People filed a legal request to keep them private, that request has been overruled. What’s the conspiracy?
Just because a conspiracy has sprung leaks or failed in some vital aspect doesn't need to mean it never existed. Your argument is based on a very unusual definition of a conspiracy as a secret plot that's guaranteed to be all-powerful at information and damage control.
I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Edit: Just to be crystal clear given that surely there was some evidence of his misdeeds prior to the recent blow up (e.g. his Florida arrest and subsequent soft handling by Acosta etc.), what you're seeing is a rough correlation between the % of people who believe a claim and the volume/credibility of the evidence in support of that claim. So yeah, when there was little evidence few people believed it. Now that there's a lot, everyone takes it as fact. The only thing shocking here is how utterly reasonable it is.
The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously
https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/
> The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
[1]https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/
"Touching" a story (True/False) is not the same as a story being reported on in a proper manner. Printing one story in the middle of one newspaper technically satisfies "touched".
(Note: I have not made a claim that only one story on Epstein was printed, I am only describing what would be required to satisfy "touched").
Also: while choosing a maximally absurd complaint (that isn't even believed by conspiracy theorists) is an excellent rhetorical technique, it may not be so useful for engaging in truthful, good faith discussion.
> ...and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then...
Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not?
Please explicitly state the person or organization that performs this duty that you are referring to.
> ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form...
Can you explain what the intent of this is, and what it is you are referring to by "Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions" and "before he was involved in cheese pizza" and ""that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form"?
My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations.
LMAO.
We are HNers participating in a discussion, in which you appear to be taking issue with the point I made that Epstein offers no reason to update our priors on conspiracy theorists knowing things the mainstream media doesn't because Epstein was unmasked by lawyers, police and mainstream media, not conspiracy theorists. (And mainstream media did not, as far as I'm aware, rush to insist he couldn't possibly have done such awful things)
I presume if you felt evidence to the contrary existed - that people who were onto Epstein were pooh-poohed as conspiracy theorists until the truth came out - you'd have offered me that as a counter argument rather than a list of links about heuristics and cognitive biases. (If actually do have the evidence, I apologise for the excessively charitable assumption about your understanding of how to engage in truthful, good-faith discussion and look forward to seeing it)
> ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form...
> My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations.
We're in a subthread about whether we should be updating our priors on conspiracy theories in general based on revelations about Epstein. I'm thinking an honest attempt to demonstrate alignment between Epstein revelations and popular conspiracy theories (that wasn't after, and derivative of mainstream reporting on Epstein) might be an more interesting counterargument than a list of articles about cognitive biases. In the absence of such evidence, I don't really see Epstein offering any reason for anyone to update any priors they have on popular conspiracy theories.
Cute that someone that responds with a series of Wikipedia links is demanding explicit statements in response and lecturing me on truthful, good faith discussions though.
> LMAO.
Not an answer to the question.
If you have an aversion to answering questions that's fine, but I'd prefer an acknowledgement (just a request though, not a requirement).
> We are HNers participating in a discussion...
Well there's a problem: you do not actually know the degree to which other HN'ers agree with you.
> ...in which you appear to be taking issue with the point I made that Epstein offers no reason to update our priors on conspiracy theorists knowing things the mainstream media doesn't because Epstein was unmasked by lawyers, police and mainstream media, not conspiracy theorists. (And mainstream media did not, as far as I'm aware, rush to insist he couldn't possibly have done such awful things)
You also do not have comprehensive knowledge of what has happened in the conspiracy theory world, or in the journalism world (including editorial decisions made behind closed doors).
> I presume if you felt evidence to the contrary existed - that people who were onto Epstein were pooh-poohed as conspiracy theorists until the truth came out - you'd have offered me that as a counter argument rather than a list of links about heuristics and cognitive biases.
I've formed no strong belief because I understand the significance of the content of those links - you on the other hand seem to (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) have not only formed a strong belief, but also mistaken it for knowledge.
