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.
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
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.
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.
Well well well, this feels familiar. Pardoning Pedophiles? Ain’t no such thing.
Since justice ain’t working people are taking it upon themselves.
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
You had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
- usability
For a second there at first I thought DinoCon referred to the DNC.
I like that they’re also banning anyone not doing a similar ban
“Hold people accountable or else we will hold you accountable”
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.
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.
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.
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
You can PUNISH People who RAPED LITTLE CHILDREN?
-Americans!
Nah, Americans make those people President.
It’s a low bar.
And the convention even has an awesome logo and name. They’re total badasses.
You know Muldoon was on the list… 🤔
I was thinking Hammond - old and rich (at least beforehand)
The epstein shit is extensive, ezxpansivs, lalala. Personally i clean my sink: this is what the former associates say
Wrong kind of bones guys.
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.
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.
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.
