Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I'd like you to articulate exactly what's worse about a world where scholars — and I explicitly say "scholars" rather than "academics," here — may be able to do their work with an individual's support rather than enduring what would otherwise be "the worst part" of their career.

Because, without any kind of institutional layer separating scholars from their founders, you'd turn scholars into massive sycophants. You saw how cravenly and pathetic Epstein's hanger-ons were? Now imagine if they depended entirely on Epstein's largess.

Even incredible funding institutions like the Arnold foundation, the Gates foundation, etc, channel most of their giving through institutional bodies instead of writing blank checks to scientists they directly employ. Let's get 100 different foundations in place instead.

1. Do you genuinely believe that Jeffrey Epstein is archetypal of a wealthy philanthropist? 2. Do you imagine that academic institutions and foundations do not systemically create sycophants *now*?

1. No, because most wealthy philanthropists put greater barriers between their donations and the people they donate money too. Epstein was unique in that his giving was a lot more direct and unmediated and depended upon his whims. 2. No, but they have other awful downsides.

I think there may be a few other unusual features of Jeffrey Epstein that you maybe just maybe be trying to shoehorn in here

For the record, I usually block people for "Hitler was a vegetarian," and I'm not sure why I'm letting this slide aside from the fact that I think you're actually The Problem and I want you to keep responding to my stuff.

It also *might* be worth noting that Epstein had several foundations, and AFAICT did not directly hand anyone cash for science.