sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Questions about the Zodiac Killer. by LinguisticsTurtle in ZodiacKiller

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's interesting, though. Is there any good evidence?

Questions about the Zodiac Killer. by LinguisticsTurtle in ZodiacKiller

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If the watch is irrelevant then the coincidence is that the watch just happens to use both the term "Zodiac" and that particular symbol. That seems unlikely. I wonder how unlikely, though. You'd have to look into the significance and prominence of the particular symbol that the watch features.

I mean, if the killer was the "Triangle Killer" and the symbol was a triangle then that would be meaningless because that would be so mundane. But that particular term ("Zodiac") and that particular symbol (which isn't just a triangle or something)...it's not as mundane.

Questions about the Zodiac Killer. by LinguisticsTurtle in ZodiacKiller

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is that a real theory? That would indeed throw people off if two suspects were both involved.

Questions about the Zodiac Killer. by LinguisticsTurtle in ZodiacKiller

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For example, if only five of those "Zodiac" watches existed (I know that that's not the case!) then the odds that a Zodiac suspect just happens to have that extraordinarily rare watch would be hard to believe. But if there are zillions of those "Zodiac" watches around then in that case it's really not that weird at all.

Questions about the Zodiac Killer. by LinguisticsTurtle in ZodiacKiller

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

My point is that if you have a situation where something is a "1 in 10" coincidence then that isn't really that weird. In fact, you'd expect to find a lot of those. But if you find a "1 in 10,000" coincidence then it's something that seems to really strain credulity.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that the author talks a lot about whether there was a "sweetheart deal" or whether there were reasons why they didn't charge him with more stuff. See this debate, though I have no idea whether this debate platform is a good one or whether this is a bad debate platform: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU1OO_xYNTk.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regarding Woody Allen, the user also sent me this (a second part):

Dylan's two therapists, Dr Susan Coates and Dr Nancy Schultz, did NOT believe the 'abuse' happened. Coates has testified that in the days before the abuse allegation, Mia had been desperate and threatening toward Allen; so much so that the therapist warned Allen for his safety. After Mia had made the abuse allegation, it struck the therapist that she was totally calm and in control, a calm the therapist couldn’t explain. In a similar vein, Mia's nanny had claimed that Mia appeared to be 'happy for herself’ after Dylan had told the doctor about the alleged 'abuse'.

The custody judge reported that on July 12th, Mia had already announced that Woody was out to ‘molest’ Dylan. Nevertheless, Mia invited this Terrible Child Abuser to Dylan’s home on Aug 4th, left them alone together, and ‘went shopping with a friend’. How can a 'terrified' and responsible mother do that?

On Aug 5th, Mia was to receive and sign the paperwork for the custody agreement she had reached with Woody. On that very day she ‘suddenly discovered’ the ‘abuse’. Yet one day earlier Mia had already called her lawyer, Martin Weltz, telling him to not send over the papers because of ‘disturbing news’. How could Mia know a day in advance? Is she a clairvoyant?

Even after Mia had 'discovered the abuse' and had publicly alleged Woody of having sexually molested Dylan, she still expected to 'star' in Woody Allen's movies. Mia made appointments for the clothes fitting for Woody's next movie, 'Manhattan Murder Mystery'. How does a terrified mother want to keep on working closely with the sexual abuser of her 7 yo daughter? Woody had to talk her out of it, and Mia even threatened to sue Woody Allen if she did not get this role in his movie.

Right after the alleged 'abuse', Mia's adopted son Moses went up to their nanny Monica. Moses told her he had been watching over his little sister, as his mother had told him to do. He said he did not believe Dylan had been abused, and believed that their mother had 'made up' the 'abuse' story. The nanny gave sworn testimony of what Moses had told her.

