I’m saying that considering the availability of credible accusors, I think you’re defining who counts as a credible accusors in a selective way to maintain your prior assumptions.
I’m not saying this to be snide or disrespectful. I’m just asking if it’s possible you’re letting a bias go unnoticed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland
Safechuck allege that Jackson sexually abused them when they were children–Safechuck from 1988 to 1992 and Robson from 1990 to 1996. They give graphic descriptions of Jackson’s alleged sex acts, including masturbation, oral sex and anal sex, which they say took place at his home, Neverland Ranch, and other locations.
Robson and Safechuck claim that Jackson said these acts were “romantic,” and that they did not realize they were inappropriate until adulthood.
Do you know the “no true Scotsman” fallacy? Because I regret to inform you that I believe you’re falling prey to it.
This is a topic that doesn’t get discussed much, but if you stop and think about it for a moment you might realize that we’re all aware of it, we just basically have a cultural taboo against thinking about it.
Have you ever noticed that sleepovers are almost always gender-segregated? Why do you thick that is?
It’s uncomfortable but true.
Have you ever heard of kids playing Doctor? It’s not like kids routinely engage in sexual acts, but left alone at night it’s very common for them to do things like undress and compare bodies. Often it’s benign, but without an understanding of safe touches, it’s easy for such encounters to be unintentionally harmful.
I hear stories like this, and I think the part people stumble over is that it’s very common for kids to explore their bodies and each other’s at sleep overs.
It’s not that hard to imagine his sleepovers being ordinary, kids sleepovers and also an environment in which he crossed some boundaries. That’s very common at sleepovers.
I do believe he molested children, although I think the reason we have trouble accepting it is that I think there are a bunch of types of molestation, and we as a culture have a poor understanding of what these are, and so we struggle to recognize them.
Epstein, for instance, sought the youngest possible post-pubescent girls in order to get off on taking their innocence.
Jackson, imo, sought out intimate friendships with prepubescent children for companionship, and those unsupervised interactions included nudity and touching of an inappropriate nature.
Both are child abuse. But they look different. Jackson got away with it (and still does, in a sense) because we don’t understand his motivations the way we can for Epstein, so we can’t recognize what happened.
First, I’ve been to Astoria Oregon, and I assure you that people live there. It’s not Vancouver, but it’s a legit town.
But I get your question. I think the answers are complex and technical, but my understanding is that people migrate and settle, and then population centers often grow based on a mix of natural features and where human-made resources like centers of education are constructed. So it’s really more of a question of why were the locations of Portland and Seattle better.
I’m not a geographer, so I don’t know the precise features, but my guess is that Portland and Seattle were located in areas that offered most of the benefits of this coastal region in terms of access to the ocean but had greater benefits and fewer downsides. I’m just speculating here, but my first guess would be that the weather inland is less intense. It might also provide better access to freshwater and arable land.
But people do live there. And if you live in Newport or Lincoln City you’re two hours from an international airport. That’s not exactly undeveloped wilderness. People just chose to settle a bit more inland along bays, which considering how rough the weather in the coastal Pacific northwest can be, seems sensible.
It’s pay walled.
This is a really interesting question that people aren’t taking seriously.
It’s a huge mix. Because one of the key features of wealth and privilege is freedom: these people get to do more or less whatever they want.
For some, that’s whatever their parents do. Maybe they just want to make money and have martini lunches. But for a lot of them, they may just want to be a gaming YouTuber or a marine biologist, or a even run a social-justice focused non-profit.
As much as most of us resent unearned privilege, there’s no rule that says people who lucked into life are all stupid, mean, or incompetent. Many will become successful academics or devote themselves to politically righteous causes. The main problem is not what they do, but all the human potential among the unprivileged that is denied and squandered.
Many may also move between careers; etsy store one year, writer another. It’s very fluid.
Yes, constantly.
Most people, imo, don’t have a good idea who the scientific community is and what their discussions look like. The scientific community is made up primarily of working class nerds who work at universities and suppliers and contract companies, and they communicate through blog and magazine articles in publications by and for other academics.
If you go to a scientific conference, you’ll see talks and panels on this subject and it’s a routine topic at coffee breaks and drinks in the evenings.
The scientific community has been discussing this topic literally longer than anyone else.
Yeah. I would describe the politics of SpongeBob as extremely mild and offensive to as few people as possible, but that said, the SpongeBob movie made the stress of masculine gender performance a surprisingly central theme, with the core lesson being that people should disregard gender performance anxiety and prioritize self love and authenticity.
I’m as surprised as anyone to say this, but good job Nickelodeon in advancing the gay agenda through subliminal indoctrination of children.
I think it’s easier to find success stories if you ask this question about your town than your country.
A few weeks ago I took my kid to a parking lot by a park so he could practice biking, and when we got there there were nearly a dozen kids biking, and a band was playing etherial middle eastern music next to us to a crowd as the full moon hung over a lake draped in light of the setting sun.
It was gorgeous, and free, both financially and in spirit. It was a beautiful appreciation of people and art from across the world. I thought for a moment that it was a picture of what I’d like America to one day be, then realized that I was in America, and it was already a picture of what America IS. It’s unfortunate that America is also many terrible other things. But America is also this. And that spirit is what brought these musicians or their parents to America, and eventually to that parking lot by the lake under the full moon.
“Is this weird?” is relative, and usually less important than “is this unhealthy?”
I don’t know what’s normal in China, but it sounds like your mom has some kind of problem and the result has not been great for you.
Neat. This is great info.
Yeah. Slice it and put it on a sandwich with a fried egg. Or chop it when it’s still firm and throw it in a salad. It’s good, but it’s not really for eating like an apple. They added creaminess and texture to savory things.
I find that when these thoughts creep in, what saves me from doomerism is focusing on the alternatives.
It can feel weird and irrational, because the alternative is organizing in my local community to help people, and connect more people with the work of doing the same. How is helping parents at my kid’s school get childcare during a teachers strike supposed to end our imperialist violence? How is cleaning up illegal dumping supposed to defeat techbro fascism?
By snowballing. By being the antitdote to the distraction and helplessness we’re programmed to feel.
We all need to go find people we like, then go out and fix things, without permission. Get caught doing good. Set an example, and link up. If we’re all building these tidepools, eventually we’ll make a flood.
Zionism.
My family was never big into it, but when you grew up Jewish it wasjust an assumed default. I wasn’t even aware there were people opposed to it until around college.
Thankfully, the youth of today don’t have that problem.
Ok thanks. That’s interesting. This is the first I’m hearing of this.
I’m curious what people make of the broader allegations of a history of child endangerment and irresponsible behavior with kids beyond the lurid sexual accusations.
For instance, do you consider the claims that he held his new born over the railing of a balcony credible? Is that part of a broader rumor mill? What do you make of that?