HereAndGone
11mo ago
In fact, I'll go so far as to speculate that if Kirk had been gracious in his response, the Tyler may not have even shot at all.
Yeah, right is the only response to this. "Darn it, I carved the mottoes into my ammo, I changed my clothes, I came all this way and the guy is just talking about who's gonna win the next Superbowl? Well that was a waste of my day!"
HereAndGone
11mo ago
That's a long comment to say "Kirk was asking for it".
Also, we don't know the guy's motives yet, so all the speculation is just that.
Also also, I've seen it bruited about that Kirk's last words were in response to a question on gun violence, not trans issues, unless that's what you mean by "trans shooters".
I don't think Robinson would have gone there all tooled up, positioned himself on the roof, waited for Kirk to say something mean about the trans, then packed up and gone home if "Oh, okay, he didn't say anything". He was going to shoot no matter if Kirk had been saying "my favourite soda is Classic Coke".
HereAndGone
11mo ago
I mean, there are lots of "funniest car chases" and clips from police arrests online, it's not impossible someone was sharing "you gotta see this" and people were laughing and clapping because it was so stupid and entertaining that way. Just really unlucky timing.
Same with Jezebel and their "tee-hee, we got a witch to curse Charlie Kirk!" story. Published 8th September, since taken down. Probably because of stuff like this:
For the "POWERFUL HEX SPELL," I had to provide Kirk's date of birth for "accuracy." The witch performed the hex, but her response was unsettling: "I just completed your spell, and it was successful. You will see the first results within 2–3 weeks."
HereAndGone
11mo ago
Oh yeah, if there's any kind of spectacle like this for Kirk it will be every bit as ludicrous (depends on how close he was to Trump, I guess) but the martyr-myth-making machine was chugging away merrily on the left before this.
Oh, Epstein certainly used that connection to his advantage, but there's a difference between "guy has to hit on models who work for his business" (rather creepy and sleazy, low-class) and "guy who meets attractive young women at parties in the right social circles" (eligible bachelor).
The impression I'm getting - and admittedly this is all at second- and third-hand - was that Wexner was socially awkward/dominated by his mother enough that he couldn't manage this kind of thing (unlike Trump who had no problem hanging around the Miss World pageants or whatever). So having a fixer who can make sure photos of you with appropriate arm candy end up in the gossip columns and who manages your public profile, amongst other things, is very convenient and useful.
This profile from 1985 is fascinating; it's a guy who at age 48 still has Mommy very clearly holding on to the apron strings, he's a guy from Ohio who is now a big cheese in New York (and probably aware that he doesn't fit in with the circles he is now moving in - see that little line about "he doesn't pronounce 'La Grenouille' or even 'entrepreneur' right and it doesn't matter").
Wexner is what used to be known as a “confirmed bachelor”. He doesn’t feel alone. He doesn’t seem to want a child and, despite what he says about the perfect woman – Ali McGraw as she was in Love Story, someone who is “very, very pretty” and not aggressive – he seems to be waiting to achieve some mystical harmony and balance in himself first. “A lot of people think because I am not married I am asexual or homosexual, but I enjoy a relationship with a woman,” he says sometime later, hating to discuss this, known for keeping this part of his life very tucked away. Of course, like his social absence, this increases his mystery and allure. Only Alfred Taubman, among his friends, still constantly tells him to get married, but Wexner, whenever asked, says, “Me and the pope.”
So someone like Epstein, charming and comfortable with that kind of society, who could help Les manage his social life, or manage it for him? Worth his weight in gold. Even setting aside any gay attraction, the important thing is that Epstein too was Jewish (and his Jewish heritage seems to be very important to Wexner) so that automatically makes him someone Wexner feels he can trust, someone with the same cultural identity, someone who gets it. Let Jeff manage the money while Les moves on to things he finds more important (new business deals, art and philanthropy) and, so long as profits are being made, what's to question?
(The irony about the perfect woman being someone who is not aggressive is that he ended up married at age 56 to a lawyer. Maybe I'm stereotyping lawyers, but that seems like the aggressive type to me!)
HereAndGone
11mo ago
I think Epstein was charming, in that con artist way, because he seems to have had a track record of convincing people to give him a break, to get him introductions to jobs, to let him manage their money, etc. It wasn't just Wexner, he was just the biggest fish Epstein hooked.
