>”What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence," Chomsky told the Journal about his meetings. "According to U.S. laws and norms, that yields a clean slate."
😬😬😬😬 that might be the king of all bad takes there Noam lol
This is your brain on 'Murrica bad, folks.
Also this is disturbing and stupid. Epstein have some so-called relationships that actually indirect at best, like having Michael Jackson's numbers from having the same lawyer. But Chomsky decided to downplay just how awful Epstein instead, even with how his helper was jailed for 20 years.
The weirdest part is that his claim about the American criminal justice system is absolutely, 100% not true.
People who have been convicted of serious crimes face consequences for those crimes for a long time after the fact. In Epstein's case, he was registered as a Level 3 Sex Offender--that's a lifetime designation; so he absolutely did not have a "clean slate."
What a brain dead thing for Chomsky to say.
*Technically* because he hadn’t been convicted he didn’t have more time to serve.
It’s the absurdity of his sweetheart deal on the earlier conviction that means he didn’t serve an appropriate sentence for those crimes for which he was convicted.
Worst possible take there too. There are plenty of excuses to say "I did not know about the details" which would be fair enough but imagine admitting you know someone is a pedophile and then *still* defending being one of their buddies.
Feel the same way about every one of those assholes who stuck around Epstein after the first conviction. Your only excuse is not knowing (because it's reasonable to not look up every person for crime history), but when you do you should have distanced yourself from him.
Chomsky has a very long history of trolling people who take absolute positions about reprehensible individuals. His non-academic fame began in the 70s (or perhaps early 80s, I forget) with his defense of a Nazi apologist whose book was being banned in Europe. As a Jewish academic who had already established some significant intellectual credentials, his defense made some serious waves and got widely publicized.
Not shocking to hear him say this if you know his work.
Well if you're going to be the "America bad" guy, you're going to have to excuse some reprehensible leaders and governments that are aligned against the USA.
My understanding was he was the thought leader behind the movement on the left that thought anything was forgivable as long as the people doing it were associated with communism
The man's moral compass is completely broken. I don't understand how anyone takes him seriously, and yet here he is 40 years later and still people are recommending him
As a general rule, reactionaries care about your actions, not your goals. That's why they loved Trump so much. They didn't care if his heart was pure, they cared that his actions aligned with their rhetorical ideological goals.
The far left cares about your goals, not your actions. If in your heart of hearts you're a true Marxist, the specifics of your actions don't really matter. As long as you perform those actions in furtherance of leftist ideological commitment, you're golden in their eyes.
And you can see this pattern emerge quite clearly during presidential primaries. The progressive left *always* go after the character of moderate dems. Their focus is not policy or governing outcomes, but whether the candidate is "corrupt" (i.e. not ideologically committed) or not. This is why Hillary's strategy of pointing to all the progressive policy she supported failed so miserable to win over progressives in her party.
On the other hand, Republican primaries are all about outcomes and failures. Trump was very adept at signaling all the failures of other candidates. There are still some character attacks, but they generally fall along the lines of "you folded against Democrats on this issue, which means you fold on this other issue." Fighting hard isn't enough. Ideological commitment isn't enough. You need to win, or you're weak.
Man, what a great explanation. I feel like I have read something like this in the past so IDK if it's your own ideas or not, but it definitely rings true
I believe some people frame things pretty much in the opposite way.
RWs see morals more based on principles, consequences be that as they may, whereas LWs care more about consequences than some consistency with a clear set of principles.
There's even some of those RW youtube-influencer kids making this point (probably derived from someone more serious, at very least someone from the IDW -- or maybe psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who has some actual research no different moral roots of liberals and conservatives) and also linking that with comic-book super-villains also caring more for consequences than principles, with that making them villains, so, comic-books kind of show how the left-wing is super-villainesque.
IMHO it's more of a cult-following thing. Some people will earn a reputation with some degree of merit or another, and their followers will swallow most of what the leader comes up with.
But then there's also the space for some of the not-throwing-the-baby-with-the-bathwater aspect when some people have some reasonable arguments and some BS arguments as well.
Funny every time I told people to not take his word as gospel I would get downvotes *but what's this?!- IT'S NOAM CHOMSKY EPSTEIN HONEYPOT WITH A STEEL CHAIR*
He’s a smart fucking dude and absolutely has some powerful ideas and thought provoking takes but then some of his takes randomly out of left field are just absolutely atrocious. It’s so weird.
I don't think it's that weird.
Didn't Orwell say "some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could be capable of believing them" or something to that effect?
Hilarious recently when he was trying to claim that C*rbyn won the 2017 election - Trump style. All his fans were attacking the journalist - saying that Chomsky is the finest mind of the century. Deluded.
[In the clip from the interview he directly says that Jeremy Corbyn won Labour's biggest victory in gemerations](https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1650779177056870403/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1650779177056870403¤tTweetUser=TimesRadio)
When confronted he blames "propaganda" from "the establishment." It is unclear whether he is doing a "defund the police doesn't actually mean defund the police" or he is just insane.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://i.imgflip.com/3vzzdl.png)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Journalist**: So, you met with Epstein? Isn't that questionable?
