Epstein, a convicted sex trafficker who took his own life in 2019, has been linked to some of the world's most powerful men. Names included in the court documents aren't evidence of wrongdoing.
The unsealed documents in the Epstein case have been released.
Nothing “allegedly” about it, they ARE linked. Whether or not they did anything wrong (and they almost certainly did), being mentioned in those court documents is literally a link to Epstein.
You’d think that someone writing for NPR would at least be literate enough to understand what all the words they use mean…
Whether or not they fully “took the bait”, powerful men who hung out with Epstein are all scumbags. The ones who did after his first conviction or otherwise finding out, at least.
And of course I don’t consider people linked to him through victimhood the same as the powerful men I was talking about. No good faith reading of my comment could possibly suggest otherwise.
Keep that in mind before you set up the guillotine
Nah, fuck that. No man rich and influential enough to join the upper echelon of the New York and Florida socialite scene where Epstein found customers didn’t either step on or at least ignore a lot of innocent struggling people to get there. I say they’re all about a head too tall.
Whether or not they did anything wrong (and they almost certainly did)
And of course I don’t consider people linked to him through victimhood the same as the powerful men I was talking about. No good faith reading of my comment could possibly suggest otherwise.
Don’t really know how you can take this in a good faith understanding. You’ve literally just said that any name appearing in the document almost certainly did the wrong thing. Just acknowledge that there is necessary nuance here - some people named in that document have done nothing wrong.
Obviously, for anyone that underwent business or other dealings with Epstein, while knowing what we was: burn them. But the guillotine should never be indiscriminate.
You’ve literally just said that any name appearing in the document almost certainly did the wrong thing
No, I was talking about the powerful men mentioned in the headline. Why would you think I’d widen it beyond that without saying so?
Just acknowledge that there is necessary nuance here - some people named in that document have done nothing wrong.
Of course. Just so happens that some if not all of the powerful men being alluded to in the headline have abused children and the rest have done a lot of awful things to attain their wealth and power.
Obviously, for anyone that underwent business or other dealings with Epstein, while knowing what he was: burn them
That’s what I’m saying!
But the guillotine should never be indiscriminate.
Allegedly is just a way to avoid getting sued. They know what they’re doing. Sure, if they’re on the list, that could be argued it’s not alleged that they’re tied together in some form, but at least this will keep anyone from attempted to sue them over it. And all they had to do was wiggle their fingers a few more times to add that extra word.
I know why media (say they) use “alleged” all the time, but this doesn’t apply.
It’s by definition a link. Whether it’s a significant link is another matter, but no court would be so ridiculous as to accept a lawsuit based on a misunderstanding of what the word “linked” means.
if they’re on the list, that could be argued it’s not alleged that they’re tied together in some form
The list itself is a link. Whether it’s a link that means anything is yet to be revealed, but it’s beyond a shadow of a doubt and in every legal sense a link.
this will keep anyone from attempted to sue them over it.
No it won’t. There was already precisely zero risk of it.
The only thing they’re achieving by adding “alleged” to this headline is to annoy people who know what words and concepts are and then spur a lot of people to tell those already annoyed people things the annoyed people already know and have been reminded of every time they’ve pointed out misuse of “alleged”.
Donald Trump. That’s all you need to know. And no, I’m not being sarcastic. Fuck that guy, and any waterhead inbreed and wanna-be tough guy who worships him.
Sure. If you feel they have some vendetta against their readers and wanted to annoy you, feel free to make that claim. Sure sounds like you’re a very stable person assuming that title was purposefully written to annoy people because [reasons].
If you feel they have some vendetta against their readers and wanted to annoy you
Incompetence and ignorance don’t have to be deliberate to be annoying. Especially when they happen often. I happen to expect better of those who are paid to inform people of breaking news. Being annoyed ≠ thinking it’s about me or otherwise deliberate.
Sure sounds like you’re a very stable person assuming that title was purposefully written to annoy people because [reasons].
Again, never said that. You sure sound like a very sincere person, waving around the strawman you constructed to dismiss my rational argument as paranoid ramblings.
Nothing “allegedly” about it, they ARE linked. Whether or not they did anything wrong (and they almost certainly did), being mentioned in those court documents is literally a link to Epstein.
You’d think that someone writing for NPR would at least be literate enough to understand what all the words they use mean…
Linked includes victims and people who didn’t take the bait. Keep that in mind before you set up the guillotine
Whether or not they fully “took the bait”, powerful men who hung out with Epstein are all scumbags. The ones who did after his first conviction or otherwise finding out, at least.
And of course I don’t consider people linked to him through victimhood the same as the powerful men I was talking about. No good faith reading of my comment could possibly suggest otherwise.
Nah, fuck that. No man rich and influential enough to join the upper echelon of the New York and Florida socialite scene where Epstein found customers didn’t either step on or at least ignore a lot of innocent struggling people to get there. I say they’re all about a head too tall.
Don’t really know how you can take this in a good faith understanding. You’ve literally just said that any name appearing in the document almost certainly did the wrong thing. Just acknowledge that there is necessary nuance here - some people named in that document have done nothing wrong.
Obviously, for anyone that underwent business or other dealings with Epstein, while knowing what we was: burn them. But the guillotine should never be indiscriminate.
No, I was talking about the powerful men mentioned in the headline. Why would you think I’d widen it beyond that without saying so?
Of course. Just so happens that some if not all of the powerful men being alluded to in the headline have abused children and the rest have done a lot of awful things to attain their wealth and power.
That’s what I’m saying!
Agreed.
Allegedly is just a way to avoid getting sued. They know what they’re doing. Sure, if they’re on the list, that could be argued it’s not alleged that they’re tied together in some form, but at least this will keep anyone from attempted to sue them over it. And all they had to do was wiggle their fingers a few more times to add that extra word.
I know why media (say they) use “alleged” all the time, but this doesn’t apply.
It’s by definition a link. Whether it’s a significant link is another matter, but no court would be so ridiculous as to accept a lawsuit based on a misunderstanding of what the word “linked” means.
The list itself is a link. Whether it’s a link that means anything is yet to be revealed, but it’s beyond a shadow of a doubt and in every legal sense a link.
No it won’t. There was already precisely zero risk of it.
The only thing they’re achieving by adding “alleged” to this headline is to annoy people who know what words and concepts are and then spur a lot of people to tell those already annoyed people things the annoyed people already know and have been reminded of every time they’ve pointed out misuse of “alleged”.
Donald Trump. That’s all you need to know. And no, I’m not being sarcastic. Fuck that guy, and any waterhead inbreed and wanna-be tough guy who worships him.
Nah, other monsters don’t get off the hook just because Trump is the worst amongst them. Fuck Trump most of all, but fuck the other abusers too.
You’re a lunatic looking for attention. You’re not getting any more from me. Take your meds.
Wtf are you talking about? You’re the one pretending that Trump is the only powerful man on the list.
Also, if you could drop the ableism, that would be swell.
Sure. If you feel they have some vendetta against their readers and wanted to annoy you, feel free to make that claim. Sure sounds like you’re a very stable person assuming that title was purposefully written to annoy people because [reasons].
Incompetence and ignorance don’t have to be deliberate to be annoying. Especially when they happen often. I happen to expect better of those who are paid to inform people of breaking news. Being annoyed ≠ thinking it’s about me or otherwise deliberate.
Again, never said that. You sure sound like a very sincere person, waving around the strawman you constructed to dismiss my rational argument as paranoid ramblings.