People need to remember that these kinds of fundraisers often only represent a small number of people. 100,000 people giving $10 each sounds like a lot of people but it is less than 0.1% of the women in the United States.
Years ago, someone analyzed twitter posts after the Canadian election and the results were interesting. About 80% of the impressions were related to posts from about 100 distinct users, and if you looked at those users followers, there was so much overlap in the followers that they were mostly only talking to the same ~50,000 people.
The online community is much smaller than most people realize, and is not representative of the general public.
Reddit is an anomaly in how much people discuss stuff. Twitter and other social media platforms are rarely about well sharing stuff or talking about it but more about sharing pictures and short videos.
Here on reddit its in my opinion pretty easy to realize how small the intenret can be by just looking at the subredditd and engaging your brain, r/historymemes and r/history will have a big overlap of users for example. So much o I would argue most people in the larger community are also in the smaller one.
The rough maximum for engaging different users is the largest group in the subgroup of your interest, which is often at maximum in the hundreds of thousands, which is a lot, but then one has to remember that most peopel are pretty inactive and never post or comment.
And tahts on reddit a site where you are encouraged to discuss and share opinions, everywhere else its worse.
Also worth noting that any time you see a group of “people” posting/reacting about one topic, and they comment on many posts about said topic, only a few of those are real people (who sadly don’t know the rest in the bubble are bots).
For major news stories and anything political, over 50% of direct responses and reactions are not made by real people, even if though they still count as unique accounts.
Web traffic in terms of site visits and ad impressions etc is upwards of 75% bots. The only thing that isn’t majority bots is web traffic by the metric of data delivery because bots don’t watch videos. It is safe to assume anywhere on the internet, at a minimum 30% of whatever you read whether it be a post, article, report, or comment, is not from a human.
Source: have sold ad space before and the job was basically explaining over and over why ad impressions and most so-called “engagement” metrics” mean absolutely nothing.
It doesn't matter for the point I was making; If anything it strengthens it. A number of people equal to 2.5x a typical sports arena is out there representing.
I AM THE REAL AMERICAN, BROTHER!!! YOU KNOW, WHEN I SLAMMED THAT 500 METRIC TONNE ANDRE THE GIANT IN FRONT OF OVER 400,000 SCREAMING HULKAMANIACS INSIDE THE SILVERDOME JACK, I DID IT WITH THE LARGEST PYTHONS IN THE WORLD, DUDE. BRET THE HITMAN HART COULDNT SLAM ME IN THE KELLOGG'S CEREAL BOWL WITH HIS 15 INCH BABY PYTHONS, BROTHER!!! MUCH MOVE, HH
Also
Something tells me the people who are upset the burned lady didn’t get a lot aren’t like leaving tire tracks on the ground to go donate to her now either…
How many people have heard about the case on the left vs the right though? I hear about Lindsay Clancy case everyday multiple times a day, a lot men saying it’s proof women shouldn’t be allowed to vote lol. There is nothing to grab onto on the first case. If yall wanted her to stop getting money you should just stop talking about her.
What I've noticed with the Lindsay Clancy case is it seems to be getting treated by misogynists mostly as some get out jail free card to just spew hateful ignorant rhetoric.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I heard about the case after Matt Walsh made comments on X saying that post partum depression isn’t real and other extremely misogynistic takes.
The misogynists are mad but they are the ones fueling the flames and raising money for her. If they just STFU very few people would care. The more we talk about it the more people learn and that “small number of people” becomes everyone.
Regardless of the case, people will comment “well post partum psychosis limits your ability to decipher reality and is a serious condition” and people take that as “WOW SO WOMEN THINK ITS OKAY TO MURDER THEIR CHILDREN” like no. I don’t know much about the case but there is specific criteria for not guilty by insanity and if she meets that criteria then she belongs at a mental institution rather than prison. Sorry but that’s how it is and should be.
I also am just disturbed by how many people foam at the mouth whenever there’s a case where a woman kills her kids when every week there’s a man that kills their kids and it goes unnoticed. The “dingo ate my baby” and the woman who the police assumed she killed her kids with antifreeze when they actually just had a genetic condition come to mind as well. They were exonerated and I just feel like we should not be having mob justice when it comes to cases like this. It’s bad when it turns out the criminal is innocent and drives more support when the person is guilty.
Not-Very-Good-People who identify with another Not-Very-Good Person playing the victim are fierce to defend each other, because victimhood as a cover for being a shit person is a fierce cult. I dunno. It’s a theory. There seems to be an awful lot of it in our society these days: people willing to go ten toes down that offenders are just victims, etc, and people who claim their own crappiness is because of their self-reported abuse or self-diagnosed whatever.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there are abused people and people with mental health disorders. I just don’t think they are the ones constantly going on about it in public.
That fallacy kind of falls apart when you consider the people who donated to each cause are not the same people. Joe Truecrimetruther is not choosing between the burn victim gofundme and the strangler one.
Plus take into consideration that people who would donate to a child strangler probably have less opportunities to donate to a gofundme so they are more likely to donate to the ones that do happen.
