Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 653 posts

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#611

Post by sallycarmen »

commandlinefan wrote: post #518
EFreethought wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When he was alive a lot of people said Epstein was really smart. But I have read some of his emails, and all of the ones I have seen are full of spelling, punctuation, grammar and capitalization errors. I would not gotten out of sixth grade if I wrote like that.

> full of spelling, punctuation, grammar and capitalization errors I can spell correctly in a few different languages without having to think about it. I suspect you can, too. I can do a lot of math in my head that Jeffery Epstein probably couldn't have done with a calculator. I'm not a billionaire, though, and I never will be. The kind of smart - "street smart", it's sometimes called - that makes you that kind of ri…

I can’t stand people putting a man on a pedestal just because they are ‘rich’. Lots and lots of men pimp others to do the work, mafia style. You don’t need to be clever to do that, just nasty and in his case very dirty.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#612

Post by sallycarmen »

prawn wrote: post #251
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally a marketing funnel for corruption. Having Smart People™ at your "parties" adds a layer of legitimacy and social proof you wouldn't get if you were Bubba from Nowhere Town. Some people will be attracted by the menu, some people won't realise what's happening until they see the video they're starring in. Either way, you own them.

It's seemed to me that he was a habitual/obsessive networker. Someone up-thread described it as an urge to collect smart/impressive people, with the advantage being as you described. I suspect if you took away his horrible other interests, he'd still have been extremely sociable. Maybe aspects of blackmail/control are near-inevitable at the conjunction of criminal behaviour and power?

Sociable if you’re dumb like prince Andrew. Steven pinker the Harvard professor thought him an idiot. Said he was inane and a fraud who could only respond with stupid adolescent comments. Maybe somd like that sort of person and think they are fun. No doubt lots do, the guy down the pub who’s a laugh. Appeals to similarly dumb folk.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#613

Post by nozzlegear »

zozbot234 wrote: post #341
adolph wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> power attracts the corrupt > hence why limited terms are a prerequisite for functioning democracies. The practical effect of limited terms is a set of hapless electeds who depend on the kindness of lobbyists or other stakeholders to perform core duties, such as write effective legislation. In terms of the Gervais Principle [0], the sociopaths move from elected to lobby (which is a natural career progression alread…

> a set of hapless electeds who depend on the kindness of lobbyists or other stakeholders to perform core duties You have this already without term limits. An elected officeholder is given more than enough resources to be enabled to perform her duties, if she wants to. It's a matter of willingness, term limits aren't making things worse than they might otherwise be.

> term limits aren't making things worse than they might otherwise be.

I disagree. Term limits make politicians unaccountable to their constituents and thereby more open to bribes from lobbyists. If they know they can't seek reelection no matter what, they have no motivation not to accept a bribe or disregard everything they campaigned on. On the other hand, when politicians don't have term limits, they must at least worry about their next election campaign and whether the things they're doing right now will ruin their chances at being elected again.

Note: when I say accept a bribe I'm talking about being wined, dined and lobbied by lobbyists, not literally accepting bribes that would get them thrown in jail.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#614

Post by zozbot234 »

palata wrote: post #577
zozbot234 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In a functioning democracy, the government is the people. If the government is against the people, it's not a functioning democracy. The U.S. are a republic not a democracy. The people vote for the government but are not expected to be directly involved with it after the fact.

I think you're confused about the meaning of "democracy".

I think GP is confused about the meaning of republican government. In a democracy like ancient Athens the people are directly involved in governance, but that's not what we have in the U.S. and other advanced countries. We elect representatives.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#615

Post by dlubarov »

Schmerika wrote: post #589
dlubarov wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going through the first several - > his girlfriend was the daughter of a Mossad agent Some have speculated that he could have been; that doesn't make it true. Anyway, not everyone copies the career track of their ex-girlfriend's father. > one of his best friends was Israel's lawyer Dershowitz? He never even represented Israel. Even if he had, I'm not sure what it would have to do with Mossad. > another of his best fr…

Seems you spent a lot of time going through the example I used for conflating proof with evidence, and none referring to the evidence I referred to. Maybe try reading the comment again lol. Or, don't bother, because it's pretty clear that you're not very familiar with the facts here. Epstein: "As you probably know I represent the Rothschilds". Thousands of emails with Ariane discussing such. You: "This is just false"…

None of this resembles what we normally call "evidence" at all. It's like accusing someone of being a Mossad spy because they're holding an iPhone, which relies on a bunch of Israeli IP.