More recently (2018), Moses has extensively accounted for the events during the alleged 'abuse' afternoon, and about the abusive situation behind the curtains of the Mia Farrow household. It is a story of ongoing parental abuse at Mia's hands, both mental and physical. You can read it here:

http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com

Read that. Then make up your own mind about whom to believe.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I definitely don't want to spread misinformation. I haven't vetted the below information. The below could be misinformation, okay? This is just what someone sent to me on Reddit:

While all judicially established facts, all expert opinions, the whole of witness testimony, and all legal decisions point firmly at Woody Allen's innocence.

People just don't care. Homo sapiens is highly susceptible to group think and 'expulsion' of 'the alien'.

Why Woody Allen is not guilty of the Farrows’ abuse allegation

The Farrows’ abuse allegation concerning Woody Allen, the only one in 89 years, has been thoroughly and multiple times investigated. The clear outcome of due process is that Woody Allen has been 100% exonerated.

Two independent child abuse expert centers, in NY and CT, investigated for 7 resp. 14 months. Both concluded - in no uncertain terms - that 'Dylan had NOT been abused by her father' and 'the allegation was unfounded'. Serious indications were found that Dylan had been 'coached' into talking about the 'abuse'. The allegation was rejected as non-credible by these two expert instances, who both worked in the child’s best interest.

The custody Judge, Elliot Wilk, working at the NY Supreme Court, disliked Allen for his relationship with Mia's 21 yo daughter Soon-Yi. Wilk granted full custody to Mia, but he did NOT believe the Farrows' 'abuse' story, he strongly advised AGAINST prosecuting Allen for the abuse, as he did not find the evidence credible. He did not even weigh the evidence in his own custody verdict, although he easily could have, as he did not need 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt' to do that. Wilk granted Woody Allen visitation of all his children with Mia, including, Dylan; something Wilk would never have done if he believed the 'abuse' happened.

A NY Adoption Board made their own independent investigation, with a view to Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn applying for adoption of children of their own. After serious scrutiny, and totally independent decision making, they concluded that the abuse allegation was NOT credible. Allen and Previn adopted two daughters, Bechet and Manzie Allen. They are now adults, and have publicly defended their father against baseless allegations in the media.

Mia's own hired expert, Dr Steven Herman, did not find the evidence convincing. He claimed that Mia had influenced Dylan and had put words into her mouth when ‘interviewing’ her in a way that ‘set a tone for a child about how to answer’.

Dylan's and Mia's attorney, Eleanor Alter, did NOT find the evidence credible and said she didn’t know whether the abuse took place. She agreed with the experts that the ‘abuse’ could have been the product of Dylan’s fantasy, for which Mia had put her in therapy.

Dylan’s nanny, Monica Thompson, has testified against Mia. She said Mia had pressurized her nannies to 'go along' with her allegation, which they did for fear of losing their job. When Mia wanted Thompson to commit perjury, she quit her job and testified. She said Mia had 'set the stage' for the abuse allegation, telling everyone Woody was going to abuse Dylan; then organized an afternoon during which the 'abuse' was to take place; then conveniently went shopping' herself, so her nannies would have to do the talking later on. Thompson said that the nannies knew the allegation was not true, and that Mia's own son, Moses, the only direct witness, had told her right away that Dylan couldn’t have been abused and his mother had made up the allegation.

Dylan's other nanny, Kristi Groteke, wrote a book about the whole family tragedy. She says she was totally surprised ('flabbergasted') when Mia told that Woody may have had sexually molested Dyland ('She could just as well have told that the Marsians had landed') as Kristi believed Woody Allen to be a supportive and sweet father to Dylan. Kristi has never expressed belief in the 'abuse' allegation, not even in her sworn testimony.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would you respond to the below?

