This is giving strong “I hope nobody finds out I went to Epstein island” vibes.
Vibes? I can feel the shaking all the way over here.
As a writer, how can he be this clueless about character continuity and congruency?
All this does is implicate his involvement. I know he was coked out of his mind for decades but I never would’ve associated him with Epstein previously… Come to think of it, cocaine was probably how he met Epstein/Trump.
I’m gonna be hopeful and assume that he means there’s probably no outright list of customers, as in, no black book with names, phone numbers and who they abused, but instead emails, messages etc that link a lot of very powerful people to disgusting crimes.
I never heard anything about the list specifying which celebrity abused which child. I thought it was — at most — people who are strongly implicated through Epstein’s private comms, documents, etc.
We already know who went to the island, but simply accepting a holiday from a billionaire doesn’t imply involvement with his criminal syndicate.
thats not what he implied at all, hes saying the LIST IS AS REAL AS TOOTH FAIRY AND THE santa claus, so basically saying it doesnt exist. it also implies he is on the list.
But that isnt what he said.
You mean the guy who wrote about a bunch of like 12 year olds running a train on their friend so they were all considered adults to defeat a clown?
Man, who would’ve thought that the guy who wrote a child orgy scene would turn out to be a pedophile? Edit: Didn’t expect this to blow up and result in multiple bans… whoops.
I’ve never read It or cared. I can’t see the removed comments.
However, are we really banning people for defending artistic license to write about obscene shit in a horror story? Are pearl clutchers claiming that shit needs justification? That’s who we are? Awesome.
No. Jesus.
The thing is, from what I can see the comments that Weren’t removed are mostly what you are saying, defending artistic license. The stuff that Was removed is a bit more… graphic. I didn’t get to see All of them, so I can’t say for sure, but some of the ones I read were a bit much. Again, most of the people who defended this book and the contents within weren’t banned or had their comments removed, just downvoted.
“I have no vested interest in this conversation… i don’t know any of the context… but are we really doing this thing that nobody is doing?”
Also, yeah dude, you should be able to justify every single action you take ever. If you take an action and can’t justify why you did it, then why did you do it? No, seriously. Why did you do it, then? No, you can’t explain. That’s what justification is. Go ahead. Why did you do it? Oh- no, you can’t explain. That’s justifying.
Jesus.
Also, yeah dude, you should be able to justify every single action you take ever.
Words & expressions of fiction don’t need justification: if you dislike them, then don’t read them. Easy. Alternatively, start a committee of people who give a shit & get off mutually gratifying each other, I guess.
All of this is fine until we start banning people over disagreeing with opinions hostile to liberal expression. If you don’t understand why someone would object to violating the norms of open discourse, then I don’t know what to tell you, but I’m going to judge the hell out of you.
Okay bud.
Removed by mod
How does any of that in any way justify him writing a scene where a group of 11-12 year olds have a sex orgy?
Why does he have to justify his story to you? It’s fiction, as in not real. No one asked you if it was okay, but thanks for letting us know you don’t think it is. Millions upon millions of readers don’t agree with you.
No one asked you to reply to the op, either, yet you did. Why is it okay for you to say your take, but not for me to?
Because it’s a public forum built for discussion? Unlike a fictional novel. Next!
We can’t voice our opinions on a novel?
…a novel which is being discussed in a public forum, yes. I do appreciate when people end their posts with “Next!” because nobody who’s worth conversing with would ever do that. Lets me know who not to continue wasting my time with.
Bingo! (:
Look, I don’t know why you feel the need to defend a part of a book that is, as you just said, a Child Orgy, but you do you, and maybe you should talk to a therapist.
All I can say is; when I write about children, or think about children in any way, I don’t ever think about them having sex, whether that be with adults or other children.
Removed by mod
Pedophile.
I came too late to see what the guy said, almost makes me want to know, but I think it’s better that I don’t.
What?
The novel, It, by Stephen King has a scene as described. That book took a hard, weird turn. The whole scene wasn’t needed for the story.
Right? They could have just cut their hands and smushed the blood together to nail the “we have an unbreakable bond” vibe. The sex thing, especially when it’s like 7 boys fucking one girl, is just bad.
