Was the connection just that they took money from Epstein? Did they already know about the things he was doing when they took the money?
> Did they already know about the things he was doing when they took the money?
Clearly yes: "Joi asked me in 2014 if I wanted to meet Epstein, and I refused and urged him not to meet with him." The first cases against Epstein were in 2008 and Epstein's reputation has been well known since then.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...
Our culture has gotten to the point where an accusation is enough in the court of opinion. It’s good that these issues have brought awareness to places where victims have been otherwise minimized in the past, or have been proof less of the action despite it happening. And that’s a tough thing. But occasionally these accusations are proved to be false. I think we’re getting carried away here, at least as far as Minsky goes.
That's true. On the other hand, out culture was for far more decades (nay, millennia) to the point that people could not care less about such accusations, and the power figures could do whatever they liked...
Also, it wasn't just an accusation in the "court of opinion", but a deposition to an actual court.
"In a deposition, Giuffre, née Roberts, claimed she was trafficked to MIT professor Marvin Minsky, who died in 2016 at age 88, as well as former Maine Sen. George Mitchell, ex-New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and money manager Glenn Dubin, whose wife, Eva, is an ex-girlfriend of Epstein’s."
Still, it's not proven and I'm against the "court of public opinion", at least in more shallow cases (e.g. Woody Allen). But here it's at Weinstein and worse level.
I can see some fake-victim badmouthing a powerful figure to bring them down. Or to blackmail them. Or for revenge (e.g. from a bad relationship, etc). So I'd understand it if e.g. it was fake accusation just against one person.
But it seems too much for a fake-victim to name names of several people, and powerful people at that, on top.
It's the very out-of-left-field-ness of the allegation that makes it seem credible.
Pinker, while not as famous as dershowitz, is also a public figure - he's published several pop sci books and also makes the rounds on various morning shows (to promote his books).
Minsky was purely an academic - as far as I know he never published pop books and only spoke at academic conferences. he's much much further down the list.
Furthermore this was admitted into the record as sworn testimony, lying being punishable by perjury laws. And note she gave the deposition before epstein committed suicide (so conceivably she could've proven to be lying). Who are you to cast doubt on criminal procedures simply because it suits some narrative of yours about perceived witch-hunts?
> Minsky was purely an academic - as far as I know he never published pop books and only spoke at academic conferences. he's much much further down the list.
This is not even accurate. Minsky was the oracle of AI, the head of the MIT AI Lab. He influenced AI from the 1950s to the 1990s. Any pop article about AI might quote or interview Minsky. And what is 'Society of Mind' but a popularization, widely read?
> Furthermore this was admitted into the record as sworn testimony, lying being punishable by perjury laws.
Oh, well, that settles it. I'm glad we had this discussion about critical thinking.
Incidentally, for all your huffing about witch hunts and perjury law, I would point out that she could easily be telling the truth. The deposition only claims that she was told to have sex with Minsky, and not, as far as any media coverage I've seen goes, that she actually did, and Greg Benford states he was there and that Minsky turned her down: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/
i am not. your point is that since he was a famous academic his name was as easily recognizable as dershowitz and pinker, who are generally famous.
>What would be valid evidence of truth would be something like a third party (like, say, Greg Benford) confirming it.
sorry that's not what we as a society has deemed sufficient proof. though you are welcome relitigate literally all of common law dating back to the magna carta though if you believe it should be otherwise.
>Minsky was the oracle of AI, the head of the MIT AI Lab. He influenced AI from the 1950s to the 1990s.
means literally nothing to general public and therefore doesn't substantiate your claim.
>And what is 'Society of Mind' but a popularization, widely read?
i concede this one. i was not aware of this book.
>Oh, well, that settles it. I'm glad we had this discussion about critical thinking.
so do you then doubt all depositions or just the ones that implicate oracles of AI?
>The deposition only claims that she was told to have sex with Minsky, and not, as far as any media coverage I've seen goes, that she actually did, and Greg Benford states he was there and that Minsky turned her down: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/
my point was only about the validity of her testimony. yours (initially) was the defense of minksy.
The 2005 investigation stemmed from a mother bringing her daughter to the police station after she had been at Epstein's mansion. And the evidence included over 50 underaged girls, before the prosecution dropped it to two counts and then one count of assault... and NOT for lack of evidence. The girls' high school report cards were found in his house.
The man was a pedophile and a predator. The fact that anyone was willing to associate with him in any capacity after 2008 is just insane. In 2009 the flight logs were leaked and the smart people in that list cut contact. Anyone who continued to associate with Epstein after that did with the full knowledge of what he was, because people would actively reach out to them to ask about it.
But in terms of Marvin, we don’t know what his involvement was. Only an allegation in court. And from what I know about Marvin, I wouldn’t assume he would do research on someone like that before deciding to attend a dinner. More importantly, it’s completely inconceivable in my mind that he actually was involved any extra martial affairs, let alone a sex trafficked prostitute. He once told me “what’s the point of a body? We should all be heads on top of a cart.” He was already super old at that point. So to combine his higher plane of existence with the lack of hormones from an old age, it just seems extremely improbable to me.
I feel bad for all the woman involved with Epstein. He’s clearly done some really terrible things. But let’s not take down the character of others (who aren’t even alive to defend themselves) solely based on an accusation.
No, but the charges merit diligence. The facts and circumstances of Epstein's settlement, even knowing nothing more than the suspiciously-short jail time, should have raised red flags.
Unless there's an official register of everyone who attended each type of party, which seems unlikely.
We aren't discussing insider trading or possessing controlled substances.
You would have to decide if you find it immoral to accept a donation from a specific person, based on your own moral code and how the person behaves and live with that.
"You have to personally decide what's moral" isn't a very good response when a crowd is gathering to punish someone.
Of course they're allowed. It's a free country.
We're discussing how reprehensible it is, and we focus on certain kinds of felons (not some guy who once did a victimless burglary or a DIU), and also on cases where they didn't just "accept donations", but visited the felons to their private lair...
In the Age of Outrage, yes, even though it's stupid.