5 ms·

>The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. What does this even mean aside from a thinly veiled accusation that such efforts are being pushe

by gruez 8mo ago

>The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. What does this even mean aside from a thinly veiled accusation that such efforts are being pushed by a shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites? I'm sure you can find some overlap between people who want to push age verification laws and people who went to the island, but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go?

afh1 8mo ago
Those are just stupid.
girvo 8mo ago
> shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites Its a shame that this used to just be a conspiracy theory one could mostly ignore, but we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts. Without wanting to get into politics, the leader of the United States right now was friends with the supposed ring-leader... > but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Useful idiots, perhaps? Wanting to protect their own power and gain more? It's certainly not actually about protecting children. Never has been.
- pipes 8mo ago
  I might be misreading you, but are you saying that the whole Qanon thing isn't a baseless conspiracy theory?
  - girvo 8mo ago
    Qanon is absolutely a baseless conspiracy theory. The overall idea that far too many of those in power politically and economically are involved in CSA isn't though, it seems.
    - Dylan16807 8mo ago
      The threshold for "far too many" is like, a single digit number. It's an extremely weak claim. Even if those in power were half as likely to be involved as the average adult, that would still be far too many.
- Tarq0n 8mo ago
  I don't like the "those in power" framing because it implies that they all participated and that such a homogenous group even exists.
  - smallmancontrov 8mo ago
    Yes, and many people have an extreme incentive to retreat to that framing because * In 2024, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2020, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2016, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. There was plenty of evidence of this association in 2016 (bragging about creeping into Ms Teen USA dressing rooms, bragging about being Epstein's best friend in the same sentence as acknowledging he's a pedo, victim testimony under oath that he diddled kids, etc etc), so "I didn't know" isn't an excuse if they cared one iota about the children at any step of the way. It should be good news that the powerful pedophiles are largely (but not exclusively) concentrated in one party, but those who put them in power will do anything to avoid admitting culpability.
    - anonym29 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - smallmancontrov 8mo ago
        Couple small corrections: Hillary has not been implicated by the Epstein files. Not today and not by evidence available in 2016. Biden has not been implicated by the Epstein files. Not today and not by evidence available in 2020. Bonus: not only was Trump implicated in the Epstein files both today and by evidence available in 2016, he was also in charge of every federal prison and every US spook agency in 2019 when Epstein died under mysterious circumstances.
        anonym29 8mo ago
        I never accused Hillary or Biden of being implicated in the Epstein files. Those aren't corrections, those are non-sequitirs. Bonus: at no point did I refute Trump being a pedophile or being in the Epstein files.
- gruez 8mo ago
  >we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts What's "rampant"? The news coverage provides no shortage of people, but ringing off 100 (or whatever) people that are in the files doesn't say much, even if we make the questionable assumption that inclusion in files implies guilt. I'm sure that everyone would prefer the amount of pedophiles that are in power to 0, but if it's the same rate as the general population that can hardly be considered "rampant", or a "conspiracy". Given some neutral inclusion criteria (eg. members of legislative bodies), is there any evidence they have disproportionate amount of pedophiles? >the leader of the United States right now was friends with the supposed ring-leader... You conveniently omit the fact that they broke up 5 years before he was first convicted. From wikipedia: "Trump had a falling out with Epstein around 2004 and ceased contact. After Epstein was said to have sexually harassed a teenage daughter of another Mar-a-Lago member in 2007, Trump banned him from the club. " >Useful idiots, perhaps? So basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness? > Wanting to protect their own power and gain more? How does adding age verification help in that? Are they blackmailed by the shadowy cabal? Are they just doing what the voters/lobbyists want? If so, what makes invocation of this reasoning more suitable than for any other political issue? Is everything from tax policy to noise ordinances just something pushed by pedophile elites, helped by useful idiots and people who want to "protect their own power and gain more"?