He must’ve gotten his inspiration out in the tropics 🏝️
“The sex thing, especially when it’s like 7 boys fucking one girl, is just bad.”
Hot take: I feel a child orgy scene is so bad the specifics aren’t significant
Removed by mod
just so you know, you’re being really weird about this
Cool
“Get a grip!” screams the guy who up and down the thread is wailing about his favorite child sex scene. Jeez, man, you think maybe you need a little less internet and possibly someone to talk to?
Yeah, I like the book. It has nothing to do with the sex scene. You can’t seem to take the work as a whole and only focus on a single part. There’s lots of weird shit out there, no sweat off my back. I just think it’s weird everyone’s jumping on him for old news that isn’t related. I think it’s weird King is defending this administration in any way, but this isn’t the angle of attack I’m willing to accept.
Just few decades before the book was written people were marrying girls of 12-15 years old. Perhaps society can allow themselves to judge from an anachronical standpoint and just be done with it. We still have a lot to improve, and the road is full of … well, people like yourself. Defending what they believe is correct while ignoring other facts…
I’m pretty sure the book doesn’t say the boys fucked each other explicitly, nor is it in the subtext. It is very detailed about them fucking the girl. (From what I remember. it’s been a while)
It is multiple paragraphs, essentially a page or two, of explicit detail, split into 2 parts (Chapter 22, Section 7 for a few paragraphs at the end before a time skip and then continues in Section 12 for a few more paragraphs. The book likes to time skip A LOT)
Absolutely none of it implies the boys engaged in any form of homosexual intercourse. The book explicitly states that their “plan” is to all take turns on Bev.
Are you saying it’s puritanical to be anti-child orgy? You’re a pedophile.
no one mentioned the children fornicating with each other until you did, yea your making it wierder than it is.
No, I understand that much. I’m asking why this weirdo is acting like the premise isn’t weird based on the given context.
They tried to give more? context in defense? of the writing?
Idk they’re being weird I think.
You realize he wrote the book right? Like he had literary control over it, he could have just as easily not put in a child orgy
OMG?! Did he?! And someone published it after having read it. And people bought it and didn’t burn him at the stake for it.
Kay? And? Child based orgies are a gross thing to include in a book
Understood. You are free to not read it.
No shit Sherlock, but writing about children having orgies is fucked up
And people are free to call out how creepy it is, as well as the people defending a child orgy scene.
And that’s just one instance of kid sex in King’s books… You gonna defend the scene from The Library Policeman where King describes a young boy being raped in graphic detail too?
This thread is giving serious “depicting something in fiction is the same as promoting it” conservative book-banning vibes.
I mean, there is almost certainly no “The List”, “2003-02-23: Donald John Trump, 3 pedophilia, paid by bank transfer”.
There are terabytes of call logs, text messages, videos, photos, location logs, witness testimonies, whatever samples, and fuck knows what else.It’s really funny how all this denial is focused on the existence of a concrete “list.” What everybody means, and what anyone honest knows, is that the request is for the release of a list of the people who went to the Epstein island and were associated with the convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein himself.
If you can convict Maxwell, there is evidence of what happened. Whether or not someone has already written a list is completely irrelevant.
There are exactly two types of people who would deny this:
- Die hard, believe-anything-Trump-is-saying-today, MAGA faithful
- paedophiles or people otherwise on the list
I wonder which one Stephen King is…
3rd)people that are protecting megadonors/donors/executives of coporations or hollywood.
It’s nice of the people on the list to out themselves. At this rate we can just compile it ourselves.
Stephen King is on the list.
I think that’s the only reason for this change in tune from the guy.
IMO, it’s blatant and transparent.
I think this is pretty unlikely, but will apologize if im wrong. My logic is that Trump already hates King and has openly feuded with him. Since there haven’t been any criminal cases yet, it seems that whatever evidence is in the files wasn’t enough for DOJ to feel like they could win a conviction, but because Trump is a petulant dumb fuck I expect he would have made Bondi bring charges for even the most tenous circumstantial evidence if it was against someone he doesn’t like. But then again Trump may think the files give him leverage over anyone even barely mentioned in the files and not want to lose that leverage, so I could be absolutely wrong.
