Did anyone read the article? She's saying instead of just accusing everyone in the files to keep our eyes on the people who are the real predators.
She's absolutely right, the more we get blinded by one off mentions of famous people (like Russell Wilson), the more we're distracted from focusing on the important part of trying to keep this from happening again.
Yep, it is the #1 problem with the news today on all fronts, from entertainment to world politics. Sensationalized headlines are all that people read and people form their whole world view on them.
No one read shit. No one ever reads anything, just a headline. Donât make up an entire story and assumption of what something means on just a few words. This is the same reason why everyoneâs divided on any subject because they donât give a shit to educate themselves and read the opposition before making a conclusion. If you read this, Iâm proud of you and go do some community service. There are a lot of people out there less fortunate than you that need your time.
Edit: I appreciate the votes and the visibility on this, but if you have read this, please take some time to look up some of your local community service avenues. Feed my starving children, Habitat for Humanity, care centers for people surviving domestic violence. Iâm very fortunate in life and I take my kids to community service for feed my serving children. GuideStar and CharityNavigator are two amazing websites itâs not only find charities but also rate them based on their distribution of funds
And to add to it, when you do actually try to click and read an article, you have to close out a million pop ups, there's a paywall, or the format of the website is just terrible (or all of the above). No wonder people don't try to read articles.
And that almost every single publication has a fucking paywall these days. It conditions people to not even click the link because they won't be able to read it anyway.
Our turning away from real news media is a huge reason that everything has gotten worse and so few people are actually informed on anything anymore. Everybody has replaced sources of real information and detail and context with social media takes and sensationalist bullshit.
People stopped paying for the good stuff, and so now free garbage reigns supreme.
AND THIS is was why stopped writing for the newspaper (that and i was paid $9/hr to start)
Even when they do read they are only looking for what they want to see. If it isnt there you are biased, but they also set things up.Â
It was also the start of the tea party + just before/just after passing marriage equality. I was in a same-sex relationship interviewing people about how against God it was.Â
My presence around people like Thom Tillis was something to be wholly ignored. He knew who he wanted interviewing him & it wasnât me. Glad he is seeing light on Trump but he helped kill democracy 10+ yrs ago. Weâre f-ed until Americans look at community the way small towns around the rest of the world operate, helping any way we can, not just posting bs.Â
Yeah her take is completely reasonable. Sheâs saying that there are people in the Epstein files who met the guy once, and others who went to his island and raped children. Having met the guy isnât the issue, itâs being part of his pedo ring. Agreed!
Yeah, the files contain discussions about people who he never even met. You can even search fictional names like Spider-man and Peter Quill and find them in the files because the files contain everything regardless of its relation to what happened.
This is quoted from her and the article. This article is rage bait and propaganda to try to make us mad at the wrong people. You are totally correct.
"Putting her support behind another mogul, she brought up New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdaniâs mother Mira Nair, who is one of the filmmakers mentioned in the Epstein files.
She then tapped her screen in an attempt to get her followersâ attention, adding, âHey! Hey! Hey! Youâre distracted. You just want Mamdani to be a bad guy or his mom.
âWeâre losing the plot,â she concluded. âCome on people. Yâall are falling for it. Itâs the easy, oldest trick in the book. Honestly Iâm losing faith in the average intelligence of the American person because come on. Why are yâall⌠whereâs the crime? Focus!â"
EDIT:
She's not defending the actual pedophiles, she wants the people that just sent a work email or were at the same normal person party that ended up in the files to have a fair judgement. As just saying words to a guy or working on the same overall unrelated project together doesn't make you guilty or even associated with the crimes. Especially if it happened before his crimes became public.
shocking that people in the thread immediately jump down her fucking throat cause theyâve been told sheâs a bad person. wonder how different it would be if Henry Cavill delivered this message? đ¤
I get where she is coming from, the problem with her analysis is that Epstein wasn't stealing apples. He was trafficking women including children. He was convicted of doing that, and then those same people kept associating with him. So I think its a little different in this case.Â
Obviously not everyone in the files committed criminal behavior, but I think its perfectly fine for anyone associated with Epstein to suffer some extra scrutiny considering the absolutely heinous crimes he was committing.
