5 ms·

> Should we shun Bill Gates because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? In my opinion, yes, absolutely.

VagueMag 3y ago
Not just shun, but regard with the utmost suspicion!
daneel_w 3y ago
Have you or anyone else been able to confirm the relationship was what you imply it was, or are you advocating guilt by association?
- kweingar 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you think I'm implying about their relationship. It is well-known that Gates continued to associate with Epstein after the latter was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution. There doesn't really need to be anything else to the story in my opinion. (Editing to be clearer: I don't think he is guilty of Epstein's crimes by association. I think he is guilty of associating with Epstein while being aware of some of his horrible crimes. I'm not saying he needs to be locked up over this, just that I don't trust him, and I question the judgment of people who do.)
  - arp242 3y ago
    What does "associate with" mean in this context? As in, what does it mean concretely? Genuine question. I've had friends ("associated with") that had criminal histories, some of them even quite severe. Of course, I took no part in those crimes, and I don't think anyone here would hold having friends with criminal histories against me.
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      Gates met with Epstein repeatedly, in-person. He visited Epstein's home, he flew on Epstein's jet, they about Gates Foundation deal. Gates knew Epstein from earlier so likely would have known about the conviction. Also, it sounds like relationship soured in 2014.
      - arp242 3y ago
        That's all very superficial though; "flew on Epstein's jet" can mean anything from "let's discuss my donations to your foundation while we're travelling from A to B" to less savoury things.
        KerrAvon 3y ago
        His wife warned him not to go on the jet. When it become public that he had done that, she divorced him. She clearly didn’t think it was superficial!
        ianburrell 3y ago
        I guess the flight was Gates by himself. But weird he would be flying Epstein's plane and not his own. They did do "plenty discuss foundation", including making charitable fund that would make Epstein money. The issue is that hanging out or doing business with someone as unsavory as Epstein is gia
        freejazz 3y ago
        I don't think being arrested for sex trafficking children is superficial, but I guess we each have our own limits
    - lib-dev 3y ago
      > some of them even quite severe I doubt as severe as what Epstein did.
- alex_lav 3y ago
  > advocating guilt by association? You using the word "guilt" suggests you're venturing into the strawman of "innocent until proven guilty", or that public opinion must follow the same rules as the judicial system. Even if he didn't do anything illegal, Jeffrey Epstein is gross and awful. It's totally fine for society to not want people "guilty" of associating frequently and voluntarily to be powerful and influential. Public opinion is not a court.
  - medguru 3y ago
    Maybe it's that I'm not rested right now but I find it hard to follow this train of thought because your reasoning is kinda wide, lofty and out there but I think OP means that it's irrational to throw Bill Gates entirely to the side based only on -another person- he associated with. Like how picky and fussy people refuse to touch something clean and unspoiled just because it sat next to something else that happened to be gross and smelly. I know it's clean but eww, icky. That kind of guilt by association. Epstein's lawyers and his realtor, his tailor and his golf partners also associated with him but