It’s a movie starring his nephew in the lead role, approved by his estate, and by all accounts it just feels like an attempt to whitewash him. This is a man who was accused of being a serial child molester, settled with a family out of court for $25 million just to avoid a trial (Chandler), and openly admitted he slept in the same bed as kids while he was an adult (Bashir interview), among other things. I don’t really see what there is to debate.
Anything pointing this out gets backlash on movie-related subreddits, which I find wild. It makes me wonder, if Epstein could sing and dance, would he have gotten a biopic too? Would people be defending him like this?
None corroborated in any meaningful way that I was able to find
Do you know the “no true Scotsman” fallacy? Because I regret to inform you that I believe you’re falling prey to it.
Are you saying that me remarking the lack of verifiable sources is in somehow a logical fallacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Read again, in case you needed the refresher
I’m saying that considering the availability of credible accusors, I think you’re defining who counts as a credible accusors in a selective way to maintain your prior assumptions.
I’m not saying this to be snide or disrespectful. I’m just asking if it’s possible you’re letting a bias go unnoticed.