Hacker News Reader

Comment by asdf333 | Hacker News Reader

I will probably be tarred and feathered for this comment as well but:

I think this whole thing has turned into a witch hunt / mob assault on anyone who has had any ties to Epstein. The attitude of many of the comments seem to essentially suggest that if one has been at the same party as epstein sometime in the past, such person must be a child molester.

Now people are falling over themselves trying to one up each other on who can display the most moral outrage.

It is an example of how public discourse has degenerated to the point where we are attacking people first and refusing to ask even some basic questions before branding someone as guilty by association.

(edited out "come on it is ridiculous" as it seemed unnecessarily inflammatory)

View on HN

Odd take - almost all of the stories are about people who ended up engaging extensively with him after he'd already been convicted of being a sex offender.

Sure, you can associate with whomever you want to, but the media highlighting the fact that notable people continued to not only be friendly with, but often appear to be in the pocket of financially, someone rather heinous is not really a "witch hunt".

(Especially considering many of the allegations are of using this financial power as a pawn in a larger blackmail operation means those financial ties do have to be investigated)

For what it's worth,

> Odd take - almost all of the stories are about people who ended up engaging extensively with him after he'd already been convicted of being a sex offender.

When I engage with people I often don't do a search on them. Even if I did, I'm usually not fault someone for a past mistake; assuming I think they have changed.

That being said, I think the OPs take was that simply funding or working with a research group, doesn't make the research group guilty by association. Perhaps some investigation is warranted, but if you're doing research you're typically not going to turn down funding. How many research groups take funding from the DoD to literally build weapons to kill people?

That's likely worse than this association. I don't think that was the MediaLabs purpose, it was an unfortunate relationship.

Do you raise money for things? That’s a very different world, and anyone who does it should be aware that they’re engaged in a project of laundering wealth into reputations, and act accordingly.

It’s a sad reality, and we’d probably be better off it wasn’t reality, but high-profile academics need to be aware of it.

> Perhaps some investigation is warranted, but if you're doing research you're typically not going to turn down funding

As the linked post suggests though, building the relationship wasn't without warning in this case (as in, he asked Ito not to take the meeting due to the history involved).

An unfortunate relationship, but I don't believe the outrage is unwarranted (or, as implied by the OP, merely virtue signalling).

Agreed, an odd take given the circumstances.

> Now people are falling over themselves trying to one up each other on who can display the most moral outrage.

> It is an example of how public discourse has degenerated to the point where we are attacking people first and refusing to ask even some basic questions before branding someone as guilty by association.

The gist I get from OP's comment is that they are more frustrated with the generalized trend of "outrage culture", and referenced this Epstein story as a current example (despite being an ill-fitting one).

OP's point would probably resonate better with a different example, though the sentiment does bring up an interesting tangential conversation.

Feeding the fire is self-serving for many stories and comments once a controversial/multi-faceted story hits and the gates open. It's an easy way to get overly caught up in the weeds obsessing over the noise of a story that the signal gets drowned out. Those that have a vested interest in keeping a fire from extinguishing obviously want to add more kindling with "SHOCKING NEW DETAILS"-type stories that are less informationally relevant to the main events and more borderline conspiracy-theory or clickbait.

I have befriended and helped (provided housing and other support) convicted felons who have done their time. Where do you draw the line?

Edit: I agree with those who have replied, and appreciate that my question was answered with genuine effort.

The actual crime matters. "Felon" has no moral meaning, just a somewhat arbitrary legal classification. He also did not "serve his time" in the sense that the phrase is typically understood (a person who made mistakes but has atoned), especially when you consider the fact that he used his money and influence to evade the consequences at every turn and also continued to commit more sex crimes during the time he was supposed to be imprisoned.

How many convicted child sex traffickers get to spend 16 hours a day at home instead of a prison cell?

It's not about "drawling the line" - child sex offences are often "lifetime convictions" in that they don't come off your record (and for those in the public eye, would be impossible to shake in any case). Therefore they will often come up as part of criminal records checks, and if you have direct ties with felons of that nature, it could impact on you.

