all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 21 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Pretty petty on a lot of levels but I think a lot of us would like to be able to say that

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago

    It's been at least twenty years since Spielberg made a movie that anyone gave two shits about.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    We missed out on a Spielberg directed 'Man With the Golden Gun.' I'm glad he didn't direct one though. We would have lost some really great films.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Spielberg is mentioned in the Epstein files over 100 times.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

    He had a direct relationship with Epstein.

    Epstein had three separate entries for Spielberg in his black book with plenty of direct communication.

    They're also both part of the same group of Zionists that lobby on behalf of Israel as well, if that matters to you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    If I understand correctly, there were dozens, hundreds, or maybe even thousands of people, many of them quite famous, who had either direct or casual working relationships with Epstein.

    Many of those, from what I understand, knew Epstein in his capacity as a high-society guy with connections and an ability to procure gifts & favors, and didn't necessarily know about any of his far darker activities. Or if you believe that every single one of them knew about his crazy-evil shit, then an enormous swath of celebrities, rich people and famous people were in on the whole thing. But that's quite the leap.

    I think if a 'potential' is to be called out at this point, then the public needs to have a strong logistical case built out of the known files, the same way anybody with the presumption of innocence would want the same. At the very least, that's presuming nothing ever goes to court, which is kinda how it's looking right now.

    The fact is that I know very little about these matters directly, and have zero intention of jumping any guns, here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I think if a 'potential' is to be called out at this point, then the public needs to have a strong logistical case built out of the known files, the same way anybody with the presumption of innocence would want the same

    Umm, sir. This is Lemmy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Spielberg is also accused of being anti-Israel, if that matters to you.

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/420446

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

    No one would ever want to see a steven spielberg 007 movie.

    Doubly so since it came out that he's a zionist pedophile cretin. Spielberg should be in prison right now, which for him would be flleeing to Israel like all the other pedophiles, which would be close enough. GTFO.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [+] -3 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Really? Aside from the fact that the burden is always on the accuser to provide proof, the only thing you have is an article from just after the Hamas attacks, when the entire world was in shock and emotions were running high? THAT'S all you have to go on? Never mind that his foundation is funding groups that are protesting Israel, let's just ignore actions and focus on a few sentences spoken in the past.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    So you ask for an article source, I give it to you, and your response is to question the timing of the article rather than the content of the article itself (since its a guardian.com article and you cant legit question that source) And get it removed by a mod with the claim "Deleted by mod: Spreading misinformation/going off-topic."

    You and the mod are not being honest here. That article was directly about the accusations against Speilberg. Furthermore the guardian.com's editorial integrity is established-- its not just whatever you want to say it is. Its neither off topic nor misinformation.

    So why are you two so bent on burying this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Your comment was reported for being grossly uncivil. Since, you know, you were a major dick. I have no idea why the removal reason listed is misinformation. Probably the mod felt the same way I did about the irrelevance of your link.

    your response is to question the timing of the article rather than the content of the article itself

    Is there anything in my explanation that is confusing about why that's bullshit?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)