this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
109 points (99.1% liked)

Slop.

724 readers
686 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

linky

(according to comments of unknown veracity, after 2017)

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deforestgump@hexbear.net 71 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is the sound of the "liberal-dissident" class, so insulated, so smug, that it cannot see the demon sitting right across the table from it, so long as the demon can talk about linguistics.

Look at what he praises! He says Epstein gave him a "most valuable experience". Valuable for what? For learning about the "intricacies of the global financial system". He doesn't ask how Epstein got this "intimate knowledge". He doesn't ask who this financial system crushes. No, he's just fascinated by the "arcane world of finance". It's an academic puzzle to him!

Epstein isn't just a "friend"; he is a facilitator. He is the social secretary for the ruling class. Chomsky wants to talk about the Oslo agreements? Epstein picks up the phone and gets the Norwegian diplomat who ran them. He wants to meet a former Israeli Prime Minister, a man whose record he's "studied"? Epstein arranges the meeting.

And they all sit around and have a "very fruitful discussion".

Chomsky is flattered by the attention. He's impressed by the "limitless curiosity" and "penetrating insights" of the man. He is so dazzled by the "provocative ideas" that he completely misses the material reality of the man's actions.

It's not that he didn't know. It's that, in the end, it didn't matter to him. The "intellectual stimulation" was worth the price of admission. It's a perfect, grotesque apologia for class power.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Within the framework of Chomsky's earlier anarchist leanings it makes sense that he would consider this access fruitful, because he would consider it useful to his writing and he considers his writing to be revolutionary activity.

I say earlier because I've questioned whether he still considers himself that since he started working with Vijay Prashad. Perhaps however Prashad is just another intellectual stimulating person to him though that scratches the itch of deep discussions. Prashad however is a far more revolutionary influence than a literal Mossad agent.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

he would consider it useful to his writing and he considers his writing to be revolutionary activity

It can be, just not the way he does it (lol). You have to actually write about real things, propose real solutions, and engage with real (revolutionary) movements which really act on those ideas. It's not revolutionary to write when your writing mainly opposes real revolutionary movements and incites others to oppose them as well.

I've questioned whether he still considers himself that

Oh my god, he's still alive. I thought he died recently?

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Oh my god, he's still alive. I thought he died recently?

Not dead yet, just old af (96). Parenti is still ticking at 92 as well but has some alzheimers or dementia, I forget which. They've done well, judging by my family history I'll be lucky to see 70, if that.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not dead yet, just old af (96).

They gave him the fucking Kissinger medicine, lmao.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago

Yeah it's fucking good stuff

we're going to kill the bourgeoisie and then everyone will live to be 69420 (mandatory)

[–] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Parenti is still ticking at 92 as well but has some alzheimers or dementia

Man, that shit makes me so sad :(

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

Yeah. He's a giant.

[–] SickSemper@hexbear.net 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Was that diplomat involved in Yemen? Because his name comes up in this one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terje_R%C3%B8d-Larsen

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 36 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I've always had a lot of trouble wrapping my head around this. Did he really enjoy having intellectual discussions with him? Or is it just hogwash trying to hide how Epstein helped him get funding through his connections?

[–] Crucible@hexbear.net 51 points 1 week ago

The more of Epstein's emails I read the less I can believe anyone thought he was a genius at anything other than networking with sex offenders

[–] Marxism_Sympathizer@hexbear.net 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

https://hexbear.net/comment/6673008

i think this is a really good comment explaining it

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

That does hit the nail on the head. It's just baffling that he is the anti-establishment academic in the overton window of acceptable academic yet he is simping for a child sex trafficker because he schooled him on money laundering.

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 29 points 1 week ago

People thought it was a debate, but it was actually ritual combat between Foucault and Chomsky to determine who the most powerful (alleged) pedophile was.

[–] juniper@hexbear.net 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

this emoji hits so hard rn

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Allegedly also a pedophile. agony-turbo

[–] juniper@hexbear.net 31 points 1 week ago (2 children)

we need to put a stop to western philosophy until we figure out whats going on

[–] Marxism_Sympathizer@hexbear.net 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

it's the french really, i dont know why but i stg they produce by far the highest number of pedophile intellectuals (meaning artists, directors, philosophers, etc.)

