Hoooooooooly cow – he didn’t – did he?
He did.
Ho yus the retroactive hysterical frenzy
Comments
10 responses to “Ho yus the retroactive hysterical frenzy”
-
Isn’t this a violation of the First Law of Holes In Which You Let Sleeping Streisand Effect Dogs Lie?
-
Isn’t this just a rerun of the argument about museums taking Sackler money?
-
Interesting use of the word hysterical there. There’s a lot of money to be made exploiting and abusing people as it happens, women and girls in particular.
And there is no frenzy to punish him, he did that himself with a noose (allegedly). Those who are in a frenzy are those reticent collaborators with something to hide, and those with nothing to hide but want to continue to benefit monetarily from their exploitation and abuse. Like you Lawrence.
What a callous attitude toward the victims.
-
the retroactive hysterical frenzy to punish him
Well, no.
Epstein is dead. He can’t be punished; I don’t even see any beating-a-dead-horse theatrics here.
We do have evidence that many prominent and powerful men enabled Epstein, protected Epstein, did business with Epstein, and in some cases did crimes with Epstein. There is a growing call for these men now to be held to account.
It’s not hysterical and it’s not a frenzy. It is retroactive, but only in the ordinary law-enforcement sense that the crime comes before the trial. It is not ex post facto: these things were absolutely crimes when they were done.
-
#4 Steven: you are right. Many prominent and powerful men (and some women) enabled Epstein. I believe the police should question everyone who was closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein.
As for Lawrence Krauss: his defence in “Quillette” is behind a paywall, which strikes me as a daft move for a piece intended to defend himself from association with a convicted sexual abuser.
-
Krauss complained about feminist activists in his university in strongly sexist terms, emailing complaints about “some young metoo bitch”. This would have been bad enough had he emailed it to some academic John Doe, but sending it to Epstein is absolutely abominable misogyny.
I wonder does Krauss address that in his piece that the public can’t read.
-
Fruit of the poison tree is still poison.
-
I met Krauss once, when he was giving a talk at my university and I, a physics graduate student, was one of the folks tasked with showing him around. He did not come across well to me, I got a pretty strong sense of narcissistic superiority from him. I did not go to his talk.
-
That’s the impression I got from people who were TAM regulars. He seems to be widely not liked.
-
Also the money, it’s always the money. Beware of “popularizers” who seek only monetary gain from their celebrity, and who are mostly arrogant, greedy know-it-alls. You know who you are. No of course not you Tyson, Krauss et al, never!
Leave a Reply