5 ms·

Why should we believe Benford? How do we know there weren't other incidents? Given Minsky's well-established long-running ties to Epstein, I don't think we can

by bbanyc 7y ago

Why should we believe Benford? How do we know there weren't other incidents? Given Minsky's well-established long-running ties to Epstein, I don't think we can afford not to believe the allegations against him. I find it especially painful because I was once a student in one of his courses, it was a great experience and I didn't suspect a thing about him - but you never know. Never meet your heroes. Never have heroes.

nullc 7y ago
> Why should we believe Benford? You could start with because the claim Minsky went along with it was never offered by the accuser in the first place! There is something to debate about how far you should believe accusations without investigation or evidence ... but this isn't that, this is jumping to hysterical ends without even an accusation being made, assuming the worst about someone whom-- as far as I know-- no one had even the slightest concern about, even in the face of contradicting evidence. It's an area that deserves more investigation and inquiry, but as far as I can tell-- that's it. I don't know how to see that as anything but a straight up witchhunt where no one targeted could ever be found innocent. My above comment is now, I think, my highest upvoted HN comment ever, even though it is a striking contrast to most of the posts in this thread. I suspect a lot of people are afraid of challenging the witchhunt.
- bbanyc 7y ago
  Even if everything Benford said is true and there were no other incidents, Minsky still knew that Epstein was pimping young girls out at his conferences and kept taking Epstein's money and attending the conferences for years afterward. That's awfully damning.
- morelisp 7y ago
  > I don't know how to see that as anything but a straight up witchhunt where no one targeted could ever be found innocent. Perhaps literally no one partying with the (confessed, convicted) pedophile and his suddenly definitely-consenting-and-of-legal-age entourage was innocent.
  - cjbprime 7y ago
    Specifically, the most charitable Minsky interpretation which we're being persuaded to take here seems to go something like: * in 2002, Minsky asks Epstein to host an AI conference for him on his island * while there, is apparently angry to discover that Epstein is prostituting girls * later in the 2000s, presumably discovers that Epstein has now been convicted of prostituting girls * in 2011, Minsky asks Epstein to host an AI conference for him on his island, again ...
    - nullc 7y ago
      Where are you getting the idea that Minsky knew any of it was at Epstein's direction or that she was underage? The description by Benford was that at Epstein's event a young woman explicitly propositioned Minsky, he rejected her advance and was put off by the experience enough to remark to Benford about it. It might well be that there were additional details-- that the offer was "Hi, I'm 17 and my boss says I need to have sex with you", or what not, and I'd agree with you if that were the case-- but no one there has suggested this yet. Nothing obligates you to take the most charitable interpretation, but if you're going to claim you are doing so you ought to actually try. I'll grant you that it sounds like it should have been inescapable to Minsky that Epstein surrounded himself with women where there were huge age and power imbalances, to the point of it being obviously creepy. But the same could be said about, say, Richard Branson or Donald Trump. It's a big jump to go from your original allegation of Minsky engaging in statutory rape and prostitution to 'he had to know that this guy running events for him was at least a bit of a creep'. Maybe once investigations happen and disclosures are made it turns out that Minsky really did partake in those awful things but at this point they haven't even been factually alleged, much less persuasively demonstrated.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - pryce 7y ago
        I don't believe you responded cjbprime's point here at all. To make it 100% clear: the most sympathetic reading of Minksy's defense seems highly implausible: that he noticed and objected to prostituion of girls on Epsteins island in 2002 and subsequently, after Epstein's public conviction for trafficking girls and after encountering prostitution on Epstein's private island the first time, he still decided to host a different conference on Epstein's private island, this time in 2011. The reading of this accusation is: if we allow that Minsky decided prostitution on Epstein's private island objectionable the first time, we are forced to ask how objectionable that could really be given that: it can't have mattered to him enough to go to a different venue for his 2011 conference. Other relevant factors include how close Minsky and Epstein were. I believe Minsky's name and contact details appear in Epstein's black book; which certainly doesn't establish guilt, but should equally certainly justify at least some amount of suspicion.

by bbanyc 7y ago

nullc 7y ago

> Why should we believe Benford? You could start with because the claim Minsky went along with it was never offered by the accuser in the first place! There is something to debate about how far you should believe accusations without investigation or evidence ... but this isn't that, this is jumping to hysterical ends without even an accusation being made, assuming the worst about someone whom-- as far as I know-- no one had even the slightest concern about, even in the face of contradicting evidence. It's an area that deserves more investigation and inquiry, but as far as I can tell-- that's it. I don't know how to see that as anything but a straight up witchhunt where no one targeted could ever be found innocent. My above comment is now, I think, my highest upvoted HN comment ever, even though it is a striking contrast to most of the posts in this thread. I suspect a lot of people are afraid of challenging the witchhunt.

bbanyc 7y ago
Even if everything Benford said is true and there were no other incidents, Minsky still knew that Epstein was pimping young girls out at his conferences and kept taking Epstein's money and attending the conferences for years afterward. That's awfully damning.
morelisp 7y ago
> I don't know how to see that as anything but a straight up witchhunt where no one targeted could ever be found innocent. Perhaps literally no one partying with the (confessed, convicted) pedophile and his suddenly definitely-consenting-and-of-legal-age entourage was innocent.
- cjbprime 7y ago
  Specifically, the most charitable Minsky interpretation which we're being persuaded to take here seems to go something like: * in 2002, Minsky asks Epstein to host an AI conference for him on his island * while there, is apparently angry to discover that Epstein is prostituting girls * later in the 2000s, presumably discovers that Epstein has now been convicted of prostituting girls * in 2011, Minsky asks Epstein to host an AI conference for him on his island, again ...
  - nullc 7y ago
    Where are you getting the idea that Minsky knew any of it was at Epstein's direction or that she was underage? The description by Benford was that at Epstein's event a young woman explicitly propositioned Minsky, he rejected her advance and was put off by the experience enough to remark to Benford about it. It might well be that there were additional details-- that the offer was "Hi, I'm 17 and my boss says I need to have sex with you", or what not, and I'd agree with you if that were the case-- but no one there has suggested this yet. Nothing obligates you to take the most charitable interpretation, but if you're going to claim you are doing so you ought to actually try. I'll grant you that it sounds like it should have been inescapable to Minsky that Epstein surrounded himself with women where there were huge age and power imbalances, to the point of it being obviously creepy. But the same could be said about, say, Richard Branson or Donald Trump. It's a big jump to go from your original allegation of Minsky engaging in statutory rape and prostitution to 'he had to know that this guy running events for him was at least a bit of a creep'. Maybe once investigations happen and disclosures are made it turns out that Minsky really did partake in those awful things but at this point they haven't even been factually alleged, much less persuasively demonstrated.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - pryce 7y ago
      I don't believe you responded cjbprime's point here at all. To make it 100% clear: the most sympathetic reading of Minksy's defense seems highly implausible: that he noticed and objected to prostituion of girls on Epsteins island in 2002 and subsequently, after Epstein's public conviction for trafficking girls and after encountering prostitution on Epstein's private island the first time, he still decided to host a different conference on Epstein's private island, this time in 2011. The reading of this accusation is: if we allow that Minsky decided prostitution on Epstein's private island objectionable the first time, we are forced to ask how objectionable that could really be given that: it can't have mattered to him enough to go to a different venue for his 2011 conference. Other relevant factors include how close Minsky and Epstein were. I believe Minsky's name and contact details appear in Epstein's black book; which certainly doesn't establish guilt, but should equally certainly justify at least some amount of suspicion.