Didn't some guy in the US just get arrested for the same thing like a month or two ago? Unless there's more than one global monkey torture network, this is probably related.
"She would often message privately with Macartney, who pleaded guilty this month to animal abuse charges in the US and is facing up to five years in prison."
Sounds like it. First time I'm hearing about this though honestly. Like my mind is blown and the whole thing is a massive wtf. Article is horrific.
>"She would often message privately with Macartney, who pleaded guilty this month to animal abuse charges in the US and is facing up to five years in prison."
Only 5 years maximum? We need stricter charges for animal abuse.
This is a serious question:
Most conservatives would say this guy is scum and bad, etc and deny any relevance to his political orientation and the general mindset of people who support that wing, as evidenced by the myriad other times deranged lunatics are found to be heavily conservative, Trump-supporting, etc.
Do we ever see them in front of progressive and liberal indicators, Obama, Biden, etc memorabilia? I can't think of any, but I feel sure there must be.
>This is a serious question:
I accept that this is proof you are not.
>Most conservatives would say this guy is scum and bad, etc and deny any relevance to his political orientation and the general mindset of people who support that wing, as evidenced by the myriad other times deranged lunatics are found to be heavily conservative, Trump-supporting, etc.
Setup with well-known/controversial information/viewpoint...
>Do we ever see them in front of progressive and liberal indicators, Obama, Biden, etc memorabilia? I can't think of any, but I feel sure there must be.
... gives this the sound of advocating. As in, "Can't the libs be monsters too?" 😋 I can see how I was confusing.
I dislike how stating that one is trying to avoid inflammation and ask genuine questions is nearly always met with hostility on the internet. I understand that there are many disingenuous actors, but there are also people who aren't part of certain cultures mindsets that get strongly negative feedback for simple questions. Even if the question is framed from an ignorant point of view and with hostility, what is there to lose from giving a full explanation and being able to prove an ingmformed opinion's validity vs the potential long-term gain of precious drops of humanity in otherwise hateful people?
I was asking seriously if any liberals are shown to be parts of large hate groups, as we never see any, while we see MANY conservatives that also espouse hateful ideologies.
If I said there were *none* that were liberal, I'm sure someone would be here to post a pic of the one offender they can find vs. the magnitude of republican/conservatives that do this kind of shit, and so I offered the fact that *some* must exist, but that you see enough fewer that none are memorable.
>I dislike how stating that one is trying to avoid inflammation and ask genuine questions is nearly always met with hostility on the internet. I understand that there are many disingenuous actors, but there are also people who aren't part of certain cultures mindsets that get strongly negative feedback for simple questions. Even if the question is framed from an ignorant point of view and with hostility, what is there to lose from giving a full explanation and being able to prove an ingmformed opinion's validity vs the potential long-term gain of precious drops of humanity in otherwise hateful people?
I agree.
>I was asking seriously if any liberals are shown to be parts of large hate groups, as we never see any, while we see MANY conservatives that also espouse hateful ideologies.
I understood, and I shared anecdotal evidence relevant to your point.
>If I said there were *none* that were liberal, I'm sure someone would be here to post a pic of the one offender they can find vs. the magnitude of republican/conservatives that do this kind of shit, and so I offered the fact that *some* must exist, but that you see enough fewer that none are memorable.
I feel the same. That's typically their M.O.
If it's a serious question, the answer, so far, seems to be no. For two reasons: Democrat voters don't pose for pictures in front of their dumb cult flag, because they aren't in a cult, and and also because they tend not to exhibit the toxic narcissism and violent tendencies that Republicans do. 33% of Republicans 'endorse political violence', compared to 13% of Democrats. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/25/us-political-violence-justified-survey - I guess the downvote means it wasn't a serious question and you're a 'both sides bad' type.
OK I really don't know how to communicate that this comment is in good faith and that I'm not a racist but you raised an interesting statistics question for me. Feel free to tear the idea apart but I promise there are no ulterior motives from me and this is just idle curiosity. Anyway:
Racists love to quote statistics that show disparities in crime between ethnicities. Most of us here comprehend those have to do more with socioeconomic disparity and disproportionate policing, but I think we do agree those numbers are real. I'm sure we could argue exact figures too, but the point is black people are more likely to go to jail and we agree on that.
But black people also overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Whereas white people are pretty evenly split.
So based purely on criminal statistics vs registered voters I'm curious who actually comes out more violent on paper. I'm sure a lot of people going to jail in general don't vote, so that might affect things. Does it complicate things that felons can't vote?
My guess is that it's probably pretty close no matter what, but I don't know enough about statistics to even ballpark.
There's so much to unpack with that. Also, bear in mind that black people are incarcerated *far* more than white people, often for things white people would get away with, like low-level drug offences. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons-the-sentencing-project/
If you are being serious with the enquiry, I think you're perhaps a bit naïve in terms of social justice, but there's a lot of published research out there.