The whole reason Epstein is such a big deal is because he had a laundry list of famous contacts, which has now blown up as the alleged paedophile/underage sex scandal. How did he get all those people to come to his parties, let him meet them in their own environments, fly out on his plane to his island? Yeah, Ghislaine Maxwell probably was very helpful in getting access to the likes of Prince Andrew, but Epstein had established himself already when he met her. He was charming, he was plausible, he seemed to have money or connections to money.
You can theorise all you like about "he must have been run as an intelligence agent by some agency or government that set it all up for him" but that alone won't do it; nobody is going to Jim The Spy's party if Jim is boring and dull.
HereAndGone
11mo ago
"Ciao Bella" can be a number of things, but one of them is a HoI4 meme.
It's also supposedly an Italian anti-fascist song Bella Ciao and Metatron is angry about this.
I think "general antifa" rather than specifically gamer goes here, with the alleged quotes on other bullets, but who knows until the guy talks or publishes his manifesto?
HereAndGone
11mo ago
Why didn’t Wexner measure his returns against the market? Hard to say, maybe he was in too deep, didn’t care, assumed Jeffrey was a genius, liked the attention and friendship, was a little in love, or was just under the thumb of an overbearing and domineering mother (which is the historical record) and didn’t really think of it much.
Yeah, I'm just reading bits and pieces but it does seem to be that Epstein did a genuinely good job of sorting out Wexner's finances, was smart enough not to milk the cow too hard, and probably was a 'friend' (not sexual) for someone who didn't have a lot of friends due to all you describe. Plus, if Epstein was already hosting and/or arranging the kind of parties he later threw, then it would have done no harm (and maybe a lot of good) to Wexner's public image to be seen in the society pages with attractive twenty-something women on his arm. Nobody would expect him to be seriously dating those girls, but to be 'out and about' in public with them would have helped as cover for "oh, Wexner is too much of a playboy to get married yet" if there were rumours about his sexuality.
HereAndGone
11mo ago
I don't think he embezzled from Wexner, even the most besotted suitor would have noticed millions drained away. But he did have a lot of control over Wexner's money and was able to spend it as if it were his own, in turn enabling him to present the façade of really, really wealthy guy (rather than just guy in charge of really, really wealthy guy's wallet).
I agree that, like a lot of the high-flying financial types of the time, it was all a house of cards and a downturn, bad luck, or close scrutiny would have shown that the emperor had no clothes. He genuinely had the most amazing luck in getting clear of the Florida sex abuse charges (as well as the dropped ball by the prosecution, as another commenter posted explaining the case in detail on here) and that is what motivates all the conspiracy theories about "was he really an intelligence asset? was he blackmailing people?"
Wikipedia does have a good précis of it all - lies, charm, connections and luck:
Although it took 12 years to deliver the story, as Matthew Goldstein of the New York Times tells it JP Morgan banker Jes Staley and CEO Jamie Dimon had a falling out over Staley's client Epstein sometime around 2012, after in October 2011 the General Counsel of the bank, Stephen Cutler, complained to Staley and others that Epstein was "not an honorable person in any way. He should not be a client." At the meeting between Staley, Epstein and Cutler, the last was assuaged when Epstein lied to his face and trotted out for character reference Bill Gates. The bank would not discard Epstein until, facing increased pressure from federal regulators, it did in 2013 coincidentally the year of Staley's departure from the bank. Thereafter Epstein moved his trade to the American affiliate of Deutsche Bank.
According to Forbes in 2025, the great majority of Epstein's wealth between 1999 and 2018 came from $490 million in fees, (most of that from two billionaires, Leslie Wexner, $200 million, and Leon Black, $170 million) with the remaining $310 million reported as income during that period by his companies as being from investment returns, and was worth $600 million when he died.
HereAndGone
11mo ago
No other billionaire gave all his money to one rando with no real qualifications and made that guy a billionaire for no apparent reason.
Just reading the barebones Wikipedia article on Epstein, it seems to be a combination of:
(1) Guy was charismatic in some way, he managed to charm a lot of people; he seems also to have been smart, with talents in music and maths.
