241–250 of 770 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human trafficking is illegal regardless of age. That’s why people would or should care. No one is talking about firing assistants besides you.
Clearly it is - I don't know why you would think I implied otherwise. My point is that maybe you have a hunch they are trafficked, but it is a logical leap to simply state it as a fact that they are trafficked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everyone works from the same knowledge base. OP could have heard about Epstein in passing, per se, and not known about his extensive criminal history or previous arrest/trial. I only know about these things from Reddit posters and not much else. There is probably a whole host of information you and I do not know about him; it's important to be aware of your blind spots but also the blind spots of others.
Yeah, it's not like you're on the Internet where someone who didn't know something, could just google it real quick.
I was replying to the comment about the "damning paragraph", so I assumed the damning parts would be in the paragraph, not in the back story. Therefore, I didn't see the need to Google.
Good. Here’s a particularly damning passage from Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker article [1]: > According to Swenson, Ito had informed Cohen that Epstein “never goes into any room without his two female ‘assistants,’ ” whom he wanted to bring to the meeting at the Media Lab. Swenson objected to this, too, and it was decided that the assistants would be allowed to accompany Epstein but would wait outside the meeting room. >…
Sorry, I don't get it. Somebody having assistants who look like models and are from Eastern Europe is suspicious of trafficking women? How? Why? I have heard about Epstein, obviously with hindsight all sorts of things he did can be seen in a new light. I just don't understand what is so damning about the passage above. Would somebody who is trafficking women really take them everywhere he goes? I thought it would be…
Good. Here’s a particularly damning passage from Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker article [1]: > According to Swenson, Ito had informed Cohen that Epstein “never goes into any room without his two female ‘assistants,’ ” whom he wanted to bring to the meeting at the Media Lab. Swenson objected to this, too, and it was decided that the assistants would be allowed to accompany Epstein but would wait outside the meeting room. >…
Sorry, I don't get it. Somebody having assistants who look like models and are from Eastern Europe is suspicious of trafficking women? How? Why? I have heard about Epstein, obviously with hindsight all sorts of things he did can be seen in a new light. I just don't understand what is so damning about the passage above. Would somebody who is trafficking women really take them everywhere he goes? I thought it would be…
Why are you so incredulous that people would assume the worst when the guy had a reputation and the girls looked way too young to be traveling the world with the sleazeball?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Would somebody who is trafficking women really take them everywhere he goes?" The simple answer to this question is: Yes. He did. And it was precisely the people who didn't take it at face value that allowed him to get away with it for so long.
I haven't looked into his case. What was his method - what did he do, so that the girls couldn't call for help? I think classically they are made to be illegal (no passport, have perhaps committed crime of prostitution, so they think they can not go to the police). Is that also what Epstein did?
Why not? Your initial comment in this discussion was an hour and a half before this one, and was in response to somebody linking to an article containing many of the relevant details.
More and more problems seem to be linked to provenance of money. Money Laundering of dirty cash is one major obvious example (see impact on everything from London house prices to international banking) and yet just being able to trace / label money coming out of Epstein and into MIT lab would have raised this issue a decade ago Imagine somehow being able to tag bitcoin address / transactions with "this money came fro…
Why taint the money, when it can help us learn, build, heal, and grow? Epstein, not the money he donated, is responsible for bad things he did.
As an alum, I'm not surprised at the Institute's cowardice, but I'd like to see MIT stand up for someone, ANYONE in its community when under fire publicly, just once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How about: 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…
This could happen if the law enforcement let it happen. The question you should ask is why he is not already in jail since the transgressive act in question is already is illegal.
Media Lab is not in position to put someone in jail or charge someone a crime.
“The trouble with tainted money is t’aint enough of it.” - William Booth. Playing devil’s advocate here: Accepting tainted money as charity is not the problem. Promoting the donors, giving them prestige, contacts, access or some other benefits as a result of donations is the problem.
It is absolutely, very much a problem to take money from an unrepentant abuser and predator who is still publicly flaunting his abusive and predatory ways. You could argue that, perhaps, such institutions should also not cater to the merely wealthy and vain. But you can enable vanity without enabling sex trafficking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"psychologically manipulate" - isn't that just a loaded way of saying "convince"? Did he actually do all those other things, beatings, threatening? Or is it such a stereotype that it is just assumed that it must have been this way?
> "psychologically manipulate" - isn't that just a loaded way of saying "convince"? "(...) The girls he allegedly abused were largely from troubled backgrounds, either in the foster care system, from broken families, or below the poverty line". -- and as young as 14 year old, at that. Does "convince" really apply? > Did he actually do all those other things, beatings, threatening? (...) Multiple women say they attemp…
14 year olds, too - but those "assistants" presumably were older.
Threats - threats are threats, going beyond "manipulation".