| ▲ | gruez 14 hours ago |
| >The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. What does this even mean aside from a thinly veiled accusation that such efforts are being pushed by a shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites? I'm sure you can find some overlap between people who want to push age verification laws and people who went to the island, but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? |
|
| ▲ | catapart 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Like who? Name some names of people pushing for this, and we can dissect their motivation. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How about the first country to ban social media for kids, Australia[1]? So far as I can tell the PM/party leader was not in the files. Of course, if you make your inclusion criteria absurdly wide (eg. anyone who voted or advocated for age based restrictions in any shape or form), you'll probably find some pedophiles or even epstien island visitors from sheer luck alone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Socia... | | |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p... | | |
| ▲ | gruez 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | That doesn't change the conclusion, unless you're trying to imply the entire party is full of pedophiles. | | |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My point is that this has been consistent with their policy for the last couple of decades, and that the recent round of scandals have nothing to do with it. | |
| ▲ | scotty79 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | At this point the burden of proof is on the party. Benefit of the doubt has ran out. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Benefit of the doubt has ran out ...because they're pushing age verification legislation? Did I miss some massive Labor pedophile scandal? If not, this just feels like a tautology. Labor is only pushing age verification because they're pedophiles, and they're pedophiles because they're pushing age verification. Moreover even if we ignore that, what does that mean for the rest of their platform items? If Labor is pro net-zero, is it fair to characterize the situation as "the people pushing for net-zero are pedophiles"? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | These laws were passed almost exclusively by the party of self-proclaimed free speech warriors led by Epstein's best friend. State | Effective Date | Legislature Control
------------------+----------------+----------------------
Alabama | Oct 1, 2024 | Republican
Arizona | Sep 26, 2025 | Republican
Arkansas | Jul 31, 2023 | Republican
California | Jan 1, 2027 | Democratic
Florida | Jan 1, 2025 | Republican
Georgia | Jul 1, 2025 | Republican
Idaho | Jul 1, 2024 | Republican
Indiana | Aug 16, 2024 | Republican
Kansas | Jul 1, 2024 | Republican
Kentucky | Jul 15, 2024 | Republican
Louisiana | Jan 1, 2023 | Republican
Mississippi | Jul 1, 2023 | Republican
Missouri | Nov 30, 2025 | Republican
Montana | Jan 1, 2024 | Republican
Nebraska | Jul 18, 2024 | Nonpartisan (unicameral)
North Carolina | Jan 1, 2024 | Republican
North Dakota | Aug 1, 2025 | Republican
Ohio | Sep 30, 2025 | Republican
Oklahoma | Nov 1, 2024 | Republican
South Carolina | Jan 1, 2025 | Republican
South Dakota | Jul 1, 2025 | Republican
Tennessee | Jan 13, 2025 | Republican
Texas | Sep 19, 2023 | Republican
Utah | May 3, 2023 | Republican
Virginia | Jul 1, 2023 | Divided
Wyoming | Jul 1, 2025 | Republican
| | |
| ▲ | tredre3 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's curious that you've omitted California (Democrats) and Colorado (Democrats) from your list. | | | |
| ▲ | gruez 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This table seems suspect. I spot checked Texas, and while the party affiliation is correct, the dates are not. You put Sept 19, 2023 as the date for Texas, but Wikipedia[1] says it "Enacted September 1, 2024" and "Enacted June 13, 2023". Looking at the other dates, I'm not sure how you got Sept 19, 2023, even through a typo. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOPE_Act | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you cherry-pick harder? Geez... | | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | 25 states isn't cherry-picking :) geeeeeeeeeeez! | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think/hope they were being sarcastic. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, it's bipartisan and even fucking international. I think there is a very obvious conspiracy to get this done, but maybe it's a big coincidence that governments and politicians everywhere suck now. |
| |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was talking about the party. This shit is and always has been pushed from both parties. Even democrat states like California and Colorado are on board. See also, the OS age verification legislation. | | |
| ▲ | cvhc 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | TBH California one doesn't require age verification (while many other states do). It only requires the OS to provide a mechanism for the user to indicate their age group and apps should use the information (instead of asking for PII themselves). It's a fake one, but somehow drew most attention. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | If that is true about the California case, it is basically a fluke. Lobbyists don't have total control of the legislation after all. It sounds almost benign when posed that way, but it is the wrong solution either way. The better solution is to tell people to install filtering software to block content that they don't want. Then you don't have to worry about compliance of individual sites, personal information, or any of it. This filtering strategy also makes sense for privacy and handling the subjective nature of what is age-appropriate or offensive. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wa7dj229de6 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Zuckerberg? https://mashable.com/article/tech-ceos-epstein-files-musk-ga... |
|
|
| ▲ | maweaver 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It means that especially those who went to the island but also most of the others don't care about protecting children. They merely see a way to consolidate power and are jumping on it. |
|
| ▲ | girvo 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites Its a shame that this used to just be a conspiracy theory one could mostly ignore, but we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts. Without wanting to get into politics, the leader of the United States right now was friends with the supposed ring-leader... > but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Useful idiots, perhaps? Wanting to protect their own power and gain more? It's certainly not actually about protecting children. Never has been. |
| |
