Agreed, an odd take given the circumstances. > Now people are falling over themselves trying to one up each other on who can display the most moral outrage. >

Agreed, an odd take given the circumstances. > Now people are falling over themselves trying to one up each other on who can display the most moral outrage. > It is an example of how public discourse has degenerated to the point where we are attacking people first and refusing to ask even some basic questions before branding someone as guilty by association. The gist I get from OP's comment is that they are more frustrated with the generalized trend of "outrage culture", and referenced this Epstein story as a current example (despite being an ill-fitting one). OP's point would probably resonate better with a different example, though the sentiment does bring up an interesting tangential conversation. Feeding the fire is self-serving for many stories and comments once a controversial/multi-faceted story hits and the gates open. It's an easy way to get overly caught up in the weeds obsessing over the noise of a story that the signal gets drowned out. Those that have a vested interest in keeping a fire from extinguishing obviously want to add more kindling with "SHOCKING NEW DETAILS"-type stories that are less informationally relevant to the main events and more borderline conspiracy-theory or clickbait.