Makes me wonder, how much does a professional hitman pay troll factories for white washing the crime with “but how do you know it wasn’t a suicide”, specially the ones that are equally professional about it not being flagrant? How much does it compare to cases in Russia for people suiciding out of windows with multiple gunshots?
When something isn’t clearly black and white, without the facts and investigative research, continuing to discuss it usually makes it end up becoming a 50-50% grey area that grossly distorts as much as a completely black and white presumption would. In those cases, the initial “gut feeling” impression and the general education and awareness of a person involved may end up corresponding more to the reality, specially in cases actively trying to suppress the truth.
“Boeing”, a non-living fictional mythos that has been accepted as a “person” so that the industrial revolution could be fueled, did not kill him. But there were plenty of psychopaths with power and influence who would have been affected by his deposition. some who’ve also been spearheading expansion into countries where dealing with and coming to compromises with its lowest ethical lowlifes (some of them also being potential or existing customers) would have been a necessity.
It’s too bad he didn’t write a short letter saying the same thing and give it to her for safekeeping. As of right now all we have is her word. I’m hopeful that she’ll testify.
You don’t have to give bastards the benefit of the doubt. That’s how they win, by taking advantage of your desire for fairness when they have none of their own.
I don’t know whether or not he killed himself, and I strongly suspect he didn’t, but I sure as hell know this warrants an intense and thorough investigation. All company and private emails of executives, with forensics to determine if anything was deleted. Long interrogations to see if alibis match up.
There isn’t enough evidence to throw the book at Boeing, but there is enough to search every single little thing related to them.
There isn’t enough evidence to throw the book at Boeing, but there is enough to search every single little thing related to them.
What am I missing? What evidence is there at all that they did it? Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly highly suspicious that they were involved, but you have to have a lot more than suspicion.
His death, under suspicious circumstances, objectively benefits Boeing in an ongoing criminal investigation.
This is motive, not evidence.
That seems like sufficient justification to conduct an investigation.
The fact that he has died is sufficient justification to conduct an investigation, and I’m sure they will. But the claim was that they have enough evidence against Boeing to subpoena basically everything they have. And Boeing having a motive to kill someone is not evidence that they did it, and would not pass a judge if anyone were to seek some kind of warrant.
Not sure why you’re being down voted, what you are saying is accurate. I guess the others are of the “Boeing is bad, therefore it’s pitchfork time” mindset and not justice and due process.
Same shit’s been said ever since the caveman developed complex enough language to say. That’s a lazy, tired, and vacuous trope you’re mindlessly spouting there, tiger.
That’s cavemen for you. Always getting angry over stones being thrown but not realizing they’re throwing the exact same stone.
I mean your response to an over-generalization is to increase the level of generalization to include literal cavemen. I wonder at what point cavemen developed a sense of irony?
It’s important to remember that whistleblowing is extremely stressful, so much that it’s one of the main things the government talks about on their whistleblowing site:
Practice self-care and stress-reducing activities throughout your whistleblowing process. It is common to experience toxic forms of retaliation – from professional isolation to gaslighting (manipulating someone by psychological means into questioning their own sanity) – which can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or even thoughts of harm.
Researchers have found the same thing, being a whistleblower is terrible for your mental health:
About 85% suffered from severe to very severe anxiety, depression, interpersonal sensitivity and distrust, agoraphobia symptoms, and/or sleeping problems, and 48% reached clinical levels of these specific mental health problems. These specific mental health problems were much more prevalent than among the general population.
In addition, “Half of Patients With Suicidal Thoughts Deny It”
Not only did approximately 50% of people with suicidal thoughts deny having those thoughts, roughly 50% of people who had died by suicide, and 30% of people who had attempted suicide had denied having suicidal ideation in the week or month beforehand.
Furthermore, in many cases, people who had disclosed in apps and on paper that they had thoughts of suicide then denied that they had suicidal ideation when questioned directly in face-to-face assessments or interviews. For example, in one study, nearly 60% of those who reported their suicidal ideation on an app then denied their suicidal ideation in a telephone interview less than 24 hours later.
So, just because he denied he was suicidal doesn’t mean that’s necessarily true. He might have been trying to appear strong to everyone while suffering in silence.
