My conspiracy is that social media is being used to make every one much more callouse and cold to each other. That's where they break the country. The bots knew it was very easy to manipulate the left to scare them off digital spaces. Now they have free reign to make all kinds of groups and posts filled with comments uncontested. Stuff like Pretti good shot on any shooting, hundreds of them. Over time it changes how people think since there is no push back. As it pushes people to be angrier and pissed off, it moves the public opinion away from any leftist since they're seen as very weak and ineffective
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
107 points (94.2% liked)
No Stupid Questions
46750 readers
744 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You are using social media wrong.
I used social media to look at nice women with big luscious tits. No amount of tits on my FYP will piss me off or cause hostile thoughts at any point.
At least part of this is probably caused by spread of the news of a similar policy in China, where people really are encouraged not to get involved, because Good Samaritans can be held responsible for deaths or injuries of victims.
I remember this becoming a bit of a big story a while back. This urban myth seems to build on that Chinese policy.
So. In this scenario the guy saved some underage girl from being run over but went on the sex offender. I would take that trade. I 100% know my wife on hearing what happened would be mad this was done to me but would support me for saving a life. I do think this is an urban legend but sometimes I think you have to do a thought experiment. Some kid dying due to my inaction is not something I want to go to my grave with.
Common sense says you can't get convicted as a sex offender for grabbing someone by the arm if you had reason to believe they were in imminent danger.
These kinds of stories have been around since the dawn of time for all sorts of things. Whenever you investigate the details it turns out that either the story is completely made up, or the offense was much more serious than it sounded.
Like the woman who sued macdonalds for getting third degree burns because their coffee was too hot.
Like the woman who sued macdonalds for getting third degree burns because their coffee was too hot.
Please never mention this story without pointing out at least one of the following;
- The coffee was hot enough to cause crippling burns to her genitals.
- McDonald's intentionally had their coffee too hot to drink to keep customers from hanging out
- the woman only asked for medical expenses and did not sue until her complaint was ignored.
- the eye-popping headline number was calculated as something like one day of the company's coffee profit.
There literally isn't an instance of a US company being sued by a customer more deserving of empathy and horror.
Thank you.
AND McDonalds had been warned that their coffee was too dangerously hot on previous occasions, which they ignored, so it was entirely predictable, probable, and preventable.
To be fair, the context in which they invoked the case assumed we'd all remember those details already.
The way they worded it made it sound to me, at first, that they were saying her story was made up. Upon a rereading, I can see that that's not the case. However, the wording could be seen as a little ambiguous.
I doubt there's anyone here who is not already aware of these details.
she had legit evidence,Her labias got fused her thigh, from the permanent burn injuries. at first when the news came to light years before the recent one, it was allegeded she was instigating it, but it wasnt the case.
Everyone knows.
It is not an urban legend if it actually happened lol
Dude.
It's a story that basically says "nowadays women accuse you of rape for no reason so you should never help them"
The ones who wrote, believed and relayed this story are just sexual assaulters, nice guys and incels. Of course it's fake.
It's also beyond 'good Samaritan' due to the whole 'pulled her towards his car' aspect. It also reads as someone trying to discipline someone outside of their care. Imagine you're a teen trying to jaywalk and this random guy turns his vehicle around, grabs you, and tries to drag you towards it.
It definitely gives of 'I'm only on the sex offender list because I pissed in public' vibes.
It used to be more common for people to discipline kids that aren't theirs for something obviously wrong. It wouldn't usually involve grabbing, unless it was to move them out of the way of a moving car like in the story. Now there is a lot more pressure on just the parents since it's frowned upon to discipline others children. Whether or not this is better, idk
I was with you on this until that last part.
What are you talking about pissed in public?
Maybe it's a California thing, but growing up there was a lot of back and forth about how you could get put on the sex offender list for urinating in public. That wasn't the case. So if someone said that's the reason they were on the list, it was never the full story.
To be clear, I've never done this, it was just some weird cultural zeitgeist when I was growing up.
My recollection was if it was on like school property or some place kids were likely to be. That would trigger some enhancement to the crime. I've never been in a position to need to know if that's true or not.
I was told the same thing literally across the country from you a decade and a half back.
It’s missing a word
“Was” pissed in public
Or
Was pissed off in public
At least that’s how I read it
Florida man gets into sex offenders list for touching girl's arm.
If it's Florida man, the original owner of the girls arm was unavailable for questioning.
Okay, so I managed to find a reddit comment section from 12 years ago (don't hate me) that seems to chalk it up as most likely untrue. Not sure if there's much more evidence to be found one way or another
https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/s/8rSk4VqE1P
Edit: found an alleged reply from the writer of the original story (of the since deleted original article). This alleged response is from an archive of a chat board in 2005.
"I've been reading some online postings in repsonse to this and understand the skepticism, given no other media have picked it up. I can't explain that, sorry. It's there to be read at the Appellate Court clerk's office at Lasalle and Randolph in Chicago. More to it ... well, it was a 16-page ruling and I summarized the important stuff, I thought.
He drops his girlfriend off at work, he's driving back home, girl's on her way to school, the near-hit happens, he yells at her, pulls around and gets out, grabs her, pulls her toward his car and yells at her, she breaks free and runs off crying, meeting up with friends. A day or two later, she's in a car with her friend's mom, they see the same guy, same car, she tells the mom, mom calls police, he's arrested at Blockbuster a few blocks away, girl makes positive ID. Trial comes, not guilty on 2, guilty on 1, judge says that charge is a sex offense, he appeals, appellate court says - yes, it is a sex offense and now you've got to register. Guy has no priors. State's attorney stands by push for registration, judge says he's constrained by the law, appellate court says that's right.
