I mean, there is almost certainly no “The List”, “2003-02-23: Donald John Trump, 3 pedophilia, paid by bank transfer”.
There are terabytes of call logs, text messages, videos, photos, location logs, witness testimonies, whatever samples, and fuck knows what else.Stephen King is absolutely the next person I think is going to have some heinous shit come out about him, like happened with Gaiman. Too many years writing in a cocaine haze, on record defenses of Woody Allen marrying the step daughter he raised, the whole thing with the ending of IT.
Not commenting on the Epstein List, tbh it’s political football and I don’t know if we’ll ever have anything confirmed until well after anyone who could be impacted by it is gone. King’s just one of those people who if you look close enough there’s reasons to be suspicious, but who is such an industry giant that I think no one wants to say anything.
Of all the things to publicly tell on yourself with. Damn man.
It’s definitely real, even if it is just the list of 150 Epstein associates that were unsealed years ago. If there was anything more, it ceased to exist during the first Trump administration.
Nobody is going to release a real list because it will exclusively hurt the rich and powerful.
Trump Part 1 didn’t, Biden didn’t, Trump won’t do it now.
There definitely is a list. Probably not a spreadsheet or a black book, but you have to make schedules and appointments work. Double booking diddlers is bad business. There are records.
What has been established by the media is that there is a list (whether true or not) and being on that list is damning. Unfortunately we’re at a point where if a list is released, anyone with a brain would have to doubt it as being nothing more than a political tool, and anyone without a brain will immediately try to crucify anyone on it.
All the back and forth and hemming and hawing buys time to figure out who to put on the list. Get all the Democrat names you like, but finding enough Republicans to put on the list, but not anyone who’ll rat (preferably dead) is the tricky part. Gotta make it halfway believable.
It’s sad that instead of bringing the worst people in our society to justice, this will either be swept under the rug or set fire to the Reichstag.
We believe the rumored client list is real now? Case documents for Giuffre v. Dershowitz have already been unsealed & released. I thought everyone was calling claims of secret, unreleased documents a right-wing conspiracy theory a few months ago. It’s really hard to follow what we’re supposed to think here. What’s going on?
There probably isn’t a full-on list that just lays out who was all involved, line-by-line; but to believe that there is no information and no names to be revealed is to believe that Epstein was arrested and Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison for the crime of trafficking no one, to no one, to engage in no acts.
is to believe that Epstein was arrested and Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison for the crime of trafficking no one, to no one, to engage in no acts
I think the released documents disclose a bit more than “no one, to no one” engaging “in no acts”.
I recall speculative, right-wing theories taking off during the Biden administration, MAGA fanning the flames to stir political followers to vote, and the case documents released before Trump was sworn in. It’s curious that the left who were ridiculing MAGA over this type of “deep state” rhetoric seem to be embracing it or crowding out the more critical voices.
Stephen King is on the list.
I think that’s the only reason for this change in tune from the guy.
IMO, it’s blatant and transparent.
I think this is pretty unlikely, but will apologize if im wrong. My logic is that Trump already hates King and has openly feuded with him. Since there haven’t been any criminal cases yet, it seems that whatever evidence is in the files wasn’t enough for DOJ to feel like they could win a conviction, but because Trump is a petulant dumb fuck I expect he would have made Bondi bring charges for even the most tenous circumstantial evidence if it was against someone he doesn’t like. But then again Trump may think the files give him leverage over anyone even barely mentioned in the files and not want to lose that leverage, so I could be absolutely wrong.
Well, you have no reason to apologize, at this point, everyone is just speculating. However, I think the only reasonable and logical explanation, is that Stephen King is somehow, involved. He never was in any capacity or position to know everything in the case in detail. So he’s either lying about his certainty and knowledge, or he is involved, no other inference can be made.
I’d like to remind this thread not to jump to conclusions. It’s not exactly unheard of for a notorious coke addict to be confidently wrong about something. I’ll believe he’s a sicko when I see his name on the list and not a second sooner.
