• Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        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).