This should definitely be investigated as possibly being murder. And, even if the investigation does determine that he shot himself, they should keep looking to see if he was being blackmailed or if he might have been pressured into suicide.
I just can’t imagine an executive at Boeing going out and hiring a hit man. But, what I can imagine them doing is hiring a team of private investigators to go through this guy’s entire life and dig up every bit of dirt on him. It could be they found something really embarrassing and were going to blackmail him with it. It could be that they found something innocent that they could frame as being awful, like to make him look like he was a child molester or something.
I just can’t imagine an executive at Boeing going out and hiring a hit man
Really? That’s weird, I totally can. It’s an exceptionally narrow-minded and short-sighted knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat of one’s executive career. Most coked-out executives already have a massive god complex once they get their MBA and are installed above the proles workers. I can absolutely realistically imagine one Boeing executive getting angry enough and coked-out enough to just decide, “fuck it, I’m going to fix this problem for us before he threatens my career and reputation any more”.
The information you present about whistleblowing being stressful is fair. He may indeed have been driven to kill himself instead of being straight-up assassinated like others believe. I refuse, however, to give the benefit of doubt to a massive corporation who has already demonstrated a complete lack of regard for human life and an extremely poor track record of moral and ethical decision-making. This needs to be investigated under the assumption that a hit is an entirely possible reality. Unless you’d rather that nobody blows the whistle on anything in the future - you’ve already demonstrated that it’s an incredibly stressful action. If there’s the lingering remote possibility that you can be simply assassinated over it and everyone will look the other way, nobody will ever raise their voice again. The nature of his actions before his death demand a comprehensive and exhaustive investigation into if any person from Boeing had anything to do with it whatsoever, or whistleblowing will continue sliding into something only the insane consider.
While Boeing executives may be criminals, they’re pretty much exclusively white collar criminals. They went to business school, not the military. They come from rich households. They don’t have gang or organized crime affiliations. How would they know anything about hiring hit men?
Hiring a firm to do PR and to dig up dirt on a whistleblower, sure, that’s within their skillset. That’s even something they can brag about in board meetings because it’s legal. It’s the kind of thing they can google, or have a secretary research for them. It doesn’t matter if transcripts leak. But, hiring a hit man, how do they know they won’t get caught – and this time for the kind of crime where people actually get sent to real prisons?
This needs to be investigated under the assumption that a hit is an entirely possible reality.
Sure, they should work under the assumption that it was a very careful hitman who made it look like a suicide. They should be 10x more careful than they normally would if they even suspected it might be a suicide. But, I still think driving him to suicide is much more likely.
IMO, the kind of press this is getting is part of the reason I don’t think it was a hit. If this were Russia, sure. A hit sends the message to anybody else that they better not think of doing the same thing. The press will tell whatever story the government wants. Even on social media nobody very few people will speak up in Russia. But, in the US, this death is going to draw so much more attention to Boeing. Just look at how many articles there are about the whistleblower’s death vs. how many there were about him beforehand. Corporations are used to managing news cycles when it comes to legal cases and congressional hearings. Those are boring and don’t tend to go viral. But a whistleblower dying as he was giving testimony, that’s exciting, it’s like the movies, so it’s all everyone’s going to talk about.
Unless he had even more damaging information that he somehow didn’t give to anybody yet, despite the fact he had already been testifying, it seems like the damage his death does is much higher than the damage his testimony would have done.
But, in the US, this death is going to draw so much more attention to Boeing.
Attention sure, nothing will happen to Boeing though. They own too many politicians, and too many powerful people need them to stay where they are. I have no doubt they killed him.
If there’s evidence they organized a concerted effort to drive someone to suicide, definitely. Otherwise they’re just culpable for gross violations of safety that have cost lives of airline passengers.
While Boeing executives may be criminals, they’re pretty much exclusively white collar criminals. They went to business school, not the military. They come from rich households. They don’t have gang or organized crime affiliations. How would they know anything about hiring hit men?
Ah yes, thank you for proving my point. People who watch too many movies think that real life is like movies.
