Context: He's in the files

top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 76 points 9 months ago (16 children)

Listen, dude: I’ve got a lot more concerts in my list before I get to your lame-ass party.

Would you have missed Metallica in Moscow for some party you assumed nobody would attend? Fuck no.

Now if you’ll excuse me I’m gonna go sell all your grandmothers some really strong modern weed to get into Hendrix, New Year’s Eve, 1969.

Can’t wait to hear Machine Gun live.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    lame-ass party

    Since the time traveler would be from the future, he'd have already known that nobody went to the party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Or... isn't there the theory that time travel just creates an alternate world. but all timelines exist... so there's a second line where there's 50 people that brought their year 3000 band, and their instant ALS cure pod, partied with Hawking then arrested trump for his crimes before he could run for president.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    My God... Is the fact that boomers think '60s weed was mind altering proof of time incursions from the dank future???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I'd definitely go see Freddie at Live-aid at least a dozen times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Been there. Got like a dozen t shirts. Nobody on eBay thinks they’re real tho

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    You can't bring the time travel souvenir back with you in the time machine. You've got to store it in a safe cave or storage unit or something so that it'll be at least plausibly aged by the time it reaches the future, even if surprisingly well-preserved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Would you have missed Metallica in Moscow for some party you assumed nobody would attend? Fuck no.

    Let's see... the egotistical pricks that sued anyone that wanted to like them... in an authoritarian shithole... or hanging out with Stephen Hawking...

    Tough choice. Can I convince Lars to sleep in the disaster bed? Or help them with arrangements so that songs that have about 1 minute of interesting music don't have 8 minutes worth of filler?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 53 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    Now, I’m speaking hypothetically, legally, and for educational purposes only… you fast-forward a few decades and suddenly certain names appear in court documents and flight logs, not convictions, not proof of wrongdoing, just… associations. Enough to make a careful chrononaut say, ‘You know what? I’m not popping back in time to shake hands and eat shrimp.’

    The absence at that party wasn’t evidence that time travel failed. It was evidence that it worked, and everyone who could come already knew how the story looked later.

    History doesn’t just judge actions. It judges proximity. And no self-respecting time traveler shows up early to something that turns awkward in hindsight.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    More pragmatically, time travel for a casual party would be risky because you’re carrying germs many generations apart. Time travelers would wear full-body suits or risk dramatically altering history. They could not drink or eat anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Finally. Thank you. Someone thinking past the punch bowl.

    Forget paradoxes, pathogens are the real problem. You don’t need to step on a butterfly to wreck the timeline; you just need a 21st-century rhinovirus and a handshake. Entire villages, gone. History rewritten by a sneeze.

    Any responsible time traveler would be sealed head to toe. No exposed skin, no shared air, no hors d’oeuvres. Certainly no cake. You don’t know what yeast does to medieval Europe when it’s had a few centuries of upgrades.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Okay yes but there's also a bit of dissonance, if I learned that Vlad the impaler had a time travel party to prove it and I had the capability to do so, I wouldn't give a shit, would go see him and also take a gun just to keep myself safe. Safe. But it's somebody from hundreds of years ago, why do I care about any of that?

    Sure. This statement seems harsh but I'm playing devil's advocate here, the further you get away from the situation, the less it really matters

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    The issue for me is that, let’s say that one day a magical device does allow time travel, it would also have to do teleportation relative to some point since everything is in motion. What would all of time and space use for a relative location? Can’t be the earth or sun since those are moving. Even our galactic cluster is moving. So if you went back in time a year, the earth wouldn’t be at the same point in space even though it’s done a full revolution. I’m no space scientist but I don’t imagine we have a solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    That ‘everything’s moving’ argument is a convenient shutdown, not a dead end. We already track motion precisely, GPS corrects for relativity every second. That means relative positioning isn’t unsolved; it’s restricted.

    You wouldn’t target a spot in space. You’d target a worldline, like Earth’s continuous path through spacetime. Same path, different point.

    Saying you’d end up in empty space assumes a cartoon machine that only changes the date. A real device moves you along spacetime itself.

    So when people say time travel is impossible because there’s no reference frame, what they really mean is: you don’t have access to the frame that works. Not impossible. Classified.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    There is also the idea that time machines work like telephones. You need to have a receiving end made first before you can call it.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Half this comment thread legitimately knows how they work

    The other half is speculation

    The truth is in the middle, Lemmy people are pretty well versed in science fiction and science :>

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Using "Knows how they work" while talking about goddamn time machines cracks me up every time.

