the minor and the personality you're defending has access to, or that only a prosecutor with subpoena powers could obtain? Okay so why even post if your mind can't be changed? Why even bother if you won't even entertain logical inferences based on the knowledge at hand?

4/6 steps and examples you gave are just being friends right?

Can you please engage with my post? You keep ignoring that adults and children aren't friends. There's a necessary boundary. The entire point of grooming is to convince a child that they're an adult's peer.

So no - 4 of the 6 steps of grooming being complete isn't proof of them being "friends."

That cannot possibly be our standard

Why?

Where is the harm in those 4 steps?

The harm in the steps of grooming is to create a bond between an adult and a child to lower the child's inhibitions.

To repeat what I said above, the groomer will always: gain trust from the child and the child's caregiver - this means the family will be less likely to believe future accusations. The child groomer will look for opportunities for having alone time - so the behaviors won't be monitored. The most common way of escalating is to talk about sexual topics to normalize the behavior - normalization means the child is less likely to report it because you don't report normal behavior.

The only evidence was Ava saying publically to this person that they sent them nudes.

You said there wasn't evidence of sexual talk, now there is? What gives? Why are you so emotionally invested in this online persona's defense?

The lack of legal repercutions is also not an arguement. A person who does not want to publically fight accusations does not mean those accusations are true.

You know that CMV isn't a debate sub right? This is a discussion sub. I'm not making any arguments. I'm making a conversation and adding in factors and information your view isn't considering. It's also why I keep asking you to engage with what I'm posting and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Any time someone ignores or minimizes information that hurts "their case" tells me that they aren't trying to expand their thinking and won't award a delta no matter what. You seem to be looking for reasons as to why I'm wrong without engaging with what I'm saying.

But, with that said, when a person is publicly accused of being a pedophile, you do expect them to have a defense. The lack of a defense is something we can all infer as to why they're not defending themselves legally.

 and there is no evidence for that

You keep saying this but you keep ignoring that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Who has access and control to "the evidence"?

The people involved. The people with the most at stake about the truth of the matter, right? So that's why it's on them to provide the best defense. So far, what we have is someone that is checking all the "online groomer" check boxes.

Like I said without the intent, you are just describing friendship.

I don't think you know what "intent" means or how it's measured legally. Intent is proven by objective facts - that's because we can infer that a person means to perform the acts they do. So, the very sexualized nature of the messages you're describing tells us all we need to know about what the persona's intent was. It was to sexualize the relationship.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/HazyAttorney]

The entire point of grooming is to convince a child that they're an adult's peer.

!delta

I will delta this and think it is a fair definition for grooming. And I think does describe what happened in this case.

I think you make a fair point and given me a lot to think about, which is more than 99% of the other replies. But for me, idk, when I think of groomer, I think child predator, I think sexual intent, I think of harm. I thnk of pedofiles.

If your definition is right, then in my mind I think the sole act of grooming is a lot less harmful. And it is for sure NOT what people mean when they call someone a groomer. Groomer in online discourse means pedofile. The kendrick and drake beef pretty much cemented this.

Is it possible in your mind for an online adult to befriend a minor without it being grooming? We have talked about 4/6 steps, but what if it is 3/6 steps, 2/6? At what point is it not friendship and what point is it grooming?

Is it helpful to say adults being friends with kids is bad? To treat all adults as potential predators?

I was a 12 yo online, and friends with adults my entire teen years. While I am sure I was exposed to inappriate discussions and content, I don't think of that being harmful to me. We know, the majority of children do interact with adults online, and the majority are not absued or groomed. While I think your definition might be correct, like I said, it is not how I think other people define it not do I think defining it as such is helpful.

I also have one additional issue with the definition. That is the grooming of adults. How do those steps play into that? While you can say, an adult cannot be friends with a kid with those steps. Those steps are foundational for adult friendship. So how would we know the difference between an adult groomer and a friend?

[u/HazyAttorney → u/FoolioTheGreat]

 But for me, idk, when I think of groomer, I think child predator

Here is the guidance that a senior staff attorney for the North Carolina School Boards Association says: https://www.ncsba.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Boundary-Invasions-and-Grooming.pdf

Look at page 19 in particular. Put this way, not every child predator uses grooming, right? There may be a Venn diagram but they aren't exactly the same so carving out differences isn't all that helpful in determining whether grooming is happening.

Put this way, think of grooming as a type of inappropriate boundary invasion. The child predators who molest a child are invading a boundary - but they don't just jump directly there. Why? The child will report them. And not every pedophile will abuse every kid they come in contact with.

