posted on September 29, 2021 02:38 PM by
u/Epistaxis
101
u/julry117 pointsat 1632928723.000000
It gets even dumber from there…
“Rationality is uncool,” he laments. It isn’t seen as “dope, phat,
chill, fly, sick or da bomb.” As evidence for its diminished status, he
quotes celebrations of nonsense by the Talking Heads and Zorba the
Greek. (Pinker is also vexed by the line “Let’s go crazy,” which he says
was “adjured” by “the Artist Formerly Known as Prince.”) It’s precisely
this cultural derision of reason, he says, that prevents us from
appreciating rationality’s spectacular accomplishments.
Humans are irrational because David Byrne sang about how this is not
my beautiful house, this is not my beautiful wife
It's pretty hilarious about how his lamentations about being "uncool" are using slang and pop cultural figures that are wildly out of date. And apparently the rational thing to do is to say that a mildly popular movie from the 60s and a band that broke up in 1991 are representative of today's culture in its entirety.
omg you guys I'm starting to think Peevin Stinker's view of the world is profoundly shaped by his personal experience in the place and time when he grew up, like everyone else, instead of pure universal rationality
It’s worse, “Stop Making Sense” (which is a glorious fucking album/movie) came out in 1984, and the only thing that makes it relevant is the fucking tongue-in-cheek title
I mean, isn’t “Let’s Go Crazy” basically a celebration of the individuality of qualys? Isn’t “Stop Making Sense” an argument in favor of rejecting the “common knowledge” which is, in fact, wrong?
If he wants rationality to be cool, he could at least try and co-opt the (once) dominant paradigm.
Blows my mind how anyone can say this with a straight face. Anyyyhow let's get nuts.
Also I can't even remember the last time I heard someone use "da bomb" unironically.
Clearly the main issue is that it is no longer 1991.
These days, there isn’t much left that can be technically labelled
phat or sick. Da bomb reserves dried up in 1998. And not only that, but
nowadays you can get mildly criticized (in public, no less!) simply for
flying on a private jet to a pedophile’s private island! How unfair is
that?!
> But there was something else — something that bears more directly on his thesis that rationality has been such a benevolent force for progress. In 2007 Pinker lent his professional expertise to Epstein’s legal defense team, which argued that Epstein hadn’t violated a federal statute prohibiting the use of the internet to lure minors across state lines for sexual abuse. “According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language,” the affidavit stated — a sterling example of a thinking process so confidently pristine that it can give unthinking cover to the grotesque.
🤌
In fairness to him, I don't think he knew that was in regards to Epstein. This was in 2007, before Julie Brown's reporting blew this story wide open and made Epstein's name synonymous with child-rape.
>“According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language,”
But more importantly -- is it true? And if it is, what do you suggest happen instead?
Should we just lie in order to lock people in jail?
A psychologist hired as a celebrity expert witness does not actually have the credibility or expertise to opine on "the sole rational reading in the English language" of federal statutes regulating the trafficking of minors across state lines for sex, so I'm not worried about it.
He wasn't payed for it, and prosecutors can challenge his opinion and/or get their own expert opinion.
But I think really it does matter whether it's true or not. The alternative of just lying in order to lock people in jail isn't a good way to achieve justice.
2 options, he knew and that makes him despicable, or he didn't know and that makes him a naive idiot. Both bad. He seems all in on the latter nowadays.
> or he didn't know
Even if he didn't know it was Epstein, the linguistic 'expertise' he was being asked to apply was to say anti-solicitation laws don't apply cuz it took place over the internet. He knew Dersh was asking him to help a child sexual predator get off on a technicality.
Not a lawyer.
I think the situation is worse. From my reading of the [Dersh letter](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6192383/Dershowitz-Letter.pdf) where Pinker is quoted, the debate is whether the internet communication needs to be the direct inducement. Basically, Dersh is arguing that even if Epstein arranged a meeting with underage children using the internet and used that meeting to try to force them to engage in prostitution, etc., as long as he didn't make the demand in the email, he is not guilty of violating the statute.
Pinker's reasoning isn't laid out, but the context (to me) implies that it agrees with Dershowitz: the statute uses 'whoever, using ... knowingly persuades', with 'using' being in the present tense, thus the statute applies only when it is the internet is the 'vehicle of inducement'.