> (If actually do have the evidence, I apologise for the excessively charitable assumption about your understanding of how to engage in truthful, good-faith discussion and look forward to seeing it)
No charity required - I am not here to make friends. (Nice dig though! :) )
> I'm thinking an honest attempt to demonstrate alignment between Epstein revelations and popular conspiracy theories (that wasn't after, and derivative of mainstream reporting on Epstein) might be an more interesting counterargument than a list of articles about cognitive biases.
Making up stupid beliefs and implicitly attributing them to your ideological opponents is a demonstration of something: the poor thinking skills and dishonesty of the person who made the claim: you.
> In the absence of such evidence, I don't really see Epstein offering any reason for anyone to update any priors they have on popular conspiracy theories.
At the very least, conspiracy theorists had the ability to take this story very seriously, and discuss it in much greater depth than normies. Opinions vary on how seriously child abuse should be taken - some are strict, others are more accepting.
> Cute that someone that responds with a series of Wikipedia links is demanding explicit statements in response and lecturing me on truthful, good faith discussions though.
What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?
Not gonna lie, if you're genuinely struggling to understand that a sentence that begins "We are HNers participating in the discussion" [emphasis original] might actually be intended as an answer to a "who is the 'we'" question quoted directly above it, not a separate sentence fragment for you to come up with an obtuse response to, I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text.
If you're merely feigning ignorance of the basic syntax of the English language as a rhetorical flourish, it's... also not impressive.
> What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
-
> At the very least, conspiracy theorists had the ability to take this story very seriously, and discuss it in much greater depth than normies. Opinions vary on how seriously child abuse should be taken - some are strict, others are more accepting.
Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists. And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly.
But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of.
I realize that.
Feel free to explain how you acquired knowledge of consensus belief among the people you are referring to.
> ...I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text.
I have more certainty than you. I believe I am correct, and I encourage you to demonstrate that you are correct (you do possess this knowledge, and can explain how), or that I am incorrect (in presuming you are speculating).
>> What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
It's a popular meme and is often used to represent victory in internet disagreements, but it is not nearly as magical as it seems. After all, I too can post links to various memes and declare victory too.
We are in disagreement over a precise point of contention, that meme is not applicable. But feel free to pretend that it is.
> Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists.
A problem: you are evaluating a simulation of reality, not reality itself. You do not actually have knowledge of the activities of all these people.
It is amazing that conspiracy theorists get laughed at by normies suffering from delusions of omniscience. Amazing, but fitting in a way.
> And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly.
I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots (they are humans after all), and I've made no claim about them having superpowers. Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning.
> But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of.
And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15. Dare to dream!
Me: various arguments to the effect that the fact that conspiracy theorists may believe in Epstein Island (much like many people who aren't conspiracy theorists) doesn't give any reason to stop regarding many of them as idiots
You: "I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots"
These statements seem pretty aligned, and as I said from the very beginning, if you had the evidence of sterling original Epstein research by conspiracy theorists to actually rebut the former statement, you'd be better off presenting that than 1001 tangents.
I've no idea why you believe I need to have established consensus belief in all of Hacker News to use the word "we" about you and me, never mind need to know "all the activities of all those people" to know something as trivially simple to establish as the media took Epstein Island seriously. Come on, you're not honestly claiming that one needs omniscience to have any confidence that Epstein Island was reported on by seriously by mainstream media are you!?!?
Funnily enough, you seem happy not only making similar generalised references statements to the actions of normies and conspiracy theorists alike yourself, but insist on going one step further and insisting that you have insight into the former's "delusions of omniscience". Normies are too stuck in a simulation of reality to have any confidence in their faculties telling them media did, in fact report seriously on Epstein, but you can trust your insights into the deepest delusions of their minds. Perhaps, in your simulation of reality, this seems like a sound logical argument. To me, it sounds like you should probably read your link about cognitive biases...
> Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning.
> And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15
Yeah, no.
