It can't be a moral panic unless it is a "marginalized group", like Communists, and has to be a panic against people "on account of their status" not "their actions" (apparently even "their actions" of "being in an email chain" is sufficient cause for your career to be destroyed but because it's "your action" and not "your status" and "you are not marginalized" ......) Uchghhk.
"JP Morgan paid a $290 million settlement to Epstein accusers [for ignoring red flags that Epstein was doing wire transfers to 'countries associated with human trafficking]."
Ukraine is a country "flagged for human trafficking" can you not do a wire transfer to Ukraine now? UGH!
Rather than noting that a $290 million settlement "to Epstein accusers" (<- veracity of accusations never even adjudicated in a court of law, WOW!) all of whom are anonymous (<- WTF came up with the idea that "accusing someone of sex crimes" guarantees your anonymity and violates 6th amendment rights, even if you claim to have been an adult when said "crimes" happened, that's INSANE) so that two law firms can claw $87 million of that for themselves by abusing poorly conceived legislation that tramples over fundamental legal rights (double jeopardy? statue of limitations? right to face your accuser? uh, requirement to even prove there was actually even a crime?), on account of a series of accusations by the likes of women who say Epstein was a transdimensional reptilian who around flew in UFOs or was a member of a "Jewish pedophile criminal mafia that preys exclusively on pale-skinned Gentile underaged girls headed by a lingerie magnate" or some rando podcaster that says "Steven Spielberg and Les Wexner's MEGA Group Blackmailed American VIPs with Child Rape Videos for Israel", is clearly evidence that people are hyper-moralized about a ridiculous panic, she seems to think this indicates it is completely rational to be outraged about "it" (whether "it" actually involved any crimes at all, or crimes that were merely "malum prohibitum" vs. "malum in se" is .... irrelevant!)
Oh god and now she's saying "When you strip it all away you are simply claiming these women are lying, the oldest trick in the book, stripping victim's clai--"
Had to shut it off. Sheesh. Yes lady, a lot of them are lying. In fact, all of them making the podcast and media interview circuit are bald-faced liars.
It's so true. The ones that get paraded before us were getting paid for their favors. That's why they went again and again. None were held as sex slaves. They came and went on their own accord. They decided it would be a good career move for themselves, to make themselves available to a wealthy clientele in hopes of finding a benefactor to improve their lot in life. These are the ones we know about. There are likely others who may have had different experiences and didn't fare as well. We don't hear about them.
When a women or even a teen female makes herself available for sexual favors for money, we call that prostitution. That many of them also brought in other women made them complicit in trafficking. Once this caught on fire and there was an Epstein settlement fund, they came forward with changed characterizations of themselves as victims. Again, for money.
They're all getting paid.
If there was such thing as a "pedo ring" also operating out of Epstein's cave, we are never going to know the truth about it.
You won that hands down. It was so funny how she wanted to dismiss ‘specifics’. Yeah, because if she tried to it would have shown she doesn’t know the specifics or her entire line of reasoning would have collapsed. I do wish you had use Haley Robson as an example to show the moral panic. The Palm Beach Police were going to indict her as a conspirator because she bragged she was Epstein’s ‘Heidi Fleiss’ . And even Julie K Brown’s book called her just as guilty as Epstein. Now Robson gets to be paraded around Congress as this victim and no doubt been compensated as a victim. The irony of it all is that without the so called sweetheart deal , Robson would have done jail time along with Epstein back in 2008. So conspiracy advocates have a problem. If they think Robson is a victim then they can’t criticize the sweetheart deal by the US attorney. So which is it?
Epstein is a textbook example of the ongoing system of moral panics that started in full form in the 1980s with the Satanic ritual abuse panic and the snuff film panic (remember that one?), but had its seeds planted in the late '70s by a series of hysterical articles written in the mainstream press alleging that "child porn" being produced and sold was rampant, later debunked to no effect by PLAYBOY article published in 1987. QuAnon didn't work, Pizzagate didn't work, so Epstein was needed, and it was combined with the Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Totally agree w/ some of what you say. Historians like Philip Jenkins have written about what he argued were moral panics around child abuse in the late 70s, leading to the “decade of nightmares” that was the media sensationalism of the 80s.
Sensationalism has always existed as long as we've had print media, from the William T. Stead scandal in Victorian England, to outrage around interracial marriage or gay men… What has changed are the targets, where shame and scandal have narrowed to focus on issues surrounding young people in particular.
