Ugh. This is going to pour fuel into already prevalent anti-science/anti-intellectual sentiment in the US. ☹️

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00388-0

I mean, it is not exactly a secret that there are creepy scientists. It was more that until recently such beaviour was downplayed or excused, mostly if they ware powerful men. It did not impact existing anti-intellectual sentiment then, though of course nowadays anything could be weaponized.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I mean, it is not exactly a secret that there are creepy scientists. It was more that until recently such beaviour was downplayed or excused, mostly if they ware powerful men. It did not impact existing anti-intellectual sentiment then, though of course nowadays anything could be weaponized.

I’m not sure that knowing Epstein socially even indicates creepiness. Seems just about everybody knew Epstein: he was a vigorous, ubiquitous socialite, by the sound of it. There doesn’t seem to be evidence that most of these people were involved with Epstein’s prostitutes.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

I’m not sure that knowing Epstein socially even indicates creepiness. Seems just about everybody knew Epstein: he was a vigorous, ubiquitous socialite, by the sound of it. There doesn’t seem to be evidence that most of these people were involved with Epstein’s prostitutes.

Totally agree.

The theory of Erdos-Bacon numbers applies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_number

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Totally agree.

The theory of Erdos-Bacon numbers applies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_number

That is quite funny.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

I’m not sure that knowing Epstein socially even indicates creepiness. Seems just about everybody knew Epstein: he was a vigorous, ubiquitous socialite, by the sound of it. There doesn’t seem to be evidence that most of these people were involved with Epstein’s prostitutes.

Not prostitutes. Girls. Not consenting adults.

The concern is that these people continued to associate with him after he was convicted of his crimes, knowing they were more extensive than his sentence indicated because he got a sweetheart deal. Socializing with a serial rapist didn’t bother them, which is an indicator for creepiness for some.

If it was just a predilection for adult prostitutes I don’t think people would have nearly as much of a problem.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not prostitutes. Girls. Not consenting adults.

The concern is that these people continued to associate with him after he was convicted of his crimes, knowing they were more extensive than his sentence indicated because he got a sweetheart deal. Socializing with a serial rapist didn’t bother them, which is an indicator for creepiness for some.

If it was just a predilection for adult prostitutes I don’t think people would have nearly as much of a problem.

From what I have read, it seems to me almost all were young women of 18+, with agency as adults. He did get done for underage girls of course but my impression is that there has been an extension, by the media, into implying most of these women were underage girls. But is that true? How many were actually under age?

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

I’m not sure that knowing Epstein socially even indicates creepiness. Seems just about everybody knew Epstein: he was a vigorous, ubiquitous socialite, by the sound of it. There doesn’t seem to be evidence that most of these people were involved with Epstein’s prostitutes.

Indeed, but maintaining a positive association post conviction is very suspicious, if only for the fact that they feel entitled enough to not care if it's suspicious.or morally wrong.

Funny how the DOJ and their employer ( they are D Trump's law firm ) are attempting to throw everyone else under the bus by releasing e-mail about Democrats, scientists, tech leaders, and other wealthy individuals, while conveniently ignoring the thousands and thousands of times D Trump is mentioned; even after the lies about having severed contact with J Epstein.

D Trump, and MAGA, originally weaponized the Epstein file to generate outrage against Democrats and other wealthy individuals to shore up support from their base, but when that outrage demanded the release of the files, they have been scrambling ever since, to deny, deflect and misdirect with outrageous ( or stupid, like invading Greenland ) actions and proposals.

A recent news story came out regarding Epstein's ties to V Putin and the KGB, since the 80s, which I thought was pretty far fetched ( from the Daily Mail, after all )

Newly unmasked evidence shows who put Trump in the White House | Opinion

but mounting evidence seems to back it up

Report: Epstein helped Russia get damaging information on Western elites

Trump defends Putin after Russia allegedly broke truce

America's most dangerous woman still serves Trump — and it's not Kristi Noem | Opinion

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

From what I have read, it seems to me almost all were young women of 18+, with agency as adults. He did get done for underage girls of course but my impression is that there has been an extension, by the media, into implying most of these women were underage girls. But is that true? How many were actually under age?

Again, I don’t think his association with consenting adults is what is upsetting to most.

I think it’s informative to look at the conviction of his literal partner in crime, which happened when Epstein could no longer exert influence over the system

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ghislaine-maxwell-sentenced-20-years-prison-conspiring-jeffrey-epstein-sexually-abuse

“GHISLANE MAXWELL was sentenced today in Manhattan federal court by United States Circuit Judge Alison J. Nathan to 240 months in prison for her role in a scheme to sexual exploit and abuse multiple minor girls with Jeffrey Epstein over the course of a decade”

“From at least 1994, up to and including in or about 2004, GHISLAINE MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18.  The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that their victims were in fact minors”

We know this continued past 2004. There is the question of the number of crimes where could they not get people to testify or otherwise gather enough evidence for conviction. Maxwell continues to take the fifth when questioned, which buttresses the idea that there are more crimes not covered by her conviction. (she can’t possibly incriminate herself for the crimes for which she was convicted).