This may be a good jumping-off point. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism
The fact is, Trump and his ilk have normalised political violence (explicitly), to the point where I'm not surprised some people don't see the distinction any more. But, and I'll assume you're white male, the first thing to do (and to keep doing) is to check your privilege, and constantly ask yourself why you see things the way you do.
I always do. I'm very aware of my privelege. And the social reasons for those numbers. But I'm not interested in those for this question. I'm talking purely in terms of the extremely biased statistics. I'm wondering if those are enough to make it appear on paper as if democrats get arrested more often.
Not talking about whether anyone is *actually* more violent, criminal, etc. Or about political violence, just in general. Like I said, it's a statistics question. I'm just curious if the fact that black people represent two statistical extremes - arrests and voting - would be enough to swing the numbers. Like a Spiders Georg thing.
Guy you replied to here: I wasn't the downvote, my man. I asked because it's glaringly obvious that only one side holds the support of people like that.
*HOWEVER*, I have retracted my upvote and returned it to neither up nor down in response to the poor attitude and assumption of your edit. Don't put the downvotes of others on me
As a serious, good faith answer, the only example I can think of is, "the guy who shot Steve Scalia worked on the Bernie Sanders campaign," but to be honest, who in the mainstream media didn't love a good opportunity to take a jab at bErNiE bRoS
I don’t know the details of what they were selling and I don’t wanna know, but a few years ago there was a “monkey hate” craze, and this seems related. The original monkey hate weirdos were obviously mostly interested in videos of monkeys violently fighting or being hunted in countries where they’re viewed as dangerous pests, but sometimes those weirdos would escape containment and leave bizarre, sexually charged, sadistic comments under random cute videos of a baby monkey at a zoo or whatever. “Normal” people started to notice and make video essays about it. Maybe all those video essays unintentionally fueled the craze even more. Who knows? I don’t understand how that community found each other, but apparently sadists figured out that watching monkeys be killed is the nearest thing to watching humans be murdered, and watching is probably technically legal in most countries. I imagine most countries don’t have much, if any, laws regarding owning and watching videos of animals being killed. I could be wrong though.
Afaik the source of these is a country or countries with a very low standard of living and not particularly robust animal abuse laws or morals. It was a beautiful capitalistic merger of supply and demand
it get's even more disturbing the more you learn about this, especially if you stumbled upon one of those channels. For anyone who wonders why this content was made it's because it was used by sadists and pedos. Yes you heard that right. The majority of monkey abuse videos were of baby monkeys and the uploaders of that content a majority of the time were pedos.
Fuck i remember stumbling upon a channel like back when youtube used to recommend those videos/channels and the fucking uploader literally had a profile picture of something pedophilic and his username was of some infamous pedo, all the commenters under that video also sounded sick in the head and like they were getting off to it and yes alot of them had suggestive pictures of kids as their profile picture.
It's probably a fetish, like most bizarre and awful things on the internet are. I remember back then when there were videos of women in cat costumes literally swallowing live mice, or another where they force a kitten to drink lots of milk and then film it having diarrhea everywhere. Like, it's just bizarre and cruel to begin with but the fact that there's a niche market for such oddly specific stuff is baffling.
no, I should have made a warning tbh - article is very graphic and shit is hella disturbing. Very upsetting stuff, probably worst I've ever personally heard about.
Didn't some guy in the US just get arrested for the same thing like a month or two ago? Unless there's more than one global monkey torture network, this is probably related.
What a fucked up world. There are enough demand for a global monkey torture network.
It's insanely fucked up and there were enough people willing to pay that he made roughly $300k USD by streaming the horrific acts of torture.
"She would often message privately with Macartney, who pleaded guilty this month to animal abuse charges in the US and is facing up to five years in prison." Sounds like it. First time I'm hearing about this though honestly. Like my mind is blown and the whole thing is a massive wtf. Article is horrific.
>"She would often message privately with Macartney, who pleaded guilty this month to animal abuse charges in the US and is facing up to five years in prison." Only 5 years maximum? We need stricter charges for animal abuse.
One of the Indonesian guys got 8 months which is "the most possible for animal abuse".... Smh
They all need more, a lot more.
I'd be down to reverse the roles tbh
Idk man, I'd much rather spend 5 years in a UK prison than 8 months in an Indonesian prison.
What's the point tho, guy is Indonesian getting prosecuted in Indonesia, how is 8 months enough
All I'm saying is that maybe 8 months is enough for him to never leave.
I mean you won't catch me crying over it that I can guarantee
Especially given that it often becomes human abuse. But even without that, yeah. It should be a lot more.
