736
We gotta gut this house to the studs if we're gonna keep it standing (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
87 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 115 points 9 months ago (4 children)

What scares me is all the people who knew this was going on. Jefferey's friends were sophisticated and connected people. Even the ones who never got in a room with a little girl knew what he was about and did not give a fuck.

I don't see a grand conspiracy. I see a social network of powerful people who are entitled to the bodies of little girls the same way wealth entitles one to to all objects. He got away with so much for so long because it was accepted and allowed. Every heard of 'The Big Club'? We'll, he's in it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    When these people get to a certain financial level, they come to understand that they can literally buy anything they want. What illustrates that better than being able to purchase young women for your own pleasure?

    And I wonder if they don't really mind being part of The Club. We think they're being blackmailed, but what if they are all doing this stuff, knowing it puts them in an exclusive club, with exclusive people, who all have to trust each other with the worst secrets in the world. What better way to signal that you've "arrived."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    There's something that everybody seems to be ignoring..

    ( aside from the vile glossing-over of the "journalism", with their "underage women" euphamism for girls, & their euphamisms for rape, etc, as thankfully, women have been pointing-out )

    The way he worked was he used friendship to put people in the position of being friends with him, and then they found-out about more of what was going-on, but now the conflict-of-interest put them in a bind, & gang-loyalty/pack-loyalty/"family"-loyalty conflicted loyalty-to-principle.

    AND THAT SAME CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST IS USED BY EVERY FAMILY, EVERY IDEOLOGY, EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME, so no, it isn't that they all knew & became his friend regardless: that is reversing the order, for at-least many of them.

    WHY were the majority of people in East Germany actively snitching on whomever was around them, for sake of ingratiating themselves with the authorities?

    Because that is human-nature.

    Within-the-pack/"family"/"clan" .. outranks principles.

    Children have that driven into them by parents, by culture, by education, by stories, relentlessly.

    The class-clan also played into it:

    Say a person who was, with friendship with Epstein, now hobnobbing with people of the class above their normal level..

    & then they learn more of what's really going-on..

    Now their conflict-of-interest is that if they go against their new "family", they'll .. at-least get ostracized, & possibly murdered.

    XOR, they can just compromise their principles, & get to have their clan/class/"family" validity remain..

    & that is what they did.

    Part of what bugs me with the simplistic "oh, but I would never have done that!" position .. is simply that babies/lives born into different cultures FORM into those cultures.

    That evidence is global.

    it is idiotic to reject it.

    People born into a "make yourself a 'man': put down as many others as you can, & prove yourself through your exclusive 'success'" culture SIGNIFICANTLY BECOME that culture: they embody it.

    Same as with people born into a more nurturing culture.

    Same with people born into a short-term-only culture, vs a long-term-only culture..

    The self-delusion of people who hold that "well I wouldn't ever have been that way, were I the one born into that culture" is outright BEGGING universe to get one's soul/continuum caught in exactly such a life, in the future, just to rub one's soul's face in it: karmic sucker-punching.

    The phrase "there, but for the grace-of-G-D, go I" has real wisdom in it.

    Freud apparently discovered that child-rape was normal, in the culture he inhabited, & tried speaking-up about it, but .. well, backlash threatened to wipe his importance off the map, so he .. got quiet about it, again.

    Feudalism & slavery have pretty-much DEFINED our race's last few millenia of history: we DID embody such corruption, such narcissism, such prejudice, consistently, for thousands of years.

    What percentage of humankind rejected that kind of narcissism & perpetuating-established-corruption for sake of principles??

    Seriously? it isn't 1/2, it isn't 1/20!!

    This isn't a they are corrupt problem, this is they had opportunity & exercised it, but we who haven't been in their culture pretend that our nature is somehow inherently-different, therefore we pretend we wouldn't ever have exercised that opportunity .. kind of thing.

    Yes, there are individuals who hold to principle in spite of it violating the culture they live in, like Charles Darwin being anti-slavery.

    But .. the whole "WE would NEVER do any such thing, were we born into that culture, ourselves!" .. it's dishonest.

    & yes, it's dishonest+vile when the "journalism" of today softpedals what they did.

    I read an excerpt from 1 of those documents: a girl was raped & got pregnant, forced to have an abortion she didn't want, & they therefore murdered her daughter.

    NONE of the "journalism" of MSM has the spine to state that honestly.

    & given that speaking required-truth is their JOB, .. that's .. a betrayal of civilization.

