voldage @ voldage @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

75

Joined

1 yr. ago

I don't know if middle name is required, and I sort of doubt it seeing as they got city wrong as well. That was most likely typed by hand, someone put in city before asking for ZIP code, I'd wager. Still, that Thomas Crooks would need to live in same neighbourhood, and arguments about it being a democrat that donated repeatedly also couldn't be true unless they moved into this neighbourhood, made this donation, and moved out. At this point what's inconclusive is any argument I've heard against this in my opinion, as most of them are invalidated by either wrong adresses or counts of donations. If you can point me to anyone else who would meet all of the criteria then I'll concede that the evidence about this donation being made by the shooter is not conclusive, before that we can conjure magical creatures and claim it could have been them.

I'll let you know I actively despise you specifically for making my lazy ass repeat due diligence in verifying information for you. This is something you could have researched yourself using advanced modern technologies such as Google. Those materials are openly available, and if you distrust my opinion, then you should never trust any sources I provide instead of researching on your own. You'll notice that all websites I'll provide as sources end with ".gov", which not only means those are somewhat legitimate, but also discoverable by most lazy of fucks. Oh well.

You can check the individual contributions here: https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Thomas+Crooks&contributor_zip=15102

You can check the voter registration status here: https://www.pavoterservices.pa.gov/pages/voterregistrationstatus.aspx

And if you use ActBlue donor data, ZIP code, and all other details we know about the shooter like their birth date and such, you will get this:

If you search on Google Maps for "USA 15102," you will get sent to Bethel Park, PA 15102, which we know the shooter lived in. Here's the "source" for that:

You might notice that on the donor registration there is a location of "PITTSBURGH, PA 15102" instead of Bethel Park, but as far as I understand the USA ZIP code system, that place doesn't exist. 15102 points specifically to Bethel Park. You can try putting "PITTSBURGH, PA 15102" into Google Maps and you'll be sent to Bethel Park. We can then double check if some parts of Pittsburgh are recognized as belonging under 15102 on the USPS ZIP Code Lookup Tool, instead of it being solely used for Bethel Park:

As you can see, it doesn't seem to be the case. So, can anyone else living in Bethel Park with this same name be the person who made the donation? Sure, but the narrative that addresses differ or that the person from this address made multiple donations over the years is fake, as you can clearly see on the donor's receipts, there being only one donation under that ZIP code and name. By the way, you might need to use a VPN to access the www.pavoterservices.pa.gov thing. I used Opera for that as it gave me a free one.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case, I've seen the donation and registration myself and all details matched. So unless those details were altered by someone managing either of those two registries, it doesn't seem like those were made by 2 different people.

Edit: that being said the donation is inconsequential at best, it could have been something like "donate and get a funny hat" or anything like this.

I'm not sure where exactly I've read or heard that, sorry. Those past 2 days were very information dense. I'm sure I've heard it being referenced a few times though, along with the gun having only iron sights.

Imagine if his motivation was to prove he had great aim and that they did him wrong. Maybe he just wanted to become the most well known sniper-assassin in the modern world. Maybe that's the reason he didn't use scope, he wanted his memory to be that of the rifle maverick. I wonder what went through his head after he realised he missed. I mean, other than a bullet.

Right, sorry, it was his wife that outed him for having Hitler speeches book "My New Order" back in 1990, which he apparently kept in a cabinet next to his bed. In the interview he also admitted having a copy of Mein Kampf, though he never openly claimed to read that book often. When he quoted Hitler in 2023 he said it was just a coincidence. Which caused no one to feel uneasy, no one at all. His former chief of staff claimed that Trump praised Hitler for doing some good things, like rebuilding the economy.

So right, sorry, I mixed the "Mein Kampf" for "My New Order", and it was his wife that outed that, he only confirmed.

I see republican voters shooting republican candidates as pretty much reasonable outcome rather than some newly emergent threat to democracy. Trump made his image himself, it was him who decided to harass miniorities and brag about reading Mein Kampf often. It was him who made republican message extreme, provoked an insurrection, had all those criminal charges and appointed obviously corrupt judges. He groomed americans into feeling insecure and threatened and radicalized a lot of them. I think random depressed kids trying to suicide by shooting him is the least he should expect, especially seeing that USA has a gun cult focused around right to bear arms against threats to democracy. Also a child rapist, which alone is enough for millions of people to pull the trigger. You're seriously blaming his bad image on anyone else?