Whilst we probably agree on all that, what I didn't understand in your comment is the “Trump derangement syndrome”? It seems to me that many people legitimately dislike / despise Trump and his policies and public statements. From old controversies like “grab her by the pussy,” to newer ones. Do you think the criticism Trump and his gov faces are insincere? 🤔
Hi, Aaron, and thank you for asking that to clear things up.
Trump *deserves* to be loathed, much like all capitalists who control the world and live in splendor whilst the rest of us can't even accord groceries, a home, or to raise a family. The Trump Derangement Syndrome basically describes a *disproportionate* dislike for Trump above and beyond any capitalist who work for the same 0.1$ donors and the exact same world order on the Democrat side of the Duopoly by libs simply because the latter claim to uphold different social values. As if those social values meant more to them at the end of the day than economic solidarity with their fellow capitalists. And serve any purpose than to keep working class people divided.
The working class should be class conscious, much like Trump and Biden are, and dislike the entire pack instead of simply teaming up with one side (the Democrats) over the other "side" (the Republicans), a situation that brought us both Trump administrations in the first place since both "sides" invariably fail the working class and lead to temporary mass support for the other... over and over again, as it has since the failure of the Carter administration, the first Dem administration of the present era.
This moral panic was combined by many on the Mainstream Left with the Trump Derangement Syndrome because they believe Trump is particularly heavily represented among the "guilty parties" of alleged mass child abuse and murder that allegedly occurred during this latest manifestation of a sensationalized organized sex abuse "epidemic".
Totally agree w/ some of what you say. Historians like Philip Jenkins have written about what he argued were moral panics around child abuse in the late 70s, leading to the “decade of nightmares” that was the media sensationalism of the 80s.
Sensationalism has always existed as long as we've had print media, from the William T. Stead scandal in Victorian England, to outrage around interracial marriage or gay men… What has changed are the targets, where shame and scandal have narrowed to focus on issues surrounding young people in particular.
Whilst we probably agree on all that, what I didn't understand in your comment is the “Trump derangement syndrome”? It seems to me that many people legitimately dislike / despise Trump and his policies and public statements. From old controversies like “grab her by the pussy,” to newer ones. Do you think the criticism Trump and his gov faces are insincere? 🤔
Totally agree w/ some of what you say. Historians like Philip Jenkins have written about what he argued were moral panics around child abuse in the late 70s, leading to the “decade of nightmares” that was the media sensationalism of the 80s.
Sensationalism has always existed as long as we've had print media, from the William T. Stead scandal in Victorian England, to outrage around interracial marriage or gay men… What has changed are the targets, where shame and scandal have narrowed to focus on issues surrounding young people in particular.
Whilst we probably agree on all that, what I didn't understand in your comment is the “Trump derangement syndrome”? It seems to me that many people legitimately dislike / despise Trump and his policies and public statements. From old controversies like “grab her by the pussy,” to newer ones. Do you think the criticism Trump and his gov faces are insincere? 🤔
Totally agree w/ some of what you say. Historians like Philip Jenkins have written about what he argued were moral panic around child abuse in the late 70s, leading to the “decade of nightmares” that was the media sensationalism of the 80s.
Sensationalism has always existed as long as we've had print media, from the William T. Stead scandal in Victorian England, to outrage around interracial marriage or gay men… What has changed are the targets, where shame and scandal have narrowed to focus on issues surrounding young people in particular.
Whilst we probably agree on all that, what I didn't understand in your comment is the “Trump derangement syndrome”? It seems to me that many people legitimately dislike / despise Trump and his policies and public statements. From old controversies like “grab her by the pussy,” to newer ones. Do you think the criticism Trump and his gov faces are insincere? 🤔
Also, to be clear, no politician or celebrity alleged to have participated in the Epstein-related horrors is likely to be guilty of what was alleged, no matter how much we may dislike them for good reason. Much as I never believed QuAnon's claims that Hillary Clinton molested children in a ritualized context and then literally ate their faces off. And I say this as someone who loathes Hillary for who she is and what she represents in this world.
seems like this did end up being a debate about semantics but more about the definition of "the epstein scandal" itself than the definition of moral panic. she kept trying to limit the scope of the "scandal" to epstein, maxwell and a few other elites instead of what it actually has exploded into. i wish you had cited the percentage of people polled that actually believe in the vast conspiracy theory i've heard you mention before. if such a large percentage of people coming to believe something completely false about the very nature of reality on the planet isn't a disproportionate reaction then nothing is. but she also wanted us to believe that the only consequences we should consider were whether anyone was convicted of a crime, as if losing your job or your reputation were insignificant annoyances at most. and she was being completely disingenuous when she said no one believed the conspiracy theories. either that, or she lives in a hole. and is anything more indicative of a sociopath than constantly asking "right?" after everything you allege? that should be "illegal" in debates.
WTF is Gene Epstein even saying towards the end? He hopes the audience isn't bogged down by the semantics of the term moral panic so we can "speak empirically about Jeffrey Epstein". Both sides don't have the same knowledge of the case so that's not possible. That's why Szablewicz tried to keep it about the use of the word.
Ms Szablewicz' criteria for moral panic not applying to Epstein sounds like special pleading. Political power is not simply about your status or resources. It's about sociopolitical legitimacy and the ability to compel the public and institutions to take your side. In Western Anglo society's (commendable imo) focus on women's well being, I can think of few forces more socially powerful and legitimized than white knight men rushing to the aid of women and those too weak to defend themselves. As with any political power arrangement, this is susceptible to abuse and overreach.
(1) The Epstein hysteria is obviously a moral panic to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the actual details of the case. That said, Michael you were thoroughly out-debated by your opponent, who had an uphill battle to climb (arguing for an obvious falsehood).
She had three clear arguments, all of which you could have easilty refuted.
i) Using a contrived definition of "moral panic" to include only cases in which the targets are marginalized groups.
As you noted, this definition excludes *the* quintessential moral panic, the satanist/abuse panic of the 1980s. However, you failed to press this point by asking her point-blank if that was a moral panic. Further, she tried to wriggle out by saying that it targeted satanists (a marginalized group); this is false; the target was *regular* people who were *accused* of being satanists. Of course, by construction, *every* moral panic will involve people being *accused* of belonging to a bad (and therefore marginalized) group; but you failed to note this.
ii) "People are upset about Epstein and Epstein actually did bad things, so therefore there's no panic."
You needed to press the fact that the "panic" is about the fictitious global cabal of pedophile elites. She tried to simultaneously say: (1) maybe the cabal does exist, but she couldn't offer arguments for that because she's not a lawyer (bizarre); (2) no one is panicking about the fictitious cabal because they haven't been prosecuted. You needed to refute the second point more thoroughly, by bringing up Prince Andrew and others, and also noting that a lack of formal prosecution doesn't preclude a general "panic" about a cabal of pedophilic elites; in fact it is further evidence that it doesn't exist.
iii) She said we have extant normative reasons not to call it a moral panic.
This is such a stupid argument I'm actually glad you didn't address it.
You made some other unfortunate mistakes, like saying we could call the Epstein hysteria by "another name," when you should have known she would be making a contrived semantic argument about the label "moral panic," given the facts were on your side. I hope you take solace in the YT comments being 90% pro-Tracey (and in being correct on the merits), but I was not surprised you didn't win.
(2) The main reason I wrote this comment is that Mrs. Szablewicz, a supposed academic, behaved shamefully, taking multipe cheap shots at you and your character. Obviously debates are allowed some good-humored ribbing, but these went beyond that, and her smears were frankly rude and obnoxious. I understand Gene Epstein (unfortunate name!) is old, but I was disappointed he didn't step in as the moderator. Absent an apology from Reason, I would think twice about participating in a debate hosted by them.
PS Since I've already written this long comment, I do want to note that you have a quasi-verbal tic of saying "tax-free" every time you mention Epstein settlements. As a huge Michael Tracey fan, I find it charming, but you may want to stop doing that in adversarial settings.
With so much going on is the Epstein debate worth it or distraction? I feel like we are losing our country. Corruption by the CIA and the FBI and states elections have dragged this country towards communism, Marxism, socialism. Three churches were set on fire on purpose in New York. Muslims tell you the invasion of the West is their goal. Illegal aliens are murdering Americans while the media is silent. The evil of Muslim rape gangs in London goes unpunished.
A comment section ghost town on the shit journalism of a bloviating liar who defends the honor of the Epstein class. Those defending you are likely either pedos, parents of pedophiles or Mossad bot. Obfuscating the Fact that Epstein was a Jew working for Israel and Zionism. Enjoy hell Tracey, you’re going to meet your heroes. You’re probably gonna be wearing a ball gag.
I don't believe the financial settlements prove guilt.
The settlements indicate that the Epstein estate did not wish to go through a courtroom hearing.
It is also suspicious that the Epstein documents released by the government have redactions of both "victims" and perps. Why are the perps' names redacted? We keep being told there's nothing to see here, and then we're told that everything has been revealed. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between. There were some disturbing things in the emails, but we can't do much with the info, considering all the redactions.
There was more evidence of child sex crimes in the Podesta emails, but nobody seems to care about those.
The strangest thing about the Epstein issue is that we all think we know what happened, but we really have no evidence of that. I still suspect that he was running some sort of blackmail operation, for the use of various spy agencies, but I have no evidence of that.
I do wish that someone would follow up on the emails referencing torture. I see less interest in actually investigating damning statements in the emails, than in perpetuating the story that pre-pubescent children were being routinely brought to Epstein and his guests for their sexual pleasure. The women who have come forward were either teenagers or young adults when they interacted with Epstein, so I don't see what the big deal was.
They weren't being held against their will, as far as I know. If they can provide evidence of any crimes committed, then let's see the evidence. I read somewhere that New Mexico authorities attempting to conduct their own investigation into Epstein's ranch, were interfered with by Feds. That should definitely be investigated, but spazzing out at Michael Tracey for pointing out the truth will not accomplish anything.
Uninformed and disingenuous opponent who deployed some truly shameful tactics. The academy either isn't sending their best, or the standards have fallen so far that "best" is now sub-standard relative to previous norms. I also found her vocal tics of "rising?...inflection?...with an implied question?...right"? to be thoroughly annoying. I half expected her to say "OMG like totally you guys"
It can't be a moral panic unless it is a "marginalized group", like Communists, and has to be a panic against people "on account of their status" not "their actions" (apparently even "their actions" of "being in an email chain" is sufficient cause for your career to be destroyed but because it's "your action" and not "your status" and "you are not marginalized" ......) Uchghhk.
"JP Morgan paid a $290 million settlement to Epstein accusers [for ignoring red flags that Epstein was doing wire transfers to 'countries associated with human trafficking]."
Ukraine is a country "flagged for human trafficking" can you not do a wire transfer to Ukraine now? UGH!
Rather than noting that a $290 million settlement "to Epstein accusers" (<- veracity of accusations never even adjudicated in a court of law, WOW!) all of whom are anonymous (<- WTF came up with the idea that "accusing someone of sex crimes" guarantees your anonymity and violates 6th amendment rights, even if you claim to have been an adult when said "crimes" happened, that's INSANE) so that two law firms can claw $87 million of that for themselves by abusing poorly conceived legislation that tramples over fundamental legal rights (double jeopardy? statue of limitations? right to face your accuser? uh, requirement to even prove there was actually even a crime?), on account of a series of accusations by the likes of women who say Epstein was a transdimensional reptilian who around flew in UFOs or was a member of a "Jewish pedophile criminal mafia that preys exclusively on pale-skinned Gentile underaged girls headed by a lingerie magnate" or some rando podcaster that says "Steven Spielberg and Les Wexner's MEGA Group Blackmailed American VIPs with Child Rape Videos for Israel", is clearly evidence that people are hyper-moralized about a ridiculous panic, she seems to think this indicates it is completely rational to be outraged about "it" (whether "it" actually involved any crimes at all, or crimes that were merely "malum prohibitum" vs. "malum in se" is .... irrelevant!)
Oh god and now she's saying "When you strip it all away you are simply claiming these women are lying, the oldest trick in the book, stripping victim's clai--"
Had to shut it off. Sheesh. Yes lady, a lot of them are lying. In fact, all of them making the podcast and media interview circuit are bald-faced liars.
It's so true. The ones that get paraded before us were getting paid for their favors. That's why they went again and again. None were held as sex slaves. They came and went on their own accord. They decided it would be a good career move for themselves, to make themselves available to a wealthy clientele in hopes of finding a benefactor to improve their lot in life. These are the ones we know about. There are likely others who may have had different experiences and didn't fare as well. We don't hear about them.
When a women or even a teen female makes herself available for sexual favors for money, we call that prostitution. That many of them also brought in other women made them complicit in trafficking. Once this caught on fire and there was an Epstein settlement fund, they came forward with changed characterizations of themselves as victims. Again, for money.
They're all getting paid.
If there was such thing as a "pedo ring" also operating out of Epstein's cave, we are never going to know the truth about it.
You won that hands down. It was so funny how she wanted to dismiss ‘specifics’. Yeah, because if she tried to it would have shown she doesn’t know the specifics or her entire line of reasoning would have collapsed. I do wish you had use Haley Robson as an example to show the moral panic. The Palm Beach Police were going to indict her as a conspirator because she bragged she was Epstein’s ‘Heidi Fleiss’ . And even Julie K Brown’s book called her just as guilty as Epstein. Now Robson gets to be paraded around Congress as this victim and no doubt been compensated as a victim. The irony of it all is that without the so called sweetheart deal , Robson would have done jail time along with Epstein back in 2008. So conspiracy advocates have a problem. If they think Robson is a victim then they can’t criticize the sweetheart deal by the US attorney. So which is it?
Epstein is a textbook example of the ongoing system of moral panics that started in full form in the 1980s with the Satanic ritual abuse panic and the snuff film panic (remember that one?), but had its seeds planted in the late '70s by a series of hysterical articles written in the mainstream press alleging that "child porn" being produced and sold was rampant, later debunked to no effect by PLAYBOY article published in 1987. QuAnon didn't work, Pizzagate didn't work, so Epstein was needed, and it was combined with the Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Totally agree w/ some of what you say. Historians like Philip Jenkins have written about what he argued were moral panics around child abuse in the late 70s, leading to the “decade of nightmares” that was the media sensationalism of the 80s.
Sensationalism has always existed as long as we've had print media, from the William T. Stead scandal in Victorian England, to outrage around interracial marriage or gay men… What has changed are the targets, where shame and scandal have narrowed to focus on issues surrounding young people in particular.
Whilst we probably agree on all that, what I didn't understand in your comment is the “Trump derangement syndrome”? It seems to me that many people legitimately dislike / despise Trump and his policies and public statements. From old controversies like “grab her by the pussy,” to newer ones. Do you think the criticism Trump and his gov faces are insincere? 🤔
Best ~ ✨️
Hi, Aaron, and thank you for asking that to clear things up.
Trump *deserves* to be loathed, much like all capitalists who control the world and live in splendor whilst the rest of us can't even accord groceries, a home, or to raise a family. The Trump Derangement Syndrome basically describes a *disproportionate* dislike for Trump above and beyond any capitalist who work for the same 0.1$ donors and the exact same world order on the Democrat side of the Duopoly by libs simply because the latter claim to uphold different social values. As if those social values meant more to them at the end of the day than economic solidarity with their fellow capitalists. And serve any purpose than to keep working class people divided.
The working class should be class conscious, much like Trump and Biden are, and dislike the entire pack instead of simply teaming up with one side (the Democrats) over the other "side" (the Republicans), a situation that brought us both Trump administrations in the first place since both "sides" invariably fail the working class and lead to temporary mass support for the other... over and over again, as it has since the failure of the Carter administration, the first Dem administration of the present era.
This moral panic was combined by many on the Mainstream Left with the Trump Derangement Syndrome because they believe Trump is particularly heavily represented among the "guilty parties" of alleged mass child abuse and murder that allegedly occurred during this latest manifestation of a sensationalized organized sex abuse "epidemic".
Totally agree w/ some of what you say. Historians like Philip Jenkins have written about what he argued were moral panics around child abuse in the late 70s, leading to the “decade of nightmares” that was the media sensationalism of the 80s.
Sensationalism has always existed as long as we've had print media, from the William T. Stead scandal in Victorian England, to outrage around interracial marriage or gay men… What has changed are the targets, where shame and scandal have narrowed to focus on issues surrounding young people in particular.
Whilst we probably agree on all that, what I didn't understand in your comment is the “Trump derangement syndrome”? It seems to me that many people legitimately dislike / despise Trump and his policies and public statements. From old controversies like “grab her by the pussy,” to newer ones. Do you think the criticism Trump and his gov faces are insincere? 🤔
Best ~ ✨️
Totally agree w/ some of what you say. Historians like Philip Jenkins have written about what he argued were moral panics around child abuse in the late 70s, leading to the “decade of nightmares” that was the media sensationalism of the 80s.
