I like that they’re also banning anyone not doing a similar ban
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”
What if you’re not sure all this passionate witch-hunting is a good thing? Is that allowed?
It’s banning sunshine from a convention, not throwing them in prison. That’s not witch hunting, that’s something every convention does with problematic guests. Conventions are held by organizations and businesses - they have just as much right to kick and ban people as any other org or business. Nobody’s being hurt, persecuted, or prosecuted. Your argument is invalid.
Last I checked people being associated with others who have raped, mutilated, and killed children for little more than a power grab also makes you a horrible person by association.
There are many levels of association.
For example, I might be invited to a conference. And I might decline that invitation. There now we’re associated by those emails. Am I a horrible person now?
If that was an argument such people could make, they’re welcome to present evidence.
However, anyone who voluntarily associated with the world’s worst pedophile after his conviction has no excuse. Comparing people to the company they keep has been valid since the beginning of time.
The question was : am I a horrible person now?
They answered. If you have evidence that you declined, then no.
From the wording I’m willing to bet they did a bit more investigation than just doing a pass/fail on a Ctrl+f
I do strongly suspect so. That or bot.
For example, I might be invited to a conference. And I might decline that invitation. There now we’re associated by those emails. Am I a horrible person now?
Did you reach out to ask to be invited? Or did you receive an invite and decline it. Because we’re talking about the former. We’re talking about people who reached out to Epstein or his associates. They were in contact with.
So yes, that would make you a horrible person, especially after the allegations came out. And you’re a horrible person for doing your absolute damndest to defend these people.
You got banned from Dinocon, didn’t you.
Witches are fictional. The above is not.
Don’t overheat your little 2-bit processor now
Excuse me? Witch hunts were fueled by religious superstition. People were hanged, burned, drowned for being things that don’t exist in the real world, and bedding a fallen angel for magical powers. Tell me how the fuck this correlates. Aside from Epstein and Trump being the fucking Devil.
Secondary sanctions from a dino convention. Based.
Bruh why… how was this dudes reach into everything
When 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
Also, if you’re someone who is seeking power, you do everything you can to suck up to people with it. There are plenty of people in every field who are willing to put up with, or do, horrible things to be treated like they’re special.
pretty much. Basically everyone who is of note is implicated in the files. It’s ridiculous
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.
I want to announce that everyone in the Epstein files is banned from my house, with the exception of Bill Gates, who was already banned and is now double banned.
Don’t you hate it when a good boycott comes along, and you can’t participate because you’ve already been boycotting them for some previous atrocity? I keep finding good reasons to boycott United, but I’ve been boycotting them for decades.
At this point I whitelist rather than blacklist.
How stunning and brave of you to stand up for what is right.
Clearly those in the files will feel the hot wrath of justice by not being able to ever go over to your place for Hot Pockets and Capri Suns.
I’ll have you know my homemade hummus and baba ganoush platter is the talk of the neighborhood.
Recipie tax or b&. 🔫
You make them like normal but add more allspice than you’d think is reasonable. And a bit of smoked paprika on the ganoush. And don’t skimp on the olive oil. I’m talking
Also, broil the eggplants after they’re done, before you scoop the goodness out (you can also barbeque them). And don’t blend them, you want that weird texture.
Serve with pita and little boats of celery, carrots. bell pepper, onion, whatever you want that is crunchy and can scoop globs of them
I feel like Mia Wallace after just doing a line of blow in Jack Rabbit Slim’s bathroom. “I said goddamn!”
Excellent contribution, chatter. Uncritical support.
Real glad I’m not in the Epstein files right now. I don’t think I could handle missing out on homemade baba ganoush. I’ll pick up some shawarma and be right over
I’ll bring the pita bread my brother in God.
And next up is Jimmy Babaganoosh!
If yall been having people mentioned in the files visiting your house then I got a lot of questions for you that I didn’t have before reading this.