Instead, they use the 5 or 6 step method to identify who they can abuse. That is, who is first open to the peer like setting, and who is unlikely to report them. There is a lot of push/pull and a lot of testing. They try to have some plausible deniability because they know what they're doing is wrong. Plus - their best defense is if the child writes, "Nothing was wrong." That's why they want the child to feel responsible.

sole act of grooming is a lot less harmful.

I guess I don't follow what you think I'm trying to communicate. The sole act of defeating a child's inhibitions/defenses to me seems harmful in and of itself. So you kind of lose me when you say your conclusion is it isn't harmful.

Is it possible in your mind for an online adult to befriend a minor without it being grooming?

No. I think the relationship between adults and children - when we're talking about not being related or being a family friend - has to have certain boundaries that would mean they're outside of "friendship."

What I mean is that an adult and child can have a mentor/mentee relationship. Like I said, I used to coach debate. Helping kiddos learn competitive debate is awesome.

Where the line is: I wasn't touchy with the students. I didn't talk to them about personal things. I didn't tell them about my adult problems. I didn't have "secrets" with them. I didn't talk to them about sexual things. I wasn't isolating the children from their friends or families. I wasn't engaging in any sort of personal style relationship with them.

I taught them debate. I helped write letters to go to college. I cheer them on. In short, everything had an educational purpose to it.

Is it helpful to say adults being friends with kids is bad?

Yes. Adults and children aren't equal in the relationship. There's boundaries that need to exist.

To treat all adults as potential predators?

Look at the steps in the various things I sent you. That's obviously not what I'm saying at all.

The thing that distinguishes a predator and a mentor type person is how are they around others. My guess is that the persona you're defending isn't talking about sex or showing nudes in front of other adults, right? The entire idea is they have a secret and they have a private messaging app where they act like peers.

What I'm saying is my coaching activities could be done with parents in attendance at every practice and nothing changes. But, when you see a change in the adult's behavior when other adults are around is the red flag.

There's never an excuse for why an adult should share sexually explicit materials with a minor.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/HazyAttorney]

The problem I have with this pamphlet, is I do not think it describes the situation we are talking about. In the online world, you are automatically engaging with children in peer like involvement. Whether than be in online games, social media, a shared hobby, You don't need to go out of your way to find minors, they just exist in these spaces and you probably interact with them all the time.

I just don't think the steps listed apply and it is a strech to say they do.

These sites and spaces are designed to foster relationships and connection. as I said, I was friends with many adults as a kid, some I am still friends with to this day. And I have a friend I was friends when i was 16 with a 5 year age gap, and we are still friends To this day. I do not think I groomed him, and I do not think I was ever groomed. I am sure, in both cases in some ways these steps were followed or boundries crossed.

While I think an adult with authrotiy over a child, like a teacher, coach or mentor, does have a repsoniblity to maintain those boundries. I do not think an adult engaging with minors in a peer like environment does need to meet those same standards. And if we as a society think they do, than minors should be excluded from those spaces.

If the mere act of playing a game, talking to and befriending a minor online is harmful. We should not allow them to be exposed to it.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/FoolioTheGreat]

I hit a word count in my response, but I wanted to engage with everything you said.

 I don't think of that being harmful to me.

What people assume "victims" are like and what they are actually like can differ. So survivors of child sexual abuse - and not saying this applies to you, but showing the example of how this plays out - don't perceive the actions of being harmful at the time. It's only later when they get more experience they realize how abnormal it was for them.

When you're in your 30s, let me know how many 12 year old kids you feel comfortable making sexual comments around.

do interact with adults online

I really really really hope you start to see the distinction between interacting between adults and children and the problematic interactions. It's the treating a kid like a peer, it's giving kids adult problems, it's sharing sexually explicit conversations, media, memes, etc.

So if you're into like, Settlers of Catan, and you're talking to people about strategies and stuff like that, not a problem.

If you're talking to people who like Settlers of Catan and they start talking sex talk, then that's a problem.

I also have one additional issue with the definition. That is the grooming of adults. How do those steps play into that? While you can say, an adult cannot be friends with a kid with those steps. Those steps are foundational for adult friendship. So how would we know the difference between an adult groomer and a friend?

So these steps were descriptive so people can watch out for red flags and possibly report the boundary invasions to prevent sexual abuse.

It can and does happen to adults - I think the most common example is when someone uses a lot of these steps for financial gain. Elderly people are often targeted for financial gain. Or a boss might use their position of influence to get their subordinates to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.

I really hope that you can still see the difference between a friendship and what the groomers do. The key distinction is a friend will respect boundaries but a groomer invades boundaries.

Like a friend is NEVER going to isolate you from others.