Unfortunately, there's nothing more to it.
Steve Patterson Chicago Sun-Times 350 N. Orleans St. Chicago, Ill. 60654 312-321-2090 spatterson@suntimes.com"
It would have been really helpful if Steve Patterson could have cited a case number or a caption or something.
Yeah, grabbing and lecturing a child AFTER the danger has passed doesn’t really sound like “helping” anyone to me. It sounds more like road rage and unstable behavior. If I were a female minor, I could certainly see it as a threatening act.
AFTER the danger has passed
Curious, how do you lecture someone DURING the dangerous moment when they jump out in front of your car?
I assume they mean immediately after, like if someone was standing nearby already. Its a little different if you drive past them, stop the car, get out, go back ti them, and then discipline
So a sex offender for life for getting slightly mad when someone jumps in front of your car almost making you commit manslaughter.
Yep, makes sense /s
I imagine it’s the part where he grabbed her by the arm and attempted to drag her towards his car that did it. Whatever his intentions may have been, I can see how that could be taken as an attempted abduction. Idk that that should be counted as a sex crime, but I can certainly see it being treated as a potentially serious assault on a minor.
Might've only had to be on the registry for a few years?
Anyway, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20050706062151/http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-molest01.html
It shouldn't matter in the first place though. Such a story can happen, because, to the surprise of the internet, women are humans and individuals. If a person falls victim to such a scenario, they were just a victim to one individual, not all women in the world, let alone all people in need of help in public.
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
I saw the same "barely" articles you mentioned that reference the CST as a source. They didn't actually describe the event the way your discussion partner did. She supposedly stepped in front of his car, and his grabbing her arm seems more out of frustration. He didn't save her from an accident. He was the driver of the car that would have hit her. He avoided an accident, got out of his car, grabbed the girl and "lectured" her. Seems like a slightly harsher consequence than necessary, but it does sound like an assault of some degree.
That said, I help people -- and even in public!!!
Fitzroy Barnaby
Theres no way thats a real persons name.
Blame the British.
fitzroy is a last name that 3033 persons share as of 2010, so i could see someone appropriating it as their child’s first name
Fitzroy Fitzroy? In this economy?
Has the same ring as "Danny Dan Avidan".
While good samaritan laws protect people who help others it doesn't provide immunity. Intentional misconduct or gross negligence are a couple of ways a good samaritan can face legal action. Now, while those are good exceptions to have to protect the victim. Because of a broken/corrupt legal system those exceptions can be used against someone that was just trying to help.
Bottom line: Help others but dont be a hero or a creep. And you reduce your risk of facing charges.
This comes across as if you're on the side of those peddling this (most likely) fake story. While what you said is true, it comes across as unnecessary at best, and malicious at worst to warn others about the "risks" of helping others. Good Samaritans can face legal trouble, but that's exceedingly rare.
Always help others if you're able and do it within a reasonable lens, full stop.
Even if the story is mostly fake, it doesn't absolve the fake guy of being in the wrong.
There's a difference between someone being accused of this if they were legitimately carrying the girl to safety...and someone being accused of this because they grabbed a girl by the arm and held her there for no other reason than to yell at her for not being careful.
Even if your intentions are technically good, you still have to be aware of the consequences of your own actions. This isn't to say, "Don't help people". It's more like, "Are you sure what you're doing is actually helpful?"
I think it might be worth re-reading this comment through the lens of the other comment where you dug up the details of the (alleged) actual story. Not too sure which came first due to the edit in the other comment.
The guy pulled his car over to grab her and lecture her after the incident happened. That's not ok and shouldn't be covered under good Samaritan laws. Really that could be grounds for something like assault charges in some jurisdiction. Potentially if she wasn't a minor she could have even had a decent shot at a self-defense claim if she'd shot him when he grabbed her (this is 'murica after all) he continued to escalate a situation that was already resolved and introduced physical force into circumstances where it wasn't warranted.
What you probably pictured (I know it's what I had in mind) was probably more like someone grabbing a girl to keep her from walking into traffic. That would probably be covered under good Samaritan laws.
But holding onto her after that to yell at her probably wouldn't/shouldn't, that's uncalled for, though there may be a little more leeway there since it would still sort of been in the heat of the moment. Odds are probably pretty good that she wouldn't have even pressed the issue since he just potentially saved her life if that were the case.
As for it being considered a sex offense, I think that's a case of the laws being poorly-crafted, the insane way we craft laws to "protect the children" (except when the rich and powerful are involved apparently) and the justice system being broken because that aspect of it is kind of bullshit and probably should have been thrown out on appeal. What he did was wrong and I think there should be consequences for that, but I don't think there's any reason to think it was wrong in a sexual way unless there are other details to the story that have been glossed over.
And the person you had the conversation with that prompted this either misunderstood the circumstances, possibly because they only got the information second hand themselves, or are trying to twist the details to suit their agenda. The first is probably more likely, but we can't really know for sure.
I dont know anything about this story you mention. What i do know, is that people should understand the risks when they decide to take action. Denying them that knowledge is irresponsible, regardless of how rare those risks occur.
I help if im able and I am happy you do too. But the people that don't help because they are scared of a potential risk of a lawsuit, I dont hold any ill will against them