that’s… not even what linguists do… what kind of combo of
professional & moral bankruptcy…
edit: like what is his evidence backing up this claim, did he draw a
sentence diagram of the text? literally how would you substantiate that?
past precedent? when the only unchanging characteristic of language is
the presence constant change? he literally just lended his name so the
judge would say to himself “ah, if the famed language-knower says
so”
i don’t even think half these people are implicated (though maybe i’m
naive) but the quid pro quo shit is getting out of hand. academia is so
fucking corrupt i can’t take this shit anymore
we asked Steven Pinker … a noted linguist, to analyze the statute to
determine the natural and linguistically logical reading or readings of
the section
Of course you need a noted linguist to be able to read the law.
> we asked Steven Pinker … a noted linguist, to analyze the statute to determine the natural and linguistically logical reading or readings of the section
dude they are so unhinged it's depressing
Pinker told BuzzFeed News that when he offered his opinion to
Dershowitz, he was unaware of the details of the client or the case. He
now regrets his involvement, he said.
What does he regret? That the case was well known?
Steven Pinker, when asked to assist a legal defense by interpreting a
statute against soliciting a child prostitute: “Yes, this seems like a
reasonable request with no moral implications.”
So, as MarxismLesbianism points out above, figuring out what a text "really means" isn't part of the professional expertise of most linguists. Pinker's central area of professional expertise is evolution and language acquisition. If you need expert testimony in that domain for some reason, using Pinker as a witness makes sense. He also has work on issues related to mental imagery and a few other side themes. As far as his Google Scholar profile shows, Pinker has never done any work on language and law --- so he's not a relevant expert for the topic discussed.
Which is perfect. Grab a celebrity smart person and just assume that they know everything about everything. Then use him to facilitate child rape conspiracy.
Pinker and his wife have been long time friends and defenders of Epstein, and even after the court ruling where all the details came out they supported him. To now say he was unaware of it and had he known he would have done things differently is bizarre and clearly a lie.
I wasn't sarcastic, I'm trying to figure out the problem. Maybe you think Pinker is lying, but he claims to have given a free expert opinion on the proper interpretation of a certain statute. Do you think linguists should never do it? Or that they must never do it in sex cases? Do you know any other facts?
First of all, the statute pertains to punishing pedophiles for the crime of underage prostitution. What you really want to say, if you want to make an argument, is not that he was doing the innocent task of interpreting a statute---because it's not innocent---but that Dershowitz deceitfully omitted those parts of the statute that would indicate to Pinker that he might be helping a pedophile weasel out of a prison sentence.
I got what you are saying. I still disagree, because I think criminal defendants, even if powerful, nasty, and guilty, still deserve legal defense, and I don't consider it morally wrong for experts (lawyers or others) to provide it. Of course, I worry that poor defendants don't have the same access, but that doesn't change my basic point.
The real problem is that, like, it's so weird, so coincidental, that these big brain, above the narrative, etc, types keep finding themselves used by the basest manipulators of power.
that’s… not even what linguists do… what kind of combo of professional & moral bankruptcy…
edit: like what is his evidence backing up this claim, did he draw a sentence diagram of the text? literally how would you substantiate that? past precedent? when the only unchanging characteristic of language is the presence constant change? he literally just lended his name so the judge would say to himself “ah, if the famed language-knower says so”
i don’t even think half these people are implicated (though maybe i’m naive) but the quid pro quo shit is getting out of hand. academia is so fucking corrupt i can’t take this shit anymore
Of course you need a noted linguist to be able to read the law.
What does he regret? That the case was well known?
Steven Pinker, when asked to assist a legal defense by interpreting a statute against soliciting a child prostitute: “Yes, this seems like a reasonable request with no moral implications.”
I also read somewhere he was on a 2002 (??) flight list of the lolita express. But that was just a random thing I read on hellbird site.
Beyond the Yuck-factor of Epstein, can you explain what your issue is?