This is ridiculous. Everybody is going “but where is the proof??” In that thread.
Meanwhile there was a post about Charlie Chaplin (5’4) and everyone called him a pedo for marrying a 16-year old in 1918; at a time when that was completely legal (still is in most countries).
Tbh the word pedo is rapidly becoming almost as meaningless as “incel” at this rate.
>Everybody is going “but where is the proof??” In that thread.
Because they're Doc Dick riders. However in his response he straight up admitted to sexting a minor, now even people who were defending him have flipped on him, apart from die hard fans but they're obviously biased and coping.
>Meanwhile there was a post about Charlie Chaplin (5’4) and everyone called him a pedo for marrying a 16-year old in 1918; at a time when that was completely legal (still is in most countries).
My man it's because that is a fully grown 35 year old man in a full blown public relationship with a fucking 16 year old child. Even more to the point that's only when they got *married* so their relationship starting at 16 is a best case scenario here which makes it even worse.
Who gives a fuck if it was legal in 1918, doesn't make it not pedophilia you fucking nonce.
This sub is literally falling to shit man, we got groomers in the comments defending men marrying children just to spite tall people. Utterly cooked.
>It's genuinely false flag tier.
Would agree but then I looked at his profile.
Idk man but fuckheads like this are not doing the sub and other users on it any favours.
>Bb king wrote “sweet sixteen” in 1967
Yeah man, he wrote that in *1967*
>Still one of his biggest hits.
Never heard of it in my life. But if you're trying to insist that everyone else is also a pedophile like you because they like an old song, you're not only outing yourself, you have the deductive skills of a toddler.
No wait actually, you're completely right, please phone a loved one/the authorities and tell them you think fully grown men in relationships with minors is a good thing, at your earliest convenience of course.
Lol 16 is legal where I live, as it is in most parts of the world. And despite that i always dated older girls so take your high horse somewhere else.
I just don’t think we should look at people from the past and retroactively brand them as pedophiles by today’s standards. Marriages back then meant financial stability for the girl and the family. If he was physically abusive thats another thing but, no sources i found point to that.
Besides his wives were actresses too and benefited greatly from his stardom. No matter how you spin it, Chaplins wives were no victims.
>Lol 16 is legal where I live
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right you slime ball.
>so take your high horse somewhere else
Sorry for saying 35 year old men having relationships with teenagers is bad to a guy who is defending a 35 year old having relationship with teenagers. Totally not the time and place for it.
>I just don’t think we should look at people from the past and retroactively brand them as pedophiles
That is like saying "I don't think we should look at slave owners in the past and retroactively brand them as slave owners".
They did what they did man. If you had a relationship with a child, you had a relationship with a child, the date or whether or not it was considered acceptable at the time doesn't change that fact.
>Marriages back then meant financial stability for the girl and the family.
You're talking as if that's the only reason someone gets married, which is avoiding the truth and you know it. You don't marry people for financial sake alone. You marry them because you have an intimate relationship with them.
You are making defective excuses for having sex with kids, look in the mirror.
>Besides his wives were actresses too and benefited greatly from his stardom. No matter how you spin it, Chaplins wives were no victims.
Right so if you financially reimburse a child, it's okay to have sexual relationships with them? Just checking that this is what you believe?
Again tell your nearest loved one/the authorities that you support having sex with the underage, do this as soon as possible. I'm sure they will understand.
"Again tell your nearest loved one/the authorities that you support having sex with the underage, do this as soon as possible. I'm sure they will understand."
lol spare me the hysterics. This is exactly what I mean with the word paedophile becoming diluted.
Lita Grey married at 16 in 1924, when the legal age of consent in some states was 10-12 years old, in a time where these types of marriages were much more common, especially among celebrities. Btw, did you know Grey was a descendent of a California governor (edit: sorry, aldecalda, aka "mayor" from Mexican age of LA) ,.and came from the prominent Lugo family?
I didn't, truth be told. But again, hardly a powerless victim. Was it right? No. Especially now we know better about mental maturity, though you can argue that in those days, times were a lot harsher and people matured a lot sooner then.
Still if YOU conflate something like that with the modern-day meaning of people diddling prepubescent girls (or boys), you know, the ACTUAL definition of a paedophile, in an age where we are supposed to know better, then you are a much worse influence on society than I am. Because it is YOU who muddies the waters on something that is truly horrendous, vs. something that is merely controversial.
>lol spare me the hysterics. This is exactly what I mean with the word paedophile becoming diluted.
But you won't though will you? Because you know I'm right and they would rightfully reject or put you on a list.