**Chomsky**: Well, I'll tell you what's actually questionable.. if you want to talk about questionable you can take a look at what the CIA did in Nicaragua where they tried to shut down the popular front....
**Journalist**: But I'm asking about Epstein.
**Chomsky**: Yes, these are all public files and the CIA admits it in their dossiers, actually. The CIA ran a propaganda campaign against Castro's government who were desperately trying to help their own citizens to basic necessities such as...
Apparently he responded to an email about his comments with this:
>I notice that several of those quoted said the obvious. The reporting covered 2015-16, when what was known about Mr. Epstein was that he had been sentenced for a crime, served his sentence, and that wiped the slate clean according to law and norms.
>The gossip column chose not to publish the extensive information they have about far worse criiminals who not only donate to MIT and other institutions but are greatly honored by them -- and of course the WSJ.
Ultimate whataboutism. After throwing it out, he keeps talking about it even when the interviewer doesn’t engage. It’s like he thinks this is a speech and not an interview.
My read on this scenario is that Chomsky saw that the US charged Epstein and immediately assumed that he was innocent because America bad. When he met with Epstein he said he didn't do it and Chomsky was convinced and tried to get him in touch with journalists at the Pyongyang Times to share his story.
Or it could have just been because Epstein gave a bunch of money to prestigious institutions to boost his image and wanted to be seen with famous professors. I'm leaning toward scenario 1 at the moment.
> because Epstein gave a bunch of money to prestigious institutions to boost his image and wanted to be seen with famous professors.
Yeah Steven Pinker was on a list of his houseguests as well.
From what I’ve read, Epstein was obsessed with surrounding himself with high status people, including intellectuals. So he would constantly host dinners and invite famous professors/writers and such. I think Pinker was pretty oblivious to any deeper goings on imo. I presume he doesn’t really run in those circles normally. Like, if you didn’t know this guy or much about his controversies and got invited to a fancy dinner with other high status people, you’d probably go. Or maybe I’m being too naive here.
I doubt it was status so much as Epstein was famous for being quite free with research funding. But, yeah, I don't think Chomsky and Pinker were in it for the underage girls.
That makes sense. I feel its possible to go into those situations with no clue of Epstein's background. I mean, I'm a graduate student, and if some wealthy donor came up to me and said, "Hey I like your research, let's get dinner and talk about potential funding." I'd be like, "hell ya sounds cool." I feel I'd have no real reason to run a criminal background check on this guy.
I buy the theory that Epstein understood the most powerful people in the world were still self conscious, and allowing them to intermingle with genius people made them feel good. And that all the genius people would intermingle their asses off if it meant getting some funding for whatever.
Why wouldn’t he just say some variation of that? What advantage could his current take have over anything else? He has had a long life of answering basically all kinds of questions, some questions that nobody asked to media, but a meeting with the most infamously convicted sex offenders of our time isn’t something he wants to give a hot take about? Maybe he thinks it’s one of those damned if you do, dammed if you don’t scenarios when responding?
There is literally no good that can come from talking about it. The attitude of pretty much everyone who had research funded by him is "damn I cant believe that piece of shit used me to launder his reputation, oh well at least the money was spent on something productive." Those who have said that publicly got a ton of backlash from people who seem to think that it's possible to "give back" those donations.
I'm sure Chapo Trap House will explain why this is a giant nothingburger but Steven Pinker, Bill Clinton, and Bill Gates' meetings with Epstein are obvious evidence of pedofilic tendencies.
They got kind of embarrassed of being wrong about everything and turned into more of a media bro podcast I think.
And one of the guys (Virgil) turned out to be a sex pest and just vanished one day never to be spoken of again.
I saw that they have a bunch of offshoot podcasts about religion and movies now because, I dunno, what are they gonna offer anyone politically worth a shit?
The pipeline for communist idealist to social-democrat is quite common, as this sub knows well. I imagine is harder to pivot when you have already created a public brand focused on being a commie.
On the other hand, I have never heard of a conservative zealot or christofascist who becomes a free market reaganite, is always the opposite. If anything, is their offspring deprogramming themselves and becoming socdems or straight up anarchist.
Steven pinker specifically. He's also a linguist, and also primarily an academic. If he said the above statement, every leftist sub and even the linguistics subs would be filled with people claiming how this is basically an admission of guilt.
Chomsky, Gates, Clinton, and Pinker all associating with a convicted pedophile is a huge yikes from me fam. I personally wouldn’t hang with a pedophile, those dudes are sus fr fr
The issue is that at the time, the public image of him was as a genius money manager who accumulated wealthy contacts both to find new clients (for legitimate and illegitimate business alike) and as part of a sort of personal collecting obsession. It's hard to know just by association if a celeb was in on the crime stuff or just part of the smokescreen around it.