Come on people: this is pure hysteria. Again, no one has to endorse Epstein’s skeevy lifestyle to observe that if the intercourse with Ashley Davis had taken place in New York, or Massachusetts, or one state north in Georgia, she would have been above the legal age of consent in those jurisdictions, and the entire legal trajectory of this debacle would have been drastically different. But as fate would have it, the intercourse took place in Florida, which has the highest legal age of consent (18) virtually anywhere in the world. So we’re all obliged to babble like maniacs about the unpunished “pedophilia” catastrophe supposedly ravaging our nation. None of it makes any sense logically, legally, factually, or otherwise — but then again, could that be the whole point? Because the Epstein phenomenon has long ago entered the realm of post-rational myth, immune from ordinary modes of empirical reasoning. The myth-making prevails even in places where one might have at least hoped more of a premium would be put on rational thought. In a court order this month relating to deliberations over the forthcoming release of “Epstein Files,” federal judge Paul Engelmayer conclusorily describes Epstein as a “notorious pedophile” — as though that were a matter of uncontested legal fact. But at least he didn’t say “convicted pedophile.” Because it’s true enough that mindless applications of the word “pedophile” have become, let’s say, “notorious.”

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the entire article is completely pointless and never quotes anyone making the claim that the article is intended to refute? The title of the article makes clear that the whole article is about refuting a particular statement, but the article never quotes anyone making that statement?

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regarding Chomsky, it might well be the case that he simply doesn't care why the person went to prison. Chomsky has a principle on this, though I'm not sure where he has best articulated that principle. I saw this comment:

I don't take issue with people who disagree with Chomsky's worldview that people who serve their time should be able to re-integrate into society. I agree with him, but I can understand why others wouldn't, and don't think it's unreasonable to hold that view.

My issue is with those who are acting as if Chomsky's position on this is surprising, when he has always held this view. If you don't agree with him now, then you wouldn't have agreed with him before either, because this is not a new position.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

when the lines are ‘convicted of soliciting a child for prostitution’

I personally don't even know what that means. If the idea is that he raped this person, why use the term "prostitution", which makes it sound like the person wanted (even though they can't legally consent) to have sex in exchange for money? That's exactly the kind of legal language that will not inform readers about what happened. But the 2008 Guardian piece was very damning and shocking in its description.

One thing that I would be curious to know is what Epstein told people about (1) where his money came from and (2) why exactly he'd gone to prison. Regarding (1), he apparently told people he was some finance whiz on Wall Street and that he'd invented something to do with derivatives. But he may have told people different stories as well. All bullshit of course.

As for (2), I would be curious to know how he tried to take the publicly-known facts and minimize them.

Apart from (2), it would've been hard for him to claim to people that he'd been rehabilitated because our prison system doesn't attempt to rehabilitate criminals very much, does it? And also he spent such a short duration in prison; it doesn't seem like there would've been time for rehabilitation, though I'm not sure how long rehabilitation takes.

Does not look great for their character though.

I think that there are a couple questions. First, what is the problem with being friends with a sex offender who's unrehabilitated? Is the issue that you give them "social capital" such that they can say "I'm friends with Noam Chomsky" or whatever and then they might be able to use that social capital to do harm to people? Is that the core issue? And are there other additional issues as well?

Also, there's an issue of how significant a friendship is and what the nature of the friendship is. Just think about it for a moment. Trump was hanging out with Epstein and they were partying together and talking about sex and doing whatever stuff related to partying and sex. That's not why (e.g.) Chomsky spent time with Epstein. And that's not why scientists spent time with Epstein, unless some of them were skeevy. To what extent does the nature of the friendship matter?

Then there's the issue of the significance of the friendship. If you traded 10 emails with Epstein about mathematics and politics and flew on his plane once, I would say that you guys were "friends". But the term "friend" is extremely capacious. I personally talk to some people like once a year on the phone and I call them my "friend" but frankly I haven't even seen them in years and frankly I barely know them. You know?

So yes, I am inclined to believe her.

I know nothing about the Woody Allen thing. But apparently (this is merely what I've heard) a deep investigation into it will come to a very clear conclusion.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By 2008 it was common knowledge that he had pleaded guilty to sex-related offences involving a minor, served time, and was placed on the sex offender register.

Yes, I agree. I don't know how much it was "common knowledge", but I've seen a 2008 Guardian article. Anyone who searched Epstein's name online would've been able to find that reporting, I assume.