(Not gonna lie, I'm not the participant in this exchange whose views on consent are so unconventional they were babbling about how opinions on child abuse were "varied" and some people were "more accepting" in their last post. Can't say I've experienced people espousing acceptance of child abusers in normie-land, but if you actually have the need to seek such people out, your victims have my sympathies...)
Modifying claims after the fact isn't exactly good faith.
> These statements seem pretty aligned, and as I said from the very beginning, if you had the evidence of conspiracy theorists' early Epstein insights to actually rebut the former statement, you'd be better off presenting than 1001 tangents.
I didn't present 1001 tangents.
> I've no idea why you believe I need to have established consensus belief in all of Hacker News to use the word "we" about you and me
Your claim implied that you had consensus support on HN.
> ever mind need to know "all the activities of all those people" to know something as trivially simple to establish as the media took Epstein Island seriously.
"take X seriously" is not a True/False binary.
> Come on, you're not honestly claiming that one needs omniscience to have any confidence that Epstein Island was reported on by seriously by mainstream media are you!?!?
If this was necessarily(!) true (which you do not actually know, in fact), it would be literally not possible for something nefarious to happen with the media.
> Funnily enough, you seem happy not only making similar generalised references statements to the actions of normies and conspiracy theorists alike yourself, but insist on going one step further and insisting that you have insight into the former's "delusions of omniscience".
You have made several comprehensive claims about the nature of journalist coverage of this story. You are speculating, necessarily.
> Normies are too stuck in a simulation of reality to have any confidence in their faculties telling them media did, in fact report seriously on Epstein, but you can trust your insights into the deepest delusions of their minds.
Omniscience isn't required to tell when a human is running on heuristics, at least under certain scenarios (claims of knowledge that require omniscience, for example).
> Perhaps, in your simulation of reality, this seems like a sound logical argument. To me, it sounds like you should probably read your link about cognitive biases...
Try not attributing things to me that I haven't done.
> Yeah, no.
Would you enjoy if I claimed again that this is your wish, despite it not actually being true?
> Not gonna lie, I'm not the participant in this exchange whose views on consent are so unconventional they were babbling about how opinions on child abuse were "varied" and some people were "more accepting" in their last post.
a) Child molesters exist - therefore opinions on child abuse vary.
b) Not all people took the Epstein thing identically seriously (conspiracy theorists are generally extremely concerned about child abuse, based on how they talk anyways) - therefore opinions on child abuse vary.
c) Considering the nature of this crime, if compared to other instances of child abuse, MANY people thought the amount and style of media coverage of this story was inconsistent. It is physically possible for it to be inconsistent, whether it was is subjective, and would/should require a substantial amount of work before passing any sort of serious judgment.
> Can't say I've experienced people espousing acceptance of child abusers in normie-land, but if you have more need to seek such people out, your victims have my sympathies...)
Espousing acceptance is not required for variance - even lesser outrage is a variation.
My main overall concern is this: the degree of actual interest the public has in the integrity of very important institutions is not a universal constant, nor is the capability people have to exercise sound judgment. If there was something bad going on behind the scenes in this case or others, the ease with which bad actors can get away with various bad things is a function of the quality of the public, and the quality of journalism (something that MANY people, not just conspiracy theorists, have commented negatively on). Things could be very, very bad, and we may have very little way to know it with certainty. To me, this is a big deal, and I find it rather disgusting that the default view seems to range from mild interest to falling of the chair laughing at people who do care.
If there's an actual human in there that thinks that it's tenable to argue that 'Epstein Island was taken seriously by mainstream media' is a "comprehensive and bold" claim that no amount of articles which report on Epstein Island in detail in a serious tone could possible prove, whereas assertions that normies run on delusions of omniscience is just something you know ... I'm a bit less impressed.
Can't speak for other normies (I'll leave that to you), but personally I don't laugh at conspiracy theorists because they "care", I laugh at them because they make mind-numbingly stupid arguments.
Biological AI is not particularly novel either, the probability of this class of comment NOT appearing during disagreements between humans is rare...but only for certain topics. I wonder if we were to review our conversation, how many (at least plausible) instances of it we could individually nominate.