What’s next? Getting shot makes you fly backwards through the air? Getting knocked out makes you unconscious for hours, but you wake up with nothing more than a sore head? Silencers go “thwpt” and nobody can hear them from more than a meter away?
Ah yes, thank you for proving my point. People who watch too many movies think that real life is like movies.
What’s next? Getting shot makes you fly backwards through the air? Getting knocked out makes you unconscious for hours, but you wake up with nothing more than a sore head? Silencers go “thwpt” and nobody can hear them from more than a meter away?
Dude, relax, no need to be rude. It’s just a humorous Internet forum comment, that makes a valid point.
Or are you trying to tell me that powerful corporations don’t have very strong security departments with connections?
Or are you trying to tell me that powerful corporations don’t have very strong security departments with connections?
They have security departments filled with normal people who the execs couldn’t trust to do something like this (or order something like this) without ratting them out. They don’t order hits. That’s movie stuff, like every grocery bag must have a baguette and greens poking out of it, or turning on your TV at the exact moment a news report starts.
Just the bottom line this, we’re not going to agree, but you’d have to be pretty naive to think that those kind of things, with billions of dollars and economies hanging in the balance, doesn’t really happen.
Life imitates art in some ways, but people getting shot in the shoulder still have fucked up shoulders and often die, no matter how much movies want you to believe that it’s a wound you can just shrug off.
Similarly, executives make business decisions that result in thousands of people dying. But, executives in multi-billion dollar companies don’t contract out to hitmen to murder people who hurt their companies. That’s just movie stuff, and you’re naive to think it happens in reality.
I made a decision based on reality. I didn’t decide someone had hired a hitman to kill a whistleblower because it seemed realistic to me based on watching too many movies. Believing that is also “pulling it out of your ass”, but without any basis in actual reality.
Very much so. It would be hard to believe they would do it themselves. However, enrolling the right assistance should not be too difficult for them. They even have access to more options than the average business executive.
They went to business school, not the military.
They are not military, but they have plenty of contacts there. Boeing is a big player in the military industry, they certainly know a lot of people in that world, both in government positions and the private sector.
They don’t have gang or organized crime affiliations.
Several of them don’t, but organized crime is within reach. Illegal recreational drugs are not uncommon in the business world. Dealers are more often than not connected to the organized crime. Networking in that world is something within business people’s skills.
Hey, who knows, maybe some of those execs started working many years ago as humble machine gun and bazooka salespeople. And who knows what kind of interesting characters they met during those days. While totally not burying their heads into a mountain of white powder sitting in the middle of the table.
driving him to suicide is much more likely.
It is very likely. High stress would have played against him if he was being bullied or threatened. Also, less involved than having them murdered.
it seems like the damage his death does is much higher than the damage his testimony would have done.
Depends on what you consider damage here. The testimony could have been perceived as a threat to important business deals (and to bonuses). It is not infrequent to see executives caring only about their profits, even in detriment of the company as a whole.
They are not military, but they have plenty of contacts there.
They may have contracts with generals, but not much in the way with soldiers on the ground. If it were a defence contractor that made small arms, then maybe. But, this is Boeing.
Illegal recreational drugs are not uncommon in the business world
Sure… but executives don’t go to the bad parts of town to get them. The guy they’re buying from is most likely someone who can travel in C-Suite circles and not draw attention. Maybe they’re also a member of the golf club and have a legitimate business as a cover. The execs aren’t getting in their Mercedes and cruising down to the ghetto to score. The dealers may have connections to organized crime, but not in a way that is obvious to anyone.
Hey, who knows, maybe some of those execs started working many years ago as humble machine gun and bazooka salespeople.
We know, their profiles are public.
The Boeing CEO, David L. Calhoun:
After graduating from college, Calhoun was hired by General Electric (GE). He decided to join GE in part because he would be working in Lehigh Valley in eastern Pennsylvania, where he grew up.[3] He worked at GE for 26 years, overseeing transportation, aircraft engines, reinsurance, lighting and other GE units, before being appointed vice chairman and a member of GE’s Board of Directors in 2005.[
The COO, Stephanie Pope:
Pope was an Eisenhower Fellow in Brussels and Ireland in 2008 and has a bachelor’s degree in accounting from Southwest Missouri State University and a Master of Business Administration from Lindenwood University.
