5 ms·

I agree that one may reasonably ask that. But there are much easier ways to acquire power and influence if you are extremely wealthy. The only reasonable concl

by darawk 6y ago

I agree that one may reasonably ask that. But there are much easier ways to acquire power and influence if you are extremely wealthy. The only reasonable conclusion you can draw about the man is that he was both legitimately interested in furthering science and interested in acquiring personal power. That doesn't make anything he did any better, and we shouldn't say things like "well, he did all this sexual abuse, but he also funded science". I'm not advocating that. But I also think it's overly reductionist and cynical to say that he was funding science for the sole purpose of insulating himself from legal prosecution for abusing women. It's just a ridiculously inefficient way to do that, if that's your only goal. My broader point is that I think we need to be better about handling moral, not ambiguity, but...ambivalence? Epstein is not a morally ambiguous character, but he did do more than one thing in his life. Some of those things were good, some of those things were bad. The bad things unequivocally outweigh the good things, but it doesn't mean we have to erase them, or find some way rube-goldbergian way to re-evaluate them as actually sinister. Which is also not to say that we shouldn't think carefully about the kind of power/legitimacy conferred by Epstein's activities. I think that's a legitimate and important discussion. But i'd find the inability to handle multi-dimensionality in some of these discussions strange.

tptacek 6y ago
He was insulating himself from criminal charges for abusing children. He raped children. He had children trafficked so that he could rape them, and then hand them off to his influential friends to rape again.
- darawk 6y ago
  Werner Von Braun was an actual nazi. He was also a great scientist. The world is just complicated sometimes. The idea that all his science funding was an elaborate ruse to insulate himself from prosecution is just not a very well grounded view. His chosen method of insulation was terribly inefficient with respect to time and money. He would have gotten a much better ROI by investing in politicians directly, the fact that he chose to focus more on science than politics makes it pretty clear that he had a genuine interest/passion for it. I don't see why he can't like science for its own sake and be a child abuser. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Epstein is not a great scientist. In fact, he's not a scientist at all.
    - darawk 6y ago
      That wasn't my point. My point was that people can simultaneously do evil things and like science.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Have you considered the option that Epstein didn't like science as such but liked the influence and air of respectability that hanging out with scientists and being seen as a supporter gave him? It could easily be a form of whitewashing of his reputation that he would not be able to do otherwise. Nothing spells 'good guy' more clearly than large donations to science and education.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - haffenloher 6y ago
    > Werner Von Braun was an actual nazi. He was also a great scientist. Some recent research suggests he might not have been that great a scientist after all. The story goes that he was an impostor who got to his position mostly due to his influential father and whose main skill was managing others who did the actual work. Here's a bachelor's thesis from 2018 and an interview with the author - both in German, unfortunately: https://www.christopherlauer.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Christopher-Lauer-Umst%C3%A4nde-und-Voraussetzungen-f%C3%BCr-Wernher-von-Brauns-Eintritt-in-das-Heereswaffenamt-Pr%C3%BCfwesen-FINAL-Kopie-f%C3%BCr-Ver%C3%B6ffentlichung-im-Internet.pdf https://www.christopherlauer.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/C... https://wrint.de/2019/01/15/wr903-wernher-von-braun/ https://wrint.de/2019/01/15/wr903-wernher-von-braun/
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  What are you even arguing??? Yes, everyone knows that. It was horrible. But that doesn't tell us whether he had one motivation or two motivations in donating the way he did. I could understand if you were saying "we should focus on his horrific crimes, and not care about what his motivation was in donating". But that can't be it, because you've also been posting in-depth about what his motivation was in donating. So why are you making this post? I really hope it's not that you're trying to make it so awkward to respond that you 'win' the argument. But I can't think of any other non-hypocritical motivation.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    That "Epstein abused women" was not an accurate description of his behavior. I think I was plenty clear.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Oh, you're complaining about one badly-chosen word. Women instead of girls. Well I look dumb. Sorry. But do you have any response to the other 99% of that post? > I think I was plenty clear. Normally people, especially those already in the reply chain, reply to the main argument of posts, so I don't think it was sufficiently clear. I would suggest quoting the part you're responding to if it's that small a section.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      For what its worth, it was totally lost on me too. I thought it was a non-sequitur rant ignoring the entirety of the post
