Yeah, I'm friends with the janitor down at my local post office. He checked out the list and said it was all good.
Only an extremely restricted handful of people will have access to any true government secrets, the world isn't a spy movie, access controls exist everywhere.
Once they knew they had a secret to keep Bill and Monica were perfectly willing to lie under oath about it and would have presumably taken it to the grave had Lewinsky not previously confided in Tripp who recorded subsequent phone conversations about it, a rookie mistake on Lewinsky's part, she didn't know what she had gotten caught up in at that time.
Edit: I'm not trying to be a lightening rod for jerks who are looking for a tin foil hat to dunk on. I'm just trying to add context.
You're proving the point you're trying to contest.
It's a perfect example of the "three can keep a secret if two of them are dead" quote frequently attributed to Benjamin Franklin. A two-person conspiracy and it leaked almost immediately.
My point was to add context Bill and Monica. I'm not trying to contest anything but I will admit that I should have known better than to not say that up front to head off such pedantry.
I almost cited the "two can keep a secret if one is dead" proverb.
I agree. But the thing I don't understand is why more people haven't been charged yet? Surely someone from the prosecution side of things has had access to it. Perhaps the evidence is too weak to support any case.
Probably because the majority on “the list” aren’t ‘enemies’ and are part of the intelligentsia or what have you. Else those names would have been conveniently inadvertently leaked on an “unprotected server” just as inexplicably as security cameras going off line at the moment they could have caught a crime.
I understand that Mr Epstein was intent on mixing socially with "virtually everyone with money", regardless of their proclivities. For camouflage, so to speak. That's the smart move, right?
Yeah, which is why this 'news' will mainly be conspiracy fodder. He was a conman that got into the circles of the rich and famous.
People seemed surprised that the elite class all hang out together, and make sure they stay elite. Look no further than the bi-partisan game of politicians inside trading.
The ONLY reason Fox News cares is for the hope of active Democrats in Epstein's circle - whom they will shout about to the hills, while ignoring any Republicans also in that list. Their playbook is a transparent sheet of plastic.
Repeat their own propaganda, as there is minimal "news" in the USA. It is primarily opinion telling one how to think, even in the case of news events. All US news outlets are a big fat (sad) joke.
On this we agree. It is commercial. Build an audience and sell what the audience wants. It is more a reflection on people and where we are as a society.
Here's what we know...A former US high-school teacher schmuck pretends to be a billionaire financier and -- somehow -- gets the Royal family, the Clintons and Bill Gates entangled with his odd system (and what really was his system anyways?) all the while this wealthy lady from a well known European family grooms and sends considerable numbers of child sex victims his way. I am going to go out on a limb and say that those children weren't all intended to go to the schmuck.
There is nothing too thin about the limb the comment above just described. Maxwell really is from a wealthy and well connected UK business family, she really did traffic many, many minors and she really did have many connections (both through Epstein and through other channels) to a whole bunch of wealthy, powerful people in many countries and cities. That an indictment would simply structure its argument as her trafficking these minors just to Epstein sounds a lot more unusual than claiming the opposite, that she instead trafficked them to many well-connected people through Epstein. You or anyone calling all of these essential details "a rabbit hole of "unsubstantiated conspiracy theories" is truly missing the forest for the trees.
It isn't plausible that Epstein was a brilliant money manager and was pervy as a hobby. It was the other way around: He made and sold blackmail material and his cover story was being a money guy.
> One of the eight individuals is Tom Pritzker, a billionaire executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels, who said the release of documents connecting him to the controversial financier would cause reputable harm, according to Insider.
> [Judge] Preska mostly disagreed with his concerns, saying many of the documents were already available in other legal challenges and that their contents did not specify malicious actions.
It's possible that there's nothing damning about Pritzker or others who raised objections, but there's still dirt on some of the other clients who didn't challenge this.
I wonder if the judge realises that people don't care about context, just shaping information to fit their current opinions. People don't care about facts unless they fit their confirmation bias. As Epstein purposefully cultivated friendships with as many rich & powerful people as possible, a lot of names were on his contact list but that implies no wrongdoing by those people. But the "no smoke without fire" brigade will claim them all as supervillains and part of the blood sucking illuminati, or whatever.
This case has taken on such a life of it's own. We'll see what these documents reveal but I'd wager it's nothing terribly salacious. We really have no reason to believe he ensnared anyone aside from maybe Prince Andrew in anything illicit. Some third hand source said he had all this compromising information on the rich and powerful and everyone just believed it. It's still possible but just isn't very likely.
Again, you're layering speculation on top of speculation in some childish fantasy that the entire moneyed elite are not only complete ghouls but that they decided they should all share in their illegal indulgences in the presence of each other and some untrustworthy host who was secretly recording everything. It just isn't very plausible. A pampered rich man with taste for underage girls killing themselves rather than facing a life sentence is very plausible. Surely there's some bits that remain undiscovered but the chances of an elaborate conspiracy are nil. And we have nearly zero evidence to support any of it.
You're ignoring the multitude of suspicious circumstances around his death, and the fact that we know of at least one moneyed elite (prince Andrew) who did in fact to share in his illegal indulgences in the presence of / with the facilitation of Epstein. We also know for example that Melinda Gates decided to divorce Bill Gates after 27 years explicitly because of his ties to Epstein - obviously that's not legally usable evidence, but it should count for something when calculating your priors.
Epstein was a predator and he definitely shared his hobby with Prince Andrew at least once. He very likely shared it with at least some other people, who were likely rich or powerful in some regard. That's the farthest we can extrapolate based on reliable evidence.
The notion that keeps floating around that he had entrapped the entire ruling class of the world and had detailed records of their crimes that he wielded over their heads to collect favors is highly improbable. The further notion that the known existence of all that compromising evidence was the impetus for jailhouse assassination with the explicit involvement of the Attorney General on down to the guards leaving nary a trace of evidence whilst simultaneously letting Ghislaine Maxwell walk free and clear is just absurd.
Bill Gates should not have spent time with him but there's no way he needed anyone's help to get laid. Melinda didn't like that they were associated, but she divorced him because he kept having affairs with adult women that worked for him.
Considering how hard life in prison is for child molesters I would still bet on the simplest theory that he killed himself to avoid years of torture and possibly death at the hands of his fellow inmates.
That doesn’t mean that the other crimes shouldn’t be investigated to see if there are links to people still living but I would be surprised if this turned out to be more than him taking the quick way out. The hardest part of a conspiracy is keeping a secret and something like this is so explosive that that it seems like that would be unusually hard to do.
Going with Occam's razor, I suspect you're right. But there were suspicious circumstances, like the security guards falling asleep and CCTV being accidentally deleted. But I have no idea how often that happens otherwise.
It was a jail that specialized in high profile cases (terrorists, El Chapo, poor ol’ Ross Ulbrect), and he was the first person to die there in 14 years.
> made the guards skip their 30 minute wellness checks
Honestly, this shouldn't be surprising.
My dad's a doc, and it's not an uncommon occurrence for a patient to have perfect vitals logged in the chart all day, then crash, in a way that means they couldn't possibly have had perfect vitals all day. People half-ass their jobs all the time.
Yep. And your dad presumably actually cares about his patients. These guards likely didn't care if Epstein got hurt, which made them even more likely to half-ass it.
Or he made use of the fact that the guards were incompetent to kill himself while they were not checking on him, in order to avoid the abuse and violence against him that would certainly happen to him as a well known child molester in prison.
Also his cellmate, who would have seen any wrong-doing, was coincidentally reassigned that day.
Found “hung” in a kneeling position, which any skeptic needs to think through carefully… this isn’t like a western hanging with gallows and gravity; if you really believe he didn’t kill himself, then he must have somehow just pulled his own head until he died, a frankly unbelievable force of will, akin to holding one’s own breathe til they perished.
If a conspiracy theory is when you have to believe some pretty silly things in order for it to be true, then the actual conspiracy theory is that he committed suicide.
> Federal prosecutors have found surveillance video of the area around the cell of accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein on the day of his first jailhouse suicide attempt, according to a new court filing. Earlier this week, they said the footage was missing.
Regardless, it proves the point that the news system is not helping bubble up truth here. Is this bbc article outdated? Is there nuance in the reports they “found the video” that is lost? Where is the most recent conclusive answers to some of the obvious questions around this situation?
I think it is even simpler. He was an extreme sex addict that was use to getting 3 massages with a happy ending a day and having a private chef.
Once he knew he was going to spend life in prison he ended it.
The dumbest thing about the conspiracy is OBVIOUSLY Ghislaine Maxwell would have also been taken out if the conspiracy was true. The conspirators go through all this trouble to get to someone in prison but don't do anything to someone that was just walking the street. People are just suckers for a good narrative.
Also, he was old with no realistic hope of being free again. It’s really not a stretch to imagine someone like that deciding they had no reason to stick it out.
I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that
Generally what actually happens is small parts or details are confirmed and others aren't so there's still a 'conspiracy theory' about some facts while others are just facts.
> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward.
The problem with this blend of specious reasoning is that to start off these conspiracy theories do not have any prior whatsoever. These conspiracy loons build their system of belief at best around flimsy conjectures, and reinforce their baseless beliefs on any noise that they manage to overfit around those.
A broken clock being right twice a day does not vindicate conspiracies around broken clocks.
How many of these would you need to update in the direction of "maybe some of them do know some of what they're talking about"?
Edit: Read the question again, and try to answer it. Let me rephrase the question:
How many times do you need to find out that something the media told you was "misinformation" or "a conspiracy theory" was actually true, to start questioning them a biiiit more?
Sorry you’re interpreting the release of these documents as evidence that the conspiracists were right? If the conspiracy was correct, these would never be made public, not “they would be made public in a pretty reasonable span of time for our abysmally slow justice system,” which appears to be what’s happening.
People filed a legal request to keep them private, that request has been overruled. What’s the conspiracy?
Don't underestimate the ability of these conspiracy loons to fabricate more and more stories. I expect them to react to tasting a big nothing sandwich with more conspiracy theories on how shady imaginary organizations edited out all the smoking guns.
I think the public at large believes Epstein met with powerful people and trafficked with human sex slaves. The conspiracy narrative is about how Epstein died and whether there’s a powerful guilty people can basically control the justice system.
Right, _now_ they believe that. This is my whole point! Previously if you said that a powerful man who became a finance billionaire with nobody in industry knowing him had a secret island where he hosted presidents, royalty, billionaires, intellectuals and they did drugs and raped kids those same people would have dismissed it as "conspiracy theory"
There's a new possibility that many of these 'crazy' conspiracies are intentional misdirections. Elon is king of this, as learned through his press releases with Tesla. One could almost back-test many of the crazy, stupid ideas, like the pizza parlor and now this most recent Balagencia deal, as all misdirections for what actually takes place.
I think what you’re describing is people being skeptical of claims without evidence and then being convinced of those claims by evidence.
I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Edit: Just to be crystal clear given that surely there was some evidence of his misdeeds prior to the recent blow up (e.g. his Florida arrest and subsequent soft handling by Acosta etc.), what you're seeing is a rough correlation between the % of people who believe a claim and the volume/credibility of the evidence in support of that claim. So yeah, when there was little evidence few people believed it. Now that there's a lot, everyone takes it as fact. The only thing shocking here is how utterly reasonable it is.
Now they believe that because some victims came forward and didn't get dismissed, and the mainstream media reported on it.
The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously
> The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously
Since it's established that the canard that the mainstream wouldn't touch a story like Epstein's is false, and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then, it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form...
> Since it's established that the canard that the mainstream wouldn't touch a story like Epstein's is false...
"Touching" a story (True/False) is not the same as a story being reported on in a proper manner. Printing one story in the middle of one newspaper technically satisfies "touched".
(Note: I have not made a claim that only one story on Epstein was printed, I am only describing what would be required to satisfy "touched").
Also: while choosing a maximally absurd complaint (that isn't even believed by conspiracy theorists) is an excellent rhetorical technique, it may not be so useful for engaging in truthful, good faith discussion.
> ...and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then...
Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not?