(2) He had some amazing luck at the beginning - he managed to get a teaching gig in a private school that was run on sort of hippy-dippy principles (which meant he could get a job there where a conventional school wouldn't have hired him due to lack of credentials, and again seemingly by managing to charm the guy in charge) and one with a ton of well-heeled and connected parents, and he worked those connections as hard as he could (before getting bounced from the school for perhaps being a leetle too friendly with the girl students).
(3) By virtue of those connections, he wangled a job at Bear Stearns. This gave him vital exposure to the world of high finance, experience, and more networking/connections he could later call on (again, he seems to have been able to manage the high-wealth clients well, which would involve being able to create a personal relationship with them: "Jimmy Cayne, the bank's later chief executive officer, praised Epstein's skill with wealthy clients and complex products.")
(4) After being let go from Bear Sterns, he set up his own consulting firm and managed to position himself where he worked with/on behalf of wealthy, connected, and important people. Connections, connections, connections: this seems to really have been Epstein's strength.
(5) Gets hired on by another guy for a firm that morphs into a corporate raider and when this all explodes later on, he managed to walk away without criminal charges for investor fraud. Another combination of luck, talent, and charm.
(6) Set up his own financial management firm while working at (5), and once more his luck meant he landed a really big fish. Indeed, one might even say, a whale. Was indeed competent at the job and sorted out the finances, which means more trust, more personal relationship, more connections. Not to be diagnosing someone when I have no information but it honestly does seem like the guy was deeply closeted gay and so gave over way more control over his finances to Epstein than would have been usual. Epstein used this opportunity to make hay, and while he seems to have been smart enough not to kill the golden goose by robbing him blind, he was able to more or less act as if the wealth was all his (" In July 1991, Wexner granted Epstein full power of attorney over his affairs. The power of attorney allowed Epstein to hire people, sign checks, buy and sell properties, borrow money, and do anything else of a legally binding nature on Wexner's behalf").
Epstein made a tidy fortune managing Wexner's affairs, worked his connections with other wealthy people to the maximum, and was careful to keep up his old networking with figures in Bear Sterns and elsewhere, plus he seems to have been genuinely capable with money (so long as he could resist any temptations to get involved in dodgy deals). So how wealthy was he really, as aside from appearances? Probably nowhere near as much as he liked to let on, but in those circles appearances are what count (see other stories of successful cons of the rich and famous by someone pretending to be part of that environment).
HereAndGone
11mo ago
Okay, thank you for the link.
HereAndGone
11mo ago
There's a rapidly congealing hagiography surrounding Charlie Kirk in the wake of his shooting.
When we get the practically a state funeral, gold-plated coffin, and mayor kneeling and weeping while touching the coffin as if venerating a relic, come back to me on this. If it does happen, feel free to call me an idiot.
HereAndGone
11mo ago
Gay marriage, specifically, was about equal rights
It was about more than taxes and hospital visits, the compromises around civil/domestic unions and partnerships would have given them that. They wanted marriage and nothing less, to force it into the mainstream. Whether or not breaking the last few shreds of bonds holding civil marriage together was worth it for society in the long run, it was a very successful tactic.
However, now there is no reason to treat "only two persons" as the sacred inviolable unchangeable number, so why not "these three or more people really, really love each other and only want to be able to file taxes and visit each other in the hospital?" when it comes to poly marriage down the line? We've generally increased the age at which it's legal to get married, but why not lower it (e.g. if we're going to bring the voting age down to 16, or if we think 14 year olds are mature enough to be having sex and using contraception) in future?
We've now reduced marriage to "the state must recognise we love each other until the time we don't and want to break up" and that's it.
HereAndGone
11mo ago
God's law in stoning people like you to death
Old Testament law, now we are under the New Testament grace, not law (since Kirk was a Christian, not a Jew). I think the problem has arisen from American Protestants hammering the Old Testament and ignoring the New except for the epistles of St. Paul.
Charlie Kirk believed it was part of God's perfect moral law that people who are my friends, my family, my coworkers should be stoned to death.
I don't know the guy or any of his beliefs, and there's a lot of this sort of "he was a violent transphobe" etc. rhetoric online. So can you direct me to where he said that (like the quotes about gun deaths and the 2nd amendment rights) or is it just "well he was a Christian, therefore he believed in the Bible, therefore he accepted what the Bible says about X/Y/Z, therefore he wanted me stoned to death" chain of inference?
