9 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

iron0013 7y ago
Reading the Wikipedia article makes it obvious why he would write an article like this. He was forced to resign from the board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists after allegations of his sexual misconduct came to light and he has a grudge. Pretty disappointing, honestly, that he let his personal issues override his principles.
- ramblerman 7y ago
  What? a) From Wikipedia: The allegations were from buzzfeed, and were later unsubstantiated in an official enquiry with the 'victim' who said "she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment." b) What does this have to do with his opinion on the doomsday clock? Honestly this outrage culture, and mob mentality is pathetic.
  - Numberwang 7y ago
    Well, he was a friend if Epstein as well, so I would not trust his character very much. But yes, it is not really relevant here.
  - gorydetails 7y ago
    The facts don't matter. His reputation has taken a substantial hit, and he's been "soft-cancelled." It's hard to come back from that, in any capacity.
  - iron0013 7y ago
    I’m not sure why you’re pretending to be puzzled; regardless of the veracity of the complaints, the Bulletin board was concerned enough that they did not want him there: “Krauss resigned from the position of chair of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board of Sponsors when informed that its other members felt his presence was distracting "from the ability of the Bulletin to effectively carry out [its] work".[34][35]” And could you spare us the boilerplate reactionary moaning about outrage culture?
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      You should seriously consider shooting yourself in the head with a large caliber handgun.
    - gorydetails 7y ago
      > And could you spare us the boilerplate reactionary moaning about outrage culture? Not GP, but cancel culture is, sadly, a real phenomenon.
      - DagAgren 7y ago
        "Cancel culture" is a code word for "apparently actions now have consequences and I don't like it". He was a friend of Epstein, dude. He helped Epstein after he was convicted of being a pedophile pimp (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-science-donations-apologies-statements https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep...). And here he is, writing articles for the Wall Street Journal after being supposedly "cancelled". He knowingly helped a pedophile rapist. He has not faced anywhere near the amount of consequences he deserves.
        ftr45 7y ago
        you are completely right
        gorydetails 7y ago
        "Cancel culture" is a set of cultural behaviors whereby poorly or incompletely substantiated allegations result in the tarnishing of reputations via virtue signaling amplification.
        DagAgren 7y ago
        Yeah, that has never actually happened.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    B) The clock is a publicity stunt by an organization that he has reason to feel aggrieved by. It's a conflict of interests not to mention that he has another axe to grind with them.
  - foldr 7y ago
    >the 'victim' The buzzfeed article details quite a number of allegations. There is no one victim. In any case, the victim you're referring to essentially confirmed that the allegation was true. She merely said (in effect) that she was not particularly bothered that Krauss had touched her breast without permission. That does not make the behavior appropriate. See also the ASU investigation report, which is available here: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassment-report https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/lawrence-k... Besides all that, Krauss unapologetically helped Epstein after he was released from prison.
    - cgriswald 7y ago
      I've upvoted you for two reasons. First, I think you're sincere. Second, I think it's important that someone respond to you rather than just downvote you and you're currently greyed. > There is no one victim. This is not relevant. @iron0013 didn't cite anything other than a brief snippet of the Wikipedia article. No other evidence was provided and no argument was made linking the snippet to Krauss' credibility or arguments. As far as I can tell, @iron0013 saw this snippet and immediately wrote of Krauss. That's not a reasonable position and it spawned this subthread, which, although I've participated in it, I find to be mostly off-topic. > She merely said (in effect) that she was not particularly bothered that Krauss had touched her breast without permission. You're paraphrasing a Buzzfeed article which is paraphrasing an ASU report which paraphrased the alleged victim. Here is her statement to the public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr9OIty2XGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr9OIty2XGg > See also the ASU investigation report, which is available here: Actually, here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015756-Krauss-Determinations.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015756-Krauss-Deter... It's important to note that this report was prepared by a potential party to the allegations for the same party. It cannot simply be cited as evidence. At best, it should be treated as a suspect secondary source. In no case is it appropriate to treat it as a conviction. Krauss' appeal also ought to be considered, whether it redeems or condemns him: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10lHwatvaGfmWNc3NdoioncYi7daK1a-M/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/10lHwatvaGfmWNc3NdoioncYi7da... As well as his retirement letter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015757-Krauss-Retirement-Letter.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015757-Krauss-Retir... > Besides all that, Krauss unapologetically helped Epstein after he was released from prison. This is wholly unrelated to his argument against the Doomsday Clock than the allegations which lead to his resignation from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. And this is the crux of the issue. With extremely limited evidence (far, far less than you or I have provided), @iron0013 decided Krauss should be completely ignored, without even consider Krauss' argument. He's certainly free to do so, but based on the voting down of his comment, I'm happy to believe that the majority of people don't want to live in a world where others can be socially, professionally, and politically ostracized for alleged wrongdoing without so much as a trial. I've offered the evidence here so people can make their own determinations, but I do so with the understanding that this entire subthread is off-topic and irrelevant to the issue at hand. For me, personally, I don't have enough information to convict him or acquit him; and I think the rational choice is to acknowledge that the accusations exist. At best, I think @iron0013 could have pointed out the circumstances of Krauss' resignation, but even then, it's not relevant to the arguments Krauss makes. His motivation largely doesn't matter unless you're trying to somehow not 'let him win.'