That motherfucker
ruinedtarnished dinosaurs too!? edit, i still like dinosaurs.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:
- Abusing some children himself?
- Not abusing them, but actively helping Epstein to do so, in matters directly related to the abuse?
- Not directly helping Epstein with the abuse, but knowing to be associated with a paedophile, and not giving a fuck about it?
- Not knowing he was associated with a paedophile, but being in a position he should have done so?
- Nothing?
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.
Chomsky 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.
No one should be surprised that known sex pest Krauss was mixed up with Epstein.
How the heck was Stephen Hawking involved??
I have no words to explain the levels of disappointment and rage I am feeling at this moment.
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.
I mean if your company is owned or adminstrated by an epstein associate they should be forced to put up a sign and register as a sex offender (corporations are people, after all).
This message brought to you by Microsoft*
(*Microsoft is a registered sex offender)
Lmao. That italic/asterisk text would be amazing to see IRL. Although I feel like it would be rarer for a corporation to not have that.
It just seems correct, like how it should have been all along.
Geez, lots of paleontologists have skeletons in their closets.
Sorry
I for one, enjoyed your pun.
A paleontologist and a pale ontologist walk into a bar…
It’s a low bar.
For a second there at first I thought DinoCon referred to the DNC.
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.
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.
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.
You almost made a good argument there. Why did you backpedal in the second paragraph? It invalidates everything you said and removes all your credibility.
According to the Montana Standard, after his name surfaced in the released files, Horner posted, and later deleted, a social media statement calling his decision to pursue Epstein’s support an extremely poor judgment. He said that while he knew Epstein had been convicted of soliciting prostitution, he was unaware of Epstein’s broader sex trafficking operation until years later.
Horner wrote that his visit involved only Epstein, staff, and several women introduced as college students. […]
I can see where the judgement lapse happened, but that’s a pretty big lapse. I’m pretty ok removing these folk until the dust settles from events like this.
Sounds like Horner was being willfully ignorant, or pretending to be, about the trafficking.
Either way he can fuck off.
Haven’t you heard it’s possible that he was killed by the administration because he had accepted responsibility for his crimes? If it’s true that he was going to cooperate with authorities to reduce his sentence it would explain why those in power would want him gone.
His actions were unconscionable but unless you knew him personally or were involved with the investigation into his case you can’t tell us he “wasn’t accepting responsibility” unless you’re just making stuff up.
Since justice ain’t working people are taking it upon themselves.
Nah. The guilt by association fallacy is more like:
- [P1] Hitler ate bread.
- [P2] Hitler was a bad person.
- [C] Thus if you eat bread, you’re as bad as Hitler.
That is not even remotely close to what the DinoCon is doing. If we interpret their actions as an argument, it’s more like:
- [P1] Knowingly associating yourself with a bad person makes you a bad person.
- [P2] Those people knowingly associating themselves with Epstein, a bad person.
- [C] Thus those people are bad people.
You might disagree with the first premise (it’s a moral premise, so it depends on your values), but the argument is perfectly logical.
Socializing with known child molesters is beyond the pale. If the government isn’t going to deal with them properly one of the better options for the rest of us is to exile them from society. Anyone that’s not on board with this can fuck off right along with them.
I normally agree with you about guilt by association, but these people are currently an IMMINENT threat to every living thing on the planet. I am truly ok with a small amount of collateral damage to excise the cancer before it STRANGLES US TO DEATH. They control everything. Every mechanism of power or change. We cannot allow them the very obvious influence over the extensive investigation that their position afford. We need to purge our power structures of this before anything else can be done about it.
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
Science without morals and ethics leads to amazing developments, but often misguided or twisted understanding, and unbridled human suffering.
It’s not enough to be a good scientist, one must also be a good person. The people involved with Epstein are UNREPENTANTLY evil. These are not people who are in the “grey” like a leper who was an untouchable or a murderer who killed unintentionally and regrets it their whole life. A true scientist doesn’t need the law to tell them that someone is highly likely to be a monster when the evidence is mounting. Rather they would chase the evidence and do their best to make a decision based on the most logical outcome.
