Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelhus999
This is probably a giant derail, but I was referring more to how partisan subjects with objectively low stakes, both morally and IRL, produce such visceral emotional reactions; compared to topics where the partisan boundary lines are not as easily discerned, but objectively the transgressions are so much higher.
I mean if an alien that didn’t have any cultural context saw this thread and the Antifa one; they might assume Ngo committed a larger moral transgression than Epstein or any of his accomplices. I also suspect if Epstein wasn’t so politically promiscuous and had clearly allied with one side of the aisle in his cover up, if this conversation would be a lot more emotionally charged.
The emotional charge is so much lower (or at least it was until I came around)
I do wonder if this dynamic would be a lot different in less politically polarized times.
I mean, I am sure I am as guilty as this as anyone. It is a little perverse I seemingly am more worked up by college kids getting professors fired over dubious claims of racism than what appears to be a giant conspiracy to facilitate child rape.
Okay, here's my view. Epstein seems like an evil man who committed horrible crimes, but the stakes here are objectively low and your strong reaction to Epstein has more to do with the salacious details of the crimes and the celebrity of the people associated with Epstein than the importance of his crimes. Horrible crimes are committed every day in the US that you and nearly everyone else completely ignore.
Since this is a Politics Forum, it is neither surprising nor inappropriate that people would be more interested in discussing politically motivated violence than Epstein (at least until a politico is implicated). That being said, the Andy Ngo story is also not a very important one on its own, mostly significant as part of different ideological narratives.