Please explicitly state the person or organization that performs this duty that you are referring to.
> ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form...
Can you explain what the intent of this is, and what it is you are referring to by "Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions" and "before he was involved in cheese pizza" and ""that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form"?
My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations.
> Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not?
LMAO.
We are HNers participating in a discussion, in which you appear to be taking issue with the point I made that Epstein offers no reason to update our priors on conspiracy theorists knowing things the mainstream media doesn't because Epstein was unmasked by lawyers, police and mainstream media, not conspiracy theorists. (And mainstream media did not, as far as I'm aware, rush to insist he couldn't possibly have done such awful things)
I presume if you felt evidence to the contrary existed - that people who were onto Epstein were pooh-poohed as conspiracy theorists until the truth came out - you'd have offered me that as a counter argument rather than a list of links about heuristics and cognitive biases. (If actually do have the evidence, I apologise for the excessively charitable assumption about your understanding of how to engage in truthful, good-faith discussion and look forward to seeing it)
> ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form...
> My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations.
We're in a subthread about whether we should be updating our priors on conspiracy theories in general based on revelations about Epstein. I'm thinking an honest attempt to demonstrate alignment between Epstein revelations and popular conspiracy theories (that wasn't after, and derivative of mainstream reporting on Epstein) might be an more interesting counterargument than a list of articles about cognitive biases. In the absence of such evidence, I don't really see Epstein offering any reason for anyone to update any priors they have on popular conspiracy theories.
Cute that someone that responds with a series of Wikipedia links is demanding explicit statements in response and lecturing me on truthful, good faith discussions though.
>> Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not?
> LMAO.
Not an answer to the question.
If you have an aversion to answering questions that's fine, but I'd prefer an acknowledgement (just a request though, not a requirement).
> We are HNers participating in a discussion...
Well there's a problem: you do not actually know the degree to which other HN'ers agree with you.
> ...in which you appear to be taking issue with the point I made that Epstein offers no reason to update our priors on conspiracy theorists knowing things the mainstream media doesn't because Epstein was unmasked by lawyers, police and mainstream media, not conspiracy theorists. (And mainstream media did not, as far as I'm aware, rush to insist he couldn't possibly have done such awful things)
You also do not have comprehensive knowledge of what has happened in the conspiracy theory world, or in the journalism world (including editorial decisions made behind closed doors).
> I presume if you felt evidence to the contrary existed - that people who were onto Epstein were pooh-poohed as conspiracy theorists until the truth came out - you'd have offered me that as a counter argument rather than a list of links about heuristics and cognitive biases.
I've formed no strong belief because I understand the significance of the content of those links - you on the other hand seem to (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) have not only formed a strong belief, but also mistaken it for knowledge.
> (If actually do have the evidence, I apologise for the excessively charitable assumption about your understanding of how to engage in truthful, good-faith discussion and look forward to seeing it)
No charity required - I am not here to make friends. (Nice dig though! :) )
> I'm thinking an honest attempt to demonstrate alignment between Epstein revelations and popular conspiracy theories (that wasn't after, and derivative of mainstream reporting on Epstein) might be an more interesting counterargument than a list of articles about cognitive biases.
Making up stupid beliefs and implicitly attributing them to your ideological opponents is a demonstration of something: the poor thinking skills and dishonesty of the person who made the claim: you.
> In the absence of such evidence, I don't really see Epstein offering any reason for anyone to update any priors they have on popular conspiracy theories.
At the very least, conspiracy theorists had the ability to take this story very seriously, and discuss it in much greater depth than normies. Opinions vary on how seriously child abuse should be taken - some are strict, others are more accepting.
> Cute that someone that responds with a series of Wikipedia links is demanding explicit statements in response and lecturing me on truthful, good faith discussions though.
What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?
> If you have an aversion to answering questions that's fine, but I'd prefer an acknowledgement
Not gonna lie, if you're genuinely struggling to understand that a sentence that begins "We are HNers participating in the discussion" [emphasis original] might actually be intended as an answer to a "who is the 'we'" question quoted directly above it, not a separate sentence fragment for you to come up with an obtuse response to, I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text.
If you're merely feigning ignorance of the basic syntax of the English language as a rhetorical flourish, it's... also not impressive.
> What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?
> At the very least, conspiracy theorists had the ability to take this story very seriously, and discuss it in much greater depth than normies. Opinions vary on how seriously child abuse should be taken - some are strict, others are more accepting.
Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists. And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly.
But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of.
> Not gonna lie, if you're genuinely struggling to understand that a sentence that begins "We are HNers participating in the discussion" [emphasis original] might actually be intended as an answer to a "who is the 'we'" question quoted directly above it, not a separate sentence fragment for you to come up with an obtuse response to
I realize that.
Feel free to explain how you acquired knowledge of consensus belief among the people you are referring to.
> ...I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text.
I have more certainty than you. I believe I am correct, and I encourage you to demonstrate that you are correct (you do possess this knowledge, and can explain how), or that I am incorrect (in presuming you are speculating).
>> What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?
It's a popular meme and is often used to represent victory in internet disagreements, but it is not nearly as magical as it seems. After all, I too can post links to various memes and declare victory too.
We are in disagreement over a precise point of contention, that meme is not applicable. But feel free to pretend that it is.
> Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists.
A problem: you are evaluating a simulation of reality, not reality itself. You do not actually have knowledge of the activities of all these people.
It is amazing that conspiracy theorists get laughed at by normies suffering from delusions of omniscience. Amazing, but fitting in a way.
> And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly.
I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots (they are humans after all), and I've made no claim about them having superpowers. Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning.
> But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of.
And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15. Dare to dream!
> Feel free to explain how you acquired knowledge of consensus belief among the people you are referring to.
Me: various arguments to the effect that the fact that conspiracy theorists may believe in Epstein Island (much like many people who aren't conspiracy theorists) doesn't give any reason to stop regarding many of them as idiots
You: "I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots"
These statements seem pretty aligned, and as I said from the very beginning, if you had the evidence of sterling original Epstein research by conspiracy theorists to actually rebut the former statement, you'd be better off presenting that than 1001 tangents.
I've no idea why you believe I need to have established consensus belief in all of Hacker News to use the word "we" about you and me, never mind need to know "all the activities of all those people" to know something as trivially simple to establish as the media took Epstein Island seriously. Come on, you're not honestly claiming that one needs omniscience to have any confidence that Epstein Island was reported on by seriously by mainstream media are you!?!?
Funnily enough, you seem happy not only making similar generalised references statements to the actions of normies and conspiracy theorists alike yourself, but insist on going one step further and insisting that you have insight into the former's "delusions of omniscience". Normies are too stuck in a simulation of reality to have any confidence in their faculties telling them media did, in fact report seriously on Epstein, but you can trust your insights into the deepest delusions of their minds. Perhaps, in your simulation of reality, this seems like a sound logical argument. To me, it sounds like you should probably read your link about cognitive biases...
> Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning.
> And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15
Yeah, no.
(Not gonna lie, I'm not the participant in this exchange whose views on consent are so unconventional they were babbling about how opinions on child abuse were "varied" and some people were "more accepting" in their last post. Can't say I've experienced people espousing acceptance of child abusers in normie-land, but if you actually have the need to seek such people out, your victims have my sympathies...)
> Me: various arguments to the effect that the fact that conspiracy theorists may believe in Epstein Island (much like many people who aren't conspiracy theorists) doesn't give any reason to stop regarding many of them as idiots
Modifying claims after the fact isn't exactly good faith.
> These statements seem pretty aligned, and as I said from the very beginning, if you had the evidence of conspiracy theorists' early Epstein insights to actually rebut the former statement, you'd be better off presenting than 1001 tangents.
I didn't present 1001 tangents.
> I've no idea why you believe I need to have established consensus belief in all of Hacker News to use the word "we" about you and me
Your claim implied that you had consensus support on HN.
> ever mind need to know "all the activities of all those people" to know something as trivially simple to establish as the media took Epstein Island seriously.
"take X seriously" is not a True/False binary.
> Come on, you're not honestly claiming that one needs omniscience to have any confidence that Epstein Island was reported on by seriously by mainstream media are you!?!?
If this was necessarily(!) true (which you do not actually know, in fact), it would be literally not possible for something nefarious to happen with the media.
> Funnily enough, you seem happy not only making similar generalised references statements to the actions of normies and conspiracy theorists alike yourself, but insist on going one step further and insisting that you have insight into the former's "delusions of omniscience".
You have made several comprehensive claims about the nature of journalist coverage of this story. You are speculating, necessarily.
> Normies are too stuck in a simulation of reality to have any confidence in their faculties telling them media did, in fact report seriously on Epstein, but you can trust your insights into the deepest delusions of their minds.
Omniscience isn't required to tell when a human is running on heuristics, at least under certain scenarios (claims of knowledge that require omniscience, for example).
> Perhaps, in your simulation of reality, this seems like a sound logical argument. To me, it sounds like you should probably read your link about cognitive biases...
Try not attributing things to me that I haven't done.
> Yeah, no.
Would you enjoy if I claimed again that this is your wish, despite it not actually being true?
> Not gonna lie, I'm not the participant in this exchange whose views on consent are so unconventional they were babbling about how opinions on child abuse were "varied" and some people were "more accepting" in their last post.
a) Child molesters exist - therefore opinions on child abuse vary.
b) Not all people took the Epstein thing identically seriously (conspiracy theorists are generally extremely concerned about child abuse, based on how they talk anyways) - therefore opinions on child abuse vary.
c) Considering the nature of this crime, if compared to other instances of child abuse, MANY people thought the amount and style of media coverage of this story was inconsistent. It is physically possible for it to be inconsistent, whether it was is subjective, and would/should require a substantial amount of work before passing any sort of serious judgment.
> Can't say I've experienced people espousing acceptance of child abusers in normie-land, but if you have more need to seek such people out, your victims have my sympathies...)
Espousing acceptance is not required for variance - even lesser outrage is a variation.
My main overall concern is this: the degree of actual interest the public has in the integrity of very important institutions is not a universal constant, nor is the capability people have to exercise sound judgment. If there was something bad going on behind t...
Honestly, if you're generating these responses with GPT-3 that's a pretty funny and creative use of the tool, and you completely got me for the first couple of posts!
If there's an actual human in there that thinks that it's tenable to argue that 'Epstein Island was taken seriously by mainstream media' is a "comprehensive and bold" claim that no amount of articles which report on Epstein Island in detail in a serious tone could possible prove, whereas assertions that normies run on delusions of omniscience is just something you know ... I'm a bit less impressed.
Can't speak for other normies (I'll leave that to you), but personally I don't laugh at conspiracy theorists because they "care", I laugh at them because they make mind-numbingly stupid arguments.
> Honestly, if you're generating these responses with GPT-3 that's a pretty funny and creative use of the tool, and you completely got me for the first couple of posts!
Biological AI is not particularly novel either, the probability of this class of comment NOT appearing during disagreements between humans is rare...but only for certain topics. I wonder if we were to review our conversation, how many (at least plausible) instances of it we could individually nominate.
> If there's an actual human in there that thinks that it's tenable to argue that 'Epstein Island was taken seriously by mainstream media' is a "comprehensive and bold" claim...
a) "take X seriously" is not a True/False binary" - would you be willing to discuss this aspect and the significance of it to the topic?
b) considering (a), have you not made broad claims about the quality/intent of journalism organizations?
c) arguing a point is fine, asserting it as a fact (or in the form of a fact without acknowledging it as an opinion) is something else, and the acceptability of this behavior seems to vary depending on the topic.
> ...that no amount of articles which report on Epstein Island in detail in a serious tone could possible prove...
I propose: In human communication, there is a serious problem (in addition to many others, like dodging questions) with a delta between what is actually said, what is interpreted by the other party, and the willingness of all parties to acknowledge that this phenomenon is in play. (Like in this case: I made no such claim.)
Do you think there is any merit to this proposal?
> ...whereas assertions that normies run on delusions of omniscience is just something you know ... I'm a bit less impressed.
