3 ms·

"Ariely is named 636 times in the Epstein files". Yikes.

by jnwatson 1mo ago

NDlurker 1mo ago
iirc Epstein funded the media lab and had an office there
Waterluvian 1mo ago
Context matters. Otherwise we’re just being clowns.
- KylerAce 1mo ago
  This. Significant portions of the Epstein files are random noise. Though even for a popularish author it'd be strange to be in enough 1990-2018 news snippets to reach that many EF hits. In any case "is in the Epstein files" should in general be replaced with "is in the Epstein files, including this email to/from them I found"
  - dghlsakjg 1mo ago
    The most interesting section from the large paragraph on Wikipedia: “One of the documents is an image of an email from Ariely to Epstein, in which he requests the name and email of a "redhead" that Epstein had previously introduced to him”
    - bluGill 1mo ago
      That still doesn't mean anything. Sure we know Epstein did evil, but not everything he did was evil. One should assume at least a few people he interacted with had no reason to suspect his evil actions.
      - jasonfarnon 1mo ago
        I guess that's why the same passage says Ariely maintained the relationship long after the Epstein's pedophile convictions. Not definitive either, but pretty suggestive.
      - dghlsakjg 1mo ago
        Go read the article instead of nitpicking people doing the citations for you. If you ask a known pedophile for funding and introductions while accepting favors, you can rightly be accused of bad judgment - at best.
        bluGill 1mo ago
        Go read it yourself. There isn't enough information to draw concussions. Everything is consistent with contact with a major funder who you can't cut off just because of evil in a part of life you knew nothing about. You can read the article with a bias and ignore his counter claims. However that is drawing a conclusion not warranted. Now perhaps someone has read the letters and seen other evidence and can draw conclusions. However at this point I can't say who knew what. Both people are of course evil, but they may or may not have an evil in common.
        iammjm 1mo ago
        Asking THE sex trafficker pimp extraordinaire about the contact data of a “redhead”… I guess you CAN read this whole interaction as benevolent if you squint hard enough to the point that the nature of this guy’s transactions with people becomes invisible
        bluGill 1mo ago
        I have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty". (even proven guilty doesn't mean guilty, but by that time so much evidence has been examined that odds are high enough to finally say guilty). All too often somebody pushes only evidence that supports their bias without full care for the full truth. I agree it looks pretty bad, but I have not seen all the evidence and thus I must hold out the possibility he is innocent until someone does take the time to examine it all. That doesn't mean I think he is innocent, just that I'm carefully withholding judgement because I know I do not have all the facts. It also doesn't mean I'm against investigation of the facts - I just want the investigation done properly, and all discussions like this do not contribute to a proper investigation.
- paimapi 1mo ago
  > The messages revealed that his friendship with Epstein lasted for nine years, including well after Epstein was initially charged with soliciting sex from a minor.[52] Ariely also suggested that Epstein use learnings from his research to help rehabilitate his public image what's clownish is defending anybody who would associate with a billionaire pedophile sex trafficker anybody in the files who helped him rehab his image should rightly be consigned to the dustbin of history
  - gruez 1mo ago
    >what's clownish is defending anybody who would associate with a billionaire pedophile sex trafficker >anybody in the files who helped him rehab his image should rightly be consigned to the dustbin of history It's possible to denounce someone, but still push back on false claims. Otherwise you're just condoning misinformation just because it aligns with your beliefs . eg. "Did you know Donald Trump literally eats babies?" "Wtf are you talking about? There's no evidence of that." "Wow, I can't believe you're defending a convicted felon, sex offender, and authoritarian! Anyone who's trying to rehab his image should be consigned to the dustbin of history."
    - paimapi 1mo ago
      sure, that's a great principle but is it applicable here? Ariely is noted having sent an email asking Epstein about 'that redhead' (along with hundreds of others and his work rehabbing the image of someone with a known pedophilia sex trafficking indictment) if you assess the original claim against the facts, is it as ludicrously out-of-step as someone claiming that Trump found A Modest Proposal persuasive?
- AngryData 1mo ago
  I mean being a known fraudster, requesting money from Epstein, and asking about some girl he met through Epstein is context too which is not a good look. He may be innocent, but he certainly has a large stain and stink about him.
- serial_dev 1mo ago
  Context matters and the more context you have the worse it looks.
d0mine 1mo ago
Ask yourself who benefits from equating "being mentioned in a file" and "having evidence this person is a pedophile"
- thaumasiotes 1mo ago
  The answer appears to be "people who spend more time on offense than defense". Not to say that tilting things in their direction is a good idea, but that's a pretty wide class of beneficiaries.
  - d0mine 1mo ago
    To be clear: the implied answer is "pedophiles". Pedophiles benefit the most from "being mentioned" == pedophile Because obviously, there are many people mentioned in different contexts and it is unclear how many of them are pedophiles. There are people who may disagree, but I'm from the generation who considers molesting children a serious crime--much much more serious than being mentioned in some email. Ask yourself why nobody is being prosecuted.
    - thaumasiotes 29d ago
      In the same way that the primary beneficiaries of witch hunts are... witches?
      - d0mine 27d ago
        no, unless you think [evil] witches are real. If they were real then muddying the water by implicating as much people as possible benefits witches because it creates the impression witches are not that bad, not so evil, no need to burn each and everyone of them at the stake to immediately.

