5 ms·

> What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? Did you read TFA? I think it's quite clear what "tainted" and "seriously" mean.

by jlebar 7y ago

johnmaguire2013 7y ago
You're being downvoted because your comment breaks this guideline: > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." Can you share what these words mean to you, or your impression of what they meant to the author?
- jlebar 7y ago
  The article discusses at length a systemic cover-up of Epstein's involvement with the Media Lab. Multiple high-level people knew about it, knew that MIT had deemed that donations from him were not welcome, and tried to keep his involvement hidden. In other words, they knew they were doing something wrong, and they did it anyway. From this, it is clear that some people were "seriously tainted" by Epstein's involvement. Is there a question of where to draw the line? Sure. We don't have have all of the information, so clearly we can't draw a line. But when OP says It strikes me as inappropriate to suggest that "Anyone seriously tainted by Epstein should step down". What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? the clear argument is that, because drawing a line is hard, we shouldn't call for any action against those who have stepped over it. That's an insult to his many, many victims and provides cover for his enablers. Honestly it's an affront to women everywhere.
  - nyxxie 7y ago
    > the clear argument is that, because drawing a line is hard, we shouldn't call for any action against those who have stepped over it. I think you're putting words in his mouth. He doesn't want to see no consequences whatsoever for those who were involved with Epstein, GP argues that people are drawing arbitrary boundaries with no clear repeatable definition and then taking action on them. He wants to understand what precisely being "tainted" entails and why a particular definition is deserving of the consequences such a label entails. In other words, he rejects arbitrary and subjective persecution for an objective approach to justice.
leftyted 7y ago
Yeah, well, I don't think it's clear (but please share if you do). I see people in this thread attacking Bill Gates for his relationship with Epstein. I've seen people attacking Steven Pinker for the same reason. To me it seems that certain people are using Epstein as a cudgel in order to remove obstacles from their path. I don't think it's reasonable to expect billionaires, public intellectuals, and the MIT Media Lab to prevent the rich, charismatic, and utterly amoral Epsteins of the world from getting around town. That's the justice system's job. They had him and they let him go. Blaming people who "enabled him" is post-hoc nonsense. I want to know: 1. Did Epstein (as some people have been murmuring) have a relationship with some nation's intelligence agency? 2. Why did the Justice Dept. let him go? 3. Did he blackmail someone? If so, who and how? 4. Did he throw his money around to get off? If so, in what ways exactly. 5. Did two cameras actually "malfunction"? Why was he taken off suicide watch?
- danenania 7y ago
  Of course those are all important questions, but you are clearly presenting a false dichotomy. How about investigating the corruption that let him off the hook and shunning those with power and influence who minimized Epstein’s crimes by choosing to associate with him socially and professionally after the extent of his immorality was common knowledge? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? None of these people would have acted similarly if the person in question was someone like OJ Simpson or Bernie Madoff who had been disgraced for more ‘conventional’ reasons. So why did Epstein get a pass? Is it because many of these people secretly believe that what he did wasn’t so bad? That is, unfortunately, what their behavior appears to communicate.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    > Of course those are all important questions, but you are clearly presenting a false dichotomy. I don't think it's a false dichotomy. I think every ounce of moral outrage spent condemning those who associated with Epstein (and, in some cases, stripping them of their positions) is an ounce less to spend on uncovering how Epstein got off in the first place. Anyway, I suspect we'll be fairly successful at the former and not so successful at the latter.

> What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? Did you read TFA? I think it's quite clear what "tainted" and "seriously" mean.

by jlebar 7y ago

> What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? Did you read TFA? I think it's quite clear what "tainted" and "seriously" mean.

johnmaguire2013 7y ago

You're being downvoted because your comment breaks this guideline: > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." Can you share what these words mean to you, or your impression of what they meant to the author?

jlebar 7y ago
The article discusses at length a systemic cover-up of Epstein's involvement with the Media Lab. Multiple high-level people knew about it, knew that MIT had deemed that donations from him were not welcome, and tried to keep his involvement hidden. In other words, they knew they were doing something wrong, and they did it anyway. From this, it is clear that some people were "seriously tainted" by Epstein's involvement. Is there a question of where to draw the line? Sure. We don't have have all of the information, so clearly we can't draw a line. But when OP says It strikes me as inappropriate to suggest that "Anyone seriously tainted by Epstein should step down". What does "tainted" mean? What does "seriously" mean? the clear argument is that, because drawing a line is hard, we shouldn't call for any action against those who have stepped over it. That's an insult to his many, many victims and provides cover for his enablers. Honestly it's an affront to women everywhere.
- nyxxie 7y ago
  > the clear argument is that, because drawing a line is hard, we shouldn't call for any action against those who have stepped over it. I think you're putting words in his mouth. He doesn't want to see no consequences whatsoever for those who were involved with Epstein, GP argues that people are drawing arbitrary boundaries with no clear repeatable definition and then taking action on them. He wants to understand what precisely being "tainted" entails and why a particular definition is deserving of the consequences such a label entails. In other words, he rejects arbitrary and subjective persecution for an objective approach to justice.

leftyted 7y ago

Yeah, well, I don't think it's clear (but please share if you do). I see people in this thread attacking Bill Gates for his relationship with Epstein. I've seen people attacking Steven Pinker for the same reason. To me it seems that certain people are using Epstein as a cudgel in order to remove obstacles from their path. I don't think it's reasonable to expect billionaires, public intellectuals, and the MIT Media Lab to prevent the rich, charismatic, and utterly amoral Epsteins of the world from getting around town. That's the justice system's job. They had him and they let him go. Blaming people who "enabled him" is post-hoc nonsense. I want to know: 1. Did Epstein (as some people have been murmuring) have a relationship with some nation's intelligence agency? 2. Why did the Justice Dept. let him go? 3. Did he blackmail someone? If so, who and how? 4. Did he throw his money around to get off? If so, in what ways exactly. 5. Did two cameras actually "malfunction"? Why was he taken off suicide watch?

danenania 7y ago
Of course those are all important questions, but you are clearly presenting a false dichotomy. How about investigating the corruption that let him off the hook and shunning those with power and influence who minimized Epstein’s crimes by choosing to associate with him socially and professionally after the extent of his immorality was common knowledge? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? None of these people would have acted similarly if the person in question was someone like OJ Simpson or Bernie Madoff who had been disgraced for more ‘conventional’ reasons. So why did Epstein get a pass? Is it because many of these people secretly believe that what he did wasn’t so bad? That is, unfortunately, what their behavior appears to communicate.
- leftyted 7y ago
  > Of course those are all important questions, but you are clearly presenting a false dichotomy. I don't think it's a false dichotomy. I think every ounce of moral outrage spent condemning those who associated with Epstein (and, in some cases, stripping them of their positions) is an ounce less to spend on uncovering how Epstein got off in the first place. Anyway, I suspect we'll be fairly successful at the former and not so successful at the latter.