This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Well, it was also MASSIVE in terms of the apparent number of victims and the guy was intentionally elusive. It is entirely possible, though unlikely, that I was personally acquainted with some of the girls involved. They had to scout out when his plane was at the airport and they had the trash pickup company turning over his garbage to the cops as part of the process.
The sheer number of charges they could in theory have brought should have given an appreciable chance of at least a few of them sticking. The federal indictment had like 60.
Point of fact, he never went to prison until 2019, which is part of the oddity here.
From the wiki:
It is really not clear why, in addition to the plea being lenient, he was functionally able to dictate terms to the point his life was minimally interrupted. I know of no precedent to this.
So from my perspective "I notice that I am confused." Whatever secretive talks happened to get to this point (and the fact that they're secretive isn't odd, all plea bargain discussions are kept completely secret) somehow he got virtually everything he could possibly have wanted whilst still technically eating a 'punishment.' I have to imagine the leverage on his side was substantial, far and beyond the prosecution merely having a 'weak' case.
I mean, my opinion is that prosecutors don't like going to trial as a general rule, but they are also accustomed to wielding punishments as a bludgeon to get the defendant to back down.
Or maybe he gave them a full on Saul Goodman speech and rolled Nat 20 on persuasion?
And now we have a comparable case with Diddy, too. They stuck him on two minor counts and gave him 4.5 years. Harvey Weinstein caught 16 years. R. Kelly finally went down for 30. Is that because we're now living in the post #metoo era that enforcement has ramped up, and that's why Epstein got picked up the second time?
Fair tactic in the United States in 2026. It's possible in 2007 that the look of tyranny would have been too embarrassing, so they did not go with the Soviet path of just charging him with every crime they can think of and making him defend himself on 70 counts at a trial where the judge has been picked to gag his attorneys and forbid him from using exculpatory evidence and lines of defense, as is extremely common now.
In his interview with Steve Bannon he discusses how his life was in fact more than minimally interrupted. He was in fact incarcerated and was not allowed to work or take calls. For example, he was inside during the crash of 2008 and could not participate save through a couple of standard collection-calls from the jail. It is not unclear why he was housed in the jail -- he secured it as a part of his plee. It is in fact common and not unprecedented for people who are going to do time who are negotiating to request where they do time. Facilities differ a lot and typically if someone is taking a plea deal for a specific amount of time for a crime that can receive minimal security imprisonment, they in fact try to secure placement at such a facility. Epstein's reason for this was multi-faceted. First off, the good-old idea that sex offenders get killed in jail. Not exactly true in all cases, but every stereotype is based on something. Second, that myth is aggravated in Epstein's case: everyone would have known what he was in for. He was infamous. Third, which he discusses in the interview, his money. He was going to be a target for his money. At the jail he was always asked for money, intimidated for money. Everyone knew he was rich. That is why he worked to secure imprisonment where he did. Why should the government insist on him serving time specifically in state prison? So he can receive more than the agreed-to sentence in the form of beatings, being shived, etc?
You should read this report on the original case and the plea deal.
Especially when in a time and place that values liberty and due process significantly more than now, while also facing an excellent defense team, prosecutors must offer a plea deal that is worth taking. It is not legal for them to tell the judge what to sentence. It is not legal for them to intimidate someone out of their right to a trial. In fact that violates a federal law called conspiracy against rights and it is a felony that is suppose to have a sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison. Many prosecutors and judges may be guilty of this crime today, but in 2008 I'm guessing it was less.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link