5 ms·

Odd take - almost all of the stories are about people who ended up engaging extensively with him after he'd already been convicted of being a sex offender. Sur

Odd take - almost all of the stories are about people who ended up engaging extensively with him after he'd already been convicted of being a sex offender. Sure, you can associate with whomever you want to, but the media highlighting the fact that notable people continued to not only be friendly with, but often appear to be in the pocket of financially, someone rather heinous is not really a "witch hunt". (Especially considering many of the allegations are of using this financial power as a pawn in a larger blackmail operation means those financial ties do have to be investigated)

toomuchtodo 7y ago
I have befriended and helped (provided housing and other support) convicted felons who have done their time. Where do you draw the line? Edit: I agree with those who have replied, and appreciate that my question was answered with genuine effort.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Did Epstein finish doing his time before these people were willing to recieve investment money from him?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    No, but that’s sort of my point. Ambiguity and fear shouldn’t be used to dissuade helping those who did do their time, so it’s important to point out exceptions and why they are exceptions (Epstein was unable to be reformed IMHO, which is both tragic and a cautionary tale). It’s hard to discern the reformed from the monsters sometimes, but the reformed still deserve another chance.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      Your point was that you assisted people after they did their time. Epstein did not do his time. He did not go through any reformation process. People were willing to take his money and his professional connections even knowing his recent conviction for which his time was upcoming. This isn't a case where someone is reformed and people aren't forgiving them. Epstein was not reformed, did not serve his time, and people were still actively engaging with him. Those people were not engaging with a reformed man. They were engaging with a predator. I entirely agree with you that reformed felons deserve a chance after they serve their time. Epstein was not reformed and he did not serve time, therefore what chance did he deserve on account of these people?
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Aren’t we debating how to determine if someone is reformed? I thought we were, and if not by judicial process (prison sentencing), what? I absolutely agree Epstein wasn’t reformed, and that the challenge is to suss out who is and isn’t a danger to society any longer (“reformed”). I don’t know how to do that besides gut feeling and guardrails to minimize blast radius when poor judgement has occurred.
- wastedhours 7y ago
  It's not about "drawling the line" - child sex offences are often "lifetime convictions" in that they don't come off your record (and for those in the public eye, would be impossible to shake in any case). Therefore they will often come up as part of criminal records checks, and if you have direct ties with felons of that nature, it could impact on you. Getting to the bottom of these ties is important, especially given that there are many alleged crimes he didn't "do his time" for or will face potential justice for. You can be friends with a convicted child sex offender, sure, but building close financial ties with (to the extent of essentially being a co-founder or co-host of a lot of different events) should draw some scrutiny, given there's an alleged pattern of behaviour that's been followed.
- allworknoplay 7y ago
  I think this is very simple: if the person has cleaned up their act (Epstein was dismissive of issues with his behaviors) and your judgement isn't clouded by dollars (Ito's / MITs were). If those things aren't both true, you're not supporting someone who's done their time, you're being greedy and/or complicit.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- root_axis 7y ago
  The actual crime matters. "Felon" has no moral meaning, just a somewhat arbitrary legal classification. He also did not "serve his time" in the sense that the phrase is typically understood (a person who made mistakes but has atoned), especially when you consider the fact that he used his money and influence to evade the consequences at every turn and also continued to commit more sex crimes during the time he was supposed to be imprisoned. How many convicted child sex traffickers get to spend 16 hours a day at home instead of a prison cell?
- SamBam 7y ago
  If you've befriended and helped a convicted felon who has served his/her time, is repentant, and presumably is on a path to rehabilitation, then that's laudable, even if that person were a murderer. If you've befriended a murderer who is unrepentant, who managed to avoid any real punishment because of his wealth and connections, and who is rumored to still be engaged in the things he was accused of, I'd say that's a huge moral failing on your part.
citilife 7y ago
For what it's worth, > Odd take - almost all of the stories are about people who ended up engaging extensively with him after he'd already been convicted of being a sex offender. When I engage with people I often don't do a search on them. Even if I did, I'm usually not fault someone for a past mistake; assuming I think they have changed. That being said, I think the OPs take was that simply funding or working with a research group, doesn't make the research group guilty by association. Perhaps some investigation is warranted, but if you're doing research you're typically not going to turn down funding. How many research groups take funding from the DoD to literally build weapons to kill people? That's likely worse than this association. I don't think that was the MediaLabs purpose, it was an unfortunate relationship.
- wastedhours 7y ago
  > Perhaps some investigation is warranted, but if you're doing research you're typically not going to turn down funding As the linked post suggests though, building the relationship wasn't without warning in this case (as in, he asked Ito not to take the meeting due to the history involved). An unfortunate relationship, but I don't believe the outrage is unwarranted (or, as implied by the OP, merely virtue signalling).
- hyperpape 7y ago
  Do you raise money for things? That’s a very different world, and anyone who does it should be aware that they’re engaged in a project of laundering wealth into reputations, and act accordingly. It’s a sad reality, and we’d probably be better off it wasn’t reality, but high-profile academics need to be aware of it.
dreamcompiler 7y ago
Yes he was a sex offender. Lots of people are, including 17-year-old boys who have sex with their underage girlfriends. The sex offender laws in the US are so draconian that there's no distinction made between somebody who's seen urinating in an alley and a violent rapist. In my state (New Mexico) Epstein had a ranch where we now know he was raping girls. But guess what? He did not have to register as a sex offender in NM because the age of consent here is different than it is in Florida (that loophole has since been fixed by our legislature.) My point is that the sex offender laws in the US are meaningless. They encourage the public to assume that minor offenses are heinous and that major criminals might actually be minor offenders who got a raw deal.
- tptacek 7y ago
  You're being downvoted because your point is irrelevant. Epstein raped children.
  - dreamcompiler 7y ago
    Yet the public didn't know that with legal certainty before 2019. He was convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute, not child rape. Morally those might be equivalent but legally they're not, as evidenced by his light sentence. It's the 20/20 hindsight that bugs me.
siruncledrew 7y ago
Agreed, an odd take given the circumstances. > Now people are falling over themselves trying to one up each other on who can display the most moral outrage. > It is an example of how public discourse has degenerated to the point where we are attacking people first and refusing to ask even some basic questions before branding someone as guilty by association. The gist I get from OP's comment is that they are more frustrated with the generalized trend of "outrage culture", and referenced this Epstein story as a current example (despite being an ill-fitting one). OP's point would probably resonate better with a different example, though the sentiment does bring up an interesting tangential conversation. Feeding the fire is self-serving for many stories and comments once a controversial/multi-faceted story hits and the gates open. It's an easy way to get overly caught up in the weeds obsessing over the noise of a story that the signal gets drowned out. Those that have a vested interest in keeping a fire from extinguishing obviously want to add more kindling with "SHOCKING NEW DETAILS"-type stories that are less informationally relevant to the main events and more borderline conspiracy-theory or clickbait.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

