Unable to load image

Reddit actually likes billionaires as long as they take an international flight to a poor country just to get a haircut.

https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1df4350/til_that_ikea_founder_ingvar_kamprad_who_started/

Post title:

TIL that IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad (who started the company when he was 17) flew coach, stayed in budget hotels, drove a 20 yo Volvo and always tried to get his haircuts in poor countries. He died at 91 in 2018 with an estimated net worth of almost $60 billion.


Let's do this Sneedman style again. Tessa Fowler is the femme du jure.

!coomers behave


https://i.rdrama.net/images/17188968332537618.webp

:soyjakwow: My favorite anecdote about him: "Even though he had a car, Kamprad often used the bus. In fact, he was once refused entry into a gala because he had arrived on the bus. He had to attend the event to receive a 'businessman of the year' award."


https://i.rdrama.net/images/17188968334694183.webp

:soysnootypefast: He also liked to eat lunch at IKEAs, preferably before noon, when the coffee was free. :soysnootypefast: Oh, and also, he was an active member of the Swedish nazi movement in the 40s


https://i.rdrama.net/images/1718896833806447.webp

True to the region he grew up in, he was stingy.

!chuds it is okay to label an entire race as monetarily stingy :marseymerchant:


https://i.rdrama.net/images/17188968342773244.webp

:soycry: A lot of it is myth that he carefully crafted. He most definitely drove Porsches and luxury cars, lived in mansions in Switzerland, flew private jets. They peddled this story so that when IKEA really fricked up (cutting down virgin forests, using prisoners as cheap labor, etc.), they sent out Kamprad in a off brand suit where he yapped about being a simple man and that mistakes were made, blah blah, the media fawned over it and the issue forgotten.


https://i.rdrama.net/images/17188968347064302.webp

Whatever all this haircut nonsense is

!burgers

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1718896834944272.webp


https://i.rdrama.net/images/17188968355519228.webp

"Nobody needs $60B" and something about Costco

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1718896835901934.webp


This concludes my effortpost.


P.S.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1718897041965237.webp


!alligatorfrickhouse and !fhqwhgads I forgot to say hi

83
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Reddit is so fricking gay. Fake facts argued against other fake facts

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I saw this thread yesterday where someone got 21 upvotes for claiming men who kill their partners gets 2-6 years in jail on average: https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueCrimeDiscussion/comments/152j7qj/i_watched_a_documentary_on_caril_fugate_and/

True crime-cels are especially r-slurred though for some reason.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's no fricking way that's true. Being female is literally the biggest advantage you can have when it comes to criminal sentencing. Bigger than being white, bigger than being educated, bigger than being rich. It can't possibly be that different for this one specific crime. !nooticers, time for some research. :marseydetective:

First, let's start with the linked source, an ACLU publication from 2006. They have a citation at the bottom for this claim. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1989. No specific report, just the organization and year. Unfortunately, they don't link to it, and I can't exactly track down every single publication the NCADV put out that year, so we're gonna have to go deeper than that and try to find some sentencing information from around that time. :marseyinvestigate:

A quick bit of Googling turned up this executive summary of Spouse Murder Defendants in Large Urban Counties, published by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1995. The data itself is from 1988, so while it may not be whatever data the NCADV was using, it's close enough for government work (:carlos:). It's also only urban areas, but I doubt the sentencing was all that different in rural areas. Plus, the homicide rate in urban areas is a Heck of a lot higher, so this is a significant portion of the spousal murders that year. And fortunately for us, they've got the exact information we need in a helpful visual on the very first page. :marseyreading:

https://i.rdrama.net/images/171896584575899.webp

According to this, women who were convicted of spousal murder got 6 years, whereas men got 16.5 years. Given that the initial claim from the ACLU (and possibly the NCADV) was that men get 6 years and women get 15 years, my supposition is that they had a document similar to this one, possibly from a slightly different year, and somehow got the numbers backwards. What !r-slurs. :marseygigaretard:

And that actually downplays the sentencing disparity. 19% of women who were convicted received probation, relative to 6% of men. In other words, women who were convicted of murdering their spouse were over three times as likely to not even receive a prison sentence. They got to walk out of the courthouse with a criminal conviction, but free as a bird. :eaglebikini:

Also of note is the conviction rate itself. 70% of women were either convicted or pled guilty, whereas 87% of men fell into that category. Beyond that, women who went to trial had a 31% chance of being found "not guilty", while only 6% of men who went to trial managed to convince a jury to find in their favor. Heck, women were 45% more likely than men to not even be prosecuted. :marseyyass:

So there you go. By every conceivable metric, women who are accused, charged, and/or convicted of murdering their husband are better off than men who are accused, charged, and/or convicted of murdering their wife. Or at least, they were in 1988. I could find more recent data to see if this is still the case, but I don't actually care enough to do any more research into deboonking this particular !foidmoment of a claim. :debunked:

HUGE ADDENDUM: I failed to notice something initially. Check this out:

  • Of the 100 wife defendants tried by either a judge or jury, 31% were acquitted. But of the 138 husband defendants tried, 6% were acquitted.

