Epstein client list, does it exist or not?

[sporkman]

I think if her like a Mr smith goes to Washington. I’ll give her credit for being genuine.

Of all the shitbags that trump put in his cabinet, interesting he didn’t appoint her. That is to her credit.

 

[DarthSlack]

I've read/heard elsewhere that she wants to run for the GOP nomination next time around. Simple as that. Plus hasn't she always been fervent about releasing the client list/Epstein files? She might be out of touch with Trump right now, but she IS in touch with his base. Who presumably won't be retiring from politics when Trump does. Might as well court them.

Greene has always been ride or die MAGA. What I'm reading into the tea leaves is that she's part of the group of MAGA that understands that Trump has thrown them overboard and has sided with the techbros. Trump has a decidedly non-MAGA bend to his foreign policy these days including bailing out Argentina. That doesn't go down well with the America First believers. Throw in Trump's reluctance over the Epstein files and her realization that Trump 2.0 healthcare is going to badly hurt her constituents, and suddenly it looks like maybe Trump's Republican party isn't such a great fit for MAGA anymore.

There's also the fact that Trump's health is deteriorating and there's a good chance he doesn't live for many more years. When he croaks, there's going to be a knife fight for the Republican party and she probably thinks she should get a head start on that.

 

[karolus]

From what I understand, the Argentina bailout was to help out some of Bessent’s hedge fund buddies—so tracks with Trump’s history of grift.

In that light, it may fit into the Epstein mess—connected people doing whatever they can get away with, and denying involvement in the rest.

 

[Lt_Storm]

So, my issue with the whole "MTG's doing this so she can run for higher office" line of thinking is that I can see no way that resigning from Congress actually improves her chances of ataining higher office. After all, while she is in Congress she has a megaphone, but, the moment she resignes, that goes away. Right now when she opens her large mouth, she gets media coverage; on the other hand, I haven't heard anything about what George Santos has to say for months. MTG's decision to resign places her closer to irrelevance than it places her to further power. So, the idea that her motive is, somehow, to gain more power seems self-defeating.

 

[LTParis]

So, my issue with the whole "MTG's doing this so she can run for higher office" line of thinking is that I can see no way that resigning from Congress actually improves her chances of ataining higher office.

It becomes more of a play that she would have to turn away from MAGA (her base) if there were voted to impeach because of the Epstein files. I suspect that she knows he's embroiled in it all, If she is stuck in that position that will absolutely cave any chances she could have in the future.

 

[Lt_Storm]

It becomes more of a play that she would have to turn away from MAGA (her base) if there were voted to impeach because of the Epstein files. I suspect that she knows he's embroiled in it all, If she is stuck in that position that will absolutely cave any chances she could have in the future.

What vote to impeach? We know that's not coming, well unless she knows who Bubba is. But if Bubba's identity is a problem, then MAGA is going to be the group braying for impeachment, after all, they are all about that straight white hegemonic manhood, emphasis on straight. And the only real way I can see the Epstein files causing Trump genuine problems is if Bubba were confirmed to be a man. Especially if more men were to came up. That could cause Trump problems. But, anything other than that and Trump has little to worry about.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Oh, and, also, if there were a vote to impeach Trump because of the Epstein files and MAGA didn't approve, then her name is already mud. After all, she is one of the larger reasons that Trump wasn't able to suppress them. That is essentially the reason she is being punished. So, her resigning does nothing to avoid that position, if that is how things play out, any chances she might have in the future are already at the bottom of an collapsed mine with nothing left to cave.

 

[LTParis]

What vote to impeach? We know that's not coming, well unless she knows who Bubba is. But if Bubba's identity is a problem, then MAGA is going to be the group braying for impeachment, after all, they are all about that straight white hegemonic manhood, emphasis on straight. And the only real way I can see the Epstein files causing Trump genuine problems is if Bubba were confirmed to be a man. Especially if more men were to came up. That could cause Trump problems. But, anything other than that and Trump has little to worry about.