Edit: Am I really being downvoted for not immediately joining a mob and instead waiting for proof? “We did it
redditlemmy!”I have a suggestion: Just assume every billionaire diddles kids anyway.
nah, his books says otherwise, it had tons of references to pedophelia in it.
That’s like saying everyone who writes a murder mystery is a murderer.
While that’s accurate, there’s also IT.
The book has a completely unnecessary, random pre-teen orgy in a sewer.
This isn’t surprising really, especially after the Neil Gaiman thing, but it is disappointing.
??? Oh no what Gaiman thing?
Aww man. I hate being the bearer of bad news. Turns out Neil isn’t quite the feminist he pretended to be. :(
Allegations of sexual assault and rape.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/gaiman-sexual-assault-allegations-1.7431274
I knew he wasn’t an angel but damn. Oh well.
bro self reported
why release the list of clients? all three pedos are putting themselves in the spotlight already
It’s nice of the people on the list to out themselves. At this rate we can just compile it ourselves.
I mean, he wrote IT so idk if this would surprise anyone lol
You telling me there’s a chance that a writer, known for snorting enough cocaine to kill an elephant whilst writing a story where a group of boys run a train on a young girl, might have visited an island known for its drugs and sex trafficking young girls?
🤔
I know it sounds like a stretch, but yes.
I don’t think a lot of people read the book. Anyone who has knows that Stephen King shouldn’t be around children.
Man, who would’ve thought that the guy who wrote a child orgy scene would turn out to be a pedophile? Edit: Didn’t expect this to blow up and result in multiple bans… whoops.
I’ve never read It or cared. I can’t see the removed comments.
However, are we really banning people for defending artistic license to write about obscene shit in a horror story? Are pearl clutchers claiming that shit needs justification? That’s who we are? Awesome.
No. Jesus.
The thing is, from what I can see the comments that Weren’t removed are mostly what you are saying, defending artistic license. The stuff that Was removed is a bit more… graphic. I didn’t get to see All of them, so I can’t say for sure, but some of the ones I read were a bit much. Again, most of the people who defended this book and the contents within weren’t banned or had their comments removed, just downvoted.
“I have no vested interest in this conversation… i don’t know any of the context… but are we really doing this thing that nobody is doing?”
Also, yeah dude, you should be able to justify every single action you take ever. If you take an action and can’t justify why you did it, then why did you do it? No, seriously. Why did you do it, then? No, you can’t explain. That’s what justification is. Go ahead. Why did you do it? Oh- no, you can’t explain. That’s justifying.
Jesus.
Also, yeah dude, you should be able to justify every single action you take ever.
Words & expressions of fiction don’t need justification: if you dislike them, then don’t read them. Easy. Alternatively, start a committee of people who give a shit & get off mutually gratifying each other, I guess.
All of this is fine until we start banning people over disagreeing with opinions hostile to liberal expression. If you don’t understand why someone would object to violating the norms of open discourse, then I don’t know what to tell you, but I’m going to judge the hell out of you.
Okay bud.
Removed by mod
How does any of that in any way justify him writing a scene where a group of 11-12 year olds have a sex orgy?
Why does he have to justify his story to you? It’s fiction, as in not real. No one asked you if it was okay, but thanks for letting us know you don’t think it is. Millions upon millions of readers don’t agree with you.
No one asked you to reply to the op, either, yet you did. Why is it okay for you to say your take, but not for me to?
Because it’s a public forum built for discussion? Unlike a fictional novel. Next!
We can’t voice our opinions on a novel?
…a novel which is being discussed in a public forum, yes. I do appreciate when people end their posts with “Next!” because nobody who’s worth conversing with would ever do that. Lets me know who not to continue wasting my time with.
