5 ms·

I wouldn't say that Epstein is a vindication of conspiracy theories, at least not the "Bigfoot" type. Epstein was already in trouble with the law for traffickin

by gdulli 7mo ago

I wouldn't say that Epstein is a vindication of conspiracy theories, at least not the "Bigfoot" type. Epstein was already in trouble with the law for trafficking over 20 years ago. The pedophilia in the Catholic church was known decades before that. It's shameful that these stories didn't get more attention sooner, but the general veracity of them wasn't in question. The prototypical pedophilia conspiracy theory we didn't believe at all is the Comet Ping Pong one, which was appropriate.

vintermann 7mo ago
"Bigfoot" isn't inherently a conspiracy theory. If you say that bigfoot exists, you're wrong, but not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. To be a conspiracy theorist, you also have to posit a grand conspiracy to conceal the existence of bigfoot. If you posit a conspiracy that only involves a few people who could plausibly coordinate to conceal the truth, that's also not a grand conspiracy, and we don't call people conspiracy theorist for believing in regular, everyday criminal conspiracies.
- throwup238 7mo ago
  > If you say that bigfoot exists, you're wrong, but not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. I’m not sure if “I’m just a cryptozoologist” is much of a vindication.
  - defrost 7mo ago
    [dead]
- AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
  > If you posit a conspiracy that only involves a few people who could plausibly coordinate to conceal the truth, that's also not a grand conspiracy, and we don't call people conspiracy theorist for believing in regular, everyday criminal conspiracies. No, but we did call people conspiracy theorists for believing the thing Snowden subsequently showed to be real.
  - vintermann 7mo ago
    Not me, I didn't. That conspiracy was certainly pretty big, but there was also a ton of smaller leaks as you'd expect on a real conspiracy of that size, so you certainly wouldn't be called nuts for assuming NSA were spying on a lot they weren't supposed to. Security state loyalists were not nearly as influential in online discourse back then, as they are now. Probably astroturfing, AI and algorithmic amplification plays a part in that.
    - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
      > so you certainly wouldn't be called nuts for assuming NSA were spying on a lot they weren't supposed to. You say that like it isn't what happened. If anything there were more security state loyalists in the first years after 9/11 than there are now.
- technothrasher 7mo ago
  > If you say that bigfoot exists, you're wrong That not a philosophically supportable statement. "There's insufficient evidence to warrant belief in your claim" is more realistic.
  - vintermann 7mo ago
    It wasn't meant to be philosophical, it was meant to be practical. As a practical matter, you're wrong if you say that Bigfoot exists, or that the sun won't rise tomorrow.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
n4r9 7mo ago
I think if 20 years ago you claimed that there was a global sex trafficking ring that procured young girls for elites, politicians, celebrities, and royalty, you'd be laughed off as a David Icke level conspiracist. These days it just seems obvious that that was going on.
- graemep 7mo ago
  Its not just a sex trafficking ring, its a corruption ring, and the corruption part of it is much bigger. It is what the arrests in the UK have been for. Given how senior some of the people in the UK are (Mandelson is a former cabinet minister, and a former European Commissioner, and was very influential even before he held those posts). If they had not trafficked minors as well I wonder whether it would ever have been exposed. It makes me wonder what else is going on.
- GJim 7mo ago
  Hard disagree! Such things have existed for millennia. What's more surprising is that people claim to be surprised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtesan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtesan
  - n4r9 7mo ago
    There are big differences between the historical notion of a courtesan and the underage women trafficked by Epstein. The main one being that courtesans played an established and visible (if unwritten) role in society.
graemep 7mo ago
> The pedophilia in the Catholic church was known decades before that. Except the proportion of paedophile priests is about the same as the proportion of paedophiles in the general population. There are more paedophiles in schools and social services than in religious organisations - and there have even been more convictions of teachers and social workers, at least tin the UK. The reason you think of the Catholic Church this way is BECAUSE it got more media attention earlier than elsewhere. A surprising number of people the UK do not know about the biggest big paedophile scandal in the country, the Islington one, that was huge, and at least one politician who was responsible for the failure to investigate went on to have a successful career in politics (the only time it set back her career at all was when Blair wanted to make her minister for children there was a backlash)
- georgeecollins 7mo ago
  I believe you but is there a source that you can refer me to? I guess I just believed abuse was more common in the Catholic church but your post made me realize my impression had no facts behind it.
- bazoom42 7mo ago
  > Except the proportion of paedophile priests is about the same as the proportion of paedophiles in the general population. I doubt you have any reliable statistics about this, given how many victims keep silent out of fear. But in any case, the moral failure of the church was not the existence of individual abusers (which indeed can exist anywhere in society), but how on an institutional level known abusers were protected by the curch. Everyone who was part of the cover-up (which went all the way to the top) is complicit.
- autoexec 7mo ago
  > The reason you think of the Catholic Church this way is BECAUSE it got more media attention earlier than elsewhere. I think what earned the Catholic Church their reputation was that the church was actively involved in protecting known pedophiles and repeatedly shuffling them around effectively giving them an endless supply of fresh victims while suppressing the voices of many of the children brave enough to come forward. The problem with the church isn't that pedos exist there, but that they've been very often supported and defended and their actions covered up in ways that don't (and often couldn't) happen in schools.

