Rebecca Watson.
The context: it’s because Lawrence Krauss was getting clobbered by Watson over his abuses, and he wrote to Epstein asking for advice, because who better to ask for assistance than a convicted pedophile?
The Epstein files also include lots of examples of Krauss sucking up to Epstein, begging for money, and minimizing the reports of sexual abuse that were separately affecting both of them. Watson isn’t going to be hurt by this, but jesus, Krauss’s reputation is going to take an even bigger hit than it already had.
Bonus: Epstein is revealed as a scientific ignoramus.
So it’s best if I burn my copy of The Physics of Star Trek….? (Luckily I bought it second hand.)
There’s physics in Star Trek?
And the grenade continues its bounce.
Writing to a pedophile/trafficker for advice on how to handle an uppity woman with a podcast?! I can’t believe Krauss was THAT pathetic.
I don’t think that’s particularly shocking to anybody who’s been following along. Ever since the emails started coming out, one of the things a number of people have been saying about Epstein was ‘semi-literate’. He just doesn’t write like somebody who actually thinks through his ideas. Sure, there are occasional exceptions to that correlation, but this didn’t seem like one.
And even before the emails started coming out, I doubt anybody really thought he was any sort of scientific genius. He had money, he could schmooze with the best, he had friends with power, and he attracted a lot of people who were desperate to get in on that so they could feel important themselves and who didn’t really care who else got hurt in the process. Any brilliance was just him schmoozing with people who actually were smart and picking up talking points to use on the next people.
There is a contingent of those who were trying to curry favor with the money guy that he was a patron of the sciences and a contributor to interesting conversations. They never get specific about what he said that was so smart.
Nice. Unlike Virginia Giuffre, Rebecca has the unique achievement of coming back to haunt a pervert while she’s still alive.
Revealed as a scientific ignoramus? After the content of (and second-order implications of) his previously-disclosed correspondence with Summers? Let alone the “I’m a rich and powerful financier, don’t confuse me with the facts or any scientific reasoning” flavor of — ok, the verifiably-over-18 portion of — his apparent address book?
re what PZ just said, the specificity was maybe overstated (“never say never”) but essentially true as I see it.
$$$ is the reason for sure. The bigger the donation, the more the skim. Fair enough.
But the, um, side benefits, the perks… well, need I say more in this specific case?
Data: https://www.fastcompany.com/90375335/jeffrey-epsteins-money-was-accepted-by-scientists-even-after-arrest
Disappointing and difficult to reconcile Chomsky continuing to call on Epstein even after Epstein’s conviction.
Incidentally, I’ve read that while Epstein was required to check into that hotel cum prison every afternoon for the evening, he often checked out during the evening. So that was a sham.
[meta]
um, was ‘that hotel cum prison’ quip deliberate? Because it’s, entendretic.
(you get the neologism, you probably get my meaning, and the convese)
robro: I never much cared about Chomsky one way or the other. Is he even still alive?
John Morales @ #11 — It was deliberate. I’m not familiar with “entendretic”…nor is the internet…but I am familiar with word games.
I recall that Chomsky wrote some rather obnoxious opinion pieces during the previous dump administration that were in regard to the Women’s March and the Me too movement.
He was of the opinion that ‘now’ is not the time for women to demand true equality, because we needed to be concerned for the bigger picture?
As for me too, he felt the need to caution against allegations versus demonstration.
It’s yet another version of Dear Muslima IMO, and I lost a great deal of respect for a man who would tell me that I need to sacrifice my rights so we can have unity.
No thanks old white man, I have already waited over half a century and I still don’t have equality so now is good.
@14 I didn’t have a lot of respect for Chomsky’s political philosophy to begin with. His snooty answer when someone asked him why he traveled on the Lolita express cause whatever respect for him to evaporate like rain in hell.
From what I read a while ago Chomsky is Schroedinger’s linguist, bedbound and unable to communicate, but not formally dead.
It’s interesting to me that all these intellectuals, don’t forget Pinker, were all so desperate to be in Epstein’s orbit and in on the lifestyle somehow, even if they didn’t get to play with the 13 year olds. Larry Summers’ emails asking for bonking advice, it’s all just so utterly pathetic.
I would imagine Epstein’s success with (supposed) intellectuals was pretty much understanding how to flatter them, and make them think he was a smart guy who was awed by their profound truths. Along with believing the same thing all sorts of people do about the successful, that if they’re rich they must be smarter, more talented etc. than average or they wouldn’t be rich. No luck involved, no unethical behaviour involved.
@timgueguen:
That’s pretty much what I was saying above, though maybe I overstated my case on Epstein’s intelligence. But at his core he was a schmoozer, not an intellect. His specialty was always in getting other people to turn off their critical facilities, not in having any himself.
Which meant his biggest successes were always with those whose ego was tied up with how smart/successful/etc they were.
@robro:
Yeah… Chomsky had interesting things to say, even if they were often interesting more in the sense of ‘we need to recognize and talk about this’ than about his proclamations being completely right. It’s annoying to see that he followed along with Dawkins and the like of being actual smart people and good at making criticism of society, but who just absolutely lost it and doubled down in the moment they were the ones being criticized. The smug assumption that their previous records of being right allow them to continue to be treated as being right even once they’re demonstrably wrong.
This is more evidence that one may be brilliant in one area but a total moron in others.