Listen, while I don't know exactly what his circumstances were, I agree he probably didn't like the convicted felon, alleged by victims child rapist and ex president Donald Trump. I share that hunch with you.

I've heard that they have guns so they can protect their democracy.

<broadly gestures at everything>

???

"When I was your age I had to walk to school through 5kms of lava, just to avoid fighting with bears again, it was actually faster if I ran" just kidding I know we don't have money to raise children anymore

That's because it's a Tesla car, silly. It only allows for minimalization of victims down to a minimum of one. I've heard that newer models have a perdiction module, that will deploy a rear mounted gun and shot down any survivors in case of narrowly avoided car crash. The seat still does devour the driver if that happens though, for some legacy backwards compatibility reasons. As for the disembodied Voice that recites all your sins and threatens you to reveal them to the public should you NOT take the wheel and kill those people yourself, it's apparently in spanish as well now. Such an age of wonders.

Well, I didn't say it was less important but that it was less discussed, and that it's regrettable. You're the one pulling the "women are more important" from your ass.

"And yet it is perfectly acceptable for women to call men trash based on their experiences" I literally have no idea where you took that from. I wrote that it's insane to call all men trash and that it's not a general consensus.

Everyone is dangerous. Anyone can have a weapon or other means to cause harm. You having a penis being a cause of concern is only viable as long as you have intent to maliciously use it. If you think people are afraid of you specifically, and specifically because you, ArcaneSlime, have a penis, then I think you need to rethink the way you approach people. No one is treating you as a monster and treating you as one because you're a man is not fine. And if someone is attacking you on that basis then I'm not extending my argument to them, that's simply moronic, but also not the way broader society works, as far as I'm aware.

I agree with you on most points, except for that part where you put yourself in the place of "generic strange man" in a forest. It's not a fear of someone specific, but rather of a stranger with unknown intentions in a place in which the woman is not protected by any authorities. I feel like that last part is being intentionally omitted in the "male side" of the discourse, since other people being around change the dynamic dramatically. I'm pretty sure most women would prefer to meet a man on a busy street than a bear, since bear wouldn't care about social subtleties like not mauling people to death while people watch. I also find idea of woman not being able to find their way out of the forest on their own, an so random stranger met in woods being a boon to them kind of silly. I know you were making a hypothetical situation there, and sure, if woman was lost in the woods for past 6 months, was hungry, injured and desperate, then I believe she would be more receptive to meeting a person in a woods, but that's adding more and more conditions to the situation, changing it from "chance meeting" to "struggle to survive".

I also think that we should recognize that women are afraid of meeting a man in a forest because that man could be a rapist/murderer in a middle of nowhere, that hypothetical collapses at the moment we assign specific person to the unknown face. I think people struggle with this question because they put themselves in the boots of the "random stranger" and feel bad for being feared, despite them being kind and loving. It's not about meeting "you" specifically. You're not the hated "man in a woods". At most you're a stranger in a bar that women feel a bit awkward and unsure about at the start. Most women will feel completely fine meeting their dad or brother in a forest.

Most people literally will trust you if you're helpful, open and outgoing, women included. No one owes you their trust even if you did your best, regardless of gender, though. And even once they somewhat trust you, I still don't think it's a great idea to give/accept open drinks and otherwise expose yourself to potential danger, unless that trust is really solid. I don't think it takes much to accommodate that kind of wariness nor that it's somehow insulting or degrading to men. Being aware that women are - or feel like they are, whichever you prefer - exposed to more danger than men, just in general acting in a ways that wouldn't be taken as suspicious and not taking it as an insult if they don't entirely trust you is enough to fit in and not feel like you're being ostracized as a man.

If you said that all women are trash, then regardless of what you would feel safer with, you'd still be called (deservingly) an incel. Calling all men trash is also an insane take, but I think you're shadowboxing here. All/most/significant number of men being trash is absolutely not a general consensus on the matter. All women needing to be wary of all men because of actions of some men is, however. I don't know what do you think "being treated as a rapist" looks like, but I'm pretty sure you're not complaining about going to jail for being a man, but rather women not being overly friendly with you by default.