by gdulli 7mo ago

vintermann 7mo ago

"Bigfoot" isn't inherently a conspiracy theory. If you say that bigfoot exists, you're wrong, but not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. To be a conspiracy theorist, you also have to posit a grand conspiracy to conceal the existence of bigfoot. If you posit a conspiracy that only involves a few people who could plausibly coordinate to conceal the truth, that's also not a grand conspiracy, and we don't call people conspiracy theorist for believing in regular, everyday criminal conspiracies.

throwup238 7mo ago
> If you say that bigfoot exists, you're wrong, but not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. I’m not sure if “I’m just a cryptozoologist” is much of a vindication.
- defrost 7mo ago
  [dead]
AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
> If you posit a conspiracy that only involves a few people who could plausibly coordinate to conceal the truth, that's also not a grand conspiracy, and we don't call people conspiracy theorist for believing in regular, everyday criminal conspiracies. No, but we did call people conspiracy theorists for believing the thing Snowden subsequently showed to be real.
- vintermann 7mo ago
  Not me, I didn't. That conspiracy was certainly pretty big, but there was also a ton of smaller leaks as you'd expect on a real conspiracy of that size, so you certainly wouldn't be called nuts for assuming NSA were spying on a lot they weren't supposed to. Security state loyalists were not nearly as influential in online discourse back then, as they are now. Probably astroturfing, AI and algorithmic amplification plays a part in that.
  - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
    > so you certainly wouldn't be called nuts for assuming NSA were spying on a lot they weren't supposed to. You say that like it isn't what happened. If anything there were more security state loyalists in the first years after 9/11 than there are now.
technothrasher 7mo ago
> If you say that bigfoot exists, you're wrong That not a philosophically supportable statement. "There's insufficient evidence to warrant belief in your claim" is more realistic.
- vintermann 7mo ago
  It wasn't meant to be philosophical, it was meant to be practical. As a practical matter, you're wrong if you say that Bigfoot exists, or that the sun won't rise tomorrow.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]

n4r9 7mo ago

I think if 20 years ago you claimed that there was a global sex trafficking ring that procured young girls for elites, politicians, celebrities, and royalty, you'd be laughed off as a David Icke level conspiracist. These days it just seems obvious that that was going on.

graemep 7mo ago
Its not just a sex trafficking ring, its a corruption ring, and the corruption part of it is much bigger. It is what the arrests in the UK have been for. Given how senior some of the people in the UK are (Mandelson is a former cabinet minister, and a former European Commissioner, and was very influential even before he held those posts). If they had not trafficked minors as well I wonder whether it would ever have been exposed. It makes me wonder what else is going on.
GJim 7mo ago
Hard disagree! Such things have existed for millennia. What's more surprising is that people claim to be surprised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtesan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtesan
- n4r9 7mo ago
  There are big differences between the historical notion of a courtesan and the underage women trafficked by Epstein. The main one being that courtesans played an established and visible (if unwritten) role in society.

graemep 7mo ago

> The pedophilia in the Catholic church was known decades before that. Except the proportion of paedophile priests is about the same as the proportion of paedophiles in the general population. There are more paedophiles in schools and social services than in religious organisations - and there have even been more convictions of teachers and social workers, at least tin the UK. The reason you think of the Catholic Church this way is BECAUSE it got more media attention earlier than elsewhere. A surprising number of people the UK do not know about the biggest big paedophile scandal in the country, the Islington one, that was huge, and at least one politician who was responsible for the failure to investigate went on to have a successful career in politics (the only time it set back her career at all was when Blair wanted to make her minister for children there was a backlash)

georgeecollins 7mo ago
I believe you but is there a source that you can refer me to? I guess I just believed abuse was more common in the Catholic church but your post made me realize my impression had no facts behind it.
bazoom42 7mo ago
> Except the proportion of paedophile priests is about the same as the proportion of paedophiles in the general population. I doubt you have any reliable statistics about this, given how many victims keep silent out of fear. But in any case, the moral failure of the church was not the existence of individual abusers (which indeed can exist anywhere in society), but how on an institutional level known abusers were protected by the curch. Everyone who was part of the cover-up (which went all the way to the top) is complicit.
autoexec 7mo ago
> The reason you think of the Catholic Church this way is BECAUSE it got more media attention earlier than elsewhere. I think what earned the Catholic Church their reputation was that the church was actively involved in protecting known pedophiles and repeatedly shuffling them around effectively giving them an endless supply of fresh victims while suppressing the voices of many of the children brave enough to come forward. The problem with the church isn't that pedos exist there, but that they've been very often supported and defended and their actions covered up in ways that don't (and often couldn't) happen in schools.