201–210 of 770 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people would if it’s normalized. Not long ago Saudi Arabian money and PRC money was just fine. It’s hard not to take it when it’s about survival.
Isn't "taking Saudi money" Uber's current business model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don’t use code preformatting for quotes. https://i.imgur.com/R9S4Hmr.jpg
[retracted]
If the point of comments is for them to be read, then there’s no negotiating on this point. If you’re just posting for fun and don’t care if people can read what you’re quoting and writing about, then why are you posting at all?
HN is a place for discussion. Using code blocks for non-code citations hinders discussion. Now that you know this, willfully using them for that purpose is antithetical to good discussion.
I’d love to hear a case otherwise, but I can’t see how to construct one for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"teen" is a big range. If they were 14 - then that is a problem. If they're 19 then I don't really see why I or anyone else should care. In fact, it seems like one would be attempting to remove autonomy from these women if you tried to prevent an adult from serving as an assistant "for their own good" because you're creeped out by the employer.
Human trafficking is illegal regardless of age. That’s why people would or should care. No one is talking about firing assistants besides you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry let me rewrite that, hanging out with child trafficker doesn't mean normalizing child trafficking. What makes Child trafficking normal is if the law enforcement doesn't do anything.
> What makes Child trafficking normal is if the law enforcement doesn't do anything. I am trying to understand all the mental hoops you are going through right now to write that sentence in the midst of marijuana legalization right now. From "reefer madness" to now, the accepting of marijuana came directly from people working with, socializing with and being exposed to people smoking weed despite the fact that law en…
With child trafficking, very rarely people want it to be legal.
>Hanging out with child trafficker, and accepting money from them and inviting them to your private events is normalization
Yes, it is normalization. The normalization of hanging out with child trafficker and accepting money from them.
Note that is different than the normalization of child trafficking itself.
There are could be many reason one want to associate with child trafficker that has nothing to do with child trafficking itself, likewise with taking money.
This article is filled with strangely matter-of-fact language regarding matters which are still unsolved: For example: > Mr. Epstein — who killed himself in jail last month while facing federal sex trafficking charges
Unfortunately the cameras spontaneously failed so we’ll never discover how someone can break their own neck
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please take some effort to improve your understanding of the notion of "social norms", how they're enforced, and how they evolve. I promise you, a person in a position of prestige or power openly, willingly associating with — even benefiting from — someone who is known to have committed a transgressive act is definitional of normalization.
Normalization of what ? 1. Normalization of the act of associating with someone that commit transgressive act or 2. Normalization of the transgressive act itself I agree with the first one but not the 2nd one.
3. Normalization of people who commit transgressive acts.
Once again, for the nosebleed seats: this whole argument is about how the Media Lab's taking Epstein's money, and welcoming him on the premises, conveys the message, "Well, he can't be that bad."
Remember how we follow the behavior of people more than their words, in determining what is and isn't acceptable? When people tell us one thing, and behave differently, we pretty reliably follow one of those over the other.
So it does not matter how many times anyone says Epstein was a shitty guy who behaved shittily. Every single word is utterly undermined by the press release photo of him and Joichi-san smiling and shaking hands, or whatever.
EDIT: So, while normalizing the person isn't directly normalizing the behavior, it's also kinda a distinction without a difference. A person who wants to behave like Epstein has been shown that he's still able to be socially accepted, even at the very highest levels of society, even if he does the thing that brazenly.
How, exactly, is that not normalizing the behavior? In what possible way is that not all kinds of "Eh, whatever..." over something so egregious?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I live in the gritty real world. Now let me tell you about my international experiences with the ultra wealthy, you hick." How do you tell the difference between the sex-trafficked, forced-into-servitude eastern european model-assistants, and the eastern european models who see an opportunity to make a lot of money and a lot of connections, and take it?
I strongly disagree with the notion that this is something you need to personally witness to recognize. The dynamics involved in an old rich man surrounding himself with very young women are not something that requires much life experience at all to pick up on. The people who are blind to it are probably willfully blind, not naive. (Excepting young children of course.)
Otherwise, please explain what special powers old rich men would have over young women.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not a theoretical question as to whether he was trafficking women. He had already been convicted of it! And was charged with it again.
Why was he running around free then? Had he already passed his time in jail?
Because Bush-appointed US Attorney Alex Acosta (until recently Trump’s Secretary of Labor) made an illegal plea agreement to let Epstein off the hook and cover up the details of his criminality. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article226577...
Some extremely rich and powerful men were among Epstein’s child-rapist co-conspirators, so there are strong pressures on law enforcement officials to sweep the whole thing under the rug.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not a theoretical question as to whether he was trafficking women. He had already been convicted of it! And was charged with it again.
Why was he running around free then? Had he already passed his time in jail?
My mother works in the non-profit fundraising sector, originally centered on education, but now runs her own consultancy for non-profits of all sizes. She knows pretty much all the rules and laws about donations and propriety within fundraising foundations. I've helped her with her business, both in actual operations and for her IT concerns. I've also worked in other regulated industries, so I have a fair amount of f…