1233
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
1233 points (99.4% liked)
News
23376 readers
2137 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What a dumb move. All the names? The judge must know that people will not be smart enough to realize being on the list doesn't mean you're guilty of any crime. And it's going to include victims? And people who might have just been included in an email?
I'm all for going after any criminals, but the problem with the outcome of this is that people are stupid and will think that inclusion on the list is the same as guilt. If we are also talking about people who fought successfully to have their names protected, it's the rich people with means who won't end up being made public.
If people were generally rational, this would be a good thing. But we're not, and it seems that all sense is thrown out the window when it comes to Epstein.
This isn't the "flew on his jet a few times" sort of associates, they were named in Giuffre's court case.
Low effort version of this post:
Nice try, Andrew.
You read part of the article, found something you think confirms your point (it does not) and then just stopped reading and thinking. Your issue is that you're trying to be right, rather than trying to figure out what is right.
Also from the article:
And very explicitly
And also
As I said, people aren't rational especially when it comes to Epstein. I appreciate you coming to me and demonstrating this for everyone.
I did read the article, I just I didn't realise there was any article after all the jump, sorry. Hate it when sites do that.
But I still don't buy that argument:
Anyone who was named in those documents knows that they were named in those documents. It is unlikely to include as many innocents as you, or rather that journalist, seem to expect.
So, it's the articles fault you didn't read it because of something that happens extremely regularly in articles on the Internet. I'm wrong because of words you put in my mouth (I made no claims as to how many innocents are on the list). And you're still right based on blind speculation.
It's like you're desperate to demonstrate my point for me.
Chill the fuck out.
You act like your first response was respectful and I should have responded in kind.
It's okay to admit you were just wrong and I made a good point.
I use to say "all extremes call for their opposite". Since almost no information ever transpires about this whole scandal, the opposite is to release all the names to the public. It was to be expected. If we were trusting the justice system, this would seem inappropriate. But we have what we have, and making the whole list public is the only guarantee we have that not one of the "bad" guy can escape public's attention. That of course, is valid only if the list is comprehensive and some names have not already been taken out.
It is indeed unfortunate that a lot of people who didn't deserve and didn't want any bad attention will get some.
I'm not saying I agree with the move. I'm saying it was to be expected.
[Edit made: grammar & missing words]
Problem is that we don't know if this is the case. It was noted in the article that some people were able to get their names retracted already and that she is leaving time for other people to plead their case. We all know, and this part of the reason for lack of trust in the legal system, that it favors the rich...so for all I know it's rich likely guilty people who were able to pay for a lawyer to argue to get themselves removed, while some poor regular joe got caught up in an email for God knows what innocent reason, who is going to get harassed by the mindless mob.
Expected? Maybe. A bad move, almost certainly. People want blood when it comes to Epstein and when that happens rationality takes a back seat.
Saying "people are stupid so we shouldn't have information" is so anti-humanist. Mob mentality. We have courts, why does public opinion matter? Its actually up to these important people to protect their image if its worth so much - but they don't, they're living their lives. Often with even less moral consideration than a regular guy.
And your call to wealth being a shield from danger? Bill gates seems to have lost his marriage over his involvement with Epstein. And that Prince guy in Britain, the rest of the royal family talks shit about him.
You're really arguing with me that rich people fair better in the legal system?
Well those crimes were ages ago. Who would prosecute them? Yeah, it won't even go to trial. If they are guilty, which... Like you said, gonna be tough to prove. Rich people absolutely do better at every step of our legal system.
I'm talking about having their names released to the public, which people are going to basically equate to being a child molester, not being convicted of any crimes.
I think theres a good chance people will be more understanding about it. On Epstein's original flight list, I xan only remember the names of people who visited a LOT. And even then, some of the people who only visited a few times turned out to be child molesters. So we can't know for sure.
Somehow, as of lately, when people start to talk about rationality it is mostly about some bizarre stuff like bombing datacenters or living in a country that leads an aggressive war because you earn more.
Maybe it's just a survivor bias and everyone is about bizarre stuff in these times, though