Not surprising, but important to point out.

I don't want to be a "this is a distraction" guy, but debating the particulars of language used by a news source when the folks on record as being pedophiles still aren't being prosecuted feels like a fucking distraction to me.

Like, they aren't even going to Lock Up the Clintons. The one thing that almost everyone in America can agree on is Bill Clinton being a pedophile. He's not someone Trump needs to protect. He's not someone the DNC wants to carry water for anymore. He's practically on death's door anyway, I don't know if even he would mind. And Trump's DOJ still won't lift a fucking finger.

It's embarrassing to see a country this obsessed with "War on Crime" bullshit refuse to touch ex-Presidents caught absolutely dead to rights doing crimes. All we can do is language-police the billionaire(pedophile)-owned outlets from the cheap seats.

most of hollywood execs,or directors are likely on it too, considering how many actors have been blackballed by hollywood over thier allegations.

right wing grifters are in a panic trying to sanewash people on the epstein files, roegan, megan,,,etc.

No, they want to get you in the adult mindset as soon as possible, so they can make money off your work 😞

It would have been if they weren't using young, like in the post

I'm willing to give the news some benefit of the doubt here because there actually are rational and non-evil reasons to do this.

I'm not. They've been bending the narrative with this wishy washy rhetoric so much recently that they need the backlash. Even if incompetence, it's been an persistent pattern on their part. Trump is a fascist dictator, nothing he does is legally justified or anything near our old standard of "normal", and yet they have been pretending that we still live in a stable world because they don't want their interests threatened.

Also, this whole "they were post-adolescent" distinction is a waste of time. This shit is evil and anyone litigating nuance isn't worth serious debate. It's all delay tactics. Words are only tools to them.

I’ve seen some mention of prepubescent kids in the file dump. IDK if any of it has been substantiated but people willing to abduct 13 year olds are probably OK with abducting 10 year olds if that’s what they or their friends are into.

Of course, minors can’t consent but there are a lot of accusations of brutal violence, coercion and murder, in addition to the sexual assault. There is a lot of truly repulsive and vile shit in the files and we ought to have a justice system that brings it all to light and punishes anyone who committed crimes. In light of all of that, handwringing over whether it’s misleading to call a 13 year old rape victim a child is some weak sauce. Try hitting on a 13 year old in front of their parents and see how the “if there’s grass on the field” defense plays out.

The nuance is that “sex” requires consent, because sex without consent is rape. So sex with a non-consenting person (including all children) can’t exist, because it’s actually raping children.

It’s more of a nitpicky difference than the others because I’d bet your average adult doesn’t bother thinking about that nuance, but it does carry a different subconscious weight. One is considered fun, happy, and almost everyone does it; the other is a monstrous act that has no justification.