577
Trump’s Acting A.G. Says He Won’t Release Even One More Epstein File
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
577 points (100.0% liked)
News
37211 readers
1725 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It is a fine line, and I clearly said I am not defending abuse. A sexual offender is a sexual offender. But language is a issue. I do not see that commenter defending offenders, and it can often be on this forum that offense is taken to language that does not lean into the frenzy.
Why were they pointing this out? i don't know maybe they have a thing about language, maybe they were in a rush and didn't realise the tone it may imply. The downvoted response reeks of the old attitude of oh look a pediatrician lets beat him! Step back and look objectively. Rational conversations are allowed...unless you want an echo chamber.
You are implying that I do not care for victims, you know nothing about me...and I would argue you have jumped to the cliche 'wont someone think of the kids'. Is taking the time to look at how language is used against victims (child or adults) defending offenders? Life is not black and white, and taking the time to understand motivation of attacks does not mean you sympathize with offenders. There are plenty of psychologists that look at this.
I hope you keep asking why...and i hope it comes from educated studies...most likely from physiologists who have made a career from understanding motivation and the neurosciences. It is a subject that people feel hurt but accusing random people on the internet is not a fix.
Funny, that's never been an argument I ever had to make for myself, somehow.
It's no cliché for me. I live with a survivor. When it comes to sexual offenses against children, the kids are the ONLY ones I think about. Adults can take care of themselves, and so can you, which is why it's amazing to me how offended you are by someone taking the children's side.
So much so that you actually reduce the position of caring about survivors and their loved ones to merely, in your own word, a cliché. You can't even discuss what I actually said; you're forced to erect strawmen: "The downvoted response reeks of the old attitude of oh look a pediatrician lets beat him!" and calling any level of pushback against your insistence on honoring the nuance of pro-pedophilic understanding "the frenzy."
I don't need that level of distracting drama, and didn't employ it: that's ALL your own.
And it does not mean you don't, either. But this wasn't about taking time to understand, it was about holding up and defending your all-important nuance that moves eyes away from the crime and toward "understanding the offender." I don't stand for it where it's just a feint to derail discussion away from the victims and onto an arbitrary line in the sand. That helps no one at all, and that's where you are right now.
Funny thing, I can actually sympathize with offenders, and have specifically had to do exactly that in my own life to be able to support those offended against, which is a tightrope your rhetorical nuance doesn't hold a candle to, and one you obviously cannot begin to understand.
And I would not ask you to: caring about the actual children whose lives are destroyed is just "cliché" to you, you've made that clear. By the same token, your claim to precious linguistic nuance means nothing to me at all, nor does your estimation of me personally: turns out you know nothing about me either.
You know nothing about me.
I am not continuing a discussion with someone who clearly wants to just yell and call me a pedophile. Continue protesting on behalf of others.
I might add you words can be taken out of context, if you try hard enough.
If you could point out, for me and others, exactly where in my writing I specifically did this: "yell and call [you] a pedophile."
Very obviously, I didn't. If I had, you wouldn't have had to lie about it, which begs the question of why you are so threatened by what I said about pedophiles and pedophilia that you took it as a personal attack, against you specifically, which you then countered with an obvious, demonstrable lie?
Which brings me back to my original point, that I think you have gone out of your way to prove for the rest of us:
There is NEVER any time in which defending the linguistic pedantry of pedophilic nuance is a valid stance: it is ALWAYS about something else.
If I had "yelled" (lol) or called you a pedophile -- which is not a term I throw around as a pejorative if only because the thought of what they do is vomitous -- if I had literally done this in reality, you would not have had to lie, distort, or employ such over-the-top amounts of hyperbole.
Instead, you've gone out of your way to make my point. Like this:
Nice try. It's not the first time a pedo defender has tried to tar me with their own brush. You can't even do it in a straightforward way.
But let me clear it up for you: I genuinely believe, from a very viscerally deep place in my soul, there is nothing as inhuman, as indefensible, as revolting, as UNNATURAL, as sickeningly self-indulgent, as the sexual use of children for ANY purpose, understandable or not. And I have a post history that proves it.
Speaking of which, my profile bio hasn't changed in three years. You should check it out.
And thank you again for going out of your way to prove what I have known all along: the overwhelming defense of tiny differences in language used to describe pedos is never innocent, and never just about nuance.
So you cannot actually point out where I yelled and called you personally a pedophile?
Funny, because if I had, you easily could. Instead, you make up a non-verifiable identity that is supposed to tug at my heartstrings and make me go away shamed. Dude, you are so not the first one to try this.
Everything that comes out of you is distortion, redirection, and extreme hyperbole. And again with the accusation, not so veiled this time:
Only when people defend that horrific, vomitous, repellent, life-destroying shit. I was enjoying my morning coffee when you decided you needed to defend the nuance of pro-pedophilic "understanding" and even now are coming back at me with nothing but demonstrable lies and accusations made of air.
Dude. You are the bell, lol. If you want me to stop calling it out, maybe stop ringing it so hard for the pedos.