4 ms·

I understand why someone may intentionally or accidentally start ONE wildfire but always been baffled anyone could do it a second time realizing the effects. I

I understand why someone may intentionally or accidentally start ONE wildfire but always been baffled anyone could do it a second time realizing the effects. It's a weird phenomenon.

hypeatei 2y ago
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
- lfmunoz4 2y ago
  sounds like something a bot would say
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Some people do, in fact, want to watch the world burn whether figuratively or literally or both.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Ideally both at once, while cackling maniacally.
    - drewcoo 2y ago
      Literally is already both these days.
  - hypeatei 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lazystar 2y ago
      exactly, this isn't reddit, so please don't post a meme comment that only contains a single line from a 15 year old movie. if you arent contributing to the conversation, please just stay silent.
      - hypeatei 2y ago
        It's not a meme, calm down.
        compsciphd 2y ago
        I found it amusing. the bot (meme) / bat (movie) usage. Don't think of it as memeing for memes sake, but to reinterpret a meme in a manner directly relevant to the what one is responding to. It's possible I guess that one would say all jokes should be banned from here, and every response needs to be fully serious (otherwise will lose it's black)
Andrex 2y ago
For me too, I can see how ONE person would be psycho/sexually charged by starting fires. But a couple in a stable relationship? How does that conversation start? Did they meet at a climate denial convention for radicals?
- thatguy0900 2y ago
  Epstein and ghislaine were in it together. People with hobbies find like minded people I guess.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Bonnie and Clyde were also a bit notorious. I think it’s that couples can either average out a bit (destructive interference?) or ramp each other up to an insane degree (constructive interference). Usually it’s a mix across attributes, so nothing too notable occurs. But obviously not in this case…
  - gosub100 2y ago
    > in it together In Mossad together?
- anextio 2y ago
  I'm not sure why you would think they are climate deniers. The odds are that they are exactly the opposite. Having been around far left activist groups in my past, there are many who think that doing things like this on purpose is morally justified, because it keeps the conversation on climate change. The media incentivizes it by covering them as "climate-fueled wildfire" stories, every single time. Wildfires in Canada were at a two-decade low in 2020, during the lockdowns. Think about that.
  - kmeisthax 2y ago
    >Wildfires in Canada were at a two-decade low in 2020, during the lockdowns. Think about that. Likely because most wildfires are accidents, even with accelerationist provocateurs being profoundly stupid and causing the thing they're worried about to get you to worry about it. People radicalized enough to do that are wildly uncommon.
rurp 2y ago
Given that there are serial killers, serial rapists, serial abusers, and so on for every other type of violent crime, I would be more surprised if there weren't serial arsonists on occasion.
pvaldes 2y ago
Unless you are paid for doing exactly this 16 times.
- GordonS 2y ago
  By who, and for what reason?
  - Alupis 2y ago
    I don't know what the parent comment was referring to, however it's notable how brittle society actually is. Society only works when people generally play by the same rules, ie. "The Social Contract". When people stop adhering to the contract, chaos happens and society rots or crumbles. There's a plethora of recent examples of this - including mass riots, mass looting and mass shoplifting. Society doesn't have an automatic and efficient way to deal with people who collectively decided societal rules don't apply to them. For some people, chaos is a means to an end. Tear down the things you don't like in society by literally breaking them.
    - beaglesss 2y ago
      I would argue there are some baseline ones to follow, mostly revolving around consent, property rights, and violence. Fortunately even other apes generally understand these instinctually at some level so it's baked in well enough it won't completely break down, with various asterisks attached. If we all stopped paying taxes and started smoking weed we would probably manage somehow. On the other hand if everyone becomes an arsonist we'd have real problems.
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    Dunno, but when somebody spends a lot of resources and time to assure that wildfires happen, there is something to gain in their minds. Poor people don't spend their scarce precious money so randomly. My first question would be: Can they find a link between this people and Gary Stephen Maynard? I assume that the answer will be not (or not evident) but, the `modus operandi` is very similar and both attacks fall in USA election years, so we see the same patterns repeating again (as expected). This has happened before. My second question would be: provoked fires happen more often, less often or are equally distributed between blue and red states?

