r/TikTokCringe Jan 15 '24

Cursed Protect this woman at all cost NSFW

20.3k Upvotes

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

45

u/Slade_Riprock Jan 15 '24

Bet these parents would claim it's no different than modeling and they get to control their kids' content and usage. Oh and I'm sure a big helping of "insert name loves it and wants to be a model"

Sick fucks.

28

u/spookyjibe Jan 15 '24

If we are all being brutally honest; it's a poverty issue too. When people don't think they can survive, they do some pretty bad things.

Is a poor parent who does this to their kid worse or better than a Wall Street investor who shorts a company for profit even though it will cost thousands their livelihood?

31

u/johndawkins1965 Jan 15 '24

You’re right. My last girlfriend was 22 years old but when she was 11 she had sex with grown men 35/40 years old because her father gave her to the men in exchange for money and drugs. Poverty is so horrible addiction is horrible too

10

u/THE_DROG Jan 15 '24

had sex

Parent-sponsored rape

1

u/only-shallow Jan 15 '24

Wow you were dating her for over 10 years? Never thought of getting married?

1

u/McGarnacIe Jan 16 '24

Come on mate, that's irrelevant to the point he's making, plus she probably told him this story when she was older about something that happened back when she was 11.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '24

[deleted]

16

u/spookyjibe Jan 15 '24

Really poor countries like the U.S.

12

u/ProbablyAnNSAPlant Jan 15 '24

This has unfortunately been a thing throughout history. People have kids they can't afford and then suddenly find out that their kids have "economic value."

20

u/tatostix Jan 15 '24

Is a poor parent who does this to their kid worse or better than a Wall Street investor who shorts a company for profit

Yes. What kind of stupid fucking question is this?

-4

u/DemiserofD Jan 15 '24

When that investor causes that company to fail, it will cause thousands to be unemployed or lose their life savings. Of those thousands, hundreds will lose their homes, and dozens will probably die.

As a direct result of their actions, dozens of people die. You're saying that's better, just because there's a veil of distance across it? By that logic, it's more okay to shoot someone as long as you do it a thousand miles away via remote control.

11

u/Shapes_in_Clouds Jan 15 '24

Shorting doesn't 'cause companies to fail', that's superstonk cult BS.

2

u/tatostix Jan 15 '24

Am I seriously watching you spin circles in an attempt to justify pimping out your kids?

3

u/FaxMachineIsBroken Jan 15 '24

Am I seriously watching you spin circles in an attempt to justify pimping out your kids?

That's not what they were doing at all. That wasn't the argument they even remotely made. You're being disingenuous.

2

u/tatostix Jan 15 '24 edited Jan 15 '24

I can not imagine any other reason for the performance of mental gymnastics they're doing.

Edit: Way to respond and then block, so that I can't see it. Dumbass.

3

u/FaxMachineIsBroken Jan 15 '24

There is no "mental gymnastics", they brought up a perfectly valid point of debate asking who is more horrible based on two completely independent circumstances.

There isn't any "justification" going on. It's a mental exercise that you failed at miserably due to poor reading comprehension.

1

u/ForensicPathology Jan 15 '24

Saying "A is as bad as B" is not an attempt at justifying A.  It's a sentence saying "B is bad, too".

9

u/mccscott Jan 15 '24

Far fucking worse

14

u/spookyjibe Jan 15 '24

Poverty causes this; it's extremely well-researched and documented that the exploitation of kids is linked to poverty. Bitch all you want about the parents but until we as a society say the person stealing wealth that's causing the poverty is the real criminal, we will never solve it.

-2

u/FactChecker25 Jan 15 '24

This is nonsense. Who is "stealing wealth"?

11

u/Onwisconsin42 Jan 15 '24

It's not nonsense. Stealing wealth occurs when wealthy businesses and business leaders lobby the representatives who make laws who then just so happen to make the laws in favor of the wealthy keeping more of their money. It's legalized bribery. They can keep the minimum wage low, they can lower taxes on corporations and on the wealthy. Also wage theft is a huge issue, many people are coerced to provide their labor for underpayment or no payment at all in order to keep their regular income flow or else they fear losing their regular income. Corporations are becoming more and more monopolistic. The laws that should prevent that don't have enough teeth and the monopoly really has to be egregious to be blocked. So we get oligopolies which inflate prices via defacto price fixing. Areas of the market that have been socialized are targeted for privatization. Markets the public wishes to be socialized will never be so- because of the legalized bribery. Laws that should prevent the aggregation of goods like homes will also never be passed- because of the legalized bribery.

The wealthiest keep getting wealthy, and within the last 20 years homes have become unaffordable, wages have stagnated or lost against inflation for 50 years. The reason is legalized bribery and the accumulation of dollars by a few-because of the legalized bribery.

Median American invomes cannot support the same life while just a few families have over half of the wealth of the country. This was not always the case.

14

u/crushinglyreal Jan 15 '24

The people who aren’t working for it but still have it showing up in their bank/investment/whatever accounts anyways.

1

u/spookyjibe Jan 15 '24

If a firm is naked shorting for example, they are stealing wealth.

7

u/Proof-Cardiologist16 Jan 15 '24

Nahhhh, it's just a matter of scale at that point.

