4 ms·

> 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 f

by 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'.
    - darawk 7y ago
      > 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. Did you even read your own definition? The word 'public' is not in it. Being excluded from donating to MIT precisely matches the definition you yourself just gave. > 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'. Donating to MIT is absolutely a common privilege. Not being able to enter into financial relationships with people is absolutely ostracism. The definition just could not be more clear. Let's go through it word by word, since you seem to be having trouble: "Exclusion from common privileges or social acceptance". 1. Are we talking about excluding Epstein from something? Yes. Excluding him from donating to MIT. 2. Is the ability to donate to MIT a "common privilege"? Yes. Almost everyone on the planet is allowed to donate to MIT. 3. Are we talking about excluding Epstein from this "common privilege" for the purpose of limiting his "social acceptance"? Yes. The reason people want to exclude Epstein from financial ties with MIT is to prevent him from "laundering his reputation" as you say. Why does one want to launder their reputation? To acquire "social acceptance".

by darawk 7y ago

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'.
  - darawk 7y ago
    > 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. Did you even read your own definition? The word 'public' is not in it. Being excluded from donating to MIT precisely matches the definition you yourself just gave. > 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'. Donating to MIT is absolutely a common privilege. Not being able to enter into financial relationships with people is absolutely ostracism. The definition just could not be more clear. Let's go through it word by word, since you seem to be having trouble: "Exclusion from common privileges or social acceptance". 1. Are we talking about excluding Epstein from something? Yes. Excluding him from donating to MIT. 2. Is the ability to donate to MIT a "common privilege"? Yes. Almost everyone on the planet is allowed to donate to MIT. 3. Are we talking about excluding Epstein from this "common privilege" for the purpose of limiting his "social acceptance"? Yes. The reason people want to exclude Epstein from financial ties with MIT is to prevent him from "laundering his reputation" as you say. Why does one want to launder their reputation? To acquire "social acceptance".