Submitted by deeper_with_time t3_y2zibm in todayilearned
There is psychological phenomenon where it becomes increasingly more difficult to let go of something even in the face of defeat, loss and devestation.
The situation grows with the amount of investment made before the incident.
People will go absurd lengths to justify prior decisions. To the point of literal desaster, because their brain won't allow to be called upon the mistakes it made.
See flat earthers, sects, and this woman.
Its called sunk cost.
She probably thinks her husband is a good person in something along the lines of "they wanted to die and would have done so without my husband, who was only helping euthanize them in a less painful way. It's their body and their choice, no one has a right to force someone to live".
There are plenty of people that stick with (or seek out) people that are murderers, people that admit to abuse, and worse.
Gross as it is to say, encouraging people to suicide is less creepy to me than that.
For sure, and I find those baffling as well. I don't understand being willing to stick someone (indisputably) like that
I mean, he’s probably an absolute weirdo and she married him.
Ride or die.
Calling people stupid because they won't leave a cult doesn't work.
Sure, but at the end of the day with a cult, or something like flat earthers, you have the ability, you can convince yourself that everyone else is wrong. Harder in a case like this. But you are right regarding entrenched beliefs
The guy thought going online and encouraging people to kill themselves was a fine hobby.
People tend to marry those they agree with.
What are the odds she didn't think it was such a bad thing, either?
Whatever happened to that ugly girl that egged her boyfriend to commit suicide?
Watch “the girl from plainville” on Hulu if the Michelle Carter case interested you. It’s about the case. “Conrad’s Law” was enacted because of this case.
That girl sucks as a human
Sadly there are so so many like her. That sided eye having, sloth lookin, trailer park urchin piece of trash.
I went to school with a girl that liked to tell her boyfriends - she had several - that she was raped. She did it to see their reaction. She'd pick someone at random that the boyfriend didn't know so he'd only have her word to go on.
That’s god damn deranged 😳
Bruh, life sentence but can get parole in seven years. Canadian systems a joke. She's probably out already by now.
Yeah she's been up for parole a few times. She's certainly got anti-social disorders.
I'm not excusing the Canadian system, she's fucked, but Melissa is never leaving. Bagshaw might get out.
[removed]
This creep thought he was the Keyser Soze of online sociopaths till he got caught
What a psychopath
[removed]
So this is against the law but what Alex Jones was doing is free speech according to magas? People that spread misinformation that result in death or constant harassment should be held accountable too.
Jones is actually quite careful to avoid directly inciting his followers to violence. He portrays a batshit crazy alternate reality where baby eating satanists run the whole world and they're perpetually on the verge of exterminating most of humanity, but he never suggests that people actually do anything about it. This keeps him within the boundaries of the letter of criminal law. On January 6th, he was foaming at the mouth and screaming at the crowd about the horrible satanists in the capitol, but when they abandoned his rantings to actually march on the capitol, he meekly reminded them that they were exiting the permitted boundary of the demonstration and that they could get tickets if they strayed onto the rest of the national mall.
He has finally faced consequences in civil court for the harm he inflicted on Sandy Hook victim's families. It took way too long, but he set himself up as a free speech martyr, and the court system gave him an unreasonable number of opportunities to actually engage with the process and make a reasonable argument.
"Just askin' questions"
"Some people are saying"
"I have heard"
"It looks like maybe..."
These are all forms of lying--in fact the most skuzzy kind of lies because they are built with a way to duck responsibility for what you have lied about. Building in that escape-hatch proves that the liar knows the are lying their ass off, pushing it to the legal limits (and beyond possibly), and is trying to fool the dumbest of their audience.
You will hear these types of skuzz-bag lies almost constantly by Carlson, Hannity, Formerly Limbaugh and Breitbart, Jones, and many other right-wing media talking heads. It is their "go to" operating procedure.
I'm not a listener or fan of Alex Jones, but that's a blatant micharacterization of what he did on January 6th.
​
>Jones is actually quite careful to avoid directly inciting his followers to violence.
This sounds as if you're saying that you know he wants to incite violence but he makes sure he doesn't directly call for violence so he can't get in trouble. But that starts with the premise that you know he wants to incite violence. How do you know that? If he hasn't said it, how do you know that's what he's thinking?
“We have only begun to resist the globalists. We have only begun our fight against their tyranny. They have tried to steal this election in front of everyone.”
