131–140 of 221 posts
On top of the fraud convictions, Trevor Milton was credibly accused of sexual assault by his own cousin and a girl he employed. Both victims were minors at the time. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/two-women-file-sexual-abuse-...
[flagged]
Edit: and in before the "I wasn't defending" No, you were. The "relax bro she was 16" attitude is the issue. Sick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine. It’s the law.
> If it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine. That's not obvious to me. For example, would it be fine for a rich, powerful 40 year old to sleep with a 16 year old? Given the power inbalance, is consent really possible? > It’s the law. Lots of very not 'fine' things are legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
is the intended point here that it is okay to sexually abuse 16 year olds, so everything is fine—but 15 year olds are right out? or... what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine. It’s the law.
> If it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine. That's not obvious to me. For example, would it be fine for a rich, powerful 40 year old to sleep with a 16 year old? Given the power inbalance, is consent really possible? > It’s the law. Lots of very not 'fine' things are legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it’s consensual obviously a 16 year old is fine. It’s the law.
ok, but it wasn't consensual?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought I was laying on the sarcasm pretty thick. But I guess it’s harder and harder to tell these days!
I took as beyond sarcasm, just a simple explanation of how they manage to keep going written in the first person. From my perspective it is incredible anybody could misunderstand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The average dog has slightly less than 4 legs; the modal dog has 4 legs. If you call a tail a leg, it's still not a leg, so no dogs have 5 legs. What the President believes is not, has not been, and cannot be the basis of law. If it were, the President would be a king.
I struggle to understand the psychology of how founders who are clearly incompetent charlatans get second+ chances -- they couldn't do fraud successfully but investors have a faith they could do business successfully. But they still get funding (like adam neumann of wework fame) and full on "narrative tongue baths" by the business media community (like this wsj article on trevor milton). Why? I struggle to understand…
"He's got the hustle to do what it takes to succeed and is unencumbered by a moral compass. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet."
"Pssh that's nothing compared to the fraud I committed to get here. Fake it till you make it baby!"
"It takes balls to defraud powerful people and then do it again. I respect the machismo."
Take your pick.