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 24 points 1 week ago

“Hon hon hon, I’m going to make the movie about le assassin little girl don’t look up the original script hon hon hon”

[–] muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not just allegedly

I saw some posts about the source of the claims retracting some of them, but lets not forget Foucault signed a petition to legalize pedophilia in 1977. Those retractions could be due to pressure from the french press and public.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

but lets not forget Foucault signed a petition to legalize pedophilia in 1977

According to Wikipedia, the petition he signed was the May 1977 one (not January), which was to equalize age of consent laws for homosexual (21 years, lowered to 18 years not long before the petition) and heterosexual (15 years) relationships. I agree he was a pedophile, though.

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago

I was gonna pick any old Foucault emoji but that one made me cackle so hard given the everything of it all

[–] miz@hexbear.net 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

wow chomsky lists a huge list of people who Epstein could apparently call up on a whim and I'm just saying, officer it's these people right here

[–] AernaLingus@hexbear.net 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

https://www.plainsite.org/documents/g789uxn/house-oversight-committee-epstein-document-houseoversight22405/

Full textTo whom it may concern:

I met Jeffrey Epstein half a dozen years ago. We have been in regular contact since, with many long and often in-depth discussions about a very wide range of topics, including our own specialties and professional work, but a host of others where we have shared interests. It has been a most valuable experience for me.

In the area of his own direct engagements, I have learned a great deal from him about the intricacies of the global financial system, about complex technical issues that arise in the often arcane world of finance, and about specific cases in which I have a particular interest, such as the financial situation in Saudi Arabia and current economic planning and prospects there. Jeffrey invariably turns out to be a highly reliable source, with intimate knowledge and perceptive analysis, commonly going well beyond what I can find in the business press and professional journals.

Turning to my own special interests in linguistics, cognitive science, and philosophy of language and mind, Jeffrey constantly raises searching questions and puts forth provocative ideas, which have repeatedly led me to rethink crucial issues.

We have also had (for me) very rewarding discussions on many other topics, for example the prospects for Artificial Intelligence, deep learning, multi-layered neural nets, automation and robotics, singularity, and related matters, exploring the claims and predictions and looking closely at the results that have been achieved, their intellectual contributions and social import. We have also discussed many other issues, ranging from intellectual history, to world affairs and contemporary geopolitics, to foundations of mathematics, to such matters as recent discoveries about communication in the plant world. He has also tried, so far with limited success, to carry forward my wife Valeria's efforts to introduce me to the world of jazz and its wonders. Whatever comes up, Jeffrey not only has a lively interest but also unconventional and challenging ideas and thoughtful suggestions.

Given the range and depth of his concerns, I suppose I should not have been surprised to discover that Jeffrey has repeatedly been able to arrange, sometimes on the spot, very productive meetings with leading figures in the sciences and mathematics, and global politics, people whose work and activities I had looked into though I had never expected to meet them. Once, when we were discussing the Oslo agreements, Jeffrey picked up the phone and called the Norwegian diplomat who supervised them, leading to a lively interchange. On another occasion, Jeffrey arranged a meeting with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, whose record I had studied carefully and written about. We have our disagreements, but had a very fruitful discussion about a number of controversial matters, including one that was of particular interest to me: the Taba negotiations of January 2001, in the framework or President Clinton's “parameters,” events that remain obscure and controversial because the diplomatic record is still mostly secret. Barak's discussion of the background was illuminating, also surprising in some ways. In very different areas, much the same was true in meetings Jeffrey arranged with evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, mathematicians and computer scientists, several of them engaged in exciting work at the limits of understanding in their fields, sometimes with perspectives quite different from mine. More lively interchanges, in which Jeffrey was once again an active participant, often an effective gadfly.

The impact of Jeffrey's limitless curiosity, extensive knowledge, penetrating insights, and thoughtful appraisals is only heightened by his easy informality, without a trace of pretentiousness. He quickly became a highly valued friend and regular source of intellectual exchange and stimulation.

Noam Chomsky
Institute Professor (emeritus), MIT; Laureate Professor, U. of Arizona

[–] thefunkycomitatus@hexbear.net 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

We have also had (for me) very rewarding discussions on many other topics, for example the prospects for Artificial Intelligence, deep learning, multi-layered neural nets, automation and robotics, singularity, and related matters, exploring the claims and predictions and looking closely at the results that have been achieved, their intellectual contributions and social import. We have also discussed many other issues, ranging from intellectual history, to world affairs and contemporary geopolitics, to foundations of mathematics, to such matters as recent discoveries about communication in the plant world. He has also tried, so far with limited success, to carry forward my wife Valeria's efforts to introduce me to the world of jazz and its wonders. Whatever comes up, Jeffrey not only has a lively interest but also unconventional and challenging ideas and thoughtful suggestions.