    Epstein seems to have been VERY skilful at manipulating people into undermined-principles ( kind of a human moral-pathogen? among other things: he was human, too, ttbomk, and I don't want to know more about him, to validate that: vile is vile, but there had to be more than just-that in him. Same as our "heroes" & "saints" are often mixtures, when we get to know the real someone ).

    & I think it would be much more objective of us to thank our karma/luck for how we weren't put in the undermining-force that others failed in, because as nice as it may be to pretend that we're "inherently" better than others .. the blunt fact is that if cultures can form lives as much as the evidence shows they can .. then we'd be drastically different had we been born into different-culture, & it isn't any "inherent" superiority: it's nurture, not nature.

    I think the primary reason we're not like him/them is cultural-circimstance we were born into.

    Only.

    I think humankind is malleable by context to that degree.

    & loyalty-to-principle isn't what most humankind are: loyalty-to-gang/family/identity outranks loyalty-to-principle massively among humankind, & people nowadays are just pretending that their current-gang is inherently-good, & masquerading as loyal-to-principle.

    This will become biting, when the "masks come off" & humankind HARD-chooses ideology over principles, in the coming months/weeks.

    Then the truth will be more "in our faces".

    _ /\ _

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 66 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    Pull the studs out too. We have no choice but to make a new foundation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 9 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    Amerifat here. We could use some light restructuring. Some newer democracies have features I think are improvements that could benefit us if deployed here. But the fundamental structure isn't that bad, and I'm worried we'll just get something worse if we try a full rebuild.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    The foundations are settler colonialism and racism. Like you said, there are other democracies to look at we don't need this blueprint.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Ive seen this kind of sentiment around (referring primarily to your initial comment on the OP about making a new foundation, but replying to this one because I wanted to have the context it adds with it). Its a sentiment that sounds appealing ("this thing is hurting us, therefore me must destroy it/replace it" is a fairly cathartic notion after all). The problem I have with it is: the analogy doesn't actually fit. Government and economic systems simply aren't buildings. They dont have foundations in that sense, and the things metaphorically referred to as "foundations" do not have the same function and consequences as the real thing.

    Take your examples. If you were to remove racism from the country overnight, say you somehow both make individual bigoted people all understand that their perceived enemies are people just living their lives, and adjusted the outcomes of various systems to remove systemic racist outcomes that can exist even without personal malice- that wouldn't suddenly cause the government to collapse. It'd probably change who exactly gets elected and some of the laws for the better, but while racism has shaped the history of the United States, it doesn't logically require racism continue to shape it in order to prevent calamity of some kind.

    Settler colonialism has a stronger claim to being "foundational" in that the concept describes the process by which the country came to be- but there we have a different problem when one contemplates the consequences of removing it: it simply can't be removed. Not because of some negative consequence, but simply became there is no way to undo what it results in. Numerous people were killed, and they and their would-have-been descendants cant be simply brought back. Hundreds of millions of people that have an entirely different culture to what would have been now exist, some of those cultures unique to the area despite not being indigenous to it, and it would be logistically impossible to send them anywhere else. The surviving indigenous people can be given some kind of reparation, and the poverty forced on them can be alleviated, but realistically it cant be nearly proportionate to what those groups lost. Unless one has a time machine somehow, whatever the US becomes, even if it was entirely destroyed and built anew, it can never be a society that doesn't owe it's existence to a settler colonial enterprise, any more than one can change who ones parents were.

    This isn't an argument against radical change, and I know its rant-y and pedantic, but I see the sentiment of "tear it all down" so often, and think that's just too vague. It sounds dramatic and radical, but leaves the question of what it means too open. Does it mean "replace all the major government figures"? Probably not, that happens anyway given enough time, without radical changes necessarily occuring. Does it mean doing that, but also changing the mechanism by which those leaders are picked, and maybe also something like the economic model or ownership structure of various institutions? Maybe, though still, apart from the people at the top, a lot of what you'll get will still be the same. You're going to need bureaucrats and lawyers and teachers and auditors and soldiers and whatever, or some broadly equivalent roles, no matter how you organize your society, and since the people doing that now are the ones that know how, they'll probably end up doing the same things under the new order (which could make some cultural problems, like racism for instance, very hard to root out. A biased teacher isn't going to stop being biased just cause you changed their boss and the laws, for example). Maybe you conclude that that's not enough, and that one has to change all the laws and ownership structures and bar everyone that participated in administering the old system, even on a local level, from an equivalent role in the new. But that has a rather disastrous history; you end up with a huge number of new and not yet competent civil servants, and a class of people that cannot easily make a living because they are barred from using the skills they actually have, that can turn to crime or reactionary militant groups.