Pope joined Boeing in 1994 and rose through the ranks to take on senior-level roles at all three of the company’s key businesses.
The CFO, Brian West:
West received a bachelor’s degree in finance from Siena College and a Master of Business Administration from the Columbia Business School.
Previously, West spent 16 years at General Electric, where he served as chief financial officer of GE Aviation and chief financial officer of GE Engine Services.
The Chair, Supply Chain Operations Council, William A. Ampofo II:
Ampofo has a bachelor’s degree in finance from Adelphi University and a Master of Business Administration from George Washington University.
Before joining The Boeing Company in April 2016, Ampofo spent 22 years at United Technologies Corporation (UTC), holding roles of increasing responsibility in finance, information technology, corporate strategy and operations at its corporate headquarters and its Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky and UTC Aerospace Systems (UTAS) divisions.
Just look through their execs and find anybody with even a hint of dirt under their fingernails:
It is not infrequent to see executives caring only about their profits, even in detriment of the company as a whole.
Sure, so they hire PR firms, and private investigators, and call up friendly reporters to try to get them to publish a negative article. They aren’t going to order a hit and make it look like a suicide.
So what do you mean by white collar crime? Does it include killing people or not? Because knowingly bringing about systems that result in the death of people, having a private security contractor that you know will shoot striking workers in your third world countries plantation or ordering a hit on someone are all the same. It is decided that people will die for the companies profit and just because the people who order it dont do it directly themselves, doesn’t change the gravity of it.
Also there os myriads of examples from today, where western companies directly or indirectly order people to get killed, just usually in third countries. The idea that a defense company with billions of profits at stake every year doesn’t have access to hitmen is unconvincing. Why wouldn’t they? Just as the mafia is branching into white business, white business of size are employing criminal means.
If you still think there is some unpenetrable divide, all you need is a private detective agency that has a history of dealing with problems “reliably” in the past.
It may mean being responsible for their deaths, but not in a way in which you could be charged for murder.
Also there os myriads of examples from today, where western companies directly or indirectly order people to get killed
Almost always indirectly, and almost never on US soil. Not hiring a hitman to stage a suicide in the US. The kinds of things that US corporations do are the kinds of things they can talk about at board meetings without worrying that they’ll go to jail of the meeting is bugged. They can talk about hiring SecuriCo in Zambia to deal with unrest at the mine. Or, they can talk with hiring the law firm Goldman, Burke and Mott to deal with the bad PR from the whistleblower. They’re not going to chat about going onto a dark web server to hire a hit man to kill a whistleblower. That’s movie stuff, not reality.
Get your history correct atleast. East India Company was in charge of India until 1857 and squeezed it dry. It was basically an early blueprint of modern day capitalism and imperialism.
I was off by a couple of centuries, but it’s hardly relevant now. If the most recent example of bad corporate behaviour you can find is from a company that was dissolved 150 years ago, you don’t have much of an argument.
These guys approved MCAS knowing it could create situations that were were unrecoverable.
Yes, white collar crime.
If that’s “white collar crime” then so is hiring a hitman.
You’re being rather naive. Sure, those bosses would have a hard time doing violence on other people, personally. But through another person? Nah. The same as approving MCAS, knowing it will kill people.
Also, you need to take a basic history lesson. “1400’s” is a really bad guess.
If that’s “white collar crime” then so is hiring a hitman.
No, it isn’t. If you hire a hitman you can be tried for conspiracy to commit murder. If you approve a system that could be unsafe for an airplane, your company might have to pay a fine. They’re vastly different crimes, even if one results in a lot more deaths.
You’re being rather naive
You watch too many movies.
Sure, those bosses would have a hard time doing violence on other people, personally. But through another person? Nah
They might have the mindset required to hire a hitman. But, they don’t have the connections. They also don’t want to take on the personal liability of doing that. These are almost all finance guys who have MBAs. They wouldn’t make a decision like this on their own, and they wouldn’t be able to talk about it in a board meeting without risking a conspiracy charge.