Al Green is starting up articles of impeachment. Of course it will never pass, but it will get people on the record. https://www.wwnytv.com/2025/11/20/congressman-al-green-announces-trump-impeachment-effort/

 

[llanitedave]

What vote to impeach? We know that's not coming, well unless she knows who Bubba is. But if Bubba's identity is a problem, then MAGA is going to be the group braying for impeachment, after all, they are all about that straight white hegemonic manhood, emphasis on straight. And the only real way I can see the Epstein files causing Trump genuine problems is if Bubba were confirmed to be a man. Especially if more men were to came up. That could cause Trump problems. But, anything other than that and Trump has little to worry about.

So if Bubba is the horse he's good, right?

 

[Lt_Storm]

Al Green is starting up articles of impeachment. Of course it will never pass, but it will get people on the record. https://www.wwnytv.com/2025/11/20/congressman-al-green-announces-trump-impeachment-effort/

Assuming it ever sees the light of day. No way the Republicans are going to bring that to the floor. It would have to be another discharge petition.

So if Bubba is the horse he's good, right?

Well, that would be better for him. But, of course, we already know that Bubba isn't the horse nor is he Bill Clinton.

 

[Welcome to Darwin]

I think at this point I'd prefer to see articles of impeachment against everyone else. If Epstein is your rationale, being impeachment articles against everyone in the administration who knew and did nothing.

You're never going to succeed impeaching and convicting Trump, but Bondi, Rubio, Hegseth, etc. Are Republican senators going to fall on a sword for those clowns? Is Trump really going to strong-arm Johnson and Thune to save someone else's neck?

 

[sporkman]

Al Green is starting up articles of impeachment. Of course it will never pass, but it will get people on the record. https://www.wwnytv.com/2025/11/20/congressman-al-green-announces-trump-impeachment-effort

Seems like not the best idea to do this before the midterms. This only drives the persecution complex of the trump base and motivates them.

 

[Louis XVI]

Assuming it ever sees the light of day. No way the Republicans are going to bring that to the floor. It would have to be another discharge petition.



Well, that would be better for him. But, of course, we already know that Bubba isn't the horse nor is he Bill Clinton.

No we don’t. We know that Jeffrey Epstein’s brother Mark recently said that Bubba isn’t Bill Clinton. But seeing as these people lie all the time, and Mark Epstein is fully aware of the fate that befell his brother, I don’t think we can take Mark’s new denial that it was Clinton as dispositive.

 

[timby]

I think if her like a Mr smith goes to Washington. I’ll give her credit for being genuine.

Of all the shitbags that trump put in his cabinet, interesting he didn’t appoint her. That is to her credit.

You do not, under any circumstances, have to give credit to MTG about anything. She is a member of the lunatic fringe and the only reason she's dumping Trump is because--being the pure opportunist that she is--she sees his numbers are underwater, so she sees an opportunity to get out and try to lure the rest of the lunatic fringe into supporting her as a not-Trump MAGA herald.

We'll see her declare candidacy for the presidency. Mark my words.

 

[Pont]

Al Green is starting up articles of impeachment.

Let's hope they Stay Together.

Maybe Change is Gonna Come?

 

[Lt_Storm]

No we don’t. We know that Jeffrey Epstein’s brother Mark recently said that Bubba isn’t Bill Clinton. But seeing as these people lie all the time, and Mark Epstein is fully aware of the fate that befell his brother, I don’t think we can take Mark’s new denial that it was Clinton as dispositive.

Yes, and by similar logic, the CIA murdered Lee Harvey Oswald. Let's be frank here, in the business of knowing things, the best we can do is go with the balance of probability according to the evidence we have. We have no direct evidence that Jeffrey Epstein's brother is a liar. As such, automatically assuming that a denial of an a-priori unlikely possibility* is likely a lie is ... a good way to find ourselves lost in the blind halls of conspiracy.

so, no, without further evidence, the denial, while not certain it is dispositive. It strongly suggests that the unlikely but salacious answer is incorrect. All we have is a reasonably common nickname.

