3 ms·

I was thinking about how far back should you really have to explain yourself. I think half your age plus 7 might work alright. [1] In this case, he would have h

I was thinking about how far back should you really have to explain yourself. I think half your age plus 7 might work alright. [1] In this case, he would have had to explain if he tweeted such things past age 19. I want to emphasize this is only for simple word posts. If you ever post about actually harming someone or animals, the standard may need to be different. For everyone who doesn't live in Iowa, how big of a story is this? Do you know people without Iowa connections who have donated? Ever since it all started, it's been a constant stream in my Facebook feed, often consisting of people commenting who haven't read the story. And yes, Busch Light is as popular as people are making it seem. An old roommate literally had a fridge full after Hy-Vee, the Iowa-based grocery store, had a semi sale for various meats and Busch Light. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#The_%22half-your-age-plus-seven%22_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_rela...

folkhack 7y ago
I like the notion, but I don't think there's a simple "age / 2 + 7" rule that applies here as I think this sort of stuff should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I think it's all about personal responsibility for everyone involved. Content creator, and audience. I think that creators (even just posting comments) have responsibility to keep their noses clean or suffer potential consequences, and I think that the audience has a responsibility to think about circumstances like this objectively. There was social support for Carson from every type of person you can imagine. Young, old, left, right, every race, etc. When presented with the facts, everyone jumped on Carson's side. We saw it for what it was: a character assassination that had nothing to do with the actual story at-hand. Aaron, and the DSM Register alike ("content creators"), wanted the controversy or they wouldn't be digging that far back on someone and/or including something this irrelevant in their story. When you operate this way it's bound to backfire at some point. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The "audience" looked at this and almost unanimously decided that the DSM Register and Aaron's actions were reprehensible. These entities took a cheap shot at someone who is objectively putting good into this world and paid a real price in subscriber numbers and employment. I don't have any pity for either of them.

folkhack 7y ago

I like the notion, but I don't think there's a simple "age / 2 + 7" rule that applies here as I think this sort of stuff should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I think it's all about personal responsibility for everyone involved. Content creator, and audience. I think that creators (even just posting comments) have responsibility to keep their noses clean or suffer potential consequences, and I think that the audience has a responsibility to think about circumstances like this objectively. There was social support for Carson from every type of person you can imagine. Young, old, left, right, every race, etc. When presented with the facts, everyone jumped on Carson's side. We saw it for what it was: a character assassination that had nothing to do with the actual story at-hand. Aaron, and the DSM Register alike ("content creators"), wanted the controversy or they wouldn't be digging that far back on someone and/or including something this irrelevant in their story. When you operate this way it's bound to backfire at some point. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The "audience" looked at this and almost unanimously decided that the DSM Register and Aaron's actions were reprehensible. These entities took a cheap shot at someone who is objectively putting good into this world and paid a real price in subscriber numbers and employment. I don't have any pity for either of them.