I have befriended and helped (provided housing and other support) convicted felons who have done their time. Where do you draw the line? Edit: I agree with those who have replied, and appreciate that my question was answered with genuine effort.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Did Epstein finish doing his time before these people were willing to recieve investment money from him?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  No, but that’s sort of my point. Ambiguity and fear shouldn’t be used to dissuade helping those who did do their time, so it’s important to point out exceptions and why they are exceptions (Epstein was unable to be reformed IMHO, which is both tragic and a cautionary tale). It’s hard to discern the reformed from the monsters sometimes, but the reformed still deserve another chance.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Your point was that you assisted people after they did their time. Epstein did not do his time. He did not go through any reformation process. People were willing to take his money and his professional connections even knowing his recent conviction for which his time was upcoming. This isn't a case where someone is reformed and people aren't forgiving them. Epstein was not reformed, did not serve his time, and people were still actively engaging with him. Those people were not engaging with a reformed man. They were engaging with a predator. I entirely agree with you that reformed felons deserve a chance after they serve their time. Epstein was not reformed and he did not serve time, therefore what chance did he deserve on account of these people?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Aren’t we debating how to determine if someone is reformed? I thought we were, and if not by judicial process (prison sentencing), what? I absolutely agree Epstein wasn’t reformed, and that the challenge is to suss out who is and isn’t a danger to society any longer (“reformed”). I don’t know how to do that besides gut feeling and guardrails to minimize blast radius when poor judgement has occurred.
wastedhours 7y ago
It's not about "drawling the line" - child sex offences are often "lifetime convictions" in that they don't come off your record (and for those in the public eye, would be impossible to shake in any case). Therefore they will often come up as part of criminal records checks, and if you have direct ties with felons of that nature, it could impact on you. Getting to the bottom of these ties is important, especially given that there are many alleged crimes he didn't "do his time" for or will face potential justice for. You can be friends with a convicted child sex offender, sure, but building close financial ties with (to the extent of essentially being a co-founder or co-host of a lot of different events) should draw some scrutiny, given there's an alleged pattern of behaviour that's been followed.
allworknoplay 7y ago
I think this is very simple: if the person has cleaned up their act (Epstein was dismissive of issues with his behaviors) and your judgement isn't clouded by dollars (Ito's / MITs were). If those things aren't both true, you're not supporting someone who's done their time, you're being greedy and/or complicit.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
root_axis 7y ago
The actual crime matters. "Felon" has no moral meaning, just a somewhat arbitrary legal classification. He also did not "serve his time" in the sense that the phrase is typically understood (a person who made mistakes but has atoned), especially when you consider the fact that he used his money and influence to evade the consequences at every turn and also continued to commit more sex crimes during the time he was supposed to be imprisoned. How many convicted child sex traffickers get to spend 16 hours a day at home instead of a prison cell?
SamBam 7y ago
If you've befriended and helped a convicted felon who has served his/her time, is repentant, and presumably is on a path to rehabilitation, then that's laudable, even if that person were a murderer. If you've befriended a murderer who is unrepentant, who managed to avoid any real punishment because of his wealth and connections, and who is rumored to still be engaged in the things he was accused of, I'd say that's a huge moral failing on your part.