they don't appear at all to be desirable targets to debase with the same treatment and that's probably because they aren't rich or powerful or influential. And I'm certain that's what's tripping you. It's not just OK but maybe even preferential and encouraged by you to take a dump on certain people when a tiny vague chance presents itself only because the person is powerful. I found this earlier comment from you on this topic which is a bit funny given your statement. To me youre kinda describing yourself. HN is pretty divided about Stallman. Bringing up the things he actually at one time said, even if later he said something different, results in a lot of downvoting and toxicity. You can't talk about him without it devolving into binary thinking and binary debates. Same as everything else in 2023 I guess.
    - howinteresting 3y ago
      Yes, of course powerful people need to be held to higher standards! This is plainly obvious to even a child. For one, powerful people generally have advisers whose job it is to prevent people like Gates from associating with sex criminals like Epstein.
    - 3y ago
- howinteresting 3y ago
  What is derisively referred to as "guilt by association" is generally a pretty good way to evaluate moral character. Here's where "guilt by association" is bad: 1. You're a vegetarian. 2. Hitler is also a vegetarian. 3. Therefore, you're evil. Here's where making inferences about moral character using personal associations is good: 1. Bill Gates started his relationship with Epstein, after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes. 2. There is no reasonable way Gates couldn't know this about Epstein. 3. Therefore, Gates is in the wrong for having a relationship with Epstein. There are many factors that go into evaluating such claims, such as whether it is reasonable to know the facts about the person you are associating with, and what sort of power dynamic exists between the two. For example, MIT Media Lab received a lot of funding from Epstein, and yet I don't think the students there need to be tarred by association. The professors, I'm more suspicious of. The leadership like Joi Ito are despicable, given that Epstein was convicted of "procuring a child for prostitution" in 2008! Simply dismissing all of these claims as "guilt by association" means that you aren't evaluating their respective strengths independently.
  - daneel_w 3y ago
    I don't understand why you can't contain yourself from being condescending and patronizing by posing your own preferred reasoning against such an absurdly childish example. The same could be said about your reasoning: you haven't evaluated the different characters and traits of people like Gates and, say, Donald Trump or a certain member of the British royal family. These are very different people. Unlike yourself I just don't assume the most damning scenario to be the likeliest when it comes to Bill Gates.
    - howinteresting 3y ago
      I presented a couple of clear-cut cases in the beginning (Gates/Epstein is as open-and-shut as Hitler/vegetarian imho) and elaborated at length about what I consider to be more borderline cases afterwards. I feel like I did a pretty good job communicating what I think. I'm sorry you felt it was condescending.
garbagecoder 3y ago
I mean, as far as we know, that's what his wife did, right? Or is that just Internet wisdom?
- e40 3y ago
  I think the latter. To my knowledge, she never said why she left him. It certainly crossed my mind!
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  The Wall Street Journal said several anonymous sources said it was 1 of the reasons she left.
johnea 3y ago
We should shun bilionaire bill because of the irreparable damage he's done to computing...

