So Do You Still Think Jeffrey Epstein Killed Himself? (Project Veritas Video)

[ehbowen]

Someone inside ABC has leaked a "hot mic" video of a candid discussion about a story which the network spiked...and is still sitting on.

[Darkhawk]

Hm.  Some mostly-staffly advice, to keep the board's purpose as a discussion and debate forum on track:

Your chosen headline strongly suggests, without evidence, that your audience believed a particular thing about Epstein's death.  Generally speaking, it's rather unconvincing to start out a conversation with "SO DO YOU STILL BELIEVE A THING YOU'VE NEVER STATED YOU BELIEVE, HUH?", as that sort of aggressive approach is inviting furious responses from some of the people who have been falsely accused, and mocking laughter from the rest.

Further, you link to Project Veritas, which is widely known to be composed of political scam artists and liars. (I remind you that the rules for the subforum note that linking to partisan sources is not gonna convince anyone of anything.)

If you want to pick a fight - as your choice of headline suggests - it would be better to follow it up with something that is a) relevant to the fight you want to pick, and b) from a source that isn't instantly recognizable as unworthy of anything other than dismissal due to a long history of crying wolf with doctored photographs of puppies.  You may also find that if you come across as issuing an invitation to a brawl (such as with the aggressive language in your chosen thread title), people will simply decline to respond; other approaches may serve you better in your goals.

Darkhawk,
Message Board Coordinator

[ehbowen]

If you want to pick a fight - as your choice of headline suggests...

PM sent.

[SunflowerP]

PM sent.

This thread has been moved from 'Political Discussions' to 'Conspiracy Theories'.

Eric's PM was a clarification of his intent, which read in part, 'I am not trying to pick a fight, nor do I intend to argue the point with other members. The video speaks for itself. My intention was to make it visible.'

Darkhawk's post was, in essence, 'This is not an effective way to start a discussion on the topic; here are some tips on how to do so more effectively' (as they explicitly state, and as is further indicated by their choice to post as Message Board Coordinator - staff, including me, will typically sign staff posts as 'TC Forum Staff' unless their more-specific hat is relevant to that situation).  Eric's PM, as a response to that, implies that his motivation was not to start a discussion* but simply to make people aware of the video - ergo, while it might conceivably count as 'Political News', it's not really a 'Political Discussion'.


However, given that the sole source involved is an organization notorious for promulgating intentionally falsified videos in their quest to discredit people, I can't consider it 'news', either.

Also....

A Reminder:

Hi, Eric, A reminder that our Inclusivity FAQ (scroll down to the section headed, 'What about other accessible content issues?') strongly discourages the posting of videos with little or no further context. While that FAQ does not have the same force as our rules, it's not merely something you can take or leave at your own preference. In particular, when one posts a video to the 'Political Discussions' subforum, one should start the discussion with further content/one's own position; leaving that to the video to do is lazy, and likely to fail, for reasons including but not necessarily limited to those noted in the FAQ.

(*It may read that way to me in part because I know, as Eric apparently doesn't, that Darkhawk did not say, 'You're trying to pick a fight,' they said, 'If you're trying to pick a fight...' - that is, regardless of whether that's what Eric intended, that was how it came across. If I'm mistaken, Eric, and there is a discussion you were hoping to start, you can post a more discussion-stimulating response in this thread, one in which you apply the advice, and reminder, about how to do so effectively, that Darkhawk and I have provided. It can include the part of your PM that I didn't quote, if that's relevant to what you want to discuss - I omitted it because it didn't belong in my post, not because it didn't belong in the thread!)

Sunflower
Host Hat On

[Hariti]

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish — but I never believed it was suicide.

[MadZealot]

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish — but I never believed it was suicide.

Me neither. And I've been having waaay to much fun sharing "Epstein didn't kill himself" memes over on teh social medias.

Oh, and I've got to say that, while I don't know much about Project Veritas, or their pedigree, that video does look pretty damning. Doesn't hurt that this is the same news outlet whose slaughter-in-Syria video actually turned out to be a bunch of yahoos blowing shit up at a K-Y gun range.


_{(Last edited by Morag to fix quote code.)}

[ehbowen]

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish — but I never believed it was suicide.

See, that's the thing. Now we may disagree on the ultimate causative agent...I tend to think it was Arkancide, while my liberal cousin is more inclined to think that the Orange Menace was involved...but, so far, I'm not personally aware of anyone on the Left or Right who sincerely believes that Epstein killed himself of his own volition and on his own initiative. This Swamp stinks....

(And, yes, my choice of a thread title was rhetorical, not meant to imply that I believed that most or all of you held to the opposing view.)

[Hariti]

I tend to think it was Arkancide, while my liberal cousin is more inclined to think that the Orange Menace was involved...

Either? Neither? Both? Doesn't matter. The sheer number of important and influential people involved with Epstein's illegal activities is mind-boggling. There are dozens if not hundreds of people who wanted him dead and had the means to make it happen.

The chance that he was not murdered by somebody — politician or otherwise — seems astronomically low to me.