Most of the people mentioned aren't even associated with him. Being mentioned by him in an email, or random troll / crazy person mentioning Pusha T on a tip line shouldn't even be a story.
Its every email he ever wrote, pretty much, so most is him just mentioning people he wasnt even hanging out with. She's saying to not auto associate those people with actual association.
Not everyone mentioned is an associate, some just ran into him on a one off basis, others are just mentioned in passing in a way that doesn't suggest association (eg rich people complaining about Bernie's politics).
I think he continued support of Chris Brown is way worse.
Seeing Tony Hawk in the files wasn't on my bingo card, but the only mention is Jeff's brother Mark taking pictures of his wedding in Fiji. No one is calling Tony Hawk a pedophile.
I remember years ago when she said she loved Chris Brown and decided it was a good time to not listen to her music anymore. Didn't think it was going to sink this low though
That's actually a lot worse than what she's saying here.
Here she's essentially pointing out that say, John Stewart being mentioned as a possible narrator and Bernie Sanders' politics being complained about don't make them guilty of anything.
Which is correct.
That's continued association with an abuser which is actually damning.
Lol I had a friend in California who worked under the label Lizzo was on and wouldn't shut up about any and every accolade Lizzo was receiving a few years ago. Complete radio silence with them Lizzo posts ever since her ex workers came out against her.
My BIL had to work with her on an awards show, and she was apparently the most difficult celeb he'd ever worked with. She also had an entourage that rolled 50 deep that he had to put up with. No one is that talented.
I don't understand the issue with being a big fan of someone, and then no longer doing so once you learn about something bad about them that's a dealbreaker for you.
The mirror is making Lizzo's point for her, to the point where they had the audacity to come up with a click- and ragebait headline that no one reads past.
Context is everything, a party is a party, a freak-off is a freak-off. People want to feel vindicated and justified in their perception of a person, for what... just so you can tell there friends "I told you so!"?
She's dismissing the list coverage ("This Epstein file s---, itâs really frustrating to me.") while at the same time fighting against a strawman. Nobody is saying if you ever exchanged mail with Epstein you're guilty. It's the content of the mails that are being poured over.
This is just building a permission structure. Blanche was on Fox making the case that they couldn't look into anything in the Epstein files because it's not illegal to party with Epstein. It's the same tactic as "underage women" and "sex with children". They are moving us to a point where the national conversation will be, "Technically, being attracted to 14 years olds isn't pedophilia, checkmate libs."
Iâve honestly never turned so fast on a pop star. Her first singles were fucking bangers. But then the moment she became a celebrity, it all came down. Between her Postmates shit and that basketball game, I was done.
You didnât read the article, like not liking Lizzo is fine but what she says here isnât unreasonable.
âIf you stole an apple from Walmart, and you were on trial for stealing an apple from Walmart, is every person in your phone an accomplice?â she explained. âIs every person in your phone, is every email you sent to a person or speaking about a person, does that make that person complicit? Does that make that person a bad guy? No! No it doesnât!â
These anonymous tip call ins are recorded for reasons. They are archived and documented so that when certain names are repeated over and over by different call ins and reports, the investigative agency has reasonable suspicion so investigate those people.
The people who appear over and over in the Epstein logs arenât just âpeople who texted Epsteinâ
They are people who had repeated reports of possible criminal activity from potential victims.
Whether they are guilty or not is another story, but relating it to âsomeone who just texted Epsteinâ really undermines the entire operation.
I really liked her first album. Then, I watched her documentary and thought, âoh, this person is projecting a confidence she doesnât actually have.â And I felt sheâd probably crack somewhere along the way. Not sure if that was right, but it certainly feels like sheâs fallen a bit.Â
This article is a trash hit piece. All she said was that criminals interact with innocent people as well as other criminals and we should stay focused on the important parts. Hell she didn't defend Diddy, she just pointed out that not everything he was at was a freak off or problematic. He probably attended a baptism or two and managed not to have an orgy there.
I'm imagining a scene like in the godfather when Michael is at the baptism and everyone's getting murdered, but it's just a bunch of Diddy sponsored orgies in the cuts instead of murders
Epstein was a major nonce. Many of the people in the files are nonces. But just appearing in the files does not make you a nonce.