> If there's an actual human in there that thinks that it's tenable to argue that 'Epstein Island was taken seriously by mainstream media' is a "comprehensive and bold" claim...
a) "take X seriously" is not a True/False binary" - would you be willing to discuss this aspect and the significance of it to the topic?
b) considering (a), have you not made broad claims about the quality/intent of journalism organizations?
c) arguing a point is fine, asserting it as a fact (or in the form of a fact without acknowledging it as an opinion) is something else, and the acceptability of this behavior seems to vary depending on the topic.
> ...that no amount of articles which report on Epstein Island in detail in a serious tone could possible prove...
I propose: In human communication, there is a serious problem (in addition to many others, like dodging questions) with a delta between what is actually said, what is interpreted by the other party, and the willingness of all parties to acknowledge that this phenomenon is in play. (Like in this case: I made no such claim.)
Do you think there is any merit to this proposal?
> ...whereas assertions that normies run on delusions of omniscience is just something you know ... I'm a bit less impressed.
I am unimpressed (but not surprised in the slightest) that you say "is" "just something you know", immediately after me saying "Omniscience isn't required to tell when a human is running on heuristics, at least under certain scenarios (claims of knowledge that require omniscience, for example)."
> Can't speak for other normies....
Why not? You know what employees of journalism institutions do, do you not have the same ability with normies?
> (I'll leave that to you)...
Which I've done only in a certain way, and only to a certain degree.
> ...but personally I don't laugh at conspiracy theorists because they "care", I laugh at them because they make mind-numbingly stupid arguments.
Many of them do indeed, but what stupid arguments have I made? And do you believe that the fact that some conspiracy theorists make make mind-numbingly stupid arguments has any bearing on the truth value of the point of contention between the two of us? (Or, perhaps the comment was more for rhetorical effect, or simply an innate reaction.)
I think this (and related topics) has substantial relevance here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
Any thoughts on that?
Indeed. For example this discussion started when I actually said that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island seriously, in response to another commenter suggesting people would have just dismissed Epstein Island as a conspiracy theory.
There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution, and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1], rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people" and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience.
This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication.
Was yours a suggestion that that journalists and police officers took Epstein Island "seriously" (a highly ambiguous term, a perfect fit for current cultural norms), or was it more of a claim of fact?
> There is a problem in human communication (or human-bot communication) when one party refuses to acknowledge that the seriousness of some policemen and journalists might be well-evidenced by the phenomenon of many newspaper reports detailing Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and prosecution...
This ("one party refuses to acknowledge") implies that it is a fact that these articles are objectively ~"very well done" (could not have been substantially better, etc).
> ...and instead of accepting or at least offering an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon[1]...
My complaint is that humans perceive and represent opinions as facts. My proposal is that we stop doing this, or at least admit as individuals and a culture that this is how things currently work.
What is actually true here is not known, hence I do not make an assertion of facts of what happened (with respect to the underlying crime).
This approach is celebrated when done by science, but in other domains it seems to be considered the opposite of the correct way to behave.
> ...rejects it on the basis they don't have "knowledge of all the activities of all those people"...
Despite me addressing exactly this claim at least once already, you continue to misrepresent what I have actually said: I haven't rejected investigations as being necessarily false, but rather your claims that you possess knowledge (as opposed to belief) about the actions and quality of reporting.
> ... and giggling to themselves about how normies' claims rely on omniscience.
I don't find it funny, it scares the fuck out of me.
> This problem is typically resolved by ceasing the communication.
It stops the instance of the problem, but the underlying problem (people refusing to consider the importance of truth) does not go away.
But it doesn't. At no point has anybody at all claimed that articles are "objectively very well done", "could not have been substantially better" or anything remotely close to that. I did reject the idea that Epstein Island would have been [generally] "dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by pointing out that it has been treated with considerably more seriousness than that by many people generally unreceptive to conspiracy theorists, including journalists (and policemen, and courts, and ordinary normies like me).