So, the technicality isn't even 'but it was the internet'; it is 'but he didn't directly say in an email to the child that he wanted to have sex with them'.
No that’s not the point. But can you not see that MAYBE pinker isn’t the most RATIONAL or objective of beings on this case. He’s had a relationship with Dershowitz and had met Epstein multiple times for forever you really actually think pinker here didn’t know Epstein or interacted with him regularly enough to know this shit. And this is not he first time he’s defended DEEPLY inappropriate behavior. He wanders into this shit a lot.
Lmao why does pinker get to decide what is the sole rational reading?
>pinker isn’t the most RATIONAL or objective of beings on this case
He wasn't on the case though -- Dersh emailed him for his opinion on the meaning of a statute and he answered.
Remember this is in 2007, not 2018. Epstein wasn't a household name and his public profile was as a billionaire philanthropist.
>why does pinker get to decide what is the sole rational reading?
He doesn't. There's a prosecutor who can challenge the meaning with his own expert. But neither of their opinions matter if it goes to trial -- only a jury can determine guilt/innocence.
Epstein was indicted in 2006. Again considering the circle of friends and the numerous weird things Epstein’s defenders have said I call bullshit that Pinker didn’t know. Epstein’s public profile was TO YOU a billionaire philanthropist. He was flamboyant enough to flaunt his lifestyle a lot more and people talk….a lot. Yes even Harvard professors gossip.
Not to mention he (Pinker) shared Dershowitz’s affidavit in 2015 on the Epstein case. Why? Why do that lmao?! It’s just a whole fuck load of weird with the guy. So no I do not buy at all that Pinker didn’t know. And that’s just part of potentially how powerless he may have felt about coming out and saying anything and that’s fine/fair. I doubt you or I would say much without fearing for our career. I just don’t buy he didn’t know. And again given how he’s defended sexual banter with grad students it’s just a whole lot of weird.
Very much doubt he didn’t know considering so many sexual abusers were protected for years and years and they were just open secrets.
Just did a quick check, pinker was on the [flight logs from before 2005](https://www.gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971).
I mean, anyone who knew the gory details of Epstein's crimes and then still defended him is a piece of shit. But keeping prosecutors honest about what they're charging him with seems okay to me.
Yeah but I doubt you’d sacrifice your career or clout to say that about the man without fearing for your professional reputation and livelihood. Lets be real…you wouldn’t do it. On that front yes I have more sympathy for Pinker because even he’s not powerful enough to withstand Epstein in an era where women weren’t taken seriously. Hell if the victims weren’t taken seriously why would Pinker lol? But still bull fucking shit that he didn’t know lmao.
All in all doesn’t explain this bizarre out of nowhere [tweet.](https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/552481664916803584?s=20) Well after Epstein’s crimes were more or less public knowledge to you and I. It’s just fucking weird. Why continue to even associate with it? Let it be.
Yea maybe. One of Trump's cronies and the guy who cut Epstein the original sweetheart deal said: "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to 'leave it alone'", and that Epstein was "above his pay grade"" Which is... *weird and creepy*.
But I just don't think Pinker -- remember we're talking about [this guy here](https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1325130877572063232?lang=en) -- was involved with Epstein or beholden to him the way maybe other people were. But honestly I don't know. The whole saga with Epstein is honestly so bizarre that it's hard to know what the bounds are on what's possible with this guy and what really happened.
Nobody even knows where his money came from. This dude was teaching highschool math before he became a sex trafficking billionaire.
Why does that one clip suddenly absolve him and the years of his interacting with not just Epstein but ALL of Epstein’s defenders not something that is suspicious and should be held against him? (Like have you heard Krauss’s defense of Epstein? It’s ridiculous on its face lol.) Or the multiple times he defended his friends sexual harassment of graduate students?
[Here’s](https://youtu.be/y91uQ2vyhKU) Kevin Spacey being funny for ten minutes. Remember this man was accused of being inappropriate with young boys. After that clip can you really believe it? A refined actor stepping to such levels? What about his bloopers from a bugs life?
It’s one thing to say he didn’t know in 2008….but then why proceed to engage and tweet out of nowhere Dershowitz affidavit lmao? It’s weird.
