top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

Woah everybody is going wild and jumping on Stephen King like piranhas haha. He said one vague things and now everyone here is accusing him of being a pedophile. Fucking crazy!

  • source
  • [–] 265 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    This is giving strong "I hope nobody finds out I went to Epstein island" vibes.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 108 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Vibes? I can feel the shaking all the way over here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 90 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    As a writer, how can he be this clueless about character continuity and congruency?

    All this does is implicate his involvement. I know he was coked out of his mind for decades but I never would've associated him with Epstein previously... Come to think of it, cocaine was probably how he met Epstein/Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm gonna be hopeful and assume that he means there's probably no outright list of customers, as in, no black book with names, phone numbers and who they abused, but instead emails, messages etc that link a lot of very powerful people to disgusting crimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I never heard anything about the list specifying which celebrity abused which child. I thought it was — at most — people who are strongly implicated through Epstein's private comms, documents, etc.

    We already know who went to the island, but simply accepting a holiday from a billionaire doesn't imply involvement with his criminal syndicate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 81 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I'm confused. Epstein definitely did the crimes of trafficking children to be raped by wealthy people.

    Why would a client list not be a real?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    Even if there isn't a document with a big header that says "Client List" and firm documentation of what crimes were committed, we know there are flight logs, there are victim statements, and there are records of financial transactions.

    That is absolutely enough to bring charges against at least some of these people. We are accepting a false narrative that there has to be some chiseled in stone singular document listing bad actors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think it's very possible there isn't an actual "client list".

    I think it's more about making a list of visitors to the island that have somehow supported Epstein around that time.

    "Have some fun on my island. Also, can you help me get a loan and this bill passed?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I fully expected there to be a safe somewhere full of blackmail dossiers. Though I'm sure that has been put to the torch by now, if it ever existed. The best we can do now is compile lists from secondary sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Blackmail dossiers would also contribute to determining clients yeah. So flight logs, weird lobby stuff, suspicious messages, mysterious meetings, statements from children and wives of these men, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago

    It's nice of the people on the list to out themselves. At this rate we can just compile it ourselves.

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The guy did write about a bunch of children running a train on another child to "recharge their matches" in the book 'it' acting like it was a liberating experiance.

    Guy also described a girl pissing and shitting herself in "the girl who lived tom gordon" in detail which weirded me out even as a kid

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    At the time I read The Girl I thought that part was a bold move. Drinking random creek water will totally do that to you and I liked that he didn't pull his punches just because the character was a girl.

    Then I read his other works. I'm pretty sure he's into kids. There's a small benefit of the doubt that it's his version of a dead baby joke and he does it just to fuck with readers, but I'm too jaded to expect he's not dicking children himself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 159 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (50 children)

    Man, who would've thought that the guy who wrote a child orgy scene would turn out to be a pedophile? Edit: Didn't expect this to blow up and result in multiple bans... whoops.

  • source
  • hideshow 50 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    I've never read It or cared. I can't see the removed comments.

    However, are we really banning people for defending artistic license to write about obscene shit in a horror story? Are pearl clutchers claiming that shit needs justification? That's who we are? Awesome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The thing is, from what I can see the comments that Weren't removed are mostly what you are saying, defending artistic license. The stuff that Was removed is a bit more... graphic. I didn't get to see All of them, so I can't say for sure, but some of the ones I read were a bit much. Again, most of the people who defended this book and the contents within weren't banned or had their comments removed, just downvoted.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    "I have no vested interest in this conversation... i don't know any of the context... but are we really doing this thing that nobody is doing?"

    Also, yeah dude, you should be able to justify every single action you take ever. If you take an action and can't justify why you did it, then why did you do it? No, seriously. Why did you do it, then? No, you can't explain. That's what justification is. Go ahead. Why did you do it? Oh- no, you can't explain. That's justifying.

    Jesus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Also, yeah dude, you should be able to justify every single action you take ever.

    Words & expressions of fiction don't need justification: if you dislike them, then don't read them. Easy. Alternatively, start a committee of people who give a shit & get off mutually gratifying each other, I guess.

    All of this is fine until we start banning people over disagreeing with opinions hostile to liberal expression. If you don't understand why someone would object to violating the norms of open discourse, then I don't know what to tell you, but I'm going to judge the hell out of you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -33 points 1 year ago (44 children)
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    How does any of that in any way justify him writing a scene where a group of 11-12 year olds have a sex orgy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Why does he have to justify his story to you? It's fiction, as in not real. No one asked you if it was okay, but thanks for letting us know you don't think it is. Millions upon millions of readers don't agree with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No one asked you to reply to the op, either, yet you did. Why is it okay for you to say your take, but not for me to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Because it's a public forum built for discussion? Unlike a fictional novel. Next!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    You realize he wrote the book right? Like he had literary control over it, he could have just as easily not put in a child orgy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    OMG?! Did he?! And someone published it after having read it. And people bought it and didn't burn him at the stake for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Kay? And? Child based orgies are a gross thing to include in a book

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Understood. You are free to not read it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    And people are free to call out how creepy it is, as well as the people defending a child orgy scene.

    And that's just one instance of kid sex in King's books.... You gonna defend the scene from The Library Policeman where King describes a young boy being raped in graphic detail too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    This thread is giving serious “depicting something in fiction is the same as promoting it” conservative book-banning vibes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Point to a single person calling for a book ban. Go on.