The MCAS decision is ridiculous, but it exactly the kind of thing they can discuss in a board meeting without risking criminal charges. Even if the meeting had been recorded, the transcript would be boring board-room talk, nothing that they could be indicted for.
They might have the mindset required to hire a hitman. But, they don’t have the connections.
Anyone can find a hitman online, all it takes is 15min to get to know how deep web markets work. They’re by far the least reliable service ofc, but it is sold and there are escrow services as well. How well they work in cases like that is a whole other matter, but I, personally, find it rather ludicrous a suggestion that a high-level Boeing boss who manages the complexities of a job like that (especially when simultaneously playing Jenga with airline safety) wouldn’t be able to figure out how to access a black market.
Especially when they could always hire a person to do that for them. Do they trust anyone at all, with any of their criminal shenanigans? Well surely the co-conspirators at least. These massive, systemic changes that made Boeing go from trusted airline to killing whistleblowers weren’t the actions of one man.
And if there was a group of men, then it’s shared responsibility. Even if they conspire to hire a hitman. It doesn’t feel as much like a violent crime when it’s done in white-collars and agreed on in a fancy hotel suite.
Especially when they could always hire a person to do that for them. Do they trust anyone at all, with any of their criminal shenanigans?
Yes, and that’s the problem. This isn’t the sort of thing an executive would do on their own without talking to other execs about it. If they did that they’d have to trust that the other execs would back them up and not turn them in. And, this is a real, serious crime. This isn’t a crime where the company has to pay a fine. This is a crime where they would personally be liable for conspiracy to commit murder.
These massive, systemic changes that made Boeing go from trusted airline to killing whistleblowers weren’t the actions of one man.
Exactly my point. Those took a whole group of executives discussing their plans openly in meetings. They wouldn’t discuss actually breaking the law in meetings like that. Instead, they’d talk about who they’d have to lobby to get the laws changed how they wanted, what pressure they could put on regulators, what kinds of PR campaigns they’d need to run, etc. Those are things that people might see as dishonest and unethical, but they’re all legal. If someone in the meeting objected to the decisions, they’d have a little debate and then some decision would be made. The other execs wouldn’t have to worry that the conversation would leak and they’d be charged with serious crimes. If the conversation leaked there might be a bit of embarrassment, they’d have to hire a PR firm, and done.
The decisions they made almost certainly cost lives, but even if you had transcripts for those meetings, even an ambitious prosecutor probably couldn’t find any actual crimes being committed. The execs at Boeing almost all have finance backgrounds, so most of the meetings would have been about money, and how much they could save while keeping an “acceptable safety margin” – which we might not think is acceptable, but they’d have the lawyers to argue that it was acceptable.
You don’t go from open discussions about how to increase profits by outsourcing work to discussing how to hire a hitman to kill one of your whistleblowers. That’s suddenly stuff where the people in the room would be chargeable for conspiracy to commit murder.
The Mitchell & Webb parody proves my point. Removing Webb’s character makes it back into a movie scenario. His character shows just how ludicrous those movie scenes really are. At some point when murder is being discussed, someone is going to actually have to check “just to be clear, you mean murder, right?”. Because you’re not going to order to have someone murdered just because the CFO used an ambiguous term.
If I were to link a bunch of drug busts, would it make drug markets any smaller?
Like I said, they’re the most unreliable service, but you really don’t have to be that smart to use one responsibly. It’s not like going on Craigslist looking for a guy who thinks he’s hidden himself by using incognito mode.
“rentahitman.com” lol might as well set up a stand called “we sell meth here mister police man”. I hope you do realise the impossibility of me proving just how many successful hit jobs there have been which no-one was ever caught?
No, see they can all talk about this particular person being a problem, in the board room. Without talking about anything criminal, or even thinking about anything criminal towards him.
But later in the night, a few of those execs are getting drunk in a fancy suite, doing blow. They know what they’ve done vis-a-vis the airline jenga. There’s even evidence against them. They would be stressed. Substance abuse is very common in the business world, as are dark triad personality traits and the occasional psychotic behaviour. (CEO psychopathy prevalence is something fierce compared to the average.)
