> Just a quick look at a dictionary suggests otherwise. "2: exclusion by general consent from common privileges or social acceptance". Ostracism has to be publi

> Just a quick look at a dictionary suggests otherwise. "2: exclusion by general consent from common privileges or social acceptance". Ostracism has to be public, intend to be burdensome and punitive and employed against some 'common privilege' by, at a minimum, some broad subset of, if not society as a whole, some social group. Did you even read your own definition? The word 'public' is not in it. Being excluded from donating to MIT precisely matches the definition you yourself just gave. > Laundering your rapey reputation is not a common privilege nor is the private unwillingness of some party to enter in a financial relationship with another 'ostracism'. Donating to MIT is absolutely a common privilege. Not being able to enter into financial relationships with people is absolutely ostracism. The definition just could not be more clear. Let's go through it word by word, since you seem to be having trouble: "Exclusion from common privileges or social acceptance". 1. Are we talking about excluding Epstein from something? Yes. Excluding him from donating to MIT. 2. Is the ability to donate to MIT a "common privilege"? Yes. Almost everyone on the planet is allowed to donate to MIT. 3. Are we talking about excluding Epstein from this "common privilege" for the purpose of limiting his "social acceptance"? Yes. The reason people want to exclude Epstein from financial ties with MIT is to prevent him from "laundering his reputation" as you say. Why does one want to launder their reputation? To acquire "social acceptance".