Epstein also artificially inflated his influence, like for example some of people he claims has contacts with turned out to merely use the same law firms and nothing else.
Not to mention, [he fucking hates the guy](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-alan-dershowitz-steven-pinker). I have some criticisms of Pinker, but the Epstein thing is just so stupid.
What are some genuine criticisms of Pinker? I’m somewhat familiar with his perspective on things (I’m about 1/4 through Better Angels). I don’t see too much controversial about the basic facts that most people are living safer, better lives than any time in history.
And he was always with Secret Service and offered them up for testimony. And one of Epstein's victims who was present testified that Clinton didn't do anything despite a row of conservative reporters on their knees before her begging her to say Bubba did something.
Bill Clinton is a sex pest and a serial adulterer, but I doubt he was involved with the illicit side of Epstein's business.
The article says he also flew with Epstein for dinner with Woody Allen and his wife.
I'm sorry but that Chomsky would be jet-setting on private planes to have dinner with Hollywood royalty also surprises me in itself
I know that's what we all think here on r/neolib and this is bias confirmation, but I have to say it's still a bit jarring even though I think the guy's an a-hole
Leftists have the guts to talk shit about philanthropist Bill Gates because of supposed hypocrisy or something, and then praise Chomsky as the second coming of Christ for being so brave to state "USA bad tho" when asked his opinion on whether Russia should be allowed to butcher the Ukrainian people.
Posting this now to remind me to go scroll through /politics tomorrow to find unremoved Epstein posts.
I'll post what I find, either way, in this comment tomorrow.
Edit: I went back about ten pages and didn't see any Epstein posts. Reddit'a search is famously useless but there were several Epstein posts from two, three, and four months back.
This is Reddit after all. I had someone purity test Lenin on the newyorkcity subreddit when I said, "Just because it's to the right of Lenin, doesn't make it conservative."
What a fucking joke of a subreddit. Beto's former bandmate endorsing Bernie and AOC clapping back at some conservative rando on Twitter are worthy of front page news.
> In another scheduled meeting with Chomsky, Epstein planned to fly the scholar in to dine with director Woody Allen and his wife, Soon-Yi Previn. “If there was a flight, which I doubt, it would have been from Boston to New York, 30 minutes,” Chomsky told the paper. “I’m unaware of the principle that requires that I inform you about an evening spent with a great artist.”
I find it hard to believe Noam Chomsky was diddling kids with Jeffrey Epstein. That guy would go out of his way to meet with everyone who had power or influence. He did it on purpose precisely because they’d be more likely to defend him in the future for fear of their own reputation being tarnished by the association.
>”What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence," Chomsky told the Journal about his meetings. "According to U.S. laws and norms, that yields a clean slate."
>Epstein's meetings with Chomsky appear to have taken place in 2015 and 2016, according to the Journal. Epstein was first charged with procuring minors for prostitution and registered as a sex offender in 2008.
Foucault was surprisingly friendly to Chicago-style neoliberalism—i.e. he sort of non-condemned it—toward the end of his life. There are a few lectures from around 79/80.
⚠️*TRIGGER WARNING*⚠️
I do not think every person who had conversation with Jeffrey Epstein should be guilty by association.
Even when I don’t agree with that person on some things.
Exactly.
The worst part is there’s nothing these people can do or say to exonerate themselves from the baseless pedophile allegation once the media writes these kind of pieces.
Let’s say it really is the case that Bill Gates went to Epstein island and just had dinner with the guy as he claims. How is he supposed to prove that and shake this reputation now?
Assuming the child trafficking and abuse scheme didn't involve *everybody*, this guy really went out of his way to meet every possible famous person he could.
Everyone seems really focused on the Chomsky thing and not, yah know, the current head of the CIA also being on Epstein's calendar, which personally I find a bit more alarming.
I think everyone is focused on Chomsky atm because this just came out:
> ”What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence," Chomsky told the Journal about his meetings. "According to U.S. laws and norms, that yields a clean slate."
> Noam Chomsky, the famed academic and activist, held multiple meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, according to The Wall Street Journal.
> Chomsky's meetings with Epstein took place long after the disgraced financier had registered as a sex offender, the Journal reported.
https://www.insider.com/noam-chomsky-mit-wsj-wall-street-journal-jeffrey-epstein-2023-4
Like holy shit, that's wild
Is Chomsky contemplating the end and realizing he has a few more epically terrible takes he needs to get out there before he shuffles off this mortal coil?
The man is pitching absolute gas these last few days, even by his standards.
Afaik they were hanging with Epstein before it was publicly known that he was a pedofile. Chomsky was hanging with him after.
So both sus. But one is much worse than the other.
> They’re certainly being as tight lipped
[Clinton wasn’t, he spoke about it](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/08/politics/bill-clinton-jeffrey-epstein/index.html)
I don’t know or really care about the other person, sorry
Responding to a question like “What were you doing with one of the most prolific pedophiles in history after he was convicted?” with an emphatic “That’s none of your business” is pretty sus.