| ▲ | Tarq0n 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't like the "those in power" framing because it implies that they all participated and that such a homogenous group even exists. | | |
| ▲ | foltik 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In the USA it literally is two homogenous groups though? One of which is majorly complicit in covering up the files, against their constituents’ wishes. | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I wouldn't even call them two groups. It's just one group ostensibly and publicly split in half, but it's still one group that intermingles behind the courtains. | |
| ▲ | DaSHacka 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would say both parties are complicit at this point. Keep in mind Epstein died in 2017. We had two GOP terms and one Democrat term from then to now. With what we know from the files that have been released thus far (and how obviously the worst if it has either been shredded or will never see the light of day), the fact they refused to release/prosecute those implicated tells you all you need to know. |
| |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, and many people have an extreme incentive to retreat to that framing because * In 2024, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2020, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2016, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. There was plenty of evidence of this association in 2016 (bragging about creeping into Ms Teen USA dressing rooms, bragging about being Epstein's best friend in the same sentence as acknowledging he's a pedo, victim testimony under oath that he diddled kids, etc etc), so "I didn't know" isn't an excuse if they cared one iota about the children at any step of the way. It should be good news that the powerful pedophiles are largely (but not exclusively) concentrated in one party, but those who put them in power will do anything to avoid admitting culpability. | | |
| ▲ | anonym29 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Couple small corrections: Hillary has not been implicated by the Epstein files. Not today and not by evidence available in 2016. Biden has not been implicated by the Epstein files. Not today and not by evidence available in 2020. Bonus: not only was Trump implicated in the Epstein files both today and by evidence available in 2016, he was also in charge of every federal prison and every US spook agency in 2019 when Epstein died under mysterious circumstances. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Bonus: not only was Trump implicated in the Epstein files both today and by evidence available in 2016, he was also in charge of every federal prison and every US spook agency in 2019 when Epstein died under mysterious circumstances. Who was in charge when Epstein got the sweetheart deal on his first conviction? | |
| ▲ | anonym29 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I never accused Hillary or Biden of being implicated in the Epstein files. Those aren't corrections, those are non-sequitirs. Bonus: at no point did I refute Trump being a pedophile or being in the Epstein files. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pipes 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I might be misreading you, but are you saying that the whole Qanon thing isn't a baseless conspiracy theory? | | |
| ▲ | girvo 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Qanon is absolutely a baseless conspiracy theory. The overall idea that far too many of those in power politically and economically are involved in CSA isn't though, it seems. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The threshold for "far too many" is like, a single digit number. It's an extremely weak claim. Even if those in power were half as likely to be involved as the average adult, that would still be far too many. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gruez 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts What's "rampant"? The news coverage provides no shortage of people, but ringing off 100 (or whatever) people that are in the files doesn't say much, even if we make the questionable assumption that inclusion in files implies guilt. I'm sure that everyone would prefer the amount of pedophiles that are in power to 0, but if it's the same rate as the general population that can hardly be considered "rampant", or a "conspiracy". Given some neutral inclusion criteria (eg. members of legislative bodies), is there any evidence they have disproportionate amount of pedophiles? >the leader of the United States right now was friends with the supposed ring-leader... You conveniently omit the fact that they broke up 5 years before he was first convicted. From wikipedia: "Trump had a falling out with Epstein around 2004 and ceased contact. After Epstein was said to have sexually harassed a teenage daughter of another Mar-a-Lago member in 2007, Trump banned him from the club. " >Useful idiots, perhaps? So basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness? > Wanting to protect their own power and gain more? How does adding age verification help in that? Are they blackmailed by the shadowy cabal? Are they just doing what the voters/lobbyists want? If so, what makes invocation of this reasoning more suitable than for any other political issue? Is everything from tax policy to noise ordinances just something pushed by pedophile elites, helped by useful idiots and people who want to "protect their own power and gain more"? | | |
| ▲ | gosub100 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The resistance to the release of the files including redactions and outright refusal of Congressional order is enough to reveal the magnitude of what's going on. I would even dare say this Iran war is in part due to blackmail gained on DJT. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | >The resistance to the release of the files including redactions and outright refusal of Congressional order is enough to reveal the magnitude of what's going on. I agree this makes him look suspect, but it's hardly conclusive. Moreover Democrats did a similar U-turn a few years before. The only difference is that they weren't bombastically pushing the conspiracy theory during the election campaign, which made it easier for them to backtrack later. >When Maxwell was charged in 2020, Democrats continued to push for transparency. [...] After Biden took office in 2021, Democrats appeared to dial back their public calls for Epstein records’ release. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/6/fact-check-did-democ... | | |