Reading the Wikipedia article makes it obvious why he would write an article like this. He was forced to resign from the board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists after allegations of his sexual misconduct came to light and he has a grudge. Pretty disappointing, honestly, that he let his personal issues override his principles.

ramblerman 7y ago
What? a) From Wikipedia: The allegations were from buzzfeed, and were later unsubstantiated in an official enquiry with the 'victim' who said "she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment." b) What does this have to do with his opinion on the doomsday clock? Honestly this outrage culture, and mob mentality is pathetic.
- Numberwang 7y ago
  Well, he was a friend if Epstein as well, so I would not trust his character very much. But yes, it is not really relevant here.
- gorydetails 7y ago
  The facts don't matter. His reputation has taken a substantial hit, and he's been "soft-cancelled." It's hard to come back from that, in any capacity.
- iron0013 7y ago
  I’m not sure why you’re pretending to be puzzled; regardless of the veracity of the complaints, the Bulletin board was concerned enough that they did not want him there: “Krauss resigned from the position of chair of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board of Sponsors when informed that its other members felt his presence was distracting "from the ability of the Bulletin to effectively carry out [its] work".[34][35]” And could you spare us the boilerplate reactionary moaning about outrage culture?
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    You should seriously consider shooting yourself in the head with a large caliber handgun.
  - gorydetails 7y ago
    > And could you spare us the boilerplate reactionary moaning about outrage culture? Not GP, but cancel culture is, sadly, a real phenomenon.
    - DagAgren 7y ago
      "Cancel culture" is a code word for "apparently actions now have consequences and I don't like it". He was a friend of Epstein, dude. He helped Epstein after he was convicted of being a pedophile pimp (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-science-donations-apologies-statements https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep...). And here he is, writing articles for the Wall Street Journal after being supposedly "cancelled". He knowingly helped a pedophile rapist. He has not faced anywhere near the amount of consequences he deserves.
      - ftr45 7y ago
        you are completely right
      - gorydetails 7y ago
        "Cancel culture" is a set of cultural behaviors whereby poorly or incompletely substantiated allegations result in the tarnishing of reputations via virtue signaling amplification.
        DagAgren 7y ago
        Yeah, that has never actually happened.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  B) The clock is a publicity stunt by an organization that he has reason to feel aggrieved by. It's a conflict of interests not to mention that he has another axe to grind with them.
- foldr 7y ago
  >the 'victim' The buzzfeed article details quite a number of allegations. There is no one victim. In any case, the victim you're referring to essentially confirmed that the allegation was true. She merely said (in effect) that she was not particularly bothered that Krauss had touched her breast without permission. That does not make the behavior appropriate. See also the ASU investigation report, which is available here: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassment-report https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/lawrence-k... Besides all that, Krauss unapologetically helped Epstein after he was released from prison.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    I've upvoted you for two reasons. First, I think you're sincere. Second, I think it's important that someone respond to you rather than just downvote you and you're currently greyed. > There is no one victim. This is not relevant. @iron0013 didn't cite anything other than a brief snippet of the Wikipedia article. No other evidence was provided and no argument was made linking the snippet to Krauss' credibility or arguments. As far as I can tell, @iron0013 saw this snippet and immediately wrote of Krauss. That's not a reasonable position and it spawned this subthread, which, although I've participated in it, I find to be mostly off-topic. > She merely said (in effect) that she was not particularly bothered that Krauss had touched her breast without permission. You're paraphrasing a Buzzfeed article which is paraphrasing an ASU report which paraphrased the alleged victim. Here is her statement to the public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr9OIty2XGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr9OIty2XGg > See also the ASU investigation report, which is available here: Actually, here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015756-Krauss-Determinations.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015756-Krauss-Deter... It's important to note that this report was prepared by a potential party to the allegations for the same party. It cannot simply be cited as evidence. At best, it should be treated as a suspect secondary source. In no case is it appropriate to treat it as a conviction. Krauss' appeal also ought to be considered, whether it redeems or condemns him: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10lHwatvaGfmWNc3NdoioncYi7daK1a-M/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/10lHwatvaGfmWNc3NdoioncYi7da... As well as his retirement letter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015757-Krauss-Retirement-Letter.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5015757-Krauss-Retir... > Besides all that, Krauss unapologetically helped Epstein after he was released from prison. This is wholly unrelated to his argument against the Doomsday Clock than the allegations which lead to his resignation from The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. And this is the crux of the issue. With extremely limited evidence (far, far less than you or I have provided), @iron0013 decided Krauss should be completely ignored, without even consider Krauss' argument. He's certainly free to do so, but based on the voting down of his comment, I'm happy to believe that the majority of people don't want to live in a world where others can be socially, professionally, and politically ostracized for alleged wrongdoing without so much as a trial. I've offered the evidence here so people can make their own determinations, but I do so with the understanding that this entire subthread is off-topic and irrelevant to the issue at hand. For me, personally, I don't have enough information to convict him or acquit him; and I think the rational choice is to acknowledge that the accusations exist. At best, I think @iron0013 could have pointed out the circumstances of Krauss' resignation, but even then, it's not relevant to the arguments Krauss makes. His motivation largely doesn't matter unless you're trying to somehow not 'let him win.'