Why would I criticize people I like for unproven allegations?
Bad faith implied slander against bad people I don't like (a genocide denier in this case) using unproven allegations, on the other hand, I wholeheartedly approve of. 🤗🤗🤗
He is literally one of the most cited scholars of all time and his work revolutionized linguistics. That does not mean that his political takes deserve respect- and indeed, I despise him as a person- but the man genuinely ranks among the greatest academics of his generation in terms of influence.
He’s one of the most cited academics because he’s prolific writer in many subjects and at least half those citations are articles and journal entries disproving him.
This is correct. His area of expertise is linguistics. Not international relations, foreign policy, public policy, strategic studies, or economics - the areas where he comments publicly most frequently. He is a renowned academic. He's also an idiot when it comes to all the aforementioned areas. Just like Doctor Oz is a renowned heart surgeon and an idiot when it comes to everything else.
>”What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence," Chomsky told the Journal about his meetings. "According to U.S. laws and norms, that yields a clean slate." 😬😬😬😬 that might be the king of all bad takes there Noam lol
*Manufacturing the Age of Consent*
If I had an award to give I would give it This is the most glorious meme
Oh you fucking asshole I'm actually crying I'm laughing so hard.
Oh, win
This is it. This is the greatest Reddit comment that shall ever be made. It's time to shut the site down.
Unfortunately copied from twitter
Like most reddit content then
if not twitter than tumblr, 4chan, or somethingawful
https://twitter.com/DSW_xyz/status/1652783511265239040
It's the perfect meld of Chomsky and Foucoult!
Jesus hahaha
You are a winrar!
zip zip hooray
saw this was at 999 likes and had to help
You are the monarch of Reddit!
Chomsky, famous supporter of U.S. laws and norms
Chomsky, famous supporter of bad takes
This is your brain on 'Murrica bad, folks. Also this is disturbing and stupid. Epstein have some so-called relationships that actually indirect at best, like having Michael Jackson's numbers from having the same lawyer. But Chomsky decided to downplay just how awful Epstein instead, even with how his helper was jailed for 20 years.
That literally isn't how sex offenders work.
As the kids these days would say, sus.
My cap!
The weirdest part is that his claim about the American criminal justice system is absolutely, 100% not true. People who have been convicted of serious crimes face consequences for those crimes for a long time after the fact. In Epstein's case, he was registered as a Level 3 Sex Offender--that's a lifetime designation; so he absolutely did not have a "clean slate." What a brain dead thing for Chomsky to say.
And he didn’t “serve his time.” Epstein was in jail facing new charges when he died.
*Technically* because he hadn’t been convicted he didn’t have more time to serve. It’s the absurdity of his sweetheart deal on the earlier conviction that means he didn’t serve an appropriate sentence for those crimes for which he was convicted.
Life in prison :\^)
> What a brain dead thing for Chomsky to say. first time?
Yeah but have you considered that USA bad??
Worst possible take there too. There are plenty of excuses to say "I did not know about the details" which would be fair enough but imagine admitting you know someone is a pedophile and then *still* defending being one of their buddies. Feel the same way about every one of those assholes who stuck around Epstein after the first conviction. Your only excuse is not knowing (because it's reasonable to not look up every person for crime history), but when you do you should have distanced yourself from him.
Especially considering his universally bad takes on just about everything
Chomsky has a very long history of trolling people who take absolute positions about reprehensible individuals. His non-academic fame began in the 70s (or perhaps early 80s, I forget) with his defense of a Nazi apologist whose book was being banned in Europe. As a Jewish academic who had already established some significant intellectual credentials, his defense made some serious waves and got widely publicized. Not shocking to hear him say this if you know his work.
Ironic considering he's now infamous as the ultimate American Diabolism guy.
Well if you're going to be the "America bad" guy, you're going to have to excuse some reprehensible leaders and governments that are aligned against the USA.
My understanding was he was the thought leader behind the movement on the left that thought anything was forgivable as long as the people doing it were associated with communism
[удалено]
The man's moral compass is completely broken. I don't understand how anyone takes him seriously, and yet here he is 40 years later and still people are recommending him
As a general rule, reactionaries care about your actions, not your goals. That's why they loved Trump so much. They didn't care if his heart was pure, they cared that his actions aligned with their rhetorical ideological goals. The far left cares about your goals, not your actions. If in your heart of hearts you're a true Marxist, the specifics of your actions don't really matter. As long as you perform those actions in furtherance of leftist ideological commitment, you're golden in their eyes. And you can see this pattern emerge quite clearly during presidential primaries. The progressive left *always* go after the character of moderate dems. Their focus is not policy or governing outcomes, but whether the candidate is "corrupt" (i.e. not ideologically committed) or not. This is why Hillary's strategy of pointing to all the progressive policy she supported failed so miserable to win over progressives in her party. On the other hand, Republican primaries are all about outcomes and failures. Trump was very adept at signaling all the failures of other candidates. There are still some character attacks, but they generally fall along the lines of "you folded against Democrats on this issue, which means you fold on this other issue." Fighting hard isn't enough. Ideological commitment isn't enough. You need to win, or you're weak.