I am unimpressed (but not surprised in the slightest) that you say "is" "just something you know", immediately after me saying "Omniscience isn't required to tell when a human is running on heuristics, at least under certain scenarios (claims of knowledge that require omniscience, for example)."
> Can't speak for other normies....
Why not? You know what employees of journalism institutions do, do you not have the same ability with normies?
> (I'll leave that to you)...
Which I've done only in a certain way, and only to a certain degree.
> ...but personally I don't laugh at conspiracy theorists because they "care", I laugh at them because they make mind-numbingly stupid arguments.
Many of them do indeed, but what stupid arguments have I made? And do you believe that the fact that some conspiracy theorists make make mind-numbingly stupid arguments has any bearing on the truth value of the point of contention between the two of us? (Or, perhaps the comment was more for rhetorical effect, or simply an innate reaction.)
I think this (and related topics) has substantial relevance here:
I propose: In human communication, there is a serious problem (in addition to many others, like dodging questions) with a delta between what is actually said, what is interpreted by the other party, and the willingness of all parties to acknowledge that this phenomenon is in play.
Indeed. For example this discussion started when I actually said that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island seriously, in response to another commenter suggesting people would have just dismissed Epstein Island as a conspiracy theory.
There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution, and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1], rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people" and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience.
This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication.
> Indeed. For example this discussion started when I actually said that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island seriously, in response to another commenter suggesting people would have just dismissed Epstein Island as a conspiracy theory.
Was yours a suggestion that that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island "seriously" (a highly ambiguous term, a perfect fit for current cultural norms), or was it more of a claim of fact?
> There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution...
This ("one party refuses to acknowledge") implies that it is a fact that these articles are objectively ~"very well done" (could not have been substantially better, etc).
> ...and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1]...
My complaint is that humans perceive and represent opinions as facts. My proposal is that we stop doing this, or at least admit as individuals and a culture that this is how things currently work.
What is actually true here is not known, hence I do not make an assertion of facts of what happened (with respect to the underlying crime).
This approach is celebrated when done by science, but in other domains it seems to be considered the opposite of the correct way to behave.
> ...rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people"...
Despite me addressing exactly this claim at least once already, you continue to misrepresent what I have actually said: I haven't rejected investigations as being necessarily false, but rather your claims that you possess knowledge (as opposed to belief) about the actions and quality of reporting.
> ... and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience.
I don't find it funny, it scares the fuck out of me.
> This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication.
It stops the instance of the problem, but the underlying problem (people refusing to consider the importance of truth) does not go away.
> This ("one party refuses to acknowledge") implies that it is a fact that these articles are objectively ~"very well done" (could not have been substantially better, etc).
But it doesn't. At no point has anybody at all claimed that articles are "objectively very well done", "could not have been substantially better" or anything remotely close to that. I did reject the idea that Epstein Island would have been [generally] "dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by pointing out that it has been treated with considerably more seriousness than that by many people generally unreceptive to conspiracy theorists, including journalists (and policemen, and courts, and ordinary normies like me).
For someone that claims to be interested in philosophy of mind stuff around belief-formation and the importance of truth, you seem remarkably incapable of considering the possibility that your belief that I hold a belief which I never even hinted at (and in fact do not believe) constitutes an error of judgement rather than knowledge so sound you can reliably deduce delusions of omniscience[1] from it. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of "humans perceive and represent opinions as facts", I recommend rereading the thread and counting the number of statements you have made which are caveated as beliefs versus the number you have expressed as facts (in some cases explicitly dismissing the possibility of error). The total may surprise you, especially if haranguing others to couch their inferences as beliefs and opinions rather than statements is important to you. But if composing a reply is more satisfying than striving for self awareness or intellectual consistency, don't let me stop you.
[1]a deduction which only makes sense if "omniscience" is a prerequisite for "sufficiently reliable faculties to gauge whether some news items contain elements of seriousness"". I guess if you believe intermediate-level English language comprehension is an unattainable state requiring omniscience, it would explain a lot about your last few posts...
> At no point has anybody at all claimed that articles are "objectively very well done", "could not have been substantially better" or anything remotely close to that.
Let's try an experiment - can we at least agree that:
a) there does exist a level of quality element to journalism ("reporting" on a topic is not, comprehensively, a True/False binary)?
b) both of us have expressed at least some sort of opinion on the quality of reporting with regards to the Epstein affair?
> I did reject the idea that Epstein Island would have been [generally] "dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by pointing out that it has been treated with considerably more seriousness than that by many people generally unreceptive to conspiracy theorists, including journalists (and policemen, and courts, and ordinary normies like me).
Can we agree that:
a) It is physically possible that at least one journalism piece might have at least implied that stories about the Epstein affair are conspiracy theories (and thus not true)?
b) It may have actually occurred that at least one journalism piece actually did imply that (at least some) stories about the Epstein affair are conspiracy theories (and thus not true)?
> For someone that claims to be interested in philosophy of mind stuff around belief-formation and the importance of truth, you seem remarkably incapable of considering the possibility that your belief that I hold a belief which I never even hinted at (and in fact do not believe) constitutes an error of judgement rather than knowledge so sound you can reliably deduce delusions of omniscience[1] from it. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of "humans perceive and represent opinions as facts", I recommend rereading the thread and counting the number of statements you have made which are caveated as beliefs versus the number you have expressed as facts (in some cases explicitly dismissing the possibility of error).
A serious problem here is that I would be reviewing my own comments in a biased manner.
How about this: would you be willing to identity 2 or 3 examples of where you believe I have done this, including a link to the comment, a quote of the offending text, and your explanation of how the text demonstrates your claim? I prefer this approach because I believe providing specific evidence for one's claims is a very useful function is the practice of epistemology, and it can also give some signals as to the likelihood that the person making the claim is speaking truthfully, accurately, and in good faith (something that should be a consideration of all people involved in a conversation, including me).
I have quoted and disputed numerous of your specific claims, I would enjoy for you to do the same to mine. If I have made genuinely (or even plausibly) erroneous claims, I would very much like you to draw my attention to them.
> But if composing a reply is more satisfying than striving for self awareness or intellectual consistency, don't let me stop you.
I read this as an assertion that I am not acting in good faith or living up to what I ask of you, and I believe that encouraging you to expose this behavior in me using evidence is a good way to demonstrate that what you say is true, rather than leaving it up to the imagination of the reader.
> [1]a deduction which only makes sense if "omniscience" is a prerequisite for "sufficiently reliable faculties to gauge whether some news items contain elements of seriousness"".
The problem here is "some news item" - we have not been discussing one single news item - my complaint is that you made claims about the entirety of the journalism complex.
> I guess if you believe intermediate-level English language comprehension is an unattainable state requiring omniscience, it would explain a lot about your last few posts...
If you genuinely believe I've made this claim (or something resembling it), I en...
>Sorry you’re interpreting the release of these documents as evidence that the conspiracists were right? If the conspiracy was correct, these would never be made public,
Just because a conspiracy has sprung leaks or failed in some vital aspect doesn't need to mean it never existed. Your argument is based on a very unusual definition of a conspiracy as a secret plot that's guaranteed to be all-powerful at information and damage control.
At least the conspiracy that I've been seeing has to do with the justice system behaving in an abnormal way with regard to these records. This seems like evidence that it's not behaving in an abnormal way.
> How many of these would you need to update in the direction of "maybe some of them do know some of what they're talking about"?
None of them knows anything at all about anything whatsoever. You're talking about morons who abuse conjectures to build up their personal fictional stories with the goal of fooling themselves into believing they are special and smarter than everyone around them.
Listening to conspiracy nuts regarding their pet conspiracies makes as much sense as taking investment advice from lottery winners: even if they are right once in their life,their whole rationalization is deeply wrong and has no bearing in reality.
It's less about the raw quantity and more about the proportion.
I can guess the outcome of the S&P 500 perfectly, if you don't count the wrong predictions. All I have to do is predict both directions, and say "see, told you it'd go up/down today".
This is a good point and I don't disagree. What i'm referring to though is how this incident, snowden leaks, NSA metadata spying, MKultra, etc. etc. all are described as "nutjob" theories until they're proven. Then we just say "oh yeah everyone knew that" and go back to saying anything that doesn't sound mainstream reasonable is crazy
I can definitely say in the early days of Echelon development (mid to late 1990's) any attempt to raise awareness would be dismissed. Some of that is surely due to people not understanding the technology at the time.
Apart from anything else, it seems like the popular theories about politicians running paedophile rings came after the mainstream media revelations about very well connected socialite Jeffrey Epstein, not before.
Posting a wild theory about al Qaeda and three letter agencies and US 'neoconservative' foreign policy on September 10th 2001 is at least interesting, if not exactly hard evidence you know anything. Posting one on September 12th 2001 isn't an indication of you having been aware of anything more than the news cycle.
> Apart from anything else, it seems like the popular theories about politicians running paedophile rings came after the mainstream media revelations about very well connected socialite Jeffrey Epstein, not before.
They're hardly new. The QAnon/Pizzagate "adrenochrome" conspiracy theory is just the old Jewish blood libel with a slightly scifi modernization and a touch of the 80s Satanic panic.
Something interesting about humans is that they often criticize members of their outgroups for being bad at thinking or holding false beliefs, but in the process of doing so the person doing the criticizing demonstrates that they suffer from the very same problem.
Case in point:
> They're hardly new. The QAnon/Pizzagate "adrenochrome" conspiracy theory is just the old Jewish blood libel with a slightly scifi modernization and a touch of the 80s Satanic panic.
It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people. And yet to the (standard) human mind, the exact opposite seems true.
It is strange that our whole world runs on this phenomenon, but it seems like it is not possible to get anyone to discuss the phenomenon. Granted, expecting someone who is suffering from the phenomenon to acknowledge it at the time that it occurs isn't terribly realistic, and I can accept that. But the weird part to me is that it is rarely possible to get anyone to acknowledge the phenomenon....it is very much like the fable of the emperor having no clothes, but in real life, right here and now.
Nah, arguing "you can't ever analyze the belief structure of a large group" is a non-starter for me. We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again.
> Nah, arguing "you can't ever analyze the belief structure of a large group" is a non-starter for me.
I know, that's my point (of "It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people"). One HAS TO use one's imagination to perform such an "analysis"....but it is imagined - the very thing (the imaginary, and some actual) conspiracy theorists are mocked for!
If the topic was something other than conspiracy theories (or any culture war topic), presenting one's imagination as fact would not stand on Hacker News...but when the topic is a culture war one, this standard inverts: then, acceptable norms to a large degree change to "imagination is ok, but appeals to truth are considered bad/unacceptable/weird".
> We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again.
Where is it? Can you point it out in a way that I also can see it?
And how did it get here, by you making a reference to it?
In the late 80s/very early 90s there were people in Usenet’s alt.sex who told of their participation, as children, in wealthy sex rings. One in particular made claims that he had been well-compensated, in that he was also provided an excellent education and developed the connections to the wealthy and powerful that ensured his outstanding success in adult life.
These theories are (a) not new and (b) IMO likely true. Having seen what humans are capable of doing to one another, I have absolutely no doubt that there is a cadre of powerful people who use child rape to gain blackmail material, ensure loyalty, and to get their sick jollies off.
I am always surprised by those who express doubt. Have they not watched the news? Humans can do the most horrific things for pleasure, let alone power and wealth.
Sure, sexual abuse is obviously very common and not unconnected with power, stories about actual abuse and similar fantasies about abuse and power have been around forever, and untangling the two isn't always easy, especially when they crop up during the same well-publicised case like the UK's Operation Yewtree. And sometimes you hear something about a famous person long before it becomes more than gossip (I heard about a friend of an acquaintance who was in Hollywood "dating" the wealthy and very eligible fortysomething X-men director when we were all in our late teens a decade before rather grubbier accounts about Bryan Singer and very young men appeared)
But there's a big difference between that and various very grand theories about certain US politicians that claim the story of Epstein is new evidence and corroboration, not old news and inspiration.
What the nutjobs were saying was (and remains) that the NSA reads all your email and listens to all your phone calls or that it has unfettered access to this data. The Snowden leaks confirmed this to be false, but the nutjobs keep claiming it.