Getting to the bottom of these ties is important, especially given that there are many alleged crimes he didn't "do his time" for or will face potential justice for.

You can be friends with a convicted child sex offender, sure, but building close financial ties with (to the extent of essentially being a co-founder or co-host of a lot of different events) should draw some scrutiny, given there's an alleged pattern of behaviour that's been followed.

I think this is very simple: if the person has cleaned up their act (Epstein was dismissive of issues with his behaviors) and your judgement isn't clouded by dollars (Ito's / MITs were).

If those things aren't both true, you're not supporting someone who's done their time, you're being greedy and/or complicit.

If you've befriended and helped a convicted felon who has served his/her time, is repentant, and presumably is on a path to rehabilitation, then that's laudable, even if that person were a murderer.

If you've befriended a murderer who is unrepentant, who managed to avoid any real punishment because of his wealth and connections, and who is rumored to still be engaged in the things he was accused of, I'd say that's a huge moral failing on your part.

Did Epstein finish doing his time before these people were willing to recieve investment money from him?

No, but that’s sort of my point. Ambiguity and fear shouldn’t be used to dissuade helping those who did do their time, so it’s important to point out exceptions and why they are exceptions (Epstein was unable to be reformed IMHO, which is both tragic and a cautionary tale).

It’s hard to discern the reformed from the monsters sometimes, but the reformed still deserve another chance.

Your point was that you assisted people after they did their time.

Epstein did not do his time. He did not go through any reformation process. People were willing to take his money and his professional connections even knowing his recent conviction for which his time was upcoming.

This isn't a case where someone is reformed and people aren't forgiving them. Epstein was not reformed, did not serve his time, and people were still actively engaging with him. Those people were not engaging with a reformed man. They were engaging with a predator.

I entirely agree with you that reformed felons deserve a chance after they serve their time. Epstein was not reformed and he did not serve time, therefore what chance did he deserve on account of these people?

Aren’t we debating how to determine if someone is reformed? I thought we were, and if not by judicial process (prison sentencing), what? I absolutely agree Epstein wasn’t reformed, and that the challenge is to suss out who is and isn’t a danger to society any longer (“reformed”). I don’t know how to do that besides gut feeling and guardrails to minimize blast radius when poor judgement has occurred.

Yes he was a sex offender. Lots of people are, including 17-year-old boys who have sex with their underage girlfriends. The sex offender laws in the US are so draconian that there's no distinction made between somebody who's seen urinating in an alley and a violent rapist.

In my state (New Mexico) Epstein had a ranch where we now know he was raping girls. But guess what? He did not have to register as a sex offender in NM because the age of consent here is different than it is in Florida (that loophole has since been fixed by our legislature.)

My point is that the sex offender laws in the US are meaningless. They encourage the public to assume that minor offenses are heinous and that major criminals might actually be minor offenders who got a raw deal.

You're being downvoted because your point is irrelevant. Epstein raped children.

Yet the public didn't know that with legal certainty before 2019. He was convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute, not child rape. Morally those might be equivalent but legally they're not, as evidenced by his light sentence.

It's the 20/20 hindsight that bugs me.

Joi Ito wasn't at "some party" with Epstein. He raised money from him after Epstein was convicted for child sex trafficking. He also allowed Epstein to co-invest in his startups. He also visited his houses... During this time period Epstein continued to rape children (two new suits were just filed on Tuesday that state this).

Joi Ito has a deep relationship with a child sex trafficker, people are rightfully upset.

Not only that, but the accusations against Epstein wasn’t just that he’s a pedophile, but he was perhaps running blackmail on people using that disgusting entrapment scheme.

We’ll see how much of that turns out to be true in the end. The DOJ has been very tight lipped on all of it. For the time being I’m being VERY cautious about any powerful people who associated with him regularly (or ever visited his island).

I don’t believe Epstein was blackmailing anyone. I think his associates were more than happy to give him whatever he wanted in exchange for the depravities he organised for them. That’s why they’re always smiling and happy in photos with him. They don’t look like blackmail victims. And even if they were... you cannot blackmail someone unless they’ve done something!

It was the same with Weinstein.

