5 ms·

It's alright if we disagree. I enjoy having the conversation. I'd ask you to avoid the name-calling though. It really doesn't help you or your argument. I hone

It's alright if we disagree. I enjoy having the conversation. I'd ask you to avoid the name-calling though. It really doesn't help you or your argument. I honestly think we live in completely different worlds. I simply don't understand the base of your moral absolutism. I really believe that the work that comes out of the Media Lab benefits society in a unique way not driven by profit motive. The people that work and study there sacrifice a lot of money to be there. I'd suggest you actually learn about the Media Lab first. https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=group https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=group or https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=project https://www.media.mit.edu/search/?filter=project . They take on deep technical work to often help the most disadvantaged. The first project listed is: "Transformative Leadership in Indigenous Communities". I'd also ask you to look up Hugh Herr, an absolute visionary in prosthetics. They also work on interesting technical problems in general. The only question here is "Can you take money from an evil person to do good things?" You can argue about how the Media Lab uses money but that's really our disagreement. You say no and I lean yes in this case. I truly wish the world was as black and white as you make it seem. But I believe we live in a nuanced, complicated world. Decisions are hard. There's not always a totally right answer. Should Mount Sinai (a hospital) have rejected his money? They didn't turn his money down. Does it make you a moral imbecile to take money to literally save lives? I do agree though that it would be nice of the Media Lab to donate the money to a charity specifically focused on preventing child sexual abuse and helping its victims. That's what Mount Sinai did and I agree the Media Lab should do the same. It still doesn't change that fact that both of these organizations took his money. Mount Sinai is probably only changing course now due to the optics.