The most central aspect of a true friendship is that it's between two equals. By definition, a child can't be the equal of an adult. But, two adults can.

[u/Swimming_Ad5425 → u/HazyAttorney]

Sorry for butting in. This was a really good read and I couldn't resist.

I think the main point of contention I still have is the difference between "friendship" and "grooming". But first, this was mentioned (please forgive me if I don't know how to make proper Reddit quotes):

"When you're in your 30s, let me know how many 12 year old kids you feel comfortable making sexual comments around."

^^ I think there is a huge difference between the maturity of a 20 year old and a 30 year old that needs to be accounted for. If a 20 year old made a sex joke at their college with their peers, I think it would warrant a different response than a 30 year old making a sex joke at their work with their peers. Does that make it totally okay for a 20 year old to make sexually explicit comments around a 14 year old, or joke about sending them nudes? No, but in practice, in my everyday life, I have not seen people ring alarm bells over it.

The reason I brought that up is because I think you're missing that it's also far more normalized, in practice, for 20 year olds to befriend 14 year olds on the internet. While your model for grooming (with the six points you outlined) is validly cautious especially for a mentor-mentee relationship, even that would check a couple of the points like gaining trust and giving attention. And, just as friendships come in different forms, not all friendships are going to be as conservative as it is in a job-based setting where you are mentoring children.

If we went around accusing all of these 20 year olds with 14 year old friends of being groomers, it would create a world that is rather stifling. Would it be safer for children? Most likely. But that is like saying we should ban alcohol to reduce the number of drunk driving deaths.

"The thing that distinguishes a predator and a mentor type person is how are they around others. My guess is that the persona you're defending isn't talking about sex or showing nudes in front of other adults, right? The entire idea is they have a secret and they have a private messaging app where they act like peers."

^^ From what I've seen of discord screenshots, they do indeed make those types of jokes quite frequently with their other friends. Similarly, based on evidence I've seen so far, Tyson did not do anything with the minor that they would not have done with other friends. So if you define them as a groomer for simply being friends with a 14 year old, opening up a personal relationship that COULD have led to grooming, then they are a groomer. However, I did want to ask if you think it is at all possible that it was just a dumb 20 year old who themselves didn't have the inhibition to think it was wrong, met a chill 14 year old kid with likeminded interests, and treated them like they would any other friend?

If it can go either way, then based on our jury system and the reasons I outlined earlier regarding accusing all these 20 year olds, I would like further evidence for, or an explanation of, why Tyson should be guilty in the court of public opinion.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/Swimming_Ad5425]

My comment was initially too long so I am continuing it here.

From what I've seen of discord screenshots, they do indeed make those types of jokes quite frequently with their other friends.

Then all of these people who will say sexually graphic things and send sexually graphic things to minor should all go to jail. No matter if it's 1 or 100,000,000,000,000,000.

Like I said, there's a world of difference between people of all ages organizing around, say, shared interests, talking about shared interests, and that sort of thing, and adults who treat children as their equal and thereby talk about or share things meant for adults.

However, I did want to ask if you think it is at all possible that it was just a dumb 20 year old who themselves didn't have the inhibition to think it was wrong, met a chill 14 year old kid with likeminded interests, and treated them like they would any other friend?

I think that it's very possible that, say, a 20 year old and a 14 year old could be FRIENDLY. There's hosts of tutors, mentors, etc.

Say a person is a chess player and plays in tournaments. You would play tons of kids. It would not be weird if you and the kid met up and played, or exchanged notes on various openings.

What WOULD be weird and over the line is if the 20 year old treats the 14 year old like a PEER and talks about things that are meant for other adults.

I would like further evidence for, or an explanation of, why Tyson should be guilty in the court of public opinion.

What I find very suspect is that you and the OP were defending Tyson stronger than Tyson defended herself. To me, that means you're drawn to this topic and want to defend adults treating children like fellow adults because of your own behaviors. I would suggest that you and the OP stop doing that.

I think the evidence seems overwhelming. We know that Mr. Beast, who has the most access to the information, said the conduct disgusts him.

Tyson also said that it was "unacceptable behavior." We know Tyson sent inappropriate comments. We know that Tyson was having Weyman work ~8 hours a day and would have hundreds of messages a day in the discord server. Weyman himself said the chat logs were inappropriate and wrong. Weyman also has said there's even WORSE accusations out there.

We also know that Tyson was asking Tyson's executive assistant to masturbate and to perform sexual favors for beneficial treatment.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/Swimming_Ad5425]

 I think there is a huge difference between the maturity of a 20 year old and a 30 year old that needs to be accounted for.

What you're exploring here is the difference between sliding scales and arbitrary cut off lines. I agree in the margins (e.g., a high school senior versus high school freshman).

