3 ms·

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

by 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.
      - gugagore 7y ago
        If you're interested in being so logical, you should logically justify: > Refusing to take money from someone is a form of ostracism. Or do we take it just as an axiom? Refusing to accept someone's money in exchange for a good like food, cellphone service, the right to assemble in a private space, whatever are certainly more ostracizing than refusing to accept someone's money in exchange for social capital.
        darawk 7y ago
        I'll refer you to my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20923424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20923424
      - pvg 7y ago
        Refusing to take money from someone is a form of ostracism. Just a quick look at a dictionary suggests otherwise. "2: exclusion by general consent from common privileges or social acceptance". Ostracism has to be public, intend to be burdensome and punitive and employed against some 'common privilege' by, at a minimum, some broad subset of, if not society as a whole, some social group. Laundering your rapey reputation is not a common privilege nor is the private unwillingness of some party to enter in a financial relationship with another 'ostracism'.

by darawk 7y ago

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.
    - gugagore 7y ago
      If you're interested in being so logical, you should logically justify: > Refusing to take money from someone is a form of ostracism. Or do we take it just as an axiom? Refusing to accept someone's money in exchange for a good like food, cellphone service, the right to assemble in a private space, whatever are certainly more ostracizing than refusing to accept someone's money in exchange for social capital.
      - darawk 7y ago
        I'll refer you to my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20923424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20923424
    - pvg 7y ago
      Refusing to take money from someone is a form of ostracism. Just a quick look at a dictionary suggests otherwise. "2: exclusion by general consent from common privileges or social acceptance". Ostracism has to be public, intend to be burdensome and punitive and employed against some 'common privilege' by, at a minimum, some broad subset of, if not society as a whole, some social group. Laundering your rapey reputation is not a common privilege nor is the private unwillingness of some party to enter in a financial relationship with another 'ostracism'.