A federal judge in New York has ordered a vast unsealing of court documents in early 2024 that will make public the names of scores of Jeffrey Epstein's associates.
You mixed real things and fake things to support a claim you yourself acknowledge is probably nonsense.
My god, are you this pleasant to deal with in real life? I didn’t “acknowledge is probably nonsense.” I said, hey this is what I think, but I don’t really know. Your right answer to that is something along the lines of: Hey there’s a lot of evidence that this is how it happened, here it is. Instead you concocted some kind of scenario where I am “making my case” and you need to get sarcastic with me and assign me strawman views and argue against them all condescendingly.
I just looked into Gary Webb, and hey, you’re right, he actually probably did kill himself also. So I learned two things today. But because you were such a jackass about it, that’s actually sort of difficult to admit, where if you’d just said “hey I think this is wrong, his ex-wife said he was acting weird and she believes it was suicide, here’s the source” then it could have been a more factual conversation. It happens that I’m patient enough to go and look at sources myself even if you’re being combative with me, but most people won’t do that. They’ll just be toxic back at you and both of you will waste a bunch of time “making your case.” That’s an inherent risk of talking with people on the internet but you don’t need to lean into it when the other person’s just being open minded and reasonable with you.
Instead you concocted some kind of scenario where I am “making my case” and you need to get sarcastic with me and assign me strawman views and argue against them all condescendingly.
You’re talking about conspiracy theories. Your personal fictitious interpretation of events is not equal to the facts of the matter.
Here’s an actual thing you wrote (only, linking to more conspiracy theories you believe within):
Honestly, I think I’m probably misremembering, and I’m mixing her up with some other person that powerful people actually did have killed. Not because the note was handwritten; I just think there would be places on the internet that were pretty readily findable where would be published the original stories I read back at the time.
Yes, I am similarly dismissive of conspiracy theories in real life. When my boss said “I won’t get the vaccine because Bill Gates put in microchips” I didn’t acknowledge that as a serious discussion.
If you want to be treated as if the things you’re saying have value, you shouldn’t pop off arrogantly about how the US government regularly has people killed. They don’t.
Secrets aren’t good at staying secrets.
Edit: more to the point, this comment section is full of people spouting conspiracy theories. None of their theories are plausible or make any degree of sense when dug into. That they are so widespread here is because of the mindset people have - a toxic mindset that makes their brains ripe for the rot of conspiracy thinking. That should not be encouraged in any public forum, because it is contagious.
Yes, I am similarly dismissive of conspiracy theories in real life. When my boss said “I won’t get the vaccine because Bill Gates put in microchips” I didn’t acknowledge that as a serious discussion.
Hmm… okay, I think I get it. You’re putting me (and, presumably, anyone who says things that you already “know” to be false) in the same category as someone who thinks there are microchips in the vaccine. If you never make mistakes or are lacking information, that makes perfect sense. Since you do make mistakes sometimes and there are things you don’t know, that’s a stupid way to behave.
If you want to be treated as if the things you’re saying have value
I think this is another stupid way to behave. You can talk with someone who thinks different things than you do – whether they’re right or wrong – without being combative about it. It’s actually an important skill to have. It doesn’t mean the things they say “have value,” it just means it’s more productive to be factual and communicative than to be a dick about it and deliberately act as if they’re saying things they’re not saying so you can “win.”
you shouldn’t pop off arrogantly about how the US government regularly has people killed. They don’t.
I mean, the US government does regularly have people killed. Please don’t tell me that that’s different because they’re not Americans. What I said, though, was a little different than that; I said “powerful people in the US government.” The US government killing Americans as a matter of public policy is not unheard of (Fred Hampton), but I don’t think it happens all that often, no. I think it’s a little more likely that some individual person in a position of power might decide to commit a murder. Especially if their life is going to be ruined if they don’t. Are you saying that’s an impossible or outlandish suggestion?
My god, are you this pleasant to deal with in real life? I didn’t “acknowledge is probably nonsense.” I said, hey this is what I think, but I don’t really know. Your right answer to that is something along the lines of: Hey there’s a lot of evidence that this is how it happened, here it is. Instead you concocted some kind of scenario where I am “making my case” and you need to get sarcastic with me and assign me strawman views and argue against them all condescendingly.
I just looked into Gary Webb, and hey, you’re right, he actually probably did kill himself also. So I learned two things today. But because you were such a jackass about it, that’s actually sort of difficult to admit, where if you’d just said “hey I think this is wrong, his ex-wife said he was acting weird and she believes it was suicide, here’s the source” then it could have been a more factual conversation. It happens that I’m patient enough to go and look at sources myself even if you’re being combative with me, but most people won’t do that. They’ll just be toxic back at you and both of you will waste a bunch of time “making your case.” That’s an inherent risk of talking with people on the internet but you don’t need to lean into it when the other person’s just being open minded and reasonable with you.
You’re talking about conspiracy theories. Your personal fictitious interpretation of events is not equal to the facts of the matter.
Here’s an actual thing you wrote (only, linking to more conspiracy theories you believe within):
Yes, I am similarly dismissive of conspiracy theories in real life. When my boss said “I won’t get the vaccine because Bill Gates put in microchips” I didn’t acknowledge that as a serious discussion.
If you want to be treated as if the things you’re saying have value, you shouldn’t pop off arrogantly about how the US government regularly has people killed. They don’t.
Secrets aren’t good at staying secrets.
Edit: more to the point, this comment section is full of people spouting conspiracy theories. None of their theories are plausible or make any degree of sense when dug into. That they are so widespread here is because of the mindset people have - a toxic mindset that makes their brains ripe for the rot of conspiracy thinking. That should not be encouraged in any public forum, because it is contagious.
Sure, let’s talk.
Hmm… okay, I think I get it. You’re putting me (and, presumably, anyone who says things that you already “know” to be false) in the same category as someone who thinks there are microchips in the vaccine. If you never make mistakes or are lacking information, that makes perfect sense. Since you do make mistakes sometimes and there are things you don’t know, that’s a stupid way to behave.
I think this is another stupid way to behave. You can talk with someone who thinks different things than you do – whether they’re right or wrong – without being combative about it. It’s actually an important skill to have. It doesn’t mean the things they say “have value,” it just means it’s more productive to be factual and communicative than to be a dick about it and deliberately act as if they’re saying things they’re not saying so you can “win.”
I mean, the US government does regularly have people killed. Please don’t tell me that that’s different because they’re not Americans. What I said, though, was a little different than that; I said “powerful people in the US government.” The US government killing Americans as a matter of public policy is not unheard of (Fred Hampton), but I don’t think it happens all that often, no. I think it’s a little more likely that some individual person in a position of power might decide to commit a murder. Especially if their life is going to be ruined if they don’t. Are you saying that’s an impossible or outlandish suggestion?