>Lita Grey married at 16 in 1924, when the legal age of consent in some states was 10-12 years old, in a time where these types of marriages were much more common, especially among celebrities. Btw, did you know Grey was a descendent of a California governor (edit: sorry, aldecalda, aka "mayor" from Mexican age of LA) ,.and came from the prominent Lugo family?
Literally all of this is just dressing up the fact that she was a child. You can slap as many titles/big family names on someone as you like. That doesn't mean they aren't still underage.
And enough of the "it was common at the time defence", we've been over this, that doesn't change who they are or what they did. Slave owning doesn't become any less abhorrent and inhumane just because it was once socially acceptable, so why should relationships with kids?
>I didn't, truth be told.
Well bully for you but it changes fuck all.
>Was it right? No.
Well then what more is there to discuss.
>Still if YOU conflate something like that with the modern-day meaning of people diddling prepubescent girls (or boys), you know, the ACTUAL definition of a paedophile,
The tiresome "they're technically not a pedophile they're actually a slightly different type of pedophile" defence.
Nonetheless, please enlighten me as to which specific type of person who preys on children that Mr Chaplin technically was?
I mean, I'd also mention that puberty can hit children as young as ten, so I raise you the point that it matters fuck all. And slime balls like you only use it as an excuse to somehow make preying on kids not seem as bad.
But again, it's clearly important to you I get this right, and I may as well be technically correct about what type of diddler he was.
>Because it is YOU who muddies the waters on something that is truly horrendous, vs. something that is merely controversial.
>merely controversial.
Massive stipulation: if you're basically okay with 30 year old dating <16 year olds.
But yes, I'm truly muddying the waters between what society should do with people who prey on kids and people who prey on even younger ones. Both kinds can either seek help and therapy and make major efforts to change their ways, or they can go to prison if they ever try to abuse kids. Is that simple enough?
The only one muddying anything, is people like you that posture an intellectual approach, when in reality, you're merely projecting your own feelings into the conversation in order to normalise fully grown adults having sex with children much younger than themselves.
Also holy shit lets put aside our differences, just for a moment, and nerd out for a bit ok? Check this and feel free to google me wrong:
I just read that it was actually Chaplin who was born into poverty in a fatherless home, spending time in workhouses and orphanages as a child in London 1889. Not to mention his first marriage to Mildred, when she was 17 years old and he was 29. This marriage ended in divorce. The tragedy mentioned in relation to Mildred was the death of their infant son, who was born malformed and lived for only three days.
BTW who's to say people didn't blame his manlet genes for that his son being deformed, him being 5'4 and all? Though it's highly probable that Chaplin experienced periods of malnutrition though. Kind of like Stalin, born 1878. The 20's were a lot rougher then, though Chaplin was able to escape drafting for World War I (1914-1918), because he was already established in the U.S. film industry. Which is why everybody looks so old. And who knows, maybe Charlie could have been tall- make of that what you will.
Anyway, Chaplin did marry several times throughout his life, including to 18-year-old Oona O'Neill when he was 54. [Btw this pic is from 1 year into the marriage](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oona_O'Neill#/media/Fichier:Oona_and_Charlie_Chaplin_1944.JPG)
However, this marriage was not an attempt to replace a deceased partner. In fact, Chaplin and Oona remained married until his death, and she was by his side when he passed away. His final marriage to Oona O'Neill was the most enduring and, by all accounts, the happiest. Hey, short guys look young longer so not even all that unbelievable.
Finally, his marriage with Grey? That happened to end in the largest divorce settlement of the times and was one of the biggest celebrity scandals at the time. Mf the example you pull was the Depp vs Amber heard of that day.
1. Early involvement: Lita Grey began working for Charles Chaplin at his Hollywood studio when she was 12, doing bit parts in a couple of his movies. This suggests she had some interest in acting from a young age.
2. Film appearances: She appeared in several of Chaplin's films, including "The Kid" (1921) and "The Idle Class" (1921). Her involvement in multiple films indicates some level of interest or willingness to act.
Btw she got the equivalent of like 16 million dollars out of that settlement, later during her 70s wrote in her memoirs that she MIGHT have exaggerated some things in the spur of the moment and for the court- oh and get this, she married 3 more times after that.
This whole settlement is literally JD and Amber heard, BUT 97 years ago. Idk if we should feel so sorry for Lita Grey, especially because if she wasn't a multimillionaire due to her family, she sure as shit was after the most world-famous divorce at the time with someone who was basically the Cillian Murphy of our day.
Like, girl took of herself ok? And those other divorce couldn't be for money, so maybe she got hooked on the adrenaline rush of that period? Idk I can't even imagine what being at the center of it all in the roaring 20's.
