A federal judge in New York has ordered a vast unsealing of court documents in early 2024 that will make public the names of scores of Jeffrey Epstein's associates.
I wasn’t talking down to you at all. You mixed real things and fake things to support a claim you yourself acknowledge is probably nonsense.
That is indeed a bad look, and people should be warned lest they fall into conspiratorial thinking, because it is neither healthy for the person nor an effective way of looking at the world.
Gary Webb was an American killed by Americans in government.
You mixed real things and fake things to support a claim you yourself acknowledge is probably nonsense.
My god, are you this pleasant to deal with in real life? I didn’t “acknowledge is probably nonsense.” I said, hey this is what I think, but I don’t really know. Your right answer to that is something along the lines of: Hey there’s a lot of evidence that this is how it happened, here it is. Instead you concocted some kind of scenario where I am “making my case” and you need to get sarcastic with me and assign me strawman views and argue against them all condescendingly.
I just looked into Gary Webb, and hey, you’re right, he actually probably did kill himself also. So I learned two things today. But because you were such a jackass about it, that’s actually sort of difficult to admit, where if you’d just said “hey I think this is wrong, his ex-wife said he was acting weird and she believes it was suicide, here’s the source” then it could have been a more factual conversation. It happens that I’m patient enough to go and look at sources myself even if you’re being combative with me, but most people won’t do that. They’ll just be toxic back at you and both of you will waste a bunch of time “making your case.” That’s an inherent risk of talking with people on the internet but you don’t need to lean into it when the other person’s just being open minded and reasonable with you.
Instead you concocted some kind of scenario where I am “making my case” and you need to get sarcastic with me and assign me strawman views and argue against them all condescendingly.
You’re talking about conspiracy theories. Your personal fictitious interpretation of events is not equal to the facts of the matter.
Here’s an actual thing you wrote (only, linking to more conspiracy theories you believe within):
Honestly, I think I’m probably misremembering, and I’m mixing her up with some other person that powerful people actually did have killed. Not because the note was handwritten; I just think there would be places on the internet that were pretty readily findable where would be published the original stories I read back at the time.
Yes, I am similarly dismissive of conspiracy theories in real life. When my boss said “I won’t get the vaccine because Bill Gates put in microchips” I didn’t acknowledge that as a serious discussion.
If you want to be treated as if the things you’re saying have value, you shouldn’t pop off arrogantly about how the US government regularly has people killed. They don’t.
Secrets aren’t good at staying secrets.
Edit: more to the point, this comment section is full of people spouting conspiracy theories. None of their theories are plausible or make any degree of sense when dug into. That they are so widespread here is because of the mindset people have - a toxic mindset that makes their brains ripe for the rot of conspiracy thinking. That should not be encouraged in any public forum, because it is contagious.
Yes, I am similarly dismissive of conspiracy theories in real life. When my boss said “I won’t get the vaccine because Bill Gates put in microchips” I didn’t acknowledge that as a serious discussion.
Hmm… okay, I think I get it. You’re putting me (and, presumably, anyone who says things that you already “know” to be false) in the same category as someone who thinks there are microchips in the vaccine. If you never make mistakes or are lacking information, that makes perfect sense. Since you do make mistakes sometimes and there are things you don’t know, that’s a stupid way to behave.
If you want to be treated as if the things you’re saying have value
I think this is another stupid way to behave. You can talk with someone who thinks different things than you do – whether they’re right or wrong – without being combative about it. It’s actually an important skill to have. It doesn’t mean the things they say “have value,” it just means it’s more productive to be factual and communicative than to be a dick about it and deliberately act as if they’re saying things they’re not saying so you can “win.”
you shouldn’t pop off arrogantly about how the US government regularly has people killed. They don’t.
I mean, the US government does regularly have people killed. Please don’t tell me that that’s different because they’re not Americans. What I said, though, was a little different than that; I said “powerful people in the US government.” The US government killing Americans as a matter of public policy is not unheard of (Fred Hampton), but I don’t think it happens all that often, no. I think it’s a little more likely that some individual person in a position of power might decide to commit a murder. Especially if their life is going to be ruined if they don’t. Are you saying that’s an impossible or outlandish suggestion?
