It’s one thing to offhand call a woman, who’s an adult woman, a “girl” in an innocent sense. It’s another thing to say “girl” when we’re talking about a notorious pedophile that doesn’t award the benefit of the doubt my dude.
Yeah, it’s almost like context should be considered lol
Same people saying that “barely legal” means “a 15-yo girl”
And that’s wrong because the porn category of “barely legal” is 18 years old, NOT 15.
reactionaries forcing people to tediously argue every single aspect and predicate of an event is just OP
What makes you think anything underage was going on with DONALD TRUMP and JEFFERY EPSTIEN?
17 year old woman
Jumpscare of the day
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
remember three months ago when that Isn’traeli official was nabbed for child sex offenses in Las Vegas and fled the country?
Tracey did apologia for that too, calling it a “ridiculous government entrapment scheme”
darn I wrote about that thinking I was adding something new.
the word “girls” is commonly used to refer to young adult women
I wonder what context clues the sentence “jeffrey E. wrote:” might offer that could help us understand which definition of “girls” is being used here.
The Secret Struggles Of John Fetterman.
Do you think Brock Coltar listens to Coaltar Of The Deepers?
Also, he’s been arguing like a paedophile for a while now. He’s such an unlikable piece of shit. He’s almost Larouchite in the sense that he thinks he’s a leftist and yet specifically targets leftists with his arguments and ire while using exclusively right-wing arguments.
weirdo with a bad smell
tracey power
Edit: Someone else also said what I was gonna say
Sorry, but if you’re the king of pedos, you don’t get the benefit of the doubt .
Yes I’m sure this known child sex trafficker was referring to adult women when he said “girls”.
They really think everyone else is as dumb as they are
They really think everyone else is as dumb as they are
no, they dont
https://redsails.org/false-witnesses/
long quote from article but i highly reccomend reading the whole thing.
Maybe you’re also a bit reluctant to accept this. Maybe you’re thinking Hanlon’s/Heinlein’s Razor should apply — the axiom that reminds us to “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
I wish that applied here. As I said above, I spent a long time distributing that dossier on that assumption that I was, in fact, dealing with stupidity rather than malice. But the spreading of this rumor cannot be adequately explained by stupidity. Stupidity alone doesn’t make one hostile to irrefutable facts. Stupidity cannot account for their vicious anger when the rumor is debunked — anger at the person doing the debunking, and anger at the whole world for not turning out to be the nightmare they wanted it to be.
But in any case, no one is stupid enough to really believe such a story. The coworkers or relatives who fill your inbox with urban legends and hoaxes may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, but none of them is stupid enough to believe this. And neither are those people who claim that they do believe it.
Go back and unbracket all of the implausibilities and impossibilities of this story. It just makes no sense. Why would a member of a secret evil society of evil go on national TV to tell the world about it? And why would this proudly evil company now deny the very same thing? Why does the name of the TV host keep changing while the CEO himself is never named? And how come no one can seem to find anyone who actually saw this alleged broadcast? And…
And why are we even bothering to discuss the holes in this story? It’s nothing but holes. Any one of those holes should stop the hearer short, preventing them from passing this ridiculous story along and adding their approval to it.
If a person is smart enough to comprehend this story and then to repeat it, then that person is, by definition, not stupid enough to really believe it.
I used to believe that maybe some people were that stupid. They were acting that stupid, so I went along. I believed that the people I was sending that dossier to were merely innocent dupes.
But in truth they were neither innocent nor dupes. The category of innocent dupe does not apply here. No one could be honestly misled by such a story. The only way to have been misled by it is dishonestly — which is to say deliberately, willingly and willfully. They are claiming to believe a foolish thing, but they are not guilty of foolishness. They are guilty of malice.
They are just plain guilty.
TLDR they’re not stupid. they dont think other people are stupid, or at least that’s not their target audience. they’re spreading a malicious lie hoping other malicious people will spread it further
Insert quote about “Never believe the antisemites are unaware of the absurdity of their claims.” You can replace “antisemites” with conservatives/reactionaries/Americans/whatever and the quote will still be true. They know, for example, there’s no drug smuggling operation being conducted by the state of Venezuela. They know you know there’s no such thing.
They peddle the lie because it gives justification to steal shit and vilify immigrants to the US. It’s bully behavior of “Neener neener I’m not touching you so there’s nothing you can do about it!” It lets them act in a way beneficial to their material interests while demonstrating the power they have over others.
