The Slender Man Cult. Girl Stabbed By two 12 Year Old

a reply to: sdcigarpig

As an American, it bothers me to no end that we seek to blame other people.

The girls committed these acts. Not the school. Not their parents. Not the victim. It was the girls who did this, and it should be them that is held accountable.

Now, that doesn't meant that lessons aren't learned by all.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Just want to say that what you said was very eloquent and voiced many of the concerns that I have in regards to present-day society and its effects on children in terms of role models and examples. Being concerned about those things, however, does not necessarily equate to censorship as being the solution. I second that entirely.

I would, however, point out that, for as many alarm bells that have been rung about censorship over the years, overall, what is censored and what isn't has been extraordinarily loosened. Back in the 50's, the poster of Jane Russell was censored because she showed too much cleavage. In today's world, it's a world filled with envelope pushers where you'll have pop stars parading around near nude on stage (or at least looking like it--Lady Gaga, I'm looking at you) or films where there is more blood from an injury than what is actually contained in a normal human body. We push and push and push. Inevitably what happens when we start pushing is that we suddenly have an occasion where something occurs that forces us to take and step back and then we risk overreacting, just like you said. You're spot on there.

To be clear, there is nothing about Slender Man, under stare decisis of Supreme Court rulings of what is and isn't free speech, that would make it even remotely worthy of censorship. Whether it, or Creepypasta, itself, should be censored really is a non-issue in that regard. Neither, from what I've seen, would fail any of the tests developed by the Supreme Court as to what is obscene and what isn't.

However, whenever something bad relating to the internet and its content occurs, you can almost guarantee that there will be a "free speech brigade" that will declare that such and such content shouldn't be even questioned because it's all free speech. Just because something would be protected free speech under the First Amendment, it does not necessarily mean that discussion about whether our children should be exposed to it is somehow equitable to a prohibition against that same amendment. As a society, we have already made distinctions about what is okay content for children and what is not in terms of television, video game, and film in terms of ratings. Trying to initiate something similar for the internet would be intensely problematic as the content that is generated is global by nature. Additionally, it would simply act as a form of censorship, which is not acceptable except in the case of the clearly obscene such as child pornography.

Really the only solution is, as you said, parental awareness and monitoring of that "electronic babysitter" plus a healthy dose of a critical self examination. You're right--society finds the do-gooders to be boring and the bad guys to be titillating. A few centuries ago, it was Robin Hood. These days, it's apparently Walter White. Is that a good thing? We're so hot to bask in our freedoms that we're potentially plowing headlong into a brick wall. That's not to say that censorship is the answer but a little introspection within society could go a long way.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

This fictional character abducts children and murders people. It's also an ARG (alternate reality game) and is the internet's boogey man of choice.

Whew I am really out of the loop and i am such a reader research type too! thanks for the info, I saw the russian wall sticky creature and I actually would not have a problem thinking HE was real. Seems kind of slow and sweet also :-)

Really the only solution is, as you said, parental awareness and monitoring of that "electronic babysitter" plus a healthy dose of a critical self examination.

The worse the economy the more the parents work, I think things will be getting worse.

originally posted by: VforVendettea

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: DEV1L79
That means no more smart phones for children because they'll just use those at school to access the net, too. They really do. Want your kid to have a cellphone so you can keep tabs on them? Fine--get them a dumbphone. What they do with those smartphones at school would shock you.

The cell phone companies could actually promote limited plans calling them 'youth' or the equivalent.
numbers called and received from would need to be approved by the parents.
Only certain sites could be accessed, for example - nothing more racey than the disney channel allowed.
It's a phone not a computer, thechilds computer at home access could be limited by throttling the data down to the speed of 'dial up.' Yeah remember that?

Love it! I was actually thinking the same thing but actually getting cell phone companies to convince people to buy a lesser product is a bit far fetched. It would be awesome, however, if they did just that. Making phones that aren't equipped with built in cameras would also be a good start, too. It'd probably limit the number of racy photos that kids will take of themselves that may end up in somebody else's hands or the impromptu beatdown videos that occasionally crop up on youtube. No cameras, no problem. Kid-safe phones would be such a great idea.