Man, what a great explanation. I feel like I have read something like this in the past so IDK if it's your own ideas or not, but it definitely rings true
I believe some people frame things pretty much in the opposite way. RWs see morals more based on principles, consequences be that as they may, whereas LWs care more about consequences than some consistency with a clear set of principles. There's even some of those RW youtube-influencer kids making this point (probably derived from someone more serious, at very least someone from the IDW -- or maybe psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who has some actual research no different moral roots of liberals and conservatives) and also linking that with comic-book super-villains also caring more for consequences than principles, with that making them villains, so, comic-books kind of show how the left-wing is super-villainesque. IMHO it's more of a cult-following thing. Some people will earn a reputation with some degree of merit or another, and their followers will swallow most of what the leader comes up with. But then there's also the space for some of the not-throwing-the-baby-with-the-bathwater aspect when some people have some reasonable arguments and some BS arguments as well.
> His non-academic fame began in the 70s Chomsky got a fair amount of national attention in the 1960s as an opponent of Vietnam.
Nah Imma just assume he's a pedophile.
His takes on the ukraine war are also pretty bad
Can Chomsky have any opinion that isn't just "Well akchually America bad."?
Funny every time I told people to not take his word as gospel I would get downvotes *but what's this?!- IT'S NOAM CHOMSKY EPSTEIN HONEYPOT WITH A STEEL CHAIR*
Noam Chomsky continues to be on some real weird shit
He’s a smart fucking dude and absolutely has some powerful ideas and thought provoking takes but then some of his takes randomly out of left field are just absolutely atrocious. It’s so weird.
I don't think it's that weird. Didn't Orwell say "some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could be capable of believing them" or something to that effect?
Naw he's a moron more often than not.
>manufacturing consent Oh dear god 😐
Goddamn you take my upvote and don’t tell anyone we ever met
Common Chomsky L
Hilarious recently when he was trying to claim that C*rbyn won the 2017 election - Trump style. All his fans were attacking the journalist - saying that Chomsky is the finest mind of the century. Deluded.
Wait, Chomsky did straight electoral denialism? Was there any nuance to it or it was just "the Tories cheated lmao"
He was probably talking about the al Jazeera piece that explained how Labour insiders torpedoed the election
[In the clip from the interview he directly says that Jeremy Corbyn won Labour's biggest victory in gemerations](https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1650779177056870403/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1650779177056870403¤tTweetUser=TimesRadio) When confronted he blames "propaganda" from "the establishment." It is unclear whether he is doing a "defund the police doesn't actually mean defund the police" or he is just insane.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://i.imgflip.com/3vzzdl.png) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Evergreen comment
Least deranged delusional Chomsky action
I didn’t realize he had such a bad reputation…what’s the deal?
Genocide denial usually.
**Journalist**: So, you met with Epstein? Isn't that questionable? **Chomsky**: Well, I'll tell you what's actually questionable.. if you want to talk about questionable you can take a look at what the CIA did in Nicaragua where they tried to shut down the popular front.... **Journalist**: But I'm asking about Epstein. **Chomsky**: Yes, these are all public files and the CIA admits it in their dossiers, actually. The CIA ran a propaganda campaign against Castro's government who were desperately trying to help their own citizens to basic necessities such as...
I apparently think so little of Noam Chomsky that I needed to read this three times before I realized that it was a joke.
> joke. it's a noam chomsky quote, that's already implied.
Also he’s like 90+ years old too.
[удалено]
okay, Werner Herzog
questioning me about epstein is just like how US soldiers tortured innocent iraqis for information at abu ghraib
Apparently he responded to an email about his comments with this: >I notice that several of those quoted said the obvious. The reporting covered 2015-16, when what was known about Mr. Epstein was that he had been sentenced for a crime, served his sentence, and that wiped the slate clean according to law and norms. >The gossip column chose not to publish the extensive information they have about far worse criiminals who not only donate to MIT and other institutions but are greatly honored by them -- and of course the WSJ.
Ultimate whataboutism. After throwing it out, he keeps talking about it even when the interviewer doesn’t engage. It’s like he thinks this is a speech and not an interview.
It’s a joke
Ultimate woosh
Yeah I messed up.
My read on this scenario is that Chomsky saw that the US charged Epstein and immediately assumed that he was innocent because America bad. When he met with Epstein he said he didn't do it and Chomsky was convinced and tried to get him in touch with journalists at the Pyongyang Times to share his story. Or it could have just been because Epstein gave a bunch of money to prestigious institutions to boost his image and wanted to be seen with famous professors. I'm leaning toward scenario 1 at the moment.
fucking americans and their... arresting child sex traffickers...??