EDIT: I ask this because I remember the fighting over gay rights where people on all sides were quoting Leviticus, and it was considered a killer put-down to ask those against gay rights "so do you wear poly-cotton mix clothing? do you eat shrimp? because those are banned too, you know!" and to say 'if you don't keep all the laws and taboos, you are being a hypocrite and don't have religious objections'.
However, those on the liberal side (generally liberal Christians) also liked to quote, in the context of illegal immigrants, the parts about "Do not ill-treat foreigners who are living in your land. Treat them as you would a fellow-Israelite, and love them as you love yourselves. Remember that you were once foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God", except you know - that's in the same list as the mixed materials and anti-witchcraft, so are they stoning witches to death? no? then they're hypocrites and not acting out of religious belief!
People cherrypick parts of Scripture all the time; it would be entirely possible for Kirk to be anti-gay marriage but not want gays stoned to death.
HereAndGone
11mo ago
It seems to be that, weirdly, luxury goods (like iPhones) are getting cheaper or at least more affordable, while the basics (rent, food) are going up in price and zooming up in some instances.
We're getting a version of that Agatha Christies quote: "I never thought I'd be rich enough to own a car, or poor enough not to have servants".
HereAndGone
11mo ago
I know everyone goes Ireland cheats
Well, we do. Strip out the American multinationals we have been assiduously courting for decades, and the real figures are much lower.
Second, the 2008 crash really hit us hard. We went from Celtic Tiger to "down there with Greece with the begging bowl" economy and the years of austerity budgets to make up for that. Primarily due to some very bad decisions by our finance minister and government about bailing out the banks, but that's a whole other complaint.
When the bubble burst, it burst very hard and we're still not quite back to where we were. Then when things began to look a little better, along comes Covid and shuts down the country (and indeed the global economy) for practically an entire year.
HereAndGone
11mo ago
For one thing, AIs are notoriously agreeable (and hence unreliable) since they are not programmed to tell you "this is a heap of shit" but rather "wow, your points are so cogent, your writing so sharp and impactful! I am so impressed my body is literally shaking with delight right now!"
For another, dear Lord, has even TheMotte succumbed to artifice now and we no longer generate our own outraged reactions the traditional way, with unthinking immediate reaction based on misfiring brain cells, but rather expect Big Sibling AI to vet our rage posts for us?
HereAndGone
11mo ago
I do remember those, but at least the writers were safely mediocre nobodies. This person has minor notoriety about being extremely unpleasant (plus look at those crazy eyes) so how did a comics publisher think "ah yes, exactly the kind of writer who will do stories that will revitalise the title and bring in new sales"?
HereAndGone
11mo ago
They're claiming it was unfortunate timing:
We want to address something that happened during our TMZ Livestream coverage of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
As Harvey and Charles were reporting the developments in our newsroom, there were employees in another part of the building watching a car chase.
The people watching that car chase began laughing and clapping in reaction to what they were seeing, but we want to make it clear ... they were not cheering in response to the assassination.
Nevertheless ... watching a car chase at that moment was tone deaf, and the sounds of laughter at that crucial moment were totally out of line.
We apologize to anyone who heard that as we were in the middle of covering such a tragic story.
I have no idea who or what TMZ is, so I have no opinion one way or the other if this is true, but it's only fair to give them a chance to reply.
HereAndGone
11mo ago
Felker-Martin was writing a new series for DC about Red Hood
Man, DC is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. How on earth did this specimen wangle that?
HereAndGone
11mo ago
I'm surprised by this shooting, I know nothing about Charlie Kirk except mentions online where I got the impression that he was some guy on the right. The only things I've seen about him have been, for instance, in a recent dispute online about "is Gavin Newsom a transphobe?" where someone in the comments gave out about Newsom being on a podcast with Charlie Kirkkk (yes, three Ks, KKK geddit?)
So that was my view of their view of him: he is (of course) a fascist Nazi white supremacist because he's a right-wing conservative.
And now this happened.