Yeah. Shot in the head. Twice. He just wasn’t successful with that first shot and had enough bearings to fix it with the second. So said the CIA and we should all believe them just like the totally-not-a-pedophile-priest.
His ex-wife said that she believed he’d killed himself.
Webb’s ex-wife, Susan Bell, told reporters that she believed Webb had died by suicide. “The way he was acting it would be hard for me to believe it was anything but suicide,” she said. According to Bell, Webb had been unhappy for some time over his inability to get a job at another major newspaper. He had sold his house the week before his death because he was unable to afford the mortgage.
Here’s a story from a local paper which is the cite. Unless the details reported are purely made up, it seems like an actually pretty compelling set of facts leading to the suicide being genuine. I literally just learned this; until yesterday, I thought they killed him too.
There’s plenty of criminal behavior by the US government adjacent to Webb and his reporting without needing to exceed what’s actually true about it.
No, really. The other guy is playing ignorant. Telle me, for real, how much does the CIA pay you to play stupid and ignorant to defend them against the obvious.
I mean for real, I’ll just skip the cash and take the cocaine itself. Not a fucking problem.
Yeah, sure. The CIA pays me to bring Gary Webb’s name unprompted into random internet threads because they feel like promoting his story is an important part of their PR.
I never really knew that much of the story until the other guy started arguing with me about it, so I spent some time at breakfast reading about it. I think he killed himself. That said, there’s plenty of malfeasance by the government. Among the things that jump out at me:
A lot of the “debunking” that other MSM newspapers did seemed a little off the mark of what Webb actually said. It’s a little unclear to me, but it kind of looks like he said that the contras dealt in cocaine, and the CIA more or less knew about it and didn’t do anything and occasionally protected them and their assets from law enforcement. But I saw several times in the “debunking” stories that someone would make a big deal about there being no evidence that the CIA itself was drug trafficking in any major way. But that’s not what Webb accused them of. He said the contras were trafficking and the CIA knew about it. And, also, the CIA released a report at some point that said, o yeah we also protected contras and traffickers from law enforcement sometimes.
On a related note, there was a weird little side note about the CIA’s PR response where they talked about having good relationships with a handful of US journalists which helped them in their response, because it looks a lot better if someone in an MSM newspaper is defending them as opposed to them issuing a statement directly defending themselves. Fuckin’ what? Here’s a story about it, which given the source you may or may not believe, and here’s a link to the report itself on cia.gov. Excerpt: “A review of the CIA drug conspiracy story – from its inception in August 1996 with the San Jose Mercury-News stories – shows that a ground base of already productive relations with journalists and an effective response by the Director of Central Intelligence’s (DCI) Public Affairs Staff (PAS) helped prevent this story from becoming an unmitigated disaster.”
It’s genuinely weird that no one acknowledges that the whole backdrop for this question is the CIA supporting terrorism in central America. It’s like, sure they’re in bed with a bunch of violent terrorists with the goal of overthrowing a democratic government, but cocaine? Everyone involved treats it as if the “cocaine” part of the equation is obviously a bombshell accusation.
I was thinking about that but the other one said he’s got better than that schitzo and it’s from some European labs. Some analog from a khat derivative. Says it like mixing coke, X, & meth altogether but totally different a neurofunction. Something about serotonin instead of dopamine?
I wasn’t talking down to you at all. You mixed real things and fake things to support a claim you yourself acknowledge is probably nonsense.
That is indeed a bad look, and people should be warned lest they fall into conspiratorial thinking, because it is neither healthy for the person nor an effective way of looking at the world.
This is exceedingly unlikely.
My god, are you this pleasant to deal with in real life? I didn’t “acknowledge is probably nonsense.” I said, hey this is what I think, but I don’t really know. Your right answer to that is something along the lines of: Hey there’s a lot of evidence that this is how it happened, here it is. Instead you concocted some kind of scenario where I am “making my case” and you need to get sarcastic with me and assign me strawman views and argue against them all condescendingly.