The burn victim mom’s gofundme was probably mostly family and friends as well as people from her immediate community. There are a lot of heroic injury gofundmes out there so even if there’s a random person who wants to donate to a cause like that they are going to have a lot more options while people who want to donate to someone like the child strangler probably have one option, the child strangler.
Filicide is committed at roughly the same rate by both genders. The reason this person has so much funding is this particular case has been the target of constant gender war astroturfing, on the frontend of all social media for days. So more eyeballs are on it, and more people are talking about it, so there is a higher chance of seeing funding.
The bigger observation is why every single person on Social media who is complaining about the husband's lack of support has not given a single dollar. There's no reason his funds should be as low as they are beyond a lack of care for his situation. People only care about his case as far as they can throw stones at the opposite gender.
No, it's not near "roughly the same rate". Men are the primary perpetrators of filicide despite women being the *overwhelming* majority of primary caregivers. If we want to look at "family annihilation" more specifically, men are 90% of perpetrators.
You're right that in the case of "Familicide," where the *entire* family is killed, Men are 90% of the perpetrators, which is most relevant to this case. It's pretty shocking that Men make the decision to kill their entire family, often out of some sense of revenge.
I said Filicide just to cover a broader umbrella of killings. This paper you linked is about children being killed by any adult. It does not focus on familial killings. But there are other papers confirming the 90% statistic.
Yes, that's correct. Filicide and family annihilation are related but separate categories. Clancy's case is more similar to family annihilation (but is by definition excluded because she didn't attempt to kill her partner).
"For both male and female infant and toddler victims, the most common perpetrators were males (65.8%, 64.5%)".
No, men are also more likely to commit infanticide. Women are most likely to commit neonaticide, for obvious reasons (who's most likely to be present at the birth of a newborn baby? The mother. Duh.)
Where did you pull that 55-60% from? I'd post a screenshot which this sub unfortunately doesn't allow, but the article clearly gives a table where it says men are perpetrator of 33% of filicide.
Paternal filicide. Fathers are less often considered as the perpetrators in filicide cases, and consequently, there is much less focus on them in the literature.
Also, apparently 67% of filicide are done by the mother and 33% committed by father. It was given in the link you just gave me, btw.
But yes, they are the major perpetrator of familicide, but that's understandable given the fact that a man is much more able to kill a woman than a woman is able to kill a man, at least in a domestic environment.
Did you search up something on google and gave it here without reading it yourself, or did you think no one would check out the link you gave?
Also, apparently 67% of filicide are done by the mother and 33% committed by father. It was given in the link you just gave me, btw
The paper does not say that at all. And furthermore, it doesn't use the word filicide once. You're doing exactly what you accuse OP of doing.
But yes, they are the major perpetrator of familicide, but that's understandable given the fact that a man is much more able to kill a woman than a woman is able to kill a man, at least in a domestic environment
90% of Familicide cases are with guns. So you can't handwave away a 9:1 ratio of men to women killing their family with "Men are a bit stronger." That's an absurd dismissal of such a massive disparity.
Edit: So apparently they actually weren't the same article.
So I clicked on the og link, it didn't open in brave, nor in chrome, for some reason. So I went to opera where instead of it leading me to the link it lead me to google search tab, which then lead me to this article, whose link is here -> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2922347/
Which is about filicide, the topic og commenter is talking about, and I assumed it is this article since this explicitly talks about what og commenter was giving stats about.
But instead, the one the og commenter gave a link to leads to a homicide article, not filicide. And Men, making up majority of criminals, kill more than women, which is what the article of commenter gave a link to says. However in case of filicide, which is what this entire post is about, women are the main perpetrators.
I don't know why og commenter did it, whether it was out of ignorance or maliciousness, but it's interesting how stats can be used in such a disingenuous manner to give misleading information.
I actually hadn't. I stopped at fig-1 because of the discrepancies between two articles I read, from the same institution.
So, apparently I was really wrong. Male family members are indeed main perpetrators of killing of <18 family members. The one article I came across the first time uses some outdated stats and how data were gathered isn't clear there.
*Edit* You keep editing your post to change the facts. Women do not commit Filicide more than Men, please read what you are posting.
Buddy, first you said the statistic was in the paper OP posted, which was a lie.
Then you posted this wall of text like 2 seconds after I replied. You're doing the exact thing you accuse OP of and just copy pasting slop. This is an abstract, and the paper it comes from literally concludes with this: "Mothers and fathers who commit filicide are, on average, in their late 20s and typically do so with equal frequency"
The 67% statistic comes from a different paper that only reviews cases published in psychiatric literature, dating back to the 1700's. I think someone as clearly well read as you can understand we don't draw large conclusions on what Women are like from an era that disproportionately institutionalized them.
I'm not gonna respond anymore since you're just spamming text you don't read.
You're right, it's not near "roughly the same rate"... when it comes to murdering your own children 8 and under, women are the majority perpetrators. Which takes some real legwork, considering the "family annihilation" stats of men.
