(no subject)

[olivermoss]

* There is some discourse about going on right now about true crime youtube that I am not going to fully look into because I am not going to watch 40 minute video essays on it without even knowing what the person's POV is. What I will say is that Baily Sarian's 'let's talk true crime while I do my make up' videos are better researched and more respectful than most of the content out there, so the anti-make-up-artist discourse is a little weird to me.


It's doubly weird after having checked out a Wendigoon video. He has massive viewcounts and no gimmicks and isn't even that great a speaker so I assumed his content must be solid to get so many views. He is working with someone on a Missing 411 series. His partner has been researching Missing 411 stuff for years and... and they... they think one of the weird things about these cases is FBI involvement because it's out of their jurisdiction? Most Missing 411 cases take place on federal land, it's federal jurisdiction by default. They are either idiots or are trying to make it sound like a conspiracy is going on.

This is like basic 101 on Missing 411, and also a *lot* of true crime in the US. Feds have jurisdiction on a lot of missing persons cases. Don't talk authoritatively on true crime to a large audience if you think federal jurisdiction works like lazy crime writing from old Criminal Minds episodes.

Comments

[mistressofmuses]

Oh god, the Missing 411 conspiracies. Are they fans of whoever that guy is who wrote the Missing 411 books about how it's all sasquaches taking and killing people? (Is it likely that SOME of these missing persons cases do have weird components to them beyond "some kid wandered away from camp and fell down a mineshaft". Yes. Does that mean that EVERY case of a missing person that has been investigated federally is OMG COVERUP? Hoo boy.)

I have seen various discourse around true crime (and the "true crime backlash" and such) so I don't know whether this is just more of the same or something specific, but either way, I don't blame you for wanting to steer clear of weird youtube takes that can waste damn near an hour of your life before you realize their takes are in fact garbage.

[olivermoss]

A lot of people don't understand the geography of America and what it's like when you are far from roads or infrastructure. People who haven't been hiking have completely insane ideas about crossing terrain. Country is big and large sections are pretty inaccessible.

And, like, I live in Oregon. We are 56% federal land, that makes crime here a federal investigation by default... which is important if you like weed. It's legal in 44% of Oregon because we can only set laws for 44% of our own land mass. If you want to do make money talking missing persons cases, have a clue about federal land because so many cases involve public land of some sort.

Baily Sarian is the biggest name in 'do make up and talk crime'. She is at 6.5 million subs. It's like, if they are talking about her say it. If they mean other channels, say that. Otherwise I am not going to wade in to see who they all vagueing about. She is a major cut above most channels.

[mistressofmuses]

FOR REAL. Magnify ANY of those issues with misjudging distance and terrain by places with cave systems or mineshafts or areas with steep canyons/rivers and there doesn't NEED to be a conspiracy to why people go missing when they wind up in those areas.

Colorado has got a few pretty large swaths of federal land - a quick search tells me CO is just over 36% federal land - so yeah, not that shocking that a lot of our missing persons cases (which are most likely to happen in the middle of the mountains in national forests and such) ALSO get investigated by the FBI!

I remember seeing some vagueing a couple months ago about the supposed "widespread trend" of make-up and true-crime videos and how it's somehow uniquely exploitative. But like... quality of content and information is vastly the most important part, imo. If someone has a kind of fun way to do something while she presents the information about a case (which is what it sounds like is the case with Baily Sarian, though I haven't actually watched any of her videos), and the information is good... I don't get the issue? If someone hates the juxtaposition, no one has to watch her stuff. If someone feels like true crime as a whole is weird, they aren't compelled to like it.
I care a lot more about people who ARE being exploitative in terms of harassing surviving family members for clickbait and things than I do someone... putting on makeup, or people who think "talking about bad things makes you a bad person."

[olivermoss]

I've only seen a handful of Bailey's videos and they seem more respectful than the ones that try to play up the lurid aspects or inject ~mystery~. Unless people are just upset at the idea of 'doing make up while talking crime'? I don't get it.

The Casual Criminalist just did a very good episode on The Black Dahlia case and how it's been intensely made as lurid and exotic as possible, just layers of intrigue and sex have been layered on to make the case people *want* to hear about instead of the case that exists. I'd say that is the only channel I watch regularly, but I can't keep up with him output. I'm like 15 episodes behind at this point. That case is a very good guide to a lot of what's wrong with true crime fandom.

And if people don't like the juxtaposition, yeah, they can watch something else. True Crime having a very large female fanbase is something people are constantly trying to paint as problematic.

[mistressofmuses]

Yeah, there are a lot of creators that try to play up lurid details to grab attention, and it can absolutely get really skeevy really fast. I'd much rather have creators that are respectful of the subjects and the facts of the case.

I don't think I've watched any of Casual Criminalist's stuff, but I'll stick something to my to-watch. The Black Dahlia case has been so wildly skewed, and that seems like a very valid point - people get an inaccurate idea of just how "sexy" the case is, and they want those lurid aspects, not the comparatively dry actual case. (I say I'll add something to my to-watch list, but I am SO BAD at keeping up with anything, lol.)

I think you're right that some people just have a problem with the make-up + true crime combo, regardless of the actual content of the video or accuracy and presentation of the information. It almost certainly has to do with that "ew, girls like this, and that's bad" aspect. Icky girly makeup is contaminating our true crime further! Or something.

[olivermoss]

Guys being into true crime is normal, women doing it is A Concern and we just investigate the motives.

[mistressofmuses]

That same Worst Person I Know that I've complained about a few times went on a pretty nasty social media tirade about a year or so ago attacking women for liking true crime. (One of her self-professed favorite genres.) Because she's Not Like Other Girls, and she watches it for "the right reasons", because she thinks serial killers are just SO fascinating to try and figure out, but other girls watch for "the wrong reasons" because obviously they must fetishize abusive men.

I've seen similar attitudes a lot - that true crime is fine in and of itself, and it's fine for men to be interested in it, but women liking it are Suspect, and so they must like it for Bad Reasons, like they think murderers are sexy! It must be that they're all fantasizing about the ultimate bad boys or something!

(That's reductive, but then again, so are the arguments being made.)