glangdale 7y ago
I am familiar with MIT (the CMU of Massachusetts!) and what the Media Lab does. They do some cool things, and some good things, and some things that are both. Nothing that they are doing is sufficiently good, to my way of thinking, to warrant a bunch of "Nazi hypothermia study" or trolleyology comparisons. I think Mount Sinai at the least is a more complex issue, but perhaps not very. In any case, elsewhere you bring up the fact that it is 0.3% of the Media Lab's budget, so it's hard to imagine it having a massive positive effect (I'll get to the obvious negative effect later). But your definition of the question is utterly, flagrantly wrong. You've worked over the question until it bears no resemblance to the actual moral decision that confronted the Media Lab in 2008. We could discuss the question "Can you take money from an evil person to do good things?" in several alternate timelines. In one timeline, Epstein sits down in his office at some point in 2008, writes the media lab a huge cheque, then (rather admirably, compared to the real Epstein) puts a beautifully hand-tooled pistol in his mouth and decorates the back wall with his brains. In another, the Media Lab receives an enormous payment from Epstein in 1998, and is confronting the issue of what to do with the money in 2006 when Epstein's crimes are revealed. In both of these timelines, we could indeed struggle with your "only question" legitimately and all stroke our beards wisely and ponder the age-old "fruit of a poisonous tree" questions and self-congratulate about how nuanced we are and attempt to Google up impressive sounding concepts from half-remembered philosophy courses. However, back in this, the most absurd timeline and the one we're actually living in, Epstein is alive and well and the Media Lab has to decide what to do with the offer of money from an already rich convicted pedophile who is clearly attempting to create legitimacy for themselves and gain access to influential people. The first order effect of accepting this money - the consequence - is to rehabilitate Epstein. It declares to the world that this person is not beyond the pale; he is, in fact, a legitimate person who should still have a role a the highest of tables. It is not just a moral decision in terms of moral absolutism; it's a decision very much rooted in terms of consequences. It is baffling to me the extent to which you don't understand this and resort to falsely characterising my position as moral absolutism. The Nazi medical experiments create a much more complex issue in that the evil is done already - although there is a reasonable argument to say that such things should be deleted from all thought and never legitimised by use - but if you are weighing potential saved lives you might fold on moral absolutism in that case. One can make similar arguments about taking Epstein's money in my alternate timelines. Finally, let's not sneer at "optics". From a pragmatic perspective, taking money from convicted pedophiles after they've been convicted is bad optics for a good reason. It sends a clear message to everyone - abusers and abused alike - that it's pretty easy to bounce back after being an abuser and it's No Big Deal. It was an amazingly stupid move. It was 2008, not 1958. It's not like we all just suddenly learned "hey, don't rape 14-year-olds" last year from a hashtag.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  I think we're getting to the heart of the matter. By the way, I have a lot of respect for CMU as well. I have plenty of criticisms of MIT but very few with the Media Lab. MIT refused to divest from fossil fuels, has a building named after Koch, and develops military through Lincoln Labs. Just to name a few. The question still seems to be "Can you take money from an evil person to do good things?" I think we're both at the point of agreeing that it depends on the details of the situation. I think you make a couple of good points as to why this had a negative impact. Specifically, creating legitimacy for him and enabling him to expand his network of influence are both solid reasons as to why this was a bad idea for them to take the money. As for the positive impact, I point to the work the media lab does. This is why I think it's a tricky decision. As you point out, the amount of money he gave out was pretty small, $170K/year. He also didn't appear to get a lot out of MIT. It looks like he met with Media Lab Founders about 5 times. It seems like the donation wasn't well known or else I'm sad that we weren't compassionate enough in 2008 to make Epstein the pariah he should've been and avoided this situation altogether. If the optics had been as terrible then as they are now, the Media Lab probably won't have taken the money. I'm guessing the donation wasn't well-published or remained anonymous and they thought they could get the money without consequences. Now, their equation has changed so the Media Lab and Mount Sinai both have to signal a change of hearts. Both of these organizations choose to wait for the media scrutiny, instead of preempting it immediately after his recent arrest. I'm estimating the extent of Epstein's benefit from the Media Lab was very minor. He could pay to open most doors to meet influential people already (like many Democrats and the President). His donation to the Media Lab probably funded a grad student or two and maybe a couple of undergrads as well. I'd say it's probably worth it. But it's difficult to be certain. It's obviously not worth it now with all the scrutiny. I'm glad this scrutiny is happening. MIT should absolutely have to disclose who funds it and should be embarrassed when people find out whether it's the Koch brothers or Epstein. I still think Epstein should be able to donate money and charities, hospitals, and research centers should be able to accept it. I wouldn't ever advise anyone to ever be friends with him or do any sort of business with him, but charities, hospitals, school, and research centers are different. Maybe there's even a good way to accept the donations. Hypothetically, the Media Lab could have publically disclosed the donation at its start, denounced Epstein, and then publically declared the money for a couple of projects that help sex crime victims. Maybe we should pressure and encourage to do something like this or another idea to enable maximum funding to worthy organizations and ensure the criminal faces all the consequences of their crimes. I do believe there has to be some good solution that provides transparency, justice, and charity. Hopefully, these aren't too mutually exclusive. The real tragedy happened when he escaped real punishment in 2008. After that, he probably should've at least served the rest of his life. But he got out because America's justice system is a cash game. At least this time, his rich and powerful friends either killed him or he killed himself. Either way, he didn't escape this time. Maybe that's progress.