A good scientist who is also a good person must work to excise this toxicity from the scientific community.
Also, Budda and Jesus? A terrible bad faith argument, I can’t dignify that with anything other than dismissal
“Science without morals and ethics leads to amazing developments, but often misguided or twisted understanding, and unbridled human suffering.”
Exactly this. I see way too many scientists who may not be actively bad people, but they convince themselves that it’s possible to do science in an apolitical manner.
I believe that science is able to get as close to objectivity as is possible to achieve. However, individual scientists can never be objective, and the more they think of themselves in that way, the less objective the resulting science is.
Well well well, this feels familiar. Pardoning Pedophiles? Ain’t no such thing.
This isn’t necessarily about justice or guilt. They aren’t being imprisoned or sentenced. An organization is choosing not to permit them where their members & the public gather, for “protection”.
If these individuals were suspected of being in contact with a dangerous contagious disease, you’d hopefully not find it unscientific to minimize risk by telling them not to come to a convention.
But being a child rapist, or ASSOCIATING with child rapists isn’t a contagious disease. No, but due to their association to members of a prolific child trafficing ring, they may be considered a higher risk for a certain subset of convention-goers (which claims to offer fun for people of all ages)
You had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
- usability
You can PUNISH People who RAPED LITTLE CHILDREN?
-Americans!
Nah, Americans make those people President.
Wow so many pedo apologizers in the comments.
I never thought I would see pedophilia become a political issue.
The MAGA cult is real.
Well, y’know, those little girls were sluts. /S
My online friend lists have been through the chopping block recently, a good society must have intolerance for the intolerant and devious.
There’s zero excuse for an adult to sexually assault a child, or to have known and kept the secret.
not everyone who ever interacted with Epstein was/is a pedophile.
he had a broad network of various levels of social gatherings and sex parties. not all of them were pedo parties. the majority were not.
the notion that anyone who ever interacted with him in anyway is a pedophile or pedophile supporter is an incredibly broad and stupid approach. there are various levels of participation and interact with him. he clearly had an inner circle, an outer circle, and then 10000s of tangential connections with various people. hopefully with more disclosure of the files who is who will become apparent.
punish the guilty who committed crimes. not their associates. guilt by association is cognitive bias that seeks to punish innocent people for merely being in proximity to those who commit crimes.
Epstein’s behavior was publicly well-known long before his initial arrest. I remember my first thought was “Finally, what took them so long?”
Anyone who had ANY contact with him after his 2008 conviction, who pursued any kind of relationship with him - personal, business, friendship, networking, sex client, etc. - is burned. They knew who he was, and any reasonable, moral person, especially one with public responsibilities, should have know to avoid any contact, of any kind.
There was no valid reason for having a personal relationship with Epstein after 2008, and anyone who did, deserves all the public derision and contempt they receive.
This is a fair take, and I greatly prefer an “innocent before proven guilty” justice system. I think it’s also fair for you to read the article before commenting.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology released a notice to members last week, cautioning that inclusion in the Epstein files does not alone imply misconduct.
And who is going to determine what misconduct is? They have a crack team of legal experts reading all the files? devil is in the details.
the issue I’m addressing is the broader moral panic and the moral grandstanding that goes along with it that surrounds this whole thing, and pedophilia in general, or that these types of symbolic gestures are some form of justice for the crimes of Epstein and his trafficking associates.
“I don’t like people not interacting with folks who were close to a violent child rapist after knowing he was a violent child rapist, you’re making too big of a deal out of it.” - you
I don’t really think it’s up to DinoCon to solve crimes. Obviously symbolic gestures aren’t justice, but I don’t really see what else DinoCon is supposed to do. Are you honestly asking DinoCon to spin up a crack team of legal experts to manage the epstein case? Maybe we should have GenCon start tracking down serial killers while we’re at it.