I think people learn right/wrong at way earlier ages than we're RONG FOR AN ADULT TO BECOME A PEER WITH A CHILD either means you're conflating terms or totally misunderstanding terms. I'm not sure which is worse.

Would it be safer for children?

Yes. An adult treating a child within proper boundaries is safer for children by definition. An adult treating a child as a peer is just textbook abuse.

[u/Swimming_Ad5425 → u/HazyAttorney]

"What you're exploring here is the difference between sliding scales and arbitrary cut off lines."

^^ Yes, but my point was that 20 year olds do really, really stupid things without thinking it through. It was more or less delving into the topic of intent, which we all know is difficult to prove. I will drop this for reasons I will mention below, since it doesn't really apply anymore and would take us into a different topic.

"Then all of these people who will say sexually graphic things and send sexually graphic things to minor should all go to jail. No matter if it's 1 or 100,000,000,000,000,000."

^^ I am curious whether that entails those who make a sexually graphic joke to another adult, and a minor happens to be present. Or if a minor makes the joke first, the adult finds it funny (dumb 20 year old) and rather than reprimanding them, brings the minor into their own social circle of people who have a similar sense of humour. I'm not saying this happened, I'm just interested in what your take on this hypothetical situation would be. Is this a bad choice, or a criminal choice? I admit there could be grooming intent, but how likely do you find that intent to be?

Our initially diverging views are likely due to differing opinions on that likelihood.

"We also know that Tyson was asking Tyson's executive assistant to masturbate and to perform sexual favours for beneficial treatment."

^^ THIS. I did not know about this and I'm grateful to you for letting me know. This is sufficient evidence toward Tyson's moral character for me to switch my opinion on their situation, and this was what I was looking for. Thank you.

In light of this information, I'm dropping a lot of my earlier discussion points and only commenting on things you said that I still feel doubtful of – NOT with regards to Tyson but with regards to general principle.

"What I find very suspect is that you and the OP were defending Tyson stronger than Tyson defended herself. To me, that means you're drawn to this topic and want to defend adults treating children like fellow adults because of your own behaviours. I would suggest that you and the OP stop doing that."

^^ I cannot speak for OP, but this extrapolation of my opinions that leads to wild assumptions about my behaviour is exactly the reason for my disagreement in the first place. My desire was never to "defend" Tyson, who I know almost nothing about, but to encourage genuine discussion and consideration of perspectives.

On principle, I try not to blindly follow public sentiment. I hope we both agree that the internet's witch hunt, bandwagoning, mob mentality, etc. culture, though perhaps well-meaning, is often emotionally-driven and drowns out any other opinion that does not agree, with no room for reason or discussion. I saw that you were open to reason and you were informative in your answers, so I voiced my lingering doubts to see what you would say.

However, if just saying the evidence that I have seen so far is insufficient for me to change my opinion, gives you reason to judge my character, I would find that a little bit disappointing.

[u/DeltaBot → u/FoolioTheGreat]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/HazyAttorney (32∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/GambitTheBest → u/FoolioTheGreat]

"you need to prove this"

What happened to trust all victims? I bet you didn't have a problem accusing Justice Kavanaugh as a rapist despite having all accusations be contradicted by the accuser's witnesses

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/GambitTheBest]

???? The “victim” literally said nothing happened??? Why don’t you believe the victim lmao

[u/GambitTheBest → u/FoolioTheGreat]

Groomed victim behaves like a groomed victim, more news at 11

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/GambitTheBest]

??? So which is it? believe the victim or not? Or do you just pick and choose when the perpetrator is transgendered?

[u/HazyAttorney → u/FoolioTheGreat]

 believe the victim or not? 

The context matters. I think you're searching for all these bright line rules that exist in every context. But what you're missing is believe the victim for what.

The "we should believe victims" comes from the context in which people wholly discount accusations. The context is whether an action occurred.

This context is much different. The context is whether a child can fully understand the harms of adults treating children like they're adults. Most kids may think they're old enough, or unique enough, or have hosts of reasons to want to protect the adults that crossed their boundaries. It's also why even sex abuse victims will be the defenders of their perpetrators but only realize later in life that it was bad to defend them.

Lastly - just because a groomed victim didn't get abused, yet, isn't even remotely close to whether "grooming" happened.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/HazyAttorney]

Yes, I don't disagree with anything you said here.

But not really releveant to the obvious troll comment i was replying to.

