664
submitted 1 year ago by deconstruct@lemm.ee to c/news@lemmy.world

In the years following the 2013 debut of Adult Swim’s cartoon phenomenon “Rick and Morty,” its star and co-creator Justin Roiland became a titan of the animation and video game industry and a rock star of youth counterculture. His artistic style and caricatures became ubiquitous in cannabis culture, and his career expanded into producing other animated series, creating NFTs and leading a virtual reality gaming studio. In 2017, a “Rick and Morty” collaboration with McDonald’s led to such a viral frenzy that police had to be called to at least two locations.

But as he partied with Los Angeles’ superstars and traveled the country for conventions, he also found he could use his fame to strike up conversations and develop relationships with young fans, including some who were underage. This is according to interviews with 11 women and nonbinary people who shared thousands of messages with Roiland from 2013 to 2022 — with nine of the people saying he turned the exchanges sexual. Of those nine people, three said they were 16 when they started talking to Roiland. To corroborate their stories, the 11 women and nonbinary people also shared pictures, videos, social media posts, emails, and plane ticket and Uber receipts with NBC News.

Warning: Lengthy and graphic details

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 146 points 1 year ago

From the article, really buried: "Roiland usually asked people how old they were, if they were single, and if they were “into girls.” In three cases, when the person said they were under 18, Roiland would message them again months or years later. Those three conversations started with people who said they were 16 at the time, and continued for years, until they were 18 and older."

After reading the whole article it doesn't seem like he did anything sexual with anyone under 18. My takeaway is that he's a creep, abuses his fame and power (part of a big club there), he's manipulative, and he plies underage people with alcohol to get them to sleep with him, but it appears he's not a pedo. Or at least smart enough not to get caught.

[-] lemmylommy@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago

Not a pedo, just a regular rapist. Talk about low bars.

[-] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 143 points 1 year ago

Don't mistake my comment as a defense of him as a person. He's been accused of domestic violence, forced oral sex, and taking advantage of intoxicated women under the drinking age. Despite him getting off on the DV charge, where there's smoke, there's fire. He's obviously a pretty terrible human being.

I just don't like people throwing around 'pedo' unjustly, because it waters it down and takes away the impact when used against even worse monsters.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Even the "forced" oral sex seems really suspect.

But he should have been able to read the situation as well as anyone. If she seems to be setting a trap, maybe don't fall for it?

Either way, the dude seems to be tiptoeing around the borders laws that nobody should be near. Dude's sitting and watching the clock for when his prey turns 18. Even if he might comply with the letter of the law, he's clearly violating the spirit.

[-] arin@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

16 is not prepubescent which is what pedo is there is another term for teens but i forgot.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago
[-] SilverFlame@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Ephebophilia I believe. He's also a groomer, how fun...

[-] sweeny@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

The only people who care about this distinction are pedophiles / whatever that term is.

[-] SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 1 year ago

No, by grouping children in with postpubertal humans who engage in age appropriate sexual acts you downplay pedophilia. You're an idiot and you insist on being one.

[-] sweeny@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Lmao a 16 year old being hit on by a 30 year old is not age appropriate sexual acts, it's about mental maturity

[-] SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago

You're saying fucking a two year old is the same as fucking a 16 year old you sicko. I never mentioned 30 years anyway, you're also putting words into my mouth.

[-] sweeny@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nah, I'm just saying I don't feel uncomfortable calling someone who preys on children a pedophile, cause they're gross either way

[-] SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child words don't seem to be your strong suit. You're also fine with calling a young woman a child, which is in line with bigoted religious and woman hating people. Nice company you're in.

[-] sweeny@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Allow me to recite the third sentence of that Wikipedia article you linked since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit:

"The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.[1] Children generally have fewer rights and responsibilities than adults. They are classed as unable to make serious decisions." such as sex with a grown man

[-] SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, and let me cite the first sentence: "A child (PL: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty,[1][2] or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty."

Let me also cite "Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia. By using the non-standard legal definition of "child" you weaken the meaning of pedophilia and normalize it, and you perform mental gymnastics to justify normalizing pedophilia.

The fact that you think that young women of 16 years don't have the mental capability to make decisions is very revealing, and contradicts the law in many places in the US and the west in general.

[-] sweeny@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was using the legal (and very commonly used, btw) definition of child, since *acting on pedophilia is illegal. I'm not normalizing anything by comparing them to pedophiles, youre the one trying to normalize sexual relations with people under 18

[-] SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder and not illegal, what's illegal is sexual abuse. You're just a bible-thumping misogynist bigot who thinks they pose as progressive.

[-] sweeny@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lol Im very against all of those things, thinking minors shouldn't be sexualized by adults has nothing to do with any of those terms you rattled off. Go fuck your underage waifu pillow

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

The term is "ephebophilia"

Now you've read my comment

Now you know what that term is

Now you're a pedophile

It's that easy! See you in Thailand!

[-] sweeny@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I said people who care about the distinction, not people who know the term

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

lol whatever pedo

[-] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago
[-] CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago

"Hey how old are you?"

  • "16"

(ends conversation)

That's not grooming.

[-] Bread_And_Buried@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago

Those three conversations started with people who said they were 16 at the time, and continued for years, until they were 18 and older.

This is a quote from the comment you're responding to... It IS textbook grooming. He didn't stop talking to them when he found out they were underage.

[-] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Except he didn't end the conversation. Read the article, fuckwit

[-] CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

You kiss your daddy with that mouth?

[-] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Only below the waist

[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And continued for years is the key.

He made sexually explicit comments to minors for years. And solicited pictures? That's solicitation of child pornography

The guys a pedo. Rather or not he gets charged with something related to under age girls, we'll see.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago

https://www.sportskeeda.com/amp/pop-culture/who-allie-goertz-justin-roiland-underage-girls-dm-screenshots-surface-wake-musician-s-accusations

According to the screenshots shared by Twitter user @/MartyAmericaUSA, Roiland asked the minor to run away from school and go into “sx slavery.” He also allegedly addressed her as a “ft btch,” called her “jailbait,” and said she would go into “cam w*ing” once she turns 18.

A Facebook user called Janna Waters also claimed that Roiland texted on Twitter when she was 16 and called her “insanely hot.” The user also alleged that the Rick and Morty co-creator allegedly had a “predatory scout” named Christy who used to find “young girls who looked a certain way” for the creator.

No, dude's a pedo. "Starting the conversation" with someone who's underage then waiting til 5 minutes after their 18th birthday to make a move doesn't make you not a pedo, it makes you a pedo who doesn't want to go to prison. Even then, there are at least two documented cases where he didn't wait. Because he's a pedo.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
664 points (95.6% liked)

News

23310 readers
3551 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS