Speculating about Kompromat
Me: I know this is speculative. Your pushback is fair. I know that not every person who interacted with Epstein was corrupted. But this hypothesis does not rest on that assumption. I think that the assumption that some people were corrupted, and that that fact was used to skew public discourse, is a more plausible hypothesis than some people were corrupted, but no one applied knowledge of specifics as leverage to influence public discourse. I think that culturally--as a society--we should take on board the realization that some people are corrupted. If we change our position on an issue related to what we previously had persistently advocated publicly, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that [we] should declare the causes" of our changed opinion. Simply stating the reason for the change in opinion can stave off any speculation about it being motivated by hidden / corrupt influence. Claude: That reframe is fair, and I think you're right that it changes...