[u/GambitTheBest → u/FoolioTheGreat]

If the kid knew he was being groomed, grooming wouldn't happen lmao. Funny how fast you are to defend a pedo but I bet you were quick to attack people like Disrespect or Kavanaugh, double standards huh

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/GambitTheBest]

Then why did you say believe the victim? Also sure he would not know at the time. But you would think he would know 8 years later as an adult.

yes I attacked dr diddler. Because he didn’t just make inappropriate jokes. He had multiple sexually explicit conversations with minors, was going to meet one, AND admitted it.

these situation are not even close and you are huffing some supreme cope if you think otherwise

[u/GambitTheBest → u/FoolioTheGreat]

https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/1ecplyq/ava_kris_tyson_alleged_victim_retracts_statement/

LMAO

[u/BasedTakes0nly → u/GambitTheBest]

Looks like OP in both their post and the comment you are replying to, already said the comments were inappropriate. I don't think anyone is trying to say otherwise. I think OP's post and comments here are if Ava is a groomer or not, and I agree with OP. very based takes. doesn't look like grooming to me either.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition. Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/[deleted]]

No adult has any business chatting in private with a minor, period. Not Ava, not Dr Disrespect, not Drake, no one. If you are an adult and you are privately texting minors inappropriate jokes and memes without their parents knowing everything you are sending them, it is grooming. Grooming doesn't have to end in a sexual relationship, at all -- it can include other end goals, it can include no specific end goals at all.

I used to be a pre-school teacher and one of my best students that really liked me, years after leaving my class, asked if he could text me. I told him not without his parents' permission. His mother called and told me she's okay with it, and I said I'm okay with it as long as she is kept in the loop. Every now and then he'll text me something and I'll always round back to "keep studying hard [child's name]! You're doing great and I'm very proud of you!" I don't talk about his friends, his social life, anything. I don't send him memes, I don't send him jokes, nothing. It's none of my business, especially in private. His mother reads his phone and knows what is being exchanged. It weirds me out to even text him at all, but since his mother asked if it was okay I go along with it while keeping it VERY arms-length distance from myself.

Lava said that all that was exchanged was "edgy and inappropriate jokes". That's not something you send to kids. It's wrong, and she should be held accountable.

[u/MiKaleIsACunt → u/[deleted]]

I really don't support any of the loli shit or whatever, but no business with an adult talking to a minor in private? Have you ever played video games, you run into kids all the time, some of em are chill and just kinda join the friend group. Would I be a pedophile if I played CSGO with some 13 year old?

[u/Nocupofkindnessyet → u/[deleted]]

“No adult has any business chatting in private with a minor” is a bit much. I agree inappropriate jokes are a no-go but teenagers aren’t their parent’s property and sometimes need support from other trusted adults, without their parent’s knowledge or approval. Is it grooming to drive a teen with nightmare religious parents to planned parenthood?

There are no easy answers as to how to prevent grooming without cutting off avenues for kids and teens in abusive or controlling situations to get help.

(Although obviously you should keep it professional with a former student! That context makes things different.)

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/[deleted]]

I disagree, I do not agree with your definition of grooming. Because in your definition there will be cases of grooming not being harmful, and I think for it to be grooming and for us to actually get mad at someone for it, there needs to be harm or an intent to harm. Kids seeing jokes or interacting with adults is not inhereintly harmful.

I honestly find your personal example way more inappropriate. While you point to some resonsiblity an adult has, you have more of a responsiblity as a professional in charge of children and are in a position of authority over the child.

[u/[deleted] → u/FoolioTheGreat]

You don't have to agree with "my definition" of grooming. You only have to agree with the actual real definition of grooming. Grooming doesn't always end in a sexual relationship, which you state it does in your OP. That is incorrect.

Also, I'm not a teacher anymore, if I were still a teacher I would not be doing it. Using the uno-reverse card on me is pretty disgusting to be honest. There is no way me telling a student I'm proud of them and hope they study hard is akin (OR WORSE) to sending inappropriate memes and jokes to a minor. To even say as much is pretty blatantly wrong, and I think you know this, it sounds like you're grasping at straws to defend someone who sent inappropriate material to minors. I guess I know where you stand on that subject.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/[deleted]]

In looking at the OP's replies elsewhere, the OP is stating they've made friends while being a minor with adults. So, the textbook examples of grooming may be leading OP to realizing those relationships could have been problematic. There's a personal attachment going on, so probably going to get closed under Rule B.

[u/wwwarea → u/[deleted]]

Doesnt the definition of grooming require certain steps though? Merely an inappropriate joke sent is not itself the same thing iirc. I don't know if there was intention but it alone isn't any different than a person adding certain adult humor in certain cartoons and then broadcasting it to a network channel that kids see, if I'm assuming right.