> "Conspiracies exist, therefore my pet conspiracy theory should be treated seriously by default" is the fallacy.
I think it is worth mentioning that this fallacy manifests in at least two forms:
1. When a conspiracy theorist actually says it (I have never encountered it despite spending substantial amount of time in various conspiracy theory forums). As a general rule, when a non-conspiracy theorist is describing things that happen in the conspiracy world (where they do not go), it is safe to assume that they have lost control of their imagination, and this is usually extremely obvious from their description.
2. When someone other than a conspiracy theorists imagines that a conspiracy theorist (typically also imagined, but not always) has said it or believes it (neither of which is required to true for it to be perceived as true).
I don't see anything upthread that "the fallacy" could be referring to in this instance.
It is perhaps also worth noting that "should be treated seriously by default" isn't actually all that bizarre (depending on the conspiracy theory, of course) - take something seriously is very different from believe to be necessarily true, though at the perceptual level things that are different can appear to be identical, and vice versa.
> Following presentation of the Northwoods plan, Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Sooooo ... your smoking gun is that someone at some point had a plan to do something that conspiracy theorists say happens all the time, and their plan was rejected and they were fired for suggesting it?
To be fair, the fact it got that far - as a proposal delivered by the JCS to the President - is itself concerning. That's not some dumb intern's daydream.
One problem here is that a lot of people don't look at the source of the supposed conspiracy theory. They think "it's a conspiracy theory, it must be like all the rest." There are several so-called conspiracy theorists who are fairly accurate about predicting the shady behavior of the US government. There are a lot more conspiracy theorists who yell about flat earth and chemtrails. As with anything else, it's a good idea to check your sources and see where the theory comes from.
Here's one: certain googlers working with politicized us gov bureaucrats to reduce exposure and remove search results from google for the 2016 presidential campaign. This was and still is meme'd quite often.
The prior is not about an individual theory, but that, e.g., 5% of theories turn out to be correct. Yet people will still believe that 0% of theories are correct.
This is precisely the problem of labeling all theories the powerful don't like "conspiracy theories".
I'm pretty certain that a substantial percentage of the most ridiculous conspiracies are posted online by paid shills to discredit all theories, so any dissenter can be labeled a "loon".
There are many reasonable people who believe the moon landing and reject the theory that "the world is run by satanists" but have many legitimate questions about the Epstein story.
For example, the theory that Epstein videotaped his "friends" for future blackmail is not in any way "loony". So the label "conspiracy theory" is entirely useless, we can only talk about individual cases.
> I'm pretty certain that a substantial percentage of the most ridiculous conspiracies are posted online by paid shills to discredit all theories, so any dissenter can be labeled a "loon".
So the “elite class” conspire together to craft fake conspiracies and flood the population with it so that they can label people who discover the real conspiracies as crazy?
You are bringing up the “elite class”. It could be foreign governments to create dissent. It could be Democrats to discredit a Republican forum or vice versa.
This is perfectly plausible. It's also intractable, and doesn't imply that we should believe more things, any more or less than it implies that we should disbelieve more things. No matter how much misdirection and falsehood is put out by whatever organized or unorganized bodies, we still only have what we see and hear and read and experience. It's just one more of a million obvious reasons we already have to be skeptical - skeptical of what we're told by authorities, but also skeptical of what we're told by any given person with any motivation to convince you of something: financial, political, or even just emotional, and that includes conspiracy theorists. But there's a balance - if you're too skeptical, then nothing has any meaning. You might as well not believe any information you receive, in which case you might as well become a hermit who lives off the land (which is fine, but not a realistic expectation for the whole world). Or, in the case of many conspiracy theorists, arbitrarily choose something to believe (arbitrary because their sources are not any more reliable than other sources), which really isn't any better.
So, we want to avoid falling off any given edge (becoming a hermit or a person with no opinions on anything, becoming a truly nutty conspiracy theorist, or becoming a mindless loyalist to some social/political group). A key tool for avoiding this is understanding a few things:
1. There is a bigger space than you think between having no opinion and having a full-blown conviction. I can believe or disbelieve something without making it into part of my identity or taking any kind of serious concrete action based on it or trying to convince everybody to go in the same direction as me.
2. It follows from #1 that it is OK to be wrong.
3. It follows from #1 that it is good to change opinions based on new information - it is not hypocritical.
>Yet people will still believe that 0% of theories are correct.
This is not a generous portrayal. The people you're talking about mostly believe things based on experience (e.g. evidence, though there are many other kinds of experience). Therefore, if their experience tells them something a person is insisting on is probably not true, well then that's their perfectly reasonable position at the time. That is not the same as having a conviction that any given thing is not true, and it is very much not the same as believing that "0%" of anything widely considered a "conspiracy theory" are true, for all cases, forever, as some kind of ridiculous rule.
The idea that Ghislaine Maxwell was one of the most powerful mods on Reddit, with close connections to the founders and admins, was widely derided at the time, but is probably true.
I think the main thing people were pointing to was that account was extremely active then suddenly went inactive at the same time of Ghislaine's arrest. Been a while so there was probably other stuff too but that's the main one I recall.
Not particularly convincing, they seem just more like the kind of person you'd expect to be a reddit admin, i.e. a dodgy pedo incel male somewhat in the same area as /u/violentacrez (summary here for those unfamiliar: https://www.gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacre...).
> I befriended a Korean pastor and his wife (long story there) where I live and we would meet occassionally for dinner.
> One day he asked if I could help teach some of his "students" conversational English. I didn't realise that he meant adults undergoing intensive training in Korea and abroad as missionaries for posting to other parts of the world. I thought he meant local teenagers who wanted to be more conversant in English - pronunciation, diction etc
> So I volunteered.
So, if people start looking for reddit accounts that mention maxwell and dodgy stuff, I can see why they'd stop posting.
I think part of the reason this gets so easily dismissed is that people still see reddit as a quaint little internet message board rather than an influential mainstream juggernaut that reaches half a billion people every month.
That account is/was enormously powerful, with the ability to determine which stories reached the frontpage and which didn't. That makes it politically and financially very valuable, and I don't think someone would just give up that because of association with Maxwell when they could have just posted a single comment saying "I am not Ghislaine Maxwell" and everyone would have forgotten about it.
There's a mountain of circumstantial evidence including confirmation from Ellen Pao in a since-deleted tweet. The only rebuttals came from a newly appointed mod on reddit who claimed to have spoken to the user shortly after the arrest (but provided no evidence, the story was inconsistent and they have never spoken of this again), and a scathing article in Vice mocking the idea as a conspiracy theory, but again providing no evidence and it turns out that Vice clearly benefited from a business relationship with /u/maxwellhill
If you're looking for something cast-iron then I don't have it, but this is really a numbers game given that we only need 33 bits of information to deanonymise people on the internet. So let's count them and I'll let you decide how many bits to award each nugget.
1. The account's name is maxwellhill and Ghislaine Maxwell's surname is Maxwell and used to live at a place she referred to as Maxwell Hill.
2. The account was the first to reach 1m reddit karma and in the congratulatory post Alexis Ohanian revealed that he knew the poster in real life and that they'd been there since almost the beginning.
3. Ghislaine Maxwell is known to have attended events with Reddit staff in the early days, as confirmed by former CEO of reddit Ellen Pao.
4. maxwellhill has a December birthday, Ghislaine Maxwell's birthday is 25th December.
5. maxwellhill stopped posting just 2 days before GM's arrest, previously they'd posted almost every day for 14 years.
6. The few gaps when maxwellhill was not posting align with dates GM is known to have attended events including her mother's funeral.
7. GM's father was a known and prolific media manipulator, maxwellhill was repeatedly accused of manipulating reddit before the arrest.
8. maxwellhill posted prolifically about ocean conservation, GM had a startup called TerraMar which was focussed on ocean conservation.
9. maxwellhill mostly uses British English, GM is from Britain.
10. maxwellhill repeatedly complained about over-zealous child protection laws, posted articles suggesting CSAM should be legalised.
11. maxwellhill was careful to stress the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia - a distinction important to Epstein and his apologists but not to most normal people.
12. maxwellhill has still not posted to reddit since the arrest, despite it having significant political and financial value.
13. After all of the noise of the accusations, no one at Reddit has actually denied that GM was maxwellhill.
I'm not saying this is conclusive, hence saying "probably", but that's a lot of bits.
MkUltra, COINTELPRO, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Project Mockingbird, Project Sunshine... There are thousands of conspiracies that have been vindicated, including ones that sounded completely insane at the time. You can just Google to answer your question with further examples.
Hey, can you please edit name-calling, personal attacks, and swipes out of your HN comments? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly and that's against the site guidelines. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
There’s gotta be something better you can do with your time than policing decorum. Let the flag/voting feature work as intended and leave yourself out of it. You’re not an impartial person as your political bias is clearly evident in many of your post
If only that were possible! You can't imagine how happy I would be.
Alas, the voting and flagging features aren't sufficient to regulate the system. In fact, none of the community and software mechanisms are sufficient on their own. There needs to be human intervention to jig the system out of its failure modes. Without that, the forum would destroy itself—that is, it would rapidly regress to the internet mean, which means HN wouldn't exist anymore—it would be a completely different place, and probably die off pretty quickly.
If it helps at all, I promise you that the moderation comments are even more tedious to write than they are to read.
As for political bias, I have no idea which bias you think I/we have because we routinely get accused of literally every political bias that exists. People have these perceptions because they grossly overestimate the significance of the moderation calls they dislike, while barely noticing the ones they agree with. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Part of the issue is that after a while we tend to forget that the cases that turned out to be true were dismissed as conspiracy theories at the time. In recent memory for example, a lot of claims about the capabilities and application of the US signal intelligence apparatus abroad (especially in allied coununtries) were dismissed as conspiracy theories prior to Snowden. If you talk to a lot of people today, they will tend to remember it more as a "we kinda' always knew, but just didn't have confirmation" situation than a "I'm sure the NSA is doing _something_, but there is no way it would be this extensive" situation.
Great example, this was the first time I noticed the phenomena my original comment was referring to. Everyone "normal" described this stuff as tinfoil hat and even the people slightly outside overton window never suspected it was as bad as the reality turned out. But, everyone just instantly switched to "yeah we knew that" and didn't update any beliefs or priors
>everyone just instantly switched to "yeah we knew that"
This is an example of a very common mistake that leads to a lot of animosity, which is that "those people who said X" and "these people saying they never said X" are the same people (this is fueled by the misunderstanding that there are essentially only two groups of people, which is an illusion that most political systems reinforce).
Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMDs, Syria chemical weapons false flag, Hunter Biden's laptop, FBI setting up the mentally deficient to create terrorists, to name a few.
Reading the article, there is little being revealed here? A good part of the documents are about victims. Others reveal that.. a billionaire socialite had some acquaintances?
This. If the documents were "thank you for inviting me to the island and introducing me to the very young girls" notes from famous people, I think the individuals involved would be fighting different court cases.
We've already got pics of him acquainting himself with two former POTUSes, I'm not sure docs referencing considerably less famous individuals in ways a judge considers to be largely already public information or innocuous detail are going to reveal much or add much more to the rumour mill. Though frankly, since it's Epstein people would read stuff into his pizza delivery orders.
This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately
Right, but if you find yourself (like me) dismissing MANY stories that sound "crazy" or like "conspiracy theories" but then turn out to be true at what point do you change your priors? I'm not saying you should update to "all conspiracies are true" I'm personally not sure how much I should update but it does seem like there is a hole in my world model that I keep making this mistake over and over (like everyone else)
This way madness lies. It's impossible to reach 100% accuracy when evaluating the veracity of a story, we are always operating with imperfect information. How critical you are of evidence helps sets the boundary for your range of reality but if you expand that sphere to make sure you don't leave out anything that might be true you are going to start including an increasingly large amount of things that aren't.
>> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that.
> This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately
This is a classic example of a human being perceiving/describing reality in a way that is clearly and objectively not true....like, not even close.
Here you are explicitly making a claim that someone has argued something that they have not actually argued.