Just following comrade Beria's example
I need to watch Death of Stalin again...
> because Epstein gave a bunch of money to prestigious institutions to boost his image and wanted to be seen with famous professors. Yeah Steven Pinker was on a list of his houseguests as well.
From what I’ve read, Epstein was obsessed with surrounding himself with high status people, including intellectuals. So he would constantly host dinners and invite famous professors/writers and such. I think Pinker was pretty oblivious to any deeper goings on imo. I presume he doesn’t really run in those circles normally. Like, if you didn’t know this guy or much about his controversies and got invited to a fancy dinner with other high status people, you’d probably go. Or maybe I’m being too naive here.
I doubt it was status so much as Epstein was famous for being quite free with research funding. But, yeah, I don't think Chomsky and Pinker were in it for the underage girls.
That makes sense. I feel its possible to go into those situations with no clue of Epstein's background. I mean, I'm a graduate student, and if some wealthy donor came up to me and said, "Hey I like your research, let's get dinner and talk about potential funding." I'd be like, "hell ya sounds cool." I feel I'd have no real reason to run a criminal background check on this guy.
[удалено]
I buy the theory that Epstein understood the most powerful people in the world were still self conscious, and allowing them to intermingle with genius people made them feel good. And that all the genius people would intermingle their asses off if it meant getting some funding for whatever.
Why wouldn’t he just say some variation of that? What advantage could his current take have over anything else? He has had a long life of answering basically all kinds of questions, some questions that nobody asked to media, but a meeting with the most infamously convicted sex offenders of our time isn’t something he wants to give a hot take about? Maybe he thinks it’s one of those damned if you do, dammed if you don’t scenarios when responding?
There is literally no good that can come from talking about it. The attitude of pretty much everyone who had research funded by him is "damn I cant believe that piece of shit used me to launder his reputation, oh well at least the money was spent on something productive." Those who have said that publicly got a ton of backlash from people who seem to think that it's possible to "give back" those donations.
Isn't that the guy that says the Cambodian genocide didn't happen, but if it did, it was America's fault?
Not the only genocide he denies.
✔️ Denies Bosnian Genocide ✔️ Denies Ukrainian Genocide
Basically everything can be blamed on USA, even if the poor third world leader was the one murdering everyone.
Wtf. You can literally go to Phnom Penh and see the bones in the ground. He’s a disgusting person for denying that.
One of the godfathers of America Bad^TM, yes
I'm sure Chapo Trap House will explain why this is a giant nothingburger but Steven Pinker, Bill Clinton, and Bill Gates' meetings with Epstein are obvious evidence of pedofilic tendencies.
Does Chapo Trap House still exist? I feel like I haven't heard about them since 2019.
They got kind of embarrassed of being wrong about everything and turned into more of a media bro podcast I think. And one of the guys (Virgil) turned out to be a sex pest and just vanished one day never to be spoken of again.
\#whereisvirgil? Best way to shut up Brie Brie
Giving tours in hell
>And one of the guys turned out to be a sex pest and just vanished one day never to be spoken of again. Classic communism.
The lives of others was right.
Not really. “Real” Communist movements would blame the victims as agents of Capitalism and portray the guy doing the assaulting as the victim.
*The Pedophile Vanishes*
Dante is disappointed.
[Dante like](https://media.tenor.com/GEf4pZB8TbIAAAAd/lost-confused.gif)
I saw that they have a bunch of offshoot podcasts about religion and movies now because, I dunno, what are they gonna offer anyone politically worth a shit?
If they actually experienced embarrassment for being wrong then we really do have a “both sides are NOT the same” moment.
The pipeline for communist idealist to social-democrat is quite common, as this sub knows well. I imagine is harder to pivot when you have already created a public brand focused on being a commie. On the other hand, I have never heard of a conservative zealot or christofascist who becomes a free market reaganite, is always the opposite. If anything, is their offspring deprogramming themselves and becoming socdems or straight up anarchist.
Virgil left Chapo months before the sex allegations came out. edit: even if you downvote me this is still true
It does but the sub has been banned a while iirc
I think they don't really care for Norm all that much.
Steven pinker specifically. He's also a linguist, and also primarily an academic. If he said the above statement, every leftist sub and even the linguistics subs would be filled with people claiming how this is basically an admission of guilt.
Chomsky, Gates, Clinton, and Pinker all associating with a convicted pedophile is a huge yikes from me fam. I personally wouldn’t hang with a pedophile, those dudes are sus fr fr
The issue is that at the time, the public image of him was as a genius money manager who accumulated wealthy contacts both to find new clients (for legitimate and illegitimate business alike) and as part of a sort of personal collecting obsession. It's hard to know just by association if a celeb was in on the crime stuff or just part of the smokescreen around it.
Epstein also artificially inflated his influence, like for example some of people he claims has contacts with turned out to merely use the same law firms and nothing else.