For someone that claims to be interested in philosophy of mind stuff around belief-formation and the importance of truth, you seem remarkably incapable of considering the possibility that your belief that I hold a belief which I never even hinted at (and in fact do not believe) constitutes an error of judgement rather than knowledge so sound you can reliably deduce delusions of omniscience[1] from it. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of "humans perceive and represent opinions as facts", I recommend rereading the thread and counting the number of statements you have made which are caveated as beliefs versus the number you have expressed as facts (in some cases explicitly dismissing the possibility of error). The total may surprise you, especially if haranguing others to couch their inferences as beliefs and opinions rather than statements is important to you. But if composing a reply is more satisfying than striving for self awareness or intellectual consistency, don't let me stop you.
[1]a deduction which only makes sense if "omniscience" is a prerequisite for "sufficiently reliable faculties to gauge whether some news items contain elements of seriousness"". I guess if you believe intermediate-level English language comprehension is an unattainable state requiring omniscience, it would explain a lot about your last few posts...
Let's try an experiment - can we at least agree that:
a) there does exist a level of quality element to journalism ("reporting" on a topic is not, comprehensively, a True/False binary)?
b) both of us have expressed at least some sort of opinion on the quality of reporting with regards to the Epstein affair?
> I did reject the idea that Epstein Island would have been [generally] "dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by pointing out that it has been treated with considerably more seriousness than that by many people generally unreceptive to conspiracy theorists, including journalists (and policemen, and courts, and ordinary normies like me).
Can we agree that:
a) It is physically possible that at least one journalism piece might have at least implied that stories about the Epstein affair are conspiracy theories (and thus not true)?
b) It may have actually occurred that at least one journalism piece actually did imply that (at least some) stories about the Epstein affair are conspiracy theories (and thus not true)?
> For someone that claims to be interested in philosophy of mind stuff around belief-formation and the importance of truth, you seem remarkably incapable of considering the possibility that your belief that I hold a belief which I never even hinted at (and in fact do not believe) constitutes an error of judgement rather than knowledge so sound you can reliably deduce delusions of omniscience[1] from it. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of "humans perceive and represent opinions as facts", I recommend rereading the thread and counting the number of statements you have made which are caveated as beliefs versus the number you have expressed as facts (in some cases explicitly dismissing the possibility of error).
A serious problem here is that I would be reviewing my own comments in a biased manner.
How about this: would you be willing to identity 2 or 3 examples of where you believe I have done this, including a link to the comment, a quote of the offending text, and your explanation of how the text demonstrates your claim? I prefer this approach because I believe providing specific evidence for one's claims is a very useful function is the practice of epistemology, and it can also give some signals as to the likelihood that the person making the claim is speaking truthfully, accurately, and in good faith (something that should be a consideration of all people involved in a conversation, including me).
I have quoted and disputed numerous of your specific claims, I would enjoy for you to do the same to mine. If I have made genuinely (or even plausibly) erroneous claims, I would very much like you to draw my attention to them.
> But if composing a reply is more satisfying than striving for self awareness or intellectual consistency, don't let me stop you.
I read this as an assertion that I am not acting in good faith or living up to what I ask of you, and I believe that encouraging you to expose this behavior in me using evidence is a good way to demonstrate that what you say is true, rather than leaving it up to the imagination of the reader.
> [1]a deduction which only makes sense if "omniscience" is a prerequisite for "sufficiently reliable faculties to gauge whether some news items contain elements of seriousness"".
The problem here is "some news item" - we have not been discussing one single news item - my complaint is that you made claims about the entirety of the journalism complex.
> I guess if you believe intermediate-level English language comprehension is an unattainable state requiring omniscience, it would explain a lot about your last few posts...
If you genuinely believe I've made this claim (or something resembling it), I encourage you to present evidence so as to demonstrate my untruthfulness.
Don't underestimate the ability of these conspiracy loons to fabricate more and more stories. I expect them to react to tasting a big nothing sandwich with more conspiracy theories on how shady imaginary organizations edited out all the smoking guns.