Your claim IS FALSE. And yet, you are criticizing the other person for "a fallacious argument". You do not only have it wrong, you have it BACKWARDS.
My intuition is that you are not intentionally being deceptive, but rather have done this accidentally. I am curious to know whether believe my intuition to be correct, or have any other comments about what is taking place here today?
Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young prostitutes. This means that 'JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever' is more likely to be true now? Epstein allegations being true raises the odds of secret lizard people? Or slightly less facetiously, Epstein allegations being true raises the odds of 9/11 being an inside job? This is your assertion? Don't let me put words in your mouth, you tell me.
Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories
> Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young prostitutes. This means that 'JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever' is more likely to be true now?
No, because you said: "This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately", but no such argument was made.
Making things up and attributing it to other people is an excellent rhetorical technique, and it is probably a lot of fun, but it is dishonest, and in this case: FALSE.
If you disagree with this, can you note the specific text in this comment (the one you replied to) that contains the claims you say are there?
>> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that
Moving on....
> Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories
I would enjoy hearing:
a) How it is that my minor (3 words) usage of all caps confirms your priors about people who like conspiracy theories?
b) What your priors on people who like conspiracy theories are?
It’s a noisy world. There are people feeding the conspiracy theories, not because they want answers, but because it’s a business. Keep gathering facts and build the case.
> I’ve got no time to keep track of everyone’s baseless conspiracy theories.
Do you have time for conspiracy theories that are not baseless? Or, how about for ones that are actually true?
Or more generally speaking: do you have time to wonder about how much (genuine) interest you have in what is actually true, as well as believing only in what is actually true?
For example:
> I see those folks pat themselves out n the back when the flimsiest of “evidence” shows up.
What do you actually mean by this?
As a thought experiment...if you think of it in terms of a Venn diagram composed of:
- the entirety of all conspiracy theorists that exist
- conspiracy theorists who you have had exposure to
- conspiracy theorists who pat themselves out on the back when the flimsiest of “evidence” shows up
- conspiracy theorists who do not pat themselves on the back when the flimsiest of “evidence” shows up
...if you were to sketch these out on a piece of paper:
a) Do you think you would have difficulty drawing that diagram?
b) How would you go about deciding how much overlap for the circles?
c) How closely do you believe your diagram would match actual reality (assume that we have access to an omniscient being who knows the answers to all questions)?
For extra safety, I will also add this: "Inb4 Sealioning, JAQing off, and various other very common rhetorical/evasive techniques/behaviors that are deployed rather than simply engaging in good faith, honest discussion."
This comment is great because it is a Rorschach test, and you can see it in the replies. Some people read this as "conspiracy theorists will continue to believe despite being proven wrong" and some read it as "conspiracy skeptics will continue to disbelieve despite this one being vindicated".
> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that
Me too, but despite having thousands of threads containing millions of comments on this topic over the years, we seem to never make any forward progress on these things. Maybe this approach is not optimal, perhaps not even remotely?
Something very common I've noticed in threads like this: notice how many people make what appear to be factual statements (they are stated in the form of facts), for which there is quite literally no way to acquire the knowledge in the first place. And also consider: these conversations are taking place on Hacker News, and presumably, the intelligence level (actual knowledge, capacity to execute logic with skill, etc) here is much higher than one would find in more normal communities.
As a though experiment: what if a way could be found to coerce the people in a community to behave differently than is being done in here? So, rather than each person imaging what is true (and then proceeding to believe that what they have imagined is actually true), what if people instead wondered what was actually true. This is much closer to how things work in science/engineering/software, and those domains tend to very reliably produce good results, and if this approach works there perhaps it could also work in this area as well.
Do you think this "way out there" theory may produce better results? (And if you have any recommendations for even greater improvements, I am all ears.)
Which conspiracy exactly are you referring to in this case? (Genuine question, I'm not up to date on anything to do with this.)
In general, I don't find that the specifics of conspiracies that come out were known before. It's not like people have been theorizing for years about X, then we find out that X is actually true. It's usually completely unrelated to the big conspiracy theories people are talking about.
So when a "conspiracy" comes out (and there's a question what we mean by conspiracy theory here,) when something like this comes out, I definitely update in the direction of "lots of things are happening in the world which I don't know about and might alarm me." But those things are usually far less impressive than real conspiracy theories make things seem.
I also update in the direction of "these kinds of things are hard to keep secret," since, after all, I'm hearing about them! Although I wonder how many things are never heard about?
In any case, the fact that it turns the FBI ran crazy programs in the 60s and we all know about it now does not cause me to update in the direction of "the moon landing is fake," or "9/11 was an inside job," or most conspiracy nonesense.
This attitude implies a wealth of fallacies, including:
- The category of things under the umbrella "conspiracy theory" are necessarily either all ridiculous or all plausible.
- There is some thread binding all conspiracy theories together such that if one is validated, the rest become more plausible (but not the other way around).
- Epstein's guilt and all of his acquaintances were considered to be a conspiracy theory in the "ridiculous" category by many.
- Baseless theories can not be true.
- If a theory turns out to be true, then any prior criticism of it is invalid or somehow "bad" and should not have been applied even at the time.
More than anything, though, this attitude insists on an "us vs them" model that antagonizes people who are, holistically taken, more reasonable than the imagined enemy.
Well, do not look for those dangling in the webs of compromat, look at who pulls the strings.
So whose issues are voting senators for that were implicated with the Epstein case. Whoever it is, organizing those snychronous direction changes, holds the harddrives.
Who inherited the effect Jeffrey Eppstein had on his surroundings?
When someone dies, that person may have a beneficiary, like a son inheriting his father's wealth. If you inherit his business as well, that is like inheriting the effect he had on the world.
"Pulling the strings" is a puppet metaphor. The puppet represents a figurehead who does not make the real decisions. The puppeteer pulls the strings, and it looks like the puppet has agency. Using a puppet and "pulling the strings" is a way to camouflage one's actions and identity.
I suspect him to be involved with the gcc steering committee (via financing) and some disastrous decisions, like moving gcc code to c++ (aka destroying for good sane mainstream opensource software bootstraping). Hope nobody with interests to sabotage critical opensource software was in the acquaintances of this trash (cf GNU drama at the MIT, if I recall properly).
We know via the GNU drama from a few years ago that this trash was involved to some extend in financing GNU at the MIT (then very probably having some significant weight on some technical steering decisions).
How deep the rabit hole goes? That avoiding conspiracy stuff.
Will this inform us to whether or not he was able to execute his plan to "seed humanity" he told so many people about? Does Jeffrey Epstein have dozens or more secret kids via this eugenics plan of his?
Seems like you would need transportation to the island. Wouldn't there be a ledger somewhere? If you flew to the island, there would have to be a ledger.
I presume you're referencing the already released flight logs.
One must consider the possibility that "powerful people invited to hang out on private island with billionaire" and "powerful people invited to hang out on private island with billionaire and then receive and accept an invitation to have sex with children" may be related but differently-sized cohorts.
Part of avoiding getting caught doing all this (and thusly retaining access to new powerful people) would likely involve carefully feeling out new prospects to see if they're into that in the first place.
It looks like Epstein was in the business of creating and selling, or using for his own purposes, compromising material on powerful people. So I would prefer this is released without redaction.
The harm in Epstein's "work" is that it makes governments subject to manipulation and degrades representation. The only way to get past this problem is to reveal all and get compromised people, even if you like them, out of positions where they can be manipulated.
The "noted pathologist" is expert witness Dr. Michael Baden, of George Floyd fame (or infamy), who routinely confirms whatever the paying party requested[0].
You mean conspiracy theory sites like NPR? Because well after the date on which your link was posted as a revelation, the video apparently ceased to exist because it was... drumroll... the victim of an accidental digital storage failure. So yes, laugh at the conspiracy theorists if you like, because they are often stubbornly and very emotionally obsessed with their beliefs, but at least try to remember that conspiracies do indeed exist as a thing, and also check the follow-up on your own links perhaps.
Epstein wasn't some one-dimensional cartoon villain who spent 100% of his time on his private island managing his evil enterprises.
He also had a pretty successful career in banking/finance/investing which made him a ton of money and was pretty active with that money as a philanthropist. He had a bazillion connections to leading businesspeople, politicians, celebrities, scientists, universities, and religious leaders due to those activities.
Because of that there is nothing really suspicious about someone being acquainted with Epstein. That's why there was not much of a stir previously when his contact list and the logs of passengers on his plane were leaked and widely distributed.
Man, I was getting excited about reading the speculation on which billionaire had been dead long enough that they could release the client list. Sad it's just the 8 and not the hundreds to thousands that need to be named.
190 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 265 ms ] threadOnly an extremely restricted handful of people will have access to any true government secrets, the world isn't a spy movie, access controls exist everywhere.
Edit: I'm not trying to be a lightening rod for jerks who are looking for a tin foil hat to dunk on. I'm just trying to add context.
It's a perfect example of the "three can keep a secret if two of them are dead" quote frequently attributed to Benjamin Franklin. A two-person conspiracy and it leaked almost immediately.
I almost cited the "two can keep a secret if one is dead" proverb.
Same rules of sealing during grand Jury testimony tend to work for everyone, not just a few.
People seemed surprised that the elite class all hang out together, and make sure they stay elite. Look no further than the bi-partisan game of politicians inside trading.
So, what CNN/MSDNC/ABC/CBS and others do to Republicans?
They will never reveal the true list of clientele.
> [Judge] Preska mostly disagreed with his concerns, saying many of the documents were already available in other legal challenges and that their contents did not specify malicious actions.
Looks like nothing damning is about to come out.
Not super likely though.
He "took his own life" under very suspect circumstances. I wouldn't put that down as isn't very likely.
The notion that keeps floating around that he had entrapped the entire ruling class of the world and had detailed records of their crimes that he wielded over their heads to collect favors is highly improbable. The further notion that the known existence of all that compromising evidence was the impetus for jailhouse assassination with the explicit involvement of the Attorney General on down to the guards leaving nary a trace of evidence whilst simultaneously letting Ghislaine Maxwell walk free and clear is just absurd.
Bill Gates should not have spent time with him but there's no way he needed anyone's help to get laid. Melinda didn't like that they were associated, but she divorced him because he kept having affairs with adult women that worked for him.
That doesn’t mean that the other crimes shouldn’t be investigated to see if there are links to people still living but I would be surprised if this turned out to be more than him taking the quick way out. The hardest part of a conspiracy is keeping a secret and something like this is so explosive that that it seems like that would be unusually hard to do.
Honestly, this shouldn't be surprising.
My dad's a doc, and it's not an uncommon occurrence for a patient to have perfect vitals logged in the chart all day, then crash, in a way that means they couldn't possibly have had perfect vitals all day. People half-ass their jobs all the time.
Found “hung” in a kneeling position, which any skeptic needs to think through carefully… this isn’t like a western hanging with gallows and gravity; if you really believe he didn’t kill himself, then he must have somehow just pulled his own head until he died, a frankly unbelievable force of will, akin to holding one’s own breathe til they perished.
If a conspiracy theory is when you have to believe some pretty silly things in order for it to be true, then the actual conspiracy theory is that he committed suicide.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/12/20/video-of-jeffrey-epstein...
Hmm. Is there footage of his success?
Regardless, it proves the point that the news system is not helping bubble up truth here. Is this bbc article outdated? Is there nuance in the reports they “found the video” that is lost? Where is the most recent conclusive answers to some of the obvious questions around this situation?
Once he knew he was going to spend life in prison he ended it.
The dumbest thing about the conspiracy is OBVIOUSLY Ghislaine Maxwell would have also been taken out if the conspiracy was true. The conspirators go through all this trouble to get to someone in prison but don't do anything to someone that was just walking the street. People are just suckers for a good narrative.
Are you implying Prince Nonce was somehow hoodwinked into taking part in a paedophile ring against his will?
The problem with this blend of specious reasoning is that to start off these conspiracy theories do not have any prior whatsoever. These conspiracy loons build their system of belief at best around flimsy conjectures, and reinforce their baseless beliefs on any noise that they manage to overfit around those.