If there’s enough plausible deniability and shared responsibility, those people rarely do. Even when it’s very clear death was indirectly caused by some of the decision of the leaders, they rarely get into trouble.
Ofc conspiracy to murder is a bit different than cooking the books for instance, but when we’re talking about airline safety, they’re not too dissimilar
Sorry for the second reply, we’re both avid talkers and I’ve already taken half an ambien.
At some point when murder is being discussed, someone is going to actually have to check "just to be clear, you mean murder, right?
With all respect, I disagree. And I’ve been friends with actual murderers. Well a murderer. I mean, I only knew him after his sentence, dk what he did when he did the murdering. Just that I’ve been in circles with a lot of people’s who’ve done various crimes, and unless theyre referring to their trials or sentences or something, they never mention the crime. It’s all euphemisms.
The actual confirmation bit would be online with an escrow service, after finding s reliable one.
unless theyre referring to their trials or sentences or something, they never mention the crime. It’s all euphemisms.
I can imagine that if you’re someone who assumes they’re being bugged all the time. Like, Mafiosi wanting to talk business without actually saying something that could be used in court against them. But, I don’t think that’s the world that Boeing execs live in.
Most low level users are in that group, being so pissed if you ever mention the real name of anything. Before actually good protected comm apps like Wickr, Signal etc, buying drugs was such a hassle. Sometimes two people would meet only to realise that neither of them have drugs, they both want to buy.
I don’t think the execs live in a world where people have to spell out murder if they’re gonna murder someone.
Your naiveness is super precious. You can’t see someone with incredible amounts of wealth hiring someone else to make a problem go away?
OK! Next time, you should try a couple of Google searches before wasting all that time typing out nonsense. I didn’t even finish the first page of search results, there were so many. And they are just the ones dumb enough to get caught.
Again, did you even read this link? This isn’t an executive in a multi-billion dollar defense contractor. This is an “executive” at a family-owned auto dealership.
Another one I know you didn’t read. Again, this isn’t a multi-billion dollar defense contractor, this is a tiny company with only 50 employees. And, most importantly, he tried to hire a hitman and failed.
Yet another one you didn’t read. Yes, it’s “Amazon”, but it’s Amazon Mexico. The hit happened in Mexico City. It was also his wife that he arranged to have killed, not an enemy of Amazon’s business. And, importantly, if his goal was to get away with murder, he failed. The hitman he hired testified against him.
If you think this happens, find an example where it’s:
A hit ordered by an exec of a multi-billion dollar company
Against an enemy of the company (not settling personal scores)
It happened in the US, and an American was killed
You probably believe you can find one of those, because you’re adorably naïve and watch a lot of exciting movies. But, I’m betting you won’t find any. But, great job googling “exec” and “hitman”, you really showed your google-fu. I just wish you’d read the links you posted and saved me some time.
There’s maybe an absurd theory no one has considered: He worried that the accusations weren’t going to be taken seriously, so he killed himself in a relatively suspicious manner/timing, to make sure public trust in Boeing disappeared.
Are you under the impression that the evidence would point to murder but the government wouldn’t investigate that? Obviously it will be investigated. The “people at the top” would be prosecuted if there was evidence they were involved, and not prosecuted if there is no evidence. That is what we want from the government.
You can’t read one headline, assume you know exactly who did exactly what illegal thing, and then immediately declare conspiracy because the evidence doesn’t currently prove your made up claims.
Well corpos are people now, so I think Boeing should be put on a bus to Texas and summarily executed for its crimes against humanity and treason against US persons.
Different conversation. Was talking about the effects of GnRH on the body, it led to a conversation of the similar effects of birth control on kids. I mentioned how I didn’t like the idea of kids needing to take birth control, which then brings us to that comment.
The kids in question would have been 12, right around when puberty starts. So the “sorry you didn’t get laid in high school” sure fucking sounds like this person is saying that they think it’s normal for high schoolers to fuck 12 year olds. You can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, I’ve drawn mine.
Edit: you can look through my comments, I stand by everything I’ve said.
Ah, I see. From what limited info you’ve given here, it sounds like you blew a common saying way out of proportion, but maybe I’m missing some of the more important context.
The context is children taking puberty blockers, which means taking them at around 12 years old.
