Don't Allow Yourself to Get So Caught Up in Nuance That You Miss the Big Picture

Your tips are greatly appreciated! Upgrade at 30% offOne of the main things that keeps us divided is how people can be tricked into defending a statistically irrelevant position. I've observed this happen both among groups that are defiantly hateful, and those that are defined by reason and intellect. Ultimately, we are all vulnerable to the seduction of pride. Once anyone becomes invested in a flawed position, it's challenging to make them consider alternate perspectives.For a long time I thought any entity that argued one of these points was artificial and malicious. In my work, I come across a lot of comments of non-human origin. There are many accounts that berate me with insults and threats. There are others that seem to want to waste my time in dishonest debates.Every day we are confronted by arguments that are released into the media with the intent of manipulating the public opinion. Unfortunately, the mass of our society does not apply the rigorous process of peer review to these concepts. As a result, we're stuck with a population that has been indoctrinated with many irrational and contradictory beliefs.It's enough to have a detrimental effect on your mental health. I've observed that educated people often adopt an absurd justification rather than allow themselves to perceive the cruelty going on in plain view.If you expose this justification, the people who are relying on it feel the pinch of cognitive dissonance. This explains why they're so inclined to be hostile rather than engage in the process of intellectual exploration.They believe the things they believe because they don't want to recognize the truth. But that's not a reality they'll acknowledge.If you don't recognize this reality, everything you say will increase rather than close the divide.Lately, an argument has been floating around that the government can't release the Epstein files because doing so would ruin the lives of innocent people who associated with Epstein but did not participate in his crimes.I think this argument is absolutely ridiculous.One of the main problems facing our society today is the lack of accountability for powerful people who indulge in deplorable behavior. It feels as if our society makes endless excuses for abusive people who belong to certain socioeconomic groups, while it brings the hammer down on all others.I would argue that there are no innocent people who associated with an individual who did things as awful as Epstein. The scope of his crimes is so great that it's not possible to hide.I've been around cruel people in the past. There are people that my dog doesn't like. They make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. While I might not see them actually committing crimes, I'm not surprised to read about it when they're arrested for those actions later on.Lawful people should not be expected to resort to vigilantism. We have due process for a reason. But you can always make the choice not to do business with people who give you a creepy feeling.I always make an effort to support people I know to be kind and generous. If you choose to do business with a person who is committing crimes against children, you have enabled those crimes. This is why it's important to conduct business responsibly.This is why I think that there are no innocent people in the Epstein files. I reject the idea that there are people who associated with him who “don't deserve to have their lives ruined.”That idea puts the focus in the wrong place.The only people who didn't deserve to have their lives ruined where the children he stole and abused. Justice for those children needs to be our focal point, not protecting the people who haven't yet proved their innocence.I recently made this argument on a platform and was immediately attacked. I'm still debating whether the profile that argued with me was human or not, but I'll present the conversation and leave it to you to decide.The dissenting profile claimed that it was wrong to assume guilt by association. He said that he'd once had a neighbor who got arrested for being a pedophile, and it would be wrong to denounce him for “associating” with such a person.When I read this, the alarm bells immediately started ringing in my mind. Right away I recognized that this was a person who insisted on passively defending the criminals who had already escaped accountability from the Epstein crimes.We know that there are men out there who violated the children who were trafficked. But as of yet, nobody has been arrested for these actions. That should be a sore point for anyone who has any sense of justice. The criminals are still out there. They're presumably still hurting children. It has to stop.The dissenting profile completely ignored this reality and made a pivot to a false equivalency. Any rational person could see that living next door to a pedophile is not the same as having your name prominently featured in an investigation about the world's most deplorable human trafficker.This is one of those cases where an individual latched on to a statistically irrelevant scenario and used it to justify an absurd position.I have neighbors that I've never seen or spoken with. I'm not “associated” with them anymore than I'm “associated” with cars that pass by on the highway. But as a decent person, if it turned out that one of my neighbors was committing crimes against children, I would search my memories and determine if there were any signs that indicated I should have taken action.If the dissenting profile's scenario actually manifested, I'd feel disgusted. I certainly wouldn't insist that the files be buried to protect my reputation. My thoughts would go to protecting the children. I feel the same should be true of the names in the Epstein file. They should all be calling for the release of those files so that the investigation can continue. Our nation needs to know who the predators are who are sitting in positions of power and influence.If there truly are “innocent” people whose names are in those files, then they should feel pressure to defend themselves. We shouldn't have to obstruct our pursuit of justice to protect the reputations of people who are guilty of associating with a pedophile.Perhaps if our society placed a greater emphasis on accountability for individuals who enable pedophiles, businessmen would be more discerning in who they associated with. Maybe they'd feel greater motivation to do business with decent human beings.We could transition from a society that enables pedophiles to one that actively attempts to obstruct them.Naturally, I couldn't make the dissenting profile perceive this argument and his responses grew more and more hostile until I eventually had to block him.Sometimes people, even intelligent people, need to take a step back and get a larger view of which side they're arguing. The dissenting profile hit me with a bunch of claims that he was on the side of due process and justice and law and order, but at the end of the day he was the one arguing to protect pedophiles.Again, I wasn't arguing vigilantism. I want to see the results of a very specific criminal investigation around arguably the most horrific child trafficker of all time. This idea that we have some sort of social obligation to “protect” the names that prominently appear in that investigation does not protect the civil rights of everyone in our country.That argument is deployed to protect pedophiles.We can't allow ourselves to be swept up in protecting awful people because we get tricked into arguing some statistically irrelevant point. Yes, it's possible that you could brush shoulders with a pedophile at the mall. But that doesn't mean you “associate” with that person that's in any way equivalent to your name on business transactions, contracts, and flight logs.While it's true that anyone could potentially get caught up in the sphere of influence of a pedophile, that doesn't suggest that we must protect those people at the expense of an investigation. Innocent people welcome the opportunity to clear their names.Guilty people want to bury the investigation.Rational people have to be more discerning about getting caught up in arguments that ultimately allow monsters to get away with their crimes. Some situations aren't about nuance. Some situations are about justice.You all make this newsletter happen! Thanks for your sponsorship! I have payment tiers starting at as little as twenty dollars a year.Upgrade at 30% offUpgrade at 40% offUpgrade at 50% offUpgrade at 60% offI'm so happy you're here, and I'm looking forward to sharing more thoughts with you tomorrow.My CoSchedule referral linkHere’s my referral link to my preferred headline analyzer tool. If you sign up through this, it’s another way to support this newsletter (thank you).I'd Rather Be Writing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to I'd Rather Be Writing at walterrhein.substack.com/subscribe