    This probably comes off as ranting at you in particular, I'm sorry about that, I just can't reply to an entire general sentiment as that's not how the platform works, and I'm sure Im guilty of saying these things too. But I feel like too many calls to action don't really specify what specific action they call for, just analogies and notions of "there's something about our society that's hurting us, we must destroy", or "we need to do something about [monolithic problem], or "organize" (which sounds like a specific action, except half the time people say it they dont really specify who with or how to do it effectively or what the organization should do once formed, and it's not realistic to assume those things come naturally to the inexperienced), and I feel like they'd make for more effective tools of political discourse if they did advocate for unambiguous courses of action rather than just the vague result one wants that action to achieve.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Full agreement, and I think the "tear it down" narrative often impedes thinking of actual feasible ways that we can work to find more equitable paths forward. Landback is a great movement because rather than saying "kick white people out of North America" it says "there's a lot of land that we can give back to the people we stole it from without drastic consequences to us, we should be doing that".

    I'm a huge supporter of working to give tribes further sovereignty and means to enforce it beyond treaties with the countries that keep breaking treaties with them. Now obviously we need to be prioritizing the wants and needs of individual tribes and nations, but those that wish to be treated as sovereign nations on the world stage should be. Hell, the Navajo Nation wants to be in the UN, and that's a completely reasonable ask that you can advocate for even if you aren't in a settler colonial nation.

    There are more radical ideas as well, but there are realistic and achievable goals, that we'd be doing a lot more good by advocating for than just virtue signaling about how all this land is stolen and leaving it at that. Also free all indigenous political prisoners and treat the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women as the crisis it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Just tossing you levers:

    Identity is the "skeleton" on-which ego "the flesh" forms.

    Spontaneously-removing-racism's distortion-of-government would have violent backlash, because it'd cost unearned-privilege greatly.

    Political-process selects-for DarkTriad: therefore if anybody wants to create a categorically-better-system, they have to prevent DarkTriad from being advantaged in the replacement, even systematically-disadvantaged ( which they will fight violently to prevent ).

    The best-for-the-world & best-for-civilization changes de-politics, de-ideology, make-rational, & make-objective, forcing better-for-the-world & better-for-civilization, but that is politically-intolerable.

    Political-motivation & objective-rational-altruism are mutually-exclusive paradigms.

    Ideological-identity won't tolerate world-citizen/global-citizen/gaia-citizen to supplant them from authority.

    That guy Franck, South African Black man, who bluntly says that the Whites civilized South Africa, but when the Blacks took-over, then civilization fell-apart, nothing working.. he's anchoring on the wrong thing: it isn't skin-color, it is what culture someone grew-up-in.

    Same as the gaslighters who pretend that it is race which decides criminality in the US, instead of class.

    Just check the criminality-rates of Whites & Blacks of the upper-middle-class, the middle-class, & the underclass/ghetto, & then the truth'd be visible, but they WON'T ALLOW that framing, because it cuts into their ideological distortion/belief.

    False-framing is a weapon of ideology.

    I don't know if Franck knowingly-rejects that it is culture instead of race.

    But the evidence is that in the US, knowingly-rejecting truth is absolutely normal, for ideology.

    Therefore, ideology is incompatible with national-viability.

    _ /\ _

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    You can't fix a democracy back into being democratic. For example neither of the two parties would allow fixing the issues causing a two party system.

    If you need some kind of revolution event to fix the smallest things, you're better off doing it in one go.
    The careful consideration can be expressed by not going too far from the most modern successful democracies.

    Changes loosely are:

    • multi-party system at all levels by never allowing winner takes all in any elections
    • removal of lobyism in favor of tech-enabled transparency for high officials (livestream of every meeting, publicky viewable bank accounts, ...)
    • Severe nerfing of the president, potentially full demotion to a publicity role
    • Additional checks and balances like a separate constitutional court for handling laws independent of the courts for people (i.e. break up the functions of the supreme court and move some power away from legislature)
      probably more I'm forgetting
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    But the fundamental structure isn’t that bad, and I’m worried we’ll just get something worse if we try a full rebuild.