  • Of the 59 wife defendants tried by a jury, 27% were acquitted. But of the estimated 91 husband defendants tried by a jury, none was acquitted.

So I was wrong when I said "only 6% of men who went to trial managed to convince a jury to find in their favor." In reality, 0% of men who went to trial managed to convince a jury to find in their favor. It was the ones that went before a judge that had a snowball's chance. :marseyjudge:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

PlsRope

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah it's the exact opposite of the truth, but Reddit feminists still believe it:

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1ckptj8/why_does_the_sentencing_gap_rhetoric_from_mras/l2poptt/?context=8

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Putting this in my summary would've cluttered it up, but I know you frickers aren't clicking the link, so here's the methodology:

Methodology

This study is based upon a systematic sample of murder cases disposed of in the 75 most populous counties in 1988. A case was considered disposed if the prosecutor screened it out, if the defendant pleaded guilty, or if the defendant went to trial and was either convicted or acquitted. The 75 are where a little over half of all murders in the Nation occur.

Spouse murder defendants in the sample were drawn from State prosecutor files in 33 of the 75 counties. The counties were widely scattered, from Los Angeles and San Diego, Denver and Dallas, to Philadelphia and Dade County (Miami). For each defendant, data collectors filled out a lengthy questionnaire and prepared a brief narrative from file information. Prosecutor files include such items as the police arrest report, investigator reports, and information on how the case was disposed. Questionnaires and narratives are the sources of data for this report.

The same database used in this report was previously analyzed by John M. Dawson and Barbara Boland (Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988, BJS Special Report, NCJ-140614, May 1993) and by John M. Dawson and Patrick A. Langan (Murder in Families, BJS Special Report, NCJ-143498, July 1994).

It doesn't specify which 33 counties they used, but we're probably looking at ~25% of spousal murders from that year. Again, no rural data, but I just can't see that changing anything. :marseyshrug:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just recently court systems have started to go after female teachers who frick their students. But lot of them get dropped or get slap in wrist.

But foids need to be victims of ebil males.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

True crime-cels

Just say women.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Truecrime is so fricking r-slurred in that they're trying to all be investigators but then fly off on tangents based on something like "They looked confused, therefore the moid made them do it" or "I watched this documentary and it convinced me!" yeah no shit, a TV show that isn't a good source of information, is biased, and probably has precluded a bunch of information.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

have you seen "graphology" foids? :marseyworried:

I've been meaning to make an effort post on this topic

:marseywomanmoment2: "yuh I saw a scrap of his handwriting and the consistent shape of his "e" definitely shows rigidness and fakeness hiding psychopathy if you get a look at the "j" over there"

:marseyfoidretard: "total psycopath "j", though placed in other circumstances it would be a repression j"

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17189149917272172.webp https://i.rdrama.net/images/17189149919229302.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

!tops tag yourselves. I'm apparently โ€œSelective S*x Potโ€ or โ€œIntimate Enthusiastโ€ :marseyinsane:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sexually frustrated or falling apart

:marseydepres#sed:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://media.giphy.com/media/9L9JRQztAwHbTV6QOr/giphy.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

All my friends now hardcore party (10pm - 6am) and I just don't enjoy pubs and discos anymore :marseynerd2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Intimate enthusiast :marseyill:

:marseyworried: Uhhh, I mean you're not getting my handwriting info :marseyglow2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyglow:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm falling apart! :marseyhands: Good thing I don't believe in this foid nonsense. :marseygigachad:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Heady lover apparently LMAO

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I love blowjobs too. :marseyfluffy:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:hump:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

sexually frustrated, checks out


Follower of Christ :marseyandjesus: Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Holy shit this is r-slurred

!foidmoment

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This bullshit used to be big around mid-20th Century. I'd like them to explain how giving someone a little adderal radically changes their handwriting but not their personality so much.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I used to entertain myself (and try to stay awake) in long lectures by trying to write with a different handwriting every day

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyfacepalm: This is one of those bullshit "WHAT YOUR X SAYS ABOUT YOU" clickbait videos.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Those same women on the way to argue thats a good thing a month later

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What would :marseymid: you expect from the crowd that worshipped Nancy Grace?


:!marseybarrel: :marseybarreldrunk:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And all swallowed uncritically because it's the :marseyakshually: response to whatever is in the first thing

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.