What happened to fossilesque?? :(
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
265 points (99.3% liked)
Political Memes
12295 readers
2268 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm so happy to see this.
They don't tolerate velocirapists
What about those responsible for the mooses?
Believe it or not sacked
A pretty huge amount of people on the epstein files though are just individuals who were emailing regarding grants, donations, etc
Which is extremely normal, they just email all rich benefactors known for donating to causes.
Id expect like over half the names in the files just fall under that category...
Re-read the note they put. It's people who continued to email the org and ask for money and shit after Epstein was convicted
These are people who did not give a fuck and continued to work with a rapist
These are people who did not give a fuck and continued to work with a rapist
Oh there are absolutely people in this very thread who don't understand why it's immoral to continue to do business with a rapist as long as it's in pursuit of science.
The difference here is that they continued to engage in correspondence after his conviction.
I'd have no problems taking dirty money, as long as I wouldn't need to do anything for it... am I just dumb, or why would it be immoral to make dirty folk less-rich?
Ethics are important in science
Thanks, that's good point! it's refreshing when smart people don't feel the need to be rude.
I'm sure the women you work with would be so pleased to know that the pursuit of science is much more important than holding a sex-trafficking rapist and pedophile accountable. It would make them really comfortable to be around you.
That wasn't the question. My question was, how would he be benefiting from me taking his money?
You don’t see how it’s immoral to take funding from Epstein?
I can also dodge questions by asking a different question. Is it immoral to steal from billionaires?
It’s essentially signing off on his other actions by engaging in business as usual after his conviction.
I didn’t think I needed to spell that out to anyone who wasn’t an Epstein supporter.
Maybe it's some kind of language barrier, but my definition of business is "any activity or enterprise entered into for profit". So again, where would his profit be in giving me money with no strings attached?
How do you get so caught up in thinking wrong? I asked a hypothetical question and you're acting like I'd ever support him? The only negative thing about him being killed is that his victims can't get retribution.
It's the soft power of being charitable. There's reasons that the rich fund projects like this - it's to make people like you defend them even after they've committed terrible crimes against humanity.
make people like you defend them
I have never defended anyone with excessive wealth in my entire life, and especially not a sex trafficker or other criminals. Do you normally slander people, or what's your problem with putting false words into someone else's mouth?
You are arguing with me right here and right now how it should be totally OK to take this predator's funding.
No, I have never done that. You're slandering me yet again.
A refresher: I originally asked what the problem would be. And then it took me asking 4 different times before you gave the answer "soft power". You could have just done that originally, instead of being toxic and insulting me.
Not everyone is as smart as you, why do you have to be such a jerk about it?
"Just asking questions"
I have no patience for someone asking why taking funding from Epstein is a bad thing. Read the post. There's a reason DinoCon put their foot down. They BANNED those scientists who thought the same as you. It's deplorable. It's right there in the post from DinoCon.
Everyone should have no tolerance for allowing this behavior to go unchallenged. That's one of the main reasons Epstein was so successful.
What about people doing business with Trump? What about people doing business with the U.S. government under Trump? What about all federal government jobs? What about working for any company that gets any kind of direct or indirect federal subsidies?
The US government is different than an individual like Epstein.
If they were dealing with Trump as a businessman and not the president, I'd have the same view.
"Just asking questions"
Not fully understanding why no-strings-attached money is a bad thing, isn't the same thing as sealioning.
You've wasted so much time trying to justify your toxic outbursts instead of simply saying "soft power" from the start. Then you could have used your time and energy for something more productive. Do you get joy out of this or what?
I’m sure the women you work with would be so pleased to know that the pursuit of science is much more important than holding a sex-trafficking rapist and pedophile accountable.
Also I did answer you right here in one of my first comments.
The pursuit of science should not be more important than holding a sex-trafficking rapist and pedophile accountable.
To be fair, I honestly stopped reading after I saw it was a personal attack, because people who feel the need to stoop that low don't usually have anything to contribute to a discussion. Can you blame me? I come here for normal discussions, not Reddit-tier personal attacks.
Not to mention, that still didn't answer it, because I didn't understand until other people explained it that no-strings-attached money would actually be a moral issue.
Grow up and stop being a toxic asshole on an obscure internet board.