    The chance of making things worse is always a risk, but like the original American Revolutionaries, at some point, we have to bite the fucking bullet and make the gamble, because the status quo doesn't seem to be heading anywhere good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    I think one of the best changes the USA could possibly do is to move to a Westminster style system, where a coalition is typically needed to form a government. Break the two party system, and force a much more representative government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 62 points 9 months ago

    When I was growing up in Sydney, heavily involved in drugs, anarchy and living on the streets in squats it was common knowledge there were protected paedophile groups that operated out kids homes.

    Worse when those kids ran away and ended up on the street they'd end up street walking, being preyed upon by predators of all sorts.

    Most were using because of the horrific trauma they had been subjected to.

    I remember being warned about avoiding certain places if a particular predator was our a about cruising. They loved to target young men.

    In 2013 we had a royal commission into institutional response to child abuse and it became very clear that children had been raped on an industrial scale.

    People like Pell and Clancy (who I was peripherally related to) were not just actively involved but also running protection for dozens and dozens of serial rapists.

    With politicians and law enforcement also working to protect these people.

    Pell denied numerous victims, even after the priests were found to be rapists and sentenced, compensation and forced countless people to kill themselves.

    There is no fate worse then I can imagine for Pell and his ilk. They are a stain on this earth and as bad as the fascists and nazis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 28 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Wait. EAT? I heard about the rest but ... say it isn't so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    For real I’m hoping that’s just made up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago*

    I mean, listen to your gut. You hear about the horrific things that happen in the world or see online what happens to kids.

    These people are the pinnacle psychopaths who manipulated, stole, and murdered their way to the tippy top.

    You have stories about the wealthy paying for human-safaris in Bosnia.

    You have stories about people like Albert Fish who would eat young girls.

    [It's almost obvious that this is the exact kind of sick and depravity they would pay exorbitant money to experience.

    Unfortunately, there's a reason Greed is one of the Cardinal sins. It always leads to this. Unfettered greed mean limitless power for deranged individuals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    E-Eat??

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago

    It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility, though there's no direct evidence. One possible reason there's no direct evidence is that, as deputy AG Todd Blanche recently said, they're withholding any images that contain violence, physical harm, or death.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    We all know about Trump raping minors, so what do you think is so vile that he's fighting tooth and claw to avoid releasing the files?

    The US abducted a sitting president, broke NATO, is murdering their own citizens in the streets, and IDK what's going to happen with Iran, but I'm sure glad not to be involved. Would Trump really do that to avoid having a pedo paper trail? I'm beginning to doubt it...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    The idea that him being known as a pedophile is one of the positive outcomes for him (and the implications of that) is horrifying.

    Maybe he really did eat children.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    The idea that him being known as a pedophile is one of the positive outcomes for him (and the implications of that) is horrifying.

    It will be status quo, if he's only a documented child molester. The last 27% of the US population will support Trump no matter what, and his opposition in congress is so inept that they can't coordinate impeaching him.

    But maybe, if there's documentation that Trump has eaten a kid alive, then congress will get their faces out of the bribe trough long enough to do something. Whatever congress then tries will be struck down by SCOTUS of course, but at least they'll have tried.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    You've created a reality in which I am looking forward to the news that Donald Trump ate children, simply so that we have literally undeniable evidence that he is a monster.

    I need a cigarette.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    There are only two options here.

    1. The pedos win and it becomes normalized.
    2. At least half of the sitting politicians go to prison for involvement and cover up.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    It's probably a little more than half. Something about desiring to social climb to those levels just seems to draw a certain type

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The exact plot of L.A. Confidential

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    It's a plot in LA Confidential. It's about the consolidation of organized crime under a corrupt police officer, and one of the operations he's taking over is sexual blackmail.

    But he's also taking over the drug trade, and it's violence over Heroin following the arrest of a mobster that sets everything in motion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    10 million dollar plan. A bounty of 10 million is placed on each billionaire. Their assets are liquidated and put to literally any other use, burning the cash would help stem inflation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    Take their assets and put $10M towards keeping the bounty program going. Take another $15M and put it towards a second (even bigger) bounty. Every day a billionaire’s name gets lottery’ed and killing them wins the big pot plus the original $10M bounty. So every single billionaire has a constant bounty on them, plus the chance of getting lotto’ed… At first that lotto may only be $25M. But as more and more die, that bigger pot continues to grow.

