Soooo since Groening is in the files, and considering he fooled us with his “predictions”, which are now clearly due to his connection, is it time to cancel him? And I will look for another avatar.

  • Aedis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    12 days ago

    This is the same argument used to say not all cops are bad.

    Turns out if you’re not one of the bad ones you’re at complicit in hiding the bad ones. Same applies here.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 days ago

      Not at all the same thing. Cops are complicit because they know what other cops are doing. We don’t know what Matt was doing. You don’t know what anyone you talk to is doing. Until you do, it makes absolutely no sense to hate them or you would hate absolutely everyone.

      • Aedis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        Not hate, but I do dislike most people.

        I think it would be naive to believe that someone corresponded with Epstein and had no idea what they were doing. Even if they didn’t partake.

        Also what allegiance do you owe Matt Groening? I see no reason to defend another rich asshole.

        • artyom@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          12 days ago

          I think it would be naive to believe that someone corresponded with Epstein and had no idea what they were doing

          Based on what? Did you correspond with him?

          what allegiance do you owe Matt Groening?

          My only allegiance is to rational thought processes.

    • AngryishHumanoid@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      You seem to be approaching this from the point of view that every person Epstein ever met knew and supported what he was doing. Why?

      • Aedis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        It does read that way from my comment.

        In this case I’m saying Groening had more than a couple interactions (see the guiffre stuff mentioned on this thread)

        Sure just meeting the guy or talking once doesnt make you complicit, but a corresponding with might.

        • AngryishHumanoid@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 days ago

          Might is the keyword here I think. A decade ago I had a couple coworkers I knew for a few years, talked video games with them all the time. One day the subject of Trump came up and I, for the first time, discovered they were rabid Trump supporters, never talked to them again.

          I imagine there were many people in his orbit with no knowledge or interest in what he was doing, the sheer volume of people he associated with would make that a far likelier scenario. Until something directly tying him to actual allegations or evidence comes out his name in the files means very little to me.