5 ms·

What are you arguing exactly? We should support disenfranchisement if we believe in institutionally ostracizing rich criminals?

by lvs 7y ago

darawk 7y ago
Yes. I'm saying it's odd to support institutional ostracism for committing a crime, but then turn around and talk about how terrible felony disenfranchisement is. Or how employers shouldn't inquire about criminal history. I'm on the side of not ostracizing people without ongoing evidence of malfeasance, personally. For both varieties. To be clear, if it were shown that Joi Ito or anyone at the MIT lab had reason to think Epstein was still engaging in the behavior for which he was convicted - that is a serious issue.
- pvg 7y ago
  Of course they had reason to think it. Take a look at this exchange between Evgeny Morozov and his Epstein-connected publisher. It reads like pimping, not a professional interaction. https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-inte...
  - darawk 7y ago
    So, this may be threading a narrow needle, but personally I don't think someone should be socially exiled for hiring prostitutes, or merely being lecherous in a non-aggressive way. The insinuation in those exchanges is that the women being referenced were prostitutes, or some such similar arrangement. But I don't think we ought to be exiling people for that, and I don't even think it ought to be illegal. What Epstein did that crossed the line was manipulating under-aged women into prostitution. People society deems to be incapable of making those kinds of choices for themselves. If the women surrounding Epstein and being referenced in these emails were under-aged, then yes, you're right. But if they were consenting adults, I don't really see why him paying other consenting adults to have sex with him should prevent him from being a public intellectual or donating to places like MIT.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - pvg 7y ago
      What people are upset about is not that he was insufficiently ostracized. I don't understand why you keep framing it that way. It's not like he was so reviled he had trouble buying groceries or going to a restaurant. He was fine. Harvard and MIT would have also been 100% fine if they simply didn't take money from a child rapist. The fact they did and knowingly looked the other way is what is appalling.
      - darawk 7y ago
        > What people are upset about is not that he was insufficiently ostracized. > Harvard and MIT would have also been 100% fine if they simply didn't take money from a child rapist. The fact they did and knowingly looked the other way is what is appalling. Do you not believe these statements are literal contradictions of each other?
        pvg 7y ago
        Not at all. Again, this thing with 'ostracizing' is your framing - I don't accept it and, frankly, find it somewhat nauseating. The reporting we have shows that people and institutions both protected and enabled a child rapist. You want to pass it off as, I dunno, quirky rich libertines hung out in the Hamptons and got foot massages and look at us judgy prudes. But that severely misrepresents what happened.
        darawk 7y ago
        > Harvard and MIT would have also been 100% fine if they simply didn't take money from a child rapist. The fact they did and knowingly looked the other way is what is appalling. Refusing to take money from someone is a form of ostracism. Therefore, this statement: > What people are upset about is not that he was insufficiently ostracized. is false. They are literally logical contradictions of each other.
- lvs 7y ago
  False equivalence and straw man. Refusing to associate a private educational institution with a person does not disenfranchise them from participating in government. He should be able to vote with respect to governments, and upstanding private institutions should also ostracize him. There's no logical conflict. In the posted article, they are shown to have engaged in a cover-up to suppress the source of the donations. Obviously they knew such a link would be problematic.
  - darawk 7y ago
    > False equivalence and straw man. Refusing to associate a private educational institution with a person does not disenfranchise them from participating in government. He should be able to vote with respect to governments, and upstanding private institutions should also ostracize him. There's no logical conflict. It's not a false equivalence. There is an equivalence: social sanctions extending beyond the sanction of the courts. And I didn't say that there was a logical contradiction, I was highlighting the moral nuance of this point. The view that social ostracism is ok, but disenfranchisement or employment application questions is not is a very fine needle to thread, in my view. And to be clear, i'm not saying that that needle can't be threaded. Just that I don't think the moral subtlety here is getting the attention it deserves, because Epstein is a popular enemy.