  - theshackleford 8mo ago
    > You conveniently omit the fact that they broke up 5 years before he was first convicted. And? It doesn’t change the reality of the original statement. The president of the United States was friends with the alleged ring leader of a large pedophile network.
    - gruez 8mo ago
      >The president of the United States was friends with the alleged ring leader of a large pedophile network. You're making some leaps logic here here. If someone's outed as a pedophile, everyone who's friends with him should be assumed to be a pedophile? Surely not, given that pedophilia is considered taboo, we'd expect them to hide it, and therefore at least some friends might not be in the know. That's not to say there's no conspirators, but "he was friends with a pedophile therefore he's a pedophile too" is just guilt by association. What you need to prove is that he knew, or ought to have known that his friend was a pedophile. A conviction works decently for this, because it's presumably public knowledge, although even that's questionable because most people don't do a background check on people they met. In the case of Epstien he also hired reputation management firms to suppress his conviction from showing up in the results, which weakens the case even more.
smallmancontrov 8mo ago
I don't know the precise combination of stupidity vs evil that compelled the "think of the children" crowd to choose the single most publicly implicated man in the Epstein scandal as their champion and elect him over someone who wasn't and hasn't been implicated at all in the slightest, but they did. Either way, they receive the culpability for doing so and we should expect their future decision making to be equally compromised.
catapart 8mo ago
Like who? Name some names of people pushing for this, and we can dissect their motivation.
- gruez 8mo ago
  How about the first country to ban social media for kids, Australia[1]? So far as I can tell the PM/party leader was not in the files. Of course, if you make your inclusion criteria absurdly wide (eg. anyone who voted or advocated for age based restrictions in any shape or form), you'll probably find some pedophiles or even epstien island visitors from sheer luck alone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Social_Media_Minimum_Age)_Act_2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Socia...
  - bigfatkitten 8mo ago
    This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-plans-for-internet-filter/4362354 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p...
    - gruez 8mo ago
      That doesn't change the conclusion, unless you're trying to imply the entire party is full of pedophiles.
      - scotty79 8mo ago
        At this point the burden of proof is on the party. Benefit of the doubt has ran out.
        gruez 8mo ago
        >Benefit of the doubt has ran out ...because they're pushing age verification legislation? Did I miss some massive Labor pedophile scandal? If not, this just feels like a tautology. Labor is only pushing age verification because they're pedophiles, and they're pedophiles because they're pushing age verification. Moreover even if we ignore that, what does that mean for the rest of their platform items? If Labor is pro net-zero, is it fair to characterize the situation as "the people pushing for net-zero are pedophiles"?
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
micromacrofoot 8mo ago
you mean the guys who are working alongside a bunch of pedophiles and doing little about it?
aga98mtl 8mo ago
> but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? Notice that epstein said he worked for [withheld] in some of his emails.
- gruez 8mo ago
  >Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? The anti-social media sentiment has been brewing for a while now, not least due to books like The Anxious Generation (2024). It's also reflected in opinion polls and media coverage. Unless you want to imply there's some massive conspiracy by The Elites™ (ie. not just a few lobbyists Meta hired, but those in academia and media as well), it's probably organic.
maweaver 8mo ago
It means that especially those who went to the island but also most of the others don't care about protecting children. They merely see a way to consolidate power and are jumping on it.

