3 ms·
There are plenty of “nonviolent” crimes that are so reprehensible that civilized society should turn its back on the perpetrator. Epstein has committed one or
by i_am_nomad 7y ago
There are plenty of “nonviolent” crimes that are so reprehensible that civilized society should turn its back on the perpetrator. Epstein has committed one or (very likely) more of these. And, with regards to your odd mention of felony disenfranchisement: felons should be able to vote, just as revolting sexual predators should.
- darawk 7y agoIs paying a 16 year old girl to have sex with you so reprehensible that society should turn its back on you forever? It's bad, don't get me wrong. And Epstein got off lightly for it. But in my book it doesn't rise to the level of "socially exiled forever". Now, what Epstein ended up being guilty of in retrospect - that gets up into "socially exiled forever" territory. But what was known at the time? I'm not so sure.
- Gabriel_Martin 7y agoYikes. Absolutely it is if we're talking about an organization who also looks after students.
- darawk 7y agoStudents at MIT are of legal age, what does them looking after students have to do with anything?
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoThe victims of #metoo were of legal age too.
- darawk 7y agoWhat is your point? Should Louis CK not be able to donate to MIT either?
- i_am_nomad 7y agoIt wasn’t just one 16 year old girl, and any educated person dealing with Epstein either knew this or should have. The term “Lolita Express” was widely known for years before the current scandal broke. A simple google of Epstein any time after 2008 would have revealed what kind of person he was. So yes, he should have been exiled by the people in his public life.
- darawk 7y agoLike I said, if it was widely known that he was continuing to engage in this behavior, then I agree, he should have been exiled.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoIt was widely known especially in his social circle. Which is why he should have been exiled. And why the fact that he wasn't raises some very uncomfortable questions for the entire industry.
- darawk 7y agoIt was widely known that he kept attractive women around and probably slept with them. It was widely known that these women were probably prostitutes. But so what? The moral transgression here is not sleeping with prostitutes or being lecherous. The moral transgression is conscripting underage girls into prostitution. And it's not at all clear that that was widely known in his social circle.