Another one:
Epstein is a convicted sex offender. They keep calling him, “disgraced Financier”
They dont want the other financiers tarred with the same brush, even though the capitalist scum deserve it.
I watched the first few hours of his interview that leaked. That man had a room temperature IQ. No one was asking him for financial advice.
Eh.
He wasn’t the kind of financier that handled accounts, he was the kind that had connections and when you needed a loan knew who could hook you up.
Of course, his real line of work was trafficking children.
I think it’s not that at all actually. If you listen to him, he doesn’t understand the first thing about finance. What he did with money was get rich people social connections to the anything from pedophilia to STD drugs to slip to your wife. His financial expertise began and end at blackmailing rich people while using their money to get them whatever fucked up thing they wanted.
his cover was that of, basically, a matchmaker for cash.
If Person A needed to finance a project, he had a Rolodex full of stupid rich assholes he could then match them with and get the financing for the project.
And yes. his real “job” was to set people up with children or whatever else they wanted - and then black mail the ever living shit out of them.
That is not what he did. He was a financial manager who was paid by billionaires (literally, exclusively billionaires) to hide money in tax shelters.
He must have been a really charming, charismatic guy though, to draw in all those famous, well-connected people.
But then there had to be that moment when he asked to have a private talk, and he took you in a separate room, and informed you that your experience with that 13 year old (which he arranged) was recorded, and now you were going to have to do him a favor.
Well, c’mon, what did you expect? Just handing out adolescent girls for nothing?
Even that’s too soft for him, makes him sound like the creep who moved in down the block.
In reality, he was the most connected and influential international child sex trafficker in history. “Convicted sex offender” sounds like one of his customers.
Silly rabbit. None of his customers will ever be a “convicted” sex offender.
Let’s change that.
This is the one that pissed me off the most.
Dude ran a fucking ultra elaborate sex trafficking scheme and they label him the same way they would someone caught doing a petty crime.
They should just call him “typical rich guy”
They’re not sugarcoating it, they’re normalizing it…
And the answer to “why” for all those questions is oligarchs bought the news stations after Clinton de-regulated it with the Telecoms act of 1996.
The media isn’t run for the sake of journalism, it’s not even run for profit anymore. The oligarchs goobled it all up so they could influence everyone else, and they don’t like it when anyone from their class is held accountable for anything.
It’s the same as when medieval royalty would always side with each other no matter what.
They don’t see us as the same species as them.
Never forget, in the USA. This is not a worldwide thing.
Also,its possible to get international news.
This is not a worldwide thing
Lol, sure thing buddy
Strange. We must be living in different worlds then. And I guess that statement is closer to the truth than you might be able to understand.
I can view news from different national and international sources. Of course we also have a strong monopoly here but that does not contain everything. The news is presented from different viewpoints depending on source?
Ever seen Al Jazeera report on Gaza?
I agree, I mean project Nimbus is a pretty good example of events like this.
Also to add onto your comment, I’m reminded of an old 4chan argument that went viral on reddit because incels were trying to rationalize why the age of consent was set to 12 years old for women in spain at the time, and I am afraid of it being where the Epstein apologists may rush to, to even preserve a semblance or rationality.
Essentially, hebephilia is not the same thing as pedophilia, even the DSM-V makes the distinction using the term pedophilic disorder for the latter. For most of humanity (pre-modern (1945 and before) agrarian societies), hebephilia was common and seen as normal since marriages would be contracted and done the second a female starts puberty, mostly as a tool for economic gain, familial association and to secure the female as a patriarchal acquisition.
It is pretty much illegal everywhere because we now understand developmental capacity enough to know that a 12 year old should not engage in sexual acts with an adult and this is why I see it as just as evil as pedophilia, but to psychologists, it is simply a natural yet immoral facet of human sexuality.
Humans and therefore males are outcomes of evolution and because of this, they feel natural aversion to sexual acts done with an already pregnant female, a female past her reproductive age, or a female that is within their immediate family, because the first two will not lead to pregnancy and the last will lead to pathologies in the offspring. This is the same when it comes to pedophilia because it is often induced from trauma, statistically, it often happens because the pedophile themselves were a victim of pre-pubescent sexual acts. They then typically will engage back into it and it is understood as an act of traumatic transferance.
