• Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

  • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I want to announce that everyone in the Epstein files is banned from my house, with the exception of Bill Gates, who was already banned and is now double banned.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Don’t you hate it when a good boycott comes along, and you can’t participate because you’ve already been boycotting them for some previous atrocity? I keep finding good reasons to boycott United, but I’ve been boycotting them for decades.

  • bulwark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    That motherfucker ruined tarnished dinosaurs too!? edit, i still like dinosaurs.

    • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months 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 [he/him]@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            That sounds like Chomsky? Doing the taxes of an uber wealth financier/convicted pedophile?

            Stop lying to yourself.

            • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              That sounds like Chomsky? Doing the taxes of an uber wealth financier/convicted pedophile?

              The inverse: the über rich paedophile doing Chomsky’s taxes. Get things right if you want to screech dammit.

              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.

              Stop lying to yourself.

              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.

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

                We all knew who Epstein was by that point. He should know better.

                How self deluded do you need to be in order to convince yourself that Chomsky reached out to the most notorious convicted pedophile in American history for some help with his taxes?

                I mean, Jesus Christ dude… It’s like you NEED this to be true.