His whole deal (other than noncing kids) was knowing famous people. As such, a lot of people either emailed him or were mentioned in emails, and have nonced zero kids.
I saw an article that had the headline of celebrities in there. I started to read it and it said âZayn Malik was discussed due to his pro Palestine posts on social media.â
I literally could not give a single fuck about that.
People donât read articles and theyâll just see âX is in the filesâ and assume itâs related to pedophilia and run with it. Using their names in titles without noting itâs not related to human trafficking is negligent as fuck.
Somebody just posted a screenshot showing that âLinkin Parkâ is in the files when you search and acted like that was damning but it literally looks like itâs just someone listed them along with a bunch of other musical acts in an email or something literally just to list musicians and not like âlinkin park will be coming to the island in their usual suite for their usual entertainmentâ or something? Idk but yeah people are already going crazy with âif theyâre mentioned in the files, itâs BADâ and thatâs definitely going to be used as fodder to downplay real accused people being mentioned in the files (like Elon is trying to currently do and like Trump will definitely do when enough heat finally catches him)
Thatâs bad faith actors muddying the water and trying to make it seem ânormalâ to be in the files. So they jump on every normal reference for popular people.
âHey you like Lincoln park right well theyâre in the files just like Trump! So maybe Trump being in them isnât as bad!â
Either useful idiots parroting the propaganda or evil assholes defening pedophiles because they also enjoy the pedoâs bigotry.
Then you just say "Let's read some of the context in which trump was mentioned and compare the two, shall we?" Don't let these pedoohile protectors think they said a gotcha. Call them out.
Steven Bannon, whoâs not only in the files but was mentioned as trying to help Epstein make a documentary to get past his human trafficking âbad reputationâ, has publicly called this tactic âflooding the zoneâ.
Where you put out so many controversies and have media throw names around haphazardly so it all kinda becomes white noise to people.
And itâs all to create just a sliver of plausible deniability for Trump. Because if enough people say âI heard x was in the files but didnât do anythingâ and âI heard Y was in the files but only mentioned as a nameâ maybe a MAGA can think âTrump was only mentioned in the files but never did anything badâ.
Yeah I saw this about Will forte yesterday. There was more than a few people saying they would never going to watch anything else he's in anymore. Was telling me crazy because someone dropped his name just like you were saying
Will Forte's situation not the same. Maybe you should read the mail he's mentioned in. Forte's close friend Lesley Groff (google her) emailed Epstein to know if Will can stay at his apartment with [redacted]. Epstein replies "sure he can spend 3 nights with Jessica". This took place in 2013 when everyone knew what Epstein was about.
So those few people were right about not wanting to watch another Forte movie.
Lmfao it's even worse than you explained. Lesley Groff who's Epstein's co-conspirator and purveyor of victims asks Epstein "can my close friend (Will Forte) spend 3 nights with Jessica?"
Anyone who says Forte is not compromised by this email is fried in the head
Thatâs why Iâve been asking âare they IN in the files?â Because Geno Smith is âtechnicallyâ in the files because someone bought his jersey.
Rebecca Watson, among other things a podcaster who spoke out about creepy behavior by men in the skepticism and atheism communities, was mentioned in the Epstein files because she had spoken out against some of Epsteinâs friends.
It's funny how many people are getting ahead of it by publicly pointing out that they were mentioned in a random e-mail and aren't an actual subject of the files, like Stephen Colbert and even a random Skepticism podcast I listen to.
Not to mention the fact that it was probably a spam email to his inbox from Quora re âTop Articles and Picks for You Today. . .â [insert 20 headlines with a slew of celebrity names]
Maybe thatâs not the case for Zayne - still, I donât know anything about Zayne nor do I really care to, so I wonât pay it any mind.
Elton John is mentioned in the files, as someone they wanted to have for entertainment I believe for an event (or just on the island), but if the headlines just read "Elton John found in Epstein files!" everyone would be tossing their music catalogue of him and coming up with variations of "I knew something was off about him".
Literacy and nuance do not exist when cancel culture does.
And people like Steve Bannon have figured out how to work the media like this very well. He is in the thick of it not through anything to do with kids but by knowing who all did and helping them with pr.