> "As you probably know I represent the Rothschilds".

What would this have to do with Mossad anyway? It's not surprising that a Jew had some Jewish acquaintances. You probably have Jewish acquaintances too, does that make you a Mossad spy?

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#616

Post by palata »

iso1631 wrote: post #605
palata wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, we're talking about a functioning democracy. If you take an example of a non-functioning democracy, it's not a good way to describe a functioning democracy.

So how do you stop a function democracy becoming a non functioning democracy Ultimately it comes down to who has the power. The more that power is concentrated the more fragile it becomes. It doesn't change overnight.

> So how do you stop a function democracy becoming a non functioning democracy

I wish I knew :-). A functioning democracy seems to be an unstable equilibrium.

But it remains that a functioning democracy is what we should aim for.

> Ultimately it comes down to who has the power.

Well it starts with the people giving them power. Trump did not seize the power in the US, for instance. He was elected. Twice.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#617

Post by mrkandel »

throwjefferey wrote: post #516
iwanttocomment wrote: post #395

I was hoping the comments would be full of similar stories, in which a demon makes a half-hearted effort to pull you into his clutches, only to be naively blown off, then not thought of again until his true nature was revealed. Our story of this sort comes from when my partner interviewed at Theranos (!) long before the collapse or any public recognition, related the super-creepy interview process, and I was like "so…

One observes that all the stories about the cloven hoof being found out and the devil shooed away always seem to have peasants or naive every-men as their protagonists, mayhaps the upstairs strata are just less bothered by a bone or two leaking from the closet, maybe it is just table stakes for them.

scott aaronson is a naive every-man?

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#618

Post by Schmerika »

dlubarov wrote: post #615
Schmerika wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems you spent a lot of time going through the example I used for conflating proof with evidence, and none referring to the evidence I referred to. Maybe try reading the comment again lol. Or, don't bother, because it's pretty clear that you're not very familiar with the facts here. Epstein: "As you probably know I represent the Rothschilds". Thousands of emails with Ariane discussing such. You: "This is just false"…

None of this resembles what we normally call "evidence" at all. It's like accusing someone of being a Mossad spy because they're holding an iPhone, which relies on a bunch of Israeli IP. > "As you probably know I represent the Rothschilds". What would this have to do with Mossad anyway? It's not surprising that a Jew had some Jewish acquaintances. You probably have Jewish acquaintances too, does that make you a Mossa…

> None of this resembles what we normally call "evidence" at all.

Who's 'we'? What's your definition of evidence?

> evidence /ĕv′ĭ-dəns/

> noun

> A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

> "The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis."

> Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.

> "saw no evidence of grief on the mourner's face."

> The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

...

I'd still like you to see you try and answer my questions:

> he [probably] worked for both the US and Israel. Why else would Kash Patel and others have so blatantly lied all this time?

> We know for a near-certain fact that there were compromising tapes on hundreds or thousands of powerful people. Where did they all go?

If you keep ignoring them, it will be hard to imagine that you're arguing in good faith.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#619

Post by ceejayoz »

carlosjobim wrote: post #606
ceejayoz wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> President Roosevelt rejected funding the war with taxes, and went instead with war bonds. War bonds covered about half the costs. Roosevelt was not shy about taxation, before or during the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1935 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Income_Tax_Act_of_1... "A 5% Vict…

He wasn't but in the decision between more taxes and war bonds, he chose bonds, against his advisors' wishes. And the population proved that they are willing to make massive contributions to important causes, without having to be forced at gun-point with taxation.

I’ve well illustrated that he picked both.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#620

Post by ifyoubuildit »

direwolf20 wrote: post #601
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it would feel bad, but would my feelings justify taking the steaks from them?

Yes, that situation is ridiculous and intervention is necessary. But don't paint it like it's just your feelings. The situation is objectively ridiculous.

What is it then if its not just my feelings? Can you give me some specific principle to go by? When is it OK for me to decide that someone else's possessions should be mine?
Post reply on HN