* We have no reason to expect that Bill Clinton regularly gets blown by other men nor do we have any reason to assume that Trump likes horses. Bubba is a common enough nickname. There are hundreds of people in New York City alone who it could refer to. Especially when people are likely to adopt pseudonyms for illicit affairs.

 

[Lt_Storm]

You do not, under any circumstances, have to give credit to MTG about anything. She is a member of the lunatic fringe and the only reason she's dumping Trump is because--being the pure opportunist that she is--she sees his numbers are underwater, so she sees an opportunity to get out and try to lure the rest of the lunatic fringe into supporting her as a not-Trump MAGA herald.

We'll see her declare candidacy for the presidency. Mark my words.

Especially given that he's resignation is unlikely to be genuine...

 

[Louis XVI]

Yes, and by similar logic, the CIA murdered Lee Harvey Oswald. Let's be frank here, in the business of knowing things, the best we can do is go with the balance of probability according to the evidence we have. We have no direct evidence that Jeffrey Epstein's brother is a liar. As such, automatically assuming that a denial of an a-priori unlikely possibility* is likely a lie is ... a good way to find ourselves lost in the blind halls of conspiracy.

so, no, without further evidence, the denial, while not certain it is dispositive. It strongly suggests that the unlikely but salacious answer is incorrect. All we have is a reasonably common nickname.

* We have no reason to expect that Bill Clinton regularly gets blown by other men nor do we have any reason to assume that Trump likes horses. Bubba is a common enough nickname. There are hundreds of people in New York City alone who it could refer to. Especially when people are likely to adopt pseudonyms for illicit affairs.

Next thing you know, people will be cooking up a bizarre vast conspiracy in which countless rich people and politicians flew to a private island to have sex with underage girls, and this somehow went on for decades.

We already know that these folks are conspirators, and that they’ve engaged in behavior so vile and brazen for so long that no, we don’t have to give any evidentiary weight to post hoc, self-serving stories that they’re now telling about old emails.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Next thing you know, people will be cooking up a bizarre vast conspiracy in which countless rich people and politicians flew to a private island to have sex with underage girls, and this somehow went on for decades.

We already know that these folks are conspirators, and that they’ve engaged in behavior so vile and brazen for so long that no, we don’t have to give them the benefit of the doubt on anything, especially stories that they’re now telling about old emails.

So, here the thing about real conspiracies: we know they exist because we have evidence of what happened. This isn't because conspiracy theory is real, it's because secrets have a half life: when a secret is widespread, as it must be for such a conspiracy to exist, it will only remain secret for so long; the more people know it, the faster it becomes public knowledge.

Which, again, is why here in the business of knowing things, we can only go with the balance of probabilities based on the evidence we have. Attempting to step past that with speculation just because there already is a known conspiracy is exactly how we wind up with people who believe that lizard men killed JFK. It's confirmation bias with large and, again, a good way to find ourselves lost in the blind halls of conspiracy.

 

[Stern]

No we don’t. We know that Jeffrey Epstein’s brother Mark recently said that Bubba isn’t Bill Clinton. But seeing as these people lie all the time, and Mark Epstein is fully aware of the fate that befell his brother, I don’t think we can take Mark’s new denial that it was Clinton as dispositive.

You people are reading an insane amount into a throwaway joke. Seeing as Mark Epstein's next message in the exchange was a reference to the movie Get Hard, it's far more likely to me to be a prison rape joke.

 

[dio82]

So if Bubba is the horse he's good, right?

Honestly, as much as I want to see justice through extra judicial means to this regime, I get a very strong vibe that Epstein was passing around a meme comic of Trump blowing Clinton; joking that Putin needs to add it to his cabinet of compromat on Trump.