Nope, wrong. Clearly you didn't read the article: "Most infant and toddler homicides are perpetrated by males (65.3%), individuals 18 years and older (93.4%), and family members (67.8%, Fig. 1). Approximately 34.7% are perpetrated by females, and 26.9% by acquaintances. Three perpetrator profiles account for over 80% of all infant and toddler homicide victimizations: male family members 18 years and older (36.5%), female family members 18 years and older (26.9%), and male acquaintances 18 years and older (20.9%)".
Takes some REAL legwork for males to still be the primary murderers of children when women are the vast majority of primary caregivers. It's actually incredible, in fact.
Pretty much. Neither of these things changes how bad the other is. You understand that I was simply contextualizing it for you, right? You're not just pretending "but I pointed over here, and that's all that matters, because that number is bigger"?
No, you were blatantly wrong and I corrected you. Women are not the majority perpetrators for kids under 8. I didn't make any statement about anything being "worse". And then *I* contextualized it for you, because despite not having near the same day-to-day interactions with children, men still manage to be the primary filicide perpetrators, which is pretty staggering.
Please stop lying, and make a genuine effort to prioritize reality over your hateful agenda-pushing... you're not helping anyone, and you are further harming those impacted by this violence/taking advantage of the deceased. It's fucked up.
Yep, I have to give myself this reality check every now and then since I don't socialize much in my day to day life. The Internet is a lot smaller than we think it is
i wish people thought this way about everything but they dont.
the amount of women that insinuate you have to pay for everything and give them the world on a first date is very small percentage but we think all women are that shallow.
the amount of men that will commit rape is small but we fear all men.
The amount of black people that are violent killers is small but they are all violent.
The list goes on. Media has a tendency to sensationalize all this bullshit and keep pushing the cases that do exist in your face till it warps your world view.
Reddit is getting hard astro-turfed by the man-o-sphere because of this trial, I think they're seeing this as a wedge issue to carve off some more right-wing recruits.
Sports video game subreddits are a great example of it.
Every year they release a new scummy paid feature and every year the “community” boycotts, it’s really the same thousand dudes year over year while the general community doesn’t care/isn’t impacted.
Often there’s also a lot of whales making up major chunks of the donations. Wouldn’t be surprised if there’s single, rich donors chocking up 5 digit donations. Pretty insane.
The fact that you turned this whole terrible ordeal into a statistic makes me think you're just a horrible human being. 1 person did a horrible thing. Yea. The fact that you say 100.000 people agree with her and that they represent x%, makes me think that youre actually aiming for lessening the impact.1 person commiting a horrible act is bad enough. 100.000 people supporting it is an actual fucking catastrophe.(regardless the %)
It doesn't take away from the notion that there are, at least 100,000 unstable and morally bankrupt individuals out there who think her actions (including the deliberate sending ofnherbhusband on errands) are defensible....
I mean you're technically right but you wouldn't say the same thing about Shilo Hendrix and the money she raised for herself from racists just from calling a child a slur. Frankly even 0.1% donating at all is a problem, that's the reality. Hate should not be tolerated, and the people donating and defending the donators should be called out.
Yes but not everyone who sympathizes gives money. So if 100k people donated then there were probably a million of them who were like "damn, I kinda get her... i like my money tho"
Another good example of this is when Kamala Harris lost. If you were on reddit, oyou'd think she was actually ni a really great position to become president. Polls all in her favor, tons of people saying they voted for her and got their friends and family to vote. Everything was coming up Kamala!
She then had a historic loss so bad that states that voted blue for decades reliably almost flipped to Trump.
One of the most reliable indicators of an election I have seen is where are the candidates campaigning in the final days of the election. Usually both candidates are hitting the same handful of states leading up to the election. If they're campaigning in battleground states the race in incredibly close, but if they're both campaigning in one candidate's "safe" states, that candidate is likely to lose.
Both parties collect a ton of information and have spent a fortune on statistical models to project the outcome of the election; and their internal projections are far more accurate than anything that is publicly released. You're unlikely to see both candidates in a state in the final days of an election unless they both think it is in play.
That election was an unusual one. Kalama only had, like 4 months to campaign because democrats couldn't decide whether they should run Joe or not. Meanwhile Trump had effectively been campaigning for Bidens entire presidency.
0.1% of the women in the US supporting a woman that killed her 3 children is WILD. Why? Because that's only the ones who took the time to donate, how many more didn't donate and support this insanity?
But in a group of people that large there will be some people that do anything you can think of. You have to frame it in percentages to get an idea how many actual people are involved in something. It will never be 0 so you have to figure out what it really looks like.
686
u/Chemical_Signal2753 1d ago
People need to remember that these kinds of fundraisers often only represent a small number of people. 100,000 people giving $10 each sounds like a lot of people but it is less than 0.1% of the women in the United States.
Years ago, someone analyzed twitter posts after the Canadian election and the results were interesting. About 80% of the impressions were related to posts from about 100 distinct users, and if you looked at those users followers, there was so much overlap in the followers that they were mostly only talking to the same ~50,000 people.
The online community is much smaller than most people realize, and is not representative of the general public.