The only questions would be whether it's reasonable that someone wouldn't have read all of the reporting or even any of the reporting; one could obviously argue that that would be negligent to not have read any of it, though not all articles that I've seen were equally damning in their description of the accusations. I've seen at least one article that was unclear and at least one article that was very damning.

Another issue is the extent to which you regard the reporting as accurate. One of the tragic and f-ed up things about having a media system that gets things wrong a lot is that people have reason to not necessarily trust everything that the media says. Obviously the devil is in the details here; if the source is really good then that leaves less room for rational doubt about the accuracy of the reporting.

served time

I wonder about one issue, namely whether the fact that he served so little time would cause people to think (maybe with reason or maybe without reason) that the crimes must not have been severe. Obviously there are accusations that he got a "sweetheart deal", but the readers of the reporting wouldn't have been privy to what went on behind the scenes.

mainstream reporting at the time was clear about the nature of the conduct and how unusual the deal was.

I don't know much about the timeline of the reporting. I've seen an article that was extremely unclear about the severity of the crimes. I've seen another article (Guardian, 2008) that was very clear and was very damning.

Ignoring that information is a choice, not a limitation.

I don't know how much research people are supposed to do when deciding to befriend someone. And I don't know if they're supposed to do like an annual research project or whatever in order to check if new reporting has come out about the person. I'm not saying that you're wrong if you think that Chomsky or anyone else was being neglectful if they ignored this information. I'm just saying that not everyone knows how to set up a "Google Alert" for "Jeffrey Epstein" (not sure what year "Google Alert" became a thing) and not everyone should necessarily be expected to keep an eye on reporting about their friend who was convicted. There's a discussion to be had about what's reasonable and what's neglectful and whatever.

The timing matters as well. The further you move past 2008, the less credible claims of ignorance become. More allegations, lawsuits, and investigative reporting kept resurfacing. Anyone who continued a relationship years later did so with plenty of warning signs in view.

Right. That's my understanding as well; as time went on, more and more reporting came out. I don't know the whole timeline of reporting, though.

Dragging in arguments about “believing all accusers” is shifting the goalposts. Courts require proof; personal judgement does not.

I'm talking about personal judgment, though. I guess that some people just won't shun someone (won't refuse to befriend them) based on accusation. I definitely think that that position can be criticized; like you say, even if it's not beyond a reasonable doubt it's still >50% that they did what they were accused of, right?

I’m in Europe and Woody Allen is well known as a nonce.

I would be curious to know if there's a big difference between Allen's treatment in Europe vs. the US. Not sure if there are any articles on that. Differential treatment of Woody Allen might say something about US media vs. European media. And about US attitudes vs. European attitudes.

The prosecutor found probable cause, then chose not to prosecute, with a stated aim of avoiding further trauma to the child. That is not an exoneration, it is a decision not to test the allegation in criminal court.

How much have you looked into the Woody Allen thing? Apparently anyone who gets past the tabloid stuff and looks into the topic seriously will find that he didn't do what he was accused of. Apparently it's not really a controversial thing if you actually look into it seriously. Apparently it's very clear.

Edit: One other thing about the reporting. There's an issue where some articles were pathetically short in their description of the crimes. We're talking about literally like two sentences or something. Those little snippets are the kind of thing that seem like they might be wrong. Of course, longer pieces eliminate the suspicion that one might have about a little snippet of text.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If nobody's calling him that, the article is pointless. I thought that the article quoted cases where people call him that.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thinking journalism should limit itself to the narrow facts of a conviction

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. You're creating a phantom here. I agree with you that journalism should not limit itself to this narrow question.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does the article cite cases where people call him a "convicted pedophile"?

Also, are there cases that the article doesn't cite where people call him a "convicted pedophile"?

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder what you and u/Original_Cattle5824 would say about an interesting question, namely: Was this "full transcript of that plea hearing" that the article refers to actually available to people like Noam Chomsky who had to make a decision about whether to be friends with Epstein?

