Olurinatti argues that calling serial killers “monsters” is a tool of copaganda that props up prisons and policing. Here is where several of those arguments break down.
THE TITLE CLAIM: Why Serial Killers Aren’t “Monsters”
The video never actually argues what the title promises.
The title sets up a moral and psychological case. The video delivers a policing and prison reform argument. Whether Dahmer evaded capture because of police failures has nothing to do with whether his acts were monstrous. The title gets the true crime audience in the door. The content is a different argument entirely.
VIDEO SCORECARD
This video uses a classic bait-and-switch: promise a case about serial killers and morality, then use two hours of true crime horror to push a prison reform argument the evidence never actually supports.
Watch the original video, then read why the argument doesn’t hold up.
HOW TO READ THIS TABLE
- Completely Unfounded The conclusion is logically invalid regardless of whether the facts are true.
- Deliberately Misleading The facts cited are real but are used to create a false impression.
- Exaggerated There is truth here but the conclusion goes further than the evidence allows.
THE QUICK VERDICT
| Argument Made | Fallacy Used | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| The “monster” label is “copaganda” because the FBI created the term | Genetic Fallacy + Loaded Language (judging a label by its source, then embedding a conclusion inside a word so the debate is settled before it starts) | Completely Unfounded |
| The horror of serial killer cases makes the prison reform argument feel true | Appeal to Emotion (using extreme cases to carry a conclusion the evidence alone can’t support) | Deliberately Misleading |
| Specific police failures with Dahmer and Bundy prove systemic failure across all policing | Hasty Generalization (drawing a universal conclusion from a small number of cases) | Deliberately Misleading |
| Neglect, loneliness, and homophobia caused Dahmer to kill | Single-Cause Fallacy (assigning one cause to something with many, without explaining why millions in similar conditions did not kill) | Exaggerated |
| The alternative to the current system would produce better outcomes | Nirvana Fallacy (comparing a flawed real system to an ideal alternative that is never defined or tested) | Exaggerated |
Olurinatti’s video starts as a response to the backlash against Ryan Murphy’s Monster series. Critics were angry that the show humanized serial killers. She disagrees. But the video doesn’t stay there. It builds across nearly two hours into a much larger argument: that calling serial killers “monsters” is a deliberate tool of the police and prison system, manufactured to make us stop asking hard questions about crime.
The specific reporting in this video is often solid. The documented police failures involving Dahmer’s victims are on the record. The argument that media mythologizes killers to obscure institutional failures has real support in specific cases. Those parts hold up.
But the core claims don’t follow from the evidence. The title promises one argument. The video delivers another. And several of the key moves rely on emotional weight to do work the logic never does.
3:09 The “monster” label is “copaganda” because the FBI invented the term
“The term serial killer and the criminal profiling associated with them was literally created by the FBI, which is why everything about how we’re taught about them by both the police and the media is designed to make us throw up our hands and point to the jails and the electric chair for these monsters.”
Olurinatti, 3:21
FALLACY DETECTED
The label is bad because of who uses it, and the word “copaganda” proves it
Genetic Fallacy + Loaded Language
Genetic Fallacy judges a claim by its source instead of whether it’s true. Loaded Language embeds a conclusion inside a word so the debate appears settled before it starts.
How it appears here: She coins “copaganda” and builds her whole case on top of it. Once you accept that word, anyone who disagrees looks like a police propaganda dupe. The word claims the monster narrative is deliberate and coordinated, without proving it. And it positions the viewer to distrust their own instincts before the first piece of evidence appears.
The FBI did popularize “serial killer” in the 1970s through the Behavioral Science Unit. That part is accurate. But the argument that the label is therefore manufactured propaganda doesn’t follow.
Cultures across the world have used monster archetypes to describe people who commit acts of extreme cruelty for thousands of years. Ancient folklore, religious texts, literature across every civilization. That framing predates the FBI by millennia and exists in countries with no comparable prison industrial complex.
There is also a direct irony worth naming. The video argues that “monster” is a framing trick that predetermines how you feel before you engage the facts. But “copaganda” does exactly that. It pre-answers the question. It makes disagreement look like propaganda before a single argument has been made.
She accuses the other side of using loaded framing to shut down debate. Then she opens with a loaded word that shuts down debate.
Bottom line: “copaganda” is not an argument. It is a frame. The video never proves the monster narrative was deliberately manufactured. It only shows that police benefit from it, which is a much narrower claim.
5:12 Serial killer cases are the emotional engine for a prison reform argument
“Which is what makes serial killers the perfect agent of copaganda and legitimizing the functions of prisons and excusing the failures of police.”
