Noam Chomsky’s life and work cannot be understood without taking into account his militarily-funded linguistics research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). There were, I believe, always two ‘Noam Chomskys’ – one working for the US military and the other working tirelessly against that same military. This contradiction cannot explain every aspect of Chomsky’s puzzling friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. But it is the underlying contradiction that helps us understand why someone as radical as Chomsky ended up being involved with someone as reactionary as Epstein.

Noam Chomsky’s life and work cannot be understood without taking into account his militarily-funded linguistics research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)…

… [W]hen confronted by journalists about his involvement with Epstein, Chomsky … explained his behaviour by saying (a) that Epstein had ‘served his sentence, which wiped the slate clean’ and (b) that ‘far worse criminals’ were associated with MIT. When speaking to the Harvard Crimson, Chomsky was still more forthright, pointing out that MIT’s donors included the ‘worst criminals’ and that he’d met all sorts of people in his lifetime including ‘major war criminals’ and didn’t regret having met any of them.

  • WesternInfidels@feddit.onlineEnglish
    13·
    3 days ago

    I think it’s really strange that none of Epstein’s contacts have (to the best of my knowledge) said anything like:

    “I can’t really make any excuses. He was charming. He invited me to these great parties, which had me rubbing shoulders with other interesting, famous people. I guess I was star-struck. I gave him the benefit of every doubt because I wanted to believe he was as good a guy as he seemed. I wanted to believe that lifestyle was as glamorous and available to me as it seemed. I was wrong. Maybe I ignored some red flags because I didn’t want to acknowledge them.”

    I think something like this must be the story for many of them, and admitting it would be honest and relatable. But it would take a degree of self-awareness, self-reflection. I wonder if ambition and self-reflection are natural antagonists.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      9·
      3 days ago

      Chomsky knew all about Epstein and continued to defend him publicly until his death.

      … while Chomsky was advising Epstein on how to respond to press coverage about his history of sexual abuse.

      Again, from the article:

      …the hysteria that has developed about abuse of women, which has reached the point that even questioning a charge is a crime worse than murder’ -Chomsky in an email to Epstein in 2019. (Same year Epstein died, MeToo was 2017)

      There is not much benefit of the doubt here. Chomsky was aware of what Epstein was about, and was at the very least sympathetic.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        People forget that Chomsky is from an inherently misogynistic era. He was born in 1928 for fucks sake. I wouldn’t ever expect his thoughts on gender politics to be particularly illuminating or forward thinking.

        Not that this justifies anything, just more to me why it’s not shocking that he absolutely sucks in this regard.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      1·
      2 days ago

      Yeah but that kind of misses the point that MIT/academia/“science” is overflowing with all kinds of scumbags.

      Why should chomsky apologize for this once thing when the entire school is promoting war crimes, genocide, pedos, etc.? The should all apologize and shut down.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    1·
    2 days ago

    Chomsky does make a good point though… Epstein gets lots of attention, but all the other endless scumbags get a pass every single day.

    That’s literally how “science” and “technology” are researched and developed. That’s a huge part of how we got here.