Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

TragicMonkey said:
It's just a little too soon for joking about. Sixteen or eighteen years from now, depending on location, it'll be acceptable to laugh although still possibly creepy.
Click to expand...

"Hey Siri, remind me to nominate carlito for his hebrides joke on August 14, 2037." I hope that I speak enough Russian Chinese to still be able to post on this forum then.
 
In literally every conversation I've read about Epstein he is called a paedophile.

But paedophile refers to attraction tot prepubescent children if I'm not mistaken. I don't even know the correct term for attraction to teenagers before the age of consent. Is that paederast?

Incel now means sexless nerd on the verge of a mass shooting. It used to just be a guy who couldn't get laid. As far as I know, there now isn't a term to describe men who can't get a girlfriend AND don't want to unload an AK-47 in a mall. Although I suspect that this demographic is considerably larger.
 
The pedophile/sexual predator thing, while I could still quibble over the details a little, is at least legit in that we're talking an action versus as... predication I guess is the best term.

Now the whole pedophile/ephilophile thing is a little more nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky.
 
Eddie Dane said:
In literally every conversation I've read about Epstein he is called a paedophile.

But paedophile refers to attraction tot prepubescent children if I'm not mistaken. I don't even know the correct term for attraction to teenagers before the age of consent. Is that paederast?
Click to expand...

No, see carlitos's excellent line of posts just a tad up thread. Follow the jokes, they will lead you home.
 
carlitos said:
"Hey Siri, remind me to nominate carlito for his hebrides joke on August 14, 2037." I hope that I speak enough Russian Chinese to still be able to post on this forum then.
Click to expand...

I think that 'I'm sorry I Tweeted that ten years ago, I'm a different person now' is a lot easier to explain than 'I'm sorry, I don't even remember ordering an IA to make an edgy joke on social media twenty years ago. I'm a different person now'.
 
Pop culture media (especially police procedural dramas in this case) feature endless examples of characters with various conditions eventually culminating in a scene with low 2nd-rate acting where there's a shivering, tearful exposition about how they tried to be good, but the "urges" were too powerful and other such nonsense.

This sadly echoes the entire way we approach the nature of any sexual violence. Constantly reinforcing the idea that some preternatural urges come along causing you to "lose control" basically gives people the exact excuse they need to decide at a certain level of arousal all the rules go away. I don't doubt some people report that from their perspective, but its a farcical ego defense mechanism. It is a rationalization for dominating another person (sex is the instrument, not the real goal). The way these kinds of programs leave the rationalization hanging there without thorough rebuttal is just shameful.

Even journalistic media, who long since have let selling contentious drama override editorial diligence, happily present psychological profile data without any sense of responsibility for clarifying what connection that has.

Some of this thread drift could be considered pedantic, sure. There's also the issue that most sexual violence threads, its based around a few court rulings towards the end of the case and so the drip of updates is limited. It's not a moving narrative like some other threads where the discussion stays grounded in things that happened very recently. By contrast these discussions sprawl out into the ether. I think this particular thread will sit somewhere in the middle. If drips start coming about the investigation into how this happened, then there will be page-long digressions about the inner workings of the corrections system and "pedantic" discussions about what counts as "appropriate monitoring."

Neither kind of discussion is wrong.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
I've yet to see any convincing proof of this at all.

Some seem to just take it on faith. I'd really like to see the research/evidence that has people so convinced of this.
Click to expand...

It always strikes me as odd that so many people think they can separate sex from other drives. Why would sex be isolated, a thing apart from other motivations?
 
3point14 said:
I've yet to see any convincing proof of this at all.

Some seem to just take it on faith. I'd really like to see the research/evidence that has people so convinced of this.
Click to expand...

Right. Greed is about money. Stealing is about getting stuff or money. Murder is about killing. But somehow rape isn't about sex.
 
Agreed. Saying rape isn't about sex is like saying bank robbery isn't about greed.

True the base desire for all the crimes (maybe all crimes depending on how you want to look at it) is power (or similar concepts) but why some people's manifestation of a need for power comes out as rape and some as bank robbery is because with some people it's about sex and with some people it's about greed.

But "Sex crimes aren't about sex!" is just another one of those little side discussions that we have to have every time we have the broader discussions because... I don't know.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Agreed. Saying rape isn't about sex is like saying bank robbery isn't about greed.

True the base desire for all the crimes (maybe all crimes depending on how you want to look at it) is power (or similar concepts) but why some people's manifestation of a need for power comes out as rape and some as bank robbery is because with some people it's about sex and with some people it's about greed.

But "Sex crimes aren't about sex!" is just another one of those little side discussions that we have to have every time we have the broader discussions because... I don't know.
Click to expand...


Because reality is complex and we're trying to discuss extremely complex issues arising from a plane full of people using language (and brains) primarily designed for saying where the best fruit is* and where to run to when you think you might have seen a tiger.


(I think this is a Pratchett idea. It's certainly not mine.)
 
Then why don't we have to have the "Bank Robbery is about power, not greed!" talk every time we discuss a bank robbery?

"Reality is complex and the discussion therefore has to be nuanced and ultra-precise" when it's only whenever we feel like it... isn't really an argument.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Then why don't we have to have the "Bank Robbery is about power, not greed!" talk every time we discuss a bank robbery?

"Reality is complex and the discussion therefore has to be nuanced and ultra-precise" when it's only whenever we feel like it... isn't really an argument.
Click to expand...

It wasn't really supposed to be an argument. Just a theooy about why we do the same dance every single time. And, to be fair, not a great one.
 
In the back of my mind, I suspected that when I put that bit in that everything outside that parenthetical blurb would all fizzle away.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Agreed. Saying rape isn't about sex is like saying bank robbery isn't about greed.

True the base desire for all the crimes (maybe all crimes depending on how you want to look at it) is power (or similar concepts) but why some people's manifestation of a need for power comes out as rape and some as bank robbery is because with some people it's about sex and with some people it's about greed.

But "Sex crimes aren't about sex!" is just another one of those little side discussions that we have to have every time we have the broader discussions because... I don't know.
Click to expand...

Bank robbery is not about satisfying the need to have a sack full of pieces of paper with pretty designs on them. Getting their hands on a bunch of bills is the instrument, not the goal in and of itself.

I credit you with being able to square the analogy from there.
 
Belz... said:
Well, I generally don't address things I just agree with. It doesn't make very interesting discussions.

Now, how about you address the objections?
Click to expand...

Is the goal of the discussion to be interesting?

Which brings me back to everything that's wrong with journalistic media again...

(I keed, I keed! :9)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom