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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is why you should get your news from alternative media. I usually recommend Breaking Points. There's even a reporter on their staff that punched Jesse Watters in the face once.
I was a bit miffed to discover that, during the current fall of america, most media, whether right, middle or left leaning, proved to us they'll fiddle with the truth for money and clicks. Fuck capitalism. We the people?, or we the money?
The fact that mainstream media constantly does that it just shows you on who's side they are. They wouldn't talk about it at all, but they need to wash their karma somehow.
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.
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!”
It's because of they don't play nice with the government they get uninvited to government press conferences, especially under the Orange administration.
It's still just asking fucking questions, just sarcastically to make a point, but still just asking questions. Question everyone has known the answers to for almost a decade. It's useless nonsense. Go DO SOMETHING.
Then grab a gun and shoot someone you think is responsible. "Everyone has known who the problem is for almost a decade". Unless you're not a part of "everyone", that means you know and have also done nothing for almost a decade.
A lot of people are reasonably angry, and you might be one of them, but that doesn't justify such a disrespectful attitude to someone else coming to terms with the same events. The same things preventing you from becoming the firebrand of the next subsection of this history chapter might be stopping them as well.
But, in their case, they openly poke at the collapsing façade of oligarchic conspiracies instead of just yelling at everyone on the internet that isn't doing what someone thinks they ought to.
Why is the solution always killing people? Do something doesn't mean murder. This isn't Rambo FFS. Go meet with your peers and discuss what you can be doing. Regularly contact your reps and demand answers and action and guidance. Find out who in your social life approves of Trump and make it messy for them.
I know Americans love guns but murder isn't the answer to all your problems.
I hate people who can't move on from asking rhetorical questions to the next thing to do that helps the situation. Asking rhetorical questions didn't stop Trump a decade ago and it won't today. It's just useless social media performance.
To be fair to some of them, almost nobody who isn't already deeply committed to following the story is going to rage-read an article or watch a news segment titled "Child Rapist who owns your life accused of murdering infant belonging to a 13 year old, threw corpse into Lake Superior" instead a lot of them are going to turn the screen off or go work on the new terraria achievements.
What's more wild to me is no matter how they phrase it you've still got fucking nutjobs yelling "both sides bad" or even outright supporting these pedos.
I think your original definition works well, it is just that the most honest and accurate headline is mutually exclusive from an exaggerated or misrepresented headline used to generate more views.
It's a good thing Bill Clinton isn't in those files. Or Larry Summers, or Reid Hoffman, or Noam Chomsky, or Kathryn Ruemmler, who served as White House Counsel under Obama, or Stacey Plaskett, who was literally on the phone texting with Epstein while she was on the floor during a hearing with Cohen about Trump. But sure, keep telling yourself it's not "both sides"
Are you trying to tell me Kathryn and Stacey were buying child sex slaves?
Also, I haven't considered Noam leftwing since long before the files came out, the dude is a Red Fascist advocating for Ukraine to surrender to Russia.
Keep in mind the only reason anybody is seeing any of these files right now is because every Democrat in congress forced the release.
Are you gonna be consistent now that it's out that Zelenskyy is also in the Epstein Files, and it looks like he also had a meeting with him, and that Ukraine may have also been a scouting spot for the child sex trafficking ring?
According solely to Russian State Run RIA Novosty media organization.
In contrast, Kyiv claims that former Prime Minister Robert Fico who was very friendly to Russia is in the Epstein files, which would certainly make more sense given Zelensky was elected the same year Epstein hung himself in prison.
Look, if you can find a reputable source that Zelensky is a Necromancer then please do, or better yet go find the actual files since they are public, but until then I haven't seen anything of the sort.
No, it's actually because of Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie. Massie is republican, a libertarian if you wonna be kind. Think senate vote to release them was unanimous, and house was like 1 against. Way more credit should be given to Marjorie Taylor Green and Nancy Mace for the release than to pretty much every single Democrat.