Olurinatti, 5:16
FALLACY DETECTED
Using horror stories to make a different argument feel true
Appeal to Emotion
This fallacy uses strong feelings to carry a conclusion the logic alone can’t reach.
How it appears here: The video uses nearly two hours of Dahmer’s crimes, his victims’ suffering, and police failures to build emotional weight. That weight then gets moved onto a much larger claim about the entire prison system. Strip out the serial killer cases and the prison reform argument becomes much harder to sell on its own.
There is a real critique of the prison industrial complex that doesn’t need Jeffrey Dahmer to make it. Bail reform, nonviolent drug offenses, and racial disparities in sentencing are well-documented issues backed by serious research.
But serial killers account for less than 1% of crime. Using the most extreme, emotionally loaded cases in American criminal history to argue about how society treats all prisoners is not the same as making that argument on its own terms.
If the prison critique is valid, it doesn’t need Dahmer to carry it. The fact that it does should raise a flag.
Bottom line: the emotional power of serial killer cases does real work here. That work should have been done by evidence about the prison system broadly, not by cases that represent a fraction of a percent of crime.
34:21 Police failures with Dahmer prove the criminal system is broken across the board
“Jeffrey Dahmer’s ability to get away with murdering 11 boys and men for 13 years didn’t have anything to do with his intelligence or any skill set or ability to fool people. It had everything to do with police and systemic failure.”
Olurinatti, 34:21
FALLACY DETECTED
Using a few cases to prove a rule about everything
Hasty Generalization
This fallacy draws a broad conclusion from too few examples.
How it appears here: The police failures in the Dahmer and Bundy cases are real and documented. But she moves from those cases directly to an indictment of the entire criminal system. Two or three high-profile failures, however serious, don’t prove a universal claim about all policing. And none of it addresses the title. Police failing to catch Dahmer sooner does not make Dahmer less of a monster.
Milwaukee police returning Konerak Sinthasomphone to Dahmer despite neighbors’ desperate calls is a fact in the record. Ted Bundy’s fiance reporting him to multiple departments and being ignored is a fact in the record. These failures are real, serious, and worth discussing.
But the same standard applied elsewhere is equally damaging to the alternative she implies. Non-capitalist states have their own long records of failing to protect vulnerable people. The USSR systematically suppressed crime reporting. The argument proves too much or applies inconsistently when held to its own standard.
Specific failures by specific officers in specific cities are serious. They don’t prove every part of the system is designed to fail the same people, and they say nothing about whether the acts committed were monstrous.
Bottom line: the police failures here are real. But they don’t reach a universal systemic conclusion, and they don’t touch the moral question the title actually asks.
13:23 Neglect, loneliness, and homophobia caused Dahmer to become a killer
“That’s not because they’re some evil monster, it’s because they were produced by a system that allows these things to happen to kids, fails to provide them with support, fails to believe them when they say these things are happening to them.”
Olurinatti, 14:05
FALLACY DETECTED
One cause assigned to something with many
Single-Cause Fallacy
This fallacy assigns a single cause to an outcome that has many causes, leaving out the gap between them.
How it appears here: She argues that neglect, loneliness, homophobia, and social failure caused Dahmer to kill. But millions of people experienced those same conditions in the same era and did not murder anyone. The video never explains what closed that gap for Dahmer specifically.
The research on childhood trauma and violent behavior is real. Abuse, neglect, and social isolation are genuine risk factors documented in psychological literature. That part of the video has credible grounding.
But contributing factor is not the same as cause. Jeffrey Dahmer himself, in interviews cited in this very video, said he alone was responsible. Richard Ramirez said the same. Both men rejected the systemic explanation while living inside it.
If the conditions that shaped Dahmer shaped a million other people who didn’t kill, the conditions alone can’t explain the killing.
Bottom line: environment is a real factor in who people become. It is not the only factor, and the video never accounts for the gap between shared conditions and the one person who crossed into murder.
48:12 The alternative to the current system would produce better outcomes
“The criminal system does not actually care about preventing more crime from reoccurring. It’s not designed to interrogate why crime is happening or to help those struggling with it.”
Olurinatti, 51:04
FALLACY DETECTED
Comparing reality to a perfect system that’s never defined
Nirvana Fallacy
This fallacy contrasts a flawed real system with a perfect alternative that is never shown to be achievable.
How it appears here: She criticizes the prison system as punitive and broken. But she never says what replaces it, how the replacement handles a Jeffrey Dahmer, or whether root-cause prevention has ever worked at scale. The alternative exists only as an implication. It is never named, never tested, never shown to work.