Bingo! (:
Look, I don’t know why you feel the need to defend a part of a book that is, as you just said, a Child Orgy, but you do you, and maybe you should talk to a therapist.
All I can say is; when I write about children, or think about children in any way, I don’t ever think about them having sex, whether that be with adults or other children.
Removed by mod
Pedophile.
I came too late to see what the guy said, almost makes me want to know, but I think it’s better that I don’t.
You realize he wrote the book right? Like he had literary control over it, he could have just as easily not put in a child orgy
OMG?! Did he?! And someone published it after having read it. And people bought it and didn’t burn him at the stake for it.
Kay? And? Child based orgies are a gross thing to include in a book
Understood. You are free to not read it.
No shit Sherlock, but writing about children having orgies is fucked up
And people are free to call out how creepy it is, as well as the people defending a child orgy scene.
And that’s just one instance of kid sex in King’s books… You gonna defend the scene from The Library Policeman where King describes a young boy being raped in graphic detail too?
This thread is giving serious “depicting something in fiction is the same as promoting it” conservative book-banning vibes.
What?
The novel, It, by Stephen King has a scene as described. That book took a hard, weird turn. The whole scene wasn’t needed for the story.
Right? They could have just cut their hands and smushed the blood together to nail the “we have an unbreakable bond” vibe. The sex thing, especially when it’s like 7 boys fucking one girl, is just bad.
“The sex thing, especially when it’s like 7 boys fucking one girl, is just bad.”
Hot take: I feel a child orgy scene is so bad the specifics aren’t significant
He must’ve gotten his inspiration out in the tropics 🏝️
Removed by mod
just so you know, you’re being really weird about this
Cool
“Get a grip!” screams the guy who up and down the thread is wailing about his favorite child sex scene. Jeez, man, you think maybe you need a little less internet and possibly someone to talk to?
Yeah, I like the book. It has nothing to do with the sex scene. You can’t seem to take the work as a whole and only focus on a single part. There’s lots of weird shit out there, no sweat off my back. I just think it’s weird everyone’s jumping on him for old news that isn’t related. I think it’s weird King is defending this administration in any way, but this isn’t the angle of attack I’m willing to accept.
Just few decades before the book was written people were marrying girls of 12-15 years old. Perhaps society can allow themselves to judge from an anachronical standpoint and just be done with it. We still have a lot to improve, and the road is full of … well, people like yourself. Defending what they believe is correct while ignoring other facts…
I’m pretty sure the book doesn’t say the boys fucked each other explicitly, nor is it in the subtext. It is very detailed about them fucking the girl. (From what I remember. it’s been a while)
It is multiple paragraphs, essentially a page or two, of explicit detail, split into 2 parts (Chapter 22, Section 7 for a few paragraphs at the end before a time skip and then continues in Section 12 for a few more paragraphs. The book likes to time skip A LOT)
Absolutely none of it implies the boys engaged in any form of homosexual intercourse. The book explicitly states that their “plan” is to all take turns on Bev.
Are you saying it’s puritanical to be anti-child orgy? You’re a pedophile.
no one mentioned the children fornicating with each other until you did, yea your making it wierder than it is.
No, I understand that much. I’m asking why this weirdo is acting like the premise isn’t weird based on the given context.
They tried to give more? context in defense? of the writing?
Idk they’re being weird I think.
That part of IT might make a whole lot more sense all the sudden
Oh yeah, every time I talk about king’s IT, I go “It’s great except that one scene, right?” and anyone who’s read it agrees.
I listened to the audiobook. I felt like I was breaking a law.
If you know you know. If you don’t, asking about it gets entire posts nuked.
Whaaaaat? Why would they erase stuff about a sewer clo… Oh that scene, yeah, absolutely.
don’t you hate it when a problematic part ends up being actually problematic and not something that can be chucked up to cocaine?
Lol. Guess who’s on the list. 🤣🤣
This is the most obvious reasoning by far.
My first thought , he was on that island a lot
