site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 8, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think there's a difference between accepting one-time invitation - which I'd accept from a lot of people, if only out of (somewhat morbid) curiosity - and entering a prolonged association while receiving tangible benefits. I wouldn't fault a person who met Epstein once or maybe got introduced by a common acquaintance and didn't immediately threw a drink in his face and run away screaming. People don't do such things. But I would fault a person who had prolonged, extended, beneficial relationship with Epstein while fully knowing who he is. You can't really control who you meet. But you can control who you maintain friendship with.

But I would fault a person who had prolonged, extended, beneficial relationship with Epstein while fully knowing who he is.

That's the key here. How do you prove someone fully knew who he was? My contention is that the people who were curious about it were probably satisfied pretty easily. From my original comment:

A man with that much social approval could easily say, if anyone ever confronted him, "oh, that. yeah, it was a thing with an escort. it was consensual. she said she was over 18. it got blown up into something. I paid my dues. trying to move on" and be happily believed. Due diligence: done. Very few people with the liberal morality to [okay with people hiring escorts] wouldn't have bought that excuse

Absent seeing him mess with underage girls, or noticing a lot of underage girls in his company, it's probably not that legible.