Essentially, hebephilia is not the same thing as pedophilia, even the DSM-V makes the distinction using the term pedophilic disorder for the latter. For most of humanity (pre-modern (1945 and before) agrarian societies), hebephilia was common and seen as normal since marriages would be contracted and done the second a female starts puberty, mostly as a tool for economic gain, familial association and to secure the female as a patriarchal acquisition.
This is not taking into account the fact that puberty started substantially later in premodern societies (~16 or so) and is flat out incorrect for most of the premodern societies that I can think of off the top of my head (eg, average age for most medieval marriages was early to mid twenties. Betrothals of very young children existed in aristocratic/royal families, but these marriages weren’t consummated until adulthood. There’s some story of an English king I recall who married a very young bride who turned out to be mute, and it was considered a punishment from god for marrying her so young.)
For all the creepy shit people say about teenagers supposedly being more “fertile,” teenage girls have bodies which are too small to safely have children. Especially in pre-modern societies where a c-section was a death sentence.
You are correct, I with hold my previous statement and wish to thank you for your input . For context; I often dabble into logical abstractions and amateurism outside of my respective field of expertise because learning is fun, but even when I think I have good understanding of psychology (mostly reading Dr Mark Solms and Dr David Buss’s lifeworks at the moment which prompted the interjection on hebephilia) I think it good to recognize when gaps in our knowledge show up, logic should prioritize the ego to me.
Don’t want to risk missing out on precious clicks and shares due to keyword-sensitive advertiser friendliness algorithms.
That could be part of it. But the main reason is the same as what we saw during the manufacturing of consent for the Palestinian Genocide.
Israeli Citizens Slaughtered by Hamas
54 Palestinians dead after Israeli targeted strike of Hamas leaders
Palestinians “die” in news headlines. Israelis are slaughtered.
It got as bad as media giving us headlines of “Israeli hostage kidnapped from tank”. Not even kidding. They labeled an IDF soldier in a tank as a kidnapped hostage. We have a word for that already: prisoner of war.
Once you notice this type of passive language used to describe the crimes of who the US government supports vs. who it sees as an enemy. Man, you’ll start to go crazy at noticing how much it’s used.
Journalist and talking heads on TV are told exactly what vocabulary to use when covering a specific topic. It’s more directed at the interest of those in power and those with wealth than it is to fit an algorithm.
I mean, the people directing the vocabulary are the same group of people that ensure that algorithm favors them. They allow very extreme vocabulary like “rape” or “beheadings” through their filters when they want to lie about something that favors their narrative.
Journalist and talking heads on TV are told exactly what vocabulary to use when covering a specific topic. It’s more directed at the interest of those in power and those with wealth than it is to fit an algorithm.
The “news” is the same people as the accused. It’s all the ultra wealthy ruling class. They are also destroying the environment with fossil fuels, buying up livable property and jacking up the rates, shorting water stocks and such, etc.
Their time may be up soon, but I want to see them rot in prison, not the other option, because that’ll be way more chaotic and could lead to worse outcomes.
There is no prison for billionaires. Look at New York v. Trump. The only way to fix this mess is a revolution, AKA civil war.
Revolutions and civil war have a nasty habit of not going the way you want them to go. Even the French Revolution was coopted by Napoleon and turned into a monarchy.
That’s the sad thing about revolutions, really. They pretty much happen when people don’t have any other options anymore - so what can they do, but to revolt, even if it leads to an another shitty situation? At least with trying there’s the possibility of things changing for the better, while allowing the status quo to continue it will only get worse
Nah, that’s an edgy chronically online 14 year old’s opinion. We likely won’t be able to just vote ourselves out of this mess, but you have no idea what you’re talking about with revolution and civil war. Stop playing Call of Duty and actually go outside.
You’re the smartest one here so what’s going to happen if not democracy and not war?
Yall are glowing lol
“Adolescent women” to refer to a 13 year old was used in that one witness account of the women who worked as a recruiter for his parties.
More like the people that own these news companies are also in the files and tweaking the narrative as a result. Something something follow the money something
Have you checked who owns big media corporations? 🤔
People who rape children.
At this point it’s on the wealthy to prove they aren’t child rapists. Epstein is just one of many and there is zero reason to assume others like him are not still operating.
They also own big troll farms manufacturing consent.
There’s a reason most social media is as opaque (algorithms, moderation et.al) as they can be.
These media corporations and troll farms work together to push a subtle narrative manufactured by their handlers.
Distorsión of reality by linguistic manipulation.
