4 ms·
> And then three years later find yourself defending his character sincerely, because after all, he's given so much to help the great causes you have undertaken
by losvedir 7y ago
> And then three years later find yourself defending his character sincerely, because after all, he's given so much to help the great causes you have undertaken.
Source? I tend to agree with OP that MIT is fine in taking the money. But if they went on and defended him later then obviously that's beyond the pale.
- mturmon 7y agoTaking the money will create a desire to defend the donor. In some idealized world, this doesn't have to happen, but in the real world, it will. For instance, eventually the donor will come to town and want a tour of the lab he donated to, or dinner with the dean at the faculty club. You started out with money, and now you have a relationship. From all accounts, Epstein in particular was a master at this. It also creates a link (which is bi-directional) between the prestigious institution and the donor. This association, after all, is part of the reason people give to institutions like MIT and not to their local community college. Some of the prestige "rubs off".
- NateEag 7y agoIt wasn't meant literally. It's just the pattern that I've seen play out again and again, and which I can only assume happened here at least to some extent. Humans are world-class justifiers. People here on HN largely recognize the tribalism effect, and once you've taken money, that will start to take hold. You've linked yourself to him and you will inevitably begin to identify with him as a result. Note that if Epstein had genuinely been stricken by remorse, changed his ways, done his best to make amends to his victims, and was looking for a way to do good with his fortune, then I think taking the money makes perfect sense. That obviously wasn't true here, though.