Grow up and stop acting like it's confusing that sex criminals shouldn't be allowed to do business after they've raped children.
The answer is obvious from the post itself.
If DinoCon can correctly identify why it's bad to take funding from Epstein after his conviction, why are you in the comments asking questions to justify taking dirty money?
Think about it from any of Epstein's victims point of view. That the world continued to do business with Epstein, to protect him, to shield him from consequences because....of money.
Knowingly using dirty money is immoral, even if used for a good cause [with the expection of undoing what made the money dirty in the first place]. On a tier-list, it would be a D tier option, above things like stealing toothpaste from a walmart, but below scalping via artificial inflation.
The immoral part is via association. Even if you denounce what the donor has done, you are still allowing them to be partially responsible for any good that comes out of the work/research.
Desperation for funding has often led people to compromise morality for progress, and I struggle to judge what is the correct decision, even if the moral option is clear.
Is that expected of paleontologists?
I mean really, honestly most people didn't give a shit about Epstein until someone suocided him. And even then, gave very few shits until earlier this year.
Like I'd expect that bar for politicians, celebrities, public figures...people who have money to begin with and staff to tell them that this person shouldn't be associated with...I don't know if I can set that same expectation on academics reaching out for funding from somebody whose been known to fund academia.
You don't think the line should be drawn at pedophilia?
What are we doing here? We're wholesale signing off on supporting a prolific and dangerous pedophile?
Epstein wasn't a household name until his death; even post "suicide" and the revelations about his pedo empire it's still not common for people to extensively research the background of strangers they're cold-calling, and Epstein had more than enough money to SEO away reports of his conviction.
If you didnt know him or weren't told directly about him being a pedo, it was unlikely that you could have known about him at the time. Most of the folks in the epstein files did know him though - and it's pretty easy to check which group someone falls into.
Epstein wasn't a household name until his death
I would say his name became pretty well known before his death. I'd say more like 2018 with the Miami Herald exposé.
Less known but still pretty public was Giuffre in 2011 with the allegations against the Andrew formerly known as a prince. It was a pretty big story for the UK royal family. Maybe not "household" level though.
Epstein's arrest was also pretty big news, though yes it was only a month or so before his death, but I would have to say he was known by a pretty significant number of people by this point, definitely household name by the time of arrest.
After his death is when the conspiracy theories went all over the place, but I wouldn't equate that to his being a household name.
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.
You said he wasn't a household name until he died.
I would not agree with that, it was definitely earlier enough to cause issues, including reopening investigations, long before he died.
Thats all.
Thank you for clarifying! And I'm sorry, I don't think you're right. You may have known about him, but prior to his death practically nobody else knew or cared about him.
I don't think being wrongfully persecuted for being in the Epstein files is a thing. It's kinda the point of the meme that plenty of scientists did go on his plane and to his island. And some of those emails from scientists were commiserating over how "me too has gone too far".
But sure, not all scientists....
Yeah but what paleontologist doesn't get excited when the insanely rich guy funding your research shows up and offers them to take a plane ride to his private island?
That's literally the stuff of movies, man.
He was a shitty human but he did appreciate science/academia...or at least that's what his public spending seems to have indicated.
Paleontologists who've read "The Island of Doctor Moreau"? Private islands and science lead to a bad time.
Yeah but what paleontologist doesn’t get excited when the insanely rich guy funding your research shows up and offers them to take a plane ride to his private island?
Paleontologists that aren't pedophiles that want to go to pedophile island?
I think there is value in how those who asked or accepted funding think about it. People who just see the cash, yeah, deplorable. People who feel conflicted about it, but can provide for their aids and families because of funding, maybe not so much. Anyone excited to go interact and associate directly, going to the island; super slimy and needs to be excommunacated from the scientific community.
Anyone excited to go interact and associate directly, going to the island; super slimy and needs to be excommunacated from the scientific community.
Yep which is why I highlighted that sentence in particular. You're right, there's some grey here and it's not completely black and white.
The problem is that this kind of thing, this looking the other way in order to fund projects, helped cover Epstein's crimes for so long. Not everyone who helped is directly guilty. But this is the system that helped Epstein operate with no consequences simply because he was able to bribe people.
Funding is way more important than holding a pedophile accountable. /s