Not just a child sex trafficker, but the most infamous criminal since Osama Bin Laden

> this whole thing has turned into a witch hunt

Ito accepted donations and investments from Epstein with full knowledge of his past crimes. These donations are two-way streets. The recipient gets funds. But the donor gets prestige. This is a closer, more knowledgeable and more mutually-beneficial relationship than you're acknowledging.

>The attitude of many of the comments seem to essentially suggest that if one has been at the same party as epstein sometime in the past, you must be a child molester. Come on, its ridiculous.

Well, "at the same party" might not be that ridiculous. Depends on the party and its goal.

Merely knowing/being friends with the guy though should not be reason for disgrace without further evidence of anything bad on one's part.

>It is yet another example of how public discourse has degenerated to the point where we are attacking people first and refusing to ask even some basic questions before branding someone as guilty by association.

I think the reason for the public displays of disgrace is to tell us how "good souls" they are, more so than any real concern for the victims. Most people could not care less and will forget the whole thing in a heartbeat, but they still like to participate to the collective hate ceremony - and even better when the person to hate was really an abuser!

> Merely knowing/being friends with the guy though should not be reason for disgrace without further evidence of anything bad on one's part.

I think being friends with a convicted child sex trafficker should be cause for disgrace. That's something most normal people would not do.

Well, if those "normal people" are christians, their religion tells them not to look down on nobody, and that the worst sinner is still a human being (not that most christians aren't actually mere Old Testament types).

There's an equivalent version of the same sentiment that atheists can share too.

Participating in their activities, or not stopping them when they see them, is another thing, of course.

I wouldn't hold it to somebody if they befriended an ex-murderer for example, knowing e.g. they killed people in the past.

I don't think it takes religion to see this as a bad thing. Just simple empathy and common sense. Even with zero empathy for the victims, its seems like terrible business sense to associate with a child sex trafficker. People in general care about their reputations.

Sure, reputation I can understand. Or precaution. Or repulsion. Those are common and understandable first-level responses.

But that doesn't mean people should negatively judge anybody who doesn't respond like that, and e.g. remains, or becomes, friend with somebody who did wrong (even extreme wrong). They could stay away from them (the friends) too, but why judge them for the mere fact of being friends?

I mean, they could just them negatively in thinking that they are complicit -- but shouldn't just them negatively merely for being friends.

I find your apologetics for those who associate with known pedophiles deeply disturbing.

Pedophiles require a network of enablers to operate, much more so for high-profile cases like Epstein. If someone you know chooses to associate with a known pedophile, you should cut all ties with them. If you don’t, then you are potentially complicit in the crime insofar as you could potentially provide assistance to someone who is enabling a known pedophile.

This is why anyone with a functioning moral system will negatively judge associates of known pedophiles. I’m not sure why this needs to be spelled out for you.

You could say the same thing as neutral arguments, without the posturing and the personal insults. Ever occurred to you? That's a jerk move. I’m not sure why this needs to be spelled out for you....

Did you even read my comments in these discussions (not just this subthread), and do they look like defending to Epstein and friends as to their innocence to you?

My point is an ages old point (and part of basic christian morals): love to the neighbor doesn't stop when one has been (or even is) a sinner, even if they're the worst sinner. In fact that's where it makes more sense.

That's not about befriending a criminal to participate or benefit from their crimes (which I made abundantly clear and even spelled out). It's also not about befriending a criminal and keeping quiet about criminal stuff you see (thus enabling) their crimes.

It's that if you're a friend, you're a friend. Friendship and love for a criminal isn't complicity and shouldn't be judged as such. In fact it could be the best thing that helps to make a criminal see their ways. Doubly so for an ex-criminal.

I never accused you of defending Epstein, I was responding to the second paragraph of your comment.

You seemed to be arguing there that we shouldn’t make negative judgments of those who choose to be friends with others who have committed “extreme wrong” which I assume includes crimes like those committed by Epstein.

That is specifically what I take issue with, and I stand by my assertion that any defense of that position in the context of pedophila constitutes pedophilic apologetics.

The mandate to “love thy neighbor as yourself” does not require Christians to refrain from making negative moral judgements of others based on who they choose to associate with.

