7 ms·

If you have a problem with MIT taking Epstein's money, then you have a problem with money in general. We all take money in some fashion from disgusting, psycho

If you have a problem with MIT taking Epstein's money, then you have a problem with money in general. We all take money in some fashion from disgusting, psychotic, and evil people on a regular basis. Particularly so when we're on social security, medicare, or another social program. It's like the people who are against hunting, but who are happy to eat store bought meat.

bb88 7y ago
So taxes are mandatory. They don't change the reputation of a person. Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout, when in fact deep down he's profiting on human misery.
- rowanG077 7y ago
  How do they make a sleazeball look like a boy scout?
  - bb88 7y ago
    The Jeffrey Epstein Modern Art Wing The Jeffrey Epstein Pediatric Fund for Incurable Childhood Illnesses The Jeffrey Epstein Research Lab at MIT The Jeffrey Epstein Fund for Worldwide Peace (Note: some of these I'm sure I made up...)
    - rowanG077 7y ago
      This doesn't answer the question. You really think a person that knows Epstein has done the things he has done and knows about the "The Jeffrey Epstein Research Lab at MIT" is going to think that Epstein is some A OK dude?
      - bb88 7y ago
        Most likely, you didn't know about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein until a Miami Herald reporter started to dig into the story, and then got picked up by national papers. Had that not have happened, most people to this day would still think he's probably an "A OK dude."
        rowanG077 7y ago
        I didn't hear about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein. In fact I didn't know the guy at all. But to disprove your point. If I go back one year with the wayback machine and look at his wikipedia the first sentence on his page mentions he is a registered sex offender[1]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180807122025/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein https://web.archive.org/web/20180807122025/https://en.wikipe...
        bb88 7y ago
        Back in 2008, Epstein was convicted of a single prostitution charge [1]. The word "trafficking" doesn't even appear in that story. It makes it sound like Epstein had a weak moment frankly. It was only after the Miami Herald story came out did we learn about the child trafficking that took place -- and then this year it became a huge national story. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/business/01epstein.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/business/01epstein.html
        rowanG077 7y ago
        I'm not sure the trafficking was even on the radar at that point. The legal proceedings didn't even start yet. It's no wonder it's not on Wikipedia then.
        bb88 7y ago
        There were rumors, and lawsuits. However as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, he was charged with soliciting an underage prostitute -- not child sexual abuse, or child trafficking. But it's still unclear why the US attorney's office refused to investigate the other cases and offered him a sweetheart deal. In any case, the 2008 charges made it sound like he was just looking for sex, not running a child trafficking ring.
        loeg 7y ago
        Convicted, sure. Upthread you said: > Most likely, you didn't know about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein until a Miami Herald reporter started to dig into the story, and then got picked up by national papers. Had that not have happened, most people to this day would still think he's probably an "A OK dude." But I would heartily disagree with that. Allegations of sexual assault of minors had been public from 2008 on, and Epstein settled literally dozens of civil suits from victims prior to the 2018 Herald piece. Allegations of trafficking were made in 2015 by Virginia Roberts. (Also, honestly, isn't a single instance of knowing solicitation of a minor enough? Dude was known to be a creep since at least the 2008 conviction, despite the extremely favorable plea deal.)
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        How do you think he got away with what he did for so long? People would hear 'that Epstein fellow is said to be pedophile' and think 'Jeffrey Epstein, respectable philanthropist? Surely not.' Why are you caping so hard for this guy?
        rowanG077 7y ago
        What do you mean getting away with what he did for so long? He was sentenced more then 10 years ago for having sex with underage girls. Donating money doesn't make you a philanthropist. I'm not caping(? not sure what this means) at all for Epstein. I simply think it beyond ridiculous to fault an institution for taking donations from any individual as if that act implies the institution agrees with all actions that individual has taken.
- davrosthedalek 7y ago
  I agree, but these contributions were anonymous. So the reach of the sleazeball to boy scout effect was limited to the people Epstein talked to anyway, and could see the sleazeballness first hand.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    They were anonymous because the recipients hid the fact of their origin. There are receipts of their conversations about this.
    - loeg 7y ago
      Your comment is problematic for Ito, but non-responsive to the parent comment's argument. The thread is: bb88 proposes that Epstein's charitable giving to MIT was a way to reputation launder ("turn a sleazeball into a boyscout"). davrosthedalek disputed that claim, as the donations were anonymous. The reason for anonymity doesn't matter; the net effect is there is no plausible reputation laundering effect from anonymous donations.
      - davrosthedalek 7y ago
        Is it actually known who requested the anonymization? It's clear that it was required to hide it, but was it something Epstein wanted or only accepted? I didn't see it in any of the articles, but I might have missed it.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  > Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout Well, that's not the sleazeball's or the charity's problem. If you and other people don't think he's a "boy scout" then he won't be seen as one. If you do, he will.
  - bb88 7y ago
    So MIT should be able to accept money profited from Child Traffickers and Drug Cartels?
    - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
      Yes, though that's probably illegal on the donor's side, but I see no problem with MIT receiving it.
      - adamnemecek 7y ago
        Rethink your stance.
        loeg 7y ago
        Unsubstantiated imperative sentences with no further context are not especially compelling arguments and do not meet the usual merit bar for comments on this site.
        adamnemecek 7y ago
        Why do you talk like this "the usual merit bar for comments on this site"?
        loeg 7y ago
        I'm not a perfect writer and sometimes write unclearly; I made a good-faith attempt to express my thought. I am certainly open to learning better ways to phrase my ideas, if you have suggestions.
howeyc 7y ago
I have to agree. This is getting ridiculous. Taking money from an individual does not mean you have administered absolution.

