fossilesqueWhen DinoCon is doing more than the US Gov
doug
TropicalDingdongBruh why… how was this dudes reach into everything
bassomitronWhen you’re a global criminal organization, you ensure immunity by blackmailing and/or extorting every single person in a position of power as much as possible. There’s a reason these monsters have gotten away with it–and continue to get away with it–for so damn long
He did get his start in education. Given a job he was unqualified for by [traitorous] former AG Bill Barr’s father (who also wrote creepy pedo sci fi novels)
I feel you could get into the list by sending a letter asking for funding for some science work
I’d be curious if you find any cold call messages asking for science funding in the documents release. From what I see, it’s people who are socializing benifiting from associating with powerful people. I’ve also seen an email where someone asked him if he would be interested in upgrading the computer labs for a school he clearly made the calculation that he wasn’t getting anything out of it and so gave an excuse for why he couldn’t contribute.
chicken
Lvxferre [he/him]Ditto. Specially because they’re focusing on the executives of those organisations, i.e. the people with actual decision power. That’s the right way to do it.
“Hold people accountable or else we will hold you accountable”
That fucker ruined Linguistics too — he was in friendly terms with Noam Chomsky.
Personally I am not aware on how much Chomsky should be blamed for this association; it’s possible Epstein was simply using him. But even in the hypothesis Chomsky is innocent, it stinks.
When Chomsky was asked what he corresponded with epstein about years ago, he said essentially “none of your fucking business”.
Which is such a bad answer, I am half inclined to believe he just wanted help filing his taxes and a guilty Chomsky would have the sense to lie.
I am half inclined to believe he just wanted help filing his taxes and a guilty Chomsky would have the sense to lie.
Yup, that sounds like him. He isn’t above bullshitting but not bothering to bullshit hints he believed he had nothing to hide.
I guess he’s still in the “when in doubt, treat them as innocent” category for me.
That sounds like Chomsky? Doing the taxes of an uber wealth financier/convicted pedophile?
Stop lying to yourself.
That sounds like Chomsky? Doing the taxes of an uber wealth financier/convicted pedophile?
The inverse: the über rich paedophile doing Chomsky’s taxes. Get things right if you want to screech dammit.
Plus Chomsky being smart+shitty enough to bullshit when in trouble, instead of saying “none of your business”. If Chomsky did the later instead of the former, it’s a sign he didn’t see any need to bullshit.
Stop lying to yourself.
A person lying to oneself would not say “when in doubt”. Or to “not [be] aware on how much Chomsky should be blamed”. Or talk about the “hypothesis” he is innocent. They’d be vomiting certainty: “Chomsky is [innocent|guilty] lol”.
Instead, a person lying to oneself would be vomiting certainty like an assumer, re-eating their own vomit, and expecting others to eat it too.
So perhaps the one being a liar (or worse, an assumer) here is not me.
Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
We all knew who Epstein was by that point. He should know better.
How self deluded do you need to be in order to convince yourself that Chomsky reached out to the most notorious convicted pedophile in American history for some help with his taxes?
I mean, Jesus Christ dude… It’s like you NEED this to be true.
Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.
…since you’re insistently lying (yes) about what I need: I don’t “need” him to be innocent, and I don’t “need” him to be guilty. From my PoV he’s simply some old guy, with a bunch of hypotheses that range from “this is interesting” to “nah, bollocks”, always backpedalling when proved wrong. That’s it.
Is this clear?
(Also take a clue from the fact I was the one bringing him up, even if the thread is about the DinoCon.)
We all knew who Epstein was by that point. He should know better.
Yes, and? Myself said so in another comment dammit. The question here is how much he should be blamed. Should we blame him for:
Are you getting the picture? It’s a fucking gradient of shit. Both #1 and #5 are likely bollocks; but from #2 to #4 it’s all “maybe”. We don’t know what he did, and we don’t know what he knows.
And before some muppet says “but you said «I guess he’s still in the “when in doubt, treat them as innocent” category for me.»!!!”: I was clearly talking about what I formalised as #3. This is bloody obvious by context dammit, check the comment I was answering to!
How self deluded do you need to be in order to convince yourself that Chomsky reached out to the most notorious convicted pedophile in American history for some help with his taxes?
That is not even remotely close to what I said.
You don’t even know what you’re screeching at.
At this rate it’s safe to ignore you as dead weight and a noise. Feel free to keep screeching at your own assumptions, as if you were screeching at what I said, but don’t expect me to read it.
MrMakabarChomsky adviced Epstein on how to deal with the public backlash, for Epstein being a convicted pedophile. There is no evidence that Chomsky did something illegal, but it certainly stinks.
Yeah.