A christian loves a repentant sinner.

You should be lauded for befriending a repentant murderer who has served his time and is trying to come back into society.

You should be shamed for befriending an unrepentant murderer who avoided punishment through his wealth and connections and may still be murdering today.

Epstein sitting in the backseats of his conferences with a minor in each arm should cause raise eyebrows with every halfway decent human being. Some explanations are necessary now, even if the explanation is that they desperately needed the money.

Until then I will feel free to assume that involved scientific celebrities like Minsky padded Epsteins shoulders for his great taste in teenage women, or even took advantage of this other interest.

As others pointed out, this goes beyond mere association. It involves being present at his houses (and private island) where multiple underage victims of sex trafficking may have been present. Some of them had extensive and repeated contacts with him, and a few (so far) have been named (though of course this is as yet unproven) in private lawsuits as having participated in sexual assaults. So yeah, given the scale of the potential crimes involved, some scrutiny is well deserved.

It’s also depressing how all these prominent men (and yes, it’s all men because Epstein didn’t like having women around for their intellects, and because they may have figured out something was amiss) never questioned any of this, because Epstein was rich.

Good points but it's not true that Epstein didn't have women involved. His #2 was Ghislaine Maxwell, she recruited girls and participated in the abuse. He also had Heidi Klum, Naomi Campbell, Barbra Walters and numerous other high profile women in his orbit, on his planes and at his houses.

The issue is that Epstein used these connections to the rich, powerful, and influential to further his rape of children, and when he was investigated to get off with a very, very light sentence.

Thus people who accepted his money and palled around with him provided cover for him.

When people are offering money, the temptation is to not dig deeply and look away. Hopefully, this treatment of Epstein’s associates will serve as a lesson to people to not totaled gifts blindly and enable predators.

Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting an underaged prostitute in 2008. Anyone who accepted his money or spent time in his proximity or benefited in some other way from his money or connections has in my opinion blatantly violated ethical standards. It is sad to see that people like Pinker and some other public intellectuals seemed to have no issue with staying close to his circle years later.

> Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting an underaged prostitute in 2008.

And the 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 so in the fact of public castigation almost a decade ago.

Fuck, Trump was talking about him "liking girls on the younger side" in 2002- no sane person should have anything to do with Epstein any time recently.

Why did they have ties to Epstein?

If they never severed those connections even after all the information about him surfaced and even up to the point of his death, should they not be called out for it?

Marvin Minsky was literally called out by one of the victims as someone partaking in pederasty with Epstein's sex trafficking victims.

Is Epstein someone YOU would want to associate with, and if so, why?

The Minsky accusation and others like it are questionable. There's precisely one accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims Epstein was procuring underaged girls for other men in his orbit, like Marvin Minsky, Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, Alan Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew. There's another accuser who came forth during the 2016 election alleging Epstein gave her to Trump. Everyone else alleges that they were abused by Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre's story goes far beyond what anyone else alleged. If it's true, why do none of the other numerous victims have similar stories? Dershowitz has claimed Giuffre is extorting people.

There are pictures with Prince Andrew's arm around 16 year old Giuffre with Maxwell present. How many 16 year olds find themselves in that situation? The Lolita Express (Epstein's plane) had a bed installed in it. That's not normal. Flight logs put Giuffre on the plane with everyone she's accused. Epstein used Alan Dershowitz (also accused of molesting children with Epstein) to bury all of this information and killed himself when it came to light.

The accusations are not questionable at all.

I agree with most of your comment except that installing a bed in a private jet is pretty normal.

I see no witch hunt here, nor any accusation of anyone in the lab of being a child molester. You call this an example of the degeneration of public discourse, yet it contains none of the qualities you find "ridiculous."

well, it's one thing if you did so unknowingly.

but if you have a close and long running relationship with a proven creep (of different flavors), your moral compass becomes suspect, and after it becomes public knowledge, it becomes a question of whether your association indicates approval of the bad behavior.

it's not always clearcut in private figures, but when the creep(of different flavors) is a nationally known figure, I think the onus is relatively clear... hold the person at some arms length.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com