Throttling that net would work, too. More graphical content that a site has, oh they'd be there for years and well, more time for them to get caught looking at something they shouldn't. The only internet that my youngest has is through me on MY computer in MY room. That really works out well for the both of us as then it becomes doing something together whether it's a quest for information on something, laughing at funny pictures or videos or admiring cool homes. Sky's the limit and we're doing it together. Inevitably, we drag in my eldest and it becomes a total family affair. Some might think total elimination is overboard but it's working for us and my daughter actually does support it.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

The difference is that, when we were growing up, there wasn't a load of internet sites and youtube videos claiming to support the Boogey Man's existence. Our world was completely different from theirs. They have the world at their fingertips, both good and bad, every time they sit down at their computers.

Like you said in the other post, there was parent at home back then and being scared could be fun while we had someone to give a reality check.

My stepson's Mother had him coming home at age 8 from school to babysit his little brother, and she went out for drinks after work most days, no one was home until after 7PM most of those years as his Stepfathers job required travel, I think this is common, Microwave some food and watch TV or use the computer.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Just curious. Who monitors your kid(s) when they are at friends or friends of friends form school, the neighborhood etc? Kids are quite tech savy these day....and a lot of them know how to keep more than a couple screens "open" at the same time in case someone comes into the room?

One can only try to monitor them....or at least try to get them to understand!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
I agree there has to be personal responsibility. However, as these girls, being so young, their actions reflect on their parents. This is going to hit that community hard. The parents who have to bury their child I feel for as no parent should ever have to bury their child.

a reply to: Char-Lee

I get to pretend I'm hip and in the loop because my kids fill me in. Of course, they don't think I'm hip. They think that when I'm being hip, I'm actually really embarrassing. I may be doing that deliberately.



Mom is so supercool!! OMGZ ROFL!

The worse the economy the more the parents work, I think things will be getting worse.

I think that actually this might be really part of the bigger issue with kids acting out or cracking. People are stressed, parents are stressed and kids aren't oblivious to that. It's bound to have an affect. I don't think it's just a factor of not having a parent at home as a lot of my friends and I were all latchkey kids. We turned out reasonably okay (sort of). If more kids were engaging in the behaviors of these two little girls, I'd be more concerned but, as it is, they are extreme outliers. Still, I don't see a whole lot of good going on with kids and the internet. That's the big difference I see between then and now. A lot of them get clearly addicted, which is one thing for an adult with an already developed brain, but what of a kid whose brain is still developing?

Internet addiction, like any other addiction, actually influences dopamine production in the brain. A couple of the symptoms include "impulsiveness" and "impaired cognitive dysfunction involving risky decision making". The sample for this study were adults. Wonder what it looks like in children who sometimes seem like they already have issues with their cognitive function in risky decision making.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

OH no. People. Slenderman is not a cult. Its a freaking meme. A creepy pasta created to embody a unknown assailant. It was a attempt by some to Create what is called a Tulpa. A creature created by a lot of people believing in its existence.

According to the story Slenderman kidnaps children and later returns them. late ron in life he stalks them and finally after many years murders,and eats them. Making them dissapear from this plane of existence.

I swear the news media is extremely stupid.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

the rake
id be more afraid of the Rake

I actually enjoy creepypastas...an alternatives to horror films as I get too worked up

But the parents should have been watching their activity

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I believe the child lived. Although that likely is going to be a life scared by physical, emotional, and mental trauma..

The parents perhaps should consider their own actions. But Creepypasta is basically ghost story fanfiction. On the surface, it looks like a deeply disturbed leader, a dimwitted follower, and a poorly concieved plan.

Bad things will happen. It is a consequence of life. We can try to prevent them, but we can't hide in fear and stop living

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
What disturbs me most of all is that this was premeditated. There was no after thought, no remorse, no consideration for the victim. And the damage is hard to heal non the less.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: sdcigarpig

As an American, it bothers me to no end that we seek to blame other people.

The girls committed these acts. Not the school. Not their parents. Not the victim. It was the girls who did this, and it should be them that is held accountable.