 

[Louis XVI]

So, here the thing about real conspiracies: we know they exist because we have evidence of what happened. This isn't because conspiracy theory is real, it's because secrets have a half life: when a secret is widespread, as it must be for such a conspiracy to exist, it will only remain secret for so long; the more people know it, the faster it becomes public knowledge.

Which, again, is why here in the business of knowing things, we can only go with the balance of probabilities based on the evidence we have. Attempting to step past that with speculation just because there already is a known conspiracy is exactly how we wind up with people who believe that lizard men killed JFK. It's confirmation bias with large and, again, a good way to find ourselves lost in the blind halls of conspiracy.

Let’s step back for a moment. This exchange began with you saying,

But, of course, we already know that Bubba isn't the horse nor is he Bill Clinton.

And I pushed back that we don’t “know” that Bubba isn’t Bill Clinton. (I suppose we also technically don’t know that Bubba wasn’t a horse, but I find that to be rather less plausible.) Specifically, I have never affirmatively asserted that Bubba is indeed Clinton.

Here’s what we have to go on so far:
1) An intriguing but inconclusive email regarding Trump providing oral pleasure to “Bubba.”
2) A denial by Epstein’s brother, who has every reason to lie about this.

So do we “know” that Trump gave Clinton a blow job? Of course not! Maybe it was a joke; maybe Epstein was referring to former NFL player Bubba Smith or some other Bubba; who knows.

But do we “know” that he didn’t? Of course not! We have some evidence, in the form of the email. Moreover, a consensual blow job between two adults of relatively equal age and power would be far less horrifying than countless things than what we know these guys have done. So it’s possible!

If, as you say, we’re “in the business of knowing things,” right now, we don’t know enough to decide one way or the other. I find the idea that Trump blew Clinton to be at least somewhat plausible, and also it would be really funny and damaging to Trump if true, due to the sheer homophobia of his base, and how it would make him look weak to them. But at this stage I’d never go so far as to say that I know it happened, or that I know it didn’t. All I know is that much stranger and worse things have already been established to have happened with these people.

 

[Lt_Storm]

If, as you say, we’re “in the business of knowing things,” right now, we don’t know enough to decide one way or the other. I find the idea that Trump blew Clinton to be at least somewhat plausible, and also it would be really funny and damaging to Trump if true, due to the sheer homophobia of his base, and how it would make him look weak to them. But at this stage I’d never go so far as to say that I know it happened, or that I know it didn’t. All I know is that much stranger and worse things have already been established to have happened with these people.

So, one of the bigger linguistic gaps in English has to do with the meaning of the word "truth". Is it something divine and unchanging as religion views it or is it, as the philosophy of science suggests, our best guess as to what is real, eternally provisional and to be replaced the moment better evidence is uncovered? If it's the former, then we never actually know enough to decide. If it's the later, them we go with the balance of the evidence we currently have and, if needed, revise as new evidence is uncovered.

In this case, even without the denial, I find it much more likely that this "Bubba" is someone else, most likely someone who is relatively unknown. So, reasonably, we already expect that it isn't Clinton. And this denial matches our suspicion so it serves to reinforce that prior belief. As such, it's depositive, in that it directs us toward continuing our prior conclusion. Now, of course this is provisional, all truth is provisional; tomorrow we indeed might learn otherwise. That is how truth works.

So, to the degree that we know anything, it is fair to say we know it wasn't Bill Clinton, largely because we have no reason to believe it was, aside from, perhaps, how salacious and narratively satisfying that outcome would be. But, of course, such reasoning bears no relation to how the real world works and is, at best, a kind of confirmation bias. What we do know doesn't indicate it was Clinton, and until that changes, it makes sense to assume it wasn't.

 

[Louis XVI]

So, one of the bigger linguistic gaps in English has to do with the meaning of the word "truth". Is it something divine and unchanging as religion views it or is it, as the philosophy of science suggests, our best guess as to what is real, eternally provisional and to be replaced the moment better evidence is uncovered? If it's the former, then we never actually know enough to decide. If it's the later, them we go with the balance of the evidence we currently have and, if needed, revise as new evidence is uncovered.

