The large-scale disclosure of materials known as the “Epstein Files” has revealed “disturbing and credible evidence” of what independent human rights experts describe as a possible global criminal enterprise involving systematic sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation of women and girls.
I can’t remember where I found it, but there’s a paper or book somewhere that basically states that, in systems of oppression, exceptions to the law for a select elite are not only common, but fundamental to how systems of oppression work.
I mean, that’s how human beings work. The boss isn’t going to hold himself accountable to his own policies… how many bosses have you had that don’t make exceptions to the rule for themselves?
The good ones are the ones who make exceptions for other people, and the bad ones are the ones who only do it for themselves.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Oh yes, the famous bastions of conservatism surrounding Epstein, like Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, and Woody Allen!
As a leftist, I wish others would engage in critical, nuanced thinking instead of regurgitating the same calibre of tired, generic, thoughtless talking points we so often criticize the right for.
Yes, the right is a monolith all united under the single cause of repressing out groups. You’ve clearly nailed it.
Nuanced thinking doesn’t win popularity contests. At best, it only really exists in academia, and even then not that often.
Tired thoughtless ragebait talking points does. Nuanced thinking is the opposite of a ‘rallying cry’ that so many on the left, and the right, use to motivate their constituencies.
Yet those constituencies are consistently manipulated to act against their best interests by rallying cries and similar polarizing behavior, and pointing it out goes as well as it did here. Most days, I question if humans are intelligent enough to govern themselves. Evidence increasingly points to no.
Go for it, be the change you want to see. Say something critical and nuanced.
LOL that’s a lot of words with absolutely no meaning. It’s just posturing for the crowd, like a child.
Are you reacting to what you typed out, and then typed this instead? I can’t tell what you’re reacting to. My comment? It wasn’t a lot of words, and they have the same meaning they had when you used them. So I guess you were just posturing for the crowd?