In September 2025, the Senate Judiciary Committee including EVERY DEMOCRAT and Representative Thomas Massie, filed a discharge petition in support of the bill. On November 12, the discharge petition received the minimum-required 218 signatures needed, from 4 Republican representatives and 214 Democratic Party representatives , forcing a House vote on the bill.
Before that in the House Rules Committee Republicans shot down a forced vote 8-4 along party lines.
Before that the House and Senate had voted on it along party lines with Democrats for and Republicans against.
Yeah, that's fair. Most Reps did hold it up, only to have almost all vote later to release it, for what reason, I still don't know, and the law is still being broken, as they were all supposed to have been released by now, mostly unredacted.
You can call them that if you're painting a positive picture of the future, like encouraging them because soon enough they'll be voting. That's a reasonable time to do so.
If you do so here, when the whole point is there were massive horrible crimes on kids committed, you're covering up the badness.
That would be young adult; we do generally accept that children become adults at 18, we do not have an agreed upon age that girls become women.
Not defending any SA stuff, please don't misinterprete what I'm saying here. I'm just saying "young women" isn't "intentionally" minimalizing anything.
Overall the problem comes from the fact that there is a difference between consensual and non-consensual sex, no matter the age. And yes there is the question of at what age can a person truely consent, but technically the word still applies for descriptive purposes.
So, for people above the legal age, rape is generally non-consenual sex. But below a magic age that isn't consistent across the world, rape includes consenual sex. That causes there to be a gap in that there aren't useful words to differentiate between consensual, and non-consensual sex with a minor. Some word argue there is no difference, but technically there certainly is.
You also have no easy way to describe sex with a very young kid vs a 17.9 year old. Yet they are certainly very different also.
Since the world can't agree on a static age for consent, and really everyone is different, so it just isn't that simple, you can be sure that these differtiations matter to some people.
In short, all rape is bad, but some is certainly even worse. But terminology doesn't support differentiation. So news people make up thier own.
Edit: I know it may have been hard to parse, but my intent here is to advocate for removing the ambiguity of what people have done. At this point "rape" means so many things that people no longer universally consider it bad. I can't change those people's opinions, but better terminology would help ensure those people aren't discounting how bad a thing a person did was, just because we don't have good terminology to communicate it.
Take statutory rape, it doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows in my opinion. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old girlfriend, then the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges to be lenient because "it would ruin his life"...
Yeah, but even statutory rape doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges to be lenient when they shouldn't be.
The only thing I defended was the news people making up thier own terminology in the absence of terminology with enough nuance to capture the details...
Take statutory rape. It doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows I say. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
Why are you trying to inject a terminology discussion into this? Everybody here is clear on what was going on. These were children who were trafficked as sex slaves. It isn't a debate. You're either part of a troll farm, or just a willfully dense individual with no actual social skills.
The post litterally contained "why is the press inventing the term..." I mean it is right there inviting a terminology discussion.
But also, the lack of proper termonology has given defenders of rape an argument to distract from the crime. I want that taken away, and I want it clear what they did so people don't just wave their hands and say... "but was it really"...
No, the post is very clear. The press is minimizing what happened. It doesn't at all invite a terminology discussion. You're being downvoted to all hell bcz you've doubled down on your stance no matter who you are talking too.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Failure to look deeper then what you expected to see is why these problems with terminology and communication exist.
The rules are not written for those who develop earlier that might be able to consent, they are written for those who don't develop early and who shouldn't be considered mature enough. But also, the attraction seems to be an age during which a consent is not possible anyways. They're just fucking gross.
Also... I would argue many 18 year olds aren't mature enough for a lot of decisions. Yet magically, convincing one to have sex is no longer a crime. The brain doesn't finish developing until the early 20's. I a, not saying the age of consent should be 21, just that it's a nuance our terminology and laws don't cover well.
I think it is cultural too. Kids here take forever to grow up. I moved out at 17. Our grandparents were married at 13. They weren't all pedos. In any case, unless its one of those gray fox attractions, these old men messing with young girls is fucking gross.
