271–280 of 770 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He hid the donations from MIT. Since Epstein was on the blacklist, MIT might have a civil case against him. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if that would be, for example, "fraud".
Also, using your professional relationship as a foundation employee to solicit funds for your personal, private ventures is suuuuuper illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have rarely been able to actually find the answer, why do you assume prostitute? Sounds rather misogynist to me.
I’m not sure how it’s misogynist. It’s a people watching activity that’s just a pastime. Similar to trying to tell narratives about people sitting near us in a cafe. Just because I’ll never know if someone really is a traveling archaeologist smuggling artifacts doesn’t mean I don’t derive pleasure in thinking through the thought. In the particular game of “prostitute or daughter” (also sometimes prostitute or son, al…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sorry, but a 60-something "finance" guy with an entourage of teen models doesn't add up. The only problematic thing here is the age of those models. Otherwise, rich people like that are often surrounded with girls of questionable morals and intentions, who do stuff and in return get stuff (some would call it prostitution, some would imply that prostitution had an agreement done in advance...). In some poorer countr…
Yes, in places where there is an extreme power imbalance, with few employment opportunities for the disadvantaged, and no morals or accountability among elites, all manner of scummy things happen. We should strive to ameliorate the conditions in the world that make this happen, so that young women can aspire to being scientists or doctors or businesswomen, instead of some corrupt asshole’s decorative servants.
Has it occurred to you that there's nothing wrong with that? It doesn't have to be a "power imbalance". When I buy an orange at the grocery store is that a power imbalance? Should that grocer find a better job by your estimation? Should he have been a doctor? Does he need your "saving"?
If a young woman wants to follow a man to meetings, live in his mansion, have sex, and look beautiful at all times, and in exchange gets what she considers fair compensation, then what exactly is the problem? It's an exchange of goods and services on the open market. It does not imply a "power imbalance".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm confused. Are you and oh_sigh the same person?
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. >…
Doesn't say anything other than you and these office people are racist.
That's 'truly despicable'. The need to virtual signal so much you devalue other people as human beings to the point of fantasy.
This is straight from pizzagate style stuff. 4chan is now in HN it seems. I can't believe these comments on this thread.
No one ever leave the basement and actually see human trafficking IRL? Or it just a toy to bring out and play with? Here's a hint if you want to leave virtual signalling and help people you'll have to deal with 'real' moral dilemmas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> I haven't looked into his case 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.
the HN comments on all the recent Epstein stories have been very strange. I have to assume at least some of the more contrarian views are coming from people who haven't been following the full story in the US news, and so don't quite grasp the nature of the allegations. The case is far from just "some rich guy turned out to be an abuser". If you can't understand why the reaction is so strong against those who maintai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I haven't looked into his case 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.
Because my comment was about the cited paragraph, not about Epstein. I had no reason to assume Epstein was already known as a sex trafficker when he visited MIT. It would be a very weird assumption - why would the head of MIT Media Lab meet with a convicted sex trafficker?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read about the first half, which didn't mention that Epstein was already convicted for sex trafficking by the time he arrived at MIT in that story. It didn't occur to me that he would be walking around freely doing deals if he had already been convicted. I didn't have the information that he was let off the hook and there was also no indication I should google for something like that. What search term should I h…
You read the first half of what exactly? From the subtitle of the article you responded to: > New documents show that the M.I.T. Media Lab was aware of Epstein’s status as a convicted sex offender, and that Epstein directed contributions to the lab far exceeding the amounts M.I.T. has publicly admitted. What did you think "Epstein’s status as a convicted sex offender" meant? Are you earnestly confused, or are you try…
That is the original article this while comment thread is attached to. It doesn't mention existing convictions in the first half. I didn't read the article the comment I replied to linked to.
I am not a robot. I can not simply recursively read the whole internet.
I was curious about the supposedly "damning paragraph", not about the whole article. The paragraph was quoted in the comment, so why should I read that article?
What exactly are you implying, anyway? What game do you assume I am playing?