This is straight out of 1984 book:
In the novel, “Newspeak” wasn’t just about being concise; it was designed to shrink the vocabulary so much that “heretical” thoughts became literally impossible because the words for them no longer existed.
Here is a breakdown of how linguistic manipulation distorts reality, both in the book and in our world:
1. The Erasure of Nuance
In 1984, if you wanted to say something was “terrible,” you just said it was ungood.
By removing “bad,” “terrible,” and “horrific,” the emotional weight of the experience is flattened.
- The Result: When we lose specific words for our feelings or experiences, our ability to think critically about those experiences atrophies.
Ungood is very similar to “unalived”…
What a coincidence…
They took a literary warning about totalitarian regimes and used it as manual to implement a totalitarian regime.
It would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous.
Classic Torment Nexus stuff.
You could say doubleplusungood.
Which is cumbersome and sounds too clinical to convey the same gravity
is this made to look like it was written by “ai” as a sort of ironic joke, or did you actually use an llm to write your thoughts for you on how powerful people controlling the language we use is dangerous?
Yes!
The minimization is CRAZY. Like people are saying “Oh, no, he didn’t rape the kid he just had sex with her.” Like the child CONSENTED to it. Sex, by definition, is engaging in sexual pleasure with both persons consent.
Our country that was fought for by thousands of soldiers, many whom died for this land, so we could have freedom and a break away from the king of Britain. He was a dictator, and now we are in the company of one such other dictator. A rat, who gained entry only by his father’s money and influence. Who used that influence and abused it, who corrupted young minds and brainwashed people to believe that he was doing good.
That he was making America great again.
When the only thing he did for us was give us empty promises, and shoved us down the path of an emptier future.
The minimization is CRAZY. Like people are saying “Oh, no, he didn’t rape the kid he just had sex with her.” Like the child CONSENTED to it. Sex, by definition, is engaging in sexual pleasure with both persons consent.
They’re just extending to elite men almost the same level of rhetorical gentleness that is typically directed at women sexually assaulting boys. It’s only “almost” because they aren’t also playing up how attractive these men are like they tend to when a woman sexually assaults a boy.
I understand that sexual assault is committed by both genders.
Yeah, but the level of minimization is par the course for women offenders and only treated as completely crazy because it’s men doing it. Any time there’s a media story about a woman sexually assaulting a boy they try to find glam shots of her, refer to it as an “affair” or “romp” and make at least two references to how attractive she is. It’s just such a radical difference in coverage and reaction it needs pointed out.
Like people are saying “Oh, no, he didn’t rape the kid he just had sex with her.”
It’s much more likely simply a legal CYA maneuver on the part of the media outlet vis-à-vis libel allegations, to not use the name of the crime to describe an act that no one’s yet been convicted of.
Sex, by definition, is engaging in sexual pleasure with both persons consent.
Well, not to be pedantic, but that’s not accurate. Consent is not an intrinsic attribute of sex.
What are you on about?
Rape is a crime. A crime of nonconsensual sexual activity with another person. That, by necessity, requires consent for uncriminalized sex. Children can’t give consent and that’s why sex with children is called statutory rape.
That’s their point: Rape being an explicit crime makes the whole thing a legal minefield.
Accusing someone of something opens you up to being sued for defamation. Truth is a defense against defamation. If I slander my neighbour for taking photos of my bedroom windows and they sue me, I can produce the photos where they are visible in the reflection as evidence that what I said is true.
However, an accusation of committing a specific crime is considered true if and only if the defendant has been judged guilty in a court of law. Until then, they are considered innocent in the eyes of the law. Proving the truth of your accusation would first require the accused being criminally charged, tried and found guilty. By then, you might have lost the suit for defamation or poured a lot of money into legal defense.
So a major news outlet accusing a sitting, immune and known to be vindictive president of a crime that he can’t be tried for for the next three years and might never be convicted for by the justice system he rigged would be gambling with much to lose, little to win and awful odds.
Saying he had sex with children is essentially the same content, but a different packaging that doesn’t paint as much of a target on your forehead.
Is it fucked? For sure. Is it possible they’re just trying to sanewash the crime? Absolutely. At the very least, it’s spineless. This isn’t me defending their choice of wording, just elaborating on the reasoning behind it potentially being a CYA.
It’s much more likely simply a legal CYA maneuver on the part of the media outlet vis-à-vis libel allegations, to not use the name of the crime to describe an act that no one’s yet been convicted of.
