> Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes. It's not just my standards. I could be

> Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes. It's not just my standards. I could be wrong here, but I think most people would find her brilliant. That's part of why her fraudulent behavior was so successful. Not sure you meant to, but you've dodged my main question. Why should I factor in his antisemitism (alleged or not) when considering his brilliance? You originally said Solzhenitsyn was antisemitic, now you are claiming he wrote an exaggerated account of Communist Russia. Either or both of those claims may be true. I don't know the veracity of either and I'm not arguing those. I'm asking *why I should disregard his purported brilliance altogether even if those claims are true*? Washington owned slaves. Edison likely exploited his workers for his own gain. Martin Luther was an antisemite. Nelson Mandela had ties to terrorists. Joan of Arc was a heretic. Theodora was effectively a prostitute at one point. These men and women all did and said things we would not approve of, and yet there are qualities they held and actions they took which we celebrate to this day. I don't see how some corrupt part of their character gives cause to dismiss them entirely.