    - hlfy_hn 6y ago
      Well, in many countries in Europe, 14 years of age is considered age of consent.
      - mcv 6y ago
        But that doesn't mean they're legally adult. Or that it's fine to pressure them into sex with older men.
danans 6y ago
> But there are much easier ways to acquire power and influence if you are extremely wealthy. Please elaborate, and include details of how those ways don't involve currying favor (using money and other things) with highly influential people and the institutions they are associated with. It's not so easy to bribe a public prosecutor, which is why the extremely wealthy in need of a reputation bailout purchase it from those who are currently publicly reputable by virtue of the institution they are associated with (i.e MIT or Harvard). The dimensions of people's lives are not as independent as you suggest which is why we have the concept of the conflict of interest.
- darawk 6y ago
  > Please elaborate, and include details of how those ways don't involve currying favor (using money and other things) with highly influential people and the institutions they are associated with. Invest in local politicians by making dinners, hosting parties, etc..and slowly work your way up the stack. It's true that Epstein did some of this, but from a pure power perspective, he would have gotten better returns by allocating his science money/time towards politicians directly. > The dimensions of people's lives are not as independent as you suggest which is why we have the concept of the conflict of interest. To be clear, i'm not suggesting that acquiring power/insulation was not one of the purposes of his science funding. What I am saying is that I don't think it was his sole motivation, and that describing it that way seems to me like an over-simplification designed to other him, so that we can all feel like he's completely unlike us. People on HN like science and technology, which means he shares something in common with us, and I think that makes people uncomfortable, so they want to deny it.
  - pcwalton 6y ago
    > It's true that Epstein did some of this, but from a pure power perspective, he would have gotten better returns by allocating his science money/time towards politicians directly. That carries the risk of ending up with a felony campaign finance violation like Dinesh D'Souza's. Epstein was evil, not stupid.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
cjbprime 6y ago
No-one is arguing that humans can't be complicated enough to have separate and complex facets to their lives. We're arguing that, in this case, the facets weren't actually separate. Here is a quote from a New York Magazine writer, quoting Epstein when he (the writer) asked to interview him about his conviction for molesting a 14 year-old: > "Have you managed to talk to many of my friends?" Epstein had been supplying me the phone numbers of important scientists and financiers and media figures. "Do you understand what an extraordinary group of people they are, what they have accomplished in their fields?" This is an attempt to intertwine the two aspects of his life that you claim were disconnected. It was not the only similar attempt. http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/ http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/
- darawk 6y ago
  I'm not saying they were completely disconnected. What i'm saying is that he very clearly had a legitimate interest/passion for science. He could have acquired power and influence in much more efficient ways than funding the MIT media lab, but he chose the things he did because he liked them. I think people here don't want to believe he legitimately liked science because they think of that as a "good" trait, and they don't want a "bad" person to have any "good" traits. And I think that way of viewing the world ends up doing more harm than good.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - cjbprime 6y ago
    It's not that clear. The sense I picked up from reading accounts of people who've met him in scientific contexts is that he would ask nonsensical questions, exhibiting an unwillingness to put in the effort to understand the basics of the fields he sponsored. It doesn't sound very passionate to me. For example, from an article: > The Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker said he considered Epstein as an "intellectual impostor”.
    - lkois 6y ago