The video runs over an hour and forty minutes. At no point does it name a working alternative system, cite evidence that root-cause prevention reduces serial killing, or address what happens to someone like Dahmer under the implied framework.
Serial killings have dropped roughly 80% from their 1980s peak. Researchers point to DNA forensics, surveillance cameras, longer sentences, and fewer opportunity environments as the causes. Not changes in public framing. Not empathy. Not root-cause reform. The shift the video argues for had no measurable role in that decline.
Pointing out that the current system fails doesn’t prove the alternative works. That requires different evidence, and the video never provides it.
Bottom line: the current system has documented failures. But the video’s implied alternative has never been defined, tested, or shown to reduce the kind of harm it’s critiquing.
To Be Fair
FAIR POINT
Police did fail Dahmer’s victims in documented and specific ways
Milwaukee police returning Konerak Sinthasomphone to Dahmer is a matter of record. The bathhouse calls being dismissed is a matter of record. These are not speculation. Whatever you think of the broader argument, those specific failures are real and the video is right to name them.
FAIR POINT
Understanding someone is not the same as excusing them
The video makes this point clearly and it holds up. Knowing how someone became capable of violence is not the same as forgiving them for it. Lionel Dahmer supported his son without defending his crimes. That distinction is honest and worth making.
FAIR POINT
The “criminal genius” myth hides real investigative failures
Media portrayals routinely exaggerate serial killers’ intelligence to explain why police didn’t catch them sooner. Dahmer was, by his own father’s account, a passive failure at nearly everything. That genius myth does provide cover for institutional negligence in specific cases, and the video is right to call it out.
The video’s central claim is that calling serial killers “monsters” is copaganda: a manufactured frame that props up prisons and policing and stops society from asking why violence happens. For that claim to work, two things have to be true. The monster label has to be manufactured rather than accurate. And dropping it has to produce better outcomes. Neither is established.
On the first point: the moral function of calling certain acts monstrous is not a police invention. It is a social constant. Communities that clearly mark extreme harm as beyond acceptable limits build stronger norms, clearer deterrence, and real solidarity with victims. That function predates law enforcement by thousands of years and exists in cultures with no comparable prison system.
On the second: the evidence that public framing affects serial killer rates is essentially absent. The 80% drop in serial killings since the 1980s is linked to DNA technology, surveillance, and longer sentences. Not empathy. Not root-cause reform. Not how the public talks about monsters.
The video diagnoses the system as broken but never specifies what replaces it, and the evidence it uses for the main claim never reaches the conclusion it draws.
WHAT THE VIDEO LEFT OUT
- The alternative system is never named. The video criticizes prisons and policing for over an hour but never says what replaces them or how that replacement handles violent offenders.
- Most people with the same background didn’t kill. Millions of Americans experienced neglect, loneliness, and homophobia in the same decades as Dahmer. The video never explains the gap between those shared conditions and one person’s decision to murder.
- Serial killings declined without a framing shift. The 80% drop since the 1980s is linked to DNA forensics, surveillance cameras, and fewer opportunity environments. Not to how the public labels killers.
- Criminal profiling rarely identifies suspects. Research shows profiling helped name a suspect in roughly 2-7% of cases. The investigative tool the video implicitly credits barely functions even in professional hands.
- The monster label does real moral work. Calling extreme acts monstrous signals community norms, supports victims, and maintains deterrence. The video treats this as purely manipulative without addressing its legitimate social function.
- Dahmer himself rejected the systemic explanation. In interviews quoted in this video, Dahmer explicitly said his upbringing was not responsible and that he alone bore accountability. The video quotes him and then dismisses his own position without explanation.
- Son of Sam laws have victims’ rights origins. The video frames these laws as copaganda, but many were passed because victims’ families objected to killers profiting from their crimes. That origin is not addressed.
The Bottom Line
This video used these logical moves to make you believe that calling serial killers “monsters” is a manufactured police tool that causes societal harm.
- Judging a label by who uses it, then pre-loading the debate with a word that shuts it down
- Using horror stories to make a different argument feel true
- Using a few cases to prove a rule about everything
- One cause assigned to something with many
- Comparing reality to a perfect system that’s never defined
The music, the pacing, and two hours of genuinely disturbing material make this one hard to push back on in real time. The documented police failures are real. The emotional pull of Dahmer’s victims being ignored is real. The habit worth building is noticing when a title promises one argument and the content delivers another. Ask what the video is actually proving, separate from what it makes you feel.
Leave a Reply