What are you arguing exactly? We should support disenfranchisement if we believe in institutionally ostracizing rich criminals?

by lvs 7y ago

What are you arguing exactly? We should support disenfranchisement if we believe in institutionally ostracizing rich criminals?

darawk 7y ago

Yes. I'm saying it's odd to support institutional ostracism for committing a crime, but then turn around and talk about how terrible felony disenfranchisement is. Or how employers shouldn't inquire about criminal history. I'm on the side of not ostracizing people without ongoing evidence of malfeasance, personally. For both varieties. To be clear, if it were shown that Joi Ito or anyone at the MIT lab had reason to think Epstein was still engaging in the behavior for which he was convicted - that is a serious issue.

pvg 7y ago
Of course they had reason to think it. Take a look at this exchange between Evgeny Morozov and his Epstein-connected publisher. It reads like pimping, not a professional interaction. https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-inte...
- darawk 7y ago
  So, this may be threading a narrow needle, but personally I don't think someone should be socially exiled for hiring prostitutes, or merely being lecherous in a non-aggressive way. The insinuation in those exchanges is that the women being referenced were prostitutes, or some such similar arrangement. But I don't think we ought to be exiling people for that, and I don't even think it ought to be illegal. What Epstein did that crossed the line was manipulating under-aged women into prostitution. People society deems to be incapable of making those kinds of choices for themselves. If the women surrounding Epstein and being referenced in these emails were under-aged, then yes, you're right. But if they were consenting adults, I don't really see why him paying other consenting adults to have sex with him should prevent him from being a public intellectual or donating to places like MIT.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - pvg 7y ago
    What people are upset about is not that he was insufficiently ostracized. I don't understand why you keep framing it that way. It's not like he was so reviled he had trouble buying groceries or going to a restaurant. He was fine. Harvard and MIT would have also been 100% fine if they simply didn't take money from a child rapist. The fact they did and knowingly looked the other way is what is appalling.
    - darawk 7y ago
      > What people are upset about is not that he was insufficiently ostracized. > Harvard and MIT would have also been 100% fine if they simply didn't take money from a child rapist. The fact they did and knowingly looked the other way is what is appalling. Do you not believe these statements are literal contradictions of each other?
      - pvg 7y ago
        Not at all. Again, this thing with 'ostracizing' is your framing - I don't accept it and, frankly, find it somewhat nauseating. The reporting we have shows that people and institutions both protected and enabled a child rapist. You want to pass it off as, I dunno, quirky rich libertines hung out in the Hamptons and got foot massages and look at us judgy prudes. But that severely misrepresents what happened.
        darawk 7y ago
        > Harvard and MIT would have also been 100% fine if they simply didn't take money from a child rapist. The fact they did and knowingly looked the other way is what is appalling. Refusing to take money from someone is a form of ostracism. Therefore, this statement: > What people are upset about is not that he was insufficiently ostracized. is false. They are literally logical contradictions of each other.
lvs 7y ago
False equivalence and straw man. Refusing to associate a private educational institution with a person does not disenfranchise them from participating in government. He should be able to vote with respect to governments, and upstanding private institutions should also ostracize him. There's no logical conflict. In the posted article, they are shown to have engaged in a cover-up to suppress the source of the donations. Obviously they knew such a link would be problematic.
- darawk 7y ago
  > False equivalence and straw man. Refusing to associate a private educational institution with a person does not disenfranchise them from participating in government. He should be able to vote with respect to governments, and upstanding private institutions should also ostracize him. There's no logical conflict. It's not a false equivalence. There is an equivalence: social sanctions extending beyond the sanction of the courts. And I didn't say that there was a logical contradiction, I was highlighting the moral nuance of this point. The view that social ostracism is ok, but disenfranchisement or employment application questions is not is a very fine needle to thread, in my view. And to be clear, i'm not saying that that needle can't be threaded. Just that I don't think the moral subtlety here is getting the attention it deserves, because Epstein is a popular enemy.