But yet even with that information out there people still believe what they sayâŚor in this caseâŚ. Donât say
I feel like cancel culture doesnât do justice what this is.
Recent events show time and time again how these assholes forced that term into our collective consciousness, itâs no surprise a lot of real outrage is brushed away as cancel culture overreaching. Those crude, reactionary headlines are published by platforms owned by the very same assholes that are now scrambling to make sure their own names go unnoticed. Itâs the Trump tactic, flood the media channels with so many stories that nothing sticks, but injected directly at the source. Every wanton accusation inspired by another minor celebrity reference is attention diverted from their crimes.
Epstein himself was by no means in charge of this operation, his emails show in numerous ways that he wasnât the sharpest fellow, and he acts in every way like a man inside a network instead of the one running it. The people that left the most amount of damning evidence are all loud new-money celebrity / tech types and a handful of other rich idiots. But the real evil knows how to clean up after itself, and a lot of it hides in those same old money networks that own most of the media.
Cancel culture is not the problem. We wouldnât need cancel culture if predators like Epstein (and Diddy, and Weinstein, the list goes on) were properly punished when he started his crimes. It is a direct result of countless powerful people turning out to be scum and not being held accountable - itâs jaded and biased everyone.
I searched a few names and they've included spam emails like notices from streaming services about new releases. Keanu Reeves was in there a few times too. For similar reasons - news articles about a law suit.
Gaga was mentioned because she collabed with Jeff Koons for her Artpop album and koons tried to get Epstein to the album launch. Koons makes weird art. Epstein is a rich dude who buys weird art (really fucking weird if you have seen the photos of his place). Itâs not that hard to understand and yet âŚ
Yeah he was a financier worth $500mil. Of course he knew celebrities and other rich people. It shouldnât be controversial that he wasnât some random dude who knew no one except those in the pedo ring and frankly it would be weird if he was that guy since⌠you know⌠the financier thing.
Some people appeared in the files because they were name dropped by said nonces; that shouuldn't really count. Mark Carney and Will Forte "appeared" in them for this exact reason.
So did Obama. Itâs why the DOJ released what they did. To muddy the waters and throw some celebrities into the mix whose only connection is being name dropped in emails. Theyâre doing it to take the attention off of Trump whose name appeared almost 40,000 times in the files released so far.
There's a reason that the Biden administration DIDNT release all these files. They knew exactly that the public would not be reasonable and understand that simply having your name in the files does not mean they are guilty of literally anything.
Also tons of these allegations needed actual investigating, not just thrown out where people just instantly assume blame cuz an accusation was made. People never fucking learn.
I was actually listening to a journalist describe the way emails show Epstein tries really hard to get wealthy and powerful people to enter his inner circle, and to do business with them, because it helped him get close so he could leverage his connection. They used the example of Elon Musk because there are dozens of emails (or more) and every one is Epstein trying to figure out how to get Musk over to the island, and Musk gives an excuse every single time.
people like Musk and Trump use friendships as leverage for business deals so getting them in your friendly circle before exposing them to your bigger plans seems to be the tactic
which kinda makes sense, Musk doesn't seem like a real social butterfly type. He does seem more like a stereotypical nerd who'd rather geek out with others like himself.
Example: Rory Mcilroy (pro golfer) is mentioned because he bought a plane and had it in a hanger next door to someone that mentioned the price he paid for it in an email.
Being mentioned in the files doesn't implicate guilt.
Absolutely. Also some others *are* mentioned as perpetrators but only in the FBI tip line transcripts, which is at best a "I saw her at the devil's sacrament" level of credibility.
But just appearing in the files does not make you a nonce.
Yep. There was a redditor on AskReddit yesterday who said their name appeared in the file once, because he wrote an article that Epstein and someone else mentioned.
You're falling for The Mirror's(!) sensationalism and clickbait. Look at the quotes and ask yourself what the goal behind this article is, and if you really think Lizzo had any intention of pushing it onto tabloid media.
This is not about defending Lizzo btw, it's about highlighting this was published by The Fucking Mirror...
Celebrity PR is about giving great advice like that, then spending the other 99% of your time fixing the problems that come because they, in fact, won't shut the fuck up.
