Body Found in Wyoming Park ‘Consistent With the Description' of Gabby Petito - FBI confirmed - Brian Laundrie still missing, FBI searched his home

[Chongqing]

If his parents were hiding him, they were obstructing justice tho...

That doesn't mean their neighbors would be morally correct to lynch them today (or at any time). I feel like that's what you're saying, if you take your point to its logical conclusion. I'm saying no.

If the parents committed a crime, the authorities will investigate it and they'll be arrested and tried for it under the law. That's what it means to live in a civilized country, and not under the mob justice of China or equally shithole countries.

 

[Akashic Retard]

One of the prevailing theories on /x/ that I've seen is that neither of these people exist, and that this is a gov psyop to distract drama-hungry normies from actual news. A part of me believes that this is plausible, which is a sign I might actually be going nuts. No, I won't take my meds.
View attachment 2554893

Do not succumb to this fantastical retardation

 

[Indifferent]

If his parents were hiding him, they were obstructing justice tho...

But they're not?

 

[Chongqing]

I'm sorry friend, but this is abolute lunacy. You legit believe people weren't mad into Ted Bundy, Charles Manson and other loonies until a fucking podcast in 2014?

Yeah, that's right. I don't think that in the 1960's I would have known the name of some random woman with no money who was killed by her husband in some random state I've never been to. I don't think I'd be aware of it. But hey, maybe you're right.

Charles Manson and Ted Bundy were mass murderers, not one-off killers like in the true crime cases of today. Of course they were super famous in newspapers and media for killing many people, as well as the pure spectacle of how gory their killings were. It was also interesting how they manipulated women (there's your connection from back then to the true crime of now, I guess that helps make your case). But now the new culture, the saturation, the fact it's a genre, the popularity of it. The environment of true crime today makes these killers and victims into stars in ways unseen prior to 2014.

Don't believe me? Look at Scott Peterson of Modesto. I can't tell you a thing about his case, although he got huge amounts of coverage. Post 2014, I can tell you everything Adnan Sayed did for like two days leading up to a random person's murder.

 

[Slobs]

That doesn't mean their neighbors would be morally correct to lynch them today (or at any time). I feel like that's what you're saying, if you take your point to its logical conclusion. I'm saying no.

If the parents committed a crime, the authorities will investigate it and they'll be arrested and tried for it under the law. That's what it means to live in a civilized country, and not under the mob justice of China or equally shithole countries.

In the meantime you just have to cope, seethe and dilate.

Nonono, you don't get it. There are women and shrill low-test manchildren who are angry and want their milk NOW. You can't just deny them their swift mob justice! ...Unless of course you're a woman-hating incel?

 

[Desktop User2]

I feel like that's what you're saying, if you take your point to its logical conclusion. I'm saying no.

That´s a massive reach... from saying they could be considered felons by obstructing justice to justifying lynching, much more claiming this is the logical conclusion of my point.

 

[Gimmick Account]

Do not succumb to this fantastical retardation

No, succumb. Do it.

Yeah, that's right. I don't think that in the 1960's I would have known the name of some random woman with no money who was killed by her husband in some random state I've never been to. I don't think I'd be aware of it. But hey, maybe you're right.

Charles Manson and Ted Bundy were mass murderers, not one-off killers like in the true crime cases of today. Of course they were super famous in newspapers and media for killing many people, as well as the pure spectacle of how gory their killings were. It was also interesting how they manipulated women (there's your connection from back then to the true crime of now, I guess that helps make your case). But now the new culture, the saturation, the fact it's a genre, the popularity of it. The environment of true crime today makes these killers and victims into stars in ways unseen prior to 2014.

Don't believe me? Look at Scott Peterson of Modesto. I can't tell you a thing about his case, although he got huge amounts of coverage. Post 2014, I can tell you everything Adnan Sayed did for like two days leading up to a random person's murder.

Well you're wrong as fuck because I remember wall-to-wall true crime documentary bullshit on late night TV in the 00s, and I have relatives who were Manson-heads when I was a kid. You even mentioned OJ yourself.
Sure more obscure killers get more attention now than they would have, but that's just a symptom of a general broadening and shift in media towards less focused platforms which applies to everything. Niche characters can get niche audiences now when they couldn't have before, but I don't know how that's "bigger" than the OJ trial having a live audience of 150 million.

