2 ms·
I'm kind of surprised to see the Koch's invoked as true evil that upstanding people accept money from rather than, say, Saudi royalty. There are many examples o
by nullc 7y ago
I'm kind of surprised to see the Koch's invoked as true evil that upstanding people accept money from rather than, say, Saudi royalty. There are many examples of direct murders that universities, corporations, and governments glibly partner with... But maybe I'm not up-to-date on the Koch's.
The details and the timeline of the donor disqualification in the New Yorker article sounded odd to me-- in particular, that it juxtaposed conjecture and unsupported claims with emails to make it sound like the request for anonymity was a workaround for MIT policy yet it didn't actually introduce any factual support for that conclusion.
In particular, when was he disqualified (e.g. before or after things being discussed) and how was this communicated in the institution? These were obvious and surprising omissions in the article. For Joi's sake I hope Lessig's belief on this point is based on more than just the writing smelling suspicious. Regardless, the absence of clarity on details like this is why investigations are superior to lynch mobs.
- matthewbauer 7y agoConsidering the Kochs a level below Epstein is pretty disgusting. I don't think anyone in the Koch family or Koch industries has ever been accused of breaking any criminal laws - although their factories regularly break civil laws. This so called lawyer is intentionally blurring that line. This is definitely a new low for Lessig. We should expect more from influential lawyers.
- dependsontheq 7y agoThey might just be the core reason why America didn’t react on climate change and without the US there can be no relevant global reaction. So at the end... they could well be the reason if we walk off that cliff... So yes I think they are on a different level especially for a university, a university that accepts money from people that are actively trying to fight science to harm everybody...
- tzs 7y agoIf Epstein had limited himself to taking advantage of young girls who had reached the age of consent, so that his relationships were not breaking any laws, would you no longer have a problem with Epstein? Whether or not what someone does breaks the law often his almost nothing to do with the morality of that action or whether or not that action causes harm. That section of the article was more about the taint upon money donated from various types of donors than about the donors themselves. The distinction it is drawing is between people who do bad things but do not derive their money from those bad things (such as Epstein) and people that do bad things and those bad things is the source of the money they are donating (Koch). It's not saying that donors of the former type are necessarily less immoral or evil than donors of the latter type--just that taking their money is not benefiting directly from their immorality or evil.