![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cP2EXzhDVH4
1. The Snopes article as of today issues none of its usual Yes, No, or even Maybe verdicts on whether Rowling was in the Epstein files. The Snopes article sticks to implications rather than stating its conclusions firmly and outright.
2. The Snopes article gets an F in investigative reporting given its complete lack of analysis of the emails in question and Rowling's response to them. The video, on the other hand, gives a detailed analysis of both, as well as supplying additional context.
Snopes is not an arbiter of truth any more than any other source is. The quality of an argument must be based on the evidence it presents and its analysis of that evidence. It must also be based on whether or not an argument is being made.
The video shows that the existing facts on record make the idea that Epstein and Rowling were friends a reasonable one worthy of further scrutiny, and the additional context shows fairly unequivocally that regardless of whether the Epstein connection exists that Rowling is not the staunch defender of (cis) women and (cis) children that she claims to be, and rather is, at the best, an inattentive and passive enabler of some of the most powerful rapists and pedophiles of our day, and at worst, a close personal friend and active enabler of more than one of them.
Also note that since the video presenter is British and the British legal system favors accusers of libel, the note at the beginning is probably for legal purposes.
Why does a children's author keep the company of so many woman and girl hating monsters?
Also, since people may use this to try to descredit this video, I am aware of this snopes article regarding the Epstein - Rowling connection but I think it's important to note:1. The Snopes article as of today issues none of its usual Yes, No, or even Maybe verdicts on whether Rowling was in the Epstein files. The Snopes article sticks to implications rather than stating its conclusions firmly and outright.
2. The Snopes article gets an F in investigative reporting given its complete lack of analysis of the emails in question and Rowling's response to them. The video, on the other hand, gives a detailed analysis of both, as well as supplying additional context.
Snopes is not an arbiter of truth any more than any other source is. The quality of an argument must be based on the evidence it presents and its analysis of that evidence. It must also be based on whether or not an argument is being made.
The video shows that the existing facts on record make the idea that Epstein and Rowling were friends a reasonable one worthy of further scrutiny, and the additional context shows fairly unequivocally that regardless of whether the Epstein connection exists that Rowling is not the staunch defender of (cis) women and (cis) children that she claims to be, and rather is, at the best, an inattentive and passive enabler of some of the most powerful rapists and pedophiles of our day, and at worst, a close personal friend and active enabler of more than one of them.
Also note that since the video presenter is British and the British legal system favors accusers of libel, the note at the beginning is probably for legal purposes.