I don’t think this dichotomous definition of “truth” works here, because there is an objectively true answer—either Trump blew Clinton or he did not. We just don’t have the evidence to establish the answer one way or the other. So yeah, we give our best estimate of the true answer, and revise that estimate as it comes in. But part of that is knowing that at this point, our estimate is based on a very limited knowledge of the relevant facts.

In this case, even without the denial, I find it much more likely that this "Bubba" is someone else, most likely someone who is relatively unknown. So, reasonably, we already expect that it isn't Clinton. And this denial matches our suspicion so it serves to reinforce that prior belief. As such, it's depositive, in that it directs us toward continuing our prior conclusion. Now, of course this is provisional, all truth is provisional; tomorrow we indeed might learn otherwise. That is how truth works.

You can take a man out of the law, but you can’t take the law out of the man, so I tend to use “dispositive” in the legal sense of being sufficient, in and of itself, to decide the case. In other words, as I understand the term “dispositive,” it’s much more certain than “it directs us toward continuing our prior conclusion.”

Now, you and I are perfectly free to weigh the existing evidence differently from each other. So it’s fine for you to conclude, “I find it much more likely that this ‘Bubba’ is someone else.” I don’t think the evidence is that clear, but either way, neither of us “knows” that it was or wasn’t Clinton, which was your initial assertion, and remains the only thing I’m really quibbling with here.

(Also, it would be good to be more clear with your use of “we,” and “our,” as it implies that you and I weigh the evidence in the same way.)

So, to the degree that we know anything, it is fair to say we know it wasn't Bill Clinton, largely because we have no reason to believe it was, aside from, perhaps, how salacious and narratively satisfying that outcome would be. But, of course, such reasoning bears no relation to how the real world works and is, at best, a kind of confirmation bias. What we do know doesn't indicate it was Clinton, and until that changes, it makes sense to assume it wasn't.

“To the degree that we know anything” is doing all the work here—I’m arguing that we don’t know enough to decide one way or the other, that there’s still a reasonable doubt. So I’m not going to assume anything, and I think it could plausibly be Clinton, and it certainly could be someone else (or nobody!)

 

[Lt_Storm]

“To the degree that we know anything” is doing all the work here—I’m arguing that we don’t know enough to decide one way or the other, that there’s still a reasonable doubt. So I’m not going to assume anything, and I think it could plausibly be Clinton, and it certainly could be someone else (or nobody!)

And I'm arguing that, in a world with thousands of Bubba's, 99% of whom neither of us have heard of, and where bubba is a somewhat common team of endearmemt, it's extrordinarily unlikely that this Bubba is randomly one of the famous ones. Perhaps slightly more likely than the proportions would suggest given Trump has long been famous himself, but that's still thousands to one against. I don't think it's worth speculating about such outcomes as "a reasonable doubt" when the properties are so strongly against it.

Edit: indeed I would argue that it's incredibly unreasonable as we have no reason to believe it.

 

[sporkman]

You do not, under any circumstances, have to give credit to MTG about anything. She is a member of the lunatic fringe and the only reason she's dumping Trump is because--being the pure opportunist that she is--she sees his numbers are underwater, so she sees an opportunity to get out and try to lure the rest of the lunatic fringe into supporting her as a not-Trump MAGA herald.

We'll see her declare candidacy for the presidency. Mark my words.

It reminds me of a line from citizen Kane, where Kane is warned that he won’t like genuine populism.

 

[DarthSlack]

You do not, under any circumstances, have to give credit to MTG about anything. She is a member of the lunatic fringe and the only reason she's dumping Trump is because--being the pure opportunist that she is--she sees his numbers are underwater, so she sees an opportunity to get out and try to lure the rest of the lunatic fringe into supporting her as a not-Trump MAGA herald.

We'll see her declare candidacy for the presidency. Mark my words.

