chomsky didn’t point out all the ways that epstein had worked to make amends – because epstein made no such attempts
it’s the behavior of a person that should determine whether we want to associate with them, rather than the lack of or possession of a criminal record.
Is he talking about Epstein or Allen, here? Not that it makes a huge difference, but I found that paragraph ambiguous.
I have been wondering how long it would take for people to start getting fingered as associated with Epstein, and I wonder how long we’ll have to endure the drip-feeding of salacious rage-bait to the public, and how partisan this feeding of information will be.
I’m not a particular Chomsky fan in any case. Nor Woody Allen for that matter.
Again, this took place AFTER Epstein’s conviction. So, why isn’t it in public interest to know which public figures benefited from his largess? Why is it “getting fingered” instead of calling out people who don’t give two shits about abused teen girls?
At some point, we need to decided if we’re more interested in defending people with privilege or if we care about some semblance of justice. I think calling people out for associating with a known rapist is more than fair game… and as we can see, not like his fanbois will care either way. They’ll continue to support him anyways.
Someone getting high on his own PR supply. Believing his own press to the point where they feel invincible. It happens a lot.
Also when push comes to shove, being a respected figure doesn’t mean they can’t also just be shitty human beings. It could very well be that Chomsky considered being around trafficked children was a sign of success.
Can we fucking not do that. These are rape victims. Full stop. They are not “high end prostitutes”…
Trafficed children.
Edited accordingly. I apologize.
The amount of rage and disgust I feel is proportionate to how gross any given individual’s association with Epstein was, and how that relationship changed once they knew (or should have known) about his crimes.
It’s one thing if someone once accepted a free ride on Epstein’s airplane or a fat donation to their nonprofit but then publicly and unconditionally denounced him as soon as they found out he was a monstrous sex offender. But if a person continued to accept his money and friendship after they knew who he really was then that’s pretty fucked up and they deserve to get called out for it.
So when someone says stuff like “he served his time and had a clean slate” (Chomsky) or “I wish her well” (TFG talking about Ghislaine Maxwell) then that raises a lot of red flags about the former Epstein associate’s character.
just add them to the list.
Can we not do this either, please?
I’m a huge fan of Chomsky but, as has been pointed out at length in the thread already, he should be aware (not least by his own standards) that hanging out with people like Epstein and Allen is questionable at best.
This “strange date” was in 2015, and since then, Chomsky has published at least 12 books. I think it’s fair to say he was not suffering from dementia at the time that they met.
Even if that weren’t the case, ascribing shitty behaviour to any type of remotely diagnosed illness is not cool.
Yet here he is, alive to face the backlash for his actions. He has no excuse. And the fact that WSJ is calling him out has got to feel like the biggest burn.
So - were you complaining about that - or supporting that.
Because it sure sounded like you were complaining about him being criticized for it.
For the person deciding on whether or not to associate with a known child sex trafficker? Possibly “wrong” when the sex trafficker’s net worth is lower than yours. (Some people like being close to those with big money.)
2019 (estimates)
Chomsky: $5M
Epstein: $580M
Oh, no. It’s ironic, the source of the story, which I could not read behind the paywall. It seemed no one had pointed out that irony. I was not complaining about him being questioned for his associations, but for sure, disappointed. It reminds me of some stories I heard about other people I consider legendary. I don’t know him but read a few of Chomsky’s books that expose imperialism, and I just find his bristling response to being exposed himself disingenuous and misleading, not exactly the honesty he demands from people holding positions of power. Maybe the rest of his email was more of the same.
This is more or less where I was going with that. In other words, knowing he had no justifiable reason to be associating with Allen and Epstein on a private plane, given what was already public knowledge about the two, turning the table rhetorically on the person asking the question, i.e. making them feel bad for bringing up guilt by association, is the best Chomsky could come up with as a defense. I read @Mindysan’s response sarcastically, but maybe I misread, so thanks for helping to clarify.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
