3 ms·
What I hate about articles and reporting like this is the emphasis (in the lead) on that fact that some people were 'shocked'. You can always find 'some people'
by gist 7y ago
What I hate about articles and reporting like this is the emphasis (in the lead) on that fact that some people were 'shocked'. You can always find 'some people' that will force their point of view and unfortunately do it in way that says 'there really isn't anything else to discuss about this issue it's open and shut'.
Also important to realize that there were most likely people at that meeting that agreed with what Negroponte said but were to afraid (for fear of backlash) to say that.
Finally this: “It wasn’t until another woman yelled “Shut up!” twice that Negroponte mumbled “Good grief,” and sat down.”" I am guessing that took Negroponte by surprised and he might be kicking himself now for not pushing back.
- nkurz 7y ago> You can always find 'some people' that will force their point of view and unfortunately do it in way that says 'there really isn't anything else to discuss about this issue it's open and shut'. > Also important to realize that there were most likely people at that meeting that agreed with what Negroponte said but were to afraid (for fear of backlash) to say that. While I agree with you that at times a small minority can shut down discussion, in this particular case I think an overwhelming majority of that audience believed that taking Epstein's money was unconscionable. So while there probably at least a few audience members who agreed with Negroponte, and while those who agreed were probably afraid to publicly voice their support, I'm doubtful there were actually that many of them. But perhaps I'm wrong. Do you have a way of estimating what percentage of people believe that accepting money from a convicted sex offender (and accused pedophile) is ethically appropriate?
- pdfileisle 7y agoYou're not wrong. Negroponte is just trying to salvage what little remains of his legacy. He doesn't want to be excluded from the lucrative talk circuit that he's now on.
- nitePhyyre 7y agoWell the article only mentions one person yelling at him to shut up. Out of the entire audience. The article also doesn't say that him being told to shut up was net with applause, or anything like that. And considering that slant in the article, if there was any hint more people agreed, you know it would be in there.
- jkestner 7y agoAs a Media Lab alum, I know there are plenty of people who agreed. It takes courage to interrupt the venerated founder, especially when your livelihood depends on the person he's defending, and the people with whom they've built relationships.
- gist 7y agoWell first I don't think the rightness or wrongness should be determined by a vote of either those in attendance or those on HN. If you asked kids if they like to take 3 less classes in high school they'd probably say 'sure sounds good to me'. People will make all sorts of decisions for the wrong reason. Of course they might say taking Epstein's money was wrong after all it has no impact on them personally. Now if they were a college student and Epstein was paying for scholarships and they viewed that as a personal benefit to them they might be ok with it and look the other way. This is the way people are. As far as taking money from a 'convicted sex offender' (the 'accused' makes zero difference and should) he did his crime and he served his time. He went through the criminal justice system. He should be given a 2nd chance. It's unclear to me why people are willing to give all sorts of criminal offenders 2nd chances but not for sex crimes. And make no mistake there are plenty of people who have committed crimes who have impacted far more people that nobody seems to care about that much after the fact and will allow a 2nd chance.