It's evolved with reality television trends and consumption habits, it's not the same as it was, but this shit has been evergreen since stuff like Jack the Ripper my dude

 

[Sektor 37]

So is there something noteworthy about this chick that's got everybody so worked up?

It seems like just another unremarkable pretty-white-girl-missing story that hits the national news every year or so.

In some respects, it seems to be more of murder-mystery series than a single 'event'. Clues and video have been regularly popping up from the beginning, so it's less about the girl herself than the improbable drama the whole thing has become. If all of this had happened in one day, it wouldn't be getting much attention at all.

 

[Nobunaga]

No, succumb. Do it.


Well you're wrong as fuck because I remember wall-to-wall true crime documentary bullshit on late night TV in the 00s, and I have relatives who were Manson-heads when I was a kid. You even mentioned OJ yourself.
Sure more obscure killers get more attention now than they would have, but that's just a symptom of a general broadening and shift in media towards less focused platforms which applies to everything. Niche characters can get niche audiences now when they couldn't have before, but I don't know how that's "bigger" than the OJ trial having a live audience of 150 million.

It's evolved with reality television trends and consumption habits, it's not the same as it was, but this shit has been evergreen since stuff like Jack the Ripper my dude

You forgot shit like jack the ripper

 

[Sektor 37]

I get that your account is a troll, but I feel the need to respond anyway...

You're a blood traitor and a cunt.

I noticed a reply to that a couple comments down saying "I'm glad I clicked the spoiler". Which I then did, and then I was too.

 

[Rekkington]

Real advice...Take showers everyday, comb your hair, exercise and eat healthy, act like the version of yourself you want to be, get a girlfriend, have sex. Congratulations you have succeeded at life.

Shut up faggot.

 

[Gimmick Account]

You forgot shit like jack the reaper

uhhh is that you john wayne

 

[Rekkington]

Nah, that's too much work for the government. They don't manufacture the crime, they manfuacture the media response.

Murders/disappearances happen all the time. They just prop juicy ones up when they need people to pay attention to something else.

It's easier to manufacture a crime than an entire media response. That's why they kill people.

 

[Wuornos]

I think annoying women should be iced too and I'm a woman. Saves me from having to listen to their whining.

You don't have to try so hard..

 

[Milwaukee Macho Man]

It's easier to manufacture a crime than an entire media response. That's why they kill people.

My point was there is no reason to manufacture the crime because the crimes happen regardless.

But the idea that manfacturing a media response is difficult at all is absurd when most news organizations are owned by a single entity.

or have we already forgotten the controversy over the Sinclair Broadcast Script?

 

[Rekkington]

Yeah, that's right. I don't think that in the 1960's I would have known the name of some random woman with no money who was killed by her husband in some random state I've never been to. I don't think I'd be aware of it. But hey, maybe you're right.

Charles Manson and Ted Bundy were mass murderers, not one-off killers like in the true crime cases of today. Of course they were super famous in newspapers and media for killing many people, as well as the pure spectacle of how gory their killings were. It was also interesting how they manipulated women (there's your connection from back then to the true crime of now, I guess that helps make your case). But now the new culture, the saturation, the fact it's a genre, the popularity of it. The environment of true crime today makes these killers and victims into stars in ways unseen prior to 2014.

Don't believe me? Look at Scott Peterson of Modesto. I can't tell you a thing about his case, although he got huge amounts of coverage. Post 2014, I can tell you everything Adnan Sayed did for like two days leading up to a random person's murder.

Before this was Nancy Grace and a host of other independent productions following killers. Before Nancy Grace there was coverage of killers going back to the 50s and before, people were always retarded for this.
In fact you could argue absent big cases people invented it more, that's where all the pulp stories came from. Absent true crime we just had film noir and people just inventing these sorts of cases cause people were so hungry for it. So in that case the only thing that has changed is access to media and data, and the proliferation of sources of inquiry. But I wouldn't say the exposure of the core thing itself has changed much.

