take of the day is that I think it's weird to prefer a world where monstrous people presumably buy more yachts or whatever and absolutely no public research, even anonymously
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason
Seems like a disingenuous take. People aren’t upset that Bill Gates and company gave anonymously to MIT. They’re upset that they did it through a guy who sexually trafficked underage girls.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @simplerusername
I'm talking about Epstein's money, not Gates'. It seems extremely sensible to be concerned about the *many* prominent people who had a relationship with Epstein, what they knew and what they may have participated in
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
But wouldn’t those prominent people include the people at MIT who were willing to collaborate with/take money from Epstein despite his horrible crimes?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplerusername
Sure, if there's any indication that they withheld information from e.g. the feds or participated in crime. But we're not asking these questions about people who sold him luxury properties or products — I guess that's kosher?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
I don’t think there’s any concern that they withheld information from the feds or participated in a crime. The concern is that they gave social standing to a horrible guy. That seems like a reasonable concern to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @simplerusername
But — at least in some cases — they actively chose not to do that? And now we're calling that a "cover up" rather than "a refusal to give social standing." Presumably the people who sold him fancy boats or homes provided him considerably more access to the social elite
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
I think there’s a fairly big difference between selling someone a house or a boat and actively working with him over an extended period of time.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simplerusername
If you sell someone anything with that kind of price tag, you absolutely end up working with them for an extended period. I've both worked in non-profit & seen real estate deals go through; I think this is a big stretch
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
If that’s the case, I would say that we should pay more scrutiny to the people who sold him houses and boats, not less scrutiny to the people who worked with him on philanthropic stuff.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I think that's a much stronger position. As it stands, social norms are dictating incentives that seem likely to drive more luxury consumption/wealth accrual and less public benefit wrt godawful criminals, which again just seems very weird
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @simplerusername
If Epstein gave to MIT anonymously, and it does appear from the New Yorker article that the vast majority of his donations went to MIT anonymously, why not take the money and do something good with it? Anonymous donations do not elevate persona or promote pedophilia rings.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JamesonHalpern @simplerusername
I can admit that this *feels* icky, but I just haven't seen strong arguments against it. Maybe we need to believe that terrible people do universally terrible things, and that the institutions we value have absolutely nothing to do with them — even if the net effect is negative
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.