the jeffrey epstein memorial poll and conspiracy-mongering thread

I mean the actual crimes are obviously bad but what does it profit me to pay attention to it now instead of reading about it in a book in seven or ten years

the likelihood that he was very un-stealthily murdered in prison, about a year after the sitting president, to whom he was connected, burbled approvingly about a US journalist being sawed to death inside a consulate, bcz said journalist had embarrassed a despot, is a data point worth noting

if you are not waiting seven years to read about the president, shrug

I'm also a regular traveller on the "it's valuable to assess the power violations and motivating pathology between raping small children, trafficking teenagers, and assaulting adult women, as sometimes different" train, good post mh

I have no clue if that’s sarcastic

sic I think mh’s point is that the sexual exploitation of postpubescent girls is basically acceptable in our culture, and that a fixation on the powerful men and the conspiracy involved isn’t actually reckoning with that

My point is that the news is basically a slot machine, suspending the customer in a state of modulated anxiety, dripping out slow poison at a steady clip with just enough exciting moments to keep you plugging in quarters, and I no longer care to engage.

The difference between this thread and threads debating theories about Lost is no teenagers were raped to bring you ABC’s Lost

No sarcasm at all! There are hundreds of horrible aspects about, around & connected to these issues & focusing especially on any one of them sadly lessens reckoning with many others

But I don’t want to derail this thread by bringing more examples in

u see

xxxpost

silby I get it, I stopped reading or listening to news media for about five years out of pure horrified despair during Howard’s second term

turned out this didn’t actually stop the news from happening, unfortunately

Until yesterday I would have said the Epstein case might signal a broader rethinking of powerful men using their status to have sex with underage girls, but I just read the reviews for the new Polanski film, and that doesn't seem to be true.

I think it will have some ripple effects -- there will still be Polanskis and Epsteins in the world but maybe some of their borderline enablers will be less likely to just sit back and say "oh, there goes that guy doing his thing." Esp in combination with #metoo.

great post mh.

As for aesthetic crimes,

The entrance hall is decorated not with paintings but with row upon row of individually framed eyeballs; these, the owner tells people with relish, were imported from England, where they were made for injured soldiers.

^ austerity measures went further than I'd thought

Anyway, r we moving on from 'he killed himself' as a respectable take lol

No. The will transferring the estate to his brother is 2 days before Epstein's death. The media Ghislane disclosures were a day or two before, too.

These could imply that Epstein was aware of plans afoot to off him, but they're also consistent with suicide, or my pet theory of assisted suicide.

I don't think it can be ruled out -- it's not like it would be odd for someone in his position, accused of his crimes, to want to kill himself rather than stand trial, it's just that there's also so much to suggest otherwise.

this collection of scumbags my lord https://nypost.com/2019/09/02/jeffrey-epsteins-model-scouting-pal-has-disappeared-without-a-trace

That can’t be a recent photo, unless all the blood sacrifices actually work.

Anonymous fellow hires lawyers to write 7-page letter arguing Epstein-related materials that will cause reputational harm to “non-parties” ought to remain sealed forever. https://t.co/KbStu8B2d0

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) September 4, 2019

here we go again

Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney alleges a still-sealed trove of documents could implicate “hundreds of other people” in the Jeffrey Epstein case. https://t.co/Xn4VEa20YS

— Vicky Ward (@VickyPJWard) September 4, 2019

Ronan Farrow just dropped a big bomb on Ito and the Media Lab

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein

Ito resigning.

great timing on that new Bill Gates doc.

As with the Polanski and Weinstein cases I seem to meet a lot of people who are under the impression these men simply liked going to excessive, debauched parties, which (so people maintain) is what one does, and what one would do, if one was in showbiz and/or had a lot of money.

It's disturbing: these people can't seem to tell the difference between excess and abuse.

Plus, you don't have to go to an exclusive millionaire sex party to witness an example of someone who is having sex not because they want to but because they need money or are being controlled or intimidated. That could be the person who sits next to you at work. So really, the blindness to what this dude and his buddies actually were doing, the rhetoric of it was just wild times and high jinks, is weak and troubling imo.

reminder to self: don't invest with or take money from assholes

— Joi Ito (@Joi) March 12, 2008

whoops

only 468 people are talking about this?

I told the @nytimes everything. So did whistleblowers I was in touch with inside @MIT and @Edge. They printed none of the most damning truths. @joi is on the board of the NYT.

THANK GOD FOR @RonanFarrow https://t.co/MMFI9umhf2

— Xeni Jardin (@xeni) September 7, 2019

weird that the nyt would choose to prop up the ruling class, seems v out of character

The MacArthur Foundation today accepted the resignation of Joi Ito as a member of our board and our affiliate @LeverforChange, effective immediately. We thank Ito for his service.

— MacArthur Foundation (@macfound) September 7, 2019

not sure what xeni is saying there; that she had the info in ronan's profile? he doesn't quote her anywhere.

That NYT didn't want to publish damning information on Ito, who coincidentally also sat on their board. I don't think she expected Farrow to quote her. I mean, she seems pretty happy that he exists :)

the idea the times wouldnt report on this bc a dude that would be associated w epstein sat on their board seems several degrees more cynical abt the nyt newsroom than I'm willing to be even at this late date

Weird opinion

Yeah, why is that hard to believe, D-40? And I mean, not just about the NYT.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

voted wacked

The only counterargument I can see to whacked is -- what good would that do anyone with so much documentation out there? OTOH, still easier to nab someone with his testimony than without.

Dead men tell no tales

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Bill Gates says he met with Jeffrey Epstein because he knew "a lot of rich people" https://t.co/xFAXrCxDQD pic.twitter.com/QcaVk52WZM

— The Verge (@verge) September 11, 2019

Among the guests on the list: Elon Musk, Joi Ito, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan, Michelle Yee, and Reid Hoffman.

And of course Jeffrey Epstein.

It was in fact Hoffman’s executive assistant who sent out the list, according to the email signature.

— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) September 11, 2019

I hate to be that guy, but I'm not clear on how that implicates Thiel, Zuckerberg or Chan. Is it saying that everyone invited received a guest list in advance and knew Jeffrey Epstein would be there? And was this like a 10 person dinner or a hundred person dinner? I just think people shouldn't be sloppy with equating someone who kinda sorta traveled in the same circles with him to someone who took money from him, partied with him, went to his island etc.

I mean honestly every super-rich person in America (on earth?) is probably one degree of separation from Jeffrey Epstein. Not that I think that highly of the super-rich, but they're not ALL pedophiles and/or pedophile enablers.

Not implicating them (at least on my end, by sharing the tweet), but it’s good to know who he’s been a guest of honor with.

it seems to be saying the knew in advance, yes?

I hate to be that guy, but I'm not clear on how that implicates Thiel, Zuckerberg or Chan. Is it saying that everyone invited received a guest list in advance and knew Jeffrey Epstein would be there? And was this like a 10 person dinner or a hundred person dinner? I just think people shouldn't be sloppy with equating someone who kinda sorta traveled in the same circles with him to someone who took money from him, partied with him, went to his island etc.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, September 11, 2019 3:32 PM (thirteen minutes ago)

Baumé french cuisine moderne is served up by two-person staff serving few tables each service.

this was an intimate dinner with jeffrey