by darawk 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

He was insulating himself from criminal charges for abusing children. He raped children. He had children trafficked so that he could rape them, and then hand them off to his influential friends to rape again.

darawk 6y ago
Werner Von Braun was an actual nazi. He was also a great scientist. The world is just complicated sometimes. The idea that all his science funding was an elaborate ruse to insulate himself from prosecution is just not a very well grounded view. His chosen method of insulation was terribly inefficient with respect to time and money. He would have gotten a much better ROI by investing in politicians directly, the fact that he chose to focus more on science than politics makes it pretty clear that he had a genuine interest/passion for it. I don't see why he can't like science for its own sake and be a child abuser. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Epstein is not a great scientist. In fact, he's not a scientist at all.
  - darawk 6y ago
    That wasn't my point. My point was that people can simultaneously do evil things and like science.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Have you considered the option that Epstein didn't like science as such but liked the influence and air of respectability that hanging out with scientists and being seen as a supporter gave him? It could easily be a form of whitewashing of his reputation that he would not be able to do otherwise. Nothing spells 'good guy' more clearly than large donations to science and education.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- haffenloher 6y ago
  > Werner Von Braun was an actual nazi. He was also a great scientist. Some recent research suggests he might not have been that great a scientist after all. The story goes that he was an impostor who got to his position mostly due to his influential father and whose main skill was managing others who did the actual work. Here's a bachelor's thesis from 2018 and an interview with the author - both in German, unfortunately: https://www.christopherlauer.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Christopher-Lauer-Umst%C3%A4nde-und-Voraussetzungen-f%C3%BCr-Wernher-von-Brauns-Eintritt-in-das-Heereswaffenamt-Pr%C3%BCfwesen-FINAL-Kopie-f%C3%BCr-Ver%C3%B6ffentlichung-im-Internet.pdf https://www.christopherlauer.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/C... https://wrint.de/2019/01/15/wr903-wernher-von-braun/ https://wrint.de/2019/01/15/wr903-wernher-von-braun/
Dylan16807 6y ago
What are you even arguing??? Yes, everyone knows that. It was horrible. But that doesn't tell us whether he had one motivation or two motivations in donating the way he did. I could understand if you were saying "we should focus on his horrific crimes, and not care about what his motivation was in donating". But that can't be it, because you've also been posting in-depth about what his motivation was in donating. So why are you making this post? I really hope it's not that you're trying to make it so awkward to respond that you 'win' the argument. But I can't think of any other non-hypocritical motivation.
- tptacek 6y ago
  That "Epstein abused women" was not an accurate description of his behavior. I think I was plenty clear.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Oh, you're complaining about one badly-chosen word. Women instead of girls. Well I look dumb. Sorry. But do you have any response to the other 99% of that post? > I think I was plenty clear. Normally people, especially those already in the reply chain, reply to the main argument of posts, so I don't think it was sufficiently clear. I would suggest quoting the part you're responding to if it's that small a section.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    For what its worth, it was totally lost on me too. I thought it was a non-sequitur rant ignoring the entirety of the post
  - hlfy_hn 6y ago
    Well, in many countries in Europe, 14 years of age is considered age of consent.
    - mcv 6y ago
      But that doesn't mean they're legally adult. Or that it's fine to pressure them into sex with older men.

danans 6y ago

> But there are much easier ways to acquire power and influence if you are extremely wealthy. Please elaborate, and include details of how those ways don't involve currying favor (using money and other things) with highly influential people and the institutions they are associated with. It's not so easy to bribe a public prosecutor, which is why the extremely wealthy in need of a reputation bailout purchase it from those who are currently publicly reputable by virtue of the institution they are associated with (i.e MIT or Harvard). The dimensions of people's lives are not as independent as you suggest which is why we have the concept of the conflict of interest.

darawk 6y ago
> Please elaborate, and include details of how those ways don't involve currying favor (using money and other things) with highly influential people and the institutions they are associated with. Invest in local politicians by making dinners, hosting parties, etc..and slowly work your way up the stack. It's true that Epstein did some of this, but from a pure power perspective, he would have gotten better returns by allocating his science money/time towards politicians directly. > The dimensions of people's lives are not as independent as you suggest which is why we have the concept of the conflict of interest. To be clear, i'm not suggesting that acquiring power/insulation was not one of the purposes of his science funding. What I am saying is that I don't think it was his sole motivation, and that describing it that way seems to me like an over-simplification designed to other him, so that we can all feel like he's completely unlike us. People on HN like science and technology, which means he shares something in common with us, and I think that makes people uncomfortable, so they want to deny it.
- pcwalton 6y ago
  > It's true that Epstein did some of this, but from a pure power perspective, he would have gotten better returns by allocating his science money/time towards politicians directly. That carries the risk of ending up with a felony campaign finance violation like Dinesh D'Souza's. Epstein was evil, not stupid.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

cjbprime 6y ago

No-one is arguing that humans can't be complicated enough to have separate and complex facets to their lives. We're arguing that, in this case, the facets weren't actually separate. Here is a quote from a New York Magazine writer, quoting Epstein when he (the writer) asked to interview him about his conviction for molesting a 14 year-old: > "Have you managed to talk to many of my friends?" Epstein had been supplying me the phone numbers of important scientists and financiers and media figures. "Do you understand what an extraordinary group of people they are, what they have accomplished in their fields?" This is an attempt to intertwine the two aspects of his life that you claim were disconnected. It was not the only similar attempt. http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/ http://nymag.com/news/features/41826/

darawk 6y ago
I'm not saying they were completely disconnected. What i'm saying is that he very clearly had a legitimate interest/passion for science. He could have acquired power and influence in much more efficient ways than funding the MIT media lab, but he chose the things he did because he liked them. I think people here don't want to believe he legitimately liked science because they think of that as a "good" trait, and they don't want a "bad" person to have any "good" traits. And I think that way of viewing the world ends up doing more harm than good.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cjbprime 6y ago
  It's not that clear. The sense I picked up from reading accounts of people who've met him in scientific contexts is that he would ask nonsensical questions, exhibiting an unwillingness to put in the effort to understand the basics of the fields he sponsored. It doesn't sound very passionate to me. For example, from an article: > The Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker said he considered Epstein as an "intellectual impostor”.
  - lkois 6y ago