A broken clock being right twice a day does not vindicate conspiracies around broken clocks.
Edit: Read the question again, and try to answer it. Let me rephrase the question:
How many times do you need to find out that something the media told you was "misinformation" or "a conspiracy theory" was actually true, to start questioning them a biiiit more?
People filed a legal request to keep them private, that request has been overruled. What’s the conspiracy?
Don't underestimate the ability of these conspiracy loons to fabricate more and more stories. I expect them to react to tasting a big nothing sandwich with more conspiracy theories on how shady imaginary organizations edited out all the smoking guns.
I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Edit: Just to be crystal clear given that surely there was some evidence of his misdeeds prior to the recent blow up (e.g. his Florida arrest and subsequent soft handling by Acosta etc.), what you're seeing is a rough correlation between the % of people who believe a claim and the volume/credibility of the evidence in support of that claim. So yeah, when there was little evidence few people believed it. Now that there's a lot, everyone takes it as fact. The only thing shocking here is how utterly reasonable it is.
The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously
https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/
> The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
[1]https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/
"Touching" a story (True/False) is not the same as a story being reported on in a proper manner. Printing one story in the middle of one newspaper technically satisfies "touched".
(Note: I have not made a claim that only one story on Epstein was printed, I am only describing what would be required to satisfy "touched").
Also: while choosing a maximally absurd complaint (that isn't even believed by conspiracy theorists) is an excellent rhetorical technique, it may not be so useful for engaging in truthful, good faith discussion.
> ...and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then...
Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not?
Please explicitly state the person or organization that performs this duty that you are referring to.
> ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form...
Can you explain what the intent of this is, and what it is you are referring to by "Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions" and "before he was involved in cheese pizza" and ""that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form"?
My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations.
LMAO.
We are HNers participating in a discussion, in which you appear to be taking issue with the point I made that Epstein offers no reason to update our priors on conspiracy theorists knowing things the mainstream media doesn't because Epstein was unmasked by lawyers, police and mainstream media, not conspiracy theorists. (And mainstream media did not, as far as I'm aware, rush to insist he couldn't possibly have done such awful things)
I presume if you felt evidence to the contrary existed - that people who were onto Epstein were pooh-poohed as conspiracy theorists until the truth came out - you'd have offered me that as a counter argument rather than a list of links about heuristics and cognitive biases. (If actually do have the evidence, I apologise for the excessively charitable assumption about your understanding of how to engage in truthful, good-faith discussion and look forward to seeing it)
> ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form...
> My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations.
We're in a subthread about whether we should be updating our priors on conspiracy theories in general based on revelations about Epstein. I'm thinking an honest attempt to demonstrate alignment between Epstein revelations and popular conspiracy theories (that wasn't after, and derivative of mainstream reporting on Epstein) might be an more interesting counterargument than a list of articles about cognitive biases. In the absence of such evidence, I don't really see Epstein offering any reason for anyone to update any priors they have on popular conspiracy theories.
Cute that someone that responds with a series of Wikipedia links is demanding explicit statements in response and lecturing me on truthful, good faith discussions though.
> LMAO.
Not an answer to the question.
If you have an aversion to answering questions that's fine, but I'd prefer an acknowledgement (just a request though, not a requirement).
> We are HNers participating in a discussion...
Well there's a problem: you do not actually know the degree to which other HN'ers agree with you.
> ...in which you appear to be taking issue with the point I made that Epstein offers no reason to update our priors on conspiracy theorists knowing things the mainstream media doesn't because Epstein was unmasked by lawyers, police and mainstream media, not conspiracy theorists. (And mainstream media did not, as far as I'm aware, rush to insist he couldn't possibly have done such awful things)
You also do not have comprehensive knowledge of what has happened in the conspiracy theory world, or in the journalism world (including editorial decisions made behind closed doors).
> I presume if you felt evidence to the contrary existed - that people who were onto Epstein were pooh-poohed as conspiracy theorists until the truth came out - you'd have offered me that as a counter argument rather than a list of links about heuristics and cognitive biases.
I've formed no strong belief because I understand the significance of the content of those links - you on the other hand seem to (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) have not only formed a strong belief, but also mistaken it for knowledge.
> (If actually do have the evidence, I apologise for the excessively charitable assumption about your understanding of how to engage in truthful, good-faith discussion and look forward to seeing it)
No charity required - I am not here to make friends. (Nice dig though! :) )
> I'm thinking an honest attempt to demonstrate alignment between Epstein revelations and popular conspiracy theories (that wasn't after, and derivative of mainstream reporting on Epstein) might be an more interesting counterargument than a list of articles about cognitive biases.
Making up stupid beliefs and implicitly attributing them to your ideological opponents is a demonstration of something: the poor thinking skills and dishonesty of the person who made the claim: you.
> In the absence of such evidence, I don't really see Epstein offering any reason for anyone to update any priors they have on popular conspiracy theories.
At the very least, conspiracy theorists had the ability to take this story very seriously, and discuss it in much greater depth than normies. Opinions vary on how seriously child abuse should be taken - some are strict, others are more accepting.
> Cute that someone that responds with a series of Wikipedia links is demanding explicit statements in response and lecturing me on truthful, good faith discussions though.
What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?
Not gonna lie, if you're genuinely struggling to understand that a sentence that begins "We are HNers participating in the discussion" [emphasis original] might actually be intended as an answer to a "who is the 'we'" question quoted directly above it, not a separate sentence fragment for you to come up with an obtuse response to, I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text.
If you're merely feigning ignorance of the basic syntax of the English language as a rhetorical flourish, it's... also not impressive.
> What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
-
> At the very least, conspiracy theorists had the ability to take this story very seriously, and discuss it in much greater depth than normies. Opinions vary on how seriously child abuse should be taken - some are strict, others are more accepting.
Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists. And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly.
But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of.
I realize that.
Feel free to explain how you acquired knowledge of consensus belief among the people you are referring to.
> ...I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text.
I have more certainty than you. I believe I am correct, and I encourage you to demonstrate that you are correct (you do possess this knowledge, and can explain how), or that I am incorrect (in presuming you are speculating).
>> What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
It's a popular meme and is often used to represent victory in internet disagreements, but it is not nearly as magical as it seems. After all, I too can post links to various memes and declare victory too.
We are in disagreement over a precise point of contention, that meme is not applicable. But feel free to pretend that it is.
> Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists.
A problem: you are evaluating a simulation of reality, not reality itself. You do not actually have knowledge of the activities of all these people.
It is amazing that conspiracy theorists get laughed at by normies suffering from delusions of omniscience. Amazing, but fitting in a way.
> And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly.
I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots (they are humans after all), and I've made no claim about them having superpowers. Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning.
> But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of.
And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15. Dare to dream!
Me: various arguments to the effect that the fact that conspiracy theorists may believe in Epstein Island (much like many people who aren't conspiracy theorists) doesn't give any reason to stop regarding many of them as idiots
You: "I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots"
These statements seem pretty aligned, and as I said from the very beginning, if you had the evidence of sterling original Epstein research by conspiracy theorists to actually rebut the former statement, you'd be better off presenting that than 1001 tangents.
I've no idea why you believe I need to have established consensus belief in all of Hacker News to use the word "we" about you and me, never mind need to know "all the activities of all those people" to know something as trivially simple to establish as the media took Epstein Island seriously. Come on, you're not honestly claiming that one needs omniscience to have any confidence that Epstein Island was reported on by seriously by mainstream media are you!?!?
Funnily enough, you seem happy not only making similar generalised references statements to the actions of normies and conspiracy theorists alike yourself, but insist on going one step further and insisting that you have insight into the former's "delusions of omniscience". Normies are too stuck in a simulation of reality to have any confidence in their faculties telling them media did, in fact report seriously on Epstein, but you can trust your insights into the deepest delusions of their minds. Perhaps, in your simulation of reality, this seems like a sound logical argument. To me, it sounds like you should probably read your link about cognitive biases...
> Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning.
> And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15
Yeah, no.
(Not gonna lie, I'm not the participant in this exchange whose views on consent are so unconventional they were babbling about how opinions on child abuse were "varied" and some people were "more accepting" in their last post. Can't say I've experienced people espousing acceptance of child abusers in normie-land, but if you actually have the need to seek such people out, your victims have my sympathies...)
Modifying claims after the fact isn't exactly good faith.
> These statements seem pretty aligned, and as I said from the very beginning, if you had the evidence of conspiracy theorists' early Epstein insights to actually rebut the former statement, you'd be better off presenting than 1001 tangents.
I didn't present 1001 tangents.
> I've no idea why you believe I need to have established consensus belief in all of Hacker News to use the word "we" about you and me
Your claim implied that you had consensus support on HN.
> ever mind need to know "all the activities of all those people" to know something as trivially simple to establish as the media took Epstein Island seriously.
"take X seriously" is not a True/False binary.
> Come on, you're not honestly claiming that one needs omniscience to have any confidence that Epstein Island was reported on by seriously by mainstream media are you!?!?
If this was necessarily(!) true (which you do not actually know, in fact), it would be literally not possible for something nefarious to happen with the media.
> Funnily enough, you seem happy not only making similar generalised references statements to the actions of normies and conspiracy theorists alike yourself, but insist on going one step further and insisting that you have insight into the former's "delusions of omniscience".
You have made several comprehensive claims about the nature of journalist coverage of this story. You are speculating, necessarily.
> Normies are too stuck in a simulation of reality to have any confidence in their faculties telling them media did, in fact report seriously on Epstein, but you can trust your insights into the deepest delusions of their minds.
Omniscience isn't required to tell when a human is running on heuristics, at least under certain scenarios (claims of knowledge that require omniscience, for example).
> Perhaps, in your simulation of reality, this seems like a sound logical argument. To me, it sounds like you should probably read your link about cognitive biases...
Try not attributing things to me that I haven't done.
> Yeah, no.
Would you enjoy if I claimed again that this is your wish, despite it not actually being true?
> Not gonna lie, I'm not the participant in this exchange whose views on consent are so unconventional they were babbling about how opinions on child abuse were "varied" and some people were "more accepting" in their last post.
a) Child molesters exist - therefore opinions on child abuse vary.
b) Not all people took the Epstein thing identically seriously (conspiracy theorists are generally extremely concerned about child abuse, based on how they talk anyways) - therefore opinions on child abuse vary.
c) Considering the nature of this crime, if compared to other instances of child abuse, MANY people thought the amount and style of media coverage of this story was inconsistent. It is physically possible for it to be inconsistent, whether it was is subjective, and would/should require a substantial amount of work before passing any sort of serious judgment.
> Can't say I've experienced people espousing acceptance of child abusers in normie-land, but if you have more need to seek such people out, your victims have my sympathies...)
Espousing acceptance is not required for variance - even lesser outrage is a variation.
My main overall concern is this: the degree of actual interest the public has in the integrity of very important institutions is not a universal constant, nor is the capability people have to exercise sound judgment. If there was something bad going on behind t...
If there's an actual human in there that thinks that it's tenable to argue that 'Epstein Island was taken seriously by mainstream media' is a "comprehensive and bold" claim that no amount of articles which report on Epstein Island in detail in a serious tone could possible prove, whereas assertions that normies run on delusions of omniscience is just something you know ... I'm a bit less impressed.
Can't speak for other normies (I'll leave that to you), but personally I don't laugh at conspiracy theorists because they "care", I laugh at them because they make mind-numbingly stupid arguments.
Biological AI is not particularly novel either, the probability of this class of comment NOT appearing during disagreements between humans is rare...but only for certain topics. I wonder if we were to review our conversation, how many (at least plausible) instances of it we could individually nominate.
> If there's an actual human in there that thinks that it's tenable to argue that 'Epstein Island was taken seriously by mainstream media' is a "comprehensive and bold" claim...
a) "take X seriously" is not a True/False binary" - would you be willing to discuss this aspect and the significance of it to the topic?
b) considering (a), have you not made broad claims about the quality/intent of journalism organizations?
c) arguing a point is fine, asserting it as a fact (or in the form of a fact without acknowledging it as an opinion) is something else, and the acceptability of this behavior seems to vary depending on the topic.