These people elevate their own banal conversations to the heights of philosophical inquiry. They get together over a $400 dinner and say the exact same shit anyone of us says about AI. Well, minus the giddiness of how we can profit from it through our investor friends. The conversation you have with a friend while smoking a blunt after watching a science documentary is just as informed and insightful as what these people talk about. But since they're rich and can summon a pop-sci author to their dinner table, they convince themselves that they're intellectuals. It's just Joe Rogan. Talk to a bunch of "experts" and you become an expert. They don't have challenging ideas because they don't have any ideas of their own.

Chomsky, someone who does have some intellectual chops, despite being an establishment stooge, accepts this sophistry at currency. He does this because despite his intellectualism is still impressed by power and money. He's just happy to be at the dinner table.

Case in point:

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also, outside of linguistics where he is a legitimate expert, his intellectualism is vastly overstated. People on "the left" love him in very large part because of Manufacturing Consent, but by Chomsky's own admission Edward S. Herman was its main author. When you're left with things like his public statements on political issues, you are confronted with the fact that he's a god damn fool if not fully a bad actor.

[–] Kefla@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

People tend to overestimate the general applicability of expertise of all sorts. There are plenty of brilliant surgeons that I would not trust for a second with a question about marine biology or politics or philosophy or classic literature or any other intellectual pursuit.

We really need to dismantle the concept of "intelligence" because it just isn't real. There's no such thing as a smart person or a dumb person. Just people with varying levels of skill and expertise in any number of different things.

[–] Horse@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 week ago

There are plenty of brilliant surgeons that I would not trust for a second with a question about marine biology or politics or philosophy or classic literature or any other intellectual pursuit.

there are plenty of brilliant surgeons i wouldn't trust with a mop and a bucket of water

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

There's also the issue where, if you'll cede for the sake of argument that general intelligence exists, that does not mean that being very educated in one thing gives you an education in other things, and there are principles of reasoning (and proofs and such) that are present and frequently used in some fields but not others, so general intelligence doesn't get you very far when you are deeply uninformed because even basic reasoning within a field may be beyond you in many cases (unless you actually study it like the people in that field did).

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago

There are plenty of brilliant surgeons that I would not trust for a second with a question about marine biology or politics or philosophy or classic literature or any other intellectual pursuit.

I would not trust the world's greatest heart surgeon to operate on my brain. The same thing applies to lawyers. Some lawyer who specializes in copyright law knows jack shit about inheritance and handling an estate. Professors are hyperfocused on their particular field, and depending on how much of a crank they are or how much of an ego they have, completely tunnelvision on their own idiosyncratic understanding of the field even as the field, headed by younger professors with less of an ego, move on.

[–] Blakey@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

Oh god as someone with a bio degree 19 and 20 are amazing

biolgy , np complete?

[–] Blakey@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

If it hadn't come from literally Jeffrey Epstein I would suggest some of these could be taglines

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

You're just jealous you haven't come up with memebrane.

[–] oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Gotta separate the art from the artist I guess, all his linguistic contributions and books like Manufacturing Consent are good and likely created long before he started consorting with Epstein. I've probably read more of his linguistics stuff than his political, he made a lot of genuinely important contributions to the field, and he's no Parenti or Marx or even Finkelstein.

[–] Mihr@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don’t mean to do the thing where we’re like “oh actually I always hated the guy” but Edward Herman wrote most of Manufacturing Consent. Even Chomsky says as much.

Just want to properly credit Edward Herman is all.

[–] oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

Good point, good point

[–] oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 15 points 1 week ago

It's pretty wild reading all the emails, Epstein is so casually connected to so many people I've heard of.

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The double meaning of consent is really brutal here when you attempt to do a separate art from artist.


I got into Chomsky from the linguistics side first too but tbh that's probably even closer to Epstein.

[–] oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I got into Chomsky from the linguistics side first too but tbh that's probably even closer to Epstein.

True, true, Epstein probably wasn't very interested in socialism lol, and was more "intellectual". Chomsky was working on linguistics before Epstein was even an adult though, Chomsky is damn old.

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Epstein was collecting MIT professors.

Yeah I don't think Epstein influenced anyones academic work really.

[–] oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

gotta catch 'em all