The other difference was the news was permitted to call them degenerates and scumbags, now we have to pretend they're sick and need help so we might be less likely to blast this shit all over the news. We used to have headlines like "Ghastly Slaying of Young Virgin by Feral Negro," back when we were cool.

 

[Gimmick Account]

My point was there is no reason to manufacture the crime because the crimes happen regardless.

I think this totally depends on who and why. If all you want is a distraction it's most expedient to just pick something and spin it up. If you're trying to manipulate policy and want something bespoke, or to justify the existence of your bureau and related parasitic industries at the expense of accumulating cultural entropy that eventually drives all of civilisation insane, then that's your day job anyway.
Something like this would definitely be in the former category almost certainly but something about it has my ARG gland tingling for some reason.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

You don't have to try so hard..

Whiny bitch confirmed.

 

[Chongqing]

Before this was Nancy Grace and a host of other independent productions following killers. Before Nancy Grace there was coverage of killers going back to the 50s and before, people were always retarded for this.
In fact you could argue absent big cases people invented it more, that's where all the pulp stories came from. Absent true crime we just had film noir and people just inventing these sorts of cases cause people were so hungry for it. So in that case the only thing that has changed is access to media and data, and the proliferation of sources of inquiry. But I wouldn't say the exposure of the core thing itself has changed much.

The other difference was the news was permitted to call them degenerates and scumbags, now we have to pretend they're sick and need help so we might be less likely to blast this shit all over the news. We used to have headlines like "Ghastly Slaying of Young Virgin by Feral Negro," back when we were cool.

Yeah, I was thinking about bringing up Nancy Grace and the Duke Lacrosse case, but I figured it's not as relevant because Nancy Grace was almost universally hated, even if she had a show on HLN at the time.

No, succumb. Do it.


Well you're wrong as fuck because I remember wall-to-wall true crime documentary bullshit on late night TV in the 00s, and I have relatives who were Manson-heads when I was a kid. You even mentioned OJ yourself.
Sure more obscure killers get more attention now than they would have, but that's just a symptom of a general broadening and shift in media towards less focused platforms which applies to everything. Niche characters can get niche audiences now when they couldn't have before, but I don't know how that's "bigger" than the OJ trial having a live audience of 150 million.

It's evolved with reality television trends and consumption habits, it's not the same as it was, but this shit has been evergreen since stuff like Jack the Ripper my dude

It's sounds like you agree with me completely but your Gen-X saltiness won't allow you to.

Rich celebrities like OJ Simpson who kill people? Yes, always been huge. People who kill many celebrities like Marilyn Manson? Yes, huge. People who kill so many people in a city that people's patterns changed, like Jack the Ripper or the DC Snipers? Yes, widely studied and huge.

But if you look at what you said in bold, you'll see we're of the same mind. I doubt your Manson-head relatives would have found the domestic violence mystery radio documentaries of today to be interesting, but maybe they would have. The same way, most true crime wine moms probably never studied the DC Snipers, since it's not based on intimate partner violence that could have been prevented by government overreach.

 

[Gimmick Account]

It's sounds like you agree with me completely but your Gen-X saltiness won't allow you to.

Rich celebrities like OJ Simpson who kill people? Yes, always been huge. People who kill many celebrities like Marilyn Manson? Yes, huge. People who kill so many people in a city that people's patterns changed, like Jack the Ripper or the DC Snipers? Yes, widely studied and huge.

But if you look at what you said in bold, you'll see we're of the same mind. I doubt your Manson-head relatives would have found the domestic violence mystery radio documentaries of today to be interesting, but maybe they would have. The same way, most true crime wine moms probably never studied the DC Snipers, since it's not based on intimate partner violence that could have been prevented by Daddy-government overreach.

Yeah man, I'm the salty one.

I knew you were gonna slide these goalposts around but at least you realised everyone disagreeing with you was right since you've reframed things so that ackshewaly we agreed with you all along.

The wine moms thing you keep stressing makes it pretty clear you've confused this subject with the memes about it which indeed became a thing on October 2, 2013.