True, but better terminology would still help ensure proper punishments.
Take statutory rape, it doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
The law here doesn't allow for statutory rape charges for fewer than 2 years here. Anyway, regardless, off topic, but I don't think the minors want to be tortured or eaten, so there's that.
The problem is that technically child rape covers consenual act between teens if one is just over 18. I am saying we need better accepted terminology.
Take statutory rape, it doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
The person was complaining specifically about the words used in the article and that the reporter made up thier own. I was saying it is understandable that the reporter do that since we don't have naunced enough terminology for the crime. And I argued we really need to work on that to prevent people from not taking the crimes as seriously as they should. When rape includes a 17.9 year old and an 18.1 year old having consenual sex, then when people hear rape, they don't automatically consider it vile and disturbing. So the word no longer carries the weight it should when it describes other types of rape. But since it could refer to so many things, a new reporter doesn't want to use it at all so they can avoid being sued for defamation.
I see the problem here. Read the original post. Like click on the picture. The post is about journalist making up thier own terminology which in their opinion is to intentionally minimize the criminality of the actions. It is really complaining about the reporting, not the crimes themselves. It bigger than just the epstein files. And it is rampant in all reporting on rape cases.
So why do they do it? In large part, because of the lack of agreed upon terminology, they have to make up terms that are less serious to avoid getting sued for implying crimes that didn't actually take place.
I disagree.
Take statutory rape, it doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
I don't think you got what I meant, not going into detail myself on the whole actuality of physically abusing a "child". My Point was that though, they physically engaged in the sexual abuse of underaged/children. As for the second half of what you said "different states/territories have thier own distinct rules and regulations of age difference between / statutory statues.
Oh gotcha. My obscure point there was intended to be that if it is all called rape, but in some places, some of those thing categorized as rape aren't illegal or even abnormal (child marriages for example). Then when people here rape their first thought will be "what sort of rape". Better terminology can change that first thought to "what a bastard" in more minds for more cases.
In all do respect, the whole ;Epstein BS: First of all this took place in a time before things like the glorious digital age, the children in question and the effects " depending on what actually happen on that Island,.. " May they have been sexualized " put into awkward situations between themselfs and adults in person,.. essentially is the equivalent of molestation and sexual harrassment ", that or more seriously "penetrated/raped" These where actual people/children... That is just wrong. excuse me if my next opinion is controversiaL, as for current times "The content alone an the legislation over it to me seems more like a physiological tool for power, while being pretentious,.. oftenly used as a means too incriminate persons either completely out of context that or either way as an indirect incitement leading to the indictments of others, aka it is used/leveraged as power over ones/others vs the legislation itself being a contradiction",.. The Legislation claims these ambiguous and vague laws "that which are so skewed a general case leans on and essentially not only allow for a jury but nearly require one to make sense of any such given facts whatsoever, and while that seems fair it is completely besides the point because it leans on the jury and nearly requires one too even ground itself, it is arbitrarily ungrounded either way in actuality or true fact..ect. I see no point further explaining this, that which is broad as daylight"on the legislation continued‐ it which overlooks btw the very fact that such content of any kind even so called "legal? just call it all barely legal then" is all grounds for sexual misconduct charges, while doing so lay claimant that they serve to "protect children", & Im just wondering "not just how much of that is relevant or even true", but at what cost to children? As if the criminalization wasn't enough 'sarcasm much,.. These thing's come with great alienation that could easily cause " any child who comes into contact or across such things much distress + mental issues/scars,.. Im not going to say or chose what side or at what line these contents or legislation should be grounded in or on ", & second statement here is Just that I would like to point out that the "alienation" is well expected but the disarray of it all and the legislation actually "do harm to children"... My final statements on this portion of the topic "nsfw, 18+, and other if not either or gore or provocative content" Is not meant for children albeit any, or at least the majority of humans are going to experience such things hopefully not physically..especially if;" unconsensually".., So with a hard note on "at ones own risk..ect.", & the current legislation of prior warning before entering..ect. should be the only legislation imo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
yes sorry I should've been more precise
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".