citilife 7y ago

For what it's worth, > Odd take - almost all of the stories are about people who ended up engaging extensively with him after he'd already been convicted of being a sex offender. When I engage with people I often don't do a search on them. Even if I did, I'm usually not fault someone for a past mistake; assuming I think they have changed. That being said, I think the OPs take was that simply funding or working with a research group, doesn't make the research group guilty by association. Perhaps some investigation is warranted, but if you're doing research you're typically not going to turn down funding. How many research groups take funding from the DoD to literally build weapons to kill people? That's likely worse than this association. I don't think that was the MediaLabs purpose, it was an unfortunate relationship.

wastedhours 7y ago
> Perhaps some investigation is warranted, but if you're doing research you're typically not going to turn down funding As the linked post suggests though, building the relationship wasn't without warning in this case (as in, he asked Ito not to take the meeting due to the history involved). An unfortunate relationship, but I don't believe the outrage is unwarranted (or, as implied by the OP, merely virtue signalling).
hyperpape 7y ago
Do you raise money for things? That’s a very different world, and anyone who does it should be aware that they’re engaged in a project of laundering wealth into reputations, and act accordingly. It’s a sad reality, and we’d probably be better off it wasn’t reality, but high-profile academics need to be aware of it.

dreamcompiler 7y ago

Yes he was a sex offender. Lots of people are, including 17-year-old boys who have sex with their underage girlfriends. The sex offender laws in the US are so draconian that there's no distinction made between somebody who's seen urinating in an alley and a violent rapist. In my state (New Mexico) Epstein had a ranch where we now know he was raping girls. But guess what? He did not have to register as a sex offender in NM because the age of consent here is different than it is in Florida (that loophole has since been fixed by our legislature.) My point is that the sex offender laws in the US are meaningless. They encourage the public to assume that minor offenses are heinous and that major criminals might actually be minor offenders who got a raw deal.

tptacek 7y ago
You're being downvoted because your point is irrelevant. Epstein raped children.
- dreamcompiler 7y ago
  Yet the public didn't know that with legal certainty before 2019. He was convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute, not child rape. Morally those might be equivalent but legally they're not, as evidenced by his light sentence. It's the 20/20 hindsight that bugs me.

siruncledrew 7y ago

Agreed, an odd take given the circumstances. > Now people are falling over themselves trying to one up each other on who can display the most moral outrage. > It is an example of how public discourse has degenerated to the point where we are attacking people first and refusing to ask even some basic questions before branding someone as guilty by association. The gist I get from OP's comment is that they are more frustrated with the generalized trend of "outrage culture", and referenced this Epstein story as a current example (despite being an ill-fitting one). OP's point would probably resonate better with a different example, though the sentiment does bring up an interesting tangential conversation. Feeding the fire is self-serving for many stories and comments once a controversial/multi-faceted story hits and the gates open. It's an easy way to get overly caught up in the weeds obsessing over the noise of a story that the signal gets drowned out. Those that have a vested interest in keeping a fire from extinguishing obviously want to add more kindling with "SHOCKING NEW DETAILS"-type stories that are less informationally relevant to the main events and more borderline conspiracy-theory or clickbait.