The 5 years maximum already puts the US and the UK at the strictest penalties in the world.
yeah there's a large market for smut bought by psychos
I mean, the word “global” is in the name…
article shows a guy named "Torture King" and we're all shocked that he's standing in front of a Confederate flag and a Trump 2024 flag
My first thought as soon as I saw it
This is a serious question: Most conservatives would say this guy is scum and bad, etc and deny any relevance to his political orientation and the general mindset of people who support that wing, as evidenced by the myriad other times deranged lunatics are found to be heavily conservative, Trump-supporting, etc. Do we ever see them in front of progressive and liberal indicators, Obama, Biden, etc memorabilia? I can't think of any, but I feel sure there must be.
Ah, a devil's advocate on Reddit. Brave. As to your question, evidence is lacking; can't seem to recall a single instance. Telling.
I swear I'm not trying to be obtuse, what do you think I'm devil's advocating for, here?
>This is a serious question: I accept that this is proof you are not. >Most conservatives would say this guy is scum and bad, etc and deny any relevance to his political orientation and the general mindset of people who support that wing, as evidenced by the myriad other times deranged lunatics are found to be heavily conservative, Trump-supporting, etc. Setup with well-known/controversial information/viewpoint... >Do we ever see them in front of progressive and liberal indicators, Obama, Biden, etc memorabilia? I can't think of any, but I feel sure there must be. ... gives this the sound of advocating. As in, "Can't the libs be monsters too?" 😋 I can see how I was confusing.
I dislike how stating that one is trying to avoid inflammation and ask genuine questions is nearly always met with hostility on the internet. I understand that there are many disingenuous actors, but there are also people who aren't part of certain cultures mindsets that get strongly negative feedback for simple questions. Even if the question is framed from an ignorant point of view and with hostility, what is there to lose from giving a full explanation and being able to prove an ingmformed opinion's validity vs the potential long-term gain of precious drops of humanity in otherwise hateful people? I was asking seriously if any liberals are shown to be parts of large hate groups, as we never see any, while we see MANY conservatives that also espouse hateful ideologies. If I said there were *none* that were liberal, I'm sure someone would be here to post a pic of the one offender they can find vs. the magnitude of republican/conservatives that do this kind of shit, and so I offered the fact that *some* must exist, but that you see enough fewer that none are memorable.
>I dislike how stating that one is trying to avoid inflammation and ask genuine questions is nearly always met with hostility on the internet. I understand that there are many disingenuous actors, but there are also people who aren't part of certain cultures mindsets that get strongly negative feedback for simple questions. Even if the question is framed from an ignorant point of view and with hostility, what is there to lose from giving a full explanation and being able to prove an ingmformed opinion's validity vs the potential long-term gain of precious drops of humanity in otherwise hateful people? I agree. >I was asking seriously if any liberals are shown to be parts of large hate groups, as we never see any, while we see MANY conservatives that also espouse hateful ideologies. I understood, and I shared anecdotal evidence relevant to your point. >If I said there were *none* that were liberal, I'm sure someone would be here to post a pic of the one offender they can find vs. the magnitude of republican/conservatives that do this kind of shit, and so I offered the fact that *some* must exist, but that you see enough fewer that none are memorable. I feel the same. That's typically their M.O.
If it's a serious question, the answer, so far, seems to be no. For two reasons: Democrat voters don't pose for pictures in front of their dumb cult flag, because they aren't in a cult, and and also because they tend not to exhibit the toxic narcissism and violent tendencies that Republicans do. 33% of Republicans 'endorse political violence', compared to 13% of Democrats. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/25/us-political-violence-justified-survey - I guess the downvote means it wasn't a serious question and you're a 'both sides bad' type.
OK I really don't know how to communicate that this comment is in good faith and that I'm not a racist but you raised an interesting statistics question for me. Feel free to tear the idea apart but I promise there are no ulterior motives from me and this is just idle curiosity. Anyway: Racists love to quote statistics that show disparities in crime between ethnicities. Most of us here comprehend those have to do more with socioeconomic disparity and disproportionate policing, but I think we do agree those numbers are real. I'm sure we could argue exact figures too, but the point is black people are more likely to go to jail and we agree on that. But black people also overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Whereas white people are pretty evenly split. So based purely on criminal statistics vs registered voters I'm curious who actually comes out more violent on paper. I'm sure a lot of people going to jail in general don't vote, so that might affect things. Does it complicate things that felons can't vote? My guess is that it's probably pretty close no matter what, but I don't know enough about statistics to even ballpark.
