There was a post here a while back linking to an unpleasant and depresing anti-children essay talking about how the fertility crisis is inevitable when women are allowed to choose freely (link: https://kryptogal.substack.com/p/the-fertility-crisis-is-inevitable).
I searched for the blogger's name. It seems to be this discussion initiated by @Hoffmeister25.
Either way the name "Investigative Committee For a Future with Children" is probably rather based in a Swedish context.
Agreed. Either way, what's important in the context of the discussion at hand is that this was hardly a case of a pretty young woman getting particularly targeted and killed for political reasons.
I’m more or less familiar with the official/mainstream theory. I was wondering why ThenElection disbelieves it and what his alternative theory is. I guess my comment was poorly worded.
Is your argument that women instinctively escape from violent men, presumably into the embrace of nonviolent men? Because I've never seen evidence of this.
I suggest that you remind us in a week or so.
It was definitely a case of bad form.
I'd say most of the cases that get interpreted as online radicalization, online bullying / cyberbullying and online stalking/harassment / cyberstalking in mainstream media are in fact real-life phenomena, and the extent to which they have an online component is of secondary importance. That is, the victim/target is normally affected by the actions and words of people he or she personally knows, and interacts with in real life.
I don't know enough about the whole affair to comment on that.
Are you referring to the theory that the Manson family were actually hired assassins?
Maybe this 2002 study:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124155/
It was posted once in the old subreddit.
In the 1970s, we had lots and lots of murders in a world with 1970s trauma medicine. Our current murder rate is not backstopped by 1970s trauma medicine.
You know I've seen this argument repeated by commenters on Steve Sailer's blog and I wondered: there have to be statistics out there that'd let us correct for the impact of radically advanced trauma medicine on the murder rate. Surely someone can calculate, say, what is the ratio of gangbangers who get shot but end up getting saved through surgery?
Good point. I should've written 'racially' instead of 'ethnically'.
Why wouldn’t they still be symbolic and non lethal? What’s changed on that front?
Ongoing political radicalization in echo chambers, I suppose?
So your argument is that violent leftist groups are sufficiently deterred?
Has there ever been a politically motivated assassination of a young pretty white woman in the US?
They might not have been celebrities but were nevertheless fairly well-known, at least in certain social circles.
The main factor here is that it happened before Oct 7th.
On a different note I’d argue that this was probably not politically motivated on grounds that people generally comprehend that women, especially young and pretty ones, make very poor targets of publicized political assassinations from a PR perspective.
I assume this may have something to do with Reddit being generally more optimized for use on desktops instead of smartphones and tablets, because people are increasingly accessing online content on the latter.
Whatever we're slipping into will definitely be worse than the Days of Rage. The great majority of leftist terrorist acts in that period were nonlethal and symbolic bombings and abductions; this will definitely not be the case this time. Also the Days of Rage took place in a country that was much more homogenous ethnically and religiously, where civic nationalism was a much bigger social factor than today.
Her name was Ella Cook, just to add.
So I'm assuming your theory is basically that whoever organized the hit was aware that their son is a deranged methhead and is thus easy to frame.
I'd argue that no, it's actually not pretty clear, and I also don't believe that the material condition of the average young man factually improved in the past couple of decades.
I think you know that surveys don't mean a thing in this context, at least not in the way you imagine. The current feminized world is all that 20-25 year old men - or their fathers, for that matter - have ever known and most of them cannot imagine any other, they don't grok what it'd mean. Either way, you as a woman(?) are probably also affected by the apex fallacy, which is why you'd probably be surprised by many of the answers to that survey.
- Prev
- Next

Is it because of the obnoxious true crime nerd wine moms, or due to other reasons?
More options
Context Copy link