I am sorry for the experiences you had with abusive women, and I agree the issue of sexual violence against men is often swept under the rug because of comparison with sexual violence against women simply because of the prevalence of later being much larger. Wish it wasn't.

The question was never about whenever men are scarier than bears, but rather whenever women are more afraid to be at mercy of man or a bear. Admitting that women have valid reasons to be afraid of men doesn't equate to vilifying all men, however (some) men actively denying that they do and acting like their fears are baseless is quite valid reason to assume that those men are either clueless or the root of the problem.

I fail to see the misandry you describe as something common. No one is asking you to take responsibility for the actions of rapists, nor is anyone sane pretending that all men are violent. I do however see constant complaining about potential of this misandry becoming a reality and I think that's a reactionary view, which leads to push back against women. Sure, there obviously are some women that do act like all men are violent rapists, because for every extreme opinion you're going to find an extreme example somewhere on twitter. Dealing with women on daily basis I have yet to find one that actually acts that way. And sure, it could be that I live in a sheltered bubble and my anecdotal experience isn't worth shit, but I do personally think that this view that "all men are bad" comes from the men misunderstanding of the issue of "all women are in danger because of some men". I argue that the stats I mentioned in previous comment substantiate my opinion about the danger being there.

No one is asking you to bear responsibility for anything you didn't do, but you can't seriously blame women for being wary of strangers. Surely you can see how women would also prefer not to need to be afraid? Women aren't much danger to you, so they don't need to earn your trust as much, but the opposite simply isn't true. And if you feel someone is dangerous (as in, has potential to cause you harm), it's absolutely fine for you to require them to earn your trust, regardless of their gender.

As to what can be done by the majority, is to be informed and aware that the problem exists, and when silly question like "men or bear in forest" pops up, not to push back against women who are afraid of men and treat it like misandry.

Topic of men mental health is separate from this issue (imo), and sure, it's valid and should be discussed broadly. I don't believe that blaming women and their well founded fears for those issues is correct approach though. I don't see anything inherently bad with needing to earn trust of someone, and I think that expectation that you shouldn't need to do that is the problem. You might know you wont do anything crazy, but how should they? And it's not like you need to sacrifice your firstborn to gain trust, just act like normal human being and don't take it for granted.

Topic of anger issues is completely unrelated to women, unless we're talking about them being potential victims there, but that's not the point you're touching on. In my opinion those issues stem partially from the fact that society glorified dominating men for a longest time, and this image also included taking whatever you want by force. Many people, mostly men but also some women, still see those as golden standards of masculinity. Being aggressive and overbearing is still presented as manly, especially on the right side of the political spectrum. Trying to deal with anger issues is thus seen as infantile and embarrassing. That's obviously much more convoluted than just that, but if anything, it's more of a source of a problem rather than the effect of women not trusting men.

IMO you're missing the point. It's less about whenever women are "right" to be afraid of men in general, and more about what their feelings on the matter actually are. If a lot of women would prefer to meet a bear rather than a stranger in a forest, then that's because of their deep distrust of men. It's not about whenever men are actually trustworthy and women are overreacting (though a lot of the responses are indicative that they're not), but rather about what led to this distrust, and also about how unaware of the issue men are in general. Quick googling shows stats like 1 in 5/6 women was or will be a victim of rape, 1 in 3 of them as a child, 81% in general had been sexually harassed or assaulted. It's not that many women just "hear stories of assault and rape and whatever", many women are victims, and almost all know a victim personally.

Now, did you know that? Do you know a person who's rape/SA/SH victim? Are you aware that's actually a broad problem and not just some abstract culture of fear? Because I think this whole thing with a bear vs man in a forest shows mostly the difference between men and women when it comes to understanding this topic. I see it not as a "are men bad" question, but rather "is sexual violence common", because you sure might be a righteous fella and most of your friends might be as well, but no women that know you can be sure you're not the guy who's keeping those stats up. It doesn't take a majority of men to cause this fear, but it will take a majority of them to fix it, and understanding that there is a problem is at the very least the first step.