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.
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!
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
I don’t think it’s an inappropriate callout.
The media machine is complicit with the state. Always has been.
"Underage female". I'll never forget this. He was a serial child rapist, to start with.
🎼 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts it on X….
Reposts an existing popular tweet, on X
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.
American media engage in censorship that people don't see. They soften the language and cherrypick the facts.
Americans aren't ready for big scary words
People need to be calling out networks and reporters/authors by name for doing this. Stop blaming "they" and put a name on it.
I don't think the journalists write the headlines though.
This is why you should get your news from alternative media. I usually recommend Breaking Points. There's even a reporter on their staff that punched Jesse Watters in the face once.
Internet Today is good too
Look at who owns the news that are hiding the reality of the situation. Look at who they're beholden to.
I was a bit miffed to discover that, during the current fall of america, most media, whether right, middle or left leaning, proved to us they'll fiddle with the truth for money and clicks. Fuck capitalism. We the people?, or we the money?
Don't you know how many Benjamins got the right to vote on 21 January 2010
The fact that mainstream media constantly does that it just shows you on who's side they are. They wouldn't talk about it at all, but they need to wash their karma somehow.
Even the term "soliciting prostitution with a minor" really shouldn't exist because it implies some sort of consent by the minor.
mind that most of these people would otherwise refer to women as girls. it's deliberate.
The other night I listened to the PBS News Hour characterizing grok's AI child pornography as "explicit" and "putting women into bathing suits".
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.
Chickenshits are afraid to upset their god
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 legal system created these terms, and the media is complacent. People are adverse to hard issues, and it makes those issues even harder.
If I run a news website, I would say "the Epstein Files contains evidence that Trump sexually abused these poor girls in a private island". Seriously!
The corruption is deep, need to amputate
Because the names in the signatures on their paychecks are in the Epstein files.
The rot is so deep global revolution is the only answer.
It's because of they don't play nice with the government they get uninvited to government press conferences, especially under the Orange administration.
Why is Dr Ruby on a Nazi pedo's website?
Bro's never heard of a rhetorical question.
If a person asks questions about something, while listing every single questionable element, perhaps the question wasn't looking for an answer.
It's still just asking fucking questions, just sarcastically to make a point, but still just asking questions. Question everyone has known the answers to for almost a decade. It's useless nonsense. Go DO SOMETHING.
Then grab a gun and shoot someone you think is responsible. "Everyone has known who the problem is for almost a decade". Unless you're not a part of "everyone", that means you know and have also done nothing for almost a decade.
A lot of people are reasonably angry, and you might be one of them, but that doesn't justify such a disrespectful attitude to someone else coming to terms with the same events. The same things preventing you from becoming the firebrand of the next subsection of this history chapter might be stopping them as well.
But, in their case, they openly poke at the collapsing façade of oligarchic conspiracies instead of just yelling at everyone on the internet that isn't doing what someone thinks they ought to.
Why is the solution always killing people? Do something doesn't mean murder. This isn't Rambo FFS. Go meet with your peers and discuss what you can be doing. Regularly contact your reps and demand answers and action and guidance. Find out who in your social life approves of Trump and make it messy for them.
I know Americans love guns but murder isn't the answer to all your problems.
So you're not against talking around the crisis, you just hate rhetorical questions. Weird hill to plant your flag on, but go ahead.
I hate people who can't move on from asking rhetorical questions to the next thing to do that helps the situation. Asking rhetorical questions didn't stop Trump a decade ago and it won't today. It's just useless social media performance.
It is wild to see this in real time.
I opened the car radio today and Fox was arguing Biden caused more damage to kids than Epstein because "he let too many immigrants in."
Foxes are known to grow manic when trapped inside car radios for an extended period of time, you should have expected this. /s
Mercenaries are just doing what they are told. Without publicly funded independent media, that's what you get.
Which newspapers don't do this?