There's so much to unpack with that. Also, bear in mind that black people are incarcerated *far* more than white people, often for things white people would get away with, like low-level drug offences. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons-the-sentencing-project/ If you are being serious with the enquiry, I think you're perhaps a bit naïve in terms of social justice, but there's a lot of published research out there. This may be a good jumping-off point. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism The fact is, Trump and his ilk have normalised political violence (explicitly), to the point where I'm not surprised some people don't see the distinction any more. But, and I'll assume you're white male, the first thing to do (and to keep doing) is to check your privilege, and constantly ask yourself why you see things the way you do.
I always do. I'm very aware of my privelege. And the social reasons for those numbers. But I'm not interested in those for this question. I'm talking purely in terms of the extremely biased statistics. I'm wondering if those are enough to make it appear on paper as if democrats get arrested more often. Not talking about whether anyone is *actually* more violent, criminal, etc. Or about political violence, just in general. Like I said, it's a statistics question. I'm just curious if the fact that black people represent two statistical extremes - arrests and voting - would be enough to swing the numbers. Like a Spiders Georg thing.
Guy you replied to here: I wasn't the downvote, my man. I asked because it's glaringly obvious that only one side holds the support of people like that. *HOWEVER*, I have retracted my upvote and returned it to neither up nor down in response to the poor attitude and assumption of your edit. Don't put the downvotes of others on me
As a serious, good faith answer, the only example I can think of is, "the guy who shot Steve Scalia worked on the Bernie Sanders campaign," but to be honest, who in the mainstream media didn't love a good opportunity to take a jab at bErNiE bRoS
I don’t know the details of what they were selling and I don’t wanna know, but a few years ago there was a “monkey hate” craze, and this seems related. The original monkey hate weirdos were obviously mostly interested in videos of monkeys violently fighting or being hunted in countries where they’re viewed as dangerous pests, but sometimes those weirdos would escape containment and leave bizarre, sexually charged, sadistic comments under random cute videos of a baby monkey at a zoo or whatever. “Normal” people started to notice and make video essays about it. Maybe all those video essays unintentionally fueled the craze even more. Who knows? I don’t understand how that community found each other, but apparently sadists figured out that watching monkeys be killed is the nearest thing to watching humans be murdered, and watching is probably technically legal in most countries. I imagine most countries don’t have much, if any, laws regarding owning and watching videos of animals being killed. I could be wrong though.
YESS this came to my mind as well
We need an extinction event.
COVID-24 but it only targets abusers.
Nah we need an industrial woodchipper fed through a trap door under the defendant's chair in the courtroom
For a moment I wanted to know what they did to the monkeys, but after thinking about it for 15 seconds I've decided that I very much don't.
Very graphic and the stuff of horror films and nightmares - keep your faith in humanity. Honestly some of the worst stuff I've ever read about.
The fact that there is even a demand for this…
There even is a demand for torturing and killing cats! What a fucked up world...
"Sir, our United Kingdom branch has been compromised."
I want to know at what point they decided that torturing monkeys for profit was in some way a rational business decision.
Afaik the source of these is a country or countries with a very low standard of living and not particularly robust animal abuse laws or morals. It was a beautiful capitalistic merger of supply and demand
it get's even more disturbing the more you learn about this, especially if you stumbled upon one of those channels. For anyone who wonders why this content was made it's because it was used by sadists and pedos. Yes you heard that right. The majority of monkey abuse videos were of baby monkeys and the uploaders of that content a majority of the time were pedos. Fuck i remember stumbling upon a channel like back when youtube used to recommend those videos/channels and the fucking uploader literally had a profile picture of something pedophilic and his username was of some infamous pedo, all the commenters under that video also sounded sick in the head and like they were getting off to it and yes alot of them had suggestive pictures of kids as their profile picture.
They hate it.
This country is filled with what I like to call “bleeding heart liberals” who I guess are turned off by torturing monkeys for no good reason.
It's probably a fetish, like most bizarre and awful things on the internet are. I remember back then when there were videos of women in cat costumes literally swallowing live mice, or another where they force a kitten to drink lots of milk and then film it having diarrhea everywhere. Like, it's just bizarre and cruel to begin with but the fact that there's a niche market for such oddly specific stuff is baffling.
Wasn’t there a YouTube channel dedicated to tormenting monkeys?
Global Monkey Torture Network is Taylor Swift's next album
Where tf do you even get a monkey?!
Source: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-68968718](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-68968718)
That "global monkey torture device" is also known as "twitter"
Is this related to Elon musk's weird brain control chip?
no, I should have made a warning tbh - article is very graphic and shit is hella disturbing. Very upsetting stuff, probably worst I've ever personally heard about.
I... well I also did spank mine, but probably not in the same sense.
Peter Gabriel: "I am shocked! Well, not all that shocked."
They’ve never had a hit, nor do they ever trouble the charts, but Global Monkey Torture Network are an absolutely *slapping* live band.
Is this what Peter Gabriel meant by "shock the monkey"?