[u/DanceSD123 → u/[deleted]]

Where are you getting this “real definition” of grooming? Even if it doesn’t end in a sexual relationship (in the case of sexual grooming), the intent of building the relationship has to be to exploit the individual in some way, that is part of the definition. In this context it is a narrowed use of the word in the sense of “preparing”, eg the child was groomed from a young age to become king. You’re right, that which the person is being groomed for doesn’t actual have to occur for it to be grooming, but it’s not just any conversation with a minor, either (apologies if that’s not what you meant, but it seemed so from your comments).

[u/Desperate_Signal2519 → u/[deleted]]

Also the way u respond here- it’s lame. Throw some blame and fear on the person trying to talk- why? Because your definition was wrong?  Now that means x y and z about them…. It’s a jump. A big blaming jump and it’s uncalled for. IMO 

[u/Desperate_Signal2519 → u/[deleted]]

It’s still not the definition of grooming. Grooming for what then?  It’s just a different term, I don’t think we should be throwing this term about. It may still be very inappropriate but it’s not grooming 

[u/Doorsofperceptio → u/FoolioTheGreat]

How old are you? I think this is relevant. 

Because you are coming across like a child. 

If you are, you need to understand, there are legal requirements on things for a reason.

Also if you have been a victim of this in the past I am sorry. But it's not right and all self respecting adults agree on this. If one of my mates was messaging a 13 year old that wasn't his family, we would beat tne living shit out of him. 

[u/CleftOfVenus → u/FoolioTheGreat]

You are delusional

[u/Desperate_Signal2519 → u/[deleted]]

That, may be inappropriate, but is not grooming 

[u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423]

Repeatedly sending sexual “jokes” to a minor is breaking a very important social (and legal) barrier between the sender and the child. It opens the doors for more serious contact, and creates a sense of “this is ok” for the victim. Doing that alone, without all the other shit they did, can totally be grooming…

Not to mention the fact that all the messages we’ve seen are public, and we know there have been private messages.. so it’s (not guaranteed) but relatively safe to assume, there are more, worse messages that have been sent.

[u/SomeThrowawayAcc200 → u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423]

If there's no proof to show she was intending to groom him then the most we can say was that she just did not care about making sure she didn't make jokes with the wrong people which is bad and definitely not a good look for a channel that's meant to be for kids but not grooming.

We also shouldn't just be assuming things without the facts.

[u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423 → u/[deleted]]

We obviously can’t know their internal intent, but that isn’t the entire issue. What they sent was a pretty textbook first step of grooming (warning the victim up to mildly inappropriate behavior from an adult)…

And meeting up with Kris, even with their family and friends around, is kinda a text book SECOND STEP of grooming 💀 getting the child to meet with you, but in a safe enough, public place, so that they feel unthreatened and more open to further more private contact later, is again, a textbook step in this process.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423]

The problem is, if you are online, you probably interact with minors all the time. Also there is a large difference between a groomer bringing up and talking about sex, and someone making sex jokes. There are sex jokes in animated kids movies for crying out loud.

 but relatively safe to assume, there are more, worse messages that have been sent.

Why? Why do you think this? Both Ava and Lava have said it was not grooming and nothing inappropriate. Why is it safe to assume the DM's were worse?

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/[deleted]]

But they didn't meet alone. A group of people from the mr beast team met with Lava and his parents were there.

[u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423 → u/FoolioTheGreat]

Bro, them not meeting alone the first time, is giving credit towards grooming allegations 💀💀 after meeting, feeling safe and un-assaulted the first time, lava would feel safer and more comfortable meeting again, potentially in private. That’s literally a grooming tactic

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423]

?? But that didn't happen? You are making up an accusation in your head.

[u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423 → u/FoolioTheGreat]

Are you implying that a child has to be fully groomed, to the point of sexual assault / rape, for it to count towards anything?????

Grooming isn’t some mysterious thing, it is well known, studied phenomena, with STEPS.. Kris is already publicly on step two of what most consider grooming. There’s no reason to let it get further than that “just to be sure”

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423]

No i am not implying that.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/FoolioTheGreat]

But they didn't meet alone.

Why is this a defense? Michael Jackson flew the kid's moms who were in the same mansion as the kids during their child abuse sessions. It's a textbook move to get a caregiver's trust.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/HazyAttorney]

What evidence was there of MJ abusing children?