    We have all known that the book contains this scene for years. And yet, none of us are calling for bans. One person made a tongue in cheek rhetorical question as a joke, and then a bunch of people came in to defend their beloved child orgy scene. We're just calling you freaks out for defending your beloved child orgy scene so adamantly, because you love child orgies. It's weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Can’t help you there, haven’t read it.

    And nobody said anyone’s calling for bans- I’m saying I’m seeing people make the same arguments made by reactionaries to justify bans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Why are you stepping in to defend a book you haven't read from a strawman argument that people aren't making?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Not defending a book. Calling out shitty arguments. Couldn’t give two shits about scary clown book. Care a lot about people using shit arguments that can be weaponized by bad actors.

    Reading comprehension. Get some.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You’re literally in here calling people pedophiles for suggesting that there may be some literary context to something that makes people uncomfortable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I don't think there is much of any kind of literary context that can defend writing multiple pages of children having sex in graphic detail, especially in a book where the sexual abuse of children is not a primary theme, nor anything regarding child sexuality being a major theme of the book. It literally just takes a turn from "children scared of scary clown" to "the 11 year olds all decide they Must pressure their friend into a gangbang so they won't die virgins" and then moves on from it entirely as if it never happened. The context of the story is entirely unchanged if you remove the scene, as we can tell from EVERY adaptation of the book into film.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I disagree, this is more of a "Hey, why the hell is this in here when it has nothing to do with the story and does nothing for the plot? What does this say about the author?" kind of discussion. It's like when people call out the fact that the goblin dudes in Harry Potter are clearly racist depictions of Jewish people, it's weird and says a lot about the author. Are we saying to ban Harry Potter? No, read it if you want to (just don't pay for it) but keep in mind that the author is a terrible person.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    If it was one or two instances, maybe. But there are a bunch of these scenes, to the point it feels like a pattern.

    I've read King's books all my life so don't take this as an axe to grind. But you can't deny that there are a lot of these scenes, and I'd argue it's still really fucking creepy on its own.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Look, I don't know why you feel the need to defend a part of a book that is, as you just said, a Child Orgy, but you do you, and maybe you should talk to a therapist.

    All I can say is; when I write about children, or think about children in any way, I don't ever think about them having sex, whether that be with adults or other children.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    The novel, It, by Stephen King has a scene as described. That book took a hard, weird turn. The whole scene wasn't needed for the story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Right? They could have just cut their hands and smushed the blood together to nail the "we have an unbreakable bond" vibe. The sex thing, especially when it's like 7 boys fucking one girl, is just bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "Get a grip!" screams the guy who up and down the thread is wailing about his favorite child sex scene. Jeez, man, you think maybe you need a little less internet and possibly someone to talk to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I like the book. It has nothing to do with the sex scene. You can't seem to take the work as a whole and only focus on a single part. There's lots of weird shit out there, no sweat off my back. I just think it's weird everyone's jumping on him for old news that isn't related. I think it's weird King is defending this administration in any way, but this isn't the angle of attack I'm willing to accept.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Lol I like the book, too. But I'm not out here dying on the hill of an 11-year-old sex train and honestly, it's a very obvious thing to point to and say, "Oh, yep, shoulda known." Because I read It as a child too and I wasn't too bothered by that scene when I was 10, but I have no interest in revisiting that scene as an adult. Not my thing.

    I frankly wonder why a grown man put so much detail into writing about several adolescent penises and how each felt to a little girl. Yes, there was symbolism, but it A) probably could have been symbolized through a different act and B) didn't require the amount of time, pages, and description the grown man writing it gave it. This is a crazy, batshit hill to die on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm pretty sure the book doesn't say the boys fucked each other explicitly, nor is it in the subtext. It is very detailed about them fucking the girl. (From what I remember. it's been a while)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    It is multiple paragraphs, essentially a page or two, of explicit detail, split into 2 parts (Chapter 22, Section 7 for a few paragraphs at the end before a time skip and then continues in Section 12 for a few more paragraphs. The book likes to time skip A LOT)

    Absolutely none of it implies the boys engaged in any form of homosexual intercourse. The book explicitly states that their "plan" is to all take turns on Bev.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Just few decades before the book was written people were marrying girls of 12-15 years old. Perhaps society can allow themselves to judge from an anachronical standpoint and just be done with it. We still have a lot to improve, and the road is full of ... well, people like yourself. Defending what they believe is correct while ignoring other facts..

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 51 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    That part of IT might make a whole lot more sense all the sudden

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    don't you hate it when a problematic part ends up being actually problematic and not something that can be chucked up to cocaine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Lol. Guess who's on the list. 🤣🤣

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I can believe there's no neat little notepad with a bunch of names on it, but there's definitely a shit load of evidence incriminating a bunch of powerful people, given what we already know.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago

    Bet he's on that list the fucking nonce

  • source
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It costs nothing to shut the fuck up.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You know nothing will come of it. Though they should all end up ruined and in prison, the same will happen as what happens with all “celebrities” at a statistical level. Nothing. Sure Weinstein is in prison. Diddy is not. etc… This won’t be another metoo movement.

    Though I fucking wish it would.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 97 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's really funny how all this denial is focused on the existence of a concrete "list." What everybody means, and what anyone honest knows, is that the request is for the release of a list of the people who went to the Epstein island and were associated with the convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein himself.

    If you can convict Maxwell, there is evidence of what happened. Whether or not someone has already written a list is completely irrelevant.

    There are exactly two types of people who would deny this:

    1. Die hard, believe-anything-Trump-is-saying-today, MAGA faithful
    2. paedophiles or people otherwise on the list

    I wonder which one Stephen King is....

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›