glangdale 7y ago

I am familiar with MIT (the CMU of Massachusetts!) and what the Media Lab does. They do some cool things, and some good things, and some things that are both. Nothing that they are doing is sufficiently good, to my way of thinking, to warrant a bunch of "Nazi hypothermia study" or trolleyology comparisons. I think Mount Sinai at the least is a more complex issue, but perhaps not very. In any case, elsewhere you bring up the fact that it is 0.3% of the Media Lab's budget, so it's hard to imagine it having a massive positive effect (I'll get to the obvious negative effect later). But your definition of the question is utterly, flagrantly wrong. You've worked over the question until it bears no resemblance to the actual moral decision that confronted the Media Lab in 2008. We could discuss the question "Can you take money from an evil person to do good things?" in several alternate timelines. In one timeline, Epstein sits down in his office at some point in 2008, writes the media lab a huge cheque, then (rather admirably, compared to the real Epstein) puts a beautifully hand-tooled pistol in his mouth and decorates the back wall with his brains. In another, the Media Lab receives an enormous payment from Epstein in 1998, and is confronting the issue of what to do with the money in 2006 when Epstein's crimes are revealed. In both of these timelines, we could indeed struggle with your "only question" legitimately and all stroke our beards wisely and ponder the age-old "fruit of a poisonous tree" questions and self-congratulate about how nuanced we are and attempt to Google up impressive sounding concepts from half-remembered philosophy courses. However, back in this, the most absurd timeline and the one we're actually living in, Epstein is alive and well and the Media Lab has to decide what to do with the offer of money from an already rich convicted pedophile who is clearly attempting to create legitimacy for themselves and gain access to influential people. The first order effect of accepting this money - the consequence - is to rehabilitate Epstein. It declares to the world that this person is not beyond the pale; he is, in fact, a legitimate person who should still have a role a the highest of tables. It is not just a moral decision in terms of moral absolutism; it's a decision very much rooted in terms of consequences. It is baffling to me the extent to which you don't understand this and resort to falsely characterising my position as moral absolutism. The Nazi medical experiments create a much more complex issue in that the evil is done already - although there is a reasonable argument to say that such things should be deleted from all thought and never legitimised by use - but if you are weighing potential saved lives you might fold on moral absolutism in that case. One can make similar arguments about taking Epstein's money in my alternate timelines. Finally, let's not sneer at "optics". From a pragmatic perspective, taking money from convicted pedophiles after they've been convicted is bad optics for a good reason. It sends a clear message to everyone - abusers and abused alike - that it's pretty easy to bounce back after being an abuser and it's No Big Deal. It was an amazingly stupid move. It was 2008, not 1958. It's not like we all just suddenly learned "hey, don't rape 14-year-olds" last year from a hashtag.

dumbfoundded 7y ago
I think we're getting to the heart of the matter. By the way, I have a lot of respect for CMU as well. I have plenty of criticisms of MIT but very few with the Media Lab. MIT refused to divest from fossil fuels, has a building named after Koch, and develops military through Lincoln Labs. Just to name a few. The question still seems to be "Can you take money from an evil person to do good things?" I think we're both at the point of agreeing that it depends on the details of the situation. I think you make a couple of good points as to why this had a negative impact. Specifically, creating legitimacy for him and enabling him to expand his network of influence are both solid reasons as to why this was a bad idea for them to take the money. As for the positive impact, I point to the work the media lab does. This is why I think it's a tricky decision. As you point out, the amount of money he gave out was pretty small, $170K/year. He also didn't appear to get a lot out of MIT. It looks like he met with Media Lab Founders about 5 times. It seems like the donation wasn't well known or else I'm sad that we weren't compassionate enough in 2008 to make Epstein the pariah he should've been and avoided this situation altogether. If the optics had been as terrible then as they are now, the Media Lab probably won't have taken the money. I'm guessing the donation wasn't well-published or remained anonymous and they thought they could get the money without consequences. Now, their equation has changed so the Media Lab and Mount Sinai both have to signal a change of hearts. Both of these organizations choose to wait for the media scrutiny, instead of preempting it immediately after his recent arrest. I'm estimating the extent of Epstein's benefit from the Media Lab was very minor. He could pay to open most doors to meet influential people already (like many Democrats and the President). His donation to the Media Lab probably funded a grad student or two and maybe a couple of undergrads as well. I'd say it's probably worth it. But it's difficult to be certain. It's obviously not worth it now with all the scrutiny. I'm glad this scrutiny is happening. MIT should absolutely have to disclose who funds it and should be embarrassed when people find out whether it's the Koch brothers or Epstein. I still think Epstein should be able to donate money and charities, hospitals, and research centers should be able to accept it. I wouldn't ever advise anyone to ever be friends with him or do any sort of business with him, but charities, hospitals, school, and research centers are different. Maybe there's even a good way to accept the donations. Hypothetically, the Media Lab could have publically disclosed the donation at its start, denounced Epstein, and then publically declared the money for a couple of projects that help sex crime victims. Maybe we should pressure and encourage to do something like this or another idea to enable maximum funding to worthy organizations and ensure the criminal faces all the consequences of their crimes. I do believe there has to be some good solution that provides transparency, justice, and charity. Hopefully, these aren't too mutually exclusive. The real tragedy happened when he escaped real punishment in 2008. After that, he probably should've at least served the rest of his life. But he got out because America's justice system is a cash game. At least this time, his rich and powerful friends either killed him or he killed himself. Either way, he didn't escape this time. Maybe that's progress.