If you have a problem with MIT taking Epstein's money, then you have a problem with money in general. We all take money in some fashion from disgusting, psychotic, and evil people on a regular basis. Particularly so when we're on social security, medicare, or another social program.
It's like the people who are against hunting, but who are happy to eat store bought meat.
I agree, but these contributions were anonymous. So the reach of the sleazeball to boy scout effect was limited to the people Epstein talked to anyway, and could see the sleazeballness first hand.
Is it actually known who requested the anonymization? It's clear that it was required to hide it, but was it something Epstein wanted or only accepted? I didn't see it in any of the articles, but I might have missed it.
This doesn't answer the question. You really think a person that knows Epstein has done the things he has done and knows about the "The Jeffrey Epstein Research Lab at MIT" is going to think that Epstein is some A OK dude?
How do you think he got away with what he did for so long? People would hear 'that Epstein fellow is said to be pedophile' and think 'Jeffrey Epstein, respectable philanthropist? Surely not.'
What do you mean getting away with what he did for so long? He was sentenced more then 10 years ago for having sex with underage girls.
Donating money doesn't make you a philanthropist. I'm not caping(? not sure what this means) at all for Epstein. I simply think it beyond ridiculous to fault an institution for taking donations from any individual as if that act implies the institution agrees with all actions that individual has taken.
Most likely, you didn't know about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein until a Miami Herald reporter started to dig into the story, and then got picked up by national papers.
Had that not have happened, most people to this day would still think he's probably an "A OK dude."
I didn't hear about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein. In fact I didn't know the guy at all.
But to disprove your point. If I go back one year with the wayback machine and look at his wikipedia the first sentence on his page mentions he is a registered sex offender[1].
Back in 2008, Epstein was convicted of a single prostitution charge [1]. The word "trafficking" doesn't even appear in that story. It makes it sound like Epstein had a weak moment frankly.
It was only after the Miami Herald story came out did we learn about the child trafficking that took place -- and then this year it became a huge national story.
> Most likely, you didn't know about the evils of Jeffrey Epstein until a Miami Herald reporter started to dig into the story, and then got picked up by national papers.
Had that not have happened, most people to this day would still think he's probably an "A OK dude."
But I would heartily disagree with that.
Allegations of sexual assault of minors had been public from 2008 on, and Epstein settled literally dozens of civil suits from victims prior to the 2018 Herald piece. Allegations of trafficking were made in 2015 by Virginia Roberts.
(Also, honestly, isn't a single instance of knowing solicitation of a minor enough? Dude was known to be a creep since at least the 2008 conviction, despite the extremely favorable plea deal.)
> (Also, honestly, isn't a single instance of knowing solicitation of a minor enough?)
Technically, it puts some of the blame on the underage girl, because she then becomes a "prostitute". Hence, she was at least half to blame. Hell, he could even have said: "I didn't know she was underage..." And a lot of guys would believe him.
The fact that she was trafficked instead completely changes the issue. She was never a "prostitute", and he was a bigger sleazeball than we realized.
I vehemently disagree with your stated opinion that a 14-year old girl who is statutorily raped by a man in his 50s is "at least half to blame" about anything.
If it was child abuse, they would have charged him with abuse. They basically called her a "prostitute" from the charges suggesting that she was at least partly to blame.
I'm not sure the trafficking was even on the radar at that point. The legal proceedings didn't even start yet. It's no wonder it's not on Wikipedia then.
There were rumors, and lawsuits. However as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, he was charged with soliciting an underage prostitute -- not child sexual abuse, or child trafficking.
But it's still unclear why the US attorney's office refused to investigate the other cases and offered him a sweetheart deal. In any case, the 2008 charges made it sound like he was just looking for sex, not running a child trafficking ring.
> Charitable contributions can make a sleazeball look like a boy scout
Well, that's not the sleazeball's or the charity's problem. If you and other people don't think he's a "boy scout" then he won't be seen as one. If you do, he will.
Reframed: No, MIT shouldn't knowingly give money to child traffickers and drug cartels.
I don't understood the argument for non-politician organizations returning donations from problematic people. By keeping the money, you're enriching your organization, at expense to the bad person. Win-win for society.
For politicians and political organizations, there is an implicit association with bribery, so in that case I can understand demands to refusing contributions from bad donors. (But even there, better to redirect it to a good charity than to return it to the "bad donor.")
> Reframed: No, MIT shouldn't knowingly give money to child traffickers and drug cartels.
I think that just confuses the issue.
> For politicians and political organizations, there is an implicit association with bribery.
1. Alice accepts money from Bob
2. Alice discovers Bob is running a underage sex trafficking ring on the side.
3. Alice continues to accept money from Bob.
So let's ask the following questions:
1. Is Alice implicitly condoning underage sex trafficking by taking Bob's money?
2. Does Alice look like she's implicitly condoning underage sex trafficking by taking Bob's money?
3. How does the public know what the true motives of Alice are? Does she support underage sex trafficking or not?
4. How do we know if Alice is telling the truth as long as she accepts money from Bob?
5. How does this affect Alice's reputation? Would you go to Alice to seek help with trying to stop underage sex trafficking? Or has Alice been "tainted" with Bob's money?
Unsubstantiated imperative sentences with no further context are not especially compelling arguments and do not meet the usual merit bar for comments on this site.
I'm not a perfect writer and sometimes write unclearly; I made a good-faith attempt to express my thought. I am certainly open to learning better ways to phrase my ideas, if you have suggestions.
I would say the biggest decision point here is how either entity might evolve. If these are truly different domain entities then one may end up with different attributes than the other in the future, meaning these should definitely be different tables. They just happen to have the same set of fields at this point in time.
I'd call that a broke person with potential, but that person is still currently broke. I would hope that person looks in the mirror and also agrees they are broke, and will make financial decisions with that in mind.
In many ways, this is how so many folks end up drowning in debt. They "bet on the come" by assuming they are investing in the right education, will be successful in their field, etc.
They delude themselves into thinking that just because they make $75k/yr that they aren't broke.
W Edwards Deming, one of the most famous and respected individuals in the business management and industrial engineering space, would firmly disagree with you.
Driving out fear (of colleagues, of management, etc) was one of his key principles in creating quality for the organization.