Not just shun, but regard with the utmost suspicion!

Have you or anyone else been able to confirm the relationship was what you imply it was, or are you advocating guilt by association?

kweingar 3y ago
I'm not sure what you think I'm implying about their relationship. It is well-known that Gates continued to associate with Epstein after the latter was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution. There doesn't really need to be anything else to the story in my opinion. (Editing to be clearer: I don't think he is guilty of Epstein's crimes by association. I think he is guilty of associating with Epstein while being aware of some of his horrible crimes. I'm not saying he needs to be locked up over this, just that I don't trust him, and I question the judgment of people who do.)
- arp242 3y ago
  What does "associate with" mean in this context? As in, what does it mean concretely? Genuine question. I've had friends ("associated with") that had criminal histories, some of them even quite severe. Of course, I took no part in those crimes, and I don't think anyone here would hold having friends with criminal histories against me.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    Gates met with Epstein repeatedly, in-person. He visited Epstein's home, he flew on Epstein's jet, they about Gates Foundation deal. Gates knew Epstein from earlier so likely would have known about the conviction. Also, it sounds like relationship soured in 2014.
    - arp242 3y ago
      That's all very superficial though; "flew on Epstein's jet" can mean anything from "let's discuss my donations to your foundation while we're travelling from A to B" to less savoury things.
      - KerrAvon 3y ago
        His wife warned him not to go on the jet. When it become public that he had done that, she divorced him. She clearly didn’t think it was superficial!
      - ianburrell 3y ago
        I guess the flight was Gates by himself. But weird he would be flying Epstein's plane and not his own. They did do "plenty discuss foundation", including making charitable fund that would make Epstein money. The issue is that hanging out or doing business with someone as unsavory as Epstein is gia
      - freejazz 3y ago
        I don't think being arrested for sex trafficking children is superficial, but I guess we each have our own limits
  - lib-dev 3y ago
    > some of them even quite severe I doubt as severe as what Epstein did.
alex_lav 3y ago
> advocating guilt by association? You using the word "guilt" suggests you're venturing into the strawman of "innocent until proven guilty", or that public opinion must follow the same rules as the judicial system. Even if he didn't do anything illegal, Jeffrey Epstein is gross and awful. It's totally fine for society to not want people "guilty" of associating frequently and voluntarily to be powerful and influential. Public opinion is not a court.
- medguru 3y ago
  Maybe it's that I'm not rested right now but I find it hard to follow this train of thought because your reasoning is kinda wide, lofty and out there but I think OP means that it's irrational to throw Bill Gates entirely to the side based only on -another person- he associated with. Like how picky and fussy people refuse to touch something clean and unspoiled just because it sat next to something else that happened to be gross and smelly. I know it's clean but eww, icky. That kind of guilt by association. Epstein's lawyers and his realtor, his tailor and his golf partners also associated with him but they don't appear at all to be desirable targets to debase with the same treatment and that's probably because they aren't rich or powerful or influential. And I'm certain that's what's tripping you. It's not just OK but maybe even preferential and encouraged by you to take a dump on certain people when a tiny vague chance presents itself only because the person is powerful. I found this earlier comment from you on this topic which is a bit funny given your statement. To me youre kinda describing yourself. HN is pretty divided about Stallman. Bringing up the things he actually at one time said, even if later he said something different, results in a lot of downvoting and toxicity. You can't talk about him without it devolving into binary thinking and binary debates. Same as everything else in 2023 I guess.
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    Yes, of course powerful people need to be held to higher standards! This is plainly obvious to even a child. For one, powerful people generally have advisers whose job it is to prevent people like Gates from associating with sex criminals like Epstein.
  - 3y ago
howinteresting 3y ago
What is derisively referred to as "guilt by association" is generally a pretty good way to evaluate moral character. Here's where "guilt by association" is bad: 1. You're a vegetarian. 2. Hitler is also a vegetarian. 3. Therefore, you're evil. Here's where making inferences about moral character using personal associations is good: 1. Bill Gates started his relationship with Epstein, after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes. 2. There is no reasonable way Gates couldn't know this about Epstein. 3. Therefore, Gates is in the wrong for having a relationship with Epstein. There are many factors that go into evaluating such claims, such as whether it is reasonable to know the facts about the person you are associating with, and what sort of power dynamic exists between the two. For example, MIT Media Lab received a lot of funding from Epstein, and yet I don't think the students there need to be tarred by association. The professors, I'm more suspicious of. The leadership like Joi Ito are despicable, given that Epstein was convicted of "procuring a child for prostitution" in 2008! Simply dismissing all of these claims as "guilt by association" means that you aren't evaluating their respective strengths independently.
- daneel_w 3y ago
  I don't understand why you can't contain yourself from being condescending and patronizing by posing your own preferred reasoning against such an absurdly childish example. The same could be said about your reasoning: you haven't evaluated the different characters and traits of people like Gates and, say, Donald Trump or a certain member of the British royal family. These are very different people. Unlike yourself I just don't assume the most damning scenario to be the likeliest when it comes to Bill Gates.
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    I presented a couple of clear-cut cases in the beginning (Gates/Epstein is as open-and-shut as Hitler/vegetarian imho) and elaborated at length about what I consider to be more borderline cases afterwards. I feel like I did a pretty good job communicating what I think. I'm sorry you felt it was condescending.

garbagecoder 3y ago

I mean, as far as we know, that's what his wife did, right? Or is that just Internet wisdom?

e40 3y ago
I think the latter. To my knowledge, she never said why she left him. It certainly crossed my mind!
pseudalopex 3y ago
The Wall Street Journal said several anonymous sources said it was 1 of the reasons she left.

johnea 3y ago

We should shun bilionaire bill because of the irreparable damage he's done to computing...