To think that mothers on Mumsnet should be allowed to discuss this?

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68495705

This person has posted obscene tweets talking about sex acts with children. Doritos subsequently cut ties and apologised.

I've just had a post deleted for describing said tweets as paedophilia.

AIBU to say that someone talking about sex acts with children is a paedophile and I should be able to name them as such?

I don't want to link to the tweets, but they are very easily findable if you wish to read them.

'As a teenager, Hudson tweeted mocking posts about rape victims and wanting to do "depraved things" to "a 12-year-old girl", according to a report by Rolling Stone.
Hudson, now 24, later apologised for the posts and called them "barbarities" and "dark humour".'

YANBU!

The Rolling Stone article has one of the (highly offensive) tweets in here. Yet is defending Hudson as 'badass'. Make of that what you will.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/boycottdoritos-spanish-trans-influencer-samantha-hudson-1234981041/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/06/trans-influencer-doritos-violent-comments-children/

This is the one who wished to kiss his little 8 year old cousin's vagina as little ones deserve pleasure, too? I paraphrase here as no wish to re read the actual words.

Yes, this is a paedophile, imo.

I'm not sure I want to read the actual tweets. It seems to me that paedophilia is far more widely accepted in certain circles than we could ever imagine.

If he has tweeted it openly then it is out there.

Parents shouldn't be kept in the dark. How can they do their job otherwise?

Er, they are discussing it!

Doritos - why do the very worst keep rising to the top? | Mumsnet

Yes. I said that the BBC hadn't mentioned paedophilia and my post was deleted.

The BBC wouldn't would they? No surprise to me.

Oh I see. I guess Mumsnet have to be careful about potential libel.

Can we have a trigger warning on this please?

Are we seriously supposed to engage in pretending facts - about harming children, on a site for mothers - don't exist if said facts are distressing to male feelings?

This is happening more and more. Doritos most certainly did not do any checks on this male influencer. Hudson has said that they used to say this kind of thing because they thought it was funny. They find the prospect of sexually abusing children funny? Who the fuck thinks that? Ever?

What do they even have to do with crisps?

They have everything to do with everything. Drinks, make up, hair care, women's clothes, crisps, obviously :)

I have seen screenshots of the tweets in question.

If one does not wish to be called a paedophile, one should not tweet, claiming that one has been licking the genitalia of a child in one's family.

I don't think that's an unreasonable standard.

Did I not see one discussing Hudson's access to Hudson's vagina for sexual purposes?

This is a person who seems to have no sexual boundaries.

That was my point. If I'm not allowed to say that a man who said that is a paedophile, what the actual fuck does it take?

I really don't know. I took it for granted that a public statement about sexually abusing children would be sufficient evidence.