Well, you have no reason to apologize, at this point, everyone is just speculating. However, I think the only reasonable and logical explanation, is that Stephen King is somehow, involved. He never was in any capacity or position to know everything in the case in detail. So he’s either lying about his certainty and knowledge, or he is involved, no other inference can be made.
I was just reading up on this subject, and for the life of me, even if King believes this to be true, I can’t understand why he wouldn’t just keep his trap shut.
I think there are two different lists people are talking about. One of them definitely exists, and the other one may or may not exist.
There is no doubt that law enforcement has created a list of Epstein’s clients. It was even the subject of a judge’s order. There are probably many such lists of people who have definitely given Epstein money, for example.
The question is whether there was some sort of list that Epstein kept himself, which probably would only be useful for blackmail purposes. If there is no blackmail intended, then Epstein probably would have intentionally avoided making such a list, which would also incriminate himself and could possibly get him killed. The existence of this list was originally asserted by right wing conspiracy theorists during Biden’s presidency. It seems the only person who has confirmed this list exists is Pam Bondi, who is completely incompetent, but lies frequently in order to cover for her incompetence.
This list may or may not exist. But I think if you assert at this point that it doesn’t exist, it only makes you look like a pedophile. It seems the height of stupidity to say that it doesn’t exist if you don’t have a horse in the race.
Epstein probably would have intentionally avoided making such a list, which would also incriminate himself and could possibly get him killed
Exactly. If such a list existed he would surely not survive long in jai … oh
The existence of this list was originally asserted by right wing conspiracy theorists during Biden’s presidency. It seems the only person who has confirmed this list exists is Pam Bondi, who is completely incompetent, but lies frequently in order to cover for her incompetence.
If you put it that way then it does sound dubious as hell that that particular list exists
streisand effect, hes trying to get this front and center so it would be a much softer landing later. time will tell if starts pedelling right wing talking point as a defense mechanism.
That part of IT might make a whole lot more sense all the sudden
Oh yeah, every time I talk about king’s IT, I go “It’s great except that one scene, right?” and anyone who’s read it agrees.
I listened to the audiobook. I felt like I was breaking a law.
There were some fucked up scenes in the later Dune books too. If they ever make the whole series into movies they will probably have to invent a new way to wake up Duncan’s young clone.
If you know you know. If you don’t, asking about it gets entire posts nuked.
Whaaaaat? Why would they erase stuff about a sewer clo… Oh that scene, yeah, absolutely.
don’t you hate it when a problematic part ends up being actually problematic and not something that can be chucked up to cocaine?
“I am the author’s thinly-veiled fetish” is a phrase and a meme for a reason.
thinly veiled?
Wow, what a massive POS, and misusing “UFO” to boot. Yeah, everyone has seen something flying that they couldn’t identify at some point or another. “UFO” does not automatically mean “extraterrestrial spacecraft.”
What claim is he even trying to make here? “Everyone knows someone who’s seen [the Epstein files]”? Nobody’s seen them, and nobody knows anyone who has, and that’s the whole issue.
He’s acting strangely compared to the way he’s been in the past. Did he have a Fetterman stroke or something?
He’s a former coke addict and an alcoholic. That shit really catches up with you as you age. My father was a cocaine addict and drunk for decades before he cleaned up. He’s already had multiple strokes, a double bypass, and a severe bladder infection and he’s barely cracked 60. Conversations with him are hard because the strokes left him with difficulties formulating a sentence let alone holding a coherent opinion on any topic deeper than the weather.
I know he’s had substance abuse issues in the past, and that does make a lot of sense. It’s sad.
Yeah that analogy is a pretty shitty one. There are legitimate reasons to be skeptical about UFOs/UAPs/Flying Saucers, or whatever you want to call them, even if I do not believe in batshit crazy conspiracies related to them. There are no reasons to believe that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy can be real, that is just folklore.
Shocking that someone like him, would do such a ill-conceived analogy, even if anyone considers that in modern society, alien shit can be considered folklore, it is still very much within the realm of possibility.
Shocking that someone like him would do such a ill-conceived analogy
It really was notable. I agree with another commenter who said King’s substance abuse past seems to be catching up with him. He sounds like a snarky right-wing asshole, and he used to be better than that.