Senator or Governor, not President. Greene doesn't work well outside of Georgia, but inside Georgia she's got a shot.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

But seeing as these people lie all the time, and Mark Epstein is fully aware of the fate that befell his brother, I don’t think we can take Mark’s new denial that it was Clinton as dispositive.

Yeah, he doesn't want to become the next Vince Foster!

You people are reading an insane amount into a throwaway joke. Seeing as Mark Epstein's next message in the exchange was a reference to the movie Get Hard, it's far more likely to me to be a prison rape joke.

It's this.

 

[dzid]

Yeah, he doesn't want to become the next Vince Foster!

Right. And it's not just Jeffrey Epstein, but the "model agency" guy in Paris who also just happened to expire in prison. So yes, I'd be watching my p's and q's if I were in his position.

 

[dzid]

Has the Ken Starr and Dershowitz emails with Epstein not been brought up here yet? That has real implications because Epstein was clearly trying to arrange a "business"<->government interface, which is an avenue of corruption, and it would be interesting to see if there are others. I want to see that thread yanked on more.

 

[Stern]

Right. And it's not just Jeffrey Epstein, but the "model agency" guy in Paris who also just happened to expire in prison. So yes, I'd be watching my p's and q's if I were in his position.

Brunel was 75, and looking at spending the rest of his life in prison convicted of child rape and sex trafficing. Him committing suicide is not very surprising, and it wasn't his first attempt.

 

[DarthSlack]

Has the Ken Starr and Dershowitz emails with Epstein not been brought up here yet? That has real implications because Epstein was clearly trying to arrange a "business"<->government interface, which is an avenue of corruption, and it would be interesting to see if there are others. I want to see that thread yanked on more.

Dershowitz keeps flapping his gums about how he's being prevented from releasing everything he knows about Epstein and Trump. How much of that is true and how much of that is just Dershowitz flapping his gums is anybody's guess. Because Dershowitz.

And if there are any emails from Starr's time in office, they're probably part of the DoJ record that Congress just ordered released.

 

[dio82]

Dershowitz keeps flapping his gums about how he's being prevented from releasing everything he knows about Epstein and Trump. How much of that is true and how much of that is just Dershowitz flapping his gums is anybody's guess. Because Dershowitz.

And if there are any emails from Starr's time in office, they're probably part of the DoJ record that Congress just ordered released.

Derschowitz got so filthy rich through facilititating "grey" legal services to Epstein and his ilk, that he can easily setup shop in e.g. Panama or the Virgin Islands and release everything and anything with impunity.

 

[concernUrsus]

I wonder how many Epstein are out there. He can't be the only one who offer "these services". Other than underage girls, Epstein also offered fair amount of grey area services. If he were just doing regular adults trafficking, he might even get away with it.

 

[Zich]

Shockingly, the news for this has died out

 

[dzid]

I wonder how many Epstein are out there. He can't be the only one who offer "these services". Other than underage girls, Epstein also offered fair amount of grey area services. If he were just doing regular adults trafficking, he might even get away with it.

Just ask our financial institutions where they keep the other piles of suspicious activity reports.

 

[thunderous_funker]

Just ask our financial institutions where they keep the other piles of suspicious activity reports.

Same place they keep the backlog of un-tested rape kits.

Apologies in advance if my cynicism gets the better of me on this topic. I fundamentally do not believe that our society has a genuine interest in protecting women. We prove it over and over again. It only became a national obsession when it became a partisan cudgel. Note that the counter-measures are now, predictably, blatantly partisan.

If the Epstein stain brings down powerful people and institutions, then some small good will come of it. I continue to maintain that none of this requires a conspiracy. Women and girls being the playthings of the rich and powerful is a feature, not a bug, of our poisonous cultural obsession with fame and wealth.

Girls Gone Wild was a business. Rapists continue to sell millions of albums. The Tate brothers have millions of followers and are clearly victims of over-zealous prosecution and need protection by friends in the administration.