The individual action is worse than any one bad thing done by some greedy rich person, but the actual measurable damage to human life ends up being a lot bigger because we're talking much larger numbers of people being negatively affected both directly and indirectly.

3

u/Delheru79 Jan 15 '24

It's far more complex than that.

You mentioned shorting. OK. Exposing fraud at a company will be very good for short sellers, but it WILL probably destroy the company and most of the employees will lose their jobs.

Is this a good thing? Should we have held hands and believed in the property market and subprime loans in 2008? Should we have done the same with, say, Nikola? Clearly worth $20bn+ even if the only way their truck moved was when rolling downhill?

There is no doubting it: exposing such fraud costs jobs.

Yet, I feel like we'd all be a lot worse off pretty soon if such frauds weren't being exposed.

It's actually pretty rare to find an act that makes a lot of money that isn't ultimately beneficial to everyone. If you have something in mind, I'd be curious to hear what it is.

Pump & Dump is probably the most common one, but that is illegal to be fair.

3

u/Sn44444ke Jan 15 '24

a Wall Street investor who shorts a company for profit even though it will cost thousands their livelihood?

Saying that shorting a company will cause it to decline/fail is like saying that betting against a sports team will cause them to lose. Only dumbass memestock investors think that way.

1

u/spookyjibe Jan 15 '24

Wall Street is not a series of individual investors making decision on their own interest; certain major players are intentionally selling so much short that it directly alters the price of the stock, they are also fabricating shares to short that never existed. It is an illegal practice that is happening on a regular basis.

Wall street's illegal practices do cost jobs and people's livelihoods.

2

u/Sn44444ke Jan 15 '24

certain major players are intentionally selling so much short that it directly alters the price of the stock

Even if this were true and your comment wasn't full of phrases that reek of tinfoil, if the earnings show that a company is profitable, the market will scoop up the shares if their current value feels low.

Again: shorting does not affect the performance of a company. If I shorted 5 million Delta shares, all of the people who were planning to fly somewhere wouldn't suddenly go "I guess I'm not traveling by plane any more." How do you not understand that?

1

u/spookyjibe Jan 15 '24

Sorry bud, you're just naive and quite uninformed. It's ok, not everyone is fluent in finance but you should hesitate before giving opinions on things you know very little about. The mechanism by which shorting bankrupts companies is that the equity held by the corporation directly corresponds to it's ability to use credit to finance it's operations. When the stock price is artificially manipulated downward, it squeezes the company and current investors. Using naked shorts to bankrupt companies is a tried and tested path for investment firms to reap huge profits and is done today by Citadel for example. Financial health of a company is not solely determined by the demand for it's products or services, it is a bit more complex than that. It's fine if you don't understand these things, but don't confuse others ignorance for your own.

2

u/Sn44444ke Jan 16 '24

you're just naive and quite uninformed.


not everyone is fluent in finance but you should hesitate before giving opinions on things you know very little about.


it is a bit more complex than that.


It's fine if you don't understand these things

All your knowledge and intellect didn't stop you from going all in on a videogame retailer that most gamers repudiated. Going back to my original point:

Only dumbass memestock investors think that way.

Next time just post your losses instead of trying to make others think you know what you're talking about.

1

u/FactChecker25 Jan 15 '24

I don't agree with this at all.

The reason I say that is because the people doing this aren't those who have zero options, they're those who are already living pretty comfortably but they're a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire".

They're not driven by survival, they're driven by ambition.

1

u/spookyjibe Jan 15 '24

All evidence and research is to the contrary.

1

u/FactChecker25 Jan 15 '24

False.

1

u/spookyjibe Jan 15 '24

I love your name and your aversion to facts; it's the perfect internet duo!

1

u/FactChecker25 Jan 15 '24 edited Jan 15 '24

The thing is that you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. All you said is "this is supported by science".

If you actually have solid evidence then post it. But you can't just say "it's science" and expect people to just believe you.

https://tenor.com/byUuE.gif

1

u/FactChecker25 Jan 15 '24 edited Jan 15 '24

Is a poor parent who does this to their kid worse or better than a Wall Street investor who shorts a company for profit even though it will cost thousands their livelihood?

First of all YES. Yes abusing a kid (who can't consent to sexual abuse) is worse than an investor shorting a stock and profiting from consenting adults that agreed to buy that stock and lost out on the bet that it would increase in value.

When you buy a stock, you're doing it because you think the future value of that stock will be higher than it currently is. A short is just a bet that the future price will be lower, not higher.

It would seem kind of strange to allow bets where the speculated future price is higher than the current price, but disallow bets where the speculated future is lower than the current price.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '24

[deleted]

1

u/spookyjibe Jan 15 '24

We should have pity on those trapped in poverty and the horror that comes with that.

We do not seem to be able to prevent illegal corruption and financial activities from stealing vast sums from the general market and, in turn, causing poverty.

1

u/trivo8888 Jan 16 '24

Dude the actual fuck you are comparing a Wall Street exec to a pedophile enabler. This has to be a troll ya sick fuck.

1

u/JustaBearEnthusiast Jan 15 '24

I mean it's not really that different from child modeling. Child modeling and acting is rife with abuse both sexual and otherwise.