Yeah… All dude had to say was, “Yeah, I meant of course that a literal list of clients with the big fat title “Client List” doesn’t exist.” Instead he doubles down? Why is everyone suddenly just a balls to the wall massive troll and douche? Man, fuck these people so hard they can never rape children or protect those that do again.
“I’m just the guy that’s going to fuck you so hard your assholes going to be dragging behind you like a tail” - Vigilante
bro self reported
why release the list of clients? all three pedos are putting themselves in the spotlight already
I’m confused. Epstein definitely did the crimes of trafficking children to be raped by wealthy people.
Why would a client list not be a real?
I think it’s very possible there isn’t an actual “client list”.
I think it’s more about making a list of visitors to the island that have somehow supported Epstein around that time.
“Have some fun on my island. Also, can you help me get a loan and this bill passed?”
I fully expected there to be a safe somewhere full of blackmail dossiers. Though I’m sure that has been put to the torch by now, if it ever existed. The best we can do now is compile lists from secondary sources.
Blackmail dossiers would also contribute to determining clients yeah. So flight logs, weird lobby stuff, suspicious messages, mysterious meetings, statements from children and wives of these men, etc.
Even if there isn’t a document with a big header that says “Client List” and firm documentation of what crimes were committed, we know there are flight logs, there are victim statements, and there are records of financial transactions.
That is absolutely enough to bring charges against at least some of these people. We are accepting a false narrative that there has to be some chiseled in stone singular document listing bad actors.
Because Epstein didn’t have a file in excel called “client list”, but there are trusted sources that when put together create a pedophile list.
he probably had a long of visitors to the island, and isnt epstein /maxwell also working for Israeli intelligence too.
Lol. Guess who’s on the list. 🤣🤣
This is the most obvious reasoning by far.
My first thought , he was on that island a lot
Also:
This also reminded me that in his short story “The Jaunt” Stephen King felt the need to include the following lines for no apparent reason:
Ricky and Pat were watching him seriously, his son twelve, his daughter nine. He told himself again that Ricky would be deep in the swamp of puberty and his daughter would likely be developing breast by the time they got back to earth, and again found it difficult to believe.
And the graphic description of a child being raped in “The Library Policeman”
And the sewers scene in IT.
Theres also a short story where a daughter, now grown, dwells on her dad cumming with his daughter in his lap during an eclipse when she was like 9.
JFC how much of this shit is there?
Almost all of his works, especially the earlier ones during his coke years, are sprinkled throughout with unnecessary sexualization of teenage girls.
gross, im not surprised, im guessing thats why he was trying to keep things at bay when he was anti-trump for a while.
I never said that.
Said what? Ricky doesn’t say anything in that quote.
spakethed with thine mind
Mine mind, or thine mind?
We Are All One Mind
This.
Everyone knows the scene from IT and how disgusting it is but many do not understand that King has a long history of pedophilic tendencies when writing teenage girls in almost all of his works.
In Carrie he has a section that takes an odd focus on how nice her legs look, in Under the Dome there is a lengthy description of an pubescent girl’s pubic hair, etc…
Like, I get he is a horror writer and that means depicting scenes that are intentionally written to be uncomfortable is part of the genre, which includes scenes of sexual violence and abuse, but there are ways to accomplish these depictions without the unnecessary sexualization of underage girls.
Sounds a lot like Stephen King is very likely to be a pedophile that has raped children on Epstein’s island 🤔
It certainly seems like It may be the case
subtle
I can’t believe how fast people are willing to say this based on such tenuous evidence as this post of his. “very likely”?? I think you all should get a grip on yourselves.
i agree. by the way i just want to say i never killed a prostitute if anyone was wondering.
I’ve never intentionally farted in a bratty kids face in a line before.
I’m glad we’re putting an end to these conspiracy theories right here
I hope these folks never serve on a jury :(
Yeah, he just happens to have written close to a dozen books or more that involve child abuse. Its just a reoccurring theme, nothing more.
I wanna tell King he’s a shithead pedo, but I just don’t feel comfortable among the people shitting on him.
A person can be criticized for something by both good and bad people, it’s the worldview that makes the person. Also, he’s getting so much shit on shitter that, valid though your criticism is, he’s not likely to even know you told him, let alone care. Do it here, where nearly all of us understand and likely agree.