Now, that doesn't meant that lessons aren't learned by all.

Isn't the reason we don't punish children as severely, because we don't assign the same level of responsibility on them as we do to adults? If you are against the death penalty on all grounds, and that's your reason for thinking she doesn't deserve it, that fits.

But if your reason for thinking she doesn't deserve it is because of her age, then aren't you relieving her of responsibility, that in the quoted post above you try to assign to her?

I'm not suggesting that the death penalty, or a mental institution, or whatever else punishment is the correct one. I'm suggesting that if someone wants to support either position they should really examine what the result of that position would be. If your only reason for being against her/them getting the death penalty is your objection to the death penalty in general, it seems like that's what would have been said and be done with it. But if you think she should be treated differently because of her age, then there is some hypocrisy involved since you assign sole responsibility on the person doing the deed, but then don't expect them to deal with the same consequences.

a reply to: James1982

did you google Cameron Willingham?

www.newyorker.com...

Read his story. THe hell that his life became, and that was cruelly made worse, sanctioned in the name of The People.

I detest the death penalty. It is state sanctioned barbarism. The "pound of flesh" doesn't belong to the living. While justice is owed to society, vengeance should be reserved for the one wronged. In cases of the death penalty, that person is not typically alive.

Even more, however, when we get it wrong (like with Willingham)....we have created an injustice that cannot be justified.

For what its worth, i am not saying the girls should be held "fully accountable". Only that they should have sole accountability.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan


For what its worth, i am not saying the girls should be held "fully accountable". Only that they should have sole accountability.

I can understand that, there is indeed a difference between the two. I totally agree that nobody else should be jammed up for those girl's actions, I think the misunderstanding you cleared up above resolves whatever conflict I was addressing.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: kosmicjack

Just curious. Who monitors your kid(s) when they are at friends or friends of friends form school, the neighborhood etc? Kids are quite tech savy these day....and a lot of them know how to keep more than a couple screens "open" at the same time in case someone comes into the room?

One can only try to monitor them....or at least try to get them to understand!

Or at the library or using a computer at school, or using a mobile device or their friends mobile device, etc etc.

It's impossible to monitor a kids internet activity 24/7. You can certainly do your part within the walls of your own home, but if a child wants to access stuff on the internet they aren't mature enough to deal with, they can find a way.

As for Slender man, he's not just renowned from creepy pasta. Slender Man had a free video game released by some students awhile back: slendergame.com...

Admittedly, the game is pretty cool and gave me a few jump scares. There is a newer version that costs money to play as well. Additionally, kids can learn about this myth from seemingly innocent sources that review games on youtube. It's gone from a small urban legend to a part of pop culture. My stepkids even tried using it as an excuse not to take out the trash! "It's dark out and slenderman will get us!"

Good parenting starts when children are young by engaging them in conversations about reality vs fantasy, and making sure you always make time for them and let them know they can talk to you about ANYTHING, free of ridicule. Personally I think letting kids believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny is damaging to them in this regard, as it blurs the lines for them once they learn the truth about either. But that is a debate for another thread I suppose.

Kids pick up what they have seen or heard.

My 11 year old son and niece so movies where theyre in the woods outside her house and he portrays slenderman. They play the ARG online and his avatar on minecraft is slenderman, but guess what?
THEY KNOW ITS NOT REAL.
Parents need to tell their kids whats fantasy and whats reality. These girls' parents failed AS parents, by not telling threm whats fantasy and whats reality

Some interesting facts about SlenderMan.

originally posted by: DEV1L79
Some interesting facts about SlenderMan.

Well, he seems to be well dressed, at least.

Wouldn't the Slender Man phenomenon be kind of like Dungeons and Dragons or The Gathering? And I remember the kids who just had to go buy the Pokemon balls and talked like they could beat Ash.

I never had children, so these games really didn't seem important enough for me to even think about the pop culture aspect. The other poster about the Minecraft reference, he is called Ender Man in Minecraft and takes you to The Ender world, or The Nether.

Yes, I play Minecraft as a middle-aged woman, but I like the concept of building pretty things.