I agree with everything said here in general terms about the finding out the truth for oneself without putting people on pedestals and turning them into idols. But on the specifics: Did Chomsky have dinner with Epstein *after* the latter's conviction for sex offences? Because if not, it seems to me that he did nothing wrong, as far as we know. And even if he did know and went out to dinner with him anyway, what that means what exactly? It means that he did something that is wrong, very wrong, and that he is imperfect (assuming he didn't believe Epstein to be innocent of the charges). But if you didn't already assume he was imperfect, then you have a problem, the kind that is described here in this piece by Caitlin Johnstone. And what does this *not* mean? It most certainly does not mean that everything he has done for so many years in speaking truth to power and in educating so many about the nature of power has been without value. It does not mean that at all. Also, the comparison with the Dalai Lama and Bernie Sanders seems to lack sense of reality. These latter two gentleman have not really contributed anything really meaningful, it seems to me, toward justice and peace in the world - at least, I don't think so. They are little more than "idols", it's true (I used to think Sanders was genuine, but it seems to me now that he was probably always something of a phoney). Noam Chomsky is very different. He has spent decades speaking out against oppression and injustice, shining a light on the crimes of the United States in particular. And none that is undone by any foolishness or lack of judgment in his dotage. Let's not put people on pedestals or create idols - I agree - but let's also refrain from casually contributing, by association or insinuation, to the character assassination of a fundamentally decent and morally courageous human being.
I agree with everything said here in general terms about the finding out the truth for oneself without putting people on pedestals and turning them into idols. But on the specifics: Did Chomsky have dinner with Epstein *after* the latter's conviction for sex offences? Because if not, it seems to me that he did nothing wrong, as far as we know. And even if he did know and went out to dinner with him anyway, what that means what exactly? It means that he did something that is wrong, very wrong, and that he is imperfect (assuming he didn't believe Epstein to be innocent of the charges). But if you didn't already assume he was imperfect, then you have a problem, the kind that is described here in this piece by Caitlin Johnstone. And what does this *not* mean? It most certainly does not mean that everything he has done for so many years in speaking truth to power and in educating so many about the nature of power has been without value. It does not mean that at all. Also, the comparison with the Dalai Lama and Bernie Sanders seems to lack sense of reality. These latter two gentleman have not really contributed anything really meaningful, it seems to me, toward justice and peace in the world - at least, I don't think so. They are little more than "idols", it's true (I used to think Sanders was genuine, but it seems to me now that he was probably always something of a phoney). Noam Chomsky is very different. He has spent decades speaking out against oppression and injustice, shining a light on the crimes of the United States in particular. And none that is undone by any foolishness or lack of judgment in his dotage. Let's not put people on pedestals or create idols - I agree - but let's also refrain from casually contributing, by association or insinuation, to the character assassination of a fundamentally decent and morally courageous human being.