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.
Comment on When DinoCon is doing more than the US Gov
lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 weeks agoThat 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.
MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 weeks 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).
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 2 weeks 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@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
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.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
That sounds like Chomsky? Doing the taxes of an uber wealth financier/convicted pedophile?
Stop lying to yourself.
lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
The inverse: the über rich paedophile doing Chomsky’s taxes.
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.
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.