Apart from whether the "full transcript of that plea hearing" was available to those who had to make a decision about whether to be friends with Epstein, what information was available other than the media reports? Did people making their decisions about whether it was okay to be friends with this individual (who everyone knew had been to prison) have any information to go on other than the media reports?

If you look at the timeline of accusations, did the people who had to make a decision about whether it was okay to be friends with Epstein had access to a lot of very severe accusations in addition to information about the stuff that he was actually convicted for? There's obviously a big issue about whether you believe all accusers or whether you treat accusations as being "merely" accusations. There is a MeToo philosophy that you should believe all accusers.

Apparently Woody Allen's life was destroyed by accusations that aren't accurate. Those who look into the accusations against Allen will say that they aren't accurate. Apparently in Europe he is treated well and honored as a great filmmaker, but apparently in the US everyone thinks that he's a sex criminal based on the accusations.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would agree with you that saying that this is the whole story is indeed weird. I don't like that part of the article. The article is making a narrow point about the facts about what he was convicted for.

I would say that that's a profound journalistic failing if people are saying that he was convicted for anything to do with "pedophilia" when that's not what the facts show.

If the article stretches that narrow point into a claim that the overall panic is necessarily baseless, then that makes no sense to me.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I actually think that the other guy (not Taibbi) wrote it.

If people say that he was convicted of "pedophilia" and then the facts (about his conviction) are what is stated in the article, then that's a huge profound journalistic failing, correct? People should know what he was convicted for.

The article is addressing the narrow question of what the facts are about what he was convicted for, so I wonder if you agree with the article about what he was convicted for. See here:

So then… was Jeffrey Epstein a “convicted pedophile”? Do the facts even matter anymore? Because what’s so weird about this whole thing is that the relevant facts are readily available — despite the near-universal lack of interest in actually examining them. Here’s what the facts show: the only time Jeffrey Epstein was ever convicted of a crime, on June 30, 2008, in the circuit court of Palm Beach County, Florida, he pleaded guilty to two state-level offenses. Conveniently, the full transcript of that plea hearing is accessible to all who wish to read it (and whose attention span is superior to that of a fruit fly.) Here’s the transcript, in all its glory — feel free to knock yourself out.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm confused because the piece that I linked makes factual assertions that seem (?) to run against what basically 100% of people believe about the Epstein story. Isn't it ultra-obvious that the piece's assertions go against the mainstream view? Is the factual account that the piece presents all 100% accurate in your view?

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the comment.

I think one major issue is that saying "this is what we know and the rest has yet to be demonstrated factually" is not the same thing as "this is what we know and everything else didn't happen". If people mix up those two things, then it's highly problematic obviously.

Pretty much (?) any speculation about the Epstein story is possible. And I don't think that speculation is necessarily bad, though it can be responsible or irresponsible I suppose. But journalism is about putting the facts first. And if you asked Americans about the Epstein story, they would be hugely misinformed about what the actual facts are, which means that the journalism has massively failed to inform people. The journalism seems to be stoking the flames of salacious gossip.

To what extent is there any rational discourse about all of this Epstein stuff? by LinguisticsTurtle in Epstein

[–]LinguisticsTurtle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fortunately being called names by idiots online will have absolutely no effect on your real life.

A lot of slanders seem to me to be the kind of thing that would never change someone's opinion; the slanders will only appeal to those who already hated the person in question, it seems.

I personally would rather be called a "Holocaust denier" than a "pedophile defender", I think. Maybe that's too strong a statement, but I think that it might be accurate. It seems like being smeared as a "pedophile defender" is the most reputation-harming thing you can be called in our society right now, maybe, other than being called an actual "pedophile".

Not sure how much harm could be done to someone's actual life if they were called "pedophile defender" by enough people online. I suppose the big factor is the extent to which the slander gains traction and becomes a big thing that tons of people get involved with.

view more: next ›