Sensationalism has always existed as long as we've had print media, from the William T. Stead scandal in Victorian England, to outrage around interracial marriage or gay men… What has changed are the targets, where shame and scandal have narrowed to focus on issues surrounding young people in particular.
Whilst we probably agree on all that, what I didn't understand in your comment is the “Trump derangement syndrome”? It seems to me that many people legitimately dislike / despise Trump and his policies and public statements. From old controversies like “grab her by the pussy,” to newer ones. Do you think the criticism Trump and his gov faces are insincere? 🤔
Best ~ ✨️
Totally agree w/ some of what you say. Historians like Philip Jenkins have written about what he argued were moral panic around child abuse in the late 70s, leading to the “decade of nightmares” that was the media sensationalism of the 80s.
Sensationalism has always existed as long as we've had print media, from the William T. Stead scandal in Victorian England, to outrage around interracial marriage or gay men… What has changed are the targets, where shame and scandal have narrowed to focus on issues surrounding young people in particular.
Whilst we probably agree on all that, what I didn't understand in your comment is the “Trump derangement syndrome”? It seems to me that many people legitimately dislike / despise Trump and his policies and public statements. From old controversies like “grab her by the pussy,” to newer ones. Do you think the criticism Trump and his gov faces are insincere? 🤔
Best ~ ✨️
Also, to be clear, no politician or celebrity alleged to have participated in the Epstein-related horrors is likely to be guilty of what was alleged, no matter how much we may dislike them for good reason. Much as I never believed QuAnon's claims that Hillary Clinton molested children in a ritualized context and then literally ate their faces off. And I say this as someone who loathes Hillary for who she is and what she represents in this world.
seems like this did end up being a debate about semantics but more about the definition of "the epstein scandal" itself than the definition of moral panic. she kept trying to limit the scope of the "scandal" to epstein, maxwell and a few other elites instead of what it actually has exploded into. i wish you had cited the percentage of people polled that actually believe in the vast conspiracy theory i've heard you mention before. if such a large percentage of people coming to believe something completely false about the very nature of reality on the planet isn't a disproportionate reaction then nothing is. but she also wanted us to believe that the only consequences we should consider were whether anyone was convicted of a crime, as if losing your job or your reputation were insignificant annoyances at most. and she was being completely disingenuous when she said no one believed the conspiracy theories. either that, or she lives in a hole. and is anything more indicative of a sociopath than constantly asking "right?" after everything you allege? that should be "illegal" in debates.
WTF is Gene Epstein even saying towards the end? He hopes the audience isn't bogged down by the semantics of the term moral panic so we can "speak empirically about Jeffrey Epstein". Both sides don't have the same knowledge of the case so that's not possible. That's why Szablewicz tried to keep it about the use of the word.
Not only is she uninformed, she reveals herself at times to be a pathetic human being, not unlike most of Michael’s other vituperative critics.
Ms Szablewicz' criteria for moral panic not applying to Epstein sounds like special pleading. Political power is not simply about your status or resources. It's about sociopolitical legitimacy and the ability to compel the public and institutions to take your side. In Western Anglo society's (commendable imo) focus on women's well being, I can think of few forces more socially powerful and legitimized than white knight men rushing to the aid of women and those too weak to defend themselves. As with any political power arrangement, this is susceptible to abuse and overreach.
(1) The Epstein hysteria is obviously a moral panic to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the actual details of the case. That said, Michael you were thoroughly out-debated by your opponent, who had an uphill battle to climb (arguing for an obvious falsehood).
She had three clear arguments, all of which you could have easilty refuted.
i) Using a contrived definition of "moral panic" to include only cases in which the targets are marginalized groups.
As you noted, this definition excludes *the* quintessential moral panic, the satanist/abuse panic of the 1980s. However, you failed to press this point by asking her point-blank if that was a moral panic. Further, she tried to wriggle out by saying that it targeted satanists (a marginalized group); this is false; the target was *regular* people who were *accused* of being satanists. Of course, by construction, *every* moral panic will involve people being *accused* of belonging to a bad (and therefore marginalized) group; but you failed to note this.
ii) "People are upset about Epstein and Epstein actually did bad things, so therefore there's no panic."