I just looked into Gary Webb, and hey, you’re right, he actually probably did kill himself also. So I learned two things today. But because you were such a jackass about it, that’s actually sort of difficult to admit, where if you’d just said “hey I think this is wrong, his ex-wife said he was acting weird and she believes it was suicide, here’s the source” then it could have been a more factual conversation. It happens that I’m patient enough to go and look at sources myself even if you’re being combative with me, but most people won’t do that. They’ll just be toxic back at you and both of you will waste a bunch of time “making your case.” That’s an inherent risk of talking with people on the internet but you don’t need to lean into it when the other person’s just being open minded and reasonable with you.
You’re talking about conspiracy theories. Your personal fictitious interpretation of events is not equal to the facts of the matter.
Here’s an actual thing you wrote (only, linking to more conspiracy theories you believe within):
Yes, I am similarly dismissive of conspiracy theories in real life. When my boss said “I won’t get the vaccine because Bill Gates put in microchips” I didn’t acknowledge that as a serious discussion.
If you want to be treated as if the things you’re saying have value, you shouldn’t pop off arrogantly about how the US government regularly has people killed. They don’t.
Secrets aren’t good at staying secrets.
Edit: more to the point, this comment section is full of people spouting conspiracy theories. None of their theories are plausible or make any degree of sense when dug into. That they are so widespread here is because of the mindset people have - a toxic mindset that makes their brains ripe for the rot of conspiracy thinking. That should not be encouraged in any public forum, because it is contagious.
Sure, let’s talk.
Hmm… okay, I think I get it. You’re putting me (and, presumably, anyone who says things that you already “know” to be false) in the same category as someone who thinks there are microchips in the vaccine. If you never make mistakes or are lacking information, that makes perfect sense. Since you do make mistakes sometimes and there are things you don’t know, that’s a stupid way to behave.
I think this is another stupid way to behave. You can talk with someone who thinks different things than you do – whether they’re right or wrong – without being combative about it. It’s actually an important skill to have. It doesn’t mean the things they say “have value,” it just means it’s more productive to be factual and communicative than to be a dick about it and deliberately act as if they’re saying things they’re not saying so you can “win.”
I mean, the US government does regularly have people killed. Please don’t tell me that that’s different because they’re not Americans. What I said, though, was a little different than that; I said “powerful people in the US government.” The US government killing Americans as a matter of public policy is not unheard of (Fred Hampton), but I don’t think it happens all that often, no. I think it’s a little more likely that some individual person in a position of power might decide to commit a murder. Especially if their life is going to be ruined if they don’t. Are you saying that’s an impossible or outlandish suggestion?
Yeah. Shot in the head. Twice. He just wasn’t successful with that first shot and had enough bearings to fix it with the second. So said the CIA and we should all believe them just like the totally-not-a-pedophile-priest.
His ex-wife said that she believed he’d killed himself.
Here’s a story from a local paper which is the cite. Unless the details reported are purely made up, it seems like an actually pretty compelling set of facts leading to the suicide being genuine. I literally just learned this; until yesterday, I thought they killed him too.
There’s plenty of criminal behavior by the US government adjacent to Webb and his reporting without needing to exceed what’s actually true about it.
No, really. The other guy is playing ignorant. Telle me, for real, how much does the CIA pay you to play stupid and ignorant to defend them against the obvious.
I mean for real, I’ll just skip the cash and take the cocaine itself. Not a fucking problem.
Yeah, sure. The CIA pays me to bring Gary Webb’s name unprompted into random internet threads because they feel like promoting his story is an important part of their PR.
I never really knew that much of the story until the other guy started arguing with me about it, so I spent some time at breakfast reading about it. I think he killed himself. That said, there’s plenty of malfeasance by the government. Among the things that jump out at me:
See, this is what I’m talking about. Just tell me if they’re cutting the shit too or if you got the real shebang
They’re actually paying me in pure adrenochrome. I won’t say where they get it; all I can say is you should get in on this. They have openings.
I was thinking about that but the other one said he’s got better than that schitzo and it’s from some European labs. Some analog from a khat derivative. Says it like mixing coke, X, & meth altogether but totally different a neurofunction. Something about serotonin instead of dopamine?
Yes the first bullet passed through his cheek and it is not difficult to fire a gun.
So said his wife.
Yup. I believe her just like I believe the fucking priest. CIA had nothing to do with manipulating anyone.
Correct.
Do they pay that well too?
What?
I mean, will they just skip the cash and pay with the coke itself?