Epstein knew bill barrs dad (and there were rumors already about Epstein’s inappropriate behavior with high schoolers when he was a teacher lol). He was a smart good looking guy, good at math, and charismatic that’s the reality. He was just good at influencing the right people.
The fuck are you talking about, Epstein and his reputation were incredibly well known by then. Not a household name, sure, but in these circles he was famous as shit.
Well either he broke this particular law or he didn't.
If he didn't, do you think the police should just lie about it? I'm really asking. There are people who do support lying in order to catch bad guys, because there're limits to evidence gathering that virtually guarantee some people will get away with crimes.
Personally I think that's crazy. So if the feds tacked on a crime that they know he didn't commit then they should simply drop that charge and pursue the ones they know to be true.
What do you think tho? I'm seriously asking.
Yes, if they're raping children. The law isn't some sacred object, it's mostly a tool used to make sure the wheels on the money machine stay greased and to protect the rich from consequences. In fact, if the law is truly how Pinker says it is, we should lock up pedophiles then immediately change the law through any means available. Easy Peasy.
Also a kinda funny indictment of how ridiculous expert witness selection can be.
"So Dr. Pinker, when you say there is 'no rational reading of the law' which points to a violation by Mr. Epstein, you're talking from a point of expertise on human trafficking laws & regulations?"
"No, but I'm Very Rational, moreso than you would think possible. Have you ever heard of Bayes' Theorum?"
I think the lesson here is that you can have a truly mediocre mind
and still get book deals and interviews with the NYT about your dumb
thoughts so long as you’re ardently committed to defending the
neoliberal status quo
Lol saw people sneer about this on twitter, my reaction ’if pinker
wants rationalism (I think he means little R here, he isnt a lwer) he
prob could make it more popular by saying he is against it.
~~Yeah but he isnt pushing the sequences at least so that is a little bright point. It wouldnt suprise me if he eventually starts to however.~~ Guess I was wrong.
In addition to finding his argument (well, what little we see of it,
anyway) ridiculous, I find his premise questionable–if “rationality
isn’t cool,” then why are so many popular characters nerds and
scientists? They may not use the language of “rationality” in popular
culture, but the characters are undeniably supposed to be
rational. Spock doesn’t talk about fallacies but he goes on about
logic. Tony Stark doesn’t use Bayes’ theorem, but he uses science to
build flying metal suits.
It gets even dumber from there…
Humans are irrational because David Byrne sang about how this is not my beautiful house, this is not my beautiful wife
Clearly the main issue is that it is no longer 1991.
These days, there isn’t much left that can be technically labelled phat or sick. Da bomb reserves dried up in 1998. And not only that, but nowadays you can get mildly criticized (in public, no less!) simply for flying on a private jet to a pedophile’s private island! How unfair is that?!
That’s a lot of words for Pinker to say ” I don’t understand people.”
Those closing paragraphs 👀
Like, this guy must have just got off the train from Squaresville, Scoob.
I think the lesson here is that you can have a truly mediocre mind and still get book deals and interviews with the NYT about your dumb thoughts so long as you’re ardently committed to defending the neoliberal status quo
/r/fellowkids
How’s he supposed to learn about the slang teens these days are using if he can’t go to Little St James anymore?
I want to know how many times he cites Scoots’ blog.
I would have thought that a good fried of Jeffery Epstein would be more up-to-date with youth slang…
Lol saw people sneer about this on twitter, my reaction ’if pinker wants rationalism (I think he means little R here, he isnt a lwer) he prob could make it more popular by saying he is against it.
In addition to finding his argument (well, what little we see of it, anyway) ridiculous, I find his premise questionable–if “rationality isn’t cool,” then why are so many popular characters nerds and scientists? They may not use the language of “rationality” in popular culture, but the characters are undeniably supposed to be rational. Spock doesn’t talk about fallacies but he goes on about logic. Tony Stark doesn’t use Bayes’ theorem, but he uses science to build flying metal suits.
He also doesn’t think it’s cool to stop global warming
Anything that Bill Gates praise is probably going to be pretty uncool fluff. I read Pinker’s book and it was garbage.
Of course Gates and Pinker were friends with Jeffrey Epstein. I wonder if all 3 of them they took trips together often?
I heard “1999” in Target today; I refute Pinker thus
You guys just hate thinking