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

That is quite funny.

Well it is said that everybody in the world is linked to everybody else by no more than 6 links

Jordan Ellenberg "Shape"

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Not prostitutes. Girls. Not consenting adults.

The concern is that these people continued to associate with him after he was convicted of his crimes, knowing they were more extensive than his sentence indicated because he got a sweetheart deal. Socializing with a serial rapist didn’t bother them, which is an indicator for creepiness for some.

If it was just a predilection for adult prostitutes I don’t think people would have nearly as much of a problem.

A lot would depend on degree of association, ranging from "researcher struggling for grant money, wetting his beak in the billionaire pond and not paying attention" to severe Chomsky Syndrome (i.e. remains friendly and sympathetic to known pedo/pimp/sexual abuser). My biggest disappointment is Chomsky, given his career of standing up for the poor and disadvantaged and standing against oligarchs and capitalist power. That kind of hypocrisy is a head-scratcher.

9 hours ago, exchemist said:

I’m not sure that knowing Epstein socially even indicates creepiness. Seems just about everybody knew Epstein: he was a vigorous, ubiquitous socialite, by the sound of it. There doesn’t seem to be evidence that most of these people were involved with Epstein’s prostitutes.

That is a fair point, though in the article there are folks mentioned who had a bit of a reputation on their own, and even if they just shared jokes, it ain't a good look. Also he was pretty good pals with more than one University president and at least with one there were quite some suggestive emails. Even assuming that nothing illegal has happened, it is again not a great look for a position who frequently works with younger folks.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

A lot would depend on degree of association, ranging from "researcher struggling for grant money, wetting his beak in the billionaire pond and not paying attention" to severe Chomsky Syndrome (i.e. remains friendly and sympathetic to known pedo/pimp/sexual abuser). My biggest disappointment is Chomsky, given his career of standing up for the poor and disadvantaged and standing against oligarchs and capitalist power. That kind of hypocrisy is a head-scratcher.

That, too. Also timing, e.g. before he was formally convicted (and whether they were aware of it). I am a bit wary of personal endowments if there is a possibility that there are strings attached, but I guess that is a different discussion.

Reading your comments, I doubt you watched the entire Netflix series about Epstein. Take a look. They knew where they were going, what they were going to do, and how much they would get paid. And then they got other girls involved, their classmates and siblings. Want to "massage a rich guy for $200?" Why not. Need money. Let's go. And then the source of income dried up, so they decided to take revenge. The guy destroyed his life at his own request. All he had to do was ask them to show their ID. This should also be a lesson for you. The prosecution knew that the charges in the first indictment were very weak, which is why they gave him this plea bargain. Otherwise, they would have had to charge all those girls with the same thing. What does a girl who went with a guy for $200 and brought a few of her friends do? She was already a pimp. She got $200 just for bringing a friend to his house! J.E.'s attorneys accused the prosecution of ignoring the fact that several girls had shown fake IDs to mislead them. The funniest thing is that they weren't even pretty! Except for the one who was "Prince Andrew's girlfriend". There was a comment in the movie: "You'll have to do the same with Andrew as you did with Jeffrey. OK." It's just a question of how much.

The guy had something wrong with his head, because for a normal man, a woman without breasts (i.e., one who is too young) is not attractive. But there are also girls who are 15 years old, and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 20-year-olds. So looking at age can be misleading as to whether someone "likes children" or not.

People who have money problems take advantage of the rich. And the rich take advantage of the poor. Nothing new.

If a girl felt she had been wronged, why did she bring 3-5 other friends with her next time? And she gets paid for it too.

Do you know how it happened? One of these girls got into a fight with another girl at school. During a search, several hundred dollars were found on her, and she couldn't explain where she got them. The police finally got her to admit that she got them from a rich guy for massaging him at his house, where she went voluntarily. They started watching the residence. And every day, new girls came and went.

Edited February 11Feb 11 by Sensei

18 minutes ago, Sensei said:

They knew where they were going, what they were going to do, and how much they would get paid.

Consent laws protect children in these instances, or are supposed to, unless the men are shielded by other men who see nothing wrong with having sex with children.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

A lot would depend on degree of association, ranging from "researcher struggling for grant money, wetting his beak in the billionaire pond and not paying attention" to severe Chomsky Syndrome (i.e. remains friendly and sympathetic to known pedo/pimp/sexual abuser). My biggest disappointment is Chomsky, given his career of standing up for the poor and disadvantaged and standing against oligarchs and capitalist power. That kind of hypocrisy is a head-scratcher.