    Their private security teams may not be willing to turn against their masters for only $10M… But for $25M? $40M? $55M? $70M? Everyone has a price, especially the billionaires’ mercenaries. Of course, the billionaires would probably start requiring bomb collars for their private security at that point, to ensure they remain loyal. But that means the teams would inevitably weigh the price of a bomb collar vs an easy $10M payout in the first place. And that $10M alone would be enough to have them gunning down the billionaires before they put the collars on.

    The rest of their assets go towards a fund for reducing homelessness, bolstering food stamp programs, unemployment insurance funds, getting people back on their feet, forgiving debt, funding Social Security, expanding Medicare and Medicaid, maybe even UBI if the fund is large enough to be self-sustaining, etc…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (24 children)

    Where does the eat part come from?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (21 children)

    Do you think that’s where they’d draw the line?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (20 children)

    I think baseless accusations are just misinformation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    There is mention of one case. It's the email where someone is telling Jeff that the FBI took witness account of a victim. They mention ritualistic sacrifice with a scimitar. There's a line saying babies were dismembered and their intestines were eaten.

    The subject line of the email is interview of purported Epstein victim

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Well that's just stupid. You got a fresh baby there, and you eat the INTESTINES?

    Implausible, at best.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 17 points 9 months ago* (10 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    I mean so far nobody in this thread has posted a link to even an accusation, let alone a report or anything in the PedoFiles. Which is why it's a valid question - where does the eat part come from?

    I did some googling and finally found the source I believe. There's some things here that don't quite add up. How do you get cut with a scimitar, but leave no scarring whatsoever? And uh, the eating feces from baby intestines thing... I suppose that only makes sense if the slaves were forced to do so, rather than the rich and powerful voluntarily doing it themselves. Unless a bunch of rich and powerful people do indeed have poop eating fetishes, which of course is not ENTIRELY impossible.

    I did also however find out about Gabriela Rico Jimenez, who yelled a whole lot of things which now sound a lot more credible in 2009 and then she disappeared forever and she did in fact mention the rich and powerful eating human flesh. Her sudden complete disappearance gives some extra credibility too. She was shoved into a van and never heard from again. I'm more inclined to believe her than the purported victim who reportedly had to go through memory therapy which may not be a real thing that works at all to remember any of it.

    I don't think answering to "where does accusation X come from?" with "Do you think that's where they'd draw the line?" is productive (yes, it was not your comment, but you're replying to the reply to that comment). It's too close to republican logic, where they believe their "enemies" to be so evil by default, they'll believe anything you say about latinos or trans people. Let's be better than that. Let's provide sources when asked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Look, I'm not saying that I don't believe they ate human beings. I just also don't enjoy throwing around accusations without at least some sort of proof, because as soon as you make one false accusation, the right will use it to discredit all your true accusations too. It's fucking horrible.

    At this point, it's well established that Trump diddles kids and that half the rich and powerful of the world have also engaged in such activities. That's something we CAN say, fully knowing we're not lying and nobody on the right can use this to say "look the lefties are loonies". But if we grab on to that baby intestine poop eating allegation and then the person testifies that they were actually lying, the right gets a "look at how everyone on the left just ate the lies, everything they believe is bullshit" victory lap.

    But the actual worst part of this all is that we DO in fact already know about the pedophilia and nothing is being done. No Trump supporters care. It's like he said, he could shoot a person on 5th avenue and he wouldn't lose a voter. So even if the baby eating thing turns out to be completely true... I don't think even that matters anymore.

    Y'all are kinda fucked on your side of the pond. I do hope the people will wake up, perhaps even some MAGA supporters will eventually lose faith in Trump. But the really fucked up part is that the whole shitting his pants video did a whole lot more damage to his reputation with them than actually fucking children.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I think mentioning the incident should always come with a link.

    Dotard shit himself on live TV.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Thank you!

    On a related note: Some people are saying that the woman in green is touching her nose because the smell is so bad. I think it's actually a deliberate signal to the "make the reporters go away when he shits his pants again" team.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Our far right is actually losing ground because most people realize how batshit insane they are. They also had a party split because some people thought they were too batshit insane and some thought they weren't batshit insane enough.

    We are not safe from what's going on in your country of course. And I realize many of the Epstein accomplices were European too (such as the Andrew formerly known as prince). But it's your side of the pond that's super fucked because there's no real way to hold them accountable right now. In my country, even the prime minister, president, etc, can be held accountable. In fact there's a separate 4th branch of government that checks that the main 3 aren't doing any fuckery. Called the Chancellor of Justice. We don't have a single position as powerful as the US president, even prime minister doesn't get close and the president only has veto privileges and a representative role, no executive order type powers.