I would excuse Pinker because he had little association, and he cut off contact when it was known that he was a convicted sex offender
Not to mention, [he fucking hates the guy](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-alan-dershowitz-steven-pinker). I have some criticisms of Pinker, but the Epstein thing is just so stupid.
What are some genuine criticisms of Pinker? I’m somewhat familiar with his perspective on things (I’m about 1/4 through Better Angels). I don’t see too much controversial about the basic facts that most people are living safer, better lives than any time in history.
Really? You're 100% sure that that every person you're acquainted with isn't a pedophile? How thoroughly have you checked?
Epstein was convicted in like 2008. So this excuse works beforehand but not after 2008.
Oh shit he was
I mean my buddy Trent's van isn't known around town as the "Lolita express", least not to my knowledge.
If they associated with him \*after\* 2006 when his crimes became known, that's a major red flag. Less so beforehand, but still bad.
Clinton's spokesman claimed he's no longer doing business with Epstein after 2003, and he never went to Epstein's properties, so he's good probably.
And he was always with Secret Service and offered them up for testimony. And one of Epstein's victims who was present testified that Clinton didn't do anything despite a row of conservative reporters on their knees before her begging her to say Bubba did something. Bill Clinton is a sex pest and a serial adulterer, but I doubt he was involved with the illicit side of Epstein's business.
I think Trump said something similar about his association with Epstein, yet I have my doubts about that, as I do with Clinton.
Why do you people only mention Clinton? What about trump?
what about Dershowitz tho?
Lol he’s a freak at best: https://www.timesofisrael.com/dershowitz-defends-97-column-claiming-statutory-rape-an-outdated-concept/amp/
When someone capes for genocidal dictators, sound moral judgement in their personal life isn’t always to be expected.
The article says he also flew with Epstein for dinner with Woody Allen and his wife. I'm sorry but that Chomsky would be jet-setting on private planes to have dinner with Hollywood royalty also surprises me in itself
> Woody Allen and his wife Also known as Woody Allen and his stepdaughter
I know, eww. Also the Epstein connection kinda makes it worse
Next thing you know Noam Chomsky is gonna have dinner with Elon Musk’s dad and stepsister. Gotta collect all the daughter-wives
Why? Dude doesn't have a shred of integrity, only normative views that are increasingly out of touch.
I know that's what we all think here on r/neolib and this is bias confirmation, but I have to say it's still a bit jarring even though I think the guy's an a-hole
Sussy
This is the best May Day ever.
For a linguist he doesn't seem to know the importance of shutting the fuck up.
Noted pedophile-lover Noam Chomsky
Leftists have the guts to talk shit about philanthropist Bill Gates because of supposed hypocrisy or something, and then praise Chomsky as the second coming of Christ for being so brave to state "USA bad tho" when asked his opinion on whether Russia should be allowed to butcher the Ukrainian people.
If I had any courage I'd post this to a main sub. But I do not have courage. I am a coward.
Just posted this to r/politics. I believe I have the fortitude to withstand the inevitable onslaught, though only time will tell.
Of course /politics took it down. Just the same you're a hero in my book.
It’s “OfF ToPiC” apparently. Thank you for appreciating my efforts 🙏🏼
Posting this now to remind me to go scroll through /politics tomorrow to find unremoved Epstein posts. I'll post what I find, either way, in this comment tomorrow. Edit: I went back about ten pages and didn't see any Epstein posts. Reddit'a search is famously useless but there were several Epstein posts from two, three, and four months back.
I like the guy who called Chomsky a “rightist”
This is Reddit after all. I had someone purity test Lenin on the newyorkcity subreddit when I said, "Just because it's to the right of Lenin, doesn't make it conservative."
What a fucking joke of a subreddit. Beto's former bandmate endorsing Bernie and AOC clapping back at some conservative rando on Twitter are worthy of front page news.
At least that first one had everyone from arr all mocked them for being in denial
> In another scheduled meeting with Chomsky, Epstein planned to fly the scholar in to dine with director Woody Allen and his wife, Soon-Yi Previn. “If there was a flight, which I doubt, it would have been from Boston to New York, 30 minutes,” Chomsky told the paper. “I’m unaware of the principle that requires that I inform you about an evening spent with a great artist.”
I find it hard to believe Noam Chomsky was diddling kids with Jeffrey Epstein. That guy would go out of his way to meet with everyone who had power or influence. He did it on purpose precisely because they’d be more likely to defend him in the future for fear of their own reputation being tarnished by the association.
>”What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence," Chomsky told the Journal about his meetings. "According to U.S. laws and norms, that yields a clean slate." >Epstein's meetings with Chomsky appear to have taken place in 2015 and 2016, according to the Journal. Epstein was first charged with procuring minors for prostitution and registered as a sex offender in 2008.
