3 ms·

As someone who's been following the Epstein case for some time and having seen different communities deal with it, I think in the case of Gates a lot of people

As someone who's been following the Epstein case for some time and having seen different communities deal with it, I think in the case of Gates a lot of people really looked up to him and refuse to believe that he would do this. There are even comments in this thread about it not being Gates' style. When you look at the whole Epstein story, the people and the patterns, it's pretty clear that Gates was in a very questionable relationship with Epstein. The MIT donations, the senior Gates employee being the executor of Epstein's will, Gates' denials of knowing Epstein before the NYT article hit and his failure to address his flights with Epstein and meetings at his houses, Gates' email to staff about meeting with Epstein and a "beautiful Swedish woman and her 15 year old daughter, late into the night"... With Gates in particular a lot of people seem willfully ignorant or have a strong desire not to dig deeper. It was a the same with Matt Gronenig. Prince Andrew, Dershkowitz, Wexner... I think every assumes the worst there but a lot of people are struggling to digest their actual heroes turning out to be much less than they thought.

jacobush 7y ago
I agree but what makes it so hard to swallow is that phrase, "be much less than they thought", should really be "be much more than they thought". I mean, your heroes sometimes turn out to be all that and so many more, horrible things. It's hard to fathom that people can contain good and bad qualities, and after the fact push them aside among "bad people". But if you do this, you won't learn anything, or be watchful of your remaining heroes. Next time you idolize someone, remember that. They may be more things and those things may not all be pretty.
- lozf 7y ago
  > I agree but what makes it so hard to swallow is that phrase, "be much less than they thought", should really be "be much more than they thought" The English Language strikes again. Apologies for wandering off-topic, but to (hopefully) clarify: You're thinking of less / more in the quantitative sense, suggesting some people have _more_ traits, some of which are unpleasant. I think GP was using less in the qualitative sense - "a lesser person for lacking moral fiber", if you will. Both are valid, but contextual ambiguity interferes with interpretation.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Agreed. I just grabbed a hook in the text to latch onto a mindset I think is prevalent. (Closely related to "us vs them", the in-group and the out-group, etc.)

jacobush 7y ago

I agree but what makes it so hard to swallow is that phrase, "be much less than they thought", should really be "be much more than they thought". I mean, your heroes sometimes turn out to be all that and so many more, horrible things. It's hard to fathom that people can contain good and bad qualities, and after the fact push them aside among "bad people". But if you do this, you won't learn anything, or be watchful of your remaining heroes. Next time you idolize someone, remember that. They may be more things and those things may not all be pretty.

lozf 7y ago
> I agree but what makes it so hard to swallow is that phrase, "be much less than they thought", should really be "be much more than they thought" The English Language strikes again. Apologies for wandering off-topic, but to (hopefully) clarify: You're thinking of less / more in the quantitative sense, suggesting some people have _more_ traits, some of which are unpleasant. I think GP was using less in the qualitative sense - "a lesser person for lacking moral fiber", if you will. Both are valid, but contextual ambiguity interferes with interpretation.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Agreed. I just grabbed a hook in the text to latch onto a mindset I think is prevalent. (Closely related to "us vs them", the in-group and the out-group, etc.)