Professionally speaking? They should privately dis-invite the speakers or seminar leaders who make questionable appearances in the files, but not make a public hoopla over it. They probably have a ethics of conduct code that might have been demonstrably violated.
But I have no idea what criteria they would be using to make those calls. For all we know maybe they have no codified ethics codes as an organization.
My beef with it is the virtue signalling publicity. Making a big public stink about benefits who exactly? It’s little more than grandstanding moralizing PR.
This is specifically in regards to those who continued to have correspondence and business dealings with Epstein after his first conviction for raping and rape trafficking literal children. This is not legal punishment, this is an organization drawing a line and choosing to not let these people be involved with them.
You can be very shitty and dangerous person and still be well within the law, these folks are simply protecting themselves and everyone involved with them from people that knowingly interacted and did business with a child rape cabal.
I mean, yes, but also, in the OP statement “after his conviction.”
As in, after we knew what he was doing, why would peoppe ever associate with him again.
Its not even some weird ass “gray area” thing where you are an 18 year old in HS dating a 16 year old at your HS. Its literally sex trafficking of very minor minors.
innocent before proven guilty is only a thing where the crime is actually being investigated. because it’s not, nearly any actions and considerations by individuals is fair game. technically it always was.
DinoCon for pres
Guilty 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-forThat 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?
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.
I’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…
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?
I don’t think they buried the corpses. I could be wrong though.
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.
You can’t really be this obtuse, can you?
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.
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.
Why the hell was epstein on quora though? Like, isn’t that suspicious in itself? Billionaires don’t need to create q&a accounts. They have assistants that just find the answers for them.
To be fair, if I was a powerful or important person, and I found out this guy can get me anything, and didn’t know he was a pedophile, I’d want to network too. (Also to be fair, his face would scare me away too).
What do you think the odds are that these Paleontologists are kiddie diddlers?
after the conviction
Yeah no pity there.
Here’s the cool thing, I don’t give a single fuck why you were communicating with the guy. If you had a relationship with him, you get thrown in the wood chipper. After every single person is thrown in, we can sort through the pile of viscera and determine guilt.
We CANNOT allow these people to remain in the position of power they are in for the duration of the obviously EXTENSIVE investigation that is needed.
She is a witch. Buying potatoes from her is the same as congress with the devil.
-Elder Edict, ~1350
Your logical fallacy is: false equivalence.
I think it’s pretty dead on.
Which is why we know you’re a fucked up person.
of course, this witch is a known and convicted child rapist and trafficker, dead on I say, dead on
Did this witch have sole control over more wealth and personel than entire nation states? Because if not, it’s a nonsense sentence
Ok, that is exactly what I’m concerned of. I suspect that there are people on the list that had nothing to do with kiddy diddling, and that this might be how he got power over them in the first place.
We might have ended up in a shitty world, solely due to that one fucker.
It makes sense though, that’s my attitude to billionaires in general. 3000 people are simply…NOTHING compared to say, a million innocent people killed in Gaza because they exist, so you have a point there.
As much as I hate to create a world where anyone could be sacrificed, things have passed the godzilla threshold.
Ah yes, every time it’s billionaires and their people that are facing consequences all of a sudden we worry about the innocent being convicted, even as we know they aren’t innocent. They always play us, after conviction they will slip all of this talk about the carceral system not being rehabilitative, long enough to help give the judge they pay off cause to give them a lighter sentence.
Enough. These people were not just abusing girls and everything else, they were doing it to blackmail people to give them license to abuse others, abuses that are ongoing, and worse every day. Not problems confined to gaza and the west bank and iran either, it’s coming home.
There is nothing that can stop our trajectory into the abyss, except this scandal. It’s they key to laying waste to the corrupt oligarchy leading us to ruin, and on the cusp of killing our republic in all but name and replacing it with an unthinkable kakistocracy.