by gruez 8mo ago

afh1 8mo ago

Those are just stupid.

girvo 8mo ago

> shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites Its a shame that this used to just be a conspiracy theory one could mostly ignore, but we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts. Without wanting to get into politics, the leader of the United States right now was friends with the supposed ring-leader... > but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Useful idiots, perhaps? Wanting to protect their own power and gain more? It's certainly not actually about protecting children. Never has been.

pipes 8mo ago
I might be misreading you, but are you saying that the whole Qanon thing isn't a baseless conspiracy theory?
- girvo 8mo ago
  Qanon is absolutely a baseless conspiracy theory. The overall idea that far too many of those in power politically and economically are involved in CSA isn't though, it seems.
  - Dylan16807 8mo ago
    The threshold for "far too many" is like, a single digit number. It's an extremely weak claim. Even if those in power were half as likely to be involved as the average adult, that would still be far too many.
Tarq0n 8mo ago
I don't like the "those in power" framing because it implies that they all participated and that such a homogenous group even exists.
- smallmancontrov 8mo ago
  Yes, and many people have an extreme incentive to retreat to that framing because * In 2024, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2020, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2016, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. There was plenty of evidence of this association in 2016 (bragging about creeping into Ms Teen USA dressing rooms, bragging about being Epstein's best friend in the same sentence as acknowledging he's a pedo, victim testimony under oath that he diddled kids, etc etc), so "I didn't know" isn't an excuse if they cared one iota about the children at any step of the way. It should be good news that the powerful pedophiles are largely (but not exclusively) concentrated in one party, but those who put them in power will do anything to avoid admitting culpability.
  - anonym29 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - smallmancontrov 8mo ago
      Couple small corrections: Hillary has not been implicated by the Epstein files. Not today and not by evidence available in 2016. Biden has not been implicated by the Epstein files. Not today and not by evidence available in 2020. Bonus: not only was Trump implicated in the Epstein files both today and by evidence available in 2016, he was also in charge of every federal prison and every US spook agency in 2019 when Epstein died under mysterious circumstances.
      - anonym29 8mo ago
        I never accused Hillary or Biden of being implicated in the Epstein files. Those aren't corrections, those are non-sequitirs. Bonus: at no point did I refute Trump being a pedophile or being in the Epstein files.
gruez 8mo ago
>we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts What's "rampant"? The news coverage provides no shortage of people, but ringing off 100 (or whatever) people that are in the files doesn't say much, even if we make the questionable assumption that inclusion in files implies guilt. I'm sure that everyone would prefer the amount of pedophiles that are in power to 0, but if it's the same rate as the general population that can hardly be considered "rampant", or a "conspiracy". Given some neutral inclusion criteria (eg. members of legislative bodies), is there any evidence they have disproportionate amount of pedophiles? >the leader of the United States right now was friends with the supposed ring-leader... You conveniently omit the fact that they broke up 5 years before he was first convicted. From wikipedia: "Trump had a falling out with Epstein around 2004 and ceased contact. After Epstein was said to have sexually harassed a teenage daughter of another Mar-a-Lago member in 2007, Trump banned him from the club. " >Useful idiots, perhaps? So basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness? > Wanting to protect their own power and gain more? How does adding age verification help in that? Are they blackmailed by the shadowy cabal? Are they just doing what the voters/lobbyists want? If so, what makes invocation of this reasoning more suitable than for any other political issue? Is everything from tax policy to noise ordinances just something pushed by pedophile elites, helped by useful idiots and people who want to "protect their own power and gain more"?
- theshackleford 8mo ago
  > You conveniently omit the fact that they broke up 5 years before he was first convicted. And? It doesn’t change the reality of the original statement. The president of the United States was friends with the alleged ring leader of a large pedophile network.
  - gruez 8mo ago
    >The president of the United States was friends with the alleged ring leader of a large pedophile network. You're making some leaps logic here here. If someone's outed as a pedophile, everyone who's friends with him should be assumed to be a pedophile? Surely not, given that pedophilia is considered taboo, we'd expect them to hide it, and therefore at least some friends might not be in the know. That's not to say there's no conspirators, but "he was friends with a pedophile therefore he's a pedophile too" is just guilt by association. What you need to prove is that he knew, or ought to have known that his friend was a pedophile. A conviction works decently for this, because it's presumably public knowledge, although even that's questionable because most people don't do a background check on people they met. In the case of Epstien he also hired reputation management firms to suppress his conviction from showing up in the results, which weakens the case even more.

smallmancontrov 8mo ago

I don't know the precise combination of stupidity vs evil that compelled the "think of the children" crowd to choose the single most publicly implicated man in the Epstein scandal as their champion and elect him over someone who wasn't and hasn't been implicated at all in the slightest, but they did. Either way, they receive the culpability for doing so and we should expect their future decision making to be equally compromised.

catapart 8mo ago

Like who? Name some names of people pushing for this, and we can dissect their motivation.

gruez 8mo ago
How about the first country to ban social media for kids, Australia[1]? So far as I can tell the PM/party leader was not in the files. Of course, if you make your inclusion criteria absurdly wide (eg. anyone who voted or advocated for age based restrictions in any shape or form), you'll probably find some pedophiles or even epstien island visitors from sheer luck alone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Social_Media_Minimum_Age)_Act_2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Socia...
- bigfatkitten 8mo ago
  This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-plans-for-internet-filter/4362354 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p...
  - gruez 8mo ago
    That doesn't change the conclusion, unless you're trying to imply the entire party is full of pedophiles.
    - scotty79 8mo ago
      At this point the burden of proof is on the party. Benefit of the doubt has ran out.
      - gruez 8mo ago
        >Benefit of the doubt has ran out ...because they're pushing age verification legislation? Did I miss some massive Labor pedophile scandal? If not, this just feels like a tautology. Labor is only pushing age verification because they're pedophiles, and they're pedophiles because they're pushing age verification. Moreover even if we ignore that, what does that mean for the rest of their platform items? If Labor is pro net-zero, is it fair to characterize the situation as "the people pushing for net-zero are pedophiles"?

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

micromacrofoot 8mo ago

you mean the guys who are working alongside a bunch of pedophiles and doing little about it?

aga98mtl 8mo ago

> but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? Notice that epstein said he worked for [withheld] in some of his emails.

gruez 8mo ago
>Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? The anti-social media sentiment has been brewing for a while now, not least due to books like The Anxious Generation (2024). It's also reflected in opinion polls and media coverage. Unless you want to imply there's some massive conspiracy by The Elites™ (ie. not just a few lobbyists Meta hired, but those in academia and media as well), it's probably organic.

maweaver 8mo ago

It means that especially those who went to the island but also most of the others don't care about protecting children. They merely see a way to consolidate power and are jumping on it.