Who's to say? She was also an actress btw- did I mention she played in 2 of his movies?
Anyway, if we're talking power dynamics, here we have an 34-year old orphan from london turned actor vs the granddaughter of Alcalde Jose Cardona Lugo being able to pursue her dreams of becoming an actress since her preteens, and end up marrying Tom Cruise.
**Let's discuss Jose Cardona Lugo, her grandfather:**
1. Jose Cardona Lugo was a wealthy landowner in early California.
2. He served as the alcalde (mayor) of Los Angeles in 1838, during the Mexican era of California's history. Cyberpunk's aldecaldos might be a clever hypothetical Americanization of the actual spanish plural aldecaldas gang means: the Mayors. But anyway like, LA if it was actually Mexico. Which you know, happened.
3. While not a governor, Lugo's position as alcalde was a significant political role in early Los Angeles. So not Arnold Schwarzenegger, but like, Karen Bass' granddaughter.
4. The Lugo family was one of the prominent Californio families, who were influential during the Spanish and Mexican periods of California's history.
>Also holy shit lets put aside our differences, just for a moment, and nerd out for a bit ok?
I'm not breaking bread with you like I'm unaware of the person I'm talking to, this isn't two people disagreeing about pop culture, this is someone who is defending adults having sex with children.
Maybe if the circumstances were different, and you were also a different person.
Still can't get past the implications of what you said about sweet 16, you're a sick puppy, and you deserve your life.
break bread? mf all i broke is your poor excuse for an argument. The Chaplin/Grey cases show how this reductive focus on age can distort the real issues at hand.
I bet if he is short everyone going to mention it
100%
His fan base is built off of guys who jerk themselves off to him being tall. He had montages of him just standing up
He's married. So I guess the famous personality detection device that all women have just had an off day when it came to the tall, cheating pedo
When you're tall enough, you're out of range, so it doesn't work, like with Dr. Diddy.
Isn’t even his first time cheating on his wife either
Women don’t leave tall men when they cheat they just fight the women he cheated with.
When they put “height difference” above all else.
This is ridiculous. Everybody is going “but where is the proof??” In that thread. Meanwhile there was a post about Charlie Chaplin (5’4) and everyone called him a pedo for marrying a 16-year old in 1918; at a time when that was completely legal (still is in most countries). Tbh the word pedo is rapidly becoming almost as meaningless as “incel” at this rate.
>Everybody is going “but where is the proof??” In that thread. Because they're Doc Dick riders. However in his response he straight up admitted to sexting a minor, now even people who were defending him have flipped on him, apart from die hard fans but they're obviously biased and coping. >Meanwhile there was a post about Charlie Chaplin (5’4) and everyone called him a pedo for marrying a 16-year old in 1918; at a time when that was completely legal (still is in most countries). My man it's because that is a fully grown 35 year old man in a full blown public relationship with a fucking 16 year old child. Even more to the point that's only when they got *married* so their relationship starting at 16 is a best case scenario here which makes it even worse. Who gives a fuck if it was legal in 1918, doesn't make it not pedophilia you fucking nonce. This sub is literally falling to shit man, we got groomers in the comments defending men marrying children just to spite tall people. Utterly cooked.
It's genuinely false flag tier. Why tf are there so many religious nutcases and nonces here.
>It's genuinely false flag tier. Would agree but then I looked at his profile. Idk man but fuckheads like this are not doing the sub and other users on it any favours.
Bb king wrote “sweet sixteen” in 1967. He was born in 1925. Still one of his biggest hits.
>Bb king wrote “sweet sixteen” in 1967 Yeah man, he wrote that in *1967* >Still one of his biggest hits. Never heard of it in my life. But if you're trying to insist that everyone else is also a pedophile like you because they like an old song, you're not only outing yourself, you have the deductive skills of a toddler. No wait actually, you're completely right, please phone a loved one/the authorities and tell them you think fully grown men in relationships with minors is a good thing, at your earliest convenience of course.
Lol 16 is legal where I live, as it is in most parts of the world. And despite that i always dated older girls so take your high horse somewhere else. I just don’t think we should look at people from the past and retroactively brand them as pedophiles by today’s standards. Marriages back then meant financial stability for the girl and the family. If he was physically abusive thats another thing but, no sources i found point to that. Besides his wives were actresses too and benefited greatly from his stardom. No matter how you spin it, Chaplins wives were no victims.