To be fair to some of them, almost nobody who isn't already deeply committed to following the story is going to rage-read an article or watch a news segment titled "Child Rapist who owns your life accused of murdering infant belonging to a 13 year old, threw corpse into Lake Superior" instead a lot of them are going to turn the screen off or go work on the new terraria achievements.
What's more wild to me is no matter how they phrase it you've still got fucking nutjobs yelling "both sides bad" or even outright supporting these pedos.
Sure, clickbait headlines don't really work, that's why they don't use those at all...
I would say its the other way around:
They purposedly use extra mild language to report these news so they don't catch people's eyes that much, while still claiming to report the news.
Next, they put news of Alleged Domestic Terrorists Rene Good and Alex Pretti in all caps.
The headline I described would be far more accurate than most, literally the opposition to clickbait.
I meant clickbait as "The most impactfull headline to catch the most views", not as unrealistic.Edit: I guess I had a wrong understanding of the word, I stand corrected!
I think your original definition works well, it is just that the most honest and accurate headline is mutually exclusive from an exaggerated or misrepresented headline used to generate more views.
It's a good thing Bill Clinton isn't in those files. Or Larry Summers, or Reid Hoffman, or Noam Chomsky, or Kathryn Ruemmler, who served as White House Counsel under Obama, or Stacey Plaskett, who was literally on the phone texting with Epstein while she was on the floor during a hearing with Cohen about Trump. But sure, keep telling yourself it's not "both sides"
Are you trying to tell me Kathryn and Stacey were buying child sex slaves?
Also, I haven't considered Noam leftwing since long before the files came out, the dude is a Red Fascist advocating for Ukraine to surrender to Russia.
Keep in mind the only reason anybody is seeing any of these files right now is because every Democrat in congress forced the release.
Are you gonna be consistent now that it's out that Zelenskyy is also in the Epstein Files, and it looks like he also had a meeting with him, and that Ukraine may have also been a scouting spot for the child sex trafficking ring?
According solely to Russian State Run RIA Novosty media organization.
In contrast, Kyiv claims that former Prime Minister Robert Fico who was very friendly to Russia is in the Epstein files, which would certainly make more sense given Zelensky was elected the same year Epstein hung himself in prison.
Look, if you can find a reputable source that Zelensky is a Necromancer then please do, or better yet go find the actual files since they are public, but until then I haven't seen anything of the sort.
No, it's actually because of Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie. Massie is republican, a libertarian if you wonna be kind. Think senate vote to release them was unanimous, and house was like 1 against. Way more credit should be given to Marjorie Taylor Green and Nancy Mace for the release than to pretty much every single Democrat.
In September 2025, the Senate Judiciary Committee including EVERY DEMOCRAT and Representative Thomas Massie, filed a discharge petition in support of the bill. On November 12, the discharge petition received the minimum-required 218 signatures needed, from 4 Republican representatives and 214 Democratic Party representatives , forcing a House vote on the bill.
Before that in the House Rules Committee Republicans shot down a forced vote 8-4 along party lines.
Before that the House and Senate had voted on it along party lines with Democrats for and Republicans against.
https://www.congress.gov/votes/house/119-1/194?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22hres+580%22%7D&s=8&r=3
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00512.htm
These files are out because of the DNC and they would have been out last year if not for Republicans being against the release in solidarity.
Yeah, that's fair. Most Reps did hold it up, only to have almost all vote later to release it, for what reason, I still don't know, and the law is still being broken, as they were all supposed to have been released by now, mostly unredacted.
Stop posting on NAZI-Bot. MF's OK using twitter are just as ok with child-rape.
What a delusional sentence. It's not a good platform we know. But what the fuck man
Naw, fuck everyone supporting a platform that generates naked images of children run by a chomo Nazi.
Nah it's good energy. If you're still using Twitter in 2026 I don't respect you.
I agree; but don't we call girls aged like 13-18 "young women"?
Ive never heard that females only become woman at age 18. (Not defending anything, but that point seems to be the weakest.)