Seriously. We could fill this thread of examples of on-going behavior that isn’t terribly dissimilar to Epstein.

But by all means, let’s hope this ritual of transparency actually punishes the wicked or awakens our society to some actual moral reckoning about how shockingly un-safe the world is for women and girls.

 

[dzid]

Same place they keep the backlog of un-tested rape kits.

Apologies in advance if my cynicism gets the better of me on this topic. I fundamentally do not believe that our society has a genuine interest in protecting women. We prove it over and over again. It only became a national obsession when it became a partisan cudgel. Note that the counter-measures are now, predictably, blatantly partisan.

If the Epstein stain brings down powerful people and institutions, then some small good will come of it. I continue to maintain that none of this requires a conspiracy. Women and girls being the playthings of the rich and powerful is a feature, not a bug, of our poisonous cultural obsession with fame and wealth.

Girls Gone Wild was a business. Rapists continue to sell millions of albums. The Tate brothers have millions of followers and are clearly victims of over-zealous prosecution and need protection by friends in the administration.

Seriously. We could fill this thread of examples of on-going behavior that isn’t terribly dissimilar to Epstein.

But by all means, let’s hope this ritual of transparency actually punishes the wicked or awakens our society to some actual moral reckoning about how shockingly un-safe the world is for women and girls.

I hear you. Part of it is that we must not tolerate this wealth inequality. If people generally were less vulnerable, the conditions that allow these predations wouldn't be so widespread.

The SARs in particular piss me the fuck off. The execs in these financial institutions are granted their power and high salaries by society, or at least that was the deal. In return they were supposed to use their power wisely and to benefit society. They fucked us over, and honestly, I can't see how we can allow those people to manage those institutions. This was not a small oopsie.

Sometimes I wish I was able to show others (men) what that kind of abuse does.

 

[thunderous_funker]

Everything about this episode raises questions that, ultimately, our society does not want to answer. Not really.

1. We are outraged at the arrogance and privilege to brazenly act in this way without fear of consequence, but we have no stomach to fundamentally challenge a system that grants such power and wealth.

2. We are outraged that our political class could be so easily corrupted, but all of our frameworks have not only failed to prevent this, but are engineered to encourage it. See #1

3. We are outraged that legal frameworks are so capriciously enforced, but this is true of crimes against women at every level of our criminal justice system and 1 and 2 just increase the personal stakes for anyone willing to pursue it.

4. We are outraged that at-risk girls were so horribly victimized, but our popular culture is rampant with the over-sexualization of girls, adulation of celebrity, and the transparent calculus that being hyper-sexualized is a path to success.

 

[dzid]

Everything about this episode raises questions that, ultimately, our society does not want to answer. Not really.

1. We are outraged at the arrogance and privilege to brazenly act in this way without fear of consequence, but we have no stomach to fundamentally challenge a system that grants such power and wealth.

2. We are outraged that our political class could be so easily corrupted, but all of our frameworks have not only failed to prevent this, but are engineered to encourage it. See #1

3. We are outraged that legal frameworks are so capriciously enforced, but this is true of crimes against women at every level of our criminal justice system and 1 and 2 just increase the personal stakes for anyone willing to pursue it.

4. We are outraged that at-risk girls were so horribly victimized, but our popular culture is rampant with the over-sexualization of girls, adulation of celebrity, and the transparent calculus that being hyper-sexualized is a path to success.

Part of this, I think, is that both men and women, young people in particular, no longer see paths to stability, both economic and in terms of employment. Young men in this situation are more easily duped by the Tates and Fuentes of the world. Young women are subjected to similar influences. They are rightfully pissed.

Every time something good is pursued, it gets derailed for the same reason, it seems: pitting us against some other group, and Americans just buy it every time and their reasoning flatlines. I don't know what to do about that except loud and persistent rejection.

Fighting actual corruption seems like a winner. Fuck, I don't know. I really don't.