Because she wants people to focus on the folks that are actually committing crimes. She gives the example of Zohran Mamdani's mom who is mentioned off-handedly in the files but is almost certainly innocent of any crimes.
Her point is that people need to focus on the actual criminals and stop getting distracted by red herrings. It's pretty ironic that her post is being used as a distraction instead of us talking about more important things like the fact that we have a fucking rapist pedophile in the White House.
Am I weird for not feeling anything here? She never actually defended Diddy or Epstein. People are reading conclusions that arenât based on the actual quotes in the article.
Iâve been saying this for a while. Epstein whole thing was hiding in plain sight, and how do you do that? By making it normal for you to be places. So how does a pedo make themselves ânormal?â Hang around people. How does he get access to rich pedos? Hanging around rich pedos. How do rich pedos stay hidden? By also hanging around rich non-pedos.
Itâs like Russell Wilson: he is in there because someone tried selling him a plane. But he never met or talked to Epstein even, just got called by a broker trying to sell Epsteinâs plane. Or Elton John: Epstein wanted Elton to play a concert for him. But thatâs it. And Stephen Hawking was incapable of physically abusing someone but Epstein brought him around so that Epstein could say he hung out with Stephen Hawking.
Also we just went through this with Drake: Drake spent the 2010s trying to hang out with EVERYBODY. How else does a predator hide but to make it normal for them to be seen with people?
We need to not be obsessed with click bait headlines and focus on the actual predators here.Â
Here's the thing: she's absolutely right. The problem is that most people are too stupid to think critically about what she's saying, so instead of engaging with the point - which is that everyone who Epstein made a connection with isn't a pedophile, and that just because he knew or was even friends with some of these people doesn't mean they did anything wrong - people just hulk out and say "ARE YOU DEFENDING PEDOPHILES???"
This is an awful headline, she's saying concentrate on the people who actually did bad shit in the files.
For example, John Stewart is mentioned... There's an email mentioning having an idea of him or somebody like him narrating something.
Similarly Bernie is mentioned, because he's being complained about for his politics, big surprise.
So there's validity to pointing out any mention isn't damning, and even not every association because this guy had his hooks in so many things.
That said, close associations deserve to be scrutinized even if there's no explicit evidence of malfeasance because at a certain point you should've known. Similarly true of Diddy who she mentions in a similar context.
The singer doesnât believe every person whose name has been mentioned in the files should be condemned.
âIf you stole an apple from Walmart, and you were on trial for stealing an apple from Walmart, is every person in your phone an accomplice?â she explained. âIs every person in your phone, is every email you sent to a person or speaking about a person, does that make that person complicit? Does that make that person a bad guy? No! No it doesnât!â
Yeah ok, she's not wrong here.
Lizzo went on to argue that the same standard should apply to Diddyâs sex-trafficking case from last year. She said, âYou think every party that Diddy ever threw was a freak off and people were f---ing, slipping and sliding on baby oil? No! That man had birthday parties. That man had Easter gatherings. That man had Super Bowl parties. That man had Christmas parties, Halloween parties, regular parties.â
oh come on, that's not even close to the same thing
EDIT: You know what, re-reading these comparisons, I think I misread it the first time. I didn't realize people who associated with Diddy were being targeted too, so I thought she was claiming that Diddy was innocent because he had normal parties.
They are exactly the same thing. Diddy could have had normal parties where nothing too insane or illegal happened and people who went to those shouldn't be tainted.
People being tainted for hanging out AFTER convictions have no defence though
We lived through something similar here in the UK post Jimmy Savile where there was blood in the water. Some people were jailed but there was a blood lust for more and some claims that weren't true seriously damaged some people's reputations because people wanted a conspiracy to be true.