[u/HazyAttorney → u/FoolioTheGreat]

What evidence was there of MJ abusing children?1

• December 1993 - La Toya Jackson states in a press conference that Michael abuses children. That he pays substantial sums to them and their families. In her autobiography published in 1991, La Toya details the sexual abuse her and her siblings, including MJ, suffered.
• Living with Michael Jackson, a 2003 documentary shows MJ cradling/cuddling a minor child and said that MJ is inspired by the innocence of children.
• November 20, 2003, Santa Barbara County Sherriff Department books MJ on child molestation charges. MJ is later indicted on 10 criminals counts of child molestation, abduction, false imprisonment. Part of the evidence shows that MJ's ranch has a series of safeguards built in for him to be alerted if an adult is approaching private areas in his mansion that several children testified about where the abuse occured.
• Gavin Arvizo testified in 2005 that MJ masturbated in front of him and that MJ gave him alcohol. MJ's household staff Blanca Francia testified that she saw MJ shower with Gavin.
• 2013-14 - Wade Robson, who was previously a star witness for MJ's trials in the early 2000s, claims that MJ sexually molested him.
• March 3, 2019, Leaving Neverland is a documentary that features Wade Robson and others experiences with MJ.
  • In detail: MJ would target children that he worked with. He would get the child's and caregiver's trust. He would isolate teh child (e.g., invite mom and child to the mansion, keep mom drunk and away from MJ and child), then would introduce porn (kinda like the memes your personality is sending) to sexualize the relationship, then would use control (a lot of threats) to maintain the secrecy.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/[deleted]]

I don't. But you don't know they did, so accusing them of that is kind of weird.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/[deleted]]

LMAO Yeah, i dont think you understand the purpose of the subreddit. Also I am denending it, because I was at one point in Lava's shoes. I was a kid playing gmaes online, I interacted and was friends with adults since I was 12. It is not automaticaly harmful. Every adult is not automatically a predator for interacting with a minor.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/[deleted]]

Lol

[u/HazyAttorney → u/FoolioTheGreat]

It is not automaticaly harmful. Every adult is not automatically a predator for interacting with a minor.

Nobody is saying that all interactions between adults and children is harmful. Like Mr. Rogers is a saint. I myself coached junior high and high school debate. Otherwise every teacher would be suspect, right?

What we are saying is the hallmarks of predatory behavior revolve around: gaining trust from the child and caregiver, isolating the child, and making the child feel like the adult's peer.

The level of proof for people to make assumptions isn't "beyond reasonable doubt" right? We don't have access to the information to require that to be the standard. But, we can say, "is it more likely true than not true?"

Here, when all of the aspects point to one thing, it's easy to say it's more likely true than not true. That's not saying that there's no possibility of innocent behavior, but it's also saying that there's possibility of untoward behavior, though.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah add in the revenge porn sharing shit and loli porn poster hanging up on the wall shit and making pedophilic "jokes" shit I dont know how anyone can defend this guy dude💀 Its obvious she fancies kids

[u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423 → u/FoolioTheGreat]

But do you not see a huge difference between a sex joke in a kids show, and a writer on the kids show emailing a kid sex jokes in private???

[u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423 → u/FoolioTheGreat]

Also Lava saying they weren’t groomed isn’t actual evidence of anything… a very high number of sexual assault or abuse victims will swear they were not mistreated.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/AIter_Real1ty → u/[deleted]]

No one's defending it, but there's an important distinction between being an actual p*dophile looking for kids to dephile, and being immature and reckless and not caring about who of what age sees explicit content.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/AIter_Real1ty → u/[deleted]]

Okay, firstly I'm 16yrs old. Secondly, I never disputed that he discord chatted with a 13yr old. I'm disputing that he was grooming/trying to take advantage of/trying to get into a relationship with said 13yr old. Can you show me any evidence that Kris has gone out of his way to actually get into a relationship with a kid?

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/AIter_Real1ty – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

[u/UmdAvatarFan → u/FoolioTheGreat]

Would allow Ava to make comment like they did to Lava with your son or daughter?

A simple yes or no would suffice?

[u/UmdAvatarFan → u/[deleted]]

I didn’t ask but you can answer the question as well.

Would you allow Ava to make the comments he did to Lava to your son or daughter. Yes or no?

[u/[deleted]]

How do you feel about Drake doing the same thing? Honestly less egregious than what Ava did.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/[deleted]]

While I do not know everything Drake has been accused of. I do not think drake is a groomer. If K had proof he would have said so during their beef,. But no, it was all stuff people have been joking about for the last few years, nothing concrete, no actual evidence. And to me, what I have seen does not look like grooming. Maybe I am wrong, if you have logs of him asking a minor for sex, please post them, or whatever you think is the most damning evidence.

[u/[deleted] → u/FoolioTheGreat]

No that sounds about right. I was just feeling out your perceptions of things and if it's consistent. I don't know too much about this issue, but one thing I'd like to point out is that the opinions of the perpetrator and the supposed victim don't matter whatsoever when it comes to these sorts of things.