I understand why someone may intentionally or accidentally start ONE wildfire but always been baffled anyone could do it a second time realizing the effects. It's a weird phenomenon.

hypeatei 2y ago

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

lfmunoz4 2y ago
sounds like something a bot would say
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Some people do, in fact, want to watch the world burn whether figuratively or literally or both.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Ideally both at once, while cackling maniacally.
  - drewcoo 2y ago
    Literally is already both these days.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lazystar 2y ago
    exactly, this isn't reddit, so please don't post a meme comment that only contains a single line from a 15 year old movie. if you arent contributing to the conversation, please just stay silent.
    - hypeatei 2y ago
      It's not a meme, calm down.
      - compsciphd 2y ago
        I found it amusing. the bot (meme) / bat (movie) usage. Don't think of it as memeing for memes sake, but to reinterpret a meme in a manner directly relevant to the what one is responding to. It's possible I guess that one would say all jokes should be banned from here, and every response needs to be fully serious (otherwise will lose it's black)

Andrex 2y ago

For me too, I can see how ONE person would be psycho/sexually charged by starting fires. But a couple in a stable relationship? How does that conversation start? Did they meet at a climate denial convention for radicals?

thatguy0900 2y ago
Epstein and ghislaine were in it together. People with hobbies find like minded people I guess.
- lazide 2y ago
  Bonnie and Clyde were also a bit notorious. I think it’s that couples can either average out a bit (destructive interference?) or ramp each other up to an insane degree (constructive interference). Usually it’s a mix across attributes, so nothing too notable occurs. But obviously not in this case…
- gosub100 2y ago
  > in it together In Mossad together?
anextio 2y ago
I'm not sure why you would think they are climate deniers. The odds are that they are exactly the opposite. Having been around far left activist groups in my past, there are many who think that doing things like this on purpose is morally justified, because it keeps the conversation on climate change. The media incentivizes it by covering them as "climate-fueled wildfire" stories, every single time. Wildfires in Canada were at a two-decade low in 2020, during the lockdowns. Think about that.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  >Wildfires in Canada were at a two-decade low in 2020, during the lockdowns. Think about that. Likely because most wildfires are accidents, even with accelerationist provocateurs being profoundly stupid and causing the thing they're worried about to get you to worry about it. People radicalized enough to do that are wildly uncommon.

rurp 2y ago

Given that there are serial killers, serial rapists, serial abusers, and so on for every other type of violent crime, I would be more surprised if there weren't serial arsonists on occasion.

pvaldes 2y ago

Unless you are paid for doing exactly this 16 times.

GordonS 2y ago
By who, and for what reason?
- Alupis 2y ago
  I don't know what the parent comment was referring to, however it's notable how brittle society actually is. Society only works when people generally play by the same rules, ie. "The Social Contract". When people stop adhering to the contract, chaos happens and society rots or crumbles. There's a plethora of recent examples of this - including mass riots, mass looting and mass shoplifting. Society doesn't have an automatic and efficient way to deal with people who collectively decided societal rules don't apply to them. For some people, chaos is a means to an end. Tear down the things you don't like in society by literally breaking them.
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    I would argue there are some baseline ones to follow, mostly revolving around consent, property rights, and violence. Fortunately even other apes generally understand these instinctually at some level so it's baked in well enough it won't completely break down, with various asterisks attached. If we all stopped paying taxes and started smoking weed we would probably manage somehow. On the other hand if everyone becomes an arsonist we'd have real problems.
- pvaldes 2y ago
  Dunno, but when somebody spends a lot of resources and time to assure that wildfires happen, there is something to gain in their minds. Poor people don't spend their scarce precious money so randomly. My first question would be: Can they find a link between this people and Gary Stephen Maynard? I assume that the answer will be not (or not evident) but, the `modus operandi` is very similar and both attacks fall in USA election years, so we see the same patterns repeating again (as expected). This has happened before. My second question would be: provoked fires happen more often, less often or are equally distributed between blue and red states?