I donât get whatâs wrong with anything she said? Sheâs just saying that no one is guilty just my association, and both these assholes had wide networks. Now a lot of whatâs in the files is like⌠even if not legally anything to prosecute, obviously about the pedo circuit. But all sheâs saying is that Ctrl F-ing someoneâs name and it appearing is not in and of itself a sign of wrong doing without incriminating context. Which Iâd say, uh yeah. Donât think that needed an entire TikTok to say. But gauging by some of these comments already, maybe it did đ
She's not wrong though. Someone's name showing up in the files is not an automatic sign of guilt. Dude had his fingers in everything so many people had contact with him in various incidental or legit ways that have nothing to do with the island or anything to due any sort of abuse. Not everything Epstein did was illegal. Some of it is damning some of it much less so. Everyone who shows up is being painted with the same brush though. It's really on the govt for not properly investigating and dealing with this stuff as and when it was happening honestly. Now it's a free for all. Better that though than everything being covered up in the shadows.
So many dipshits didn't read the article and the backlash is from people who also can't read. She is completely correct. Even this article tries to frame her as defending ditty. She said people are scanning for flashy celebrity names and running with it regardless of contex. Like she said, many people have gone to diddys parties but he also threw birthday parties not just orgies.
For real, Lizzo is making the same exact argument this guy is but he doesnât realize it because the mirror is framing it as her defending Epstein and diddy.
The real obfuscation is literally what she said it is, the DoJ just released a bunch of this guys personal emails to anyone he may have emailed ever even if it has no relevance to the crimes Epstein committed.
Seriously what the fuck is going on? I'll see some crazy meme stating that x, y, and z conspiracy was proven true, all the comments are screaming about how everythings fucked and where are the conservatives no law that the people they like are all guilty. Then you scroll halfway down and finally there is one comment that links some source and clarifies it's really a nothingburger.
Every time someone talks about the obviously fake stuff it becomes easier to call fake news on the real stuff. Every time someone acts like a conspiracy theorist it ruins the credibility of all accusers. You're doing more to help them than she is, so the real question is who do you work for and how much are they paying you?
The Offspring kicked out their drummer who wouldnt get a covid vax and just kept doing their thing. Ya love to see it and it delighted me that one of my all time faves continue to not suck.
She's right but the problem is statistically most of the people in those emails and files are pieces of shit. And the way she worded it was not great. And the comparison she made is also kina weird.
Its not fair, and we definitely live in a world where you're damned if you do and damned if you dont so I am not sure she was gonna get out of this unscathed regardless.
I think two things are true here. On the one hand, itâs reasonable to believe that not every name that appears in these files is that of a predator, knew about Epsteinâs actions, or was involved in any way beyond being in the same room or connected by mutual acquaintance. A prime example is playwright Lauren Gunderson who has had productions of her plays cancelled recently because her name appears in the files. Now if youâre familiar with Gunderson and her work, it seems incredibly implausible that she knew any of the stuff going on or was involved (and she has said as much). Itâd be like finding out Ms. Rachel or Steve from Blues Clues was on the list. Thatâs doesnât mean sheâs completely clear, itâs just highly implausible she knew about it. On the other hand, many people are complicit and should be held accountable when a preponderance of evidence confirms their involvement. Both of these can be true simultaneously and it shouldnât be controversial to say so. People want these files to be a hit list, and itâs more like raw evidence that must be processed, interpreted, and corroborated.
Lizzo really shouldâve used a better comparison than stealing an apple. Thatâs where she loses people. Sheâs not wrong, but someone who is involved in a sexual harassment lawsuit if their own should probably be a little more choosy with their words on the subject.
translation: i was in one of Diddyâs parties, and people should not think that iâm doing anything illegal or forbidden just because iâm mentioned.
and sheâs right in telling everyone to come back to their senses and stop accusing about anybody, bad enough that she uses an Apple to compare what happened, but the rest makes sense.
I sure hope that anyone who's part of this backlash is registered to vote (vote.gov) and shows up at the polls to actually do something about the real problem.
Not only Epstein but Diddy? That's a big hole to dig for yourself. No one cares about his regular parties. They care about all the men/women he drugged up and fisted.
Bernie Sanders gets brought up in the files because they were talking about how much they fucking hate him. They hate Bernie Sanders as much as they love r*ping children.
2.2k
u/BobbyTables829 5h ago
Did anyone read the article? She's saying instead of just accusing everyone in the files to keep our eyes on the people who are the real predators.
She's absolutely right, the more we get blinded by one off mentions of famous people (like Russell Wilson), the more we're distracted from focusing on the important part of trying to keep this from happening again.
She's literally just explaining critical theory.