Item — HN Reader

Yeah. Without pulling up sources it's on his second paragraph of his wikipedia page, which tends to avoid conspiracies etc.

"He developed an elite social circle and procured many women and children who were then sexually abused by Epstein and some of his contacts."

2 comments

Oh, that part. Absolutely. I didn't even realize that was ever considered a conspiracy theory. I thought GP was referring to his death!

Was most certainly branded as a conspiracy theory until it was revealed. This is why I think people are more apt to believe other conspiracy theories around him as well

What do you mean "until it was revealed"? There was some pretty exhaustive reporting a decade and a half ago, but no one really payed much attention. And certainly his high-profile connections weren't a secret.

Conspiracy-minded people imagine a deep shroud of secrecy around the Epstein affair that doesn't really exist.

Can people living in Virginia have an unbiased opinion on this?

> There was some pretty exhaustive reporting a decade and a half ago, but no one really payed much attention.

Considering how the media and public seem to usually enjoy getting their panties in a knot when the topic of child molestation arises, is this historic lack of interest combined with the current lack of interest not somewhat suggestive that something a little unusual might be going on here?

> a deep shroud of secrecy around the Epstein affair that doesn't really exist

Out of curiosity, how does one come to know such a thing? Do you have access to a data source that the rest of us don't?

I don't really understand your comment, but to restate my own: the Epstein stuff was basically all a matter of public record. I don't claim to have insight into why certain news stories and court cases become more popular than others.

Probable CIA asset running underage sex slaves for the elite wasn't exactly of public record, was it?

Or, rather: was it splashed over social media? Because statistically, nobody's reading, these days..as disgusting as I feel having written that.

My first comment is an observance that both the public and the media usually exhibit intense interest in matters that involve the sexual abuse of a child. Considering the Epstein affair involves the alleged systemic abuse of multiple children over a long period of time, and it involves celebrities (which itself usually attracts significant attention), the minimal level of interest it has received from the public and the media seems rather counter-intuitive.

Regarding my second comment, I was noting that you seem to have a sense of omniscience about you:

- "...a deep shroud of secrecy around the Epstein affair that doesn't really exist."

- "...the Epstein stuff was basically all a matter of public record."

Of course, if there was in fact a shroud of secrecy, or if some evidence on Epstein was not made available on the public record, you would have no way of knowing this. Yet, you speak as if you do know.

My armchair psychologist theory is that these sorts of incredibly common logical errors (several of which can be seen in this thread) are due to subconscious heuristics running on binary (True/False) logic rather than ternary (True/False/Unknown) logic. The human mind, both subconscious and conscious really seems to struggle with Null/Unknown. I have the impression that this phenomenon is increasing over time (perhaps due to increased internet usage, plus Trump), but I don't know how one might go about measuring such a thing.

> Without pulling up sources it's on his second paragraph of his wikipedia page, which tends to avoid conspiracies etc.

Slightly off topic, but I'm so happy wikipedia has finally stepped up an gotten rid of the stupid conspiracy theories that used to ruin their articles in the past because they turned a blind eye to the racist patriarchy of old white men that oppresses the working class and minorities.