You needed to press the fact that the "panic" is about the fictitious global cabal of pedophile elites. She tried to simultaneously say: (1) maybe the cabal does exist, but she couldn't offer arguments for that because she's not a lawyer (bizarre); (2) no one is panicking about the fictitious cabal because they haven't been prosecuted. You needed to refute the second point more thoroughly, by bringing up Prince Andrew and others, and also noting that a lack of formal prosecution doesn't preclude a general "panic" about a cabal of pedophilic elites; in fact it is further evidence that it doesn't exist.
iii) She said we have extant normative reasons not to call it a moral panic.
This is such a stupid argument I'm actually glad you didn't address it.
You made some other unfortunate mistakes, like saying we could call the Epstein hysteria by "another name," when you should have known she would be making a contrived semantic argument about the label "moral panic," given the facts were on your side. I hope you take solace in the YT comments being 90% pro-Tracey (and in being correct on the merits), but I was not surprised you didn't win.
(2) The main reason I wrote this comment is that Mrs. Szablewicz, a supposed academic, behaved shamefully, taking multipe cheap shots at you and your character. Obviously debates are allowed some good-humored ribbing, but these went beyond that, and her smears were frankly rude and obnoxious. I understand Gene Epstein (unfortunate name!) is old, but I was disappointed he didn't step in as the moderator. Absent an apology from Reason, I would think twice about participating in a debate hosted by them.
PS Since I've already written this long comment, I do want to note that you have a quasi-verbal tic of saying "tax-free" every time you mention Epstein settlements. As a huge Michael Tracey fan, I find it charming, but you may want to stop doing that in adversarial settings.
With so much going on is the Epstein debate worth it or distraction? I feel like we are losing our country. Corruption by the CIA and the FBI and states elections have dragged this country towards communism, Marxism, socialism. Three churches were set on fire on purpose in New York. Muslims tell you the invasion of the West is their goal. Illegal aliens are murdering Americans while the media is silent. The evil of Muslim rape gangs in London goes unpunished.
So what, if anything, was wrong with what Epstein was doing vis a vis freedom and liberty - properly understood - here in the USA?
How about this:
https://youtu.be/q13xAEuXlyQ?is=KRuEzx0KE5nhB70O
Debate Jay Dyer or Ryan Dawson?
A comment section ghost town on the shit journalism of a bloviating liar who defends the honor of the Epstein class. Those defending you are likely either pedos, parents of pedophiles or Mossad bot. Obfuscating the Fact that Epstein was a Jew working for Israel and Zionism. Enjoy hell Tracey, you’re going to meet your heroes. You’re probably gonna be wearing a ball gag.
She’s so poorly informed.
I don't believe the financial settlements prove guilt.
The settlements indicate that the Epstein estate did not wish to go through a courtroom hearing.
It is also suspicious that the Epstein documents released by the government have redactions of both "victims" and perps. Why are the perps' names redacted? We keep being told there's nothing to see here, and then we're told that everything has been revealed. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between. There were some disturbing things in the emails, but we can't do much with the info, considering all the redactions.
There was more evidence of child sex crimes in the Podesta emails, but nobody seems to care about those.
The strangest thing about the Epstein issue is that we all think we know what happened, but we really have no evidence of that. I still suspect that he was running some sort of blackmail operation, for the use of various spy agencies, but I have no evidence of that.
I do wish that someone would follow up on the emails referencing torture. I see less interest in actually investigating damning statements in the emails, than in perpetuating the story that pre-pubescent children were being routinely brought to Epstein and his guests for their sexual pleasure. The women who have come forward were either teenagers or young adults when they interacted with Epstein, so I don't see what the big deal was.
They weren't being held against their will, as far as I know. If they can provide evidence of any crimes committed, then let's see the evidence. I read somewhere that New Mexico authorities attempting to conduct their own investigation into Epstein's ranch, were interfered with by Feds. That should definitely be investigated, but spazzing out at Michael Tracey for pointing out the truth will not accomplish anything.
Uninformed and disingenuous opponent who deployed some truly shameful tactics. The academy either isn't sending their best, or the standards have fallen so far that "best" is now sub-standard relative to previous norms. I also found her vocal tics of "rising?...inflection?...with an implied question?...right"? to be thoroughly annoying. I half expected her to say "OMG like totally you guys"
She’s the smartest opposition you’ve faced regardless of her lies. Such a good debate
I think China wins.