At the very least we can safely blame him for not doing basic due diligence: even a hypothetically honest “I didn’t know” shows disregard for the victims of his “associate”. It’s already morally awful, even if [AFAIK] it wouldn’t be illegal in USA. [Would it?]
There’s also the possibility he actually knew about it, but didn’t act on it. Morally speaking that would be even worse than the above, and [again, AFAIK] already a crime (omission).
Sadly there’s a lot of intelectuals that were involved, Lawrence Krauss, Noem Chomsky, Steven Hawking just scratching the surface.
When you’re very rich and influential it is easy to get access to all the top scientists to discuss your quack ideas. Who knows what happened beyond that, the thing is that they’re involved anyway.
Fuck you, stop giving him power he doesn’t have.
He didn’t ruin or tarnish all of paleontology. He can’t.
Jesus Christ you fucking people.
The Bard in GreenHammond is 100% exactly the kind of guy who would have been to the island dozens of times.
You can PUNISH People who RAPED LITTLE CHILDREN?
-Americans!
Nah, Americans make those people President.
Wrong kind of bones guys.
Ha, that will be the day. I bet dnc figures are on the list and redacted from what the justice department released for reasons that may include them knowing information on the president and his favorites themselves that they could release in retaliation for letting the information on them through.
TehdastehdasGuilty until proven innocent?
Critique about that convention’s virtue signaling:
https://franklinveauxblog.quora.com/As-a-progressive-American-liberal-there-s-a-thing-that-gets-right-up-my-nose-Conservatives-often-critique-liberals-for
That is a poor response to DinoCon’s post. The con does not appear to be banning anybody who was named in the files, but is banning those who corresponded with Epstein’s organisation after his crimes had become public knowledge.
The man trafficked and raped children. If you want to email the billionaire pedophile to look for fossils on one of his rape-properties, you are a deplorable cunt and being banned from a con is the smallest punishment you are owed.
This guy goes on to say that this is virtue signalling? How? The con is banning people. It is seemingly backing up its post, not basking in the idea of being anti-pedophile. It is making this decision known to the public, as the Epstein files have become a pervasive part of our lives right now. Knowing a person linked to a pedophile rapist may be attending a con could affect attendees, so getting the word out is smart.
Quick question: Why am I a deplorable cunt if I want to look for fossils on a rapist’s piece of land? Am I a war criminal if I want to dig for fossils in Russa?
I think I am. Isn’t the advancement of science more important than the shunning of criminals?
I did word it poorly, but what I meant with the Russia example is that the damage done to society is relatively minor by visiting the country or island of a criminal (though not null), while the gain for science could be huge. Somewhat similar to how journalists travel to war zones or occupied territories and comply with local authority such as the Taliban to report on important issues or abuse. They engage with a regime, but for an important reason.
This is the question of ethics vs pragmatism. I do not denounce the discussion, nor do I discourage you from considering the pitfalls of choosing. Also, right now, timing and politics affect everything, and so also must be considered.
One of the cool things about most sciences is that it can wait. Society is delicate, too, and people’s lives are REAL.
Another thing to consider is that not all currency is monetary, and that by not condemning these monsters, there are many situations where you effectively do support them and their actions, and that is what the convention is pointing out.
Goons may not be the heads or decision makers, but they are, at best, malevolent negligence, and are often the active forces executing the very will and accumulating more power and attention and importance of the heads.
Maybe, use your science for good, instead? And if you can’t figure that out… There’s no nice way to say this… but, you probably need to work on your (weak) moral compass.
And if you do decide on your way, know that you have also, then, accepted all consequences of your actions.
Hey, I know you raped and tortured children and face zero consequences about it, but do you mind if I come over to your house and play in the backyard?
Pardon, I know I worded it poorly, but what I meant with the Russia example is that the damage done to society is relatively minor by visiting the country or island of a criminal (though not null), while the gain for science could be huge. Somewhat similar to how journalists travel to war zones or occupied territories and comply with local authority such as the Taliban to report on important issues or abuse. They engage with a regime, but for an important reason.
I don’t mind being wrong, I would like to understand the reasoning seemingly most people share in this case.
It’s a question of morality. Harry Harlow’s experiments were also pretty influential, not just in science but in how we conduct science. The latter experiments are now widely considered unethical because they’re absolutely sickening experiments bordering on torture. You can advance science but at what cost?
In case it needs to be made apparent, even most violent criminals draw the line at hurting children which is why in most prisons pedophiles end up separated from the rest the prison population. Associating with child rapists is so amoral even violent criminals don’t want that shit. So yeah, strictly scientifically speaking you can go dig some fossils in a child rapists backyard. Morally speaking, don’t be surprised when the rest of the scientific community doesn’t want anything to do with you because you’re so amoral you don’t care about associating with a known child rapist.