You can call them that if you're painting a positive picture of the future, like encouraging them because soon enough they'll be voting. That's a reasonable time to do so.
If you do so here, when the whole point is there were massive horrible crimes on kids committed, you're covering up the badness.
I always thought of that term for like 18-25 year olds
That would be young adult; we do generally accept that children become adults at 18, we do not have an agreed upon age that girls become women.
Not defending any SA stuff, please don't misinterprete what I'm saying here. I'm just saying "young women" isn't "intentionally" minimalizing anything.
Except this is specifically calling out the use of 'underage women', not 'young women', so I think you might be getting a bit away from your point.
Overall the problem comes from the fact that there is a difference between consensual and non-consensual sex, no matter the age. And yes there is the question of at what age can a person truely consent, but technically the word still applies for descriptive purposes.
So, for people above the legal age, rape is generally non-consenual sex. But below a magic age that isn't consistent across the world, rape includes consenual sex. That causes there to be a gap in that there aren't useful words to differentiate between consensual, and non-consensual sex with a minor. Some word argue there is no difference, but technically there certainly is.
You also have no easy way to describe sex with a very young kid vs a 17.9 year old. Yet they are certainly very different also. Since the world can't agree on a static age for consent, and really everyone is different, so it just isn't that simple, you can be sure that these differtiations matter to some people. In short, all rape is bad, but some is certainly even worse. But terminology doesn't support differentiation. So news people make up thier own.
Edit: I know it may have been hard to parse, but my intent here is to advocate for removing the ambiguity of what people have done. At this point "rape" means so many things that people no longer universally consider it bad. I can't change those people's opinions, but better terminology would help ensure those people aren't discounting how bad a thing a person did was, just because we don't have good terminology to communicate it.
Take statutory rape, it doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows in my opinion. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old girlfriend, then the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges to be lenient because "it would ruin his life"...
It’s called statutory rape.
Also, jesus fucking christ, man.
Yeah, but even statutory rape doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges to be lenient when they shouldn't be.
This made me felt icky just reading it. The fact that you think there's even a modicum of defense of this amazes me.
The only thing I defended was the news people making up thier own terminology in the absence of terminology with enough nuance to capture the details... Take statutory rape. It doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows I say. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
Why are you trying to inject a terminology discussion into this? Everybody here is clear on what was going on. These were children who were trafficked as sex slaves. It isn't a debate. You're either part of a troll farm, or just a willfully dense individual with no actual social skills.
The post litterally contained "why is the press inventing the term..." I mean it is right there inviting a terminology discussion. But also, the lack of proper termonology has given defenders of rape an argument to distract from the crime. I want that taken away, and I want it clear what they did so people don't just wave their hands and say... "but was it really"...
No, the post is very clear. The press is minimizing what happened. It doesn't at all invite a terminology discussion. You're being downvoted to all hell bcz you've doubled down on your stance no matter who you are talking too.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Failure to look deeper then what you expected to see is why these problems with terminology and communication exist.
There is no problem here.
The rules are not written for those who develop earlier that might be able to consent, they are written for those who don't develop early and who shouldn't be considered mature enough. But also, the attraction seems to be an age during which a consent is not possible anyways. They're just fucking gross.
Also... I would argue many 18 year olds aren't mature enough for a lot of decisions. Yet magically, convincing one to have sex is no longer a crime. The brain doesn't finish developing until the early 20's. I a, not saying the age of consent should be 21, just that it's a nuance our terminology and laws don't cover well.
I think it is cultural too. Kids here take forever to grow up. I moved out at 17. Our grandparents were married at 13. They weren't all pedos. In any case, unless its one of those gray fox attractions, these old men messing with young girls is fucking gross.
True, but better terminology would still help ensure proper punishments. Take statutory rape, it doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
The law here doesn't allow for statutory rape charges for fewer than 2 years here. Anyway, regardless, off topic, but I don't think the minors want to be tortured or eaten, so there's that.