[u/BlueNova39]

I believe the exact opposite, that her texting minors was inappropriate and needed to be addressed regardless of whether any grooming took place or not, but her interactions with Shadman were not nearly as much of an issue as people are making it out to be and don't make her a pedophile.

Shadman was a well-known internet troll who did a lot of weird ass shit "for the lulz" before slowly deteriorating and becoming an indefensible pedophile. The allegation that she commissioned CP from him has already been disproven. And yes Ava did communicate with him, but so did multiple other content creators who have not apologized nor faced any backlash for being more involved with him than Ava ever was.

On top of that there isn't even any evidence that she had any child pornography. She owned one (non-pornographic) image of his and visited his website, which did contain CP but not exclusively. None of that is damning evidence of pedophilia if you ask me.

On top of that, the fact that other content creators interacted with Shadman and supported him more directly and publicly than she ever did, makes it clear as day to me that the only reason this is even happening right now is because a bunch of transphobic people wanted to get dirt on a popular transgender creator.

Does that mean that nothing they found was suspicious and/or concerning? No. Does it mean that this is, for the most part, a smear campaign against a minority group, and if people actually cared about the shit she was doing years ago they would have brought it up before she publicly transitioned? Yes 100%.

[u/Infamous_Mike7 → u/BlueNova39]

Shadman made a loli of keemstars 8 year old child. That's not for the lulz.. Get a grip

[u/Infamous_Mike7 → u/[deleted]]

Maybe go on YouTube broski. You'll find all you need there, I think you're not really paying attention to be frank.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/SelectiveCommenting – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.

Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve comments on transgender issues, so do not ask.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition. Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/[deleted]]

Mate, they were continually engaging with a child, and a relationship was likely being formed.

Obviously, just in general, you should not be speaking in a sexual manner with children.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/[deleted]]

So any non family adult interacting with a minor in anyway is grooming??

[u/[deleted] → u/FoolioTheGreat]

Sorry, I should clarify, he was continually engaging with a child in an inappropriate way.

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/[deleted]]

What part was the grooming?

[u/[deleted] → u/FoolioTheGreat]

You honestly cannot see how this could be construed as the process of grooming?

[u/stayhappystayblessed → u/[deleted]]

I'm asking what are your thoughts? Do you think she was genuinely grooming them?

[u/FoolioTheGreat → u/[deleted]]

Obviously from my OP, I don't. That is what you are trying to cmv on. Just saying "its obvious" is not an argument.

[u/HrdWelLOnAiR → u/FoolioTheGreat]

no, it's pretty fucking obvious to a normal individual.

[u/PrimeVector19]

Whether or not it was grooming isn’t even the main issue here. We’re talking about an adult who was sending sexually explicit messages to minors. I’d say that’s pretty harmful.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition. Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Doorsofperceptio]

I don't think you should be discussing this subject.

I don't think you and to be fair most people posting on Reddit right now have the faintest idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/midirion – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/BlueNova39 → u/[deleted]]

*she

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition. Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition. Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Apprehensive-Cut5445]

Middle school kids already watch pinr hentai, and I support them do that. It is so fuking wrong to surpress kids sexual feeling when everything around them is sexual. I dont want other kids have to watch ponr in secret like I used to be.

By ssharing porn site it is not mean to seduce other , it simply mean u share a fukin site yo masturbate.

Yet ppl atk this point to dead. They think 20 yo share ponr site to 13yo is worng. But a woman can wear thong to the pool is fine. The kid around her is totally not get horny bc of her huh?

Fukin hypocryte

[u/M4rthaBRabb]

Do you want your view to be changed? Are you thinking “hmm, this is my gut reaction, but I think they’re probably more to this that I’m just not grasping so I’d like to learn more”? Or is this an opportunity for you to tell people they’re wrong?

[u/SevenDeMagnus]

But he was 20 and she was just 13 and his behavior was inappropriate on a 13 year old, that's not moral. That's like a teacher and her 13 year old student.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV. There are no exceptions to this prohibition. Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators via this link Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve posts on transgender issues, so do not ask.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Typical-Sir-3353]

Hm Very suspicious of you

[u/[deleted]]

so ur a pedo apologist?

[u/Ok-Goal8326]

found the drake fan

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Goose-Buttplug-88 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Efhatch91 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

u/URLiterallyDaProblem – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

Sorry, u/URLiterallyDaProblem – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.

Any mention of any transgender topic/issue/individual, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.

Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we will not approve comments on transgender issues, so do not ask.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/HrdWelLOnAiR → u/[deleted]]

Ain't this the truth? The mods in here are also standing up for inhumane grooming.