The context is exactly what I stated it as, I have blown exactly nothing out of proportion. I gave them the opportunity to explain themselves originally, they declined by not responding, so tell me exactly what conclusion should I draw?
“Oh it’s fine that this person insulted me when I’m expressing my feelings (I cannot believe I just referred to being creeped out by kids taking birth control and fucking high schoolers as feelings), they deserve the respect they didn’t give me.”
Absolutely not, if the above is what you’re suggesting you can have these hands too.
Edit: I have to add, I did just randomly find this person again. I did not go out of my way to follow their comments. I just realized that might seem possible.
Edit: I have to add, I did just randomly find this person again.
I… regardless, bringing this unrelated beef into this thread is a rude fucking thing to do to both them and us. Like i haven’t seen this level of pettiness in a good bit.
Keep it in your own thread. Isn’t that like a golden Internet rule?
kids taking birth control and fucking high schoolers
I think this is the issue. These are two separate statements and you’re conflating them.
“Someone didn’t get laid in high school” is a pretty common phrase that just means you’re lame. I think it’s a coincidence that the original topic was prepubescent puberty blockers.
The alternative is that someone just decided out of nowhere to proclaim their love for pedophilia. I think it’s far more likely that you misunderstood them.
My comment: My point is moreso that kids shouldn’t be having sex, but sure yeah. Read into it guys.
Their response: Sorry you couldn’t get laid in high school.
Really? So you really think this is out of context? When it is quite literally the context? I have a feeling I’m going to get snapped from this thread at some point so I sent you a DM.
I do, actually. I mean really, take a step back and think about it. Why would someone just casually advocate for a sexual relationship between high schoolers and 18 year olds? That’s not how conversations work. That’s not how people work.
His point was just, “actually, kids do have sex, a lot, even if you weren’t aware of it when you were a kid”.
I feel like you’re trying to turn this into a pedophilia thing. It’s such a stretch. You misunderstood, and you decided that the worst possible interpretation was the one you were gonna go with.
The original thread was about puberty blockers being blocked by NHS when prescribed to kids with gender dysphoria.
At no point did a specific age come up, but it’s assumed that puberty blockers would be most effective before puberty.
However by this point in the thread, Jax had commented that they didn’t feel comfortable with kids taking birth control, a different tangent.
I responded, in sarcastic tone (and to a reply to Jax’s post, as in, to a third party), as if surprised to learn that people should be taking birth control or receiving HPV vaccines before they start having sex (as in, not when they start having sex).
Jax responds that they just aren’t comfortable with kids having sex.
I respond with the quote above, Jax replies with:
So you’re either suggesting that 12 year olds should be fucking high schoolers, or you’re just too dumb to think about what you said. I’ll give you a few minutes.
I don’t know where that leap came from, but it followed me here a day or two later.
A lot of shitty things are done under the guise of, “It makes me feel uncomfortable”
Trans people especially, anything to do with them really, Oh I make you uncomfortable, guess we will just magically stop existing.
And for the uncomfortable people out there, most times the “stop existing” thing, comes in the form of unaliving because we aren’t cis like everyone else… that’s kinda the whole thing
I think there’s a real Red Scare style trend among zoomers with regards to pedophilia. Any time they can find the slightest pretext to link someone to pedophilia, they’ll do it and then call a mob with pitchforks.
I swear if I am ever a whistleblower I am going to hire someone for minimum wage to hang out in my hotel room while I sleep and they can play on their phone, eat burritos, and play video games until the trial is fully over. And also make sure they have the ability to livestream the moment something weird happens.
Also I don’t know put a thousand or so videos on YouTube with email links to everyone I have ever known with me saying all the damaging stuff and that I am not suicidal.
$60 or so dollars a day is worth it to me to not get silenced like a fucking Russian critic.
Cameras everywhere, all the time, backed up to the cloud in multiple locations. A copy on a private server would be ideal. It’s not foolproof but it’s better than nothing.
You can still be silenced like a few US presidents. Or even blown up with explosives. Even the government pulled that one on those anarchists in Philadelphia. Because wiping out your entire neighborhood to get rid of you could very well be on the table.
Add comment