Yeah, but that law depends on the local jurisdiction. In the us, by state
The problem is that technically child rape covers consenual act between teens if one is just over 18. I am saying we need better accepted terminology.
Take statutory rape, it doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
The person was complaining specifically about the words used in the article and that the reporter made up thier own. I was saying it is understandable that the reporter do that since we don't have naunced enough terminology for the crime. And I argued we really need to work on that to prevent people from not taking the crimes as seriously as they should. When rape includes a 17.9 year old and an 18.1 year old having consenual sex, then when people hear rape, they don't automatically consider it vile and disturbing. So the word no longer carries the weight it should when it describes other types of rape. But since it could refer to so many things, a new reporter doesn't want to use it at all so they can avoid being sued for defamation.
I see the problem here. Read the original post. Like click on the picture. The post is about journalist making up thier own terminology which in their opinion is to intentionally minimize the criminality of the actions. It is really complaining about the reporting, not the crimes themselves. It bigger than just the epstein files. And it is rampant in all reporting on rape cases.
So why do they do it? In large part, because of the lack of agreed upon terminology, they have to make up terms that are less serious to avoid getting sued for implying crimes that didn't actually take place.
Not much of a difference "They touched kids"
I disagree. Take statutory rape, it doesn't distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and... straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
I don't think you got what I meant, not going into detail myself on the whole actuality of physically abusing a "child". My Point was that though, they physically engaged in the sexual abuse of underaged/children. As for the second half of what you said "different states/territories have thier own distinct rules and regulations of age difference between / statutory statues.
Oh gotcha. My obscure point there was intended to be that if it is all called rape, but in some places, some of those thing categorized as rape aren't illegal or even abnormal (child marriages for example). Then when people here rape their first thought will be "what sort of rape". Better terminology can change that first thought to "what a bastard" in more minds for more cases.
In all do respect, the whole ;Epstein BS: First of all this took place in a time before things like the glorious digital age, the children in question and the effects " depending on what actually happen on that Island,.. " May they have been sexualized " put into awkward situations between themselfs and adults in person,.. essentially is the equivalent of molestation and sexual harrassment ", that or more seriously "penetrated/raped" These where actual people/children... That is just wrong. excuse me if my next opinion is controversiaL, as for current times "The content alone an the legislation over it to me seems more like a physiological tool for power, while being pretentious,.. oftenly used as a means too incriminate persons either completely out of context that or either way as an indirect incitement leading to the indictments of others, aka it is used/leveraged as power over ones/others vs the legislation itself being a contradiction",.. The Legislation claims these ambiguous and vague laws "that which are so skewed a general case leans on and essentially not only allow for a jury but nearly require one to make sense of any such given facts whatsoever, and while that seems fair it is completely besides the point because it leans on the jury and nearly requires one too even ground itself, it is arbitrarily ungrounded either way in actuality or true fact..ect. I see no point further explaining this, that which is broad as daylight"on the legislation continued‐ it which overlooks btw the very fact that such content of any kind even so called "legal? just call it all barely legal then" is all grounds for sexual misconduct charges, while doing so lay claimant that they serve to "protect children", & Im just wondering "not just how much of that is relevant or even true", but at what cost to children? As if the criminalization wasn't enough 'sarcasm much,.. These thing's come with great alienation that could easily cause " any child who comes into contact or across such things much distress + mental issues/scars,.. Im not going to say or chose what side or at what line these contents or legislation should be grounded in or on ", & second statement here is Just that I would like to point out that the "alienation" is well expected but the disarray of it all and the legislation actually "do harm to children"... My final statements on this portion of the topic "nsfw, 18+, and other if not either or gore or provocative content" Is not meant for children albeit any, or at least the majority of humans are going to experience such things hopefully not physically..especially if;" unconsensually".., So with a hard note on "at ones own risk..ect.", & the current legislation of prior warning before entering..ect. should be the only legislation imo.
take a condom, check IDs, and google tea sex by: ted talks. baybie babye bibai.