bb88 7y ago

So taxes are mandatory. They don't change the reputation of a person. Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout, when in fact deep down he's profiting on human misery.

rowanG077 7y ago
How do they make a sleazeball look like a boy scout?
- bb88 7y ago
  The Jeffrey Epstein Modern Art Wing The Jeffrey Epstein Pediatric Fund for Incurable Childhood Illnesses The Jeffrey Epstein Research Lab at MIT The Jeffrey Epstein Fund for Worldwide Peace (Note: some of these I'm sure I made up...)
  - rowanG077 7y ago
    This doesn't answer the question. You really think a person that knows Epstein has done the things he has done and knows about the "The Jeffrey Epstein Research Lab at MIT" is going to think that Epstein is some A OK dude?
    - bb88 7y ago
      Most likely, you didn't know about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein until a Miami Herald reporter started to dig into the story, and then got picked up by national papers. Had that not have happened, most people to this day would still think he's probably an "A OK dude."
      - rowanG077 7y ago
        I didn't hear about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein. In fact I didn't know the guy at all. But to disprove your point. If I go back one year with the wayback machine and look at his wikipedia the first sentence on his page mentions he is a registered sex offender[1]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180807122025/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein https://web.archive.org/web/20180807122025/https://en.wikipe...
        bb88 7y ago
        Back in 2008, Epstein was convicted of a single prostitution charge [1]. The word "trafficking" doesn't even appear in that story. It makes it sound like Epstein had a weak moment frankly. It was only after the Miami Herald story came out did we learn about the child trafficking that took place -- and then this year it became a huge national story. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/business/01epstein.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/business/01epstein.html
        rowanG077 7y ago
        I'm not sure the trafficking was even on the radar at that point. The legal proceedings didn't even start yet. It's no wonder it's not on Wikipedia then.
        bb88 7y ago
        There were rumors, and lawsuits. However as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, he was charged with soliciting an underage prostitute -- not child sexual abuse, or child trafficking. But it's still unclear why the US attorney's office refused to investigate the other cases and offered him a sweetheart deal. In any case, the 2008 charges made it sound like he was just looking for sex, not running a child trafficking ring.
        loeg 7y ago
        Convicted, sure. Upthread you said: > Most likely, you didn't know about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein until a Miami Herald reporter started to dig into the story, and then got picked up by national papers. Had that not have happened, most people to this day would still think he's probably an "A OK dude." But I would heartily disagree with that. Allegations of sexual assault of minors had been public from 2008 on, and Epstein settled literally dozens of civil suits from victims prior to the 2018 Herald piece. Allegations of trafficking were made in 2015 by Virginia Roberts. (Also, honestly, isn't a single instance of knowing solicitation of a minor enough? Dude was known to be a creep since at least the 2008 conviction, despite the extremely favorable plea deal.)
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      How do you think he got away with what he did for so long? People would hear 'that Epstein fellow is said to be pedophile' and think 'Jeffrey Epstein, respectable philanthropist? Surely not.' Why are you caping so hard for this guy?
      - rowanG077 7y ago
        What do you mean getting away with what he did for so long? He was sentenced more then 10 years ago for having sex with underage girls. Donating money doesn't make you a philanthropist. I'm not caping(? not sure what this means) at all for Epstein. I simply think it beyond ridiculous to fault an institution for taking donations from any individual as if that act implies the institution agrees with all actions that individual has taken.
davrosthedalek 7y ago
I agree, but these contributions were anonymous. So the reach of the sleazeball to boy scout effect was limited to the people Epstein talked to anyway, and could see the sleazeballness first hand.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  They were anonymous because the recipients hid the fact of their origin. There are receipts of their conversations about this.
  - loeg 7y ago
    Your comment is problematic for Ito, but non-responsive to the parent comment's argument. The thread is: bb88 proposes that Epstein's charitable giving to MIT was a way to reputation launder ("turn a sleazeball into a boyscout"). davrosthedalek disputed that claim, as the donations were anonymous. The reason for anonymity doesn't matter; the net effect is there is no plausible reputation laundering effect from anonymous donations.
    - davrosthedalek 7y ago
      Is it actually known who requested the anonymization? It's clear that it was required to hide it, but was it something Epstein wanted or only accepted? I didn't see it in any of the articles, but I might have missed it.
lone_haxx0r 7y ago
> Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout Well, that's not the sleazeball's or the charity's problem. If you and other people don't think he's a "boy scout" then he won't be seen as one. If you do, he will.
- bb88 7y ago
  So MIT should be able to accept money profited from Child Traffickers and Drug Cartels?
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    Yes, though that's probably illegal on the donor's side, but I see no problem with MIT receiving it.
    - adamnemecek 7y ago
      Rethink your stance.
      - loeg 7y ago
        Unsubstantiated imperative sentences with no further context are not especially compelling arguments and do not meet the usual merit bar for comments on this site.
        adamnemecek 7y ago
        Why do you talk like this "the usual merit bar for comments on this site"?
        loeg 7y ago
        I'm not a perfect writer and sometimes write unclearly; I made a good-faith attempt to express my thought. I am certainly open to learning better ways to phrase my ideas, if you have suggestions.

howeyc 7y ago

I have to agree. This is getting ridiculous. Taking money from an individual does not mean you have administered absolution.