Two good reasons to downvote this would be 1) that it's a conspiracy theory and 2) that reading about pedophilia every time one turns on the internet is exhausting.
Not everything that's uncomfortable and swept under the rug is a conspiracy theory. Calling the revelations about Jeffrey Eppstein and his shady connections in 2023 conspiracy theory comes off as dismissive.
Nobody said that on this thread, I hope you know that.
Critical thinking and scepticism are essential, both when you read things from traditionally reputable sources, like WaPo, NYT, state media, politicians, and alternative media, like Youtube opinion people, online forums, or your friends, family and colleagues.
My point is simply that "distrusting the government" doesn't mean you should believe the theories. The theories are probably less trustworthy. They can be less trustworthy than a untrustworthy government!
> Critical thinking and scepticism are essential, both when you read things from traditionally reputable sources, like WaPo, NYT, state media, politicians, and alternative media, like Youtube opinion people, online forums, or your friends, family and colleagues.
Not all of them - the Time one from 2014 (link number 3) actually links to the Wikipedia article that has a section about the VIP paedophile ring claims (that the article is mostly about) being discredited in 2015 [1]. (The page title was changed from 'Scandal' to 'Hoax' after the article was published and redirects)
"it's a conspiracy theory" Is not a fact a good reason.
Why do conspiracy theories get a bad rap? it's because there's people who think the moon landing isn't real and the earth is flat. These are what jumps to mind when anyone says "conspiracy theory". Here you are using that association to try to cover for corrupt politicians, which is not exactly a very far out there concept.
Because it's usually speculation without evidence, and because no matter how much evidence contradicts a conspiracy theory people continue to cling to it like a religion.
I'm not sure what "Most relevant child abuse was covered by famous politicians" is supposed to mean, but most child abuse isn't committed by politicians, there is no evidence that most politicians are child abusers, and there have been several insane conspiracy theories about child abusing politicians in recent years so it's pretty natural to be skeptical when it looks like someone's starting down that path.
I expect there's already people who'd say "The crazy conspiracy theories about child abusing political figures were intentionally spread online by child abusing politicians so that anyone on social media talking about politicians abusing children would only be met with eye rolls"
Are you disagreeing with the information in GP's links?
As far as I can tell this is all looks pretty legit and the onus is on people like you to prove that all this evidence is somehow fabricated.
