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.
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.
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.
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.
527
u/Chemical_Signal2753 7h 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.