Trivers has an unsettling allegation against him groping a woman, which like most of the latest tranche you wish the DOJ had investigated further because I have no idea what to make of the veracity of all the tips. Pinker has no allegation other than overlapping with Epstein's extremely peculiar intellectual interests, being involved with Edge.org, which Epstein largely funded.
Daniel Dennett is in one of the photos, which rather surprised me.
Why is Pinker being involved in this surprising to anyone? In fact, if someone had asked me who would the person most likely to be platforming eugenics with Epstein, I’d have guessed Steven Pinker.
Steven Pinker has always been the nice presentable face of reaction and anti-intellectualism. "Don't question the system, the smart people at the top are making thing better, even if you the unwashed masses are too dumb to see it."
It stands to reason that there has always been a good old boy’s club. It doesn’t matter whether you call yourself the Masons, Kiwanis, or the KKK etc. Like-minded people like to hang with like-minded people.
And Epstein knew the game. The variety of names have been linked to Epstein in connection with sex trafficking, but what if it goes further than that? The question then becomes who else was in the club and what was the structure?
Trump can’t help projecting himself on to the rest of the world apparently. He has promoted a so-called “deep state” conspiracy theory for years. So what if there is an actual deep state - it’s just not who he said it was?
Considering he likes to throw out accusations of the things he's either explicitly or implicitly doing, I'd say just use his wording verbatim. He does seem to have a lot of understanding of these vicious criminal enterprises and their inner workings.
Yep. That’s what projection means. To some extent, we all think that everyone is at least somewhat like us. And if I would do it, and I assumed you are like me, of course I’m gonna think you’re doing it too. Narcissism just the sprinkles on top.
I guess he might be acting under the assumption that if there's a Republican/right wing club of horrible, rich people that are paying to be protected, surely the Democrats/left are at it too and he thinks it's merely a race to see who can out who first. Even though there is a clear possibility that these horrible people are predominantly right wing, fascistic, eugenics-condoning, etc.
We can only hope the entire thing gets blown wide open and we can actually make a start at moving past that cancerous, parasitic hive-mind by digging it out at the roots and letting it die drying out in the harsh light of day for all to see.
It wasn't directed at me, I didn't comment there in fact. I just noticed that the discussion took a sad turn. But I appreciate you looking out for others.
It doesn’t have to be directed at you, if you see something that’s breaking the rules just report it to the mods. The report is anonymous and they might not know if you don’t say something.
I recognize it doesn't have to be directed at me. I have a technical problem with the report function that's not worth explaining. Anyway I'm glad you reposted.
The article is tendentiously written, misrepresents facts (interestingly, it also provides links that make precisely that clear), and calls "genetic algorithms"
>> evidently systems theory crossed with race science
while linking to the wikipedia article on Genetic algorithm, which explains very well that it isn't anything to do with either. It's called "genetic" because it's a heuristic that varies parameters and iterates on those variations that provide better results. It is difficult to describe just how wrong the article is here, and that taints the entire thing - and tainted it even if the other issues were not present.
>how Epstein infiltrated Harvard, muzzled the humanities
Remarkably unsupported for how broad a claim it is. The people described had little interest in humanities, but I'm not seeing much effort to "muzzle" or otherwise silence other scholars.
I can't find anything about her breaking that story - mainly she's been a cultural critic who sometimes writes on the cultural impact of the internet, but not really the tech side.
Journalist at WIRED — & also New York Times, LA Times, Politico, The Economist, The Atlantic, WaPo, Foreign Policy, &c. Podcasts: Trumpcast and This Is Critical. Book: MAGIC AND LOSS. PhD
Some journalists specialize in a specific beat their entire career others do not. If a professional journalist knows how to write (PhD), understands journalistic principles (obviously) and have a solid editorial team behind them - that’s what counts.
forever_erratic | a day ago
For fucks sake, Steven Pinker and Robert Trivers, too? Goddamn it. Cries in evolution of cooperation.
[OP] horseradishstalker | a day ago
Hubris and the desire for power are rarely limited to any one person or any one field. It's connecting the dots that is painful.
Khiva | 18 hours ago
Trivers has an unsettling allegation against him groping a woman, which like most of the latest tranche you wish the DOJ had investigated further because I have no idea what to make of the veracity of all the tips. Pinker has no allegation other than overlapping with Epstein's extremely peculiar intellectual interests, being involved with Edge.org, which Epstein largely funded.
Daniel Dennett is in one of the photos, which rather surprised me.
MrPoon | a day ago
Pinker has been a sleaze for decades. I was grossed out by him in a casual meeting in like 2013.
_OMGTheyKilledKenny_ | a day ago
Why is Pinker being involved in this surprising to anyone? In fact, if someone had asked me who would the person most likely to be platforming eugenics with Epstein, I’d have guessed Steven Pinker.
forever_erratic | a day ago
Actually nevermind,I was confusing him with Oliver Saks. Either way, it was Trivers who was my real disappointment.
soniccows | 22 hours ago
Oliver Sacks had problems of his own making up stories about his patients. Really disappointing to me and I'm sure many others
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/12/15/oliver-sacks-put-himself-into-his-case-studies-what-was-the-cost#rid=ed60e9ce-ae93-434f-bf2b-c0405e60199f&q=oliver+sacks https://nautil.us/the-confabulations-of-oliver-sacks-1262447/
[OP] horseradishstalker | 21 hours ago
Sacks had all kinds of problems. Did he lie about the wife or the hat?
blackturtlesnake | 23 hours ago
Steven Pinker has always been the nice presentable face of reaction and anti-intellectualism. "Don't question the system, the smart people at the top are making thing better, even if you the unwashed masses are too dumb to see it."