| ▲ | gosub100 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I dont disagree with anything you have written in the above reply. But why does democrats' reversal somehow annul or invalidate the claim about trump? Do you honestly believe it could all be an overly-embellished fable? If you do, then do you think the hundreds, some-say-thousands, of women who claim they were raped are lying? Another explanation could be the democrats' AIPAC handlers told them to back off because it wasn't the precise time to leverage the material yet. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | >But why does democrats' reversal somehow annul or invalidate the claim about trump? Do you honestly believe it could all be an overly-embellished fable? If you do, then do you think the hundreds, some-say-thousands, of women who claim they were raped are lying? What claim about Trump? That's he's a pedophile? Based on the rest of your comment it seems like the goalposts are subtly getting moved from "Trump raped kids" to "Trump committed sexual crimes". |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | foltik 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You sure are giving them quite the benefit of the doubt. Why? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/see-the-alleged-tr... | | |
| ▲ | gruez 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | >https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/see-the-alleged-tr... 1. "alleged" 2. I'm not sure what you're trying to refute. I specifically quoted a passage saying that they broke up in 2004, which implies they were together prior to that. 3. For the specific claim that Trump's a pedophile, a "drawing of a curvaceous woman" is hardly proof. At best it's a proof that he's a womanizer, but we hardly need proof of that given the "grab her by the pussy" quote. | | |
| ▲ | foltik 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | gruez 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sounds like you don't have any arguments, if you have to resort to thinly veiled personal attacks. | | |
| ▲ | foltik 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sounds like you don’t have any arguments, besides “I don’t believe the evidence.” Or maybe “the evidence isn’t THAT bad.” Or maybe “but someone else is bad too!” |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | theshackleford 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You conveniently omit the fact that they broke up 5 years before he was first convicted. And? It doesn’t change the reality of the original statement. The president of the United States was friends with the alleged ring leader of a large pedophile network. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >The president of the United States was friends with the alleged ring leader of a large pedophile network. You're making some leaps logic here here. If someone's outed as a pedophile, everyone who's friends with him should be assumed to be a pedophile? Surely not, given that pedophilia is considered taboo, we'd expect them to hide it, and therefore at least some friends might not be in the know. That's not to say there's no conspirators, but "he was friends with a pedophile therefore he's a pedophile too" is just guilt by association. What you need to prove is that he knew, or ought to have known that his friend was a pedophile. A conviction works decently for this, because it's presumably public knowledge, although even that's questionable because most people don't do a background check on people they met. In the case of Epstien he also hired reputation management firms to suppress his conviction from showing up in the results, which weakens the case even more. | | |
| ▲ | theshackleford 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You're making some leaps logic here here. No, you’re just shifting the goalposts. The original claim was “The president of the United States was friends with the supposed leader of a pedophile ring.” Your response to that was to imply that over time, they had a falling out. To which my point was, so what? It doesn’t materially change the original claim you challenged. A falling out in NO way changes that the original statement was correct, the current president of the United States, Donald J Trump, was good friends with the alleged leader of a large scale pedophile network. > If someone's outed as a pedophile, everyone who's friends with him should be assumed to be a pedophile? If a given friend had their own history of acting like a creepy sex pest when it comes to young women, had a known and close relationship with the alleged leader of a pedophile network AND knew about “the girls”, would I assume them also to be a pedophile? At a minimum, I may in fact conclude that the odds they are also a pedophile are significantly higher than that of the average individual. Birds of a feather and all… It’s not to say they are of course and it may in fact be as simple as they are nothing more than a creepy sex pest with a bad taste in friends, but NOT a pedophile. I gotta be honest but, me personally, I’d rather be neither. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | >To which my point was, so what? It doesn’t materially change the original claim you challenged. [...] It changes the claim in the same way that "he ran over a kid" isn't "materially changed" by the addition of the detail that the kid jumped in front of the car and he had no time to stop. The original statement is still technically true, but it's a massive omission to leave the latter part out. That's doubly true if you're invoking that fact in the context of trying to imply the person did other crimes. |
|
| |
| ▲ | GeorgeWBasic 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And more importantly, resisted releasing the files as hard as he could. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | afh1 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Those are just stupid. |
|
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| you mean the guys who are working alongside a bunch of pedophiles and doing little about it? |
|
| ▲ | aga98mtl 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? Notice that epstein said he worked for [withheld] in some of his emails. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? The anti-social media sentiment has been brewing for a while now, not least due to books like The Anxious Generation (2024). It's also reflected in opinion polls and media coverage. Unless you want to imply there's some massive conspiracy by The Elites™ (ie. not just a few lobbyists Meta hired, but those in academia and media as well), it's probably organic. |
|
|
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don't know the precise combination of stupidity vs evil that compelled the "think of the children" crowd to choose the single most publicly implicated man in the Epstein scandal as their champion and elect him over someone who wasn't and hasn't been implicated at all in the slightest, but they did. Either way, they receive the culpability for doing so and we should expect their future decision making to be equally compromised. |
