What’s even more fucked is just how personally responsible Epstein is to the modern right wing movement. While online Nazis and crass as fuck assholes were common, the way how they became such a concerted and active and effective politicial movement was done entirely through Epstein motivated and funded shit.
You know how so many major gaming channels always make a ton of right wing advocacy? Their money and funding came from the motherfucker and his network.
I remember when online gaming channels were AVGN type fun stuff. Either with retro or with modern games.
It’s called “sane-washing” and the media won’t stop doing it. Even NPR, though less so recently.
You would think with their funding cut off they would stop doing the “fair and balanced” act and stop carrying water for Republican liars.
Personally I don’t understand it how in the world one could be fair and also balanced at the same time. If you’re being fair then clearly you’re going to be leaning a lot harder left.
You would. But one thing I noticed is that even when money isn’t involved people will gravitate towards bullying, bullies, and harassment by default.
All the media we consumed as kids of the underdog kid getting even with bullies? That is wish fulfillment and fantasy. In real life even a genuinely hard working and intelligent kid being harassed by a dumbass with serious academic and behavioral issues will have adults and authority figures take the side of abuser over him.
In real life it is like that all the fucking time. Trump in his first term when he HAD to have actually competent people talk to him he would sarcastically call them Einstein or childish nicknames for smart people before just dismissing what they have to say. Thinking his own instincts were always superior to what anyone else had to say.
Seeing the media try to make what Epstein and the others did look somehow legal or acceptable is exactly what I expected them to do. They will still recycle the old, tired ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ narrative to paint all Muslims and/or brown people as rapists when literally all the major leadership were ritualisticly fucking children and beating them up afterwards.
“If I just lick hard enough, maybe they’ll take the boot off me”
Cutting off their public funding just meant they were now for sale to whoever pays the largest contributions.
They already have a new billionaire daddy judging by their all the new AI ad shilling and bringing on more and more Nazis to tell us why the gas chambers are necessary.
I listened to part of a segment on my local NPR station last night about melania’s new movie. The reporter was gushing about how great and strong melania is; how she loves fashion and children and supports her husband.
I was revolted and thought to myself about how far NPR had fallen.
Those traits are admirable* but not noteworthy. Millions of devoted parents and spouses exist, but my mother and my wife don’t have access to a film crew to document them and pick highlights.
*unless your spouse is a known domestic abuser, pedophile, rapist, fraudster (…) and actively dismantling democracy in America, in which case… maybe don’t support him unless you are also a monster.
Even the term “soliciting prostitution with a minor” really shouldn’t exist because it implies some sort of consent by the minor.
Because the names in the signatures on their paychecks are in the Epstein files.
The legal system created these terms, and the media is complacent. People are adverse to hard issues, and it makes those issues even harder.
The rot is so deep global revolution is the only answer.
The same people who are in the files run the media. Not 100% positive, but this might have something to do with it.
They do everything they can to normalize it. It goes back to when I was a kid, Britney Spears was 16 when she made that hit me baby one more time song and video, while I liked it cause I was 14 at the time, I feel like I can see now that this is the continued work of the elites to normalize the fetishization of minor girls.
Totally agree, but it is also our responsibility to stop consuming it. Stop using X before chomo musk starts his Social Education addon. When everyone is logging into S E X and seeing pictures of AI generated naked children will people finally stop!?
Seriously get the fuck off X! I am going to start considering anyone still using that platform a supporter of child rape.
I am glad I was never on Twitter. I did make an account many, many, many years ago but never used it.
It’s because of they don’t play nice with the government they get uninvited to government press conferences, especially under the Orange administration.
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.
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.
They should just call him “typical rich guy”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Because they are actually okay with all of it. Kind of like how Diddlin Donnie can shit himself in front of a room full of people and not 1 person yells “OMFG he shit himself!”
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.
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.
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.
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
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
🎼 Some of those who work newsrooms
Are the same who rape kiddos
SHILLING IN THE NAME OF! 🎶
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.