> ...that no amount of articles which report on Epstein Island in detail in a serious tone could possible prove...
I propose: In human communication, there is a serious problem (in addition to many others, like dodging questions) with a delta between what is actually said, what is interpreted by the other party, and the willingness of all parties to acknowledge that this phenomenon is in play. (Like in this case: I made no such claim.)
Do you think there is any merit to this proposal?
> ...whereas assertions that normies run on delusions of omniscience is just something you know ... I'm a bit less impressed.
I am unimpressed (but not surprised in the slightest) that you say "is" "just something you know", immediately after me saying "Omniscience isn't required to tell when a human is running on heuristics, at least under certain scenarios (claims of knowledge that require omniscience, for example)."
> Can't speak for other normies....
Why not? You know what employees of journalism institutions do, do you not have the same ability with normies?
> (I'll leave that to you)...
Which I've done only in a certain way, and only to a certain degree.
> ...but personally I don't laugh at conspiracy theorists because they "care", I laugh at them because they make mind-numbingly stupid arguments.
Many of them do indeed, but what stupid arguments have I made? And do you believe that the fact that some conspiracy theorists make make mind-numbingly stupid arguments has any bearing on the truth value of the point of contention between the two of us? (Or, perhaps the comment was more for rhetorical effect, or simply an innate reaction.)
I think this (and related topics) has substantial relevance here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
Any thoughts on that?
Indeed. For example this discussion started when I actually said that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island seriously, in response to another commenter suggesting people would have just dismissed Epstein Island as a conspiracy theory.
There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution, and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1], rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people" and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience.
This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication.
Was yours a suggestion that that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island "seriously" (a highly ambiguous term, a perfect fit for current cultural norms), or was it more of a claim of fact?
> There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution...
This ("one party refuses to acknowledge") implies that it is a fact that these articles are objectively ~"very well done" (could not have been substantially better, etc).
> ...and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1]...
My complaint is that humans perceive and represent opinions as facts. My proposal is that we stop doing this, or at least admit as individuals and a culture that this is how things currently work.
What is actually true here is not known, hence I do not make an assertion of facts of what happened (with respect to the underlying crime).
This approach is celebrated when done by science, but in other domains it seems to be considered the opposite of the correct way to behave.
> ...rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people"...
Despite me addressing exactly this claim at least once already, you continue to misrepresent what I have actually said: I haven't rejected investigations as being necessarily false, but rather your claims that you possess knowledge (as opposed to belief) about the actions and quality of reporting.
> ... and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience.
I don't find it funny, it scares the fuck out of me.
> This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication.
It stops the instance of the problem, but the underlying problem (people refusing to consider the importance of truth) does not go away.
But it doesn't. At no point has anybody at all claimed that articles are "objectively very well done", "could not have been substantially better" or anything remotely close to that. I did reject the idea that Epstein Island would have been [generally] "dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by pointing out that it has been treated with considerably more seriousness than that by many people generally unreceptive to conspiracy theorists, including journalists (and policemen, and courts, and ordinary normies like me).
For someone that claims to be interested in philosophy of mind stuff around belief-formation and the importance of truth, you seem remarkably incapable of considering the possibility that your belief that I hold a belief which I never even hinted at (and in fact do not believe) constitutes an error of judgement rather than knowledge so sound you can reliably deduce delusions of omniscience[1] from it. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of "humans perceive and represent opinions as facts", I recommend rereading the thread and counting the number of statements you have made which are caveated as beliefs versus the number you have expressed as facts (in some cases explicitly dismissing the possibility of error). The total may surprise you, especially if haranguing others to couch their inferences as beliefs and opinions rather than statements is important to you. But if composing a reply is more satisfying than striving for self awareness or intellectual consistency, don't let me stop you.
[1]a deduction which only makes sense if "omniscience" is a prerequisite for "sufficiently reliable faculties to gauge whether some news items contain elements of seriousness"". I guess if you believe intermediate-level English language comprehension is an unattainable state requiring omniscience, it would explain a lot about your last few posts...
Let's try an experiment - can we at least agree that:
a) there does exist a level of quality element to journalism ("reporting" on a topic is not, comprehensively, a True/False binary)?
b) both of us have expressed at least some sort of opinion on the quality of reporting with regards to the Epstein affair?
> I did reject the idea that Epstein Island would have been [generally] "dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by pointing out that it has been treated with considerably more seriousness than that by many people generally unreceptive to conspiracy theorists, including journalists (and policemen, and courts, and ordinary normies like me).
Can we agree that:
a) It is physically possible that at least one journalism piece might have at least implied that stories about the Epstein affair are conspiracy theories (and thus not true)?
b) It may have actually occurred that at least one journalism piece actually did imply that (at least some) stories about the Epstein affair are conspiracy theories (and thus not true)?
> For someone that claims to be interested in philosophy of mind stuff around belief-formation and the importance of truth, you seem remarkably incapable of considering the possibility that your belief that I hold a belief which I never even hinted at (and in fact do not believe) constitutes an error of judgement rather than knowledge so sound you can reliably deduce delusions of omniscience[1] from it. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of "humans perceive and represent opinions as facts", I recommend rereading the thread and counting the number of statements you have made which are caveated as beliefs versus the number you have expressed as facts (in some cases explicitly dismissing the possibility of error).
A serious problem here is that I would be reviewing my own comments in a biased manner.
How about this: would you be willing to identity 2 or 3 examples of where you believe I have done this, including a link to the comment, a quote of the offending text, and your explanation of how the text demonstrates your claim? I prefer this approach because I believe providing specific evidence for one's claims is a very useful function is the practice of epistemology, and it can also give some signals as to the likelihood that the person making the claim is speaking truthfully, accurately, and in good faith (something that should be a consideration of all people involved in a conversation, including me).
I have quoted and disputed numerous of your specific claims, I would enjoy for you to do the same to mine. If I have made genuinely (or even plausibly) erroneous claims, I would very much like you to draw my attention to them.
> But if composing a reply is more satisfying than striving for self awareness or intellectual consistency, don't let me stop you.
I read this as an assertion that I am not acting in good faith or living up to what I ask of you, and I believe that encouraging you to expose this behavior in me using evidence is a good way to demonstrate that what you say is true, rather than leaving it up to the imagination of the reader.
> [1]a deduction which only makes sense if "omniscience" is a prerequisite for "sufficiently reliable faculties to gauge whether some news items contain elements of seriousness"".
The problem here is "some news item" - we have not been discussing one single news item - my complaint is that you made claims about the entirety of the journalism complex.
> I guess if you believe intermediate-level English language comprehension is an unattainable state requiring omniscience, it would explain a lot about your last few posts...
If you genuinely believe I've made this claim (or something resembling it), I en...
Just because a conspiracy has sprung leaks or failed in some vital aspect doesn't need to mean it never existed. Your argument is based on a very unusual definition of a conspiracy as a secret plot that's guaranteed to be all-powerful at information and damage control.
None of them knows anything at all about anything whatsoever. You're talking about morons who abuse conjectures to build up their personal fictional stories with the goal of fooling themselves into believing they are special and smarter than everyone around them.
Listening to conspiracy nuts regarding their pet conspiracies makes as much sense as taking investment advice from lottery winners: even if they are right once in their life,their whole rationalization is deeply wrong and has no bearing in reality.
I can guess the outcome of the S&P 500 perfectly, if you don't count the wrong predictions. All I have to do is predict both directions, and say "see, told you it'd go up/down today".
Is this true, in any real numbers?
Posting a wild theory about al Qaeda and three letter agencies and US 'neoconservative' foreign policy on September 10th 2001 is at least interesting, if not exactly hard evidence you know anything. Posting one on September 12th 2001 isn't an indication of you having been aware of anything more than the news cycle.
They're hardly new. The QAnon/Pizzagate "adrenochrome" conspiracy theory is just the old Jewish blood libel with a slightly scifi modernization and a touch of the 80s Satanic panic.
Case in point:
> They're hardly new. The QAnon/Pizzagate "adrenochrome" conspiracy theory is just the old Jewish blood libel with a slightly scifi modernization and a touch of the 80s Satanic panic.
It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people. And yet to the (standard) human mind, the exact opposite seems true.
It is strange that our whole world runs on this phenomenon, but it seems like it is not possible to get anyone to discuss the phenomenon. Granted, expecting someone who is suffering from the phenomenon to acknowledge it at the time that it occurs isn't terribly realistic, and I can accept that. But the weird part to me is that it is rarely possible to get anyone to acknowledge the phenomenon....it is very much like the fable of the emperor having no clothes, but in real life, right here and now.
I know, that's my point (of "It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people"). One HAS TO use one's imagination to perform such an "analysis"....but it is imagined - the very thing (the imaginary, and some actual) conspiracy theorists are mocked for!
If the topic was something other than conspiracy theories (or any culture war topic), presenting one's imagination as fact would not stand on Hacker News...but when the topic is a culture war one, this standard inverts: then, acceptable norms to a large degree change to "imagination is ok, but appeals to truth are considered bad/unacceptable/weird".
> We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again.
Where is it? Can you point it out in a way that I also can see it?
And how did it get here, by you making a reference to it?
In the late 80s/very early 90s there were people in Usenet’s alt.sex who told of their participation, as children, in wealthy sex rings. One in particular made claims that he had been well-compensated, in that he was also provided an excellent education and developed the connections to the wealthy and powerful that ensured his outstanding success in adult life.
These theories are (a) not new and (b) IMO likely true. Having seen what humans are capable of doing to one another, I have absolutely no doubt that there is a cadre of powerful people who use child rape to gain blackmail material, ensure loyalty, and to get their sick jollies off.
I am always surprised by those who express doubt. Have they not watched the news? Humans can do the most horrific things for pleasure, let alone power and wealth.
But there's a big difference between that and various very grand theories about certain US politicians that claim the story of Epstein is new evidence and corroboration, not old news and inspiration.
People said "everyone knew about" phone metadata collection because they did. It was a huge news story in 2006 when USA Today broke it. https://www.kpcc.org/npr-news/2006-05-11/phone-companies-gav... https://www.npr.org/2006/05/11/5398629/report-nsa-collecting...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Recent enough for you?
I’ll update with more federal government conspiracies when I’m not in mobile.
Anyone that denies conspiracies exist knows no history…
"Conspiracies exist, therefore my pet conspiracy theory should be treated seriously by default" is the fallacy.
I think it is worth mentioning that this fallacy manifests in at least two forms:
1. When a conspiracy theorist actually says it (I have never encountered it despite spending substantial amount of time in various conspiracy theory forums). As a general rule, when a non-conspiracy theorist is describing things that happen in the conspiracy world (where they do not go), it is safe to assume that they have lost control of their imagination, and this is usually extremely obvious from their description.
See:
https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
2. When someone other than a conspiracy theorists imagines that a conspiracy theorist (typically also imagined, but not always) has said it or believes it (neither of which is required to true for it to be perceived as true).
I don't see anything upthread that "the fallacy" could be referring to in this instance.
It is perhaps also worth noting that "should be treated seriously by default" isn't actually all that bizarre (depending on the conspiracy theory, of course) - take something seriously is very different from believe to be necessarily true, though at the perceptual level things that are different can appear to be identical, and vice versa.
> Following presentation of the Northwoods plan, Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Sooooo ... your smoking gun is that someone at some point had a plan to do something that conspiracy theorists say happens all the time, and their plan was rejected and they were fired for suggesting it?
Can you name a few so I can see what they have predicted?
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Google-Leaks/Zach-Vor...
This is precisely the problem of labeling all theories the powerful don't like "conspiracy theories".
I'm pretty certain that a substantial percentage of the most ridiculous conspiracies are posted online by paid shills to discredit all theories, so any dissenter can be labeled a "loon".
There are many reasonable people who believe the moon landing and reject the theory that "the world is run by satanists" but have many legitimate questions about the Epstein story.
For example, the theory that Epstein videotaped his "friends" for future blackmail is not in any way "loony". So the label "conspiracy theory" is entirely useless, we can only talk about individual cases.