That’s what the magic word “allegedly” is for. I’m not saying this person committed this crime, I’m saying that someone has said that this person did a thing that could reasonably meet the definition of this crime.
ok what do I look like a dictionary
ok what do I look like a dictionary
When you write “[word], by definition, is [definition]”?
Yes, you do, lol.
hello I am now dictionary
Well, using a word usually mean that you have a cursory knowledge of its meaning. But they didn’t exactly elaborate on what they meant by saying that sex doesn’t implcitly mean consent.
The only way i could justify that position, is of they meant sex(*noun), and the description of organisms that create gametes of different size and shapes.
Sexual relations, coitus, boinking or one of the many different versions of describing the various acts of genital relationships between humans, DOES imply consent. Otherwise it is sexual misconduct or rape.
But i recon both of you already know this.
But they didn’t exactly elaborate on what they meant by saying that sex doesn’t implcitly mean consent.
I was pretty straightforward about it, I think. Rape is a ‘subcategory’ of sex.
There’s a difference between the disingenuous act of describing a nonconsensual sex act while deliberately not mentioning the ‘nonconsent’, and claiming that the word “sex” itself carries with it the ‘trait’ of consent.
If consent was part of the definition of sex, then when two people get blackout drunk (which legally makes them both unable to render informed consent) and fuck each other at a party or something, we’d consider no sex to have happened, which would be an obviously ridiculous conclusion that no one reaches. It’s obvious consent is not an intrinsic attribute of “sex”.
yes sorry I should’ve been more precise
X.com? Supporting the abusers, i see.
In principle, I agree.
Reaching out to the people who haven’t moved on from the captured platforms, however, still has the potential to do good. If a large population is only or almost only using Twitter, then the message never reaches them if no one on Twitter is saying it. Of course, the algorithm will do what it can to minimize such voices, but a small amount of message saturation is more than none.
Ignoring the substance of the post to whine about where it was posted, very interesting
I mean the owner of X
- Has made significant contributions to those in power that are hiding the contents of the Epstein files.
- IS IN SAID FILES
I don’t think it’s an inappropriate callout.
very interesting
“Underage female”. I’ll never forget this. He was a serial child rapist, to start with.
The media machine is complicit with the state. Always has been.
🎼 Some of those who work newsrooms
Are the same who rape kiddos
SHILLING IN THE NAME OF! 🎶
Because the news is largely owned by the oligarchy.
How the fuck was I your first upvote? You’re spitting pure fact. Our MSM “news” is mostly owned by right-wing billionaires AKA oligarchs.
lol, stfu.
Owned by Disney conglomerate which is paid into heavily by politicians.
To actually answer the question:
Because most of the old media functionally has the CIA as an editorial board.
Immensely ironically, we know a lot about that because of Noam Chomsky.
Who… is also in the Epstein files.
Quite a lot.
Yeah, it wasn’t just the right wing of the country that has been existing in a constructed media hyperreality, it has also been the left wing of the country.
I wouldn’t describe Noam as left wing, he’s advocating for Ukraine’s unilateral surrender rn. He’s just Red Fascist.
Oh dear, I was unaware of that.
Oi…
Still though, he was a pillar of the left wing, in the sense of left wing = not conservative, a literal seminal figure of it, for decades.
For bonus points, he’s also a Bosnian genocide denialist
I used to think maybe he was okay but clearly he has always just been a well regarded Tankie fuck.
If someone agrees with most left wing positions except one, are they left wing?
I think you’re doing a No True Scotsman here. Just because Noam fell for the anti-Ukrainian propaganda doesn’t mean he’s not left wing.
All of Noam’s left wing stances are just criticisms of states he disagrees with, it appears. He is in fact supporting right wingers from a different side of the planet.
Everyone has blind spots for frames of reference they aren’t familiar with.
Immensely ironically, we know a lot about that because of Noam Chomsky.
Limited hangout.
Which questions are not asked because Chomsky already gave many answers?
What does Chomsky knowing Epstein have to do with anything?
They kind of just explained that… Chomsky is famous for writing about manufacturing consent, which is exactly what the media is doing here.
Yeah, thank you.
Chomsky functionally was the primary whistleblower on how the media in the US gets routinely manipulated by intelligence agencies…
… and its now pretty clear that he got folded in, to being part of that the system that does that.
A better example would be Reid Hoffman and Laurence Summors. Both in Epstein Files, and massive impacts on Democratic party.