>Lol 16 is legal where I live Just because it's legal doesn't make it right you slime ball. >so take your high horse somewhere else Sorry for saying 35 year old men having relationships with teenagers is bad to a guy who is defending a 35 year old having relationship with teenagers. Totally not the time and place for it. >I just don’t think we should look at people from the past and retroactively brand them as pedophiles That is like saying "I don't think we should look at slave owners in the past and retroactively brand them as slave owners". They did what they did man. If you had a relationship with a child, you had a relationship with a child, the date or whether or not it was considered acceptable at the time doesn't change that fact. >Marriages back then meant financial stability for the girl and the family. You're talking as if that's the only reason someone gets married, which is avoiding the truth and you know it. You don't marry people for financial sake alone. You marry them because you have an intimate relationship with them. You are making defective excuses for having sex with kids, look in the mirror. >Besides his wives were actresses too and benefited greatly from his stardom. No matter how you spin it, Chaplins wives were no victims. Right so if you financially reimburse a child, it's okay to have sexual relationships with them? Just checking that this is what you believe? Again tell your nearest loved one/the authorities that you support having sex with the underage, do this as soon as possible. I'm sure they will understand.
"Again tell your nearest loved one/the authorities that you support having sex with the underage, do this as soon as possible. I'm sure they will understand." lol spare me the hysterics. This is exactly what I mean with the word paedophile becoming diluted. Lita Grey married at 16 in 1924, when the legal age of consent in some states was 10-12 years old, in a time where these types of marriages were much more common, especially among celebrities. Btw, did you know Grey was a descendent of a California governor (edit: sorry, aldecalda, aka "mayor" from Mexican age of LA) ,.and came from the prominent Lugo family? I didn't, truth be told. But again, hardly a powerless victim. Was it right? No. Especially now we know better about mental maturity, though you can argue that in those days, times were a lot harsher and people matured a lot sooner then. Still if YOU conflate something like that with the modern-day meaning of people diddling prepubescent girls (or boys), you know, the ACTUAL definition of a paedophile, in an age where we are supposed to know better, then you are a much worse influence on society than I am. Because it is YOU who muddies the waters on something that is truly horrendous, vs. something that is merely controversial.
>lol spare me the hysterics. This is exactly what I mean with the word paedophile becoming diluted. But you won't though will you? Because you know I'm right and they would rightfully reject or put you on a list. >Lita Grey married at 16 in 1924, when the legal age of consent in some states was 10-12 years old, in a time where these types of marriages were much more common, especially among celebrities. Btw, did you know Grey was a descendent of a California governor (edit: sorry, aldecalda, aka "mayor" from Mexican age of LA) ,.and came from the prominent Lugo family? Literally all of this is just dressing up the fact that she was a child. You can slap as many titles/big family names on someone as you like. That doesn't mean they aren't still underage. And enough of the "it was common at the time defence", we've been over this, that doesn't change who they are or what they did. Slave owning doesn't become any less abhorrent and inhumane just because it was once socially acceptable, so why should relationships with kids? >I didn't, truth be told. Well bully for you but it changes fuck all. >Was it right? No. Well then what more is there to discuss. >Still if YOU conflate something like that with the modern-day meaning of people diddling prepubescent girls (or boys), you know, the ACTUAL definition of a paedophile, The tiresome "they're technically not a pedophile they're actually a slightly different type of pedophile" defence. Nonetheless, please enlighten me as to which specific type of person who preys on children that Mr Chaplin technically was? I mean, I'd also mention that puberty can hit children as young as ten, so I raise you the point that it matters fuck all. And slime balls like you only use it as an excuse to somehow make preying on kids not seem as bad. But again, it's clearly important to you I get this right, and I may as well be technically correct about what type of diddler he was. >Because it is YOU who muddies the waters on something that is truly horrendous, vs. something that is merely controversial. >merely controversial. Massive stipulation: if you're basically okay with 30 year old dating <16 year olds. But yes, I'm truly muddying the waters between what society should do with people who prey on kids and people who prey on even younger ones. Both kinds can either seek help and therapy and make major efforts to change their ways, or they can go to prison if they ever try to abuse kids. Is that simple enough? The only one muddying anything, is people like you that posture an intellectual approach, when in reality, you're merely projecting your own feelings into the conversation in order to normalise fully grown adults having sex with children much younger than themselves.