“I don’t know how this is all going to end, but if they want to fight, they better believe they’ve got one,”
The word fight is exclusively reserved for physical violence? When Biden said he was fighting for a woman's right to choose, what did he mean? That Democrats should physically attack all people who are Pro-Life, or just justices and politicians that disagreed with him? How are those people to be fought? Guns, knives, crowbars, what?
Or did Biden mean just him, he's literally going to fist fight people who disagree with him? He got a chain and fought off Corn Pop, is Amy Coney Barrett next?
>The word fight is exclusively reserved for physical violence
No, and that's their entire point? That's encouraging people to fight without a direct call for violence.
Congratulations on making their argument for them.
That's not a "gotcha!" you misunderstood what I wrote.
If the word "fight" has a broad meaning, including oppose, then you can't assume someone using the word fight is trying to get people to be physically violent. The assumption is that when Jones says fight it's "nudge, nudge, wink wink," he's really telling people they should be violent but he's going to argue that he didn't say it outright.
When Jones says fight, we're supposed to read his mind and know that he means actual violence, but when anyone says fight we know they don't mean actual violence.
You're suggesting that because fight doesn't necessarily mean physical violence it's wrong to make that assumption. If that's not what you're suggesting, you need to edit your comments, because that's what they say.
That's a laughable notion.
My standard is consistent, the word fight doesn't necessarily mean physical violence regardless of who says it.
Your standard appears to be selectively choosing what fight means depending on who said it and what you divine that person's internal thoughts are.
My standard is using more than a single braincell to parse what someone says. Context and connotation are well defined concepts, and they're covering that exact thing you describe as seemingly a magical ability to pick up on what people mean.
Alex Jones, who's been around twenty years spouting conspiracy theories, and who's never used violence or inspired someone to use violence, is nonetheless trying to incite people to use physical force, that's what you're parsing? When you're the only one hearing the dog whistle, it might mean you're the dog.
>or inspired someone to use violence,
Oh we can make sweeping claims that were incapable of proving?
Lmao your opinion doesn't matter you're a plant by (insert entity) paid to do (insert task)!
Fucking lmao. Do yourself a favor and close reddit for the day, I don't want you overworking the few braincells left.
I don't think you're correct, here. Jones is, on his best day, a modestly entertaining POS, but he's not so low that he's gone out looking to get people killed.
>Oh we can make sweeping claims that were incapable of proving?
I'm not the one claiming they have the psychic ability to read minds.
​
>Lmao your opinion doesn't matter you're a plant by (insert entity) paid to do (insert task)!
Yeah, you got me. I'm one of the feared Macedonian content farmers.
​
>Fucking lmao. Do yourself a favor and close reddit for the day, I don't want you overworking the few braincells left.
Personal attacks are the best way to support your argument, you should join a debate team.
Well, I haven't heard of anyone employing physical violence over Biden's use of the word "fight." Maybe he said it in a way that was unambiguous and not in front of a large, riled up and armed mob. The context of the situation, the character of the people involved (including the constituency) and the overall rhetoric seem to be an important distinctions here.
Did you actually believe those were Biden's intentions?
Here's another quote from alex that invokes warfare:
"We declare 1776 against the new world order [...] We need to understand we're under attack, and we need to understand this is 21st-century warfare and get on a war-footing"
Claiming there's a government conspiracy or that some people are actors who are pretending they lost children is vastly different from seeking out suicidal people, convincing them to enter into a phony suicide pact, and then giving them step-by-step instructions on how to kill themselves.
Saying something that's false, or that people don't like, or that people don't want to hear is protected speech. Walking someone through committing suicide is not the same.
They're not even remotely connected. Not even a little bit.
They aren’t the same but you’re marginalizing what Jones did, hugely.
> People that spread misinformation that result in death or constant harassment should be held accountable too.
Our jails would be full just from covid stuff.
But mostly full of government officials, so that’s not a bad thing.
what about the parents of those? they had their entire life to raise them towards not doing that, how are they not charged for the bad influence
Eh, they didn't expect a fucking adult would go online and try to get their kids to kill themselves.
This guy was 51 years old. You think his 70 yr old parents should be charged with a crime here?
no because they can’t make more
Wow
mseg09 t1_is5uj47 wrote
One thing that always baffled me (among others) is his wife sticking by him through it all. I can understand in a case where you believe your spouse is innocent, but that wasn't his defense. I can't imagine sticking with my spouse after finding out they enjoy going online to encourage people to kill themselves