    It would take so many people to be complicit to allow someone to take over the country like Trump has in the US, that if it were to actually happen, I will have lost faith in my entire country, not just the politicians. We currently have 6 parties in parliament I believe. It's dominated by libs and centrists, both the conservatives and socdems don't actually hold a lot of power, but even the libs have to court another group of parties, as the two liberal parties alone only got 51 out of 101 seats, which is a technical majority, but not really enough to get anything done. So now they're in there together with the socdems. For context, our liberals are pro social rights (LGBT, racial equality, etc), but also want to lower taxes and reduce spending, so the rich court the liberals more than the outright hateful conservatives (who, for all their faults, don't want to reduce education and healthcare spending).

    It's a slightly healthy balance of everyone wants different things and there's no "pure evil" because even the most evil people will still vote against some very bad things because they're just hateful racists, not corporate-owned hateful racists lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    Trump is fighting tooth and nail to only be called a pedo rapist. That’s the best case scenario for him. If that’s where the bar is, imagine all of the even more depraved shit that hasn’t been released yet.

    Even if 99% of the files are complete bogus, that remaining 1% is still enough to justify publicly broadcasted flayings for everyone involved.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [+] -39 points 9 months ago (19 children)

    Half of global high society, apparently

    That would be the male half.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 58 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    J.K. Rowling just had all of her yacht's travel data deleted for some reason, which is apparently highly illegal. Mostly male for sure, but I doubt the line is absolute.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    As a trafficking survivor I can assure you it's not just men.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -16 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I never said it was.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    That would be the male half.

    Pray tell what you did mean by putting these words in this order then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    First, it was a joke in response to a joke. That much should be obvious to anyone. So it has the accuracy inherent in a joke.

    And second, since it was about large numbers of people, it was obviously a claim about the vast majorities and not a statement indicating, for example, that there were zero exceptions.

    The offense is more in the responses than in the original comment. The comment first got many upvotes because it's obviously a joke. But then some people with poor reading comprehension invented offense and responded like it was obvious, then everyone started acting like chickens with their heads cut off. The people who could read and think for themselves didn't respond because it's obviously just a stupid joke.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 28 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Why the unnecessary sexism?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -15 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    They said "half of global high society," so we're talking about statistics, not whether a few women went there.

    So, you could try to accept reality, or you could live in a fantasy world where the vast majority of the powerful elite going to Epstein's Island for illicit purposes weren't men. Epstein's victims were girls. Have you even heard of a boy being trafficked by him? Most people are cis-gender. History is packed full of men seeking power over girls and young women, but now we are going to choose to be blind to reality in favor of political correctness?

    Jesus Christ. Just a few days ago I posted here that I was disappointed in everybody in the world, but at the time, I thought it was a joke.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Have you even heard of a boy....

    Yes, in fact, I just recently on Lemmy heard about a boy that apparently (allegedly) shoved a tent stake up TACOman's rectum and then stomped on it. I have no trouble believing young boys and girls were both raped and trafficked. I don't think history is as hetero-normative as you suggest. Children have forever been a target of the elite.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Well, that's horrific. I just listened to a bit of his testimony, or whatever you want to call it, and now I feel bad about making that exact point.

    But are you really trying to assert that statistically, the people partying with Epstein in order to abuse children are not overwhelmingly male, and that the victims are not overwhelmingly girls? Because I've heard quite a bit of testimony and it is about rich men abusing young girls.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I literally responded to a point you made about young boys not being a target, not sure what you're firing at right now

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    The context was that I was accused of "unnecessary sexism" for my earlier comment and you're arguing against me.

    If you don't want to argue that I was being unnecessarily sexist, and you just want to nitpick minor points, then it would help if you'd make that clear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Nitpick minor comments, like an entire class of minors you implied didn't exist? Ok pal, have a good one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago

    Yes, of course. You cannot be serious. One, he's the only male victim that I've heard of, and I've only just heard of him. Every news source talks about victims as girls or "young women." So, every news source, even to this very day also implies that that class doesn't exist.

    When I tried to search for his story, I had to use more than one search engine to find anything. DuckDuckGo literally had zero results for "Trump 'tent stake'". I had to go to google.

    I'm glad that you're out there letting people know about this guy, but you know that his class is a small minority and almost unknown to the mainstream.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent