A lot of “this Epstein stuff” is mass hysteria. I don’t think it’s worth engaging with at all for most people, but if you’ve already been sucked in, I recommend reading Michael Tracey for some balance and counterpoints to the sensationalism.
Can someone explain why this comment is so unpopular? Is the reasoning/evidence/character of Michael Tracey flawed? If so, I’d like to know!
I’ve looked into it as well, and his thesis—that the Epstein story is vastly exaggerated—seems entirely reasonable. E.g. the systemic “blackmail” thing that the OP here just takes for granted has pretty much nothing supporting it. Certainly Tracey’s view seems enormously more directionally accurate than the “satanist cannibal cabal” stuff that gets promoted left and right.
In general, if you want to write a comment that disagrees with a public opinion having it be three lines with a link is not popular. For contrarian takes to be received well on LessWrong they usually need more effort.
Tracey is definitely not neutral political valence-wise, but I suspect that’s not the main reason I’m getting downvoted. The OP said explicitly that they didn’t want to talk about the evidence and that this piece is for people that “already know”. So my comment is both off-topic and rude in multiple ways:
changes the subject to something the OP explicitly flagged that they don’t want to talk about here
insinuates that the OP is a participant in the mass hysteria, with only a citation to a political operator as evidence
doesn’t invite further discussion (“I don’t think it’s worth engaging with at all...”)
There’s probably also a selection effect—the people who are likely to scroll to the bottom of this post and expand a negative-karma comment are likely to have strong feelings about the topic already, in a particular direction. And more neutral people are likely to vote based on the tone and process vibes or their pre-existing beliefs, rather than take the time to evaluate an argument that neither I or the OP are explicitly making. The OP reads as trying to do something meta and world-model-y, which vaguely looks like a virtue around here, whereas my comment pattern matches to lower-quality political punditry that the commentariat here generally doesn’t like.
So the downvotes and disagreement (-5 / −24 at time of writing) don’t really surprise me, but they are another reminder that LW votes are very much not truth-tracking in general.
It’s one thing to say “I know X is controversial, but I want to assume it and talk about the consequences.” But saying that there “this article is for people who know X and not the ignorant” leaves it fair game to attack X.
I have a different complaint. Saying “Epstein stuff” and not being specific could create an alliance between people who believe contradictory things. This is a common pattern. For a crisp example, consider anti-carb as an alliance between people who think glucose is fine and fructose is poison with people who think the opposite.
A lot of “this Epstein stuff” is mass hysteria. I don’t think it’s worth engaging with at all for most people, but if you’ve already been sucked in, I recommend reading Michael Tracey for some balance and counterpoints to the sensationalism.
Can someone explain why this comment is so unpopular? Is the reasoning/evidence/character of Michael Tracey flawed? If so, I’d like to know!
I’ve looked into it as well, and his thesis—that the Epstein story is vastly exaggerated—seems entirely reasonable. E.g. the systemic “blackmail” thing that the OP here just takes for granted has pretty much nothing supporting it. Certainly Tracey’s view seems enormously more directionally accurate than the “satanist cannibal cabal” stuff that gets promoted left and right.
In general, if you want to write a comment that disagrees with a public opinion having it be three lines with a link is not popular. For contrarian takes to be received well on LessWrong they usually need more effort.
Tracey is definitely not neutral political valence-wise, but I suspect that’s not the main reason I’m getting downvoted. The OP said explicitly that they didn’t want to talk about the evidence and that this piece is for people that “already know”. So my comment is both off-topic and rude in multiple ways:
changes the subject to something the OP explicitly flagged that they don’t want to talk about here
insinuates that the OP is a participant in the mass hysteria, with only a citation to a political operator as evidence
doesn’t invite further discussion (“I don’t think it’s worth engaging with at all...”)
There’s probably also a selection effect—the people who are likely to scroll to the bottom of this post and expand a negative-karma comment are likely to have strong feelings about the topic already, in a particular direction. And more neutral people are likely to vote based on the tone and process vibes or their pre-existing beliefs, rather than take the time to evaluate an argument that neither I or the OP are explicitly making. The OP reads as trying to do something meta and world-model-y, which vaguely looks like a virtue around here, whereas my comment pattern matches to lower-quality political punditry that the commentariat here generally doesn’t like.
So the downvotes and disagreement (-5 / −24 at time of writing) don’t really surprise me, but they are another reminder that LW votes are very much not truth-tracking in general.
It’s one thing to say “I know X is controversial, but I want to assume it and talk about the consequences.” But saying that there “this article is for people who know X and not the ignorant” leaves it fair game to attack X.
I have a different complaint. Saying “Epstein stuff” and not being specific could create an alliance between people who believe contradictory things. This is a common pattern. For a crisp example, consider anti-carb as an alliance between people who think glucose is fine and fructose is poison with people who think the opposite.