3 ms·

I don't really understand your comment, but to restate my own: the Epstein stuff was basically all a matter of public record. I don't claim to have insight into

I don't really understand your comment, but to restate my own: the Epstein stuff was basically all a matter of public record. I don't claim to have insight into why certain news stories and court cases become more popular than others.

mistermann 6y ago
My first comment is an observance that both the public and the media usually exhibit intense interest in matters that involve the sexual abuse of a child. Considering the Epstein affair involves the alleged systemic abuse of multiple children over a long period of time, and it involves celebrities (which itself usually attracts significant attention), the minimal level of interest it has received from the public and the media seems rather counter-intuitive. Regarding my second comment, I was noting that you seem to have a sense of omniscience about you: - "...a deep shroud of secrecy around the Epstein affair that doesn't really exist." - "...the Epstein stuff was basically all a matter of public record." Of course, if there was in fact a shroud of secrecy, or if some evidence on Epstein was not made available on the public record, you would have no way of knowing this. Yet, you speak as if you do know. My armchair psychologist theory is that these sorts of incredibly common logical errors (several of which can be seen in this thread) are due to subconscious heuristics running on binary (True/False) logic rather than ternary (True/False/Unknown) logic. The human mind, both subconscious and conscious really seems to struggle with Null/Unknown. I have the impression that this phenomenon is increasing over time (perhaps due to increased internet usage, plus Trump), but I don't know how one might go about measuring such a thing.
acct776 6y ago
Probable CIA asset running underage sex slaves for the elite wasn't exactly of public record, was it? Or, rather: was it splashed over social media? Because statistically, nobody's reading, these days..as disgusting as I feel having written that.

mistermann 6y ago

My first comment is an observance that both the public and the media usually exhibit intense interest in matters that involve the sexual abuse of a child. Considering the Epstein affair involves the alleged systemic abuse of multiple children over a long period of time, and it involves celebrities (which itself usually attracts significant attention), the minimal level of interest it has received from the public and the media seems rather counter-intuitive. Regarding my second comment, I was noting that you seem to have a sense of omniscience about you: - "...a deep shroud of secrecy around the Epstein affair that doesn't really exist." - "...the Epstein stuff was basically all a matter of public record." Of course, if there was in fact a shroud of secrecy, or if some evidence on Epstein was not made available on the public record, you would have no way of knowing this. Yet, you speak as if you do know. My armchair psychologist theory is that these sorts of incredibly common logical errors (several of which can be seen in this thread) are due to subconscious heuristics running on binary (True/False) logic rather than ternary (True/False/Unknown) logic. The human mind, both subconscious and conscious really seems to struggle with Null/Unknown. I have the impression that this phenomenon is increasing over time (perhaps due to increased internet usage, plus Trump), but I don't know how one might go about measuring such a thing.

acct776 6y ago

Probable CIA asset running underage sex slaves for the elite wasn't exactly of public record, was it? Or, rather: was it splashed over social media? Because statistically, nobody's reading, these days..as disgusting as I feel having written that.