To be clear: I don’t know the paleontologist in question or what they did or didn’t do. I don’t even know my way around paleontology, aside from maybe the most basic education.
If I were in that position I really would prefer not to have to message this individual (or travel to Iran, or …) to do some digging. And I understand being wary of someone who does. But I don’t quite understand how that is placed on the pedestal as being friends or otherwise well acquainted with a know child molester and trafficker. Were they friends? Sure, avoid the scientist whenever possible.
But I do not see a fundamental wrong with asking nicely “Dear Mr., can I come and dig up your backyard because I think there are some important fossils?” Would it be wrong to dig up Charles Manson’s back yard for that reason? State lands in Russa?
bampopI’m a bit on the fence here, because the bar is being set at “corresponding with” rather than “associating with”. Perhaps you need to get in touch with some government official or some billionaire to get something done, and someone you know knows a guy who could put you in touch with them, so you send that guy an email. You just corresponded with someone. Would you have done a thorough background check on the middle man before sending an email?
I mean, I don’t know if these cases are like that or not, but corresponding with someone doesn’t in itself imply any kind of affiliation or knowledge about the person you communicate with.
We’re talking about “elites” of society. So yes, you should do the bare minimum google search on the person you’re emailing about getting in touch with a billionaire lol.
This isn’t some small example where you were trying to get in touch with someone at your medical insurance agency and unknowingly wound up on the phone with a convicted rapist who made the local news…
How much you wanna bet.
We already have testimony of them eating pieces of children, and Trump having the newborn child of someone he raped killed and thrown into Lake Michigan.
So the thought of bodies buried on the island isn’t beyond the realm of possibility.
I did a bit of research. As near as I can tell, there’s one (one!) paleontologist listed in the Epstein Files as “having contact with the Epstein organization,” Dr. Jack Horner.
What does “I did a bit of research” even mean? Couldn’t it be that DinoCon was told about other cases that he is not aware of?
Banning people for being in the Epstein Files is stupid.
Sounds like a typical straw man argument to me. “engaged in correspondence” is not the same as “being in the files”.
I’m in the Epstein Files
Maybe he felt that it applied to himself and therefore did not read the announcement carefully.
The epstein shit is extensive, ezxpansivs, lalala. Personally i clean my sink: this is what the former associates say
What part of science is guilt by association fallacy? Rash judgement is at odds with science. Did you know criminals can associate with noncriminals?
To flip this around, ostracizing others “out of safety” for associating with ex-convicts (who had been processed & released to society) is morally compromised & dishonest, ie, immoral. Talking to someone who did something wrong doesn’t imply you did something wrong. Neither does taking their money. Indulging fallacies is not a hallmark of scientific thought & is more consistent with the repressive, medieval thought scientists fought very hard to overcome.
Sages of major religions famously associated with undesirables: outcasts, untouchables, murderers, dangerous felons, etc. By the “logic” of that announcement, communities should have banned Buddha & Jesus (also mentioned in the Epstein files). Those that didn’t were “deplorable” for “not taking firm action to protect” members “in light of” blanket “allegations” that fail to specifically accuse them. If they were sanctimonious enough, they too could have done “more”.
Post needs text alternative for image of text.Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link: - usability - we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR - text search is unavailable - the system can’t - reflow text to varied screen sizes - vary presentation (size, contrast) - vary modality (audio, braille) - accessibility - lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc) - some users can’t read the image due to lack of alt text (markdown image description) - users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments - systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices - web connectivity - we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source - we can’t explore wider context of the original message - authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered - searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way - fault tolerance: no text fallback if - image breaks - image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations. Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
At some point it comes down to incentives, to not shun such terrible people just helps increase their influence. Accepting their money makes it look like you think what they did isn’t bad. Terms like greenwashing exists just highlight this problem, we have to make it clear it’s unacceptable to behave like that and that you can not buy your way out of consequences.
It’s basic risk assessment
Literally everything else you’re talking about is solved by ensuring due process is followed
In case you missed it, these are people who knew Epstein was an unrepentant child molester. Epstein was proven guilty in court, made no statements of remorse, and these scientists continued to validate and support his behavior for years after, up until his death. If he had accepted responsibility for his crimes, I would feel differently about people who decide to associate with him while he spent the rest of his life in prison. But I doubt these scientists would have. The reason they liked Jeffrey was because he got away with everything. They admired his ability to rape on an industrial scale without consequences.
Nobody should ever be guilty by association. However, nobody is entitled to be a respected dino scientist. That is something you earn, and I see no reason not to include their feelings about child rape when discussing whether most attendees would feel comfortable with them at a conference.