4 ms·

There is precisely zero need for assumption here. The only way Epstein's behavior could have been more in the open is if he were advertising screenings of the "

by rosser 7y ago

There is precisely zero need for assumption here. The only way Epstein's behavior could have been more in the open is if he were advertising screenings of the "home movies" he made with these girls. When you continue to associate with that guy, you're saying, "People who do that are okay with us." That's normalization. Especially when, say, your day job is as the head of a pretty damned prestigious institution like Joichi-san. There is, in principle, no difference between this situation and all of the museums and whatever distancing themselves from the Sackler family and their opioid money. You don't get to white-wash killing tens of thousands of people for profit by having a new museum wing bear your name, just like you don't get to wash your hands of trafficking children for sex, just because you funded some AI research.

davrosthedalek 7y ago
I don't get this. If it was so clearly obvious that he was breaking the law, why was he not in jail? Isn't that a bigger scandal?
- liability 7y ago
  > Isn't that a bigger scandal? It was/is. That angle of the story has received a great deal of attention.
- nemothekid 7y ago
  >If it was so clearly obvious that he was breaking the law, why was he not in jail? The Harvey Weinstein shitshow happened in 2018, just last year. People openly knew what he was doing back in 2005.
- CrazyStat 7y ago
  He did 13 months in jail with "work release" so he wasn't even in jail most of the time. The prosecutor who agreed to this absurdly lenient sentence went on to become a member of Trump's cabinet. He recently resigned.
matz1 7y ago
Just because he has been convicted before doesn't mean this time he did it again. Thats for the police to figure out. I disagree, even if its proven he did it, taking money and hanging out with child trafficker doesn't mean one condone the practice of the trafficking itself.
- rosser 7y ago
  > ...doesn't mean one condone the practice... Ohai, goalpost. I thought we were talking about normalizing things, not condoning them.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Sorry let me rewrite that, hanging out with child trafficker doesn't mean normalizing child trafficking. What makes Child trafficking normal is if the law enforcement doesn't do anything.
    - rosser 7y ago
      Please take some effort to improve your understanding of the notion of "social norms", how they're enforced, and how they evolve. I promise you, a person in a position of prestige or power openly, willingly associating with — even benefiting from — someone who is known to have committed a transgressive act is definitional of normalization.
      - matz1 7y ago
        Normalization of what ? 1. Normalization of the act of associating with someone that commit transgressive act or 2. Normalization of the transgressive act itself I agree with the first one but not the 2nd one.
        rosser 7y ago
        How about: 3. Normalization of people who commit transgressive acts. Once again, for the nosebleed seats: this whole argument is about how the Media Lab's taking Epstein's money, and welcoming him on the premises, conveys the message, "Well, he can't be that bad." Remember how we follow the behavior of people more than their words, in determining what is and isn't acceptable? When people tell us one thing, and behave differently, we pretty reliably follow one of those over the other. So it does not matter how many times anyone says Epstein was a shitty guy who behaved shittily. Every single word is utterly undermined by the press release photo of him and Joichi-san smiling and shaking hands, or whatever. EDIT: So, while normalizing the person isn't directly normalizing the behavior, it's also kinda a distinction without a difference. A person who wants to behave like Epstein has been shown that he's still able to be socially accepted, even at the very highest levels of society, even if he does the thing that brazenly. How, exactly, is that not normalizing the behavior? In what possible way is that not all kinds of "Eh, whatever..." over something so egregious?

by rosser 7y ago

davrosthedalek 7y ago

I don't get this. If it was so clearly obvious that he was breaking the law, why was he not in jail? Isn't that a bigger scandal?

liability 7y ago
> Isn't that a bigger scandal? It was/is. That angle of the story has received a great deal of attention.
nemothekid 7y ago
>If it was so clearly obvious that he was breaking the law, why was he not in jail? The Harvey Weinstein shitshow happened in 2018, just last year. People openly knew what he was doing back in 2005.
CrazyStat 7y ago
He did 13 months in jail with "work release" so he wasn't even in jail most of the time. The prosecutor who agreed to this absurdly lenient sentence went on to become a member of Trump's cabinet. He recently resigned.

matz1 7y ago

Just because he has been convicted before doesn't mean this time he did it again. Thats for the police to figure out. I disagree, even if its proven he did it, taking money and hanging out with child trafficker doesn't mean one condone the practice of the trafficking itself.

rosser 7y ago
> ...doesn't mean one condone the practice... Ohai, goalpost. I thought we were talking about normalizing things, not condoning them.
- matz1 7y ago
  Sorry let me rewrite that, hanging out with child trafficker doesn't mean normalizing child trafficking. What makes Child trafficking normal is if the law enforcement doesn't do anything.
  - rosser 7y ago
    Please take some effort to improve your understanding of the notion of "social norms", how they're enforced, and how they evolve. I promise you, a person in a position of prestige or power openly, willingly associating with — even benefiting from — someone who is known to have committed a transgressive act is definitional of normalization.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Normalization of what ? 1. Normalization of the act of associating with someone that commit transgressive act or 2. Normalization of the transgressive act itself I agree with the first one but not the 2nd one.
      - rosser 7y ago
        How about: 3. Normalization of people who commit transgressive acts. Once again, for the nosebleed seats: this whole argument is about how the Media Lab's taking Epstein's money, and welcoming him on the premises, conveys the message, "Well, he can't be that bad." Remember how we follow the behavior of people more than their words, in determining what is and isn't acceptable? When people tell us one thing, and behave differently, we pretty reliably follow one of those over the other. So it does not matter how many times anyone says Epstein was a shitty guy who behaved shittily. Every single word is utterly undermined by the press release photo of him and Joichi-san smiling and shaking hands, or whatever. EDIT: So, while normalizing the person isn't directly normalizing the behavior, it's also kinda a distinction without a difference. A person who wants to behave like Epstein has been shown that he's still able to be socially accepted, even at the very highest levels of society, even if he does the thing that brazenly. How, exactly, is that not normalizing the behavior? In what possible way is that not all kinds of "Eh, whatever..." over something so egregious?