3 ms·
There's a consequentialist argument to refusing the money, too: you're helping Epstein launder his reputation. By accepting his money and continuing to work wi
by jakelazaroff 7y ago
There's a consequentialist argument to refusing the money, too: you're helping Epstein launder his reputation.
By accepting his money and continuing to work with him, you're basically telling Epstein that he's free to continue raping children — that as long as he can wriggle out of the legal stuff, he won't suffer any real professional or social consequences. And instead of helping to deter other would-be Epsteins, you're sending them a message that no matter how many children they rape, they'll still be greeted warmly.
- dumbfoundded 7y agoAbsolutely a good point. I'd say practically, the Media Lab didn't change much in this regard but it's impossible to know the full extent. I do think you hit a certain line with donations. Many of the charities and hospitals he also donated to probably don't have the luxury of deciding who their money comes from. It's a tricky situation but I think you make a solid point.
- lonelappde 7y agoBut Epstein didn't make his money by investing in MIT. He made is money being a pimp. You think he'd stop pimping if universities stopped taking his donations?
- shademaan 7y agoTo me, the direction of the causal arrow is unclear. Was he able to throw money at MIT (and fulfill his fantasy of scientific/academic relevance) because he was a pimp, or did his involvement with these universities allow him to get closer to powerful people whom he'd manipulate with the offer of sex from young women? I agree that it's hard to definitely say because we're still unsure how exactly Epstein made his money.