Yeah, I’m willing to sacrifice some billionaires for the greater good, without hesitation.
Sadly, not in the position to do so effectively.
There are no innocent billionaires anyway.
Wait, if I were to become a billionaire, would I get at least 30 days to give up wealth, or would I be considered evil instantly?
The act making a billion dollars alone requires acts that deserve a guillotine. I’d argue anyone actively trying to become a billionaire should be lined up for the wood chipper.
Are we gonna ignore the exploitation it took for you to have 900 million? 800? 500?.. nobody has an exact cutoff, but at some point an individual has effectively won capitalism, and that point is looooong before you reach 1 billion.
we should track down every barista who ever sold him coffee and throw them in the woodchipper too!!!
We should track down whoever is making our frogs have tits!
Alex Jones dumping penis pills in the local lake is what caused big titted frogs
Post 2008 it was public knowledge JE was a pedophile
What do you think the odds are that these Paleontologists are kiddie diddlers?
As much as any other profession
Well, it’s also possible that all of these other people have faith in the system that Epstein was fully rehabilitated by going to jail 12 hours a day for a few months.
In the same way that its also possible that monkeys will fly out of my butt and deliver me a million dollars.
Ironically, I was a kid back then. That’s also when MJ died, coincidence?!?
It was public knowledge for years before, the Miami Herald doggedly pursued him for years, and is the ONLY reason he faced any consequences, as they championed some of his victims that wanted justice, until the state prosecutors couldn’t ignore it any longer, at which point Epstein used his corrupt influence to get the feds to convince the state to transfer to them, and then give him a sweetheart deal letting him off the hook, without following their own rules about consulting victims either. Acosta was the prosecutor, and he was HHS secretary in the president’s first term too, had to resign because of that plea deal.
ragebait
Hey! I didn’t know it was after the conviction.
Why not? It’s in the post. Or did you not actually read before commenting?
I forget things really fast, it’s not that I’m truly dumb.
I could probably do great things…if I didn’t suffer from some sort of amnesia or whatever the fuck this horrible, horrible thing is.
Username checks out
Agreed. And on the face of it, this paleontological organization is being unjust. Engaging in justice theater even.
If the communication was prior to Epstein’s conviction I might be inclined to provide some leeway – all else being equal. If the communication was after Epstein’s conviction they should be very firm.
So “a communication” constitutes such strong evidence for conviction that we need neither judge nor jury? Interesting.
Judges and juries are for dolling out legal punishment, such as prison time. Private organizations run by ethcal adults can judge for themselves the very obvious connections and guilt or innocence of people they choose to hire or associate with (or not associate with).
No one is facing any consequence from judges and juries in the US.
Unfortunately that is true. This is why it is even MORE important for private individuals and organizations to do what they can with the limited nongovernmental power they have.
Judges and juries are for establishing just action. If we care about just action then we use a judge and jury. It is inconvenient and imperfect, but it’s better than trusting individuals. That’s why we do it. Not because it’s the governmenty thing to do
“It’s better than trusting individuals”
What the fuck do you think judges and juries are?
Do you believe in free association? Do you think people should be forced to associate with people they do not want to? Suppose someone got off legally due to a technicality but anyone paying attention with common sense knew that person was guilty? Should I be forced to associate with such a person? Suppose one of those people applies for a job as science teacher for a middle school; should that middle school be forced to hire such a person?
sounds like you’re siding with the confirmed child abusers, in which case justice would be two bullets in the back of your head
Actually I’m siding with people who communicated with confirmed child abusers.
Get a grip.
wood chipper it is
If you were rich you’d love to have been one of those associates it seems. It’s the only explanation for the way you defend them. The absolute dissonance required to be like, “yeah he was is sex trafficking minors, but i wonder if he can also throw me a good normal party on his island that is totally normal” is asinine… These people don’t need your defense. Why are you even bothering?
Based paleontologists