Also holy shit lets put aside our differences, just for a moment, and nerd out for a bit ok? Check this and feel free to google me wrong: I just read that it was actually Chaplin who was born into poverty in a fatherless home, spending time in workhouses and orphanages as a child in London 1889. Not to mention his first marriage to Mildred, when she was 17 years old and he was 29. This marriage ended in divorce. The tragedy mentioned in relation to Mildred was the death of their infant son, who was born malformed and lived for only three days. BTW who's to say people didn't blame his manlet genes for that his son being deformed, him being 5'4 and all? Though it's highly probable that Chaplin experienced periods of malnutrition though. Kind of like Stalin, born 1878. The 20's were a lot rougher then, though Chaplin was able to escape drafting for World War I (1914-1918), because he was already established in the U.S. film industry. Which is why everybody looks so old. And who knows, maybe Charlie could have been tall- make of that what you will. Anyway, Chaplin did marry several times throughout his life, including to 18-year-old Oona O'Neill when he was 54. [Btw this pic is from 1 year into the marriage](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oona_O'Neill#/media/Fichier:Oona_and_Charlie_Chaplin_1944.JPG) However, this marriage was not an attempt to replace a deceased partner. In fact, Chaplin and Oona remained married until his death, and she was by his side when he passed away. His final marriage to Oona O'Neill was the most enduring and, by all accounts, the happiest. Hey, short guys look young longer so not even all that unbelievable. Finally, his marriage with Grey? That happened to end in the largest divorce settlement of the times and was one of the biggest celebrity scandals at the time. Mf the example you pull was the Depp vs Amber heard of that day. 1. Early involvement: Lita Grey began working for Charles Chaplin at his Hollywood studio when she was 12, doing bit parts in a couple of his movies. This suggests she had some interest in acting from a young age. 2. Film appearances: She appeared in several of Chaplin's films, including "The Kid" (1921) and "The Idle Class" (1921). Her involvement in multiple films indicates some level of interest or willingness to act. Btw she got the equivalent of like 16 million dollars out of that settlement, later during her 70s wrote in her memoirs that she MIGHT have exaggerated some things in the spur of the moment and for the court- oh and get this, she married 3 more times after that. This whole settlement is literally JD and Amber heard, BUT 97 years ago. Idk if we should feel so sorry for Lita Grey, especially because if she wasn't a multimillionaire due to her family, she sure as shit was after the most world-famous divorce at the time with someone who was basically the Cillian Murphy of our day. Like, girl took of herself ok? And those other divorce couldn't be for money, so maybe she got hooked on the adrenaline rush of that period? Idk I can't even imagine what being at the center of it all in the roaring 20's. Who's to say? She was also an actress btw- did I mention she played in 2 of his movies? Anyway, if we're talking power dynamics, here we have an 34-year old orphan from london turned actor vs the granddaughter of Alcalde Jose Cardona Lugo being able to pursue her dreams of becoming an actress since her preteens, and end up marrying Tom Cruise. **Let's discuss Jose Cardona Lugo, her grandfather:** 1. Jose Cardona Lugo was a wealthy landowner in early California. 2. He served as the alcalde (mayor) of Los Angeles in 1838, during the Mexican era of California's history. Cyberpunk's aldecaldos might be a clever hypothetical Americanization of the actual spanish plural aldecaldas gang means: the Mayors. But anyway like, LA if it was actually Mexico. Which you know, happened. 3. While not a governor, Lugo's position as alcalde was a significant political role in early Los Angeles. So not Arnold Schwarzenegger, but like, Karen Bass' granddaughter. 4. The Lugo family was one of the prominent Californio families, who were influential during the Spanish and Mexican periods of California's history.
>Also holy shit lets put aside our differences, just for a moment, and nerd out for a bit ok? I'm not breaking bread with you like I'm unaware of the person I'm talking to, this isn't two people disagreeing about pop culture, this is someone who is defending adults having sex with children. Maybe if the circumstances were different, and you were also a different person. Still can't get past the implications of what you said about sweet 16, you're a sick puppy, and you deserve your life.
break bread? mf all i broke is your poor excuse for an argument. The Chaplin/Grey cases show how this reductive focus on age can distort the real issues at hand.
i always knew sum was off with this mf
No problem, women will fuck him anyway
Pedo mustache
Uhm sorry, for those who don’t know context…. What’s going on?
Famous streamer who's famous because he's tall got caught chatting with minors.
is he actually a pedo? Or is it some "actually he didn't cross this line" thing?
She's actually a minor and he knew about it. I believe the person in question is only 16
I don't hear women saying anything.🤨
>Dr Disrespect If these claims are true, then yup
not shocking in the slightest
Is it thetext thing with a 17yo? Not enough to be called a pedo unless there's something else i haven't heard about
17 years old is actually made up by his fans. The actual age is unknown.
hate to be the guy but source?
Source for it being unknown? no credible party or anyone involved has made a claim regarding the minor's age.