Yes. The “we met for coffee to discuss funding when he was visiting NY” crowd is not drawing fire from what I can see. That’s not social interaction. It’s the ones who were spending a lot of time interacting with him and defended him and/or lied about the extent of their association that are the big targets. Musk, Gates, and a few other big shots in tech. Krauss. There was an email from a prof recommending a woman and the exchange included a physical description and an insinuation that she’d be to Epstein’s liking. Creepy stuff.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Reading your comments, I doubt you watched the entire Netflix series about Epstein. Take a look. They knew where they were going, what they were going to do, and how much they would get paid. And then they got other girls involved, their classmates and siblings. Want to "massage a rich guy for $200?" Why not. Need money. Let's go. And then the source of income dried up, so they decided to take revenge. The guy destroyed his life at his own request. All he had to do was ask them to show their ID. This should also be a lesson for you. The prosecution knew that the charges in the first indictment were very weak, which is why they gave him this plea bargain. Otherwise, they would have had to charge all those girls with the same thing. What does a girl who went with a guy for $200 and brought a few of her friends do? She was already a pimp. She got $200 just for bringing a friend to his house! J.E.'s attorneys accused the prosecution of ignoring the fact that several girls had shown fake IDs to mislead them. The funniest thing is that they weren't even pretty! Except for the one who was "Prince Andrew's girlfriend". There was a comment in the movie: "You'll have to do the same with Andrew as you did with Jeffrey. OK." It's just a question of how much.

The guy had something wrong with his head, because for a normal man, a woman without breasts (i.e., one who is too young) is not attractive. But there are also girls who are 15 years old, and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 20-year-olds. So looking at age can be misleading as to whether someone "likes children" or not.

People who have money problems take advantage of the rich. And the rich take advantage of the poor. Nothing new.

If a girl felt she had been wronged, why did she bring 3-5 other friends with her next time? And she gets paid for it too.

Do you know how it happened? One of these girls got into a fight with another girl at school. During a search, several hundred dollars were found on her, and she couldn't explain where she got them. The police finally got her to admit that she got them from a rich guy for massaging him at his house, where she went voluntarily. They started watching the residence. And every day, new girls came and went.

There is so much wrong with what you've written. You are talking about pubescent and prepubescent GIRLS like they should be self aware and be sexually familiar.

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

There is so much wrong with what you've written. You are talking about pubescent and prepubescent GIRLS like they should be self aware and be sexually familiar.

In addition, the power differential should not be overlooked. It is not like the situation is one of free, well-informed and consensual interaction. An important element of this form of abuse is the normalization of the situation, establishing authority and influence over the victims actions and decisions and perspectives. It is a well-established methodology in cults and cult-like organizations.

54 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In addition, the power differential should not be overlooked. It is not like the situation is one of free, well-informed and consensual interaction. An important element of this form of abuse is the normalization of the situation, establishing authority and influence over the victims actions and decisions and perspectives. It is a well-established methodology in cults and cult-like organizations.

I particularly dislike the perspective that these children knew what they were getting into and were simply greedy. This is also part of the cult methodology, to diminish and blame the victim.

Hard work only gets you so far.
Nobody ever got as filthy rich as these guys by having morals.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

In addition, the power differential should not be overlooked.

Indeed, it’s why supervisors are forbidden from relationships with subordinates in the workplace, and similarly with other positions of authority (e.g. teacher-student); there’s no true ability to consent, even when one is an adult.

DARVO manipulation in action here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Hard work only gets you so far.
Nobody ever got as filthy rich as these guys by having morals.

Well basic capitalist economics dictates basically that if all you have is hard work, you are already a loser in the system (Labour is inherently constrained at the individual level, but capital has no such upper bound on leverage.). They should amend that morals are a further constraint.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Indeed, it’s why supervisors are forbidden from relationships with subordinates in the workplace, and similarly with other positions of authority (e.g. teacher-student); there’s no true ability to consent, even when one is an adult.

DARVO manipulation in action here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

I wasn't aware of that term. There is an acronym (well, initialism) for everything, isn't there?

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Hard work only gets you so far.
Nobody ever got as filthy rich as these guys by having morals.

Capitalism is by its nature an amoral system. Guys like Warren Buffett (one of the very few billionaires who seems to retain a moral center) are rare. Buffett last I checked has laid plans to give away 99% of his fortune to charitable causes. Weirdo.

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

There is so much wrong with what you've written.

Your statement is so vague that it is difficult to discuss with it at all, because it is unclear what your problem is..

Everything I wrote was based on the Netflix series from 2020. And not on the lies and manipulations of the mainstream media.

I watched it this week. So my memory is still fresh.

If you think something has been manipulated in this Netflix document, please provide the episode number, minute and second of the film, and a general description of what you disagree with.

The policeman/FBI agent shows a board with arrows indicating which girl brought which other girl (after they had sex with him) s01e02 32m:

The girl says she had sex with him for four years, and during that time she brought 30-60 other girls to him, earning 60 x 200 = at least 12,000 USD, knowing why they were going there, s01e02 30m:

The defense lawyer says that some of the girls used fake documents to prove that they were already adults, s01e02 18m:

This topic has been raised several times, but I found this quote quickly.

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You are talking about pubescent and prepubescent GIRLS like they should be self aware and be sexually familiar.

The girls who appeared in this documentary had no problem saying that he was the nth man in their lives.

10 hours ago, Sensei said:

Everything I wrote was based on the Netflix series from 2020. And not on the lies and manipulations of the mainstream media.

Some clarification needed. Didn't James Patterson (who wrote the source material for the series) use some media sources for parts of his book? Which media sources are you accusing of lies and manipulation? You need to back up your bashing of media with some documented examples.