So the “elite class” conspire together to craft fake conspiracies and flood the population with it so that they can label people who discover the real conspiracies as crazy?
So, we want to avoid falling off any given edge (becoming a hermit or a person with no opinions on anything, becoming a truly nutty conspiracy theorist, or becoming a mindless loyalist to some social/political group). A key tool for avoiding this is understanding a few things:
1. There is a bigger space than you think between having no opinion and having a full-blown conviction. I can believe or disbelieve something without making it into part of my identity or taking any kind of serious concrete action based on it or trying to convince everybody to go in the same direction as me.
2. It follows from #1 that it is OK to be wrong.
3. It follows from #1 that it is good to change opinions based on new information - it is not hypocritical.
This is not a generous portrayal. The people you're talking about mostly believe things based on experience (e.g. evidence, though there are many other kinds of experience). Therefore, if their experience tells them something a person is insisting on is probably not true, well then that's their perfectly reasonable position at the time. That is not the same as having a conviction that any given thing is not true, and it is very much not the same as believing that "0%" of anything widely considered a "conspiracy theory" are true, for all cases, forever, as some kind of ridiculous rule.
Last commented few days before her arrest.
But of course, it's a link to /r/conspiracy and as such is tainted, but stopped clocks and all that
> I befriended a Korean pastor and his wife (long story there) where I live and we would meet occassionally for dinner.
> One day he asked if I could help teach some of his "students" conversational English. I didn't realise that he meant adults undergoing intensive training in Korea and abroad as missionaries for posting to other parts of the world. I thought he meant local teenagers who wanted to be more conversant in English - pronunciation, diction etc
> So I volunteered.
So, if people start looking for reddit accounts that mention maxwell and dodgy stuff, I can see why they'd stop posting.
That account is/was enormously powerful, with the ability to determine which stories reached the frontpage and which didn't. That makes it politically and financially very valuable, and I don't think someone would just give up that because of association with Maxwell when they could have just posted a single comment saying "I am not Ghislaine Maxwell" and everyone would have forgotten about it.
Got a source on this?
In other words, there is no evidence. Right?
On the flip side, these conspiracy theories sound more like fabrications from loons caught in their little world.
Prove me wrong and provide the single best example of objective evidence you are able to produce.
Go on.
1. The account's name is maxwellhill and Ghislaine Maxwell's surname is Maxwell and used to live at a place she referred to as Maxwell Hill.
2. The account was the first to reach 1m reddit karma and in the congratulatory post Alexis Ohanian revealed that he knew the poster in real life and that they'd been there since almost the beginning.
3. Ghislaine Maxwell is known to have attended events with Reddit staff in the early days, as confirmed by former CEO of reddit Ellen Pao.
4. maxwellhill has a December birthday, Ghislaine Maxwell's birthday is 25th December.
5. maxwellhill stopped posting just 2 days before GM's arrest, previously they'd posted almost every day for 14 years.
6. The few gaps when maxwellhill was not posting align with dates GM is known to have attended events including her mother's funeral.
7. GM's father was a known and prolific media manipulator, maxwellhill was repeatedly accused of manipulating reddit before the arrest.
8. maxwellhill posted prolifically about ocean conservation, GM had a startup called TerraMar which was focussed on ocean conservation.
9. maxwellhill mostly uses British English, GM is from Britain.
10. maxwellhill repeatedly complained about over-zealous child protection laws, posted articles suggesting CSAM should be legalised.
11. maxwellhill was careful to stress the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia - a distinction important to Epstein and his apologists but not to most normal people.
12. maxwellhill has still not posted to reddit since the arrest, despite it having significant political and financial value.
13. After all of the noise of the accusations, no one at Reddit has actually denied that GM was maxwellhill.
I'm not saying this is conclusive, hence saying "probably", but that's a lot of bits.
I’m a mod on Reddit, that’s not a conspiracy.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Alas, the voting and flagging features aren't sufficient to regulate the system. In fact, none of the community and software mechanisms are sufficient on their own. There needs to be human intervention to jig the system out of its failure modes. Without that, the forum would destroy itself—that is, it would rapidly regress to the internet mean, which means HN wouldn't exist anymore—it would be a completely different place, and probably die off pretty quickly.
If it helps at all, I promise you that the moderation comments are even more tedious to write than they are to read.
As for political bias, I have no idea which bias you think I/we have because we routinely get accused of literally every political bias that exists. People have these perceptions because they grossly overestimate the significance of the moderation calls they dislike, while barely noticing the ones they agree with. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This is an example of a very common mistake that leads to a lot of animosity, which is that "those people who said X" and "these people saying they never said X" are the same people (this is fueled by the misunderstanding that there are essentially only two groups of people, which is an illusion that most political systems reinforce).
We've already got pics of him acquainting himself with two former POTUSes, I'm not sure docs referencing considerably less famous individuals in ways a judge considers to be largely already public information or innocuous detail are going to reveal much or add much more to the rumour mill. Though frankly, since it's Epstein people would read stuff into his pizza delivery orders.
Protesting that is pointless. The old saying, you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas, applies here.
> This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately
This is a classic example of a human being perceiving/describing reality in a way that is clearly and objectively not true....like, not even close.
Here you are explicitly making a claim that someone has argued something that they have not actually argued.
Your claim IS FALSE. And yet, you are criticizing the other person for "a fallacious argument". You do not only have it wrong, you have it BACKWARDS.
My intuition is that you are not intentionally being deceptive, but rather have done this accidentally. I am curious to know whether believe my intuition to be correct, or have any other comments about what is taking place here today?
Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young prostitutes. This means that 'JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever' is more likely to be true now? Epstein allegations being true raises the odds of secret lizard people? Or slightly less facetiously, Epstein allegations being true raises the odds of 9/11 being an inside job? This is your assertion? Don't let me put words in your mouth, you tell me.
Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories
No, because you said: "This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately", but no such argument was made.
Making things up and attributing it to other people is an excellent rhetorical technique, and it is probably a lot of fun, but it is dishonest, and in this case: FALSE.
If you disagree with this, can you note the specific text in this comment (the one you replied to) that contains the claims you say are there?
>> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that
Moving on....
> Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories
I would enjoy hearing:
a) How it is that my minor (3 words) usage of all caps confirms your priors about people who like conspiracy theories?
b) What your priors on people who like conspiracy theories are?
Remember the Seth Rich “conspiracy theory“?
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/24/938545344/fox-news-settles-wi...
I see those folks pat themselves out n the back when the flimsiest of “evidence” shows up.
Most conspiracy theories these days are a moving targets, involve innuendo, or incoherent.
Do you have time for conspiracy theories that are not baseless? Or, how about for ones that are actually true?
Or more generally speaking: do you have time to wonder about how much (genuine) interest you have in what is actually true, as well as believing only in what is actually true?
For example:
> I see those folks pat themselves out n the back when the flimsiest of “evidence” shows up.
What do you actually mean by this?
As a thought experiment...if you think of it in terms of a Venn diagram composed of:
- the entirety of all conspiracy theorists that exist
- conspiracy theorists who you have had exposure to
- conspiracy theorists who pat themselves out on the back when the flimsiest of “evidence” shows up
- conspiracy theorists who do not pat themselves on the back when the flimsiest of “evidence” shows up
...if you were to sketch these out on a piece of paper:
a) Do you think you would have difficulty drawing that diagram?
b) How would you go about deciding how much overlap for the circles?
c) How closely do you believe your diagram would match actual reality (assume that we have access to an omniscient being who knows the answers to all questions)?
For extra safety, I will also add this: "Inb4 Sealioning, JAQing off, and various other very common rhetorical/evasive techniques/behaviors that are deployed rather than simply engaging in good faith, honest discussion."
https://www.gizmosphere.org/inb4-origin-rise/
Me too, but despite having thousands of threads containing millions of comments on this topic over the years, we seem to never make any forward progress on these things. Maybe this approach is not optimal, perhaps not even remotely?
Something very common I've noticed in threads like this: notice how many people make what appear to be factual statements (they are stated in the form of facts), for which there is quite literally no way to acquire the knowledge in the first place. And also consider: these conversations are taking place on Hacker News, and presumably, the intelligence level (actual knowledge, capacity to execute logic with skill, etc) here is much higher than one would find in more normal communities.
As a though experiment: what if a way could be found to coerce the people in a community to behave differently than is being done in here? So, rather than each person imaging what is true (and then proceeding to believe that what they have imagined is actually true), what if people instead wondered what was actually true. This is much closer to how things work in science/engineering/software, and those domains tend to very reliably produce good results, and if this approach works there perhaps it could also work in this area as well.
Do you think this "way out there" theory may produce better results? (And if you have any recommendations for even greater improvements, I am all ears.)
In general, I don't find that the specifics of conspiracies that come out were known before. It's not like people have been theorizing for years about X, then we find out that X is actually true. It's usually completely unrelated to the big conspiracy theories people are talking about.
So when a "conspiracy" comes out (and there's a question what we mean by conspiracy theory here,) when something like this comes out, I definitely update in the direction of "lots of things are happening in the world which I don't know about and might alarm me." But those things are usually far less impressive than real conspiracy theories make things seem.
I also update in the direction of "these kinds of things are hard to keep secret," since, after all, I'm hearing about them! Although I wonder how many things are never heard about?
In any case, the fact that it turns the FBI ran crazy programs in the 60s and we all know about it now does not cause me to update in the direction of "the moon landing is fake," or "9/11 was an inside job," or most conspiracy nonesense.
- The category of things under the umbrella "conspiracy theory" are necessarily either all ridiculous or all plausible.
- There is some thread binding all conspiracy theories together such that if one is validated, the rest become more plausible (but not the other way around).
- Epstein's guilt and all of his acquaintances were considered to be a conspiracy theory in the "ridiculous" category by many.
- Baseless theories can not be true.
- If a theory turns out to be true, then any prior criticism of it is invalid or somehow "bad" and should not have been applied even at the time.
More than anything, though, this attitude insists on an "us vs them" model that antagonizes people who are, holistically taken, more reasonable than the imagined enemy.
So whose issues are voting senators for that were implicated with the Epstein case. Whoever it is, organizing those snychronous direction changes, holds the harddrives.
Who inherited the effect Jeffrey Eppstein had on his surroundings?
"Pulling the strings" is a puppet metaphor. The puppet represents a figurehead who does not make the real decisions. The puppeteer pulls the strings, and it looks like the puppet has agency. Using a puppet and "pulling the strings" is a way to camouflage one's actions and identity.
How deep the rabit hole goes? That avoiding conspiracy stuff.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-...
One must consider the possibility that "powerful people invited to hang out on private island with billionaire" and "powerful people invited to hang out on private island with billionaire and then receive and accept an invitation to have sex with children" may be related but differently-sized cohorts.
Part of avoiding getting caught doing all this (and thusly retaining access to new powerful people) would likely involve carefully feeling out new prospects to see if they're into that in the first place.
The harm in Epstein's "work" is that it makes governments subject to manipulation and degrades representation. The only way to get past this problem is to reveal all and get compromised people, even if you like them, out of positions where they can be manipulated.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21399034
The "noted pathologist" is expert witness Dr. Michael Baden, of George Floyd fame (or infamy), who routinely confirms whatever the paying party requested[0].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden
Just as the camera outside Epstein's cell "failed".
(mostly) tongue in cheek here, before anyone claims me to be a conspiracy nut.
They found the footage. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/20/video-of-jeffrey-epstein-jai...
(The conspiracy theories will, of course, be adjusted for this. The "lost" footage is now "fake" footage.)
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/795004811/video-outside-cell-...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-jeffrey-epstein-ca...
He also had a pretty successful career in banking/finance/investing which made him a ton of money and was pretty active with that money as a philanthropist. He had a bazillion connections to leading businesspeople, politicians, celebrities, scientists, universities, and religious leaders due to those activities.
Because of that there is nothing really suspicious about someone being acquainted with Epstein. That's why there was not much of a stir previously when his contact list and the logs of passengers on his plane were leaked and widely distributed.