We have no idea what the killer's motivations were, so backseat psychiatry about "was this just another crazy disgruntled person?" is useless. But I do hope it was a random crazy. If someone really thought "right-wingers are all Nazis, and everyone agrees that it's okay to kill a Nazi", then things in America are really bad right now. I hope they're not at that stage yet (or ever).
HereAndGone
11mo ago
So, please attempt to modulate the 'tism a little
Are you being ableist at me? Mommy, mommy, Tollbooth was mean to me!
HereAndGone
1yr ago
There really is less media coverage of crimes against Black victims for what I see as complex and circular reasons: for better or worse, nobody really cares about murders in "the hood"
No new thing; from the 1940 novel "Farewell, My Lovely" by Raymond Chandler where a policeman is disappointed to be the one lumbered with a killing (by a white guy) of the black manager of a bar, because he needs a big case and nobody cares about this sort of crime (warning for period language, as per the best publications*):
A man named Nulty got the case, a lean-jawed sourpuss with long yellow hands which he kept folded over his kneecaps most of the time he talked to me. He was a detective-lieutenant attached to the 77th Street Division and we talked in a bare room with two small desks against opposite walls and room to move between them, if two people didn't try it at once. Dirty brown linoleum covered the floor and the smell of old cigar butts hung in the air. Nulty's shirt was frayed and his coat sleeves had been turned in at the cuffs. He looked poor enough to be honest, but he didn't look like a man who could deal with Moose Malloy.
He lit half of a cigar and threw the match on the floor, where a lot of company was waiting for it. His voice said bitterly:
"Shines. Another shine killing. That's what I rate after eighteen years in this man's police department. No pix, no space, not even four lines in the want-ad section."
…Nulty spit in the wastebasket again. "I'll get him," he said, "about the time I get my third set of teeth. How many guys is put on it? One. Listen, you know why? No space. One time there was five smokes carved Harlem sunsets on each other down on East Eighty-four. One of them was cold already. There was blood on the furniture, blood on the walls, blood even on the ceiling. I go down and outside the house a guy that works on the Chronicle, a newshawk, is coming off the porch and getting into his car. He makes a face at us and says, 'Aw, hell, shines,' and gets in his heap and goes away. Don't even go in the house."
*"The original short stories reprinted in the British Library Tales of the Weird series were written and published in a period ranging across the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There are many elements of these stories which continue to entertain modern readers; however, in some cases there are also uses of language, instances of stereotyping and some attitudes expressed by narrators or characters which may not be endorsed by the publishing standards of today. We acknowledge therefore that some elements in the stories selected for reprinting may continue to make uncomfortable reading for some of our audience."
Something a little entertaining, after the current storm of words and views and blame being passed around and people joking and rejoicing about the Kirk assassination.
A few days before, I wouldn't have thought of this as light-hearted fun, but goodness me, reality is very surprising.
Kamala Harris has a new book out and guess what, she's not happy with the Biden(s) administration, and former Biden administration munchkins are not happy with her not being happy.
Ordinarily, this would have been a great chance to chew over the election once more, and indeed the election before it. If Kamala had doubts about Biden running for a second time, why didn't she say more about that? She does give a sort of explanation about that - it would have been perceived as disloyal. "Yeah, but" is the rejoinder there. Was it about loyalty, or was it about personal ambition? Get on the wrong side of the Bidens, and kiss goodbye to any chance of running for president herself?
She claims White House staffers were out to get her:
Some of those staffers do come back with "yeah, she was chaotic and useless as VP".
So the question is, whither Harris now? She seems to have ruled out running for governor of California, so does that mean she is getting ready to put herself forward again in 2028? But will that work - given the split as above between her camp and the Biden camp - and does Joe have enough remaining support in the party to put the kibosh on her, or is he completely gone and she's trying to put distance between herself and the Biden White House ("it wasn't my fault! they didn't support me! I was afraid to speak up! Jill was the tyrant queen!") in order to scrub the memory of the failed campaign?
With Newsom positioning himself strongly as a potential candidate (see the copying Trump's social media style and him being more aggressive on lefty policy, moving back to the centre) does she have a chance, or will it be Hillary Clinton Part Deux: Three Times A Loser?
Arguing over "whither the Democratic Party with regard to Harris?" is way more small potatoes than in the wake of the assassination. Just something to let us all take our minds off heated topics for a bit.
More options
Context Copy link