    It's like you're confidently arguing that the inside of a black hole is another universe where time runs backwards and dogs meow ;)

    (For tonal clarity I'm not taking the piss, it's just funny when folk get really into a scifi topic and get all fanfiction about it)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Honestly, even if time travel were theoretically possible to be invented, there's also a high chance that we're just going to destroy ourselves before we get to that point anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago (43 children)

    What the fuck is he in the files for? What did he allegedly do? He’s bound to the chair!

  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Likely lots of people who had contact with Epstein did nothing wrong, at least not on that level.

    He was collecting powerful people, in science, business, government, anything. One way to do that is to offer access to other important people. The ability to say to someone "I can connect you with Stephen Hawking" is currency.

    The pedophilia ring and sex trafficking is the exact same thing -- just a way to appeal to certain people.

    I think it's more interesting to talk about who the fuck gave Epstein a private island in one of the most stupidly expensive spits of sand on the entire planet. Likely the same people who killed him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I know one person IRL who was a frequenter of Little St John Island, aka Epstein Island. Wealthy man who made that trip regularly. He was not particularly attractive but he was wealthy. This is the place old wealthy men would go to get sexual satisfaction when nobody else will give it to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    He's not famous. He's a very private person. Naming him would do no good. It would be like naming your next door neighbor. Nobody knows him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Naming him would do no good.

    That is not true. There is no accountability if people keep protecting them. Leak his name. It will help current investigators. It will help future prosecutors. If you don’t do it here or elsewhere, then YOU are not better than him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    If you don’t do it here or elsewhere, then YOU are not better than him.

    🙄

    He's my friend. I'm not going to doxx him on the internet under the meaningless pressure of some Lemmy stranger. He & I spent a whole year together having fun & biking & yoga & paddle boarding & swimming. The moment you begin to mean more to me than he does, then we'll talk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    How is your behavior any different than the multitude in power and authority who turned a blind eye? Have you considered the life of those he abused? Have you considered the moral battle that is happening?

    The moment you begin to mean more to me than he does, then we’ll talk.

    Decency and a will against abject evil should be all that it takes to do the right thing. You don’t want to leak here? Fine. ProPublica.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    It's not like Hawking and Epstein traded a few emails talking about science, or had a one off meeting. It appears they had a fair amount of exchanges over a long period of time.

    Epstein was a vile human in the worst kind of way and I see no evidence that Hawking was blind to this fact. Half the people on this app wouldn't willingly associate with someone of a different political party than them, but to defend a man who willingly spent time with a convicted sex trafficker? The fact that Hawking was paralyzed doesn't absolve him from willingly enabling (and potentially partaking in) child abuse and sex trafficking.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (34 children)

    It's a little ableist to suggest that his being wheelchair-bound would necessarily prevent him from being a pedophile.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    ALS does not interfere with the ability to have erections or orgasms. If he became aroused he could get an erection, he'd just need to be on the recieving end due to his condition.

    Even full on paraplegics have sex, they just use a special injection of Alprostadil beforehand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    I need you to understand something important. An erection and orgasm is absolutely not the same thing as raping a goddamn child.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Grow up. Take your heroes off their pedestal. Move on with your life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I have no heroes. I’m an adult. Stop flinging weird accusations and deal with the post with an actual response.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Let's take a look at thr comment chain

    What we have here is you misunderstanding ALS and using that misunderstanding to defend a notorious philanderer who is all over the Epstein files.

    Then I come in to correct you about the nature of Hawking's disease, and your overall ignorant view on disabled people's sexual abilities. I don't even say 'this means Hawking raped kids', I'm just correcting your ignorance here.

    You then move the goal post while insulting me, hoping your hostility gets me to back away from the uncomfortable fact that you idolized a deeply flawed human being and are now providing free labour defending him in internet comments.

    You may be an adult, but you clearly haven't grown up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago* (10 children)

    wheelchair-bound

    Dude was fully paralyzed. Come one. Are you really that desperate to attack someone? Guy is asking a valid question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Then how did he have an affair?

    Is power itself not enough to coerce someone, you're saying it has to be physical coercion? That would undo a lot of what we know about sexual assault.

    I'm certainly not saying he did it, but "he's paralyzed" is not a good enough defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Why are you suggesting that paralyzed people are somehow incapable?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 9 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Stephen Hawking reportedly loved strippers. His being paralyzed doesn't/didn't preclude sexual interests, nor untoward sexual pursuits, particularly given his status and presence in the fucking Epstein files.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Doesn't justify you walking around calling people ableist for not knowing that bub. Grow the fuck up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    That's generally how people find out. Until then, it is both at the same time. Schroedinger's douchebag and all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (16 children)

    little ablist

    Oh FFS, cut it out already with the "ablist!!" screeching

    The guy literally can only move his eyes, he literally can barely do anything without a support staff. He can breathe on his own, he can think on his own, that's about it

    He cannot be a pedophile is not being ablisi, it's being realistic.