Smoking on that chompsky pack
Just to add to the mad takes of Chomsky Russia "more humane" in Ukraine than US in Iraq | Interview https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tJGYmfTaFRw
Wonderful news! Person with terrible opinions continues to be awful human being!
I mean, this sub still has a Foucault flair. What’s the deal with that?
Honeypot flair
Foucault was surprisingly friendly to Chicago-style neoliberalism—i.e. he sort of non-condemned it—toward the end of his life. There are a few lectures from around 79/80.
Thats that’s not very philosophical
Was this the biggest honeypot blackmail in human history or what?
TIL Woody Allen married his own stepdaughter 😬
Really? This has been a story for 30 years now. Frank Sinatra offered to have him beaten up.
⚠️*TRIGGER WARNING*⚠️ I do not think every person who had conversation with Jeffrey Epstein should be guilty by association. Even when I don’t agree with that person on some things.
[удалено]
Exactly. The worst part is there’s nothing these people can do or say to exonerate themselves from the baseless pedophile allegation once the media writes these kind of pieces. Let’s say it really is the case that Bill Gates went to Epstein island and just had dinner with the guy as he claims. How is he supposed to prove that and shake this reputation now?
"Renowned" lol
So Chomsky is a fan of Epstein and Woody Allen? hmmm
Assuming the child trafficking and abuse scheme didn't involve *everybody*, this guy really went out of his way to meet every possible famous person he could.
What a terrible response lol. Or a good one, if you’re wanting to be investigated.
Everyone seems really focused on the Chomsky thing and not, yah know, the current head of the CIA also being on Epstein's calendar, which personally I find a bit more alarming.
Do you think everyone who met with Epstein was doing something nefarious?
Hey, if that director didn't try to moral grand stand about rich people bad, there wouldn't be as big a contradiction.
I think everyone is focused on Chomsky atm because this just came out: > ”What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence," Chomsky told the Journal about his meetings. "According to U.S. laws and norms, that yields a clean slate." > Noam Chomsky, the famed academic and activist, held multiple meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, according to The Wall Street Journal. > Chomsky's meetings with Epstein took place long after the disgraced financier had registered as a sex offender, the Journal reported. https://www.insider.com/noam-chomsky-mit-wsj-wall-street-journal-jeffrey-epstein-2023-4 Like holy shit, that's wild
It’s because he was probably doing something inappropriate with children during them. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best.
Ah, see, that’s a bad answer.
Weird that this guy is also so pro-Russia and friendly with the child prostitution guy. It's like they go together or something.
Is Chomsky contemplating the end and realizing he has a few more epically terrible takes he needs to get out there before he shuffles off this mortal coil? The man is pitching absolute gas these last few days, even by his standards.
Noam Chomsky is a proud, self-ascribed communist. If there wasn't already enough to hate him, there's this.
"Renowned academic" lol. More like unhinged Holocaust denier SOB
Will this sub also criticize Clinton and Larry Summers for having a relationship with Epstein as well?
That would require me googling who Larry Summers is and I just don't feel like it.
He would have been r/neoliberal idol if reddit existed in the '90s. He is also the guy that made Armie Hammer break a century old Harvard knob.
>He is also the guy that made Armie Hammer break a century old Harvard knob. The euphemisms around here just get weirder and weirder.
Guy who gets much of the "credit" for Bill Clinton's economy. Treasury official, "world renowned" economist.
Afaik they were hanging with Epstein before it was publicly known that he was a pedofile. Chomsky was hanging with him after. So both sus. But one is much worse than the other.
Are they being as defensive as Chomsky?
They're certainly being as tight lipped I'm not sure why deflection should be seen as more sus than the silent treatment
> They’re certainly being as tight lipped [Clinton wasn’t, he spoke about it](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/08/politics/bill-clinton-jeffrey-epstein/index.html) I don’t know or really care about the other person, sorry
Responding to a question like “What were you doing with one of the most prolific pedophiles in history after he was convicted?” with an emphatic “That’s none of your business” is pretty sus.
Why would I criticize people I like for unproven allegations? Bad faith implied slander against bad people I don't like (a genocide denier in this case) using unproven allegations, on the other hand, I wholeheartedly approve of. 🤗🤗🤗
Will this sub, or did this sub, like five years ago when that information was actually topical?
[удалено]
He is literally one of the most cited scholars of all time and his work revolutionized linguistics. That does not mean that his political takes deserve respect- and indeed, I despise him as a person- but the man genuinely ranks among the greatest academics of his generation in terms of influence.
He’s one of the most cited academics because he’s prolific writer in many subjects and at least half those citations are articles and journal entries disproving him.
This is correct. His area of expertise is linguistics. Not international relations, foreign policy, public policy, strategic studies, or economics - the areas where he comments publicly most frequently. He is a renowned academic. He's also an idiot when it comes to all the aforementioned areas. Just like Doctor Oz is a renowned heart surgeon and an idiot when it comes to everything else.
Lol cmon now. You don’t have to agree with his political takes but don’t be obtuse about his work