"Ariely is named 636 times in the Epstein files". Yikes.

NDlurker 1mo ago

iirc Epstein funded the media lab and had an office there

Waterluvian 1mo ago

Context matters. Otherwise we’re just being clowns.

KylerAce 1mo ago
This. Significant portions of the Epstein files are random noise. Though even for a popularish author it'd be strange to be in enough 1990-2018 news snippets to reach that many EF hits. In any case "is in the Epstein files" should in general be replaced with "is in the Epstein files, including this email to/from them I found"
- dghlsakjg 1mo ago
  The most interesting section from the large paragraph on Wikipedia: “One of the documents is an image of an email from Ariely to Epstein, in which he requests the name and email of a "redhead" that Epstein had previously introduced to him”
  - bluGill 1mo ago
    That still doesn't mean anything. Sure we know Epstein did evil, but not everything he did was evil. One should assume at least a few people he interacted with had no reason to suspect his evil actions.
    - jasonfarnon 1mo ago
      I guess that's why the same passage says Ariely maintained the relationship long after the Epstein's pedophile convictions. Not definitive either, but pretty suggestive.
    - dghlsakjg 1mo ago
      Go read the article instead of nitpicking people doing the citations for you. If you ask a known pedophile for funding and introductions while accepting favors, you can rightly be accused of bad judgment - at best.
      - bluGill 1mo ago
        Go read it yourself. There isn't enough information to draw concussions. Everything is consistent with contact with a major funder who you can't cut off just because of evil in a part of life you knew nothing about. You can read the article with a bias and ignore his counter claims. However that is drawing a conclusion not warranted. Now perhaps someone has read the letters and seen other evidence and can draw conclusions. However at this point I can't say who knew what. Both people are of course evil, but they may or may not have an evil in common.
        iammjm 1mo ago
        Asking THE sex trafficker pimp extraordinaire about the contact data of a “redhead”… I guess you CAN read this whole interaction as benevolent if you squint hard enough to the point that the nature of this guy’s transactions with people becomes invisible
        bluGill 1mo ago
        I have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty". (even proven guilty doesn't mean guilty, but by that time so much evidence has been examined that odds are high enough to finally say guilty). All too often somebody pushes only evidence that supports their bias without full care for the full truth. I agree it looks pretty bad, but I have not seen all the evidence and thus I must hold out the possibility he is innocent until someone does take the time to examine it all. That doesn't mean I think he is innocent, just that I'm carefully withholding judgement because I know I do not have all the facts. It also doesn't mean I'm against investigation of the facts - I just want the investigation done properly, and all discussions like this do not contribute to a proper investigation.
paimapi 1mo ago
> The messages revealed that his friendship with Epstein lasted for nine years, including well after Epstein was initially charged with soliciting sex from a minor.[52] Ariely also suggested that Epstein use learnings from his research to help rehabilitate his public image what's clownish is defending anybody who would associate with a billionaire pedophile sex trafficker anybody in the files who helped him rehab his image should rightly be consigned to the dustbin of history
- gruez 1mo ago
  >what's clownish is defending anybody who would associate with a billionaire pedophile sex trafficker >anybody in the files who helped him rehab his image should rightly be consigned to the dustbin of history It's possible to denounce someone, but still push back on false claims. Otherwise you're just condoning misinformation just because it aligns with your beliefs . eg. "Did you know Donald Trump literally eats babies?" "Wtf are you talking about? There's no evidence of that." "Wow, I can't believe you're defending a convicted felon, sex offender, and authoritarian! Anyone who's trying to rehab his image should be consigned to the dustbin of history."
  - paimapi 1mo ago
    sure, that's a great principle but is it applicable here? Ariely is noted having sent an email asking Epstein about 'that redhead' (along with hundreds of others and his work rehabbing the image of someone with a known pedophilia sex trafficking indictment) if you assess the original claim against the facts, is it as ludicrously out-of-step as someone claiming that Trump found A Modest Proposal persuasive?
AngryData 1mo ago
I mean being a known fraudster, requesting money from Epstein, and asking about some girl he met through Epstein is context too which is not a good look. He may be innocent, but he certainly has a large stain and stink about him.
serial_dev 1mo ago
Context matters and the more context you have the worse it looks.

d0mine 1mo ago

Ask yourself who benefits from equating "being mentioned in a file" and "having evidence this person is a pedophile"

thaumasiotes 1mo ago
The answer appears to be "people who spend more time on offense than defense". Not to say that tilting things in their direction is a good idea, but that's a pretty wide class of beneficiaries.
- d0mine 1mo ago
  To be clear: the implied answer is "pedophiles". Pedophiles benefit the most from "being mentioned" == pedophile Because obviously, there are many people mentioned in different contexts and it is unclear how many of them are pedophiles. There are people who may disagree, but I'm from the generation who considers molesting children a serious crime--much much more serious than being mentioned in some email. Ask yourself why nobody is being prosecuted.
  - thaumasiotes 29d ago
    In the same way that the primary beneficiaries of witch hunts are... witches?
    - d0mine 27d ago
      no, unless you think [evil] witches are real. If they were real then muddying the water by implicating as much people as possible benefits witches because it creates the impression witches are not that bad, not so evil, no need to burn each and everyone of them at the stake to immediately.