    He was there for a scientific conference that was organized there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    He absolutely could have been a pedophile, it just would have been impossible to act on the urges without enablers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    As amusing as this slap fight is to watch, there’s an important point I think needs to be made.

    The use of the word “pedophile” has multiple interpretations. (Yes I’m going to be that guy but follow me for a minute. I promise this is going somewhere.) For sake of argument, let’s look at the two most common uses: “is sexually attracted to children” and “fucks children”. I’m using fucks because that’s what that interpretation calls for. Consent is irrelevant, whether you think a child can give it or not. In the latter case we are discussing the physical act.

    In the case of sexual attraction, I would imagine there are far more people in that crowd than most people realize. Don’t give me the studies and stats. I already have enough reasons to want to kill myself in 2026. I don’t want to know. Just acknowledge there is a number, we don’t have to like it. However, that’s not actionable by itself. It’s awful but it’s not relevant to anything. In the case of “Stephen hawking can be a pedophile without the ability to move his hips” this is correct. It is also entirely irrelevant because you know goddamn well what we are actually talking about.

    Which brings me to the second interpretation, fucks children. In this use, the pedophile does a thing to a child. Not just fantasizes about it but actually does the thing. It’s cut and dry. THIS is what we are pissed about. When you see public outcry about pedophile stuff, it’s not about the pedantic argument of “well technically that’s not pedophilia.” Language is contextual. You know goddamn well that while most of us aren’t exactly thrilled about someone feeling arousal toward children, the thought itself is irrelevant. The action is.

    A thought doesn’t harm children. It’s creeps us out and can serve as a warning sign of “you know, let’s not have Elon babysit. He’s either going to fuck it or eat it.”

    What my post asked was what Stephen Hawking was accused of doing in the Epstein files. He’s not able to move his hips or legs of really any of his body in any weaponized capacity so I’m really wondering what the fuck his presence in the files is supposed to imply.

    So please ignore the charged label and pay attention to the actual question:

    What are people saying Stephen Hawking did on Epstein island?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    No, there is one definition of pedophile, the second thing you described is called a child rapist. Naturally, the second is also usually the first, but the reverse is not so reliably true. Y'know, that classic square : rhombus :: child rapist : pedophile analogy. Pretty sure it used to be in the SATs.

    I'm not saying he did anything anywhere or that he even was a pedophile, I really don't care either way. It's hard to prove and nearly impossible to disprove, since we still don't know how to read people's minds, especially dead people. The only horse I'm backing in this race is objective truth. Someone said he couldn't be a pedophile, which is just so obviously false 🤷‍♂️.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    So are we talking using Hawking as a child-juicer kind of situation?

    Follow the thought just a little bit farther. It’s ridiculous. You are pointing toward a more actionable definition of this. It’s not “a thought occurred” but “a child had sex inflicted upon them”

    So if you asking if is it possible to insert a Stephen Hawking into a child I will admit that grim situation is possible.

    But what it would take to pull such a thing off…it’s like if you explained Schrodinger’s cat to someone whose intellectual development stopped at watching Care Bears.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Idk what a child-juicer is, steroids really fuck with development so I don't recommend that. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

    I'm not asking anything, I've only ever stated facts. You're the one who keeps going out of their way to describe child rape, even though no one in this entire thread said "Stephen Hawking was definitely a child rapist." No one's even claiming that he definitely was a pedophile. But he could have been, even without being in the Epstein files, there's a non-zero chance he was attracted to children. Which is true of every human on Earth.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

    Lol, way to demonstrate your ignorance.

    He cheated on his wife with his nurse, that's why they separated.

    Needing support for it doesn't mean you won't be able to hurt people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    I’m going to regret this but I just have to see where your synaptic misfire is going to land. What are you implying happened?

    Are you suggesting someone serviced Stephen Hawking using 9 year old a fleshlight? What exactly would “supporting a paralyzed pedophile” entail?

    Seriously, this is dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    You're the only one interested in the logistics (might be something to reflect on...jkjk haha), all we're saying is that being a quadriplegic has no bearing on what makes you horny.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    That is not the argument I’m making. Please reread my post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (2 children)

    I'm not implying anything specific, I'm saying that if he wanted, he could have done a lot of things by meeting people who would make it happen for him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Exactly. You aren’t saying anything specific. You are implying something so you don’t have to support a claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago*

    That's because I don't know or care if he did something.

    All I'm saying that asking for abuse to happen would make one complicit in it happening no matter how actively one could participate in the abuse afterwards.

    It's quite a simple concept really. It's while charges starting with “conspiracy to …” exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›