4ofclubs | 23 hours ago
Steven Pinker has always been a POS. Why are you surprised?
[OP] horseradishstalker | a day ago
It stands to reason that there has always been a good old boy’s club. It doesn’t matter whether you call yourself the Masons, Kiwanis, or the KKK etc. Like-minded people like to hang with like-minded people.
And Epstein knew the game. The variety of names have been linked to Epstein in connection with sex trafficking, but what if it goes further than that? The question then becomes who else was in the club and what was the structure?
Trump can’t help projecting himself on to the rest of the world apparently. He has promoted a so-called “deep state” conspiracy theory for years. So what if there is an actual deep state - it’s just not who he said it was?
Mikestopheles | a day ago
Considering he likes to throw out accusations of the things he's either explicitly or implicitly doing, I'd say just use his wording verbatim. He does seem to have a lot of understanding of these vicious criminal enterprises and their inner workings.
gustoreddit51 | 22 hours ago
>He has promoted a so-called “deep state” conspiracy theory for years.
Trump's accusations are more often than not, admissions of guilt.
[OP] horseradishstalker | 22 hours ago
Yep. That’s what projection means. To some extent, we all think that everyone is at least somewhat like us. And if I would do it, and I assumed you are like me, of course I’m gonna think you’re doing it too. Narcissism just the sprinkles on top.
motophiliac | 10 hours ago
I guess he might be acting under the assumption that if there's a Republican/right wing club of horrible, rich people that are paying to be protected, surely the Democrats/left are at it too and he thinks it's merely a race to see who can out who first. Even though there is a clear possibility that these horrible people are predominantly right wing, fascistic, eugenics-condoning, etc.
We can only hope the entire thing gets blown wide open and we can actually make a start at moving past that cancerous, parasitic hive-mind by digging it out at the roots and letting it die drying out in the harsh light of day for all to see.
LeanGroundEeyore | 16 hours ago
I posted this here a few days ago and I'm happy to see all the comments free of the antisemitism that spoiled the other post.
[OP] horseradishstalker | 16 hours ago
That does tend to happen on Reddit. Sorry it happened to you. Did you report them?
LeanGroundEeyore | 16 hours ago
It wasn't directed at me, I didn't comment there in fact. I just noticed that the discussion took a sad turn. But I appreciate you looking out for others.
[OP] horseradishstalker | 16 hours ago
It doesn’t have to be directed at you, if you see something that’s breaking the rules just report it to the mods. The report is anonymous and they might not know if you don’t say something.
LeanGroundEeyore | 16 hours ago
I recognize it doesn't have to be directed at me. I have a technical problem with the report function that's not worth explaining. Anyway I'm glad you reposted.
[OP] horseradishstalker | 15 hours ago
Well, you definitely have good taste in articles.
kenlubin | 18 hours ago
I feel like this article is somewhat undermined by the weak description of genetic algorithms at the end.
ElSupaToto | a day ago
Why do we allow this slop in this sub?
[OP] horseradishstalker | a day ago
The investigative team behind the article also broke the Cambridge Analytic Scandal in ‘18. Did you consider that slop as well?
https://www.thenerve.news/about-us
When I hear users label reporting by professional investigative journalists slop I begin to wonder what their actual goal is.
Recommend adulting and scrolling. Don’t see what you want to read? Follow the rules and post what you want to see.
Edit: clarification
5gpr | 17 hours ago
The article is tendentiously written, misrepresents facts (interestingly, it also provides links that make precisely that clear), and calls "genetic algorithms"
>> evidently systems theory crossed with race science
while linking to the wikipedia article on Genetic algorithm, which explains very well that it isn't anything to do with either. It's called "genetic" because it's a heuristic that varies parameters and iterates on those variations that provide better results. It is difficult to describe just how wrong the article is here, and that taints the entire thing - and tainted it even if the other issues were not present.
Khiva | 14 hours ago
I found this part of the headline:
>how Epstein infiltrated Harvard, muzzled the humanities
Remarkably unsupported for how broad a claim it is. The people described had little interest in humanities, but I'm not seeing much effort to "muzzle" or otherwise silence other scholars.
Khiva | 18 hours ago
I can't find anything about her breaking that story - mainly she's been a cultural critic who sometimes writes on the cultural impact of the internet, but not really the tech side.
And a creationist, which I always found odd.
[OP] horseradishstalker | 17 hours ago
Journalist at WIRED — & also New York Times, LA Times, Politico, The Economist, The Atlantic, WaPo, Foreign Policy, &c. Podcasts: Trumpcast and This Is Critical. Book: MAGIC AND LOSS. PhD
Some journalists specialize in a specific beat their entire career others do not. If a professional journalist knows how to write (PhD), understands journalistic principles (obviously) and have a solid editorial team behind them - that’s what counts.
Khiva | 15 hours ago
... not denying any of that? I was the first thing that showed up on Wikipedia page I checked.
Just can't find any evidence she broke the Cambridge Analytic Scandal. Not denying it either, just haven't found it